I don't see anything sexualized here. This appears to be a depiction of Red Ridi...

hunterb123 · on May 23, 2022

> I realize that "sexualized" is subjective but that's how it looks from my pov. To each their own ofc.

I wouldn't open this blog at work. I certainly wouldn't buy a children's book with this type of art in it.

You must have to admit that little red riding hood is usually depicted a lot more modestly.

CiPHPerCoder · on May 23, 2022

What about it is sexualized to you, exactly?

I'm not saying your POV is wrong. I'm asking you to explain it.

EDIT: Since you edited your comment, I'll edit mine.

> I wouldn't open this blog at work. I certainly wouldn't buy a children's book with this type of art in it.

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this blog post. I'd happily share it with colleagues and coworkers alike because it's useful information.

The only crowd that might take offense to the content here are cryptocurrency enthusiasts, because of the shade thrown at secp256k1. But, personally speaking, I'm okay with them being upset with me for sharing a link to such a thing.

> You must have to admit that little red riding hood is usually depicted a lot more modestly.

I'm not sure the same rules of clothing apply to cartoon animal characters as to real-life humans.

I certainly don't shriek if a coworker posts a picture of their pet cat at work without the critter being fully clothed.

What are the standards you're applying to this situation?

Also, the image you linked isn't included in the blog post about elliptic curves, so it's a bit weird to cling to it in defense of your initial reaction.

some_furry2 · on May 23, 2022

My fursona is like a cartoon character in that they're considered "fully clothed" without any accessories.

Adding accessories doesn't make him dressed "less modestly" than depicted at base.

You're reaching and it's really unfortunate.

Please stop assuming "furry = sexual". It's a bad belief that stems from the homophobia of the early Internet (i.e. Something Awful).