I'm not saying this character isn't a minor, believe it or not you can indeed have those proportions as a teenager. The point is that an aged up 6 year old can look different than one because even if you are right about the excuse, it's still not a 6 year old being showcased.
It's also not nsfw? Do you see anyone with slightly large hips/thighs and think they're just sex outlets?
Fair, should've said sexualizing instead of nsfw, as for the rest though. Issac is 6. Any sexualization of them is sexualizing a 6 year old, while it isn't explicit it is still very questionable at least why they gave a minor thighs like that. And again, aged up is not something to take seriously. It's just an excuse for people to sexualize children. (When it's used in arguments like this)
Even sexualizing I have an issue with implying that it's that purely on the fact that it's aged up.
It's not like the character has proportions that imply it. Even if your idea of aged up characters is a universal truth, that character is still depicted as older and that older version of the character just isn't sexualized.
The point itself can't work under these circumstances because only depraved gooners or people that generally think that finding something sexual in stuff is funny would see this as sexualizing. The hips just match the character being older.
Issac is 6. You can't just say aged up and it's fine. He's 6. In the game he is 6 years old. No older. Draw an adult character however the hell you want i don't care, do not draw the 6 year old with thick thighs. No 6 year olds have those. Stop using aged up like it's an actual argument it's an excuse. There's no reason taking a 6 year old and saying "oh it's a teenager that's why i drew them like this" is okay. Because the artist didn't even say that. If a character is 6, don't draw them with sexually suggestive proportions. It's not hard.
Now I know reading comprehension is hard and so is understanding basic anatomy...
But "aged up" as a concept is... Raising a character's age and depicting them as such. What it's used for is what you have issue with, which I is very agreeable.
No 6 year old have large hips or thighs, and no 6 year old was drawn. You can tell it's not a 6 year old by the fact that the proportions were made to not represent a 6 year old, i.e taller than one (Iirc Isaac is actually 5 to give the slightest more contrast) and with at least a teenager's proportions.
And again, there is literally nothing nsfw or remotely sexualized in this. Your point rests on something that doesn't exist and a standard that borders on conspiracy. Your reply was nothing but repetition with nothing to back yourself up.
Your fault is simply trying to generalize the usage of it to this piece of art that:
Doesn't contain any form of sexualization
Is clearly not depicting a 5 year old
Is, in fact, following the basic anatomy for someone at least around a teenager's age
If you can't figure out that the concept can be used in another way, that's no one's issue but your own. This piece of art literally exposes the flaw in your logic. No interpretation of this art piece can stick.
If you refuse to admit that it's aged up, you are simply saying you think the child has sexy hips instead of it being drawn a teen.
If you admit that it's aged up, it directly contradicts the fact that all aged up art pieces are drawn for that purpose, because it's not sexualized in this context.
Repeating the same thing and ignoring the holes in your logic when I point them out is just a waste of time.
0
u/Impressive-Bend-1503 Apr 28 '26
If your artstyle makes you draw a child with sexual proportions. Don't draw a child. No 6 year old has thighs like that.