>>37258071You make a good point, lets discuss.
The floette image definitely conveys a creator's intent. The cat photo just looks like a picture someone took because they thought it was a funny cat face. But why? They're both pictures of nonhuman faces, zero nudity, zero sexual content, with similar expressions. So what's the difference? Why does one make people immediately think "this is porn" and one doesn't?
Presentation is subtle, but people pick up on it pretty easily without always knowing why and without even necessarily being attracted to that thing. Its why you see a foot fetish image and go, wow those toes are uncomfortably detailed, this is probably a fetish thing right? These images usually include sweating or shininess, bizarre angles, tight clothes etc, and composition that leads the eye to a specific location. That all works together to convey a specific thought the creator is trying to make you think - "this is sexy". Even if you arent attracted to those things, the intent is clear.
If you really wanted to take a sexy photo of a cat (or draw one) you'd probably make decisions that would make it look a lot different than that cat photo. I could probably find examples on the internet, but I really don't want to, so I hope you understand my point.
