>>150302820
Cartoon art particularly embodies the artist's sexuality, particularly sexual vitality and their overall sex drive, as well as certain parts or features of what they find attractive. For example, men who prefer asses and hips will accentuate/exaggerate/focus on them. That's why fetish artists are commonly mocked or teased for having their kinks being obvious. Or why various artists have obvious tells as to what they find appealing (large breasts, legs, eyes, lips, stomachs, cheekbones, curves, etc). Why do you think people like Frankie Foster so much? She's not a "sexy" character, but she was created with sexual energy regardless.
Morally bad artists (not lolicons, but actual pedophiles) have soulless art because there is ZERO sexuality to be found in the art. There is nothing "sexy" or titillating at a glance, there's nothing that would make someone go "wow, that's going to awaken something in me" or find mutual attraction in it because what the author finds attractive/sexually captivating is on a recess playground. Those urges are instead compartmentalized and hidden away instead of being in the art.
Even lolicon art has some sense of sexuality to it, some sense of emotional communication and plain "this is what I like" to it.
