Menu
Popular Tags
User Comments iswear12

iswear12 6/18/2015 5:14:58 PM Rating: 0

Looks like Ayami6's art style Gotta say her art has really improved over time
View Details
iswear12 6/17/2015 4:26:00 PM Rating: 0

This image (and many others) are missing the "drawing" tag when you search "colored, -drawing"
View Details
iswear12 6/16/2015 12:23:03 PM Rating: 0

Wow it actually is from Marvel Here's to hoping there'll be a lewd scene or two in toe movie
View Details
iswear12 6/16/2015 11:18:59 AM Rating: 0

Is this an actual image from Marvel? (source isn't working for me so idk if it is)
View Details
iswear12 6/15/2015 11:12:43 PM Rating: 2

Junko Enoshima* (didn't realize there was a completely different tag for her)
View Details
iswear12 6/15/2015 11:11:43 PM Rating: 0

Also a "Junko" tag is needed (name of the character)
View Details
iswear12 6/15/2015 11:09:51 PM Rating: 0

Someone must've rolled a 64
View Details
iswear12 6/15/2015 9:13:56 AM Rating: 0

Needs Bikuta tag
View Details
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
View Details
iswear12 6/14/2015 9:20:20 AM Rating: 0

DeviantKibate be the artist here
View Details
iswear12 6/14/2015 9:14:55 AM Rating: 6

That username seems a bit familiar Doesn't it, massimus93?
View Details
iswear12 6/13/2015 8:55:33 PM Rating: 0

>_<
View Details
iswear12 6/13/2015 8:33:30 AM Rating: 4

Mousticus?
View Details
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
View Details
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?
View Details
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.
View Details
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
View Details
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.
View Details
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")
View Details
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.
View Details
2050100
16 pages314 records