Nope. See how just above her pelvis her stomach caves in? She would have to remove a rib and some of her lower intestine to look like that.
It only looks like her stomach is caving in because her shirt covers the other side of her body and because of the way she's turning. You can do the same thing she's doing by leaning on your left leg and shoving your hips out towards the right. The curve around her pelvic area may look a bit too prominent and curvy, but that can be attributed to the way she's twisting her torso (the back of the pelvic bone goes up at an angle), and is by no means grounds for the bad_anatomy tag.
You should try harder with copying poses and feeling yourself up before you resort to that tag next time.
It only looks like her stomach is caving in because her shirt covers the other side of her body and because of the way she's turning. You can do the same thing she's doing by leaning on your left leg and shoving your hips out towards the right. The curve around her pelvic area may look a bit too prominent and curvy, but that can be attributed to the way she's twisting her torso (the back of the pelvic bone goes up at an angle), and is by no means grounds for the bad_anatomy tag.
You should try harder with copying poses and feeling yourself up before you resort to that tag next time.
Normally I would attempt to inform you of my opinion in more detail but considering your first reaction is to insult instead of talk you aren't worth my time, but for what it's worth here's what you apparently can't see:
For one, this has nothing to do with her shit. For two, the angle that she is at does not permit such anatomy. If you look at the size of her hips, you will note that if she were to straighten her back her hipbone would be several inches longer than her rib cage. In a normal human this would signify Paget's disease. Furthermore, on a normal human, the ribcage would terminate within 4 or so inches before the start of the pelvis. This woman has a no visible distance. This is because of the same pelvic problem I talked about only moments before, that bone is dis-proportionally larger than the rest. Not only that but on a normal person the ribcage is about the same length as the pelvis. This woman's ribcage is so comically small it does not permit the size of several crucial organs; namely, it only is large enough for one lung. Furthermore, her breasts are comically oversized. They are so big you can see them curve while viewing them from the back- not a side curve, but a curve FROM BEHIND. That's right, her breasts spill out (while still keeping their form) in a place not even connected to her chest.
Your inability to see all this coupled with your arrogance to insult instead of ask is a great example why you should not have removed that tag. I understand you may not see my perspective but that does not mean you are automatically right, and it also is no merit for acting like this is some playground fight.
the bad_anatomy tag has been removed, by the same person of course. You have a right to edit tags however we had an argument about whether or not the tag belongs here, and you have refuted none of the points I made within my most recent post. If you want to further discuss this that is of course fine but you have no right to be arrogant by giving yourself authority to be the judge without discussing a change that has been controversial. If you want to change this, please respond to my former post with more of your opinion.
>not taking anime seriously i want the normies to leave
But, seriously speaking, I, speaking for myself, am a stickler for rules and consistency. If I think something needs to be one way, I'll fight for it, even if it seems silly. Your opinion holds true on the overwhelming majority of posts but sometimes fights happen.
the bad_anatomy tag has been removed, by the same person of course.
If you are referring to post revision 2075996.13774525 (52 minutes before the quoted post) rather than 2075996.13772922 (roughly 17 hours before same, and already referred to 2 comments previously), this is incorrect and not suitable as the basis for your reply; the edit in question was performed by a different user.
If you are referring to post revision 2075996.13774525 (52 minutes before the quoted post) rather than 2075996.13772922 (roughly 17 hours before same, and already referred to 2 comments previously), this is incorrect and not suitable as the basis for your reply; the edit in question was performed by a different user.
WELL THEN COLOR ME CORRECTED. Guess that's what I get for making assumptions.
Leave a comment