did she write anything about this?
I did see she didnt retweet or liked it which is understandable bc her OC is literally herself but tbh what the hell does she expect if she is on the internet
He mostly just draws detailed historical/cultural clothing and softcore images of cartoon and anime characters, and the occasional dinosaur on Twitter.
He does a ton of Warhammer stuff too.
I don't know if it's his personal preference or commissions.
I do find it disconcerting that our interests coincide quite a bit.
>make character that's obviously sexually designed >emphasize her boobs, butt and legs in every comic >even make her le quirky goth like yourself >post thirst pics of yourself irl constantly >surprised when you attract a horny audience that tries porn of your character
Literally what in the world was she expecting?
You can be a fricking pervert and draw pervert shit but still know how to behave in public with other human beings, it doesn't just give you the right to act like a dirtbag or conversely treat them like shit
Asking for your OC not to be lewded is moronic tho
8 months ago
Anonymous
Now that I will agree on, if only because it's the internet and asking the internet not to do something is stupid and pointless, they still don't owe the person any gratitude or attention for doing it though, nor is 'your OC is lewd therefore you are too and we'll treat you like a piece of meat', although I'm not really familiar with the situation in general
8 months ago
Anonymous
If anything asking people not to is going to make them want to do it even more. This is part of why that chick from Bioshock infinite had as much porn as she did, because the designer behind her was fricking furious that people were doing that to "his daughter" which made people do it more because now it's funnier.
I don't believe Jaiden specifically because all the lewd stuff was bad for her mental health. It's an obvious way to try and shake horny people off of you, by claiming regardless of their orientation you'll never be interested in them.
Remember that asexual chicks don't exist. It's always a lie to mask the truth, like most labels:
>has a low sex drive either from genetics, weight issues or medication >has never been romantically/sexually pursued seriously before >has a porn/sex addiction, claims asexuality as a means to project/deflect >laments having average looks, claims asexuality as a means to cope >is actually a huge prostitute and claims asexuality to cover up sleeping around >is picky with men and claims asexuality to filter out men she already doesn't like >was sexually abused/assaulted in her past, uses asexuality to cope
"asexuality" implies lacking sexual attraction period to ANYONE, there is NO sex drive. While I admit that some people genuinely exist like that, most people who claim to be ace are liars.
Jaiden is killing a flock of birds with one stone: by claiming asexuality, she can not only preserve her fanbase of children and simps (being family-friendly and also perpetually a virgin, not unlike how idols in Japan claim to never date), but also excuse why she doesn't have a boyfriend without getting into details, and even if she does have one, she can always claim "we're just friends".
[...]
Gay men don't exist. It's just a label to mask the truth: >They find men more attractive then women >They would rather suck dick than lick pussy >They think about penis more than vegana >They want men to frick them in the ass >They want to frick men in the ass
But that's also true: most men who identify as gay men are bisexual men who are attracted to men more than they are women. Very few gay men exist who have zero attraction to women. The same thing applies to lesbians.
The truth is that the average person is mostly straight and slightly bisexual, with women being significantly more bisexual than men. People cling to labels so much today because they don't want to confront the truth.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>"asexuality" implies lacking sexual attraction period to ANYONE, there is NO sex drive
Only if your a frickin amoeba. Asexuality in humans has a well defined and understood explanation in the social dating scene and sexual education, which aligns with most of the green text in
Remember that asexual chicks don't exist. It's always a lie to mask the truth, like most labels:
>has a low sex drive either from genetics, weight issues or medication >has never been romantically/sexually pursued seriously before >has a porn/sex addiction, claims asexuality as a means to project/deflect >laments having average looks, claims asexuality as a means to cope >is actually a huge prostitute and claims asexuality to cover up sleeping around >is picky with men and claims asexuality to filter out men she already doesn't like >was sexually abused/assaulted in her past, uses asexuality to cope
8 months ago
Anonymous
I think it's stupid to call all of that asexuality then, because it's misusing the language, on top of feeling superfluous. It's like how "demisexuality" is a label: b***h, shut up. Wanting to sleep with someone only after dating them/being friends with them is completely normal, that's called having preferences you pretentious zoomer.
That's what irks me about zoomer sexualities: it's using labels as cope rather than just be honest
"why don't you have a boyfriend?"
"low sex drive, sexual abuse, etc"
"cool"
but now its
"why don't you have a boyfriend?"
"IM ASEXUAL IM ASEXUAL"
"ew"
8 months ago
Anonymous
My dude, that's how language works. You are the one with the problem here, not others.
It's like of people were discussing a book and someone said they read that book too (but really they only listened to an audiobook) and their factual inaccuracy irritated you.
There is no difference in the actual context of the discussion and you are missing the point entirely of you get hung up on how the language doesn't make sense to you.
It's Nazi grammar shit.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>That's what irks me about zoomer sexualities: it's using labels as cope rather than just be honest >"why don't you have a boyfriend?" >"low sex drive, sexual abuse, etc" >"cool"
You think people should reveal deepseated sexual trauma to strangers rather than use a label to describe it more broadly?
Again, I think this might be a sign you are on the spectrum. This isn't a normal way to see the situation.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You think people should reveal deepseated sexual trauma to strangers
Who else am I going to talk to about Penis Inspection Day?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Your therapist, who won't be a stranger after a few sessions
8 months ago
Anonymous
>who won't be a stranger after a few sessions
I know it isn't, but that sounds like a threat.
8 months ago
Anonymous
My dude, that's how language works. You are the one with the problem here, not others.
It's like of people were discussing a book and someone said they read that book too (but really they only listened to an audiobook) and their factual inaccuracy irritated you.
There is no difference in the actual context of the discussion and you are missing the point entirely of you get hung up on how the language doesn't make sense to you.
It's Nazi grammar shit.
Not that anon, but I have absolutely zero interest in dating or having a sexual relationship with anyone, but I am also very much sexually attracted to women, and crank one out every so often.
Would you consider me asexual?
8 months ago
Anonymous
It depends on if you consider yourself it, but yeah those are traits of asexuality. Sexuality is fluid though and can change over time.
It's mostly defined as: >People who identify as asexual experience little or no sexual attraction to others.
It doesn't mean you are a being who doesn't experience biological cravings.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So you can choose to be asexual, lets say, like a monk?
I consider you someone who should consider going to vegas and getting a costly hooker.
homie, I don't want that shit for free, why would I waste money on it?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>So you can choose to be asexual, lets say, like a monk?
That's being chaste, not asexuality, but there is a bit of overlap in the characteristics.
The reason I said it depends on what you consider yourself is it's also a label on your identity.
Not trying to get into a semantical argument, but there are christian homosexual men who don't identify as gay or live that lifestyle, so for all intensive purposes they don't identify as gay.
Labels serve a purpose to help clarify your sexual identity to others, and I certainly see validity on demisexuality and asexuality. It certainly makes my dating life easier knowing what to expect in a potential partner.
I don't think that makes people who use those labels snowflakes. I do think it makes people upset by those labels snowflakes though.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So if the label essentially just means anyone who identifies with it, then it has no external meaning, and in fact doesn't help anyone to know what it means, since people will not be able to agree on the definition, since anyone, no matter their behavior could identify with it.
For a label to have any function, it has to have a pre-established meaning, or it might as well be a nonsense word, and people will not know what the label you have chosen to describe yourself with, means.
It doesn't matter of a christian homosexual man considers himself gay or not, because the word gay, includes him no matter how he views himself.
Same thing with the word animal. He may not view himself as an animal due to his belief, but by the definition of animal, he is one wether he wants it to be so or not.
There has to be an actual definition to asexuality, and so far it feels like you're basically just defining it as someone who is not interested in a sexual relationship, which I'm pretty sure most asexual people would agree is not right, so I'd like to know how you would define it as an identifiable trait, if you want to that is. Not like I can force you to do anything.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I really don't want to get into the weeds or semantical arguments and spend hours defining terms with you or rebutting points.
It's as simple as this:
People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
It's that simple, and the label shouldn't offend you because it doesn't completely align with the scientific use of asexuality in reproduction on a cellular level.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It's that simple, and the label shouldn't offend you because it doesn't completely align with the scientific use of asexuality in reproduction on a cellular level.
I don't see the need to project some preconceived nothing you may have of me onto me, especially since I haven't brought up biology even once, outside of the "animal" bit.
I simple asked you to at least try and define asexuality as a trait, and you seem to not want to, for whatever reason.
I would like to know what you at least define it as, because so far you point just seems to enforce the point
Remember that asexual chicks don't exist. It's always a lie to mask the truth, like most labels:
>has a low sex drive either from genetics, weight issues or medication >has never been romantically/sexually pursued seriously before >has a porn/sex addiction, claims asexuality as a means to project/deflect >laments having average looks, claims asexuality as a means to cope >is actually a huge prostitute and claims asexuality to cover up sleeping around >is picky with men and claims asexuality to filter out men she already doesn't like >was sexually abused/assaulted in her past, uses asexuality to cope
that it doesn't actually mean anything that people simply just label themselves as that because they don't want to in a relationship, no matter the reason. >People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not.
I honestly don't even care what your personal definition would be at this point, but surely there's more to it than just people saying they are something, right? Literally anything else.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I've already explained how it's defined.
People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
Most other people can grasp it just fine, the only arguments I've ever seen against it are that it doesn't line up with asexuality on a cellular level, or that it's somehow catering to wokeism. Or alternatively I've seen people on the autistic spectrum struggle with the nuance and context of asexuality existing compared to cellular asexuality, as unfortunately context is often harder for those individuals to grasp, they are often upset by the lack of literality on words (such as people saying they are melting to mean it's hot out).
From the start I've said that
Remember that asexual chicks don't exist. It's always a lie to mask the truth, like most labels:
>has a low sex drive either from genetics, weight issues or medication >has never been romantically/sexually pursued seriously before >has a porn/sex addiction, claims asexuality as a means to project/deflect >laments having average looks, claims asexuality as a means to cope >is actually a huge prostitute and claims asexuality to cover up sleeping around >is picky with men and claims asexuality to filter out men she already doesn't like >was sexually abused/assaulted in her past, uses asexuality to cope
does a decent job explaining why many people are asexual. Their reason for being asexual doesn't invalidate the meaning or usage of the label, it explains it and validates it.
I really don't want to continue this discussion with you as you are being either purposefully obtuse, or for some reason are struggling with very basic language that no one else struggles understanding. There's really not much point repeating myself.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That is not a definition of a word, that is an explanation of an action involving the word.
That's like saying the definition of human is that it's a label to identify to others that they're part of the human species, and like to do human things, or that the definition of a shovel is that it's a label to identify to others that you can use it to dig holes.
Simple fricking question; What is your personal definition of asexual?
>This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not.
Also this is not what I said at all.
I said >People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
If you really think those are the same things, it shows the futility of this discussion.
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other
vs >People use asexuality as a label to let people know they aren't interesting in having sex with them
Literally the same fricking thing.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other >vs
use asexuality as a label to let people know they aren't interesting in having sex with them >Literally the same fricking thing.
Yes, but you are misquoting yourself now to match my definition.
You originally said >This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not
Dating does not equal having sex. I've dated asexual individuals. Them being asexual doesn't mean they don't want to date others or are using it as a label to let others know they don't want to date.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I realized that date, was probably a bit too broad of a word.
Still didn't change the fact that you're still just saying that asexual is just a label people use to show the aren't interested in sex, and not an actual trait of certain people, wether or not they label themselves as that or not.
>That is not a definition of a word, that is an explanation of an action involving the word. >That's like saying the definition of human is that it's a label to identify to others that they're part of the human species, and like to do human things, or that the definition of a shovel is that it's a label to identify to others that you can use it to dig holes. >Simple fricking question; What is your personal definition of asexual?
I really disagree with this analogy and saying that's not a definition to asexuality.
If you want me to remove the part about how it's used to clarify for you, I will.
Asexuality is a label that is self reported to identify to others that a person claims to have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
So it really is just a label to you, and it has no actually definition outside of that? There is no way to describe what an asexual person is outside of the fact that it's a person who calls themselves asexual?
It doesn't mean something/someone who has little to no sexual drive?
It's just a "go away" sign that someone slaps onto themselves if they don't want to frick someone?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I am saying Asexuality is a label not being asexual.
Asexuality is a label for asexual individuals.
An asexual individual is someone who claims to have little to no interest in engaging sexually with others.
Asexuality is the label that is used to explain an individual has little to no interest in engaging in sexual activity with others.
You are arguing semantics anon, this is straight up autistic/aspergers levels of being unable to or just refusing understand.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Asexuality is a word with a definition, and way more than just a label.
It is the verb/adjective version of Asexual.
>It's just a "go away" sign that someone slaps onto themselves if they don't want to frick someone?
It's definitely not that either. Just because someone is asexual doesn't mean they won't have sex for the benefit of their partner. It just explains their own feelings about their own sexual interests.
Of course they could be lying and using it to avoid creeps. They could also lie and say they are a lesbian.
That doesn't mean lesbians and asexuals don't exist.
>Of course they could be lying and using it to avoid creeps. They could also lie and say they are a lesbian. >That doesn't mean lesbians and asexuals don't exist.
But does it mean they are lesbian/asexual? because "People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other" does not rule that out. After all, they used it as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I still defined the concept that the word represents accurately, and that's the point.
I don't know what you are trying to argue or what the point you are making is, or why you are trying to engage in a discussion further.
Asexuality exists, it's people (who define themselves) with little to no interest in sex.
It doesn't matter if you don't like that definition or if people lie about it sometimes. The word still exists and is valid.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>it's people (who define themselves) with little to no interest in sex.
Now that is an actual fricking definition. Thank you.
But, "who define themselves", does that mean that someone who doesn't define themselves as that, either because they don't know about the word, or simply don't care, aren't asexual, even though they live up to all the other criteria? And if not, what are they then?
Also it seems like you're trying to prove to me that asexuality is a thing, even though I've never stated it wasn't at any point.
I simply wanted to know how you would define it, because simply saying that it's someone who label themselves as such, is not a good definition of anything, and not just asexuality.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I've said the same thing over and over, anon. It's been the same definition with tiny grammatical changes in an attempt to make you understand.
I hope you can understand the problem wasn't me defining it, it was you understanding and struggling with context and literality of words.
As far as self identification or self labeling, that's an important part. How would we know they are asexual if they didn't say they were? You can have a low sex drive but not be asexual, as asexuality is part of an identity on how you personally relate to your own sexuality.
I kind of feel like it's a bit akin to religion. You kind of have to self identify as such to really fall under that label, even if you check most of the boxes anyway.
It's not a perfect parallel, but I hope you understand my point in comparing that.
>I simply wanted to know how you would define it, because simply saying that it's someone who label themselves as such, is not a good definition of anything, and not just asexuality.
I disagree. For example, you can't be a Christian just because you follow all their rules if YOU don't personally identify as one.
Some labels require your own recognition as such for them to fully apply.
There might be medically defined asexuality, I'm not sure, but we're not discussing medical diagnostics here, we are discussing social self reported sexual preferences, which is how asexuality is most commonly used.
Are we good now anon? I don't get why you are trying to engage me on this. I've been entirely consistent this entire time, I'm sorry it's been difficult for you to understand what I'm saying.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That said I still think you can be asexual and not yet know it. But self identification is the only way for others to know it. That's what I mean in it playing an important part.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But self identification is the only way for others to know it. That's what I mean in it playing an important part.
Okay then I think we mostly on the same playing field.
You don't need to label/identify yourself as asexual/anything else to be asexual/anything else, but "self reporting" is often the easiest way to accurately identify it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Agreed.
And that's where it serves it's practical purpose as a label, at least for me.
When people use it to self identify, it lets me know what to expect when going into dates with strangers/potential partners.
Though it's often misused as a way to say "not into hookups", when used properly it's very useful to me to know to expect a lack of sexual desire on their part, often caused by sexual trauma/baggage/medical issues, or neuro diversity (small amounts of autism) that may have caused them to identify as such.
In practicality it's either a red flag, or just lets me know being too handsy too quick can put them in a bad headspace.
It's kind of like knowing if someone is poly before dating them. It can be important information.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It doesn't mean something/someone who has little to no sexual drive?
It definitely does not mean this. An asexual individual can have a huge sex drive but be uncomfortable with sex due to past trauma for example.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It's just a "go away" sign that someone slaps onto themselves if they don't want to frick someone?
It's definitely not that either. Just because someone is asexual doesn't mean they won't have sex for the benefit of their partner. It just explains their own feelings about their own sexual interests.
Of course they could be lying and using it to avoid creeps. They could also lie and say they are a lesbian.
That doesn't mean lesbians and asexuals don't exist.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>That is not a definition of a word, that is an explanation of an action involving the word. >That's like saying the definition of human is that it's a label to identify to others that they're part of the human species, and like to do human things, or that the definition of a shovel is that it's a label to identify to others that you can use it to dig holes. >Simple fricking question; What is your personal definition of asexual?
I really disagree with this analogy and saying that's not a definition to asexuality.
If you want me to remove the part about how it's used to clarify for you, I will.
Asexuality is a label that is self reported to identify to others that a person claims to have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
8 months ago
DoctorGreen
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others
and that usage is wrong. use the proper prefixes (sic).
antisexual is the correct term for such definition
8 months ago
Anonymous
>This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not.
Also this is not what I said at all.
I said >People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
If you really think those are the same things, it shows the futility of this discussion.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I consider you someone who should consider going to vegas and getting a costly hooker.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Anon what makes you think he’d pay for that if he doesn’t want it for free?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But that's also true: most men who identify as gay men are bisexual men who are attracted to men more than they are women. Very few gay men exist who have zero attraction to women. The same thing applies to lesbians.
I don't mean this as an insult, but are you perhaps on the autism spectrum?
Your adherence to the literality of words and failing to understand nuance in labels seems to indicate a problem with your perception.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>The average person is slightly bisexual
God I wish this was true.
8 months ago
Anonymous
congratulations, moron, you just reinvented the Kinsey Scale.
But anon, that's exactly what asexual means.
You are just validating and explaining the existence of that facet on the spectrum of sexuality.
Gay men don't exist. It's just a label to mask the truth: >They find men more attractive then women >They would rather suck dick than lick pussy >They think about penis more than vegana >They want men to frick them in the ass >They want to frick men in the ass
I don't believe Jaiden specifically because all the lewd stuff was bad for her mental health. It's an obvious way to try and shake horny people off of you, by claiming regardless of their orientation you'll never be interested in them.
So bad for her mental health that Alpharad showed some to an entire audience of people as a joke? When did she even say that, she said her first statement was on the Anthony Padilla podcast where she didn’t like kids seeing it.
I once read all 3000 chapters of this shit or whatever was extant at the time. Maybe like 2018? Could not tell you a single detail or what the story was about. I don't think he knows.
Because nobody feels like being communicative:
- artist is Mossa who does Ruel 34 stuff
- the character in OP is Valbun
- handles are variations of @Valbun, @Valbun_, etc.
bonds
most asexuals in social media were teens who had a shameful sexual experience.
they avoid sexuality but most of them avoid it due to sexual trust issues. they don't want to be lewd by you because they are not bonding with you.
does she lewd herself? perhaps. does she allow her boyfriend (if any) to lewe her? perhaps
These teenagers are prey for groomers in discord. kek.
you don't understand how big the need for affection is.
asexuals can be convinced to become sexual deviants by their boy/girlfriend. a scenario akin to that of the creator of Confinement.
You need to be fricked inside to have no sexual urges nor give a frick about sexualization
I recognize this artist, I think I followed them or they followed me, can’t remember which. One of my friends was trying to date her behind the scenes.
They were friends with her, they planned on meeting in person but both were too busy. They talked a lot online. I don’t think she was interested at all.
It was kinda bad.
He’s a good guy, but I think he’s weird about goth chicks and it turns them off
8 months ago
Anonymous
Actively pursuing any online personality for romantic intentions is instantly pathetic and shows lack of self awareness and social skills in real life.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I think he felt comfortable because they’re both online artists/personalities
8 months ago
Anonymous
Still weird and shows lack of self awareness and social skills. Just use a dating app for people LOOKING to get hit on, or just hang around hot topic and spark up conversations with goth girls in real life.
Targeting someone online for dating is beyond creepy.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I think he felt comfortable because they’re both online artists/personalities
If they were already friends irl, it's not weird at all.
It's not as if he had never met her before and is just obsessed because of her cartoon. The only issue here is that artist boy clearly has no game.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah they were friends online first and then he started hinting he liked her. They planned on meeting up at a convention I think if I remember correctly?
8 months ago
Anonymous
This sounds like a 14 year olds first attempt at dating. It just hits me wrong
8 months ago
Anonymous
Oh then forget what I said then. Still, if he actually managed to plan a meetup, even though it fell through that's still pretty good effort on his part. The real cringe is he hasn't moved on yet.
Online friendships are largely friendships in name only I find, especially among artists on the internet.
8 months ago
Anonymous
He has moved on, he’s dating a guy now so I’d say that’s as moved on as you can be
8 months ago
Anonymous
Most people who resort to dating online do so as that's the only way they feel comfortable talking to girls.
It's even worse if he doesn't even live near her.
It's even worse if the only way they planned to meet is a convention.
Sure it happens with some couples, but this is usually only something that plays out with extremely socially anxious nerds.
Either way, hope it was reciprocal feelings and not just a dude simping after an artist he liked and nice guying his way into her inner circle.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I did online dating because men irl aren’t autistic enough for me to talk to
8 months ago
Anonymous
I'm an equal opportunity dater.
'Tism can be cute, that spacey look in their eyes makes me feel high. But sometimes it's like talking to a rock, not getting anything back and their body language can be difficult to read to nonexistent.
I've walked away from dates feeling completely confused like I was tripping on mushrooms.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I’m autistic myself, so I was looking for someone like me.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>If they were already friends irl, it's not weird at all. >It's not as if he had never met her before
That wasn't clear, as you previously said >They were friends with her, they planned on meeting in person but both were too busy
Still sounds like a sketchy story, and you seem a little too interested in defending "your friend's" position.
Either way, I hope "your friend" can learn from the experience.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No, I’ve never spoken to this artist before.
I’ve either followed them or they followed me, I like their color palettes.
I can admit it’s kind of weird to do, but I also met my fiancé online so I feel like I don’t have any room to talk bad about online relationships like that
8 months ago
Anonymous
Good on you.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>but I also met my fiancé online
He has moved on, he’s dating a guy now so I’d say that’s as moved on as you can be
>he’s dating a guy now
Wait, we sure this isn't you? Kidding. I think the weirdest part of the story was that you set it up with that he was "trying to date her" which doesn't read as mutual interest at all.
That and dropping hints that he likes her sounds like something only a teenager would do.
Sorry if I was harsh judging the story, it's a cool anecdote, Anon.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I see how it reads lol but no I’m a straight-ish chick dating a guy
Sometimes he acts like a teenager, I feel like he never fully grew out of that phase but no I don’t think the artist was interested, probably in being friends but nothing more
It’s weird, I know a few semi-popular Twitter artists through mutual friends and shit
8 months ago
Anonymous
I like how literally no one got the fact that you're talking about pan pizza
8 months ago
Anonymous
I think it’s fine to be friends online with people but yeah, the whole singling people out to date thing is too parasocial.
But for real now anon, I'm done wasting time trying to word something in a way that doesn't trigger you so that you can accept it's a definition (the meaning of a word) when I've done that over and over.
I'm not trying to insult you, but it really feels like I'm talking to someone with Asperger's, and I don't see the point repeating myself
Now can I please be done, Anon? I'm doing my best to engage in good faith and answer your questions, but this is really a time sink and benefits me none, and it often feels like you are being aggressively purposefully obtuse.
>venture bros fanart
wow Mossa is based?
Looking through his art to find Cinemaphile related works, goddamn he had a period where he got really into mesoamerica and drew nothing but that.
his historical art is pretty good, I also like his lovecraft related art
>venture bros fanart
wow Mossa is based?
Looking through his art to find Cinemaphile related works, goddamn he had a period where he got really into mesoamerica and drew nothing but that.
>goddamn he had a period where he got really into mesoamerica and drew nothing but that.
Onyx Equinox should've become a real show, he'd be all over that.
Does anyone remember the name of the somewhat popular watercolor artist who does all those angular historical cartoons/portraits?
He also had a porn account with a snowman avi for about a year if that helps at all.
man even though i love current mossa i kinda miss when he did these pics with backgrounds and all. the one with the chupacabras walking down a street at night is legit one of my favorite pieces of his.
Is this the same situation where an artist draws and sells fanart of popular IP but simultaneously gets a hissy fit when someone else simply repost their artwork somewhere else without credit?
did she write anything about this?
I did see she didnt retweet or liked it which is understandable bc her OC is literally herself but tbh what the hell does she expect if she is on the internet
I think people just need to respect women more.
Nah, everything started going to shit when we started respecting them.
We gotta roll it back
Most artists don't give a shit or at least don't acknowledge r34. The majority know well that porn is inevitable on the internet
>Asks if the creator is okay with porn of their OC
>Gets shot down
>Draws porn anyway
Based mossa
Technically not porn, just ecchi.
I didn't knew this story had a redeeming arc I thought he was just kind of an autistic moron gay simp for asking.
She put him down so nicely and politely too, she probably thought he was autistic.
I don't think it made any waves at all.
Message drew e-girls with knives up their veganas.
*Mossa
My point it he probably doesn't give half a shit what anybody thinks
He seems weirdly mainstream on Twitter for someone who draws e-girl
He mostly just draws detailed historical/cultural clothing and softcore images of cartoon and anime characters, and the occasional dinosaur on Twitter.
He does a ton of Warhammer stuff too.
I don't know if it's his personal preference or commissions.
I do find it disconcerting that our interests coincide quite a bit.
He keeps most of his hardcore stuff on Patreon nowadays and it seems like his twitter followers aren't aware of what he draws outside of his twitter.
>check kemono
>"oh sweet, another gura drawing"
>it's gillfricking of all things
I...
>make character that's obviously sexually designed
>emphasize her boobs, butt and legs in every comic
>even make her le quirky goth like yourself
>post thirst pics of yourself irl constantly
>surprised when you attract a horny audience that tries porn of your character
Literally what in the world was she expecting?
normal fans who can be lewd but not creepy about it?
Being lewd and being creepy are not mutually exclusive
No matter what you look like a giant pervert
They aren't mutually inclusive either though.
You can be a fricking pervert and draw pervert shit but still know how to behave in public with other human beings, it doesn't just give you the right to act like a dirtbag or conversely treat them like shit
Asking for your OC not to be lewded is moronic tho
Now that I will agree on, if only because it's the internet and asking the internet not to do something is stupid and pointless, they still don't owe the person any gratitude or attention for doing it though, nor is 'your OC is lewd therefore you are too and we'll treat you like a piece of meat', although I'm not really familiar with the situation in general
If anything asking people not to is going to make them want to do it even more. This is part of why that chick from Bioshock infinite had as much porn as she did, because the designer behind her was fricking furious that people were doing that to "his daughter" which made people do it more because now it's funnier.
The character doesn't even have big boobs and her legs were only emphasized for a sock joke.
All in all it's not really sexual.
Woman moment
mossa is only in the wrong because he asked first
Mossa asked her intentionally to humiliate her, and to teach her the internet will lewd her no matter what she says
Seems purposely antagonistic.
Just do it or don't. Don't antagonize people just for more attention like a troll.
nah, these people need to be antagonized
Nobody needs to be antagonized, grow up kid.
I think he was just genuinely asking
evidence required
I just hope it doesn't turn to a Jaiden Animation situation where she claims to be asexual to wave off horny people
I honestly believe Jaiden. Apparently all the lewd stuff was bad for her mental health.
I don't believe Jaiden specifically because all the lewd stuff was bad for her mental health. It's an obvious way to try and shake horny people off of you, by claiming regardless of their orientation you'll never be interested in them.
Honestly i'd believe it due to her saying all the lewd stuff (As well as other things) being the reason why she got into a downward spiral.
Ya know she's living in a mansion with alpharad right now?
Remember that asexual chicks don't exist. It's always a lie to mask the truth, like most labels:
>has a low sex drive either from genetics, weight issues or medication
>has never been romantically/sexually pursued seriously before
>has a porn/sex addiction, claims asexuality as a means to project/deflect
>laments having average looks, claims asexuality as a means to cope
>is actually a huge prostitute and claims asexuality to cover up sleeping around
>is picky with men and claims asexuality to filter out men she already doesn't like
>was sexually abused/assaulted in her past, uses asexuality to cope
But anon, that's exactly what asexual means.
You are just validating and explaining the existence of that facet on the spectrum of sexuality.
"asexuality" implies lacking sexual attraction period to ANYONE, there is NO sex drive. While I admit that some people genuinely exist like that, most people who claim to be ace are liars.
Jaiden is killing a flock of birds with one stone: by claiming asexuality, she can not only preserve her fanbase of children and simps (being family-friendly and also perpetually a virgin, not unlike how idols in Japan claim to never date), but also excuse why she doesn't have a boyfriend without getting into details, and even if she does have one, she can always claim "we're just friends".
But that's also true: most men who identify as gay men are bisexual men who are attracted to men more than they are women. Very few gay men exist who have zero attraction to women. The same thing applies to lesbians.
The truth is that the average person is mostly straight and slightly bisexual, with women being significantly more bisexual than men. People cling to labels so much today because they don't want to confront the truth.
>"asexuality" implies lacking sexual attraction period to ANYONE, there is NO sex drive
Only if your a frickin amoeba. Asexuality in humans has a well defined and understood explanation in the social dating scene and sexual education, which aligns with most of the green text in
I think it's stupid to call all of that asexuality then, because it's misusing the language, on top of feeling superfluous. It's like how "demisexuality" is a label: b***h, shut up. Wanting to sleep with someone only after dating them/being friends with them is completely normal, that's called having preferences you pretentious zoomer.
That's what irks me about zoomer sexualities: it's using labels as cope rather than just be honest
"why don't you have a boyfriend?"
"low sex drive, sexual abuse, etc"
"cool"
but now its
"why don't you have a boyfriend?"
"IM ASEXUAL IM ASEXUAL"
"ew"
My dude, that's how language works. You are the one with the problem here, not others.
It's like of people were discussing a book and someone said they read that book too (but really they only listened to an audiobook) and their factual inaccuracy irritated you.
There is no difference in the actual context of the discussion and you are missing the point entirely of you get hung up on how the language doesn't make sense to you.
It's Nazi grammar shit.
>That's what irks me about zoomer sexualities: it's using labels as cope rather than just be honest
>"why don't you have a boyfriend?"
>"low sex drive, sexual abuse, etc"
>"cool"
You think people should reveal deepseated sexual trauma to strangers rather than use a label to describe it more broadly?
Again, I think this might be a sign you are on the spectrum. This isn't a normal way to see the situation.
>You think people should reveal deepseated sexual trauma to strangers
Who else am I going to talk to about Penis Inspection Day?
Your therapist, who won't be a stranger after a few sessions
>who won't be a stranger after a few sessions
I know it isn't, but that sounds like a threat.
Not that anon, but I have absolutely zero interest in dating or having a sexual relationship with anyone, but I am also very much sexually attracted to women, and crank one out every so often.
Would you consider me asexual?
It depends on if you consider yourself it, but yeah those are traits of asexuality. Sexuality is fluid though and can change over time.
It's mostly defined as:
>People who identify as asexual experience little or no sexual attraction to others.
It doesn't mean you are a being who doesn't experience biological cravings.
So you can choose to be asexual, lets say, like a monk?
homie, I don't want that shit for free, why would I waste money on it?
>So you can choose to be asexual, lets say, like a monk?
That's being chaste, not asexuality, but there is a bit of overlap in the characteristics.
The reason I said it depends on what you consider yourself is it's also a label on your identity.
Not trying to get into a semantical argument, but there are christian homosexual men who don't identify as gay or live that lifestyle, so for all intensive purposes they don't identify as gay.
Labels serve a purpose to help clarify your sexual identity to others, and I certainly see validity on demisexuality and asexuality. It certainly makes my dating life easier knowing what to expect in a potential partner.
I don't think that makes people who use those labels snowflakes. I do think it makes people upset by those labels snowflakes though.
So if the label essentially just means anyone who identifies with it, then it has no external meaning, and in fact doesn't help anyone to know what it means, since people will not be able to agree on the definition, since anyone, no matter their behavior could identify with it.
For a label to have any function, it has to have a pre-established meaning, or it might as well be a nonsense word, and people will not know what the label you have chosen to describe yourself with, means.
It doesn't matter of a christian homosexual man considers himself gay or not, because the word gay, includes him no matter how he views himself.
Same thing with the word animal. He may not view himself as an animal due to his belief, but by the definition of animal, he is one wether he wants it to be so or not.
There has to be an actual definition to asexuality, and so far it feels like you're basically just defining it as someone who is not interested in a sexual relationship, which I'm pretty sure most asexual people would agree is not right, so I'd like to know how you would define it as an identifiable trait, if you want to that is. Not like I can force you to do anything.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I really don't want to get into the weeds or semantical arguments and spend hours defining terms with you or rebutting points.
It's as simple as this:
People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
It's that simple, and the label shouldn't offend you because it doesn't completely align with the scientific use of asexuality in reproduction on a cellular level.
>It's that simple, and the label shouldn't offend you because it doesn't completely align with the scientific use of asexuality in reproduction on a cellular level.
I don't see the need to project some preconceived nothing you may have of me onto me, especially since I haven't brought up biology even once, outside of the "animal" bit.
I simple asked you to at least try and define asexuality as a trait, and you seem to not want to, for whatever reason.
I would like to know what you at least define it as, because so far you point just seems to enforce the point
that it doesn't actually mean anything that people simply just label themselves as that because they don't want to in a relationship, no matter the reason.
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not.
I honestly don't even care what your personal definition would be at this point, but surely there's more to it than just people saying they are something, right? Literally anything else.
I've already explained how it's defined.
People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
Most other people can grasp it just fine, the only arguments I've ever seen against it are that it doesn't line up with asexuality on a cellular level, or that it's somehow catering to wokeism. Or alternatively I've seen people on the autistic spectrum struggle with the nuance and context of asexuality existing compared to cellular asexuality, as unfortunately context is often harder for those individuals to grasp, they are often upset by the lack of literality on words (such as people saying they are melting to mean it's hot out).
From the start I've said that
does a decent job explaining why many people are asexual. Their reason for being asexual doesn't invalidate the meaning or usage of the label, it explains it and validates it.
I really don't want to continue this discussion with you as you are being either purposefully obtuse, or for some reason are struggling with very basic language that no one else struggles understanding. There's really not much point repeating myself.
That is not a definition of a word, that is an explanation of an action involving the word.
That's like saying the definition of human is that it's a label to identify to others that they're part of the human species, and like to do human things, or that the definition of a shovel is that it's a label to identify to others that you can use it to dig holes.
Simple fricking question; What is your personal definition of asexual?
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other
vs
>People use asexuality as a label to let people know they aren't interesting in having sex with them
Literally the same fricking thing.
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other
>vs
use asexuality as a label to let people know they aren't interesting in having sex with them
>Literally the same fricking thing.
Yes, but you are misquoting yourself now to match my definition.
You originally said
>This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not
Dating does not equal having sex. I've dated asexual individuals. Them being asexual doesn't mean they don't want to date others or are using it as a label to let others know they don't want to date.
Yeah, I realized that date, was probably a bit too broad of a word.
Still didn't change the fact that you're still just saying that asexual is just a label people use to show the aren't interested in sex, and not an actual trait of certain people, wether or not they label themselves as that or not.
So it really is just a label to you, and it has no actually definition outside of that? There is no way to describe what an asexual person is outside of the fact that it's a person who calls themselves asexual?
It doesn't mean something/someone who has little to no sexual drive?
It's just a "go away" sign that someone slaps onto themselves if they don't want to frick someone?
I am saying Asexuality is a label not being asexual.
Asexuality is a label for asexual individuals.
An asexual individual is someone who claims to have little to no interest in engaging sexually with others.
Asexuality is the label that is used to explain an individual has little to no interest in engaging in sexual activity with others.
You are arguing semantics anon, this is straight up autistic/aspergers levels of being unable to or just refusing understand.
Asexuality is a word with a definition, and way more than just a label.
It is the verb/adjective version of Asexual.
>Of course they could be lying and using it to avoid creeps. They could also lie and say they are a lesbian.
>That doesn't mean lesbians and asexuals don't exist.
But does it mean they are lesbian/asexual? because "People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other" does not rule that out. After all, they used it as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with other.
I still defined the concept that the word represents accurately, and that's the point.
I don't know what you are trying to argue or what the point you are making is, or why you are trying to engage in a discussion further.
Asexuality exists, it's people (who define themselves) with little to no interest in sex.
It doesn't matter if you don't like that definition or if people lie about it sometimes. The word still exists and is valid.
>it's people (who define themselves) with little to no interest in sex.
Now that is an actual fricking definition. Thank you.
But, "who define themselves", does that mean that someone who doesn't define themselves as that, either because they don't know about the word, or simply don't care, aren't asexual, even though they live up to all the other criteria? And if not, what are they then?
Also it seems like you're trying to prove to me that asexuality is a thing, even though I've never stated it wasn't at any point.
I simply wanted to know how you would define it, because simply saying that it's someone who label themselves as such, is not a good definition of anything, and not just asexuality.
I've said the same thing over and over, anon. It's been the same definition with tiny grammatical changes in an attempt to make you understand.
I hope you can understand the problem wasn't me defining it, it was you understanding and struggling with context and literality of words.
As far as self identification or self labeling, that's an important part. How would we know they are asexual if they didn't say they were? You can have a low sex drive but not be asexual, as asexuality is part of an identity on how you personally relate to your own sexuality.
I kind of feel like it's a bit akin to religion. You kind of have to self identify as such to really fall under that label, even if you check most of the boxes anyway.
It's not a perfect parallel, but I hope you understand my point in comparing that.
>I simply wanted to know how you would define it, because simply saying that it's someone who label themselves as such, is not a good definition of anything, and not just asexuality.
I disagree. For example, you can't be a Christian just because you follow all their rules if YOU don't personally identify as one.
Some labels require your own recognition as such for them to fully apply.
There might be medically defined asexuality, I'm not sure, but we're not discussing medical diagnostics here, we are discussing social self reported sexual preferences, which is how asexuality is most commonly used.
Are we good now anon? I don't get why you are trying to engage me on this. I've been entirely consistent this entire time, I'm sorry it's been difficult for you to understand what I'm saying.
That said I still think you can be asexual and not yet know it. But self identification is the only way for others to know it. That's what I mean in it playing an important part.
>But self identification is the only way for others to know it. That's what I mean in it playing an important part.
Okay then I think we mostly on the same playing field.
You don't need to label/identify yourself as asexual/anything else to be asexual/anything else, but "self reporting" is often the easiest way to accurately identify it.
Agreed.
And that's where it serves it's practical purpose as a label, at least for me.
When people use it to self identify, it lets me know what to expect when going into dates with strangers/potential partners.
Though it's often misused as a way to say "not into hookups", when used properly it's very useful to me to know to expect a lack of sexual desire on their part, often caused by sexual trauma/baggage/medical issues, or neuro diversity (small amounts of autism) that may have caused them to identify as such.
In practicality it's either a red flag, or just lets me know being too handsy too quick can put them in a bad headspace.
It's kind of like knowing if someone is poly before dating them. It can be important information.
>It doesn't mean something/someone who has little to no sexual drive?
It definitely does not mean this. An asexual individual can have a huge sex drive but be uncomfortable with sex due to past trauma for example.
>It's just a "go away" sign that someone slaps onto themselves if they don't want to frick someone?
It's definitely not that either. Just because someone is asexual doesn't mean they won't have sex for the benefit of their partner. It just explains their own feelings about their own sexual interests.
Of course they could be lying and using it to avoid creeps. They could also lie and say they are a lesbian.
That doesn't mean lesbians and asexuals don't exist.
>That is not a definition of a word, that is an explanation of an action involving the word.
>That's like saying the definition of human is that it's a label to identify to others that they're part of the human species, and like to do human things, or that the definition of a shovel is that it's a label to identify to others that you can use it to dig holes.
>Simple fricking question; What is your personal definition of asexual?
I really disagree with this analogy and saying that's not a definition to asexuality.
If you want me to remove the part about how it's used to clarify for you, I will.
Asexuality is a label that is self reported to identify to others that a person claims to have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
>People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others
and that usage is wrong. use the proper prefixes (sic).
antisexual is the correct term for such definition
>This is a good example of how not to defend the use of a word, because you've literally just said that it's just something people label themselves as to show they aren't interested in dating, instead of an actual identifiable trait that is just a part of them wether they choose to say they are it or not.
Also this is not what I said at all.
I said >People use asexuality as a label to identify to others that they have little to no sexual interest in participating sexually with others.
If you really think those are the same things, it shows the futility of this discussion.
I consider you someone who should consider going to vegas and getting a costly hooker.
Anon what makes you think he’d pay for that if he doesn’t want it for free?
>But that's also true: most men who identify as gay men are bisexual men who are attracted to men more than they are women. Very few gay men exist who have zero attraction to women. The same thing applies to lesbians.
I don't mean this as an insult, but are you perhaps on the autism spectrum?
Your adherence to the literality of words and failing to understand nuance in labels seems to indicate a problem with your perception.
>The average person is slightly bisexual
God I wish this was true.
congratulations, moron, you just reinvented the Kinsey Scale.
Gay men don't exist. It's just a label to mask the truth:
>They find men more attractive then women
>They would rather suck dick than lick pussy
>They think about penis more than vegana
>They want men to frick them in the ass
>They want to frick men in the ass
>has a low sex drive either from genetics, weight issues or medication
That literally falls under the medical umbrella for asexuality, anon
>porn "addiction"
Also that would make someone aromantic, not asexual, moron.
Wanna know how I know you're an autist, anon?
>Both are dubs
I don't know who to believe...
Believe in the me that believes in you choosing the right answer!
Anon jaiden animations is literally fricking alpharad as we speak
How much did she pay attainable nerd girl before claiming to be asexual (made up bullshit).
Her rule34 hair job pics are surprisingly fappable even though I never watch her channel
So bad for her mental health that Alpharad showed some to an entire audience of people as a joke? When did she even say that, she said her first statement was on the Anthony Padilla podcast where she didn’t like kids seeing it.
Who?
Who was the self-insert? He doesn't really look like the guys he draws in XXXenophile etc
All the characters are weird-looking like him.
I once read all 3000 chapters of this shit or whatever was extant at the time. Maybe like 2018? Could not tell you a single detail or what the story was about. I don't think he knows.
He's literally himself in Girl Genius
>author avatar character
>is in prison for bad storytelling
That's actually pretty funny
It's wired that it got a PS1 game this year.
Insular circlejerk thread.
How are any normie anons going to know what you're talking about?
I stopped paying attention to Mossa once they left Baraag.
Is what happened an actual "big deal" or something that will blow over in like a week?
Because nobody feels like being communicative:
- artist is Mossa who does Ruel 34 stuff
- the character in OP is Valbun
- handles are variations of @Valbun, @Valbun_, etc.
>writer is just as cute as their fictional self-insert
Eceleb threads should be punishable by death
Mossa is a girl?
Needs more valbun porn
Pics of the artist?
I wish this had become a Mossa thread instead of that's nutty thing it is that you people are arguing about.
Never hope for anything good, and you can only be pleasantly surprised.
story context? which artist?
Just read the thread. Or better, go back to TikTok, you clearly don't have the attention span.
Nobody fricking knows because a bunch of zoomzooms are just talking as if everyone knows their dumb shit.
It is pretty weird how Valbun seems to be against ecchi because that is at least 70% the appeal of her cartoons
bonds
most asexuals in social media were teens who had a shameful sexual experience.
they avoid sexuality but most of them avoid it due to sexual trust issues. they don't want to be lewd by you because they are not bonding with you.
does she lewd herself? perhaps. does she allow her boyfriend (if any) to lewe her? perhaps
These teenagers are prey for groomers in discord. kek.
you don't understand how big the need for affection is.
asexuals can be convinced to become sexual deviants by their boy/girlfriend. a scenario akin to that of the creator of Confinement.
You need to be fricked inside to have no sexual urges nor give a frick about sexualization
she knows what she’s doing
Rape culture vibes.
b***h was asking for it, did you see how she was dressed?
Asking for it? no.
Am I going to give a frick if someone cries over deliberately sticking their foot in a bear trap? No.
I recognize this artist, I think I followed them or they followed me, can’t remember which. One of my friends was trying to date her behind the scenes.
>was trying to date her behind the scenes.
What does that entail, trying to slide into DMs, or actually knew her in person?
They were friends with her, they planned on meeting in person but both were too busy. They talked a lot online. I don’t think she was interested at all.
Yeah, sounds pretty pathetic.
It was kinda bad.
He’s a good guy, but I think he’s weird about goth chicks and it turns them off
Actively pursuing any online personality for romantic intentions is instantly pathetic and shows lack of self awareness and social skills in real life.
I think he felt comfortable because they’re both online artists/personalities
Still weird and shows lack of self awareness and social skills. Just use a dating app for people LOOKING to get hit on, or just hang around hot topic and spark up conversations with goth girls in real life.
Targeting someone online for dating is beyond creepy.
If they were already friends irl, it's not weird at all.
It's not as if he had never met her before and is just obsessed because of her cartoon. The only issue here is that artist boy clearly has no game.
Yeah they were friends online first and then he started hinting he liked her. They planned on meeting up at a convention I think if I remember correctly?
This sounds like a 14 year olds first attempt at dating. It just hits me wrong
Oh then forget what I said then. Still, if he actually managed to plan a meetup, even though it fell through that's still pretty good effort on his part. The real cringe is he hasn't moved on yet.
Online friendships are largely friendships in name only I find, especially among artists on the internet.
He has moved on, he’s dating a guy now so I’d say that’s as moved on as you can be
Most people who resort to dating online do so as that's the only way they feel comfortable talking to girls.
It's even worse if he doesn't even live near her.
It's even worse if the only way they planned to meet is a convention.
Sure it happens with some couples, but this is usually only something that plays out with extremely socially anxious nerds.
Either way, hope it was reciprocal feelings and not just a dude simping after an artist he liked and nice guying his way into her inner circle.
I did online dating because men irl aren’t autistic enough for me to talk to
I'm an equal opportunity dater.
'Tism can be cute, that spacey look in their eyes makes me feel high. But sometimes it's like talking to a rock, not getting anything back and their body language can be difficult to read to nonexistent.
I've walked away from dates feeling completely confused like I was tripping on mushrooms.
I’m autistic myself, so I was looking for someone like me.
>If they were already friends irl, it's not weird at all.
>It's not as if he had never met her before
That wasn't clear, as you previously said
>They were friends with her, they planned on meeting in person but both were too busy
Still sounds like a sketchy story, and you seem a little too interested in defending "your friend's" position.
Either way, I hope "your friend" can learn from the experience.
No, I’ve never spoken to this artist before.
I’ve either followed them or they followed me, I like their color palettes.
I can admit it’s kind of weird to do, but I also met my fiancé online so I feel like I don’t have any room to talk bad about online relationships like that
Good on you.
>but I also met my fiancé online
>he’s dating a guy now
Wait, we sure this isn't you? Kidding. I think the weirdest part of the story was that you set it up with that he was "trying to date her" which doesn't read as mutual interest at all.
That and dropping hints that he likes her sounds like something only a teenager would do.
Sorry if I was harsh judging the story, it's a cool anecdote, Anon.
I see how it reads lol but no I’m a straight-ish chick dating a guy
Sometimes he acts like a teenager, I feel like he never fully grew out of that phase but no I don’t think the artist was interested, probably in being friends but nothing more
It’s weird, I know a few semi-popular Twitter artists through mutual friends and shit
I like how literally no one got the fact that you're talking about pan pizza
I think it’s fine to be friends online with people but yeah, the whole singling people out to date thing is too parasocial.
This thread is very boring and gay and stupid.
But for real now anon, I'm done wasting time trying to word something in a way that doesn't trigger you so that you can accept it's a definition (the meaning of a word) when I've done that over and over.
I'm not trying to insult you, but it really feels like I'm talking to someone with Asperger's, and I don't see the point repeating myself
At least she doesn’t have an OnlyFans… yet
Don't call me a king. I'm a proud virgin
Beta is a really pathetic person, she's the very definition of a clout chaser
Now can I please be done, Anon? I'm doing my best to engage in good faith and answer your questions, but this is really a time sink and benefits me none, and it often feels like you are being aggressively purposefully obtuse.
>Cinemaphile - Zoomer eCeleb Drama
I hate this place so much.
I dont care about whatever these idiots are arguing about post more mossa
Love his art
his historical art is pretty good, I also like his lovecraft related art
>venture bros fanart
wow Mossa is based?
Looking through his art to find Cinemaphile related works, goddamn he had a period where he got really into mesoamerica and drew nothing but that.
>goddamn he had a period where he got really into mesoamerica and drew nothing but that.
Onyx Equinox should've become a real show, he'd be all over that.
What do you mean it was a real show, just no one watched it and it only got one season
"Omg mossa this is so cute haha!!! Thank you so much!! your art is always so pretty to look at"
Sex
I don't get it
It wasn't shampoo in her hair the first time, anon....
But you are supposed to use conditioner AFTER you shampoo, b***h fricked up
There's an almost even chance this wasn't a joke, so have this.
it's supposed to be relatable I guess
It's slice of life humor then?
It might work for me if I was familiar with the material I guess
>This kind of humor
>Slight lewdish for the coomer audience
>No, please don't lewd my oc
>No Archon of Flesh posting yet
Does anyone remember the name of the somewhat popular watercolor artist who does all those angular historical cartoons/portraits?
He also had a porn account with a snowman avi for about a year if that helps at all.
Magna Gallina.
Thanks!
One last one of these. What's with koreans and drawing girls with realistic military gear?
memories of the Korean war has impacted the minds of Koreans well into the 21st century
man even though i love current mossa i kinda miss when he did these pics with backgrounds and all. the one with the chupacabras walking down a street at night is legit one of my favorite pieces of his.
Mandatory consription.
you the same guy trying to start shit in /ic/?
I do have a thread there, but I don't think I'm your guy.
>dirty asiatic
>cute
she's latina on the whiter side thank god. I hate asian women.
>I hate asian women.
Yeah, their vegana's are too tight
my self insert character is a short fat-catman but i am actually tall
Because you are a gay furry
SEXOOOOOO.
>Draw a character that looks like this
>Don't expect people to lewd her.
>literally no hips
She's Mexican, isn't she? Or Chilean/Argentine/Uruguayan maybe?
>Shadow the Hedgehog plushie
NEEEERRRRDDDD
Is this the same situation where an artist draws and sells fanart of popular IP but simultaneously gets a hissy fit when someone else simply repost their artwork somewhere else without credit?