Every illustration created for the ラブタイツ campaign was deleted after backlash. I saw threads on futaba about it before the deletion and saved those that weren't already uploaded. Not sure I managed to get them all due to twitter search being what it is, but I uploaded those that weren't already here with the artist sourced via ascii2d.
Every illustration created for the ラブタイツ campaign was deleted after backlash. I saw threads on futaba about it before the deletion and saved those that weren't already uploaded. Not sure I managed to get them all due to twitter search being what it is, but I uploaded those that weren't already here with the artist sourced via ascii2d.
Seems women wearing tights is only done to submit and please men, so it's inherently sexual and wrong.
Wow...that’s the dumbest thing I heard yet. No seriously, that’s grade A stupidity.
People really need to make up their mind on what they should be really triggered by cause last I remember there was people making a bitch fit about exposed legs from Xenoblade so they had to give her tights but not tights is consider suppression too? I’m guess next is going to be wearing skirts, wearing underwear and the eventually wearing clothes?
....On second thought, this might need some further investigation.
I'm kinda interested in what the final form of this is gonna be. I mean, what article of clothing isn't attractive? What article of clothing doesn't have an associated fetish? What's the most unattractive and unsexual clothes you can think of? That's what's everyone is gonna wear if we're gonna follow the way these "feminists" think.
I'm kinda interested in what the final form of this is gonna be. I mean, what article of clothing isn't attractive? What article of clothing doesn't have an associated fetish? What's the most unattractive and unsexual clothes you can think of? That's what's everyone is gonna wear if we're gonna follow the way these "feminists" think.
Probably a pile of rag or a paper bag, but then again I’m sure people get turned on by the sight of poor girls(probably lots too) so it’ll just have to end with the total eradication of females in general to stop the perverted gaze of scummy men cause even if all men are gone, females are still probably going to look at each other as too attractive.
Seems women wearing tights is only done to submit and please men, so it's inherently sexual and wrong.
That is not remotely what happened and is not the sentiment that was echoed.
What actually happened was that ATSUGI, the legwear manufacturer which used the "TightsDay" hashtag as part of a PR campaign (tweets which participated in the campaign were also marked with the brand's name as a hashtag) did not only retweet the images directly linked to the campaign such as post #4181669, post #4185587 and post #4183068 (all of which look more slice-of-life-y and are generally not outwardly sexual), but also retweeted more sexually-charged images by some of the artists participating, including a tweet by yomu featuring post #4174682 (the retweets have since been removed, I tried finding all the posts but it has proven difficult).
This, in return, led to the backlash against ATSUGI's campaign with the sentiment being that the brand had missed its target audience - women are, after all, the main purchasers of tights - and tried to cater to men's fetishization of tights. Which is an argument that you can make imho, same as it would be idiotic to market after shave to women rather than men.
It should be noted that the actual art done for ATSUGI - and also featuring their products, such as post #4181783 which is a set of legwear unique to ATSUGI's catalogue - has not received any backlash, rather it was the association with art of a more directly sexual/fetishistic nature that, again, was not part of the promo.
n3wtype said:
I'm kinda interested in what the final form of this is gonna be. I mean, what article of clothing isn't attractive? What article of clothing doesn't have an associated fetish? What's the most unattractive and unsexual clothes you can think of? That's what's everyone is gonna wear if we're gonna follow the way these "feminists" think.
Or maybe men can accept that women want to dress up nicely because they want to for themselves and not for them. Not everything has to cater to horny dudes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
AnGer-dono said: Or maybe men can accept that women want to dress up nicely because they want to for themselves and not for them. Not everything has to cater to horny dudes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The problem here is not what men want. You are not understanding the train of thought here. Nobody is forced to cater to horny dudes, but ANYTHING will ALWAYS make some dude horny somewhere. The only way to NEVER cater to men's fetishes, even if unintentionally, is to either eradicate all males or all females.
Women can wear whatever they want to be whoever they want to be, but "fetishizing" is a dumb concept. Anything can be fetishized.
The problem here is not what men want. You are not understanding the train of thought here. Nobody is forced to cater to horny dudes, but ANYTHING will ALWAYS make some dude horny somewhere. The only way to NEVER cater to men's fetishes, even if unintentionally, is to either eradicate all males or all females.
Women can wear whatever they want to be whoever they want to be, but "fetishizing" is a dumb concept. Anything can be fetishized.
I agree, anything can be fetishized (and I know a few feminists who would agree with that).
Context matters though - and here, the issue was NOT the images officially attached to the campaign, but the images that became, by accident, inofficially attached to it. It's the difference between modeling lingerie for a catalogue and modeling lingerie for an erotic photo book - on the surface, they're both images of women wearing underwear. The difference, however, lies in presentation of the product - if even they're the same product, since it can be seen as such that one is the piece of underwear itself and one is the image created through the utilisation of the underwear piece and the (consenting) model wearing it. There is, of course, some degree of unintended results involved in the former - after all, underwear catalogues have been a popular source of fuel to many a boy's fantasy in the past (do kids still fap to a Victoria's Secret catalogue? idk).
In this instance, it's the difference between post #4182265 and post #2733741 - the former's image intention is to show off the tights as a key aspect of a fashionable woman's wardrobe (tights as something to wear), the latter's image is to show the interplay of the pose, the tights and the underwear showing through (tights as something being worn).
Circling back to the introductory argument that "anything can (and will) be fetishized", I find it thus difficult to accept the notion that women should only wear burlap sacks or whatever is unattractive - an argument, that, for the record, is not in line with feminist thought because it puts the onus on them in situations of sexual peril because men are powerless in the face of their urges. What is instead argued for is an understanding of both context - the idea art trying to sell women tights should look different from art selling the picture of a woman wearing tights, in this case - and consent - the idea that the indulgence in a fetish is to be kept between two adults in mutual agreement over the indulgence. And I think that "keep your hornyness out of spaces where it's inappropriate" is a better and overall more life-affirming argument than "women should stop being sexy OR DIE because men are too horny"*, since it awards women with the agency to wear whatever they please and it attributes to men the mental fortitude to keep their base nature in check rather than relegate them to the level of sex-crazed animals.
(*nvm that this only applies strictly to heterosexual men and does not account for bisexual, homosexual, and asexual men, methinks)
It should be noted that the actual art done for ATSUGI - and also featuring their products, such as post #4181783 which is a set of legwear unique to ATSUGI's catalogue - has not received any backlash, rather it was the association with art of a more directly sexual/fetishistic nature that, again, was not part of the promo.
So if I'm getting this straight, a company selling tights, ATSUGI, commissioned (or perhaps only requested?) a bunch of lewd artists to draw girls in tights for a marketing campaign. The predictable result is that some of the artists, given unclear instructions, produced mild softcore fetish porn. The company, seeing what can only be interpreted as porn - or perhaps not seeing the end result at all before it was marketed - decided to go ahead and use the illustrations anyway.
Just go ahead and let that sink in - a company retweeted softcore porn like post #4181559 and post #4185772 to advertise tights to women. To women! Hilarious. And rather than give the artists another commission with better instructions to let everyone save face, they cancelled the campaign entirely, leaving the targeted audience angry, the company disgraced, and the artists out of a paid job (if they were even paid in the first place). What a brilliant blunder. At least it's been good for a laugh.
So if I'm getting this straight, a company selling tights, ATSUGI, commissioned (or perhaps only requested?) a bunch of lewd artists to draw girls in tights for a marketing campaign. The predictable result is that some of the artists, given unclear instructions, produced mild softcore fetish porn. The company, seeing what can only be interpreted as porn - or perhaps not seeing the end result at all before it was marketed - decided to go ahead and use the illustrations anyway.
Just go ahead and let that sink in - a company retweeted softcore porn like post #4181559 and post #4185772 to advertise tights to women. To women! Hilarious. And rather than give the artists another commission with better instructions to let everyone save face, they cancelled the campaign entirely, leaving the targeted audience angry, the company disgraced, and the artists out of a paid job (if they were even paid in the first place). What a brilliant blunder. At least it's been good for a laugh.
Honestly feels like par for the course in Japanese media companies; giving vague instructions to their artists and writers, and expecting either whoever they're working with to read their mind, or to think in exactly the same way. The right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, and doesn't even bother to find out.
So if I'm getting this straight, a company selling tights, ATSUGI, commissioned (or perhaps only requested?) a bunch of lewd artists to draw girls in tights for a marketing campaign. The predictable result is that some of the artists, given unclear instructions, produced mild softcore fetish porn. The company, seeing what can only be interpreted as porn - or perhaps not seeing the end result at all before it was marketed - decided to go ahead and use the illustrations anyway.
Just go ahead and let that sink in - a company retweeted softcore porn like post #4181559 and post #4185772 to advertise tights to women. To women! Hilarious. And rather than give the artists another commission with better instructions to let everyone save face, they cancelled the campaign entirely, leaving the targeted audience angry, the company disgraced, and the artists out of a paid job (if they were even paid in the first place). What a brilliant blunder. At least it's been good for a laugh.
The range of illustrators was broader than just "lewd artists" (I'm sorry but I don't understand this connotation specifically, if you are referring to outright R18, then none of the artists actually match, but a couple of them do ecchi art) and I believe characterizing the works as porn is inappropriate, since the most they reach is mildly suggestive. The company (specifically, the person in charge of the twitter account) definitely saw these illustrations as they were retweeted by the account itself. The campaign was not cancelled as such, but rather retracted after being completed (the art coinciding タイツの日 being retweeted by the official account for promotion was the whole extent of it). Just for clarification.
The actual issue, at least in my interpretation, is that 2D/萌え絵 style art has been facing a sort of visceral backlash from a subset of the general population in recent times, being perceived as somehow inherently fetishistic even when portraying something benign. This style has generally become more popular amongst young women as the bounds of what can be considered "otaku" are expanding (as a bonus anecdote - nishizawa and konbu_wakame are both women), and I believe that this was the source the issue. The person in charge of the twitter account (also a woman) was seemingly fan of yomu_(sgt_epper) based on their past twitter interactions and believed this was a good crossover promotional opportunity, but misjudged the acceptance of this style amongst the general population.
