FA+
Shop
On Lola Bunny and her SJWfication...
4 years ago
Please take a moment to read this. Especially if you're an artist drawing for me
Up-front disclaimer. When I say sexuality here, I don't mean full blown nudity or porn, but just the allure and body language of it. This is not a question of porn, or even nudity. Lola was never nude or in any sort of pornographic situation in canon, but she was sultry, elegant and wasn't afraid to hide her curves.
So let me be real with you guys... Lola bunny didn't *make* me a furry. I didn't look at her and go "OMG THAT'S HOT. I'M INTO THAT NOW". Very few people did this, as I'm 31 years old now. I was 6 years old when that movie came out guys. Six. I had no business even contemplating sex at all, and I didn't. By the time I did? The movie was over 5 years old and long since lightyears from my mind. All these people claiming LOLA BUNNY MADE ME A FURRY nonsense are either over 39 years old, or are blatantly lying and never actually saw the damned movie until *after* they were a furry. There are most certainly exceptions to this, but in the sheer numbers coming out of the woodwork over this? Absolutely not. Too few people in the appropriate age group to support it.
With that out of the way...I can safely say that Lola Bunny heavily influenced me into becoming a furry later in life; she removed the controversial idea of a 'sexualized animal'. It gave rise to a connection in my brain allowing me in my teenage years to put a pleasant visual to a wholly controversial idea. Lola Bunny, alongside Renamon did this. They didn't make me a furry. They set me up to be more open minded about it later on. They literally made me a more open minded and understanding person.
So... with that out of the way, I'd like to open the whole 'family friendly' nonsense, with a line from the creator of this new and so- called 'improved' Lola design:
Director Malcolm D. Lee told Entertainment Weekly that he wanted to make Lola a more fully realized character in the sequel, working to center her athletic skills and leadership.
"Lola was very sexualized, like Betty Boop mixed with Jessica Rabbit," he told Entertainment Weekly. "Lola was not politically correct…. This is a kids' movie, why is she in a crop top? It just felt unnecessary, but at the same time there's a long history of that in cartoons."
This is literally text book cancel culture people. A director forcibly changing an established, sultry character, with no business to do so, to fit the delicate, overly pampered feelings of SJWs, extremist feminists, and late Gen Z crybabies. Like Gabriel Iglesias said very pointedly in one of his stand up comedy shows: "Then you're not ready for a world that doesn't care about your feelings". Taking your delicate constitution and forcing the world to abide by you, rather than learning to abide by it, is going to make the world weaker, more squeamish. More dependant on censorship to avoid a full-blown SJW meltdown.
This villifying of sexuality and the obsessive compulsive need to purge it from media of every kind, no matter the shape of form it takes, is what is unnecessary. I was born and raised in an age where much fewer limits were put on TV and other media. Sexuality was not as censored cause sexuality is beautiful, its natural. Its what some would call a corner stone in one of the reasons we exist; reproduction.
I believe the openness of subtle sexual hints from my early years has directly assisted in helping me become a more understanding and socially accepting person. My daughter is 11. If she came to me and said she's a lesbian in a few years, I would do nothing but support her with every fibre of my being.
This misguided need to annihilate sexuality is nothing more than a cultural step in the wrong direction. To make sexuality a sin again, a taboo that shouldn't be spoken of or displayed publicly. Something to be ashamed of, and kept secret.
When is it censored enough then? Hmm? When we go back to the time when 14 year olds will hide in the barn with a coal drawing their friend did of their female teacher showing a fucking ankle? Will that be good enough, or would you blame the kids behavior on sexual content on TV for that one too? Sex isn't what's disgusting. Your gaslighting a non existent issue is what's disgusting. Sexuality will always be a part of who we are. We enjoy it. It catches our eye when we see it. You can try and censor it, bury it, call it offensive towards women, and men too for that matter! But when you boil all of this down? This is the ranting and crying of illogical nitwits who, frankly, don't realize that honoring and proudly displaying a well-cared for, gorgeous body, is not what's offensive. What's offensive is to bury it, make it something to hide away, make it unacceptable to proudly show off what all those gym hours and proper diet and planned work outs did for your body and overall health. The real crime is making sexuality unacceptable, when it has and always will be, acceptable and beautiful.
As long as you don't hurt yourself, or even more importantly, anybody else? Then there is nothing wrong with sexuality. Why censor it? Let the female body be a work of art, not a fucking black market commodity.
So let me be real with you guys... Lola bunny didn't *make* me a furry. I didn't look at her and go "OMG THAT'S HOT. I'M INTO THAT NOW". Very few people did this, as I'm 31 years old now. I was 6 years old when that movie came out guys. Six. I had no business even contemplating sex at all, and I didn't. By the time I did? The movie was over 5 years old and long since lightyears from my mind. All these people claiming LOLA BUNNY MADE ME A FURRY nonsense are either over 39 years old, or are blatantly lying and never actually saw the damned movie until *after* they were a furry. There are most certainly exceptions to this, but in the sheer numbers coming out of the woodwork over this? Absolutely not. Too few people in the appropriate age group to support it.
With that out of the way...I can safely say that Lola Bunny heavily influenced me into becoming a furry later in life; she removed the controversial idea of a 'sexualized animal'. It gave rise to a connection in my brain allowing me in my teenage years to put a pleasant visual to a wholly controversial idea. Lola Bunny, alongside Renamon did this. They didn't make me a furry. They set me up to be more open minded about it later on. They literally made me a more open minded and understanding person.
So... with that out of the way, I'd like to open the whole 'family friendly' nonsense, with a line from the creator of this new and so- called 'improved' Lola design:
Director Malcolm D. Lee told Entertainment Weekly that he wanted to make Lola a more fully realized character in the sequel, working to center her athletic skills and leadership.
"Lola was very sexualized, like Betty Boop mixed with Jessica Rabbit," he told Entertainment Weekly. "Lola was not politically correct…. This is a kids' movie, why is she in a crop top? It just felt unnecessary, but at the same time there's a long history of that in cartoons."
This is literally text book cancel culture people. A director forcibly changing an established, sultry character, with no business to do so, to fit the delicate, overly pampered feelings of SJWs, extremist feminists, and late Gen Z crybabies. Like Gabriel Iglesias said very pointedly in one of his stand up comedy shows: "Then you're not ready for a world that doesn't care about your feelings". Taking your delicate constitution and forcing the world to abide by you, rather than learning to abide by it, is going to make the world weaker, more squeamish. More dependant on censorship to avoid a full-blown SJW meltdown.
This villifying of sexuality and the obsessive compulsive need to purge it from media of every kind, no matter the shape of form it takes, is what is unnecessary. I was born and raised in an age where much fewer limits were put on TV and other media. Sexuality was not as censored cause sexuality is beautiful, its natural. Its what some would call a corner stone in one of the reasons we exist; reproduction.
I believe the openness of subtle sexual hints from my early years has directly assisted in helping me become a more understanding and socially accepting person. My daughter is 11. If she came to me and said she's a lesbian in a few years, I would do nothing but support her with every fibre of my being.
This misguided need to annihilate sexuality is nothing more than a cultural step in the wrong direction. To make sexuality a sin again, a taboo that shouldn't be spoken of or displayed publicly. Something to be ashamed of, and kept secret.
When is it censored enough then? Hmm? When we go back to the time when 14 year olds will hide in the barn with a coal drawing their friend did of their female teacher showing a fucking ankle? Will that be good enough, or would you blame the kids behavior on sexual content on TV for that one too? Sex isn't what's disgusting. Your gaslighting a non existent issue is what's disgusting. Sexuality will always be a part of who we are. We enjoy it. It catches our eye when we see it. You can try and censor it, bury it, call it offensive towards women, and men too for that matter! But when you boil all of this down? This is the ranting and crying of illogical nitwits who, frankly, don't realize that honoring and proudly displaying a well-cared for, gorgeous body, is not what's offensive. What's offensive is to bury it, make it something to hide away, make it unacceptable to proudly show off what all those gym hours and proper diet and planned work outs did for your body and overall health. The real crime is making sexuality unacceptable, when it has and always will be, acceptable and beautiful.
As long as you don't hurt yourself, or even more importantly, anybody else? Then there is nothing wrong with sexuality. Why censor it? Let the female body be a work of art, not a fucking black market commodity.
You make excellent points.
I don't identify as a furry, I like the stuff though. (I'm a hobby artist)
It really is about "freedom of expression" and fantasy allowing that freedom - animal traits/features blended with human anthropological consideration. Like aliens.
People wanna be offended because they don't want to even consider a different point of view is ignorant. (doesn't mean liking it, just not being so quick to judge based on a misconception).
#intelligentpeoplesupportthefurryfandom
People complaining about her sexuality (as most tend to do in these scenarios) missed the point; Lola Bunny, in her own Warner Bros. toon-world, could've easily gone the easy route and married a rich guy as a trophy wife but instead made something of herself. It's a combined message of "don't judge a book" and "don't let labels define you".
But I guess the SJW cry-b****es aren't smart enough to rub their two IQ points together to start a fire, let alone understand a moral message.
They utterly assassinated her character.
But yes, women can't be sexy, seductive, sultry AND powerful..
*looks at GoT* well, save for that chick who raised dragons to massacre her foes...
*looks at the RE 8 vamp lady boss* Or are a monsterous humanoid that's a tall and busty goth girlfriend that they want to be stepped on by.
The twitter mob is cancerous and vile and I can't figure them out.. I'm kinda glad that I just look at a distance via others talking about what twitter has done/is doing.
Then again there's also Resetera.. another cancerous/toxic community that if not at least be shut down, companies need to ignore again.
If Lola Bunny loses her sexual appeal, she's no longer the pretty gal that tries hard to be the best DESPITE her looks. She's just... a character. It's one of her main defining traits: she hates being objectified to the point she lashes out and spurs herself on to do better at anything and everything she tries. Watch the original Space Jam where Bugs immediately goes heart-eyed over her and she's amicable until she's called "doll" because to her, it's an insult that means "I like you for your body, not your... anything else."
Just to put a single quote out there that proves literally everything you just said.
1. Changing a character design does not remove past interpretations of that character. When Robin stopped wearing green underpants as his hero costume, his legacy was not erased. Lola still *is* hot and sexy. And Lola is also a less-obtrusively-skimpy character, for people that want that.
2. A person who does not want to be seen as nothing but sexual appeal (such as Lola), choosing to wear a standard athletic uniform instead of an atypically skimpy one, is not unusual. Her original design (wearing a different uniform than every other athlete she competed alongside) was not normal.
3. A creator changing a character design is not censorship. Censorship is an authority preventing a creator's vision from being seen by the public. If the creators of the new movie want Lola to look different, denying them that creative right is far closer to censorship than what they are doing.
4. When you use loaded terms like SJW, it makes it very hard for a lot of people to take your argument seriously. You're attacking stawmen before the discussion has even started. It's right up there with people calling BLM "the real terrorists" or insisting that lizard people rule the world.
What if the rampant need for SJW's to tailor the world to fit their fragile world views, is less on a matter of their refusing to adapt to a world that doesn't care about their feelings, and more towards grooming upcoming youth to view the world like they do, forcing the world to adapt to their world view instead?
I feel SJWs really are malicious, but that's my opinion.