Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
thats what I'm trying to say
I don't even know why this drawing is relevant now.
what is even sexualized here?
is it because she's a woman?
why does being able to see a woman's skin have to always be considered "sexualized"
nobody would call this porn if it was a dude wearing this. in fact if a dude were wearing this, literally all I would have to cover is the groin. and still, nobody would consider it porn.
there is so much sexualized stuff that even this artwork can be considered "porn"
just means you haven't seen the good stuff ;)