>>30347303Why the fuck even discuss any of this, then? Literally every fetish has softcore, innocent content perceived by some as simply weird, funny, "interesting," etc. Are there innocent, familial, tender drawings of inflation characters or vore shit? Probably, because it's an innocent or cute thing to some people. That goes for everything. Ignoring intent of content, nothing is sexual? This whole topic seems pedantic.
Just because the g/t community likes more gentle shit relative to other communities doesn't mean that macro art isn't "inherently not sexual" either. That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Even artists who aren't drawing directly sexual content have some kind of selfish, deep-rooted, complex indulgences they're feeding by drawing weird macro shit. Specifically in OP's artist's case, I think that shit is disgusting is all I'm saying, since it plays into fantasies with innocent or naive children.
In the case of what is seemingly a giant Delcatty pawing at a trainer (on mobile, can't write and check simultaneously sorry), maybe it isn't inherently sexual. Who cares? Who draws that line, if not the viewer? That's all that matters, and there's no reason to discuss the nature of it in any capacity unless you're a fan of the shit OP posted or you're okay with other people jacking off to 11 year olds.
