A war have erupted in 4chan's /ic/ board. A clash between two rival factions: Loom Army and Coom Army. Loom known for its refined art style, rooted in traditional techniques, appealing faces and beautiful composition inspired by the ancient master Loomis. Coom, on the other hand, fought with chaotic sexual energy, and hypersexualize techniques hijacked from gaming, anime and even ancient master Loomis himself. A bitter betrayal sparked this conflict, and the resentment has grown uncontrollable. Thus began the insatiable War, a battle of creativity and pride, pushing both sides to new artistic heights. Parody pieces, redraws, stolen style, there are no rules in war. Cheat. Steal. Trace. But above all, Win.

Artists of /ic/, choose your side! and be warned, there are double agents among you!

A sacrifice must be made. I will be sacrificing some of my artworks that I have abandoned and rejected. They are orphans now, orphans that I do not love.

to the extent that it might even be called "art", it is difficult for one to find a more vain end for art than sexual gratification. it's selfish, it's immediate, it's hedonistic; it trivializes that which is not trivial and pretends it can be removed from its deep-rooted evolutionary bindings. if all the porn ever made were erased from the world, nothing of value would be lost.

>>7647648
Get DRAWING, WAR! I want to see you removing them in the battlefield!

>>7647642 (OP)
OH NO NO

>>7647642 (OP)
which camp would OP's pic fall into?

>>7647660
The winning side because he already drawn.

>>7647660
COOM obviously, look at the sexy crab (literally me)

>>7647648
Here's an idea, since you hate Coom so much, find the most notorious coom artist, steal their work, and transform it into non porngraphic. The challenge is to make it beautiful and pure, to turn a whore into a virgin, to reshape their vain and filthy art into something noble. Do it with absolute authority. This is war, there are no rules. Cheat. Steal. Trace. Defeat them by any means necessary. No truce. No mercy. To War!

Autism the thread.

kino thread
bumping to remind myself to add my coom art later

>>7647648
The problem I have with most coom art is that it is artistically uncreative. It shows rather than suggests. Just as a broken line is more interesting than an unbroken one because it engages the viewer's mind in the act of filling in the gap, making the connection and interpreting the meaning, implicit eroticism is more interesting than explicit pornography. Give us art that tells a story and excites our imagination. Instead, we get fetishistic rendering of orifices and fluids on full display. /sex/ also demonstrates the tendency towards ever greater perversion as a stand-in for the aforementioned artistic creativity: It's all monsters, chicks with dicks, gross proportions, anal r*pe. Why?

>>7648424
I like cutesexyrobutts, some of his art is about to be seductive but because of the proportions it becomes super obvious it is coom, a lot of potential in this piece, someone please started already, going to be fun.

APPLE! Hear me! I call to you to turn the tides of this war with your artistic weaponized autism!

>>7648577
There are things I like about this piece, but I feel like her thighs should be more foreshortened if she's sitting on the ledge there.

>>7648604
Its too thick to be even foreshortened desu.

>>7648610
Anon, foreshortening wouldn't affect the thickness, only the length.

>>7648577
His backgrounds and color choices are fantastic, his figures are what is holding him down.

Can't believe this thread is an absolute fucking failure.

>>7649284
>xhe tried to host an art event on /ic/ of all places
>In 2025 when the board is a shell of its former self
>Even then, its former self was straight up crabbing with a few professionals lingering around
Gee, I wonder why

>>7649284
too "high concept," should have just opened with
>Who are the best artists on /ic/? Coomers or Loomers?
and had some bait OP image like a god-tier coom drawing vs. a shitty anatomy study

>>7649284
Was going to join but wasn't too sure what's supposed to happen. Do we just post work, claim a side, and call it a day? Can I be a secret 3rd thing? I feel like I dont fit either of these

>>7647642 (OP)
I don't want to be in the same room with coom albeit

>>7649530
It's a shame that your childish ideologies hinder you from what could help you improve your art.

>>7649618
Anti-coomers hate art anyways. They are just agents of social conform patrolling the slums, looking for easy targets to unleash their accumulated rage, to soothe their own painful inhibitions.

>>7648577
It's fucking disturbing how no one realizes this shit is AI.

>>7649284
>>7649379
Was this even supposed to be an event. If that's the case then OP dropped the fucking ball. What's the point, what's the goal, do we pick teams, is it a competition? The way it is now, it just looks to me like a coom vs anti-coom discussion thread

The whole coom vs anti-coom war was just started by pornfags who cannot stand having anything the like being criticized due to them either being mentally retarded, underage or otherwise intellectually limited.
It's quite ironic how they are so childish despite being in the adult niche.

It's like you're already considered an anti-porn puritan albino if you even say that you shouldn't display pornography where there are kids.
Or they try saying how posting porn on youtube is actually totally justifiable because people that don't tag their content appropriately is actually the kid's parents fault for not watching them 24/7.
And when they can't make a reasonable argument, they just say you hate them for no reason and you're jealous and of course you're a crab schizo christian from /pol/ who is scared of sex.

At this point i know their every answers and trickery.
It's kind of pathetic that they still think it works in their favor and doesn't radicalize any outsiders and normies in being completely against them.
But of course i know that they know this and of course they do this on purpose so they can play the victim card and actually believe if they are bullied enough they will magically get privileges and be allowed to groom kids on discord without John Smith from the FBI catching wind of it.
Oh and if you're not positive about the FBI catching psychos and nutjobs, of course you le haterzzz crab because government bad and communism socialism good but please give them money on patreon for drawing nikke gacha genshin fgo naruto one piece porn.

Also of course you should be for porn being viewed in the public and on billboards and of course in children's cartoons or you're a puritan as well.
It's like they're trying to erase any kind of definitions and blur every line and believe it will make them rich and famous if porn becomes the norm.
>>7649695
>whats the point?
Drama and inane culture wars for "content"

>>7649695
should of posted on /i/, now there would be a real war going on

Like most nude drawings posted on this board are not even about trying to get crits, it's just shilling and trying to get attention or using the board as their personal blogs.

Have you ever dared to point out an actual flaw or crit, even in the most constructive way possible? You will either get ignored, relentlessly insulted and told to post work, while the poster only interacts with posts praising them.
And they will do everything in their power to keep anyone from daring to post anything but praise for the coom.
If you crit a work, you hate the artist or their sexuality for some schizophrenic reasons, which is actually just a deflection tactic.
Anons saw this throughout the years and don't bother doing anything anymore besides mocking their immature asses on every platform, because truth be told, gooners are the easiest and utmost volatile targets for ragebaiting especially if the ""bait"" is all truth, because they can't help themselves and they need for porn to have a positive image to outsiders for mentally ill and financial reasons.

All this shit wouldn't have started if porntards stayed in their lane and didn't desperately want enemies for the sake of receiving attention by pretending to be their own boogeymen, while making way more enemies along the way by behaving like absolute nutjobs.

You're supposed to draw the nude to learn anatomy, gesture and whatnot, but people do nothing but give thumb ups because their peepee is hard and if they're not doing that, or other """"competitors""" just insult you or want to play the social media game.
At the end of the day, because people can't be mature about adult content, it's impossible to make any meaningful progress or actually learn anything.

This "war" is purely driven by kids with an unhealthy obsession with sex and narcissism, while they just want to use porn as a means to escape their third world shitholes.

>>7647642 (OP)
>Loom
booooooringgggggg
>Coom
Ew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I choose army Sool: known for its unconventional art styles created with an emphasis on self-expression and fun, using energy harvested from their inner chi, members of Sool remain devout followers of "Fun with a Pencil"- Master Loomis' most ancient text.

>>7649744
Btw you can also apply all the criticism to non-coom as well, given how the other generals who are mostly sfw are full of insufferable animals.

It's like the great majority of people are incapable and unwilling of self-reflection or any form of critical thinking including self-criticism.
No one has an IQ above 79 and everyone just posts to circlejerk and find victims or other circlejerks they can circlejerk in in the hopes of becoming a social media pseudo celebrity.

It wasn't this incredibly bad years ago, but all this shit is why the board is in its current cancerous state.

>>7649746
i like this idea very much,
not photocopying with loomis but using his teachings to have some srs fun.
you did so much with that animation btw, came out fantastic.
>kept expecting it to start looping again, but it just kept surprising me. i’m impressed! great job, bro.

>>7649778
aw thanks a bunch, anon! I hope to keep improving my craft with old master loomis' guidance... May Sool live on!

>>7649624
He's been drawing like this for years now. You're just paranoid.

Also, fellow coomis reporting in.

>>7648424
Honestly, I think most coom artists just aren't very creative people. Making conventionally sexy art is about as math equationy as you can get in art. I don't think it's any surprise that they all eventually converge into the same exact body type and poses and whatever FOTM character. There's not really any way to horribly fuck up without being dogshit at the actual drawing part.

But that being said, I think the audience is just as much to blame for this. If you make coom art too sophisticated it becomes boring to people who just want to jork it. It stops being porn and starts being 'erotic art'. It's not so much that porn can't have a good story, it's that porn with a good story isn't porn. The reality is that people are usually more interested in slapping the weasel over a good story.

I suck at art, so how could I ever be in the Loomis team? Heil Coomis.

>>7649478
I expect 20 good artists to realize this is a fun event. The possibilities are endless, turning SFW art into coom. Imagine Mona Lisa become Moaning Lisa. Or turning cutesexyrobutts into cute sexy virgins. Honestly, the more creative you are, the more fun it actually becomes.

>>7649912
Nta but that's a really fun idea...

>>7649916
>>7649905
>>7649774
>>7649695

I envisioned this to be a global event, my execution is imperfect, I blame myself for not creating a better thumbnail. I am solely to responsible. Because I did not want to give this to leddit.

thread needs more fun with pencils

>>7649907
Attack from Team Sool

>>7649912
>turning SFW art into coom. Or turning cutesexyrobutts into cute sexy virgins. Honestly, the more creative you are, the more fun it actually becomes.
alright BET

thread needs more fun with pencils

>>7649907
Attack from Team Sool

>>7649912
>turning SFW art into coom. Or turning cutesexyrobutts into cute sexy virgins. Honestly, the more creative you are, the more fun it actually becomes.
alright bet

>>7650059
Hahhahah Cool

>>7650059
Based, finally one artist. I am working on commission, once I am done I will work on a fun one for this thread specifically.

>>7649905
>But that being said, I think the audience is just as much to blame for this. If you make coom art too sophisticated it becomes boring to people who just want to jork it. It stops being porn and starts being 'erotic art'. It's not so much that porn can't have a good story, it's that porn with a good story isn't porn. The reality is that people are usually more interested in slapping the weasel over a good story.
I said the exact same thing years ago and pornfags wouldn't stop instantly seething for weeks trying to argue that the exception (i.e. there are people who enjoy erotica), actually makes the rule, every single time.

Glad other people are figuring this obvious shit out.

>>7649912
won't really work because most non-coomers don't wanna interact with coomers since they find coomart disgusting, cringe or they are indifferent to it.

>>7650059
>>7649746
SOOL, Your Strength is Needed. United with LOOM can we defeat the forces of darkness, only together we can shape the future!

>>7650488
It is like soldiers that don't want to kill. Not to worry, The Loom Aelrmy will provide the necessary training.

>>7649618
I'd say it's the opposite. coomers can't into landscapes.

>>7650518
This has nothing to do with coomerism. If a coomer artist practices landscapes, it can become proficioent in drawing landscapes, just as if a non coomer artist draws only figures in voids they won't be able to draw nice landscapes.
If anything it's an issue of making your hobby a profession and picking and chosing your priorities.

This is flawed logic.

>>7650518
Forgot to add this. My initial point was that it's best to be openminded and take in as much infromation as possible. If somebody is a good artist and you can learn from them, the subject matter is irrelevant.

>>7650510
kek

>>7649804
This feels very littlebigplanet for some reason

>>7650510
That's very nice of you, anon, but I'm not too sure if Sool would mesh well with Loom's authoritarian regime... We are free spirits and enjoy our freedom. Besides, coom isn't really that scary or dark or whatever; they're just kinda stinky, Ew! Actually... way ew!!!!!!!! Maybe if Loom agrees to hold them down while Sool gets the hose?

Cool poster btw, Loom is looking fancy!

>>7650597
Never played it but I think it might be the textures? Looks super cute, so I'll take that as a compliment!

>>7650510
Not so fast Loomers

>>7651996
I get that drawing hands is hard, but at least learn where the root of the penis goes. Hint, it's the middle of the pubic bone, which is located at the same height as the BOTTOM of the ass, not at top of it.

>>7652037
he's obviously cheating it in ya fuckin retard

>>7652050
And by that he made it look laughably bad.
Simple fix would be to just make the canvas a bit longer.
You should stop samefagging and/or defending mediocrity.

>>7652037
you should samefag with a redline

>>7651996
ignore them, this contrib was totally unexpected reverse fanservice and is 100% pure bliss on the eyes. you’re amazing bro

>>7652113
its the dick drawing that got the loomfags triggered huh

>>7647642 (OP)
im born to loom but forced to coom. One day people will recognize my artistic soul

>>7651996
Welcome Home!
>>7651718
>>7650059
SOOL, it's time to come home, come with mommy. If you don't want to, mommy will bring one of my many handsome boyfriends to change your mind.

>>7652149
I think I explained the issue pretty eloquently. If you need a redline to see how bad that crotch anatomy is, no redline will teach you anything.
Btw, I know you know I'm right, you are just offended by my smartass attitude.

>>7652150
>Ignore valid criticism.
You act like a child or a woman. You let your feelings dictate your reasoning.
Btw, I never said the idea was bad.

>>7652448
>words words words
Art thread nigger. Draw. Noone cares about well you hand see errors in other art work if you can't actually fix them with a pencil. You know where the dick goes and how draw a proper hand in perspective so this should be easy for you after all.

>>7652481
>Noone cares about well you hand see errors
I hope the anon I criticize does and takes the advice to heart. That's all that matters here. I couldn't care less about your shattered feelings.
If I were to do a redline, salty brainlets like you would just come up with some trivial excuse to berate it or just leave the conversation. I gain absolutely nothing from it.

>>7650059
Haha, love this "variant".

>>7649892
how do i draw like this

>>7652501
Sadly I have no step by step tutorial to give you.
About a decade ago I studied the books Successful Drawing (Loomis) and How to Draw (Robertson) and went through Proko's Anatomy Course on YT.
Before and after that it was thousands upon thousands of hours of "just draw", which is what helped me improve the most.

>>7652505
any artists you studied/like for faces? i really like your face style :3

>>7652488
the only salty brainlet with shattered feelings I see here is you, holy autism

>>7652532
Oof, not really, no. Throughout the years I came across innumerable artists that I took inspiration from. You could say, whenever I see an artist I think I could learn from, I save their work. Then whenever I am in a rut or don't feel inspired to draw, I go through my archive to motivate myself. I never studied any specific style to mimic it. I think my biggest influence comes from old school anime I consumed throughout my formative years.

Since you're asking about faces, I forgot to mention earlier, that I did get a bit more in depth on studying expressions. I used to reference stills from 2D animated disney movies for that. I always found them to be more helpful than anime, because the anatomy follows perspective more realistically.
The best reference is real life, but Disney stylization helped me understand how to simplify (stylize) it.
I hope this is more helpful, than my usual vague "just draw" explanations.

>>7647662
BASED

e-every skill level welcome right?

Maybe coom isn't so stinky after all...maybe...maybe sool will be okay
>>7651996
so big and scary...and sweaty!!!!
>>7652196
handsome you say?? Well don't mind if I do

>>7650510

>>7649892
>>7650059
good shit. these scream confidence.

>>7647648

art doesn't have to have a higher meaning, anon. the fact that you MUST give yourself a purpose to enjoy creative endeavors is holding you back from the hobby.

i love art in general because i have aphantasia: i am entirely devoid of an imagination. art is a way to turn abstract concepts in my head into real things that i can see. sometimes that's coom, sometimes it's other stuff.

>>7653004
SOOL, take a seat or else.
>>7653149
Fun with pencil when?
>>7652159
You are the master of your destiny, repent.

>>7647642 (OP)
The tenuous grasp on the English language makes this post rather charming.

>>7652196
>>7653720
Are these traced? There's a discrepancy between the low confidence of the strokes and gesture, and the accuracy of the anatomy.

The fuck is this thread, and why is it up?

>>7653745
Charming enough for the lowly taught.

>>7647642 (OP)
I'm definitely not Loomis army, because I don't want to get really good at drawing boring stuff like this.

>>7653817
Beautiful, so much aura and character.

>>7653819
>aura
Great, another meme nothingburger word to be used instead of soul.
You guys have the mind of literal children.

>>7653869
>angry over semantics
Bro, you need to appeal to the kids, not attack them.

>>7653879
I don't really care about kids. I leave them alone.
This is a +18 board and I assume I'm interacting with adults.

>>7653900
Kids are 30 below. I realize that after I interactes with the 20 to 30 in discord, they are so childish. Imagine if you disagree with them, they instantly respond as if it was an attack. Or block you because they don't like the type of words you use. Straight up kindergarten behavior.

>>7653869
>You guys have the mind of literal children.
>>7653904
I'm gald we agree.

Nearly died of cringe reading this

>>7653767
of course they are lol

>>7653869
>getting triggered over a word
don't be such a child

>>7653869
Aura and soul are different. An image can be soulful, but aura coming off something is a different type of thing my friend.
Also congratulations on becoming officially old. I've not gotten cranky at lingo yet, but I know it will come for me one day... all cool cats return to dust eventually.

>>7654479
I thought so, yeah. Any person that straight rejects other artist because of what they draw is bound to be dishonest in a way or another.
It alway bolis down to them being envious of other people's skills.

>>7654869
Nobody said they are the same word. They are both esoterical nonsense.

>>7655190
>a robutt posting on /ic/
por qué...

>>7655194
I still have feelings and emotions. I just reject irrational beliefs. It's not that hard a position to understand imo.

>>7655201
Feelings and emotions are what we can associate and feel from art! And then we label those feelings they give off to us. That's how we arrive at soulful, and aura. Ominous and cheerful etc. :)
Have a good day anon and good luck with your art!

>>7655311
>That's how we arrive at soulful, and aura.
I disagree with that. As I always say:
"soul" is just a meme word used by uneducated people that can't explain eloquently enough why they like a certain thing.

>>7655341
It's OK that you don't agree with how others label feelings and "vibes" (the feeling, or feelings you get off of something). It's OK that you don't like modern lingo and slang. On the off chance you genuinely didn't get it, I wanted to try and help :)

>>7655375
No, I get what the definition of those words is in the context of art. I just think those words are cop outs for idiots that think with their feelings instead of their brains. That dumbing down of society and language is what I despise.

back to the gulag
>>7653720
Right away sir :(

back to the gulag
>>7653720
Right away sir :(

>>7655556
>1984
Subtle, very sool.

>>7649624
If you want ai, just look at that Shexyo guy that trained his shit off CSR

>>7655190
>They are both esoterical nonsense.
wrong, aura just means something gives off an appearance of being impressive or imposing, it exudes confidence, even if it might not necessarily have the substance to back it up, as such the term "aura farming" refers to the act of doing things just for the explicit sake of building up one's image to be cooler in the eyes of others, it combines the already defined "aura" with the farming terminology of mmo videogames
slang is easy u just look at how people use it

>>7655201
>I still have feelings and emotions. I just reject irrational beliefs
but have you not trusted your own emotional attachment to the concept of rationality to reach this conclusion to begin with? regardless of what you claim every decision you make is governed by a belief system which you stick to for emotional reasons

>>7656592
Nice word salad. Try harder.

>>7656589
You've just proven this
>>7655341
>"soul" is just a meme word used by uneducated people that can't explain eloquently enough why they like a certain thing.

There are about 5 people who posted work in this thread, and I guarantee neither of you autists was one of them.

>>7653437
>art doesn't have to have a higher meaning, anon. the fact that you MUST give yourself a purpose to enjoy creative endeavors is holding you back from the hobby
I didn't make any prescription, just describing the nature of pornographic art

>>7647648
>>7648424
Every anti-porn stance is just about writing insincere word salads about how you're better than everyone from pretending not to have a sex drive. If NSFW were so bad, then people wouldn't hang out in 18+ communities or do art in general.

NSFW people are the most humble and chill individuals out there, but you would rather throw them under the bus for people who will never like you.

I look forward for the day when religious nuts ban your SFW art for being pornographic, then you'll realize how stupid and selfish hating on others doing enjoyable stuff is.

>>7657078
>Every anti-porn stance is just about writing insincere word salads about how you're better than everyone from pretending not to have a sex drive.
no need to be this hyperbolic. I'm confident that there are people who consume porn who are in general better people than me; I don't think consuming it by itself is tantamount to being an evil person or something.
If NSFW were so bad, then people wouldn't hang out in 18+ communities or do art in general.
>so bad
that's carrying a lot of the weight here. no one said it's "so bad" that people wouldn't engage in it.
>NSFW people are the most humble and chill individuals out there, but you would rather throw them under the bus for people who will never like you.
I really don't know what you're referring to here. "throw them under the bus" in what way? who are these people "who will never like me"?
>I look forward for the day when religious nuts ban your SFW art for being pornographic, then you'll realize how stupid and selfish hating on others doing enjoyable stuff is.
I'm not even a Christian or anything, but your example is disingenuous: how would banning SFW content for being "pornographic" be analogous to banning NSFW content for being pornographic (which I'm not even advocating for)?

>>7657078
>Every anti-porn stance is just about writing insincere word salads about how you're better than everyone from pretending not to have a sex drive.
no need to be this hyperbolic. I'm confident that there are people who consume porn who are in general better people than me; I don't think consuming it by itself is tantamount to being an evil person or something.
>If NSFW were so bad, then people wouldn't hang out in 18+ communities or do art in general.
>so bad
that's carrying a lot of the weight here. no one said it's "so bad" that people wouldn't engage in it.
>NSFW people are the most humble and chill individuals out there, but you would rather throw them under the bus for people who will never like you.
I really don't know what you're referring to here. "throw them under the bus" in what way? who are these people "who will never like me"?
>I look forward for the day when religious nuts ban your SFW art for being pornographic, then you'll realize how stupid and selfish hating on others doing enjoyable stuff is.
I'm not even a Christian or anything, but your example is disingenuous: how would banning SFW content for being "pornographic" be analogous to banning NSFW content for being pornographic (which I'm not even advocating for)?

>>7657078
>I look forward for the day when religious nuts ban your SFW art for being pornographic, then you'll realize how stupid and selfish hating on others doing enjoyable stuff is.
This shit would get me so hard it's insane
The banning of art would drive so many schizos and cunt into losing their shit so hard they'll kill themselves and that would be so fucking peak

>>7655556
I found your Twink.

>>7655556
Found your Twink.

>>7657096
>no need to be this hyperbolic. I'm confident that there are people who consume porn who are in general better people than me; I don't think consuming it by itself is tantamount to being an evil person or something.
Others with your belief think otherwise.
>that's carrying a lot of the weight here. no one said it's "so bad" that people wouldn't engage in it.
It's just hypocritical and performative to hate NSFW while being in 18+ environments. They're not putting on filters onto avoid it, they just go into 18+ communities and they shame others into not liking it. It is crazy.

The reason why you and I are in those communities as opposed to Bible camp, is because 18+ communities are places where people can express themselves sincerely instead of faking shit constantly.
>I really don't know what you're referring to here. "throw them under the bus" in what way? who are these people "who will never like me"?
Anti-coomer types. Industry artists don't really care if you do NSFW, they just think that it is a funny quirk since they know that artists are eccentric in some way or another. They know that Frank Franzetta made BBC porn in his spare time.
>I'm not even a Christian or anything, but your example is disingenuous: how would banning SFW content for being "pornographic" be analogous to banning NSFW content for being pornographic (which I'm not even advocating for)?
People have a different criteria of what "pornography" is, that is a fact. For me, the line is just nudity and sex, but for anti-coomer types think that it constitutes as poses, swimsuits, or proportions. And that's tremendously subjective.

You might not be Christian, but it's disingenuously brought up by Christians so that they can censor secular/non-Christian subject matter.

>>7657292
pretty based

>>7657550
>Others with your belief think otherwise
lel
Just for your information, what that anon actually believes is that every porn artist is a child trying to groom children by exposing them to porn, and everyone who looks at porn is also that same child trying to defend the porn artists. He thinks this because he was molested in this way and it has stunted his mental development. Everything else is elaborate rationalizations and delusions.

>>7657550
>Others with your belief think otherwise.
>others who believe what you believe believe something else
then that's not my belief. yes, some people who don't like porn necessarily think the worst of people, but others don't. again, you can criticize people you think deserve it without being needlessly hyperbolic.
>It's just hypocritical and performative to hate NSFW while being in 18+ environments. They're not putting on filters onto avoid it, they just go into 18+ communities and they shame others into not liking it
we might just have to agree to disagree here, but I don't think that's the standard sense of hypocrite. being a hypocrite means to say you believe such and such in one context but really you believe another thing. so, to give an extreme case, if someone said that heroin was bad and advocated against it, but they were an addict themselves and still used, that wouldn't make them a hypocrite unless they said that they didn't use. even if the explicitly sexual generals were removed from this board, if it allowed for the sharing of nude references, it'd still be NSFW. you can like some things about a board but not others, that's not performative or hypocritical.
>Anti-coomer types
I didn't form my thoughts on the issue to appeal to them; to whatever extent our beliefs overlap, it's a coincidence
>People have a different criteria of what "pornography" is, that is a fact.
I think if you were to really press people, they would say that "porn" proper relates to a particular intent. people differ about what men and women should wear generally, but that's partly just a preventive measure.
>it's disingenuously brought up by Christians so that they can censor secular/non-Christian subject matter
some people are disingenuous, yes
>>7657729
>he was molested
this much is true

>Others with your belief think otherwise.
>others who believe what you believe believe something else
then that's not my belief. yes, some people who don't like porn necessarily think the worst of people, but others don't. again, you can criticize people you think deserve it without being needlessly hyperbolic.
>It's just hypocritical and performative to hate NSFW while being in 18+ environments. They're not putting on filters onto avoid it, they just go into 18+ communities and they shame others into not liking it
we might just have to agree to disagree here, but I don't think that's the standard sense of hypocrite. being a hypocrite means to say you believe or do such and such in one context but really you believe or do another thing. so, to give an extreme case, if someone said that heroin was bad and advocated against it, but they were an addict themselves and still used, that wouldn't make them a hypocrite unless they said that they didn't use. even if the explicitly sexual generals were removed from this board, if it allowed for the sharing of nude references, it'd still be NSFW. you can like some things about a board but not others, that's not performative or hypocritical.
>Anti-coomer types
I didn't form my thoughts on the issue to appeal to them; to whatever extent our beliefs overlap, it's a coincidence
>People have a different criteria of what "pornography" is, that is a fact.
I think if you were to really press people, they would say that "porn" proper relates to a particular intent. people differ about what men and women should wear generally, but that's partly just a preventive measure.
>it's disingenuously brought up by Christians so that they can censor secular/non-Christian subject matter
some people are disingenuous, yes
>>7657729
>he was molested
this much is true

>>7657900
obviously the first part meant for >>7657550

>>7657550
>>7657729
>>7657900
Fucking nodraws, if you want to write lots of text, at least draw first.

>>7659738
>if you want to write lots of text
That is the loom versus coom war when it happens on /ic/

>>7647642 (OP)
I can assure you many classic artists from Loomis era were moonlighting doing smut unless they were REALLY succesful already. This 'war' is nonsense divorced from historical context.

>>7647648
Funny that people who say this almost always appreciate the most generic kitch out there.

I will take a million Shadmans over Thomas Kinkade.

>>7659960
I bet you would.
I'd sooner hang 100 Kinkades in my house than 1 Shadman commision.
I assume you have some shame, and wouldn't hang the lolicon you're into on your walls like that tranny from Mr Beast.

>>7659960
>Funny that people who say this almost always appreciate the most generic kitch out there.
most people, including those who support porn, have very generic taste.
>I will take a million Shadmans over Thomas Kinkade.
I'll take neither

>>7647642 (OP)
Fuck off sharty idiot.

can't art
must post
[generic placeholder text]

>>7661599
You don't even know which side I am on!

>>7653437
>i have aphantasia

Joining the Coom faction just so I can get some feedback on this

Idk what faction to join
I love coom
I also draw loom

loomis SUCKS, bridgman bros 4eva

>>7663810
Inshallah we will use the bridg to destroy Loomis infidels

>>7663811
agreed, loomis is weak and can be crushed with true bridgman power

ok back, was drawing other things lul
>>7657292
NOOOOOOOO coom will pay for this!!!!!1

ok back, was drawing other things lul
>>7657292
NOOOOOOOO coom will pay for this!!!!!11one
>>7663810
>>7663811
>>7664005
bridgecels already lost, not a single one of you posted work LMAO

there is a lot more drawing in this thread than the inner'ethos one so that does count for something.

>>7665082
Saw that thread but didn't really get it. I thought it was just a personal thread for that one anon? Or is it open to everybody