NSFW/Image Macro: Anime.Sky Girls

This image was reported on the Perversity Clean-Up thread for NSFW-ess (the breats, presumably). Opinions?

Swimsuits are NSFW now? I don't get it.

Is that bare ass showing?

...Not really seeing it.

The overall image is sexualizing little girls, to me. The skintight jumpsuits, the ass window on the one in the middle... I suppose I can understand why we have a page on the work itself, but we don't need that kind of image on the wiki.

I think she has something on, but having a page image of young girls in Sensual Spandex is still a bit questionable. Not sure whether it would qualify as NSFW, though. It's right on the line.

edited 11th Mar '12 3:09:15 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Honestly, I can't see much of NSFW-ess either, but that's probably because I don't have the feeling for such things.

A few more "what?"s and we can close this.

No, I can see a bottom to that suit. The image is alright, but I'll see if I can find some other options.

It is not NSFW. It is inappropriate.

Honestly, you have to really look to wonder if that's a bare bottom.

Here's something.◊

Here's some other options: 1◊, 2◊, 3◊, 4.

Of those, I like #1 best.

EDIT: Ninja'd for #1.

edited 11th Mar '12 3:16:29 PM by Willbyr

1. 1 works a lot better in my opinion as well.

From reading the work's article, it appears that the girls in the pic are actually teenagers who simply look younger than they really are due to Artistic Age.

edited 11th Mar '12 3:31:16 PM by MarqFJA

Oh that's okay then.

Well that has even more disturbing implications than I thought.

@Marq: But the art style makes the characters look younger than they're described to be. Even for anime standards.

edited 11th Mar '12 3:32:18 PM by ThatHuman

I was just making sure that whatever the reason for changing the image, it's not "it's a pedophiliac depiction of prepubescents".

Yeah, there's a reason why Artistic Age is listed on the article.

edited 11th Mar '12 3:32:45 PM by MarqFJA

@Marq #13: That may be the case, but they certainly look underage. I'd call the image creepy and I'd rather the first alternate suggestion in lu's post #10. NSFW, no, but yes it's creepy. I also have an extremely low tolerance for even unintentional sexualization of underage or underage-looking girls.

What? How could "it's a pedophiliac depiction of prepubescents" not be a reason for changing the image?

edited 11th Mar '12 3:35:29 PM by Martello

That just means it's using an art style that appeals to pedophiles, even though the characters aren't actually that young.

*brofist against pedophilia*

edited 11th Mar '12 3:33:35 PM by Firebert

The pic on post #10 also shows more of the cast. So it's just a better picture overall.

Stop. Stop that line of conversation here, because we don't want a pedophila derail here.

Are we cool to run with the pic me and Willbyr suggested? Mine is already wiki-sized.

edited 11th Mar '12 3:35:38 PM by lu127

I already pledged my support for that image.

Yes. Stop the paedophilia discussion.

lu127's image is a good choice, but if I am not mistaken rather small, even for wiki.

Small? It's 341 pixels wide, only 9 below the limit.

Lu and Septimus, I don't want to derail this either, but I think the pedo-undertones of the image are very relevant to this discussion. That'd be the entire reason for changing the image. If everyone is fine with your suggested image, then nothing more needs to be said.