Thread 7782151

Is there really a concrete method to make "sexually charged work" but have it not be "objectifying" in the eyes of the public?

>>7782151 (OP)
Ask that guy, not /ic/.
Also buy an ad.

>>7782151 (OP)
I googled his work, and it looks like jab comix stuff.

>sexually charged work
>but does it want it to be objectifying

what gay shit is this? why is it so important?Please explain the logic/ reasoning.

I think objectification can only happen when a character recieves enough characterisation to not be a random slut but not enough to be able to make educated guesses about which fucked up things she'd agree to.

Scott Marlin's persona can't be objectified because you only ever see her getting dick, nobody gives a fuck about her consent.
Frieren can't be objectified because she's fleshed out enough you'd be able to argue she'd be into that shit given her character.
Cpt.Titjob here, who talks once every three issues, who's mostly known as Dr.Testiculous' girlfriend, and died in 1992 before having an off-screen funeral because nobody gave a shit, can be because you care about what she feels but don't know if she'd spread them for those eight disembodied horse cocks.


but ultimately you shouldn't give a fuck and remember that when these Tumblr/Bluesky hippies harass an artist about this, 9 times out of 10 it was a woman all along and they end up looking retarded.

>>7782189
so you can be twitter bulletproof from feminists

>>7782151 (OP)
"shut up bitch." should do the trick

>>7782198
I don’t brake for feminists, and I don’t think people’s art should be beholden to the whims of an ideology that’s run amok to everyone's detriment.

You really want some retard to guide what you can draw. To give you pause at the fear of being ostracized? I rather not live in that bondage.

>>7782151 (OP)
>Ask that guy
This. I doubt they'll be able to explain it beyond "I know it when i see it."

ndasfw needs to understand this

>>7782151 (OP)
Stop caring about the opinion of complete strangers.

>>7782151 (OP)
just reference real models and real people
i had a friend of mine comment on a thigh gap i gave to a girl i drew recently. being able to show the model and explain that there are women that actually look like that can go a long way in dispelling this kind of thought. besides, i think its healthier to use real people as reference whenever possible since it keeps your work grounded.
that being said
>>7782193
>but ultimately you shouldn't give a fuck
this. there are ai gooners making far worse with less respect for the subject and effort.. plus, at the end of the day, it's just a drawing
sidenote - i don't really see the gay/queer parts of the sphere having nearly as many issues like this, but there have been some "interesting" drawn men over there. lol

pretension time

this artist's work feels respectful

i guess focus on the subject as a whole and draw "realistic" proportions, instead of doing fetishslop and focusing primarily on tits and ass?

i saw the reverse of typical sexslop with a man before, didn't save it for obvious reasons (i fucking hate the fact that most of my friends are fujos). the camera was angled from below to focus on his bulge, so i guess that kind of stuff is what people think of when they it's objectifying.

this is not a woman, living, tangible or otherwise

>>7782222
this artist also comes to mind for that vibe even though being respectful or whatever is really not their intention

>>7782222
kinda boring desu...

>>7782221
>>7782223
i genuinely fucking hate artists who use their drawings as a soapbox like this. stfu

>>7782227
it is boring and that's why 99% of goonslop is objectification and fetish crap lmao

>>7782226
is this a cuntboy? can't tell, but while it doesn't come off as respectful, it's decently executed, i suppose

>>7782232
gooners have taste is a weird take but ill concede to it. Sex sells but theres sex and there's abnormal and hypersexuality that looks retarded out in the open.

>>7782151 (OP)
>drawing women in a sexually charged way while maintaining respect for em

fucking ridiculous
haha

>>7782233
nope, that artist primarily draws flat-chested women with beefed up men. they actually made a post about their anger towards it lmao

>>7782237
never said they have taste, i literally called it slop. in my opinion the amount of sexual art that's that's either not boring or not retarded is extremely scarce

>>7782233
I don't know the parameters of a cuntboy but those are cleary tits.

>>7782241
>>7782245
im not talking about the tits, im talking about how the hatching on the chin makes her look like she has a very thin beard
in hindsight, i should have been more clear

>>7782244
pyw, Crabbagool

>>7782246
that's just badly done shading my guy, doesn't have that in the rest of the set

>>7782241
>BREAKING: Pot SHOCKINGLY calls kettle black

>>7782248
fair play then. apologies.

>>7782222
Would honestly be more titillating without the see through top.

instead of without "objectifying" would with "dignity" be better?

i like how contradictory this retard is about not objectifying women but then degrading someone else due to their sexuality or rather inability to be sexual and calling them incel, when chud would be more appropriate. a misanthrope or misogynist (what they mean when they say incel) wouldnt objectify women other than putting their head on a pike like an object of admiration. i digress.

drawing a women will always be sexual because you draw her as women, therefore you are marking her sex. if you want to make non-sexual drawings, draw plain stickfigures with no indicators you fucking retard social media addict. why do you even screenshot shit like this.

>>7782257
personally I think it would be an improvement if she was fully clothed... but ripped! lying on the floor crying, with seminal fluids leaking from her orifices!

>>7782260
every sentence you write makes you seem more and more retarded

>>7782260
>why do you even screenshot shit like this.
cuz I knew it'd make you mad.

>>7782264
go back to twitter then retard
>>7782266
no, it gives me deep satisfaction to know i dont interact with these airheads.

>>7782151 (OP)
This is why I only draw white guys. They’re the least likely group to complain about fetishizing or racial tropes.

>>7782268
>i dont interact with these airheads.
u just did

>>7782268
you forgot what common sense is due to all the dick sucking you do on an hourly basis, put that dick back in your mouth and choke on it so that the world doesn't have to continue to deal with your retarded existence

>>7782151 (OP)
Of course there is. Sometimes an artist wants to tackle sexual themes, and ends up creating sexually charged works. That's when it doesn't objectify, it's when it comes from (you) and attempts to express something deeper than arousal. You can see such things in many paintings, comics, movies, everything, sometimes without even noticing. See H.R.Giger's work for a mainstream example. His pieces are oozing with sexual themes, penetration, nudity... But it conveys something else than objectification.
In contrast, this >>7782222 is pornography. You can call it respectful all you like, cry incel, sweat over whether or not a woman will get offended over it, it will not change the fact that its entire purpose is to sell. A commodity; a crude, meaningless object made to help a consumer masturbate, and hopefully make him subscribe to your patreon. That, is objectification.

>>7782226
how is this not objectifying? I'm so tired of female porn artists who draw noncon/rape and then act uppity about it. Either you stop drawing porn or you shut up

>>7782276
why can't they draw rape porn and be uppity? what are you? the uppity police? ....hmmm? bitch!

>>7782274
*incoherent rambling

>>7782274
...what? that was drawn by a woman and it's from a cottage fairy set. this is from the same set. if you linked the other artist i posted i'd agree, to point out that one instead is weird.

just because you dislike the theme of something doesn't mean it's crude. i looked up the artist you mentioned, hated his works and didn't see the meaning behind any of them but i'm not going to call it crude or meaningless because of that. are you okay in the head?

Every time someone say men """objectify""" women through fictional sexual depictions, i need to remind myself that women are natural sociopaths and treat everyone as a stepping stone for their own selfish desires.
Anything men get accused of by women, is always a projection.

>>7782293
mommy issues?

>>7782298
lol you don't need that to be right

>>7782289
>...what? that was drawn by a woman and it's from a cottage fairy set.
What is it meant to convey, according to you? Does it have any more meaning than representing a sexy pinup in a fairy attire?

Being drawn by a woman doesn't change anything.

Are we at that point that any heterosexual attraction towards women is "bigoted"?
To be quite honest, this is exactly the reason why digital IDs should be enforced and public platforms should not allow any amount of sensitive content so that underage thirdies finally can't be allowed on the internet anymore.

Would also stop the relentless unfunny bait and inane boring insults.

>>7782221
>>7782223
>don't objectify the drawing because its not real
>please look at the tiddies tho
>but listen to me because i am a real peson
>keep looking at the epic titties tho
>so anyway am i good guy now pls praise me and donate to my patreon lol xD rawr
>keep looking at dem honkers tho
Being racist towards low IQs is completely justified.

>>7782318
But it’s a hecking wholesome fairy set.

>>7782322
100% american behavior though

You all are faggots or retarded women. Women are literally made for men's pleasure. I'll draw you getting decapitated and rapped if I want to. Cunts.

>>7782328
This is women. Don't take them seriously. Ignore them. And draw what you want.

>>7782332
The joke is that America is categorized as a third world country

i can just tell this thread originated by someone who posts a lot on /v/
they just have a certain type of smell to them

>>7782335
Isn't teleportaman a guy?

>>7782340
Fem brained male.

>>7782328
Im glad it wasnt just me getting mixed signals there. This person is confused. Maybe that's the point?

>>7782226
>>7782241
>draws "small boob" women because of "realism"
>justifies it with a strawman critique about her women appearing "underage" to some supposed viewer
>draws those women getting manhandled by literal greek gods with chests the sizes of fridges and physiques that are impossible to achieve
im not saying this is hypocrisy, but i am saying this is missing the forest for the trees, your audience can function as an echo chamber if you let it, and men aren't immune to this kind of bias
>>7782340
yes, and those girls he drew including that specific one that got the most attention were supposedly angels/demons/non-mortal characters iirc, which makes his ideological grandstanding all the more strange, given that i don't think they were meant to represent "regular" women anyway

>>7782346
I think the point is rather because he wants to get pussy by virtue signaling, or its engagement baiting because no way someone is this retarded to not see the irony.
I blocked that fag long ago.

>>7782342
thats a kind way to say retarded.

>>7782349
that's a very good point, well made.

>"Why is everyone leaving social media now?"
Big accounts are getting even more desperate and unhinged than they were before everyone started getting tired of them.
You will see these straight up unironical narcissists post their bank accounts and doxx themselves, or live streaming their suicides (which they will fail) for a handful of likes.

>>7782346
Young americans have been exclusively schooled in post-modern neo-marxism and as a result they believe that contradictions are true. When there are two things that can't be true simultaneously, they're true simultaneously. That's what they actually literally believe. I am not fucking joking. That is exactly and precisely the point.

>>7782374
Anon, americans have so much estrogen in their water supply and parasites in their bodies by eating literal shit and sugar that they are genuinely clinically retarded.
I doubt they even know the meaning of 5% of any words they use.

>>7782151 (OP)
Lemme guess, you need to draw them morbidly obese, covered with pimples and stretch marks and leg hair

>>7782223
>value me as a person
Do you bring any value as a person? Women seem to conveniently ignore that men has to do this all the fucking time.

>>7782221
>>7782223
I'm dying of second-hand embarrassment.

>>7782379
Yes, humans have value by virtue of being aware and conscious, I'm sorry that you don't feel that you're enough and need validation from your internet friends

>>7782443
the drawing isnt a human, homie. Imaginary friends are imaginary.

>>7782446
But women are real

>>7782340
yes....I believe he dates an OF E-thot girl

>>7782453
You got me there.

he was using the drawing as a strawman to air out his grievances.

>>7782467
Yeah, people tend to do that with art, ever heard of wojaks? Same deal really lol

>"uuuhm yas sweaty! humans have value! im soooo sorry you can't get pussy and you're a broke virgin lmao what a pathetic waste of life you should die, bigot!"
intradesting

>>7782485
yea, champ, maybe don't hit women. that could be the problem.

I don't hit women, they want to be beat up.

Yet another shit thread on /ic/ that dumb idiots fall for everyday

never change /ic/

It's not bait, It's just daddyless cunts who can't get dicked taking it out on guys enjoying themselves.
If no one's keeping them here they'll just go shit up the generals more than they already do

>>7782151 (OP)
Porn is objectification, but I bet this idiotic femminist didn't notice that there is gay porn too.
That tweet is just leftist propaganda for social points.

I need a serious set of answers here.
Why do people consume NSFW/Pornographic art?

because pp hard

>>7782532
this

>>7782532
this but ironically

>>7782221
>>7782223
>say hi to me
>treat me as a person
>listen to me
>i'm a drawing
unironically what the fuck is the message here

>>7782551
The message is "bump engagement, no matter how stupid it makes you look".

Dude has 1.1mil followers on his mid art and animations. Replies are filled with people trying t explain this shit like they have the answers. Its hilarious but cult-like.

OP-pic is their retard friemd tryna cash in on the drama.

tbqh the only thing stopping me from making a social media and making fun of these actual retards is the fact that they want any kind of attention anyway and if anyone makes fun of them, they'll just use it to play the victims.
And it will just attract retarded drama zoomers to try to doxx you, so it's not really worth it.

All this drama and engagement baiting shit is why i don't want to associate or """"""network""""" with other """"artists""""", since they ain't got a shred of self-respect or dignity.

>>7782595
Based, but...
>self-respect or dignity
rarely get you a revenue stream.

>>7782604
Sure, but that isn't a road you want to go down.
Once you sell out for quick revenue, that's your whole thing, and when there is no one to buy, you won't be able to do anything else.

None of these influencers who ragebait and try to farm engagement through any means will survive a single failure and then it's over since no one will want to work with them.

>>7782617
"nooo save youw integwity! wagebaiting for pwofit is bad!"
stfu you gay bitch

>>7782151 (OP)
I suppose they're not being "objectified" if the character show they have agency and personality beyond being a character that's getting sexualised.
So a character who just bursts into the room to hop on dick is bad,
but a character who bursts into the room, has a cup of coffee and talks about their day... AND THEN hops on dick is good.
Frankly it's just a load of wank. They're characters, they essentially are 'objects', they have a purpose (to turn us on and convey the sexual story) and that's what they're there for.
It's like complaining about the physical abuse a hammer is going through, and asking whether the hammer's emotions and well being is being considered.

>Objectification
I fucking hate this terminology, and this theory anyway.
Do you know what I want to have sex with? Other humans!
Do you know what I don't want to have sex with? Objects! I don't want to fuck my chair, or my computer, or my bed, or a plate.
The idea that treating each other in a very human way, and seeing them sexually, is somehow treating them as less human... it's just so fucking brain dead it drives me up the wall.

>"But didn't you just say fictional character are essentially objects?"
Shut up.

>>7782151 (OP)
>Is there really a concrete method to make "sexually charged work" but have it not be "objectifying" in the eyes of the public?
Be a woman and draw with the female gaze in mind. Simple as.

>>7782349
>>7782226
>>7782276
I don't remember saag ever complaint about sexualization or objectification of women.

>>7782289
>i looked up the artist you mentioned
Holy shit, bitch, fuck off and come back after you learn something

the method is
1. be inspired
2. be passionate
3. just draw

anything else is a lie. There is no method to draw good if you hate drawing and have no ideas. Which is what everyone who makes threads on this shit board is desperately searching for.

>>7782815
Yeah, drawing good is overrated. Having some bullshit to say with your art is back in fashion, clearly.

>>7782151 (OP)
>in the eyes of the public
you cannot legislate for such a wide group. oinly your intentions matter.

>>7782151 (OP)
Is there a concrete way to write monster fucker porn without objectifying the cow man?

>>7782860
No. Have you ever seen a cowman with clothes on? They're bred to be objectified by sexually frustrated wine mums.

>A woman's existence doesn't make her a sexual object, and incels can't seem to grasp that concept
The content men consume isn't women just existing, I don't know who's this imaginary person he's fighting with. In fact this is confusing to me, I've seen some of his drawings, and he seems to depict women doing every day things in skimpy clothing or completely naked to various degrees of degeneracy, is he trying to pretend this is not porn or that you're at fault for feeling horny/aroused about it?

people will waste so many calories contemplating the definition of porn without considering why it matters in the first place

>>7782873
>why it matters in the first place
To make my penis hard?

>>7782222
This dime a dozen style is so ugly. You can tell this person got hooked on Tumblr at 13 years old and it became their personality just by this piece. Also she ruined what could have at least been a visually interesting piece by refusing to put the wings in perspective with the back. It looks like they are just floating behind her

>>7782151 (OP)
>is there a concrete method to make hetero sex art appeal to gay people/woman that want every single niche they slightly dislike to be completely banned and the people who drew them need to be arrested and have their bank accounts frozen

I don't know, have you considered killing yourself live on twitter? I'm pretty sure they would love it

,

>>7782222
>”respectful” = “drawing brown people”
LMAO

>>7782868
Is she humping a pillow? wtf is going on?

>>7782927
Actually it is YOU who should take their own life on a livestream!

>>7782868
It's because they haven't felt the touch of a woman and idealizes them as these calculated and eternally beautiful creatures.
>t. someone who hasn't felt the touch of a woman.

>>7782151 (OP)
if you draw porn then these are the people whose opinions you should be forced to care about, so good

>>7782868
>is he trying to pretend this is not porn or that you're at fault for feeling horny/aroused about it?
It comes off that way. That person feels guilty of objectifying women through porn, so feels obligated to go on this tirade explaining how actually HIS porn is ethical and respectful compared to other porn.

>>7782221
Nigga got onlyfans pussy and thinks he's Socrates now

>>7782151 (OP)
Beats me, it seems like a rather arbitrary distinction which is largely subjective and relies moreso on clues to make the art appear to belong to someone that shares the same ingroup and ideology of the viewer rather than any concrete thing

Probably also if the viewer finds the particular art distasteful or not

>>7783008
kek
coomers' brains are actually rotting, it's crazy

>>7782151 (OP)
>OP pic artist protected their posts on twitter LOOOOOOOOOL.

They don't want to objectify, but of the infinity of things they could choose to draw, they draw nude women.

Im sorry if their art is not intended to make men's pp twitch a little, but let's not manipulate reality here. It's not "incel's" fault that they are half in half out about appealing to AND PROFITTING FROM the base urges of their public audience, over which people most often have no control.

If you're a sexy artist, call a spade a fucking spade, show some integrity, and accept that you are a part, if not the origin, of the problem here. There's no such thing as tasteful fucking nudes so long as your audience is human and you can choose not to draw them.

>>7782151 (OP)
Holy shti stop giving these mentally ill freaks attention you stupid fucking niggers

>>7782151 (OP)
>sexually charge
another retarded jargon just like unplanned donation (stealing) ? This is why tumblrina ex should've been shot

>>7782289
>pinups aren't porn
ok man

>>7783094
is a victoria's secret catalog porn?

>>7782151 (OP)
>>7782193
>>7782221
>>7782223
It's a fucking drawing, an illusion of life in a 2D format. It's literally lines and pixels on a digital screen. Objectification is just feminist psy-op brainrot shit. Meanwhile women objectify themselves on that same sentence of their own free will on OnlyFans, and then have the nerve to cry "don't objectify women". Women also objectify men but that is never pointed out. Also, it's a fucking drawing.

>>7783094
bait or underageb&
call it

>>7783103
It was to me when I was young you filthy zoomie!

>>7782860
>>7782864
That book is such dogshit, the world (background) makes no sense and the reasoning for milking minotaurs is just to make super viagra for other males/men. Then women have the audacity to shame men's sexual erotica/literature as male power fantasies with harems, when you have tik-tokers promoting and lusting over dog-knots and barely disguised bestiality as they then proceed to talk about the harms of capitalism and the praises of communism and feminism and talking about their snail-trails they leave around the house from their slop romantasy novels.

>>7783108
>it was porn in my mind!
not my problem

>>7783109
>Then women have the audacity to shame men's sexual erotica/literature as male power fantasies with harems, when you have tik-tokers promoting and lusting over dog-knots and barely disguised bestiality as they then proceed to talk about the harms of capitalism and the praises of communism and feminism and talking about their snail-trails they leave around the house from their slop romantasy novels.
don't fight ghosts. getting mad at generalizations is a waste of time.

>>7783114
it is now!
*unzips

>>7783094
People on the Internet and especially in places like here are so mindbroken by constant porn exposure that they don't recognize something that's clearly meant to be arousing as such. Here, you're the insane person for pointing out that people do, in fact, jack off to pinups. If it's not an oversexualized cartoon of a woman getting spitroasted by futa cocks then it's tame and therefore not smut.
Give it up.

>>7783118
not him, but it's not a generalization, it's so bad the women are fighting each other because """booktok""" is literally making them look like rabid goonettes
women's literature was mainly thinly veiled porn for a very long time, but they had the self awareness to keep it swept under the rug, now that you can get money by drawing attention to it online, it's going off the rails
and I'm not even talking about fringe shit like omegaverse and the like, just your basic "teehee I'm getting raped by untamed darkie savages oh no haha" that is now being sanitized by making the mexican farmhand an elf or werewolf or whatever fantasy non-white

>>7782151 (OP)
behold! the ideologically cucked artist. gets his coin purse paddled if he's too naughty.

i'm so glad people are able to effortlessly decipher marxoid drivel like this nowadays

>>7782349
I don't think that saag post is hypocrisy on its own. their point appears to be less "this is what *real women* look like chuddy", and more that they're annoyed that cumbrains think their OC is a child because her tits aren't the size of her head or larger

>>7783355
i'm aware, that's why i said it's not hypocrisy. i can see how that could be seen as sarcasm though.

I fucked up in many ways in my life, but I really have to start to count my blessings. For one I never fell for the mental gymnastics and self imposed restrictions of those lunatics. I can just draw what I like.
Too bad those people will become lawmakers one day.

>>7783109
>Then women have the audacity to shame men's sexual erotica/literature as male power fantasies with harem
Men abuse, rape, and degrade women because of their fetishist. Women aren't letting (or are even aloud to) let porn cloud there perception of men.
>>7783131
Of course they are infighting. Who the fuck wants to hear some dumbass pick me whose only engagement with a book is 30 sec. clips of a single page excerpt to shame women for indulging in a dumbass fantasies. There's 10,000 of books in any giving book store made by women yet they hyperfocus solely on the adult romance genre because cringe and faux outrage get the views.

>>7783399
>abuses and rapes the english language
why are w*men like this

>>7783403
worthless faggot

>>7783399
>Men abuse, rape, and degrade women because of their fetishist. Women aren't letting (or are even aloud to) let porn cloud there perception of men.
Lol, where, in old school degenerate "proffessional porno studios"? The literature men consume is FAR different and even then their porn interests are far different than women's.
>Women proceed to read books about men raping and abusing them and controlling them.
Meanwhile most of men's erotica revolves around harems and/or power fantasies. Especially adjacent male power fantasies novels/genres that fall in the isekai genre which is huge (which I've partaken in quite a bit). Which is basically, "I'm an inter-dimensional demi-god now with 10 (various flavors of wives ranging from eldritch monster girls to the humble maid) wives and I love them very much with my 10-gazillion offspring" as opposed to shit like 50 Shades of Gray, and the long list of abusive relationship books women consume. Then following down weird women's tik-tok romantasy rabbit holes and hearing the absolute violent shit that turns them on. So spare me the feminist drivel about men being abusive, women are the ones chasing after abusive men both irl and then lust after them in written format and then on that same note, calls any man/male an incel/virgin they don't like, which is a self-perpetuating idea that women push themselves, of women being seen as sexual objects in mens eyes.

>>7783409
why are you signing your post lol

>>7783403
Because women want to be ravished by the savage, and they fetishize the idea of taming the savage (with their golden pussy). Despite already pre-taming everyone around them in modernity into feminized men. But apparently men's erotica is bad because of power dynamics or something retarded like that, and point to abuse and rape which they love reading about, but men avoid writing unless at the extreme fringes of male erotica (which is such a small niche to begin with).

>>7783399
Anyone notice how it’s the biggest pickmes who call other women pickmes.

>>7782868
Woman waking up at the crack of dawn grinding their unwashed snatch against their pillow for no reason (not even for masturbatory reasons because grinding against a soft fucking pillow is gonna do abso-fucking-lutely nothing for a girl) is textbook objectification.
If I have to ask “why the fuck would she do that” and the only logical answer is because it’s meant to make my dick hard then it’s sexually charged.

>>7783419
>outs himself as a virgin
oh no no no no

>>7783129
I always though that mindset of
>as long as the nipples and genitalia are covered; it's sfw
was just bs trolling and semantics faggotry

but i guess people really are this retarded now
You'd believe someone who has constant exposure to pornographic material, would actually be somewhat of an expert on this topic, but people just consume and consume like pigs.

>>7783430
>as long as the nipples and genitalia are covered; it's sfw
that's literally how it's always been, zoomie
wanna take a gander at what separates sex scenes in movies from porn?

>>7783418
Suckers like you are why every woman orbiting any men's rights movement is a millionaire in the matter of a few years.

7783435
>fags see this and say its sfw
here, i made the joke
that's the most (you) will get outta me
actually, i take the (you) back

>>7783444
>retard doesn't understand the difference between censored and covered
>such a brainrotted zoomer he thinks (You)s have power
lol retard

>shifting the goal post
i accept your cumcession

>zoomer prematurely malding
love to see it

>gets mogged twice
>ur le malding hehe bet ur mad now
boring as shit

Will you live stream your suicide? Send me a link

>doesn't know what mogged means
ohnononono the absolute fucking state

>>7783444
>>7783448
>>7783450
>>7783452
>>7783454
Are they here with you in the room right now anon?

>>7782322
glownigger take
post your name, age and current residence

>>7783430
It is an objective metric, which is what you need if you want any rule or policy to be anything besides “whatever I personally feel whenever”
However I know that you have an identity disorder and will not be able to understand this

>>7783419
>(not even for masturbatory reasons because grinding against a soft fucking pillow is gonna do abso-fucking-lutely nothing for a girl) is textbook objectification.
Are you autistic? She's clearly enjoying it, here's a clue, she's imagining someone sexually with that pillow, which is the whole fucking point of doing it on the first place.
It's just baffling to me that someone had the thought of being offended about individuality on an imaginary character that is being intentionally depicted in a sexual way by the author, then said person decides to fit his own opportunistic narrative on this depiction by casting judgment on those who react by it the "incorrect" way, then turns it into some made up incel propaganda, you know exactly why he did this.
it's just a lot of steps to cover his own ass while throwing his "friend" under the bus, which is spineless subhuman behavior but I digress.

sharties are so unfunny its unreal