>>91867 Also, I just want to point out I don't fully disagree with you even if I came off somewhat hostile. There does need to be a better site for artists that draw tickling art to go. Suggesting DA isn't already a trash site is a stretch with all of the actual dogshit AI art that doesn't even ATTEMPT to look good being posted. Searching for 'tickling' via search is pretty much something that can't be done anymore, and most artists that actually draw can't really be found that way anymore and have to promote elsewhere, or via word of mouth from people.

>>91867 You can always post the censored pic on DA and host the real one elsewhere, if anything that's probably what most artists WILL end up doing (less short term engagement but more Patreon posts, at least until Patreon bows to payment processor demands, though most JP manga has held strong) I agree that it's kind of retarded when your average anime "highschooler" is written/drawn as a 20-something despite being "canonically" under 18, but it seems like OP is just bitching about 18+ being too old for him which raises major red flags >>91866 >waah waah i have to actually obey the terms of a site i use Literally fucking rope you retard gorilla nigger

>>91870 >I agree that it's kind of retarded when your average anime "highschooler" is written/drawn as a 20-something despite being "canonically" under 18, but it seems like OP is just bitching about 18+ being too old for him which raises major red flags This too. Like I get it, a lot of anime characters look like they should be adults but official canon is like 'Lol no, this huge titted chick is actually like 12 and still in school' is kinda fuckin' retarded. But seriously, it always astounds me how many people stand up on some sort of soapbox and loudly proclaim 'Suppress tickle porn of MY favorite 12 year old?! I think the fuck not! Let me write a fucking essay on why YOU'RE wrong for saying why it's weird I like that!' Like seriously, hostility aside, can someone explain it to me beyond the braindead excuse 'they're just drawings bro' because, I dunno, personally? I wouldn't be caught dead screaming that from the hilltops without thinking I look like a fucking weirdo.

>>91871 I think that's the answer, they're such braindead gooners they think it's unfathomable nobody shares their fetish for jacking it to 2d highschoolers when most people think wanking to cartoons is pretty cringe in the first place

Fuck antis and moralfags, keep the fetish weird, remember to gatekeep, Loli tickling is based

>>91872 I mean, fair point there, too. >>91873 Why is it about anti and moralfagging? Where is the line? There is that one 'arist', gopher or something, who literally models underaged characters getting not only tickled, but pretty much raped. Seriously, where is the line? Where does it stop being morally disgusting and start being acceptable? I am genuinely asking for a non hostile take.

>>91868 >It does not matter how new the rule is. It is their site, that is their rules. That's the end of it. It matters when the sites rule is new cause look where tumblr ended up. Shit like that better be sorted at the sites inception unless theres a damn good reason to do it now. If DA's rules have always been like this and its just now they've decided to start enforcing it then yes, any artist posting canonically underage characters is paying the piper. That said I don't think that it was just enforcing things but rather broadening the definition so stuff that was fine before is not anymore. >Bro, stop right there. It's a tickle fetish. People get off on it. It's porn. No matter how you dress it. It's porn to people with the fetish. Just because they're not being fucked doesn't make it any less porn Yeah I don't know where you got me saying its not porn from. I'm saying that a character that looks like an adult is on a different playing field from a character who looks like a child. Its a case by case basis where there's a lot of shit I think was drawn by a pedophile, for pedophiles, but a majority of what OP's arch enemy is trying to claim as falling under that? Absolutely not. If you see a average height anime chick with regular sized tits and are not sure whether its a child or not you might just be an actual pedophile. >>91871 >Like seriously, hostility aside, can someone explain it to me beyond the braindead excuse 'they're just drawings bro' because, I dunno, personally? I wouldn't be caught dead screaming that from the hilltops without thinking I look like a fucking weirdo. You said it yourself, a lot of anime characters look like they should be adults. If they look the same as characters that're adults then there is literally no difference and no issue unless you try to change the context so that they aren't adults. >>91872 What are you talking about. Look at every other thread on this board. You have a tickle fetish and you are on 8CHAN of all places to discuss the ethics and broader community of it. You don't get to complain about braindead gooning. >>91874 >Seriously, where is the line? Where does it stop being morally disgusting and start being acceptable? Up to the individual. If you think a drawn character looks like an adult then it probably is one. If you think its not, respond in whatever way you like but be prepared to deal with people who will argue otherwise. Also don't go on 8chan expecting non hostile responses. I'm personally not trying to be hostile but I'm just putting what I have as bluntly as I can. talk however you like but I would not expect anything from anyone. We are here to post tickling media but theres not as much these days so now we just call each other faggots.

>>91874 As long as the depiction isn't modeled or a depiction of a real child it's fair game.

>>91870 >Literally fucking rope you retard gorilla nigger No. I will willfully flaunt the TOS of every site I participate in if it infringes upon what I want to post at that moment, and shall hold no reverence for the creeds of Jannies and indeed shall whine in a public and incorrigible fashion upon receiving consequences I was warned about: forever.

>>91875 Either way, a fair response. Also, no, I am saying mostly I wouldn't meet an opinion with hostility as, as you put it, I remembered where I was posting and I'm personally choosing to not be hostile anymore. >It matters when the sites rule is new cause look where tumblr ended up. Shit like that better be sorted at the sites inception unless theres a damn good reason to do it now. If DA's rules have always been like this and its just now they've decided to start enforcing it then yes, any artist posting canonically underage characters is paying the piper. That said I don't think that it was just enforcing things but rather broadening the definition so stuff that was fine before is not anymore. Again fair point. Also Tumblr outright banned porn altogether, did they not? I don't recall if DA did. That was because Tumblr got bought by...yahoo? I don't remember. It's been forever since I looked at that site. Regardless, technically my point still stands. 'New' rule or not, there was always some sort of 'underage' rule and the rule 'you cannot just 'age up' your characters.' Or something like that. At the end of the day it's their site, and if it causes the ship to sink, that's really on them, is it not? If the sites mods don't like it, that isn't up to us to say 'You shouldn't do that, we're going to take a stand against you'. Again, like I said, DA is pretty trash to begin with anymore. >Yeah I don't know where you got me saying its not porn from I misunderstood you then, I apologize. >You said it yourself, a lot of anime characters look like they should be adults. If they look the same as characters that're adults then there is literally no difference and no issue unless you try to change the context so that they aren't adults. >Up to the individual. If you think a drawn character looks like an adult then it probably is one. If you think its not, respond in whatever way you like but be prepared to deal with people who will argue otherwise. I have to disagree with you here simply on the premise of what I've already said. Looks aside, plenty of official canon, or the character themselves state they're under 18. That's where my brain goes 'Yea okay I'm not looking at you like that, then' and sure, that's just my perspective. But the point is you can't just pretend they're an adult because they look like one while the character themselves say 'I'm 15'. But, again, it's a moot point because they shouldn't be drawn to look so mature in the first place. Either way, I'm not directly debating you as much as I'm just stating my opinion. I used gopher as an example but I've seen plenty of other art that depicts underaged characters in similar ways and I personally find it disgusting. I think at the end of the day my whole thing is...Why do people loudly proclaim so hard they like underage characters? Like, see above 'loli tickling is based'. I just find it personally really fucking weird to say, with your chest, 'I like seeing characters that look like kids/are underaged in sexual settings' That's all. >>91876 Okay but I've seen plenty of models or drawing of underage characters where they DO look like children. Granted, again, they're not real people, that's still weird as hell to me. So what you're saying is that if an artist draws a realistic looking child in a fetish based setting, it's okay? If that child isn't real? Even if the picture looks like someone that exists but they don't? Again, that's why I'm asking, where's the line?

>>91874 It's hard to say objectively since feelings of discomfort are inherently subjective, that said, it's indefensible once it's a depiction of a rl minor (such as Maria or M3gan as we've seen lately in a disturbing recent trend). Otherwise you get mired in the "porn is inherently harmful to society" argument. It does inarguably present a problem when someone's so dopamine-fried from porn overexposure they no longer find even fictional depictions of adults attractive. >>91875 I can argue what I want where I want. This may shock you but not everyone here is a socially retarded autistic porn addict. Some of us just do this for fun like watching movies or sportsball, playing vidya or any number of other hobbies. Hell a number of big name content creators have wives and children because it's just another job to them. >>91877 On the grounds that you hold a huge emotional production about your inevitable banning and make it clear it's an act of total unfounded persecution against you, personally, for absolutely no reason at all. Also, you must be equally intractable with anyone else that it happens to that in their case it was entirely their own fault and they're stupid and deserved it.

>>91887 Get what you're saying. I dunno, either way people like what they like. I'm not so blinded that I'm suddenly going to say 'Oh, so you jerked your dick raw to Anya Forger tickle porn? Fuckin pedo' But I am still gonna find it fucking weird, since she clearly looks like a child. As do a lot of characters people often get vocally hostile about when called out for it. Either way, I'm just saying my opinion at the end of the day, no more, no less.

>>91888 I mean she's clearly *depicted as a child.* You wouldn't be in the wrong if you did. Still, that's not the issue to me, the issue is if there really are people who *can't* get interested in erotic content involving consenting adults of age, for reasons I hope are obvious.

>>91889 No I understood what you meant. As I mentioned before when someone mentioned that artists might suffer due to DA's rules I pointed out that there are still plenty of 'of age' characters to draw, and these days, most artists stick to that on DA. The people I see complaining the most are the ones miffed that their request got refused, or artists who draw nothing BUT underage characters. Plenty of artists who once had drawn underage characters, and are popular artists, still do work on DA and don't need to draw the underage ones. So saying they will suffer is a bit much. Also, again, they can use pixiv for the underage characters that aren't literal children, and post some preview, as a person said. But, yea, usually it seems the people screaming about this are the ones ignoring that oodles of other tickle content exists of characters that aren't underage...Which, yea, kind of a red flag.

>>91890 I don't care about "of age" characters or if "she is or is depicted as a child" it's all Pearl clutching and they aren't real. If it's cute I fap to it I have real world problems to worry about, and I truly beleive artists, especially bigger artists need to start bullying antis.

>>91891 You have real world problems to worry about and your biggest concern is having enough loli hentai to wank to? Nigga go outside smh

>>91891 Good luck with that, as they'd be bullying against the majority. Believe what you want but the fact is a lot of people don't like underage depictions. Real or not. It would be artist suicide to take a 'bullying' stance against people that speak out about disliking underage art. Taking ANY sort of stance is pretty much artist suicide, actually. The second an artist opens their mouth with an opinion, they lose customers. I will not be so bold to say people that like the underage work are the minority or the majority, but you would have to be pretty braindead to think it's a good idea for an artist to say "Fuck you guys, I'll draw those underage characters if I want too!" That's just asking for fucking hate.

All these fucking retarded cucked zoomer faggots man. Why the fuck are you guys asking these so-called antis for permission to fap to or draw something? >NOOOOO!!!! Stop reporting me and calling me mean things for fapping to loli!!! I'll debate you! Please, I'm begging for your validation! Oh my god. Just shut the fuck up and draw it. Or don't, if you really do agree that these retarded moralfags own you. People getting mad at you for drawing something is objectively a good thing. Unless you're looking to kiss everyone's ass, then have fun with surrounding yourself with fake people who pretend to be your friends. And if they report you? Well it's not worth being on a platform where they have any leverage over you when there's so many other options. But also, brigading the moralfags is fair game because they're literally coming out and asking for it. Or you could just continue to be a people pleaser, I'm sure these "antis" are completely reasonable people who only need a little persuasion before they realize 2D arrays of pixels don't actually have souls.

>>91878 >'New' rule or not, there was always some sort of 'underage' rule and the rule 'you cannot just 'age up' your characters.' I think aging up was allowed for a while and the change on that is what really pissed people off. If you say somethings fine for decades and go back on it then yeah fuck that. >Why do people loudly proclaim so hard they like underage characters? Like, see above 'loli tickling is based'. Anyone loudly proclaiming the character being underage as a selling point is definitely a predator, there's not really any if ands or buts about that >Again, that's why I'm asking, where's the line? The absolute indisputable line is when its based off real children cause that's just straight up CP and illegal But I think next in line is everything directly labelled as loli cause everyone knows that shit is always supposed to look like kids. If you actively go searching for stuff advertised as loli I think your a nonce. That said i guess its too gray of an area to be illegal so the best possible thing to do is let them have there own containment chambers cause picking a fight with them is usually a losing battle. After that almost everything else is pretty much fair game unless I'm forgetting something. You can draw your own lines but trying to push said lines on other people is hardly a battle worth fighting >But the point is you can't just pretend they're an adult because they look like one while the character themselves say 'I'm 15'. You literally can and if you can't that's on you. For one you're operating on the assumption people are gonna know and care about the canon age of every character and even know who the characters are to begin with. Even if they do then like you say, its a moot point if the character looks like an adult. There's several prominent characters who look identical when depicted as 16 and 18. Are you gonna see the character as 16 cause that's what they started as or are you gonna see them as 18 cause they eventually become that and look the same? It's why its a dumb argument. If someone draws a character that looks like an adult in a sexual situation and you view said character as an adult that's the end of story, source material is entirely irrelevant. If it is to you and there's an image you can't shake you're entitled to that but don't expect everyone to feel the same way. That's my general stance at least. There's plenty of other characters to jack off too yeah and people are gonna draw whatever they want elsewhere so I guess its not a huge loss if DA cracks down on it. It's also not like anyone (At least I hope not) is specifically going out looking for these characters because of there canon age. It just shortens the coom pool and when you start draining the pool for a flawed, even outright retarded, reason people are gonna be mad. >>91887 I don't know man I think if you're on 8Chan to satisfy your tickle fetish that's bare minimum a mild porn addiction considering this is a niche place that you're only gonna find if you ran out of material elsewhere and absolutely NEED to keep getting the fix. You can either be a coomer or be a coomer in denial. And maybe you're not always a porn addict but the moment you're on 8chan you are absolutely are one for every waking second you use this site. Nothing wrong with gooning but its definitely assholic to hold some sort of high horse while you do it.

>>91907 All fair points, honestly. I ain't about to sit here and go on some crusade. As I said before, I'm simply sharing my opinion on where I stand. Again, you made a fair point with the fact some characters look exactly the same at 16 when they're 18. Not even gonna deny that. Still, there are some people get up in arms about that literally DO look underage, and artists don't change that look. So, again, it's a weird stance at the end of the day. Regardless, I give a wide birth to literally anyone that says 'loli is okay and based' Y'all are fucking weird and need to be on a list if you're proclaiming you like art that looks like kids. But again, that's my opinion. Thanks for all the takes.

Goody, this thread again. How many of you honestly see the number 18 and it kills your boner on the spot?

>>91927 >I'm into lewd art of -fictional- minor character so this clearly means I hate any and every lewd art of -fictional- adult characters and will not get turned on by it at all cuz adults are fucking disgusting and gross did I get your thought process right?

>>91927 Its not even about that, its the fact that people clutch pearls over something that doesn't exist, has no rights, and doesnt require "consent". I literally do not give two flying fucks if the character isn't the silly acceptable Western number. I actively take joy in pissing people off who care deeply about that stuff, I make fun of them because they cannot seperate fiction and reality. This never used to be a problem until Antis started trying to dictate everything and raise a fuss, now you're seeing push back. Proship/lolicon takes literally get hundreds of thousands of likes on twitter, I take it that means those hundreds of thousands of people are going to go out and prey on IRL kids

>>91929 You're being (needlessly) sarcastic but this is the fourth or fifth identical thread that OP has made on that exact topic, that legal age = hag and he can't get into anything but pre-tẹens. This is not even counting the actual 🍕 posts, or the degenerates kvetching about age of consent or discussing sex tourism in SEA wanting to bang 12 year olds.

>>91952 Nigga that has nothing to do with this thread, or the thread that was created before mods merged it into this one.

>>91953 The topic of both threads was OP having a melty because he doesn't think enough artists portrayed children in sexual situations. Weak af gaslighting attempt. >next is "ok it happened but it was a good thing"

>>91959 I'm not a moralfag by any means but I'm not falling for this psyop

>>91960 You cross a line when you think it's okay to sexualize the real deal, the utmost majority of lolifags in the TK sphere know this. Additionally you can usually tell who is actually sick in the head by their subtlety and context of what they say and do. Thats another point I've failed to see people make. Back then people had critical thinking skills and were able to differentiate an artist who happened to draw loli charafters, and an artist who only gravitated to those types of characters ONLY and acted weird about it.

>>91961 Take that Barney guy for instance. Purpledino100 i think his name was. The ONLY thing he would draw was like Dora the explorer and little einstiens, nothing else, it was so easy to tell that he was a legit pedophile. Low and behold he actually got in trouble for being a predator and arrested. The answer to this argument is understanding and knowing how to legitimately detect a wierdo. >sorry for triple posting.

>>91961 >>91962 Half-true. It's not about characters that ARE children, it's about characters that are FOR children. Like in the purpledino case, no grown adult with a healthy brain is going to get anything from watching something as dumbed down as Dora the explorer. Vs. your typical anime loli which comes from media that's aimed at young adults. Logically, a groomer is going to go for something that has actual real kids involved with it, as opposed to simply being interested in a certain genre that they're already the target demographic of. There are exceptions to both obviously, but there's a clear reason why one is more common than the other.

>>91971 Nah fam I'm pretty sure it's bad when someone can't get their dick up unless they're looking at pornographic material of (even a fictional character, who at some point is more than likely based on a real person) a subject too young to drive or go to R-rated movies alone. Can we kill these shit threads already the "lolicons are the most persecuted minority" fags (all 3 of them) are becoming as insufferable as furries.

>>91971 Honestly.... That's actually a really good point. Never thought of it like that.

>>91971 Like minecraft and roblox fags then

>>91984 Yes groomers are like groomers

The problem with the "fictional character" defense is that even a fictional character (assuming they're not based on someone real, as they often are) is designed to induce an emotional reaction in the audience. For a hero that's sympathy, for a villain that's hate. And for a loli - for the purposes of this post - that's arousal. You're talking about a purely fanservice character that is a child, someone with the literal appearance and physiognomy of a child, often spelled out as being a child/middle schooler/etc. One way or another the purpose of the loli is "give someone a boner from the thought of a Democrat supporting in a sexual situation" (yes, the tickling fetish is sexual, nobody's buying the "ace" line anymore than anyone watches porn for the story or acting). It should be pretty obvious why this is a non-starter for most artists. Even if there's no measurable real world harm there's an undeniable ick factor for most content creators, and consumers for that matter.

>>91855 last i checked toga is 17, so you'd think this guy would report this for cp as well instead of commenting, no?