>>123434076Because she's in 3D and you can see everything, even though they covered her up a bit more. She;s still got her proportions. That makes it, in fact, easier to get away with keeping her tits the same size. It's either, from a design point of view
>turn her 3D, keep skimpy clothes, make tits smaller>turn her 3D, less skimpy clothes, keep tits same>keep her 2D, keep both.>>123434414Yeah but they have much bigger knockers, but because it's 2D and they are often dressed in full outfits, it can be less prominent and ess distracting in serious scenes. From a design or storytelling point of view, when an artist makes that decision themselves, or to cover up, it probably makes sense for them. It's not the same as some weird executive consultant coming on and fiddling with everything to avoid the amorphous, dreaded, mystical 'male gaze' because apparently lesbians aren't a thing..
Also it's a rabbit. It's weird.
And yet while the fact that the press are now covering this shit more in detail and straight-faced than they would've fifteen or even ten years ago, which means more furry is being accepted, which is nice, it's not fucking important unless you're in the arts and ents section of the paper, and they're not covering it with an acknowledgement that it's weird to have arguments over rabbits with tits having skimpy outfits.
It's weird because giving the skimpy outfit back is not important to much anything in the real world with regards to freedom of speech, even if I'd like that. It's weird as well to act as if covering her up is a win for feminism.
It's neither, it's just a cartoon. The press used to chuckle at it and make everyone remember it's not that important, and we could laugh at ourselves a bit, and laugh at them for wasting their time with this shit. But now the press basically act as advertisers for the corporation and its useless fake feminism, calling it 'legendary'
It used to be good natured and tongue in cheek. Now it's tongue in ARSE.
