• Home
• My Account
• Privacy
• About
• FAQ
• Contact

Posted Date: 06/09/2015
Approved Date: 06/09/2015
Approved By: GTSWriter
Posted By: the_scouter_says
Artist: N/A

Prev

Next

iswear12 6/9/2015 6:41:09 PM Rating: 0 This counts as GTS content? Hope to god this place doesn't just get flooded with vanilla porn POVs

MsPaintGTS 6/9/2015 8:25:11 PM Rating: 6 Pov's are a classic way of demonstrating size in the GTS-Community, You don't ALWAYS have to add a bunch of ant sized tinies, cars, buildings- or any of that biz to have GTS content on your hands. The hard part is figuring out where to draw the line. I personally think it's best not to get into drawing that line- I think this is a fine example of pov, it's something many GTS artists do- including myself. :P

docwholigan 6/9/2015 10:28:32 PM Rating: 14 Oh boy, this again!

iswear12 6/9/2015 11:30:58 PM Rating: 0 I'm fine with POVs (hell they used to be my favorite part of GTS content) But this is a stretch Usually POVs where you can have SOME kind of idea that the girl is a GTS (maybe the girl looking down at you, or you being an area that would be improbable for a reg. size human to be) But this is a stretch to say the least

iswear12 6/9/2015 11:42:29 PM Rating: 0 Woops, wasn't clear with my reasoning My main problem is POVs that don't have faces are difficult to tell whether or not they are GTS content or not Faces or hand movement can make POVs a lot easier to figure out if it is GTS content or not

iswear12 6/9/2015 11:45:11 PM Rating: 2 I mean this website is called GIANTESSbooru But whatever If I wanted vanilla porn POV I can easily find some without this site

morpheas2 6/10/2015 12:20:56 AM Rating: 0 i like to think of this as a tiny is inside her panties being pulled up and this is the last thing he sees before they are pulled all the way up

iswear12 6/10/2015 8:52:16 AM Rating: 0 Talk about semantics The overwhelming majority of the content on this site is GTS content and the name of the website reflects that (not to mention other gender-neutral size fetish booru names were taken already, but that's besides the point especially considering the ratio of GTS content on those sites were similar to here) Yes there is some other content RELATED TO SIZE on here, but not much (turn on male content, about 2k images come up, which around 4% of the content of the booru, same thing goes for searching shrunken woman, around 2k images, another 4% of the content) But seriously, putting in POVs where you have to figure out whether or not its size content is not a good idea on a size fetish site But that's just my opinion.

iswear12 6/11/2015 12:17:36 AM Rating: 0 Depends how you define "explicitly intended" for POVs And if its a struggle to determine whether or not it's size content at all then I'd say it probably doesn't belong on a fetish site (but again, that's just my own personal opinion) As for value, I never implied it didn't have "value", just that it had SIGNIFICANTLY less value than intended size content (as it should, any schmuck can go and screencap an upskirt POV moment in a vanilla porn movie and call it "size content")

iswear12 6/11/2015 9:00:34 AM Rating: 0 Well, like I said its ambiguous and differs from person to person. Usually with low-angle shots done by macro artists, they leave SOME sort of indication that its size content (whether its a speech bubble, hand and foot movement, or some sort of face looking down on you in a way that might show it is size content). Usually low angle POVs from non-macro people don't have those elements (and if they do, it would be less difficult to imagine it as size content than POVs that don't have them) But it differs from person to person like I said, some people can get off to any low angle shot and use their imagination. I just feel that the ones that are intended for size content tend to be much better for doing so than the ones not intended.

tuxedo_cat 6/11/2015 9:57:37 AM Rating: 0 There actually is a definitive way to measure if a piece fits any of the criteria for this site. Just cite the source where the work came from. If the artist intended for the work to be a point of view, gts, then there's no questioning it. If the source is just a regular porn website, with no indication of gts content or not, then it wasn't. Yeah, you can pull the card of "if anyone deems a piece to be gts content, then it's there valid interpretation." But in that case, I could post Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, saying I interpreted her as being 30 feet tall. All I'm saying is that there are works that are clearly size-related content that can't be posted on this site because the participant(s) aren't at least somewhat humanoid. Meanwhile, works like this that may not have been made with macro/microphilia in mind get a free pass because they're an up-skirt shot.

iswear12 6/11/2015 11:16:15 AM Rating: 0 "Cant be posted on this site because the participants aren't at least somewhat humanoid" Really? I would've assumed they just get put under the furry tab and be done with it But I don't really know the approval/moderation process so I cant really say anything about it

xzhacker 6/11/2015 12:03:18 PM Rating: 0 Well.... Everyone else joined in.... why not me? The line is indeed a fine one, and I personally feel this work in particular crossed it, if only a little. It seems to me what we are looking at is an up-skirt shot from underneath a woman wearing a skirt (duh). Now putting that theory (I SAID THEORY) into work, you would need to be about 2 foot or so to be that close to view from beneath. Now that's not saying we haven't had midget to normal size ratios, or discounting the idea that she is an actual giant and the viewer happens to be smaller, it just feels unlikely to me. There is still also the possibility that she is lying forward on her stomach and this is a small person exploring her dress / skirt like a cave, however the lightning for that feels way off, and I still get the feeling from the angles of things that she is standing. But this is after all just me musing in the wake of an argument. It comes down to the censorship of the website, and how we as a community feel about it. As with a given government and its people, a website would do good to keep its people happy, democracy or not. That being said, I conclude my ramble with more of my opinion: Leave this up, but try and be careful of what crosses the line, we have many things like this already, and we don't need something else that explodes with generic copies everyday

GTSWriter 6/11/2015 12:15:19 PM Rating: 0 I'm the one who approved this image. That being said, I approved it because yes, it's a POV shot and I was assuming a shrunken man or woman, roughly a little over knee-height, would be seeing her like this if he or she was standing inside her leopard-print skirt/dress. Let's all face it, she's got a nice ass and wonderful vagina between those great legs. This was one shot of about five I saw in the queue, so I approved one of them and deleted the others because they were all so close in same composition. I've seen other POV shots, and thought, "well, if one POV is OK, then perhaps this one is OK too." I had no idea this image would create such discussion. As a new moderator, I am still under a learning curve, so bear with me. Once a picture is approved, I don't see any way that someone in my position can delete it. I believe that's for Mark or Katelyn to override. Otherwise, I'd just take it back down if this is causing too much grief for some of you. I'll leave it up to their final say. Again, I'm new to this whole moderation thing. I'm having fun, and I'll make mistakes like the others did when they first started. Try not to make my crucifix just yet. I'm learning. ;) This is just my two cents on the whole thing, and please, no bashing or arguments past what I said. I meant no harm in approving this picture. Thanks, ~GTSWriter

tuxedo_cat 6/12/2015 12:44:29 AM Rating: 0 Just a response to make things clear about my earlier statement... A. I never said I was the authority on determining criteria. That belongs to the artists who made these types of photos or art works, as well as the guidelines on this site, stated clearly at the top of the upload page. What I was meaning was that this type of debate or complaint, depending on the post, stems from the fact that the works are being questioned as to whether or not they are gt/gts content. My answer to the question (not saying my answer was definitive truth) was to look to the source/artist; as that is generally a clear way to tell. B. The Mona Lisa case was a poor, off the top of my head example to counter people who say they interpret pictures like this as point of views. And it ties back to what I was saying about looking up the sources or artists. If the artist didn't make a piece with macro/microphilia in mind, then saying it's POV is purely imaginative. Yes, everyone has the right to interpret art in their own way. But I used something like the Mona Lisa to say that if calling an up-skirt shot POV is valid, then why isn't something like "interpreting" a picture of a woman as gts content just as valid. Again, it was just an off the top of my head point, and not a very strong one. And C. It doesn't really bother me. The site does clearly state that it allows POV's. I was just saying that if this piece wasn't made as one, then it's kind of just shoeing itself into the site.

iswear12 6/12/2015 12:49:07 AM Rating: 0 The less size-fetish related elements there are in an image, the harder it is to qualify it as size content In this case, the ONLY thing that might qualify it is the fact that it is a low angle shot that's a threadbare link to it being size content at best.

docwholigan 6/12/2015 12:55:34 AM Rating: 0 It's here. It's likely going to stay. Do we need to continue thrashing the same point repeatedly or can we let this horse decompose?

tuxedo_cat 6/12/2015 3:13:50 AM Rating: 0 My comparison was about the interpretation of art. If artwork A can be interpreted as something in a particular context (gt/gts content in this case), then why can't artwork B be interpreted in the same type of context? Not if artwork A is interpreted like this in it's own context, then why can't artwork B be interpreted in a separate context. I wasn't saying that any picture of a person could and should be interpreted as gt/gts content. I was saying that calling a work like this POV, despite having little to interpret it that way, makes about as much sense. Yes, you can say there's a small person in this woman's skirt. But then I'll ask you things like this: How tall is he/she? Is she aware of him/her? Is she doing anything to him, intentionally or otherwise? Would this change in any way if you said the person down there was regular sized? If you don't have an answer, or the answer is no to all of these, then why even bother considering it POV? I saw the Tgirl pics MarkM posted recently. I have to thank you for that Mark. They were quite nice, and they did make a good point in favor of POV, that I completely agree with. In all of them, the woman of focus is looking down at the viewer. Boom! There's now an interaction, and if you change the context of the person below being small or normal sized, it changes completely. With works like this one here, if you were normal sized, you'd still be looking directly at a lovely womanhood, up a skirt. And if you were tiny... you'd get the same thing. With the Tgirl pics though, if you were small, she's aware of you, and you can fill in the blanks for yourself where things went afterwards. But if you were of regular size, then the encounter would be different. The two of you would interact in ways impossible for a tiny person, and vice versa. I guess you could say that you could make a story for this piece, where it would go afterwards. But there's a lot of questions that you have to choose for yourself. Is the woman whose skirt you're up/under aware of you? You don't know. Is she doing anything with the area of focus? No. POV works like those work, because you don't really have to ask how they're a point of view.

tuxedo_cat 6/12/2015 3:31:39 AM Rating: 0 Ew. That's kind of a creepy notion to specifically ask people to write detailed scenarios. I wasn't making any such request. And yes, I did notice GTSWriter's comment earlier. I thought it was a fine, perfectly legitimate case. But you have to admit that this discussion started because someone asked how it was GTS content. Meaning it's not really a strong POV.

iswear12 6/12/2015 9:53:35 AM Rating: 0 "That's a bit like how http://giantessbooru.com/post/view/186665 is a POV of someone who has someone standing over him because he's a few inches tall or whatever. Granted, this isn't particularly GREAT size content, but then again, one could question the value of a lot of explicit size content on the very same note." But at least the one you posted has a face, which makes the case for determining if its size content stronger than for this image. Posting one without a face and any limbs would've been a better comparison, as there is VERY few ways to tell if that's size content, or just a low angle POV. If I or someone else has to think up an excuse or scenario for every low-angle POV image without context, its pretty difficult to qualify it as size content, is it not? Usually images provide SOMETHING to help you think of it as size content (like I said before, maybe some tiny people, or hands and feet movement, or a face or some other element) Something as barebones as this picture, which is literally nothing but an low-angle upskirt is tough to say. The one you linked at least has another commonly used element to help its case for being determined as size content (a face). I'm not saying I should be the judge for the criteria of things posted here, but a low-angle POV and imagination are kind of weak criteria (by themselves) for this to count as size content. As for your comment about other explicit content and how it would be "A LOT" if we used those criteria, would it really? How much of those are JUST low-angle POV's without ANY elements to determine if its size content at all(besides the low-angle POV itself)? I'm willing to bet a lot of them have SOME other element that strengthens their case for qualifying as size content (like a face, or maybe feet/hand movement, or some other element I cant think of) Or are all the explicit images you are thinking of just barebones low-angle POVs?

iswear12 6/12/2015 5:21:55 PM Rating: 0 I never said a face was "required" , its just one of many common elements As for unaware POVs a lot of them have the faces staring off or away from the viewer or over the head of the viewer Unless you want to be unaware that its meant to be an unaware image... Usually there is SOMETHING to indicate that its unaware content Unless lack of faces counts as "unaware" content And it doesnt have to be a face either, that was just in the image you linked

sumissam39 6/14/2015 4:39:58 AM Rating: 4 look at everyone trying to act smart... can't you just jerk off and go away?

iswear12 6/14/2015 9:14:55 AM Rating: 6 That username seems a bit familiar Doesn't it, massimus93?

gomu_gomu_no_boner 6/14/2015 6:50:07 PM Rating: 4 Oh look at the big wall of text that I'm not going to read. You guys must not have anything better to do.

iswear12 6/14/2015 7:48:29 PM Rating: 4 And yet you comment about how you're not going to read anything Thanks for letting us know, I forgot how much your lack of an opinion means to me