Tahrey: dangit, seems that my subconscious may have been influenced by randomly coming across this a few days ago whilst half asleep...
That is to say, here are a trio of relevant pages from a rather lengthy (heh...) Steven Universe fan comic that someone posted on their Tumblr ... quite some time ago now (so after the introduction of the HWGs but before "The Return / Jailbreak" - hence it being a speculative branching-off from before all those reveals, and having some surprisingly close parallels in places despite also being very different in others)
Anyway, we did agree to drop it, and leave things as they were.
(Which is fine by me, given that it leaves "Kids-TV-safe, Looney Tunes level japery" as non-questionable, and "Semirealistic naked depictions of characters that are usually clothed and cartoonish" as questionable ;)
Tahrey: Given that the Fun Thing To Do when I was having those kinds of classes was plugging LEDs into progressively higher voltage power supplies until they literally exploded (...including in some cases the AC mains - in the days before MCD breakers were common, so it didn't blow out anything on the supply side), or roughhousing around running belt sanders, bandsaws and drill-presses (or, in the case of my brother's class, turning on the bunsen burner gas taps and setting them - and everything on the desk within reach of the flame - alight), I'm not particularly surprised. Quite astonishing they allowed us within arm's length of
no visible emphasis on Rajirra's feminine features
AreYouFuckingKiddingMe.jpg
Right, so, long hair being flicked backwards, stereotypical glamour pose including a strangely ecstatic expression, bare breasts, most of a flat crotch, pronounced hips, hourglass figure, petite shoulder shape, femme facial features (at least as much as you can point to in an anthropomorphic feline), nicely toned stomach... slender fingers and well defined collar, even. But no, as she's of average weight, isn't wearing underwear (or indeed anything at all), and hasn't had her gender-specific fat deposition exaggerated in a prehistoric-fertility-doll caricature fashion, we're not showing off or focussing any attention on her feminine features. This picture is ALL about the fur texture, the species-specific tuft of chest hair, and how the seawater is spraying through the air.
Gimme strength.
according to you, this pic is questionable because it shows nudity
Not so much me, but more like "everyone else but". As in, that's more the generally held standard. If someone's got their clothes off and you can see the parts that would normally be concealed, then it gets a NSFW warning, because some people are picky about that stuff, in a way they tend not to be when it comes to the general body shape of someone who isn't in the buff.
And this still applies whether or not it's "arty". Artistic porn is still porn. You'd be frowned at and possibly disciplined for hanging up reproductions of classical nude paintings around a primary school classroom, even though in a different context those same images count as tourist attractions. The medium in which it's conveyed doesn't change the audience rating. Legend Of The Overfiend being drawn in a decidedly toony style didn't save it from an 18 rating when it was released on video. Neither did the sumptuous arthouse stylings of Betty Blue. You can't make an argument for it escaping the "questionable" tag just because of what brushes the artist used in photoshop or how much effort they put in.
Personally, I'm not at all bothered what I'm looking at, but I am sometimes bothered what other people might see me looking at, intentionally or otherwise.
Is this genuinely an unfamiliar concept to you, or are you just shit-stirring? If the former, where do you live? Depending on the answer it might be interesting to come conduct an anthropological study.
the other isn't because there's nothing inherently sexual about it
I didn't say that. There is a slight suggestiveness. But there's nothing explicit, it's at the level of mild innuendo at best. The yellow cat is minimally clothed, but still clothed. The red cat is hitting on her, but in such a mild and cheesy way that a child might laugh at it and think it lame. There's no nudity, no sexual language, no definite touching of any areas other than neck and arm.
I really can't figure out what you're complaining about other than possibly you have a dislike of cartoon characters shaped like fertility dolls, and you're jealous that the red cat might have a vague non-zero chance of getting some, which is still far better than your own.
Also, sure, you may be able to get away with certain nude images without the tag, and enough non-nude ones that are highly suggestive, explicit, or otherwise rude and unsuitable for mixed company may still get tagged, but that doesn't work here, because each one is far enough inside or outside of the boundary line for there not to be any uncertainty over it. Hence why the mods tagged them that way.
...
or we can simply leave them as they are
Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Given that you're the one who was stirring it in the first place, I thank you for your reconsideration, but still note that all this was kinda needless.
they aren't a big deal
literally it's a tag on the sidebar, and a little overlay on the thumbnail. it doesn't restrict access or anything like that, it just allows people to decide what they do or don't look at based on a general idea of what might potentially get them in trouble in a workplace, overbearing family environment, or at school...
why did it twist your buttons so hard, and in such a strange way?
Which is what you generally have to do in order to stand behind someone with your arms around them.
(his crotch is probably ....)
There's nothing at all in that picture to suggest that, whether or not it's happening is entirely down to your own imagination. If when you see someone giving another person a light hug from behind your thoughts go immediately to frottage, that's neither our fault nor that of the artist.
Would you think the same way about this photograph, for example?
his arm has a physical contact with her boobs
Bullshit. His left forearm crooks around her left collar and his wrist is at her right upper arm. There might be a little bit of forearm skin to upper decolletage contact as a result if that bikini top has a downright amazing push-up effect, but I defy you to achieve that very easily in real life. Or to find anyone who finds it offensive to either look at or experience directly.
Again, if you think that's bad you must be having spasms at that photo I linked. Or any of the literally thousands of similar ones I could pick from that appear (mostly in squeaky-clean stock photo libraries) when searching for "hug from behind".
I've hugged my mother that way whilst on a beach holiday, almost certainly (though without the laconic pose and chat-up line). Does that need I need to go see a therapist for Oedopal issues? Mmmmmmnaaaah. Come on. Return to planet earth for a second.
There's no hand-to-boob contact or anything like that.
Would it make any difference if she was wearing a ballgown with a plunging neckline and the red cat was in a formal suit? Or they were both wearing jeans and T-shirts with deep V-necks? But with no change to the poses otherwise?
Katia is showing a lot of her body attributes
Yeah, she's in beachwear, it tends to do that. I'd suggest staying away from the summer clothing collection catalogues put out by the fashionable stores in your local mall, else you're going to burst a blood vessel.
Oh look here's a google image search for "bikini + chubby", be careful about clicking that you might see some skin.
thighs, chest and belly, parts that can be considered of sexual nature
...holy shit, dude, really? Can you tell me what date is on your calendar at the moment? Does the year start with a 1? What's the third number in it?
normal body attributes
So we're body shaming today, yeah? That's what we're doing. Marking pictures questionable because the subject doesn't comply with your own personal concept of beauty. Right. Good.
no emphasis on her "sexual" parts
Well, that's as maybe, but seeing as you consider legs, stomach, and parts of the upper torso other than the breasts themselves "sexual", it's hard to know whether to agree or dispute that.
However the areas that are more commonly thought of as being sexually explicit are either on full display or leave very little to all but the most active of imaginations (for example, your own). Like I said before, this is a common and indeed oft-parodied glamour-shoot pose (see: Playboy magazine, Pirelli calendars), and even then the pneumatically blessed subject tends to have *something* on. But you still wouldn't consider putting the clothed version as your desktop background in a polite environment even as a joke, as its main intent is titillation and capture of the gynaephilic gaze, whereas you may be able to pass off this picture for the humour of it (...once you've explained the background of the setting and what a sweetroll is, anyway).
Fur or otherwise, Rajirra is unclothed here, and providing us with some kind of frontal view. You wouldn't get license to show it on TV during periods where children might be watching other than maybe in the context of some kind of educational arts programme that's dealing specifically in that type of subject matter. A cartoonish image of an overly romantic cat sidling up on another that, by some standard may be considered quite attractive (oh hey, Reubens), and making a somewhat too familiar and not entirely welcome advance? Er, I think we may have seen that before, with a slight tweak to the species involved:
...and multiple variations upon down the years, in terms of character, species, build, amount of clothing, etc...
(You can get away with cartoon animals being undressed when their coats are thick enough and their body features vaguely defined enough that it essentially *is* clothing)
tl;dr functional nudity and deliberately titillating pose trumps being decent enough to not offend most people's grandmothers and all the danger zones being hidden anyway. Slouching over forwards in surprised withdrawal from an unwanted paramour, with your nips 'n' bits hidden from view isn't exactly the most popular pose in porn, soft or otherwise.
the artist [was being] artistic rather than sexy
You can have both, you know. My own contrasting opinion here is that they were trying for artistic and sexy.
(And might I say, they achieved their goals)
One doesn't preclude the other, and precluding one doesn't then invoke the other.
But I think we realised quite a while ago that we're working in the realm of Insane Troll Logic, so I don't expect that idea to carry much weight here.
...and I realise the irony of posting such an icon in response to that discussion, but still, it's meant genuinely.
Also, for the purpose of diagnostic record, what seems to be happening with the comments summary page is that it thinks page 1 and page 2 are the same thing... or something like that ... so any attempt to navigate away from page 1 lands you back there anyhow because the php or links have gone a bit caca.
Tahrey: frig, that turns into one tall-as-hell post when you view the Latest Comments page on a 1024-wide screen o_O ... Oh well, scrolling don't cost nuthin'.
Tahrey: OK, so after a nearly 60-page trawl of the image index (that site gets a LOT of traffic), I managed to corral all the ones that were still processing or I hadn't even uploaded to the queue at the point I posted that stuff before. I haven't got any more in the pipe, so I may as well empty it of them all and have done with.
One thing that came out was that, for some reason, Prequel stuff generally works far better as a "style" source than a "content" one. Or maybe I'm just picking the wrong pictures. IDK. There's quite a lot I've skipped and filtered because it just came out either as an unrecognisable mess, or merely slightly tinted with the style palette but otherwise unaltered.
First up, three more attempts at Katia's Neon Rave Workout Tape, attempting to progressively tune the "style" image to the content one and fiddle with the settings to make it look better. Weirdly, I don't think any of them actually look as good as the original, but they each have their own interesting effects and I think would look good in a collage or a high speed looping GIF.
Naturally to keep the furries happy there was then another go at melting a humanised version of the Zootopia leads into Katia and a random Homeworld Gem who happened to be in the right pose and colours.
Seeing as that didn't work super-brilliant (it's tried to give both Nick and Judy elements of both Katia and Lapis), I then tried to do them separately. Not much better, but you may as well see what the state of the art has to offer. Here's Nickatia and Lapudy. Mostly Nick and Judy really, I think I shoulda turned the Style quotient up higher but got confused and turned Content up instead. You can sort-of see it though.
Then it was the turn of the Gems straight-up... Katis Lazagan will haunt your nightmares. Which I guess means Katia is actually Jasper? Erm.
But I think Latia Manuzi came out rather better. Can't decide which of these two treatments I prefer, even the different ways it adapted the flame have their own particular attractions.
Katidot, the great and loveab----aaaaaaagh wtf
A couple different sleep-dazed and drunken Peartias ... Katarls? Whatever. Dunno where the leaf came from in the second picture, that's not in EITHER of the source images.
And we'll finish up with, well... Bowies.
Lots of Bowies.
Fluffy Bowie, Pencil Undertale-Prequel Bowie, Flaming Feline Revenge Bowie.
And four Bowies whose source image isn't anything to do with Prequel other than it's pixel art and I used it in a couple of the previous images up above, so they were smack bang in the middle of the rest of the output pics and I figured I may as well post them as they look kinda cool. Two different content images, a single style image, and a couple of radically different sets of scalefactors.
Tahrey: In fact, thanks to where the two characters arms are, and how she's bending over/where the fatrolls are, you can't even really see much of her chest, or where her legs meet.
Seriously dude, give it up. There's nothing explicit or questionable there. At the most, he's a cartoonish creep who's come upon a woman in the midst of swapping outerwear in a clothes shop changing booth, and is about to get a nuclear slap ... with similar slapstick and amount of exposure as may be experienced in an Animaniacs sequence. The guy in the picture might be macking on the gal, but she's bent over and not giving any kind of deliberately "sexy" display at all.
Whereas the subject of this picture is giving us a not-entirely-side-on flash of the full business with no more coverage of the essentials than is afforded by her fur. Arms back, full torso presented inclusive of breasts and crotch. Whilst pulling off a classic "glamour shot" move as often found on softcore playboy-type calendars in mechanics' workshops and parents would be horrified to find on their child's bedroom wall.
Tahrey: @AMKitsune: "Colourised" or similar, then, to differentiate a sketch or B/W original from a later version that's been enhanced with colours?
@-Uzi_Man-: She's not showing off any more than people generally would at the beach or swimming baths. She's clothed (the outlining suggests it's not merely the painted underwear after all), Rajirra isn't. You can't BS your way around the issue to push some anti-chubby agenda.
Sure, you can have sexually suggestive images without clothes being removed, but I think it requires something more than what may be seen in the racier examples of old Looney Tunes shorts. "The Goofy Movie" was on TV yesterday, at like 3pm on a free-to-air channel, and there were scenes in that which were on about the same level. It's not even as much as a typical live action music video.
If there was cameltoe, visible nippleage, feeling up of boob or crotch, wet underwear, unseemly bulges on the male partner's side, etc, then you might have some kind of point. But there isn't. It's a clothed, ostensibly male cartoon cat of ABC1 stature with his arm around a plus-sized female cat wearing what is essentially a brown two-piece swimming costume.
Tahrey: It's cartoonish, so big heads and limited object detail aren't unexpected.
I think the skull thing might be that her right ear (left, to us) JUST hides the rear portion, so there's an illusion that it doesn't go back as far as it needs to.
Confusion one expects is that she's being called up to be the next competitor in the big high school Skate Battle when she didn't even enter, she was just holding Quill's board for her to allow a bathroom break. Note the pointing finger.
Tahrey: Because it's thin? The head doesn't seem to go back as far as a human one but the muzzle goes forwards further? IDK. Other than that it looks fairly standard.
Think the attempt to avoid Anime Sidemouth in the middle-right image backfired a little, but the erasure of a single line would fix that :)
Tahrey: She's just standing on tippytoe, ballet style, which straightens out the toe and ankle joints somewhat. If you look, you can still see the bend in the outline of the leg and foot.
It's SD style manga, anyway, wachoogunnado?
(tippytoe, not standing normal, seeing as I recently discovered that cats are actually plantigrade when standing bipedally)
Tahrey: Neat! How did they do it? CNC, laser cutter, pencil and hand-router, some kind of stamping or moulding...?
Also the intention behind that was totes for you to put some kind of lightbox behind it. That yellow paper plus a tupperware lunchbox or two with a cheap USB-powered LED reading lamp or two inside it should do the job.
Tahrey: Also, not quite the ultimate version of this, but it's close. For the sake of not wasting too much of everyone's bandwidth, I'll link it instead of inlining.
I have a...
Dramatic Descriptions
- Reply
That is to say, here are a trio of relevant pages from a rather lengthy (heh...) Steven Universe fan comic that someone posted on their Tumblr ... quite some time ago now (so after the introduction of the HWGs but before "The Return / Jailbreak" - hence it being a speculative branching-off from before all those reveals, and having some surprisingly close parallels in places despite also being very different in others)
Oh well. It's not like it's an uncommon trope.
- Reply
On the one hand they may just be muscle and fat covered bony protrusions in the thorax, so technically SFW (even if your boss doesn't think so)
On the other, maybe fat stores used for making egg yolk. Which makes it maybe-maybe not
On the turning hand, may actually be like Human Boobs and therefore Questionableable.
...now I write it out, I guess the balance of judgement is towards "stick a pineapple on it".
tl;dr It's probably safest to go with "if Kaz pixelated it in the comic, it needs a pineapple on the booru". Sing it with me now...
- Reply
Anyway, we did agree to drop it, and leave things as they were.
(Which is fine by me, given that it leaves "Kids-TV-safe, Looney Tunes level japery" as non-questionable, and "Semirealistic naked depictions of characters that are usually clothed and cartoonish" as questionable ;)
- Reply
The arrival of Steam must have really been traumatic for that universe...
- Reply
Yeah... has a certain ... RING to it ... but I can't work out where I've heard it before. It's driving me NUTS...
;-)
- Reply
- Reply
...arm's length of the PCB etching tanks, really, given what I now know them to have contained.
- Reply
- Reply
AreYouFuckingKiddingMe.jpg
Right, so, long hair being flicked backwards, stereotypical glamour pose including a strangely ecstatic expression, bare breasts, most of a flat crotch, pronounced hips, hourglass figure, petite shoulder shape, femme facial features (at least as much as you can point to in an anthropomorphic feline), nicely toned stomach... slender fingers and well defined collar, even. But no, as she's of average weight, isn't wearing underwear (or indeed anything at all), and hasn't had her gender-specific fat deposition exaggerated in a prehistoric-fertility-doll caricature fashion, we're not showing off or focussing any attention on her feminine features. This picture is ALL about the fur texture, the species-specific tuft of chest hair, and how the seawater is spraying through the air.
Gimme strength.
Not so much me, but more like "everyone else but". As in, that's more the generally held standard. If someone's got their clothes off and you can see the parts that would normally be concealed, then it gets a NSFW warning, because some people are picky about that stuff, in a way they tend not to be when it comes to the general body shape of someone who isn't in the buff.
And this still applies whether or not it's "arty". Artistic porn is still porn. You'd be frowned at and possibly disciplined for hanging up reproductions of classical nude paintings around a primary school classroom, even though in a different context those same images count as tourist attractions. The medium in which it's conveyed doesn't change the audience rating. Legend Of The Overfiend being drawn in a decidedly toony style didn't save it from an 18 rating when it was released on video. Neither did the sumptuous arthouse stylings of Betty Blue. You can't make an argument for it escaping the "questionable" tag just because of what brushes the artist used in photoshop or how much effort they put in.
Personally, I'm not at all bothered what I'm looking at, but I am sometimes bothered what other people might see me looking at, intentionally or otherwise.
Is this genuinely an unfamiliar concept to you, or are you just shit-stirring? If the former, where do you live? Depending on the answer it might be interesting to come conduct an anthropological study.
I didn't say that. There is a slight suggestiveness. But there's nothing explicit, it's at the level of mild innuendo at best. The yellow cat is minimally clothed, but still clothed. The red cat is hitting on her, but in such a mild and cheesy way that a child might laugh at it and think it lame. There's no nudity, no sexual language, no definite touching of any areas other than neck and arm.
I really can't figure out what you're complaining about other than possibly you have a dislike of cartoon characters shaped like fertility dolls, and you're jealous that the red cat might have a vague non-zero chance of getting some, which is still far better than your own.
Also, sure, you may be able to get away with certain nude images without the tag, and enough non-nude ones that are highly suggestive, explicit, or otherwise rude and unsuitable for mixed company may still get tagged, but that doesn't work here, because each one is far enough inside or outside of the boundary line for there not to be any uncertainty over it. Hence why the mods tagged them that way.
...
Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Given that you're the one who was stirring it in the first place, I thank you for your reconsideration, but still note that all this was kinda needless.
literally it's a tag on the sidebar, and a little overlay on the thumbnail. it doesn't restrict access or anything like that, it just allows people to decide what they do or don't look at based on a general idea of what might potentially get them in trouble in a workplace, overbearing family environment, or at school...
why did it twist your buttons so hard, and in such a strange way?
- Reply
Which is what you generally have to do in order to stand behind someone with your arms around them.
There's nothing at all in that picture to suggest that, whether or not it's happening is entirely down to your own imagination. If when you see someone giving another person a light hug from behind your thoughts go immediately to frottage, that's neither our fault nor that of the artist.
Would you think the same way about this photograph, for example?
Bullshit. His left forearm crooks around her left collar and his wrist is at her right upper arm. There might be a little bit of forearm skin to upper decolletage contact as a result if that bikini top has a downright amazing push-up effect, but I defy you to achieve that very easily in real life. Or to find anyone who finds it offensive to either look at or experience directly.
Again, if you think that's bad you must be having spasms at that photo I linked. Or any of the literally thousands of similar ones I could pick from that appear (mostly in squeaky-clean stock photo libraries) when searching for "hug from behind".
I've hugged my mother that way whilst on a beach holiday, almost certainly (though without the laconic pose and chat-up line). Does that need I need to go see a therapist for Oedopal issues? Mmmmmmnaaaah. Come on. Return to planet earth for a second.
There's no hand-to-boob contact or anything like that.
Would it make any difference if she was wearing a ballgown with a plunging neckline and the red cat was in a formal suit? Or they were both wearing jeans and T-shirts with deep V-necks? But with no change to the poses otherwise?
Yeah, she's in beachwear, it tends to do that. I'd suggest staying away from the summer clothing collection catalogues put out by the fashionable stores in your local mall, else you're going to burst a blood vessel.
Oh look here's a google image search for "bikini + chubby", be careful about clicking that you might see some skin.
...holy shit, dude, really? Can you tell me what date is on your calendar at the moment? Does the year start with a 1? What's the third number in it?
So we're body shaming today, yeah? That's what we're doing. Marking pictures questionable because the subject doesn't comply with your own personal concept of beauty. Right. Good.
Well, that's as maybe, but seeing as you consider legs, stomach, and parts of the upper torso other than the breasts themselves "sexual", it's hard to know whether to agree or dispute that.
However the areas that are more commonly thought of as being sexually explicit are either on full display or leave very little to all but the most active of imaginations (for example, your own). Like I said before, this is a common and indeed oft-parodied glamour-shoot pose (see: Playboy magazine, Pirelli calendars), and even then the pneumatically blessed subject tends to have *something* on. But you still wouldn't consider putting the clothed version as your desktop background in a polite environment even as a joke, as its main intent is titillation and capture of the gynaephilic gaze, whereas you may be able to pass off this picture for the humour of it (...once you've explained the background of the setting and what a sweetroll is, anyway).
Fur or otherwise, Rajirra is unclothed here, and providing us with some kind of frontal view. You wouldn't get license to show it on TV during periods where children might be watching other than maybe in the context of some kind of educational arts programme that's dealing specifically in that type of subject matter. A cartoonish image of an overly romantic cat sidling up on another that, by some standard may be considered quite attractive (oh hey, Reubens), and making a somewhat too familiar and not entirely welcome advance? Er, I think we may have seen that before, with a slight tweak to the species involved:
...and multiple variations upon down the years, in terms of character, species, build, amount of clothing, etc...
(You can get away with cartoon animals being undressed when their coats are thick enough and their body features vaguely defined enough that it essentially *is* clothing)
tl;dr functional nudity and deliberately titillating pose trumps being decent enough to not offend most people's grandmothers and all the danger zones being hidden anyway. Slouching over forwards in surprised withdrawal from an unwanted paramour, with your nips 'n' bits hidden from view isn't exactly the most popular pose in porn, soft or otherwise.
You can have both, you know. My own contrasting opinion here is that they were trying for artistic and sexy.
(And might I say, they achieved their goals)
One doesn't preclude the other, and precluding one doesn't then invoke the other.
But I think we realised quite a while ago that we're working in the realm of Insane Troll Logic, so I don't expect that idea to carry much weight here.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
...and I realise the irony of posting such an icon in response to that discussion, but still, it's meant genuinely.
Also, for the purpose of diagnostic record, what seems to be happening with the comments summary page is that it thinks page 1 and page 2 are the same thing... or something like that ... so any attempt to navigate away from page 1 lands you back there anyhow because the php or links have gone a bit caca.
- Reply
- Reply
How heavy is it, then?!
And, dammit, how come seemingly everyone has a laser cutter these days but I don't even know how to get *close* to one?
- Reply
- Reply
One thing that came out was that, for some reason, Prequel stuff generally works far better as a "style" source than a "content" one. Or maybe I'm just picking the wrong pictures. IDK. There's quite a lot I've skipped and filtered because it just came out either as an unrecognisable mess, or merely slightly tinted with the style palette but otherwise unaltered.
First up, three more attempts at Katia's Neon Rave Workout Tape, attempting to progressively tune the "style" image to the content one and fiddle with the settings to make it look better. Weirdly, I don't think any of them actually look as good as the original, but they each have their own interesting effects and I think would look good in a collage or a high speed looping GIF.
Naturally to keep the furries happy there was then another go at melting a humanised version of the Zootopia leads into Katia and a random Homeworld Gem who happened to be in the right pose and colours.
Seeing as that didn't work super-brilliant (it's tried to give both Nick and Judy elements of both Katia and Lapis), I then tried to do them separately. Not much better, but you may as well see what the state of the art has to offer. Here's Nickatia and Lapudy. Mostly Nick and Judy really, I think I shoulda turned the Style quotient up higher but got confused and turned Content up instead. You can sort-of see it though.
Then it was the turn of the Gems straight-up... Katis Lazagan will haunt your nightmares. Which I guess means Katia is actually Jasper? Erm.
But I think Latia Manuzi came out rather better. Can't decide which of these two treatments I prefer, even the different ways it adapted the flame have their own particular attractions.
Katidot, the great and loveab----aaaaaaagh wtf
A couple different sleep-dazed and drunken Peartias ... Katarls? Whatever. Dunno where the leaf came from in the second picture, that's not in EITHER of the source images.
And we'll finish up with, well... Bowies.
Lots of Bowies.
Fluffy Bowie, Pencil Undertale-Prequel Bowie, Flaming Feline Revenge Bowie.
And four Bowies whose source image isn't anything to do with Prequel other than it's pixel art and I used it in a couple of the previous images up above, so they were smack bang in the middle of the rest of the output pics and I figured I may as well post them as they look kinda cool. Two different content images, a single style image, and a couple of radically different sets of scalefactors.
Danke, y Bonne Nos.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I think it's time you tried...
- Reply
- Reply
Seriously dude, give it up. There's nothing explicit or questionable there. At the most, he's a cartoonish creep who's come upon a woman in the midst of swapping outerwear in a clothes shop changing booth, and is about to get a nuclear slap ... with similar slapstick and amount of exposure as may be experienced in an Animaniacs sequence. The guy in the picture might be macking on the gal, but she's bent over and not giving any kind of deliberately "sexy" display at all.
Whereas the subject of this picture is giving us a not-entirely-side-on flash of the full business with no more coverage of the essentials than is afforded by her fur. Arms back, full torso presented inclusive of breasts and crotch. Whilst pulling off a classic "glamour shot" move as often found on softcore playboy-type calendars in mechanics' workshops and parents would be horrified to find on their child's bedroom wall.
- Reply
@-Uzi_Man-: She's not showing off any more than people generally would at the beach or swimming baths. She's clothed (the outlining suggests it's not merely the painted underwear after all), Rajirra isn't. You can't BS your way around the issue to push some anti-chubby agenda.
Sure, you can have sexually suggestive images without clothes being removed, but I think it requires something more than what may be seen in the racier examples of old Looney Tunes shorts. "The Goofy Movie" was on TV yesterday, at like 3pm on a free-to-air channel, and there were scenes in that which were on about the same level. It's not even as much as a typical live action music video.
If there was cameltoe, visible nippleage, feeling up of boob or crotch, wet underwear, unseemly bulges on the male partner's side, etc, then you might have some kind of point. But there isn't. It's a clothed, ostensibly male cartoon cat of ABC1 stature with his arm around a plus-sized female cat wearing what is essentially a brown two-piece swimming costume.
- Reply
Thanks a bunch, British Summertime. Don't tractors have floodlights on them these days?
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
I think Adidas have actually made things in that palette.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Will any fireballs she uses also be invisible?
- Reply
Just Right
:D
- Reply
- Reply
...Oh god, it's never going to make it through UK customs ;,( ... I remember a time when my dad was selling decoupaged ones, shipping was a nightmare.
Think I chose wisely having it delivered to my workplace though.
- Reply
I think the skull thing might be that her right ear (left, to us) JUST hides the rear portion, so there's an illusion that it doesn't go back as far as it needs to.
Confusion one expects is that she's being called up to be the next competitor in the big high school Skate Battle when she didn't even enter, she was just holding Quill's board for her to allow a bathroom break. Note the pointing finger.
- Reply
Think the attempt to avoid Anime Sidemouth in the middle-right image backfired a little, but the erasure of a single line would fix that :)
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
It's SD style manga, anyway, wachoogunnado?
(tippytoe, not standing normal, seeing as I recently discovered that cats are actually plantigrade when standing bipedally)
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Also the intention behind that was totes for you to put some kind of lightbox behind it. That yellow paper plus a tupperware lunchbox or two with a cheap USB-powered LED reading lamp or two inside it should do the job.
- Reply
Portrait monitor makes for interesting viewing of this btw
- Reply
I have a...
- Reply
- Reply
"What, we have to go to the Dutchess' ball? But ... I never learned to dance..."
<sigh> OK... I'll teach you ... now, put your hands here, and here...
Also, aaaaaaah my kawaii-bone, I think you fractured it ^_^