No.11559
I want to translate that idolm@ster cinderella girls doujin on exhentai, but it would be expensive. Is there any interest from anyone else in doing this? Pic unrelated.
No.11561
There's a board called /translate/ but it's kinda dead.
No.11562
I've had interest in this general premise, specifically with two other Idolm@ster related things.
No.11573
Is there more to this picture?
No.11584
>>11573
The whole doujin is labeled "[Muriyari Egao] Cinderella Tettei Kousoku Kusuguri Jigoku (THE IDOLM@STER CINDERELLA GIRLS)".
You can find it on exhentai.
No.11587
>>11576
Damn dat bitch gots some massive fucking feet…unless those hands belong to gnomes or some shit.
No.11602
>>11587
Im not even a footfag and this is one of my favorite images in the set tbh
No.11618
File: 1450575260117.png (844.39 KB, 724x1024, 181:256, 5f3b04d9ff40b4383c17a5bc0f….png)
>>11602
>>11587
I really like the hardcore bondage used in these sets but I hate huge feet….
Female feet should be small and cute.
And you can tell they aren't gnomes tickling her, compare her feet to her head… she just have massive fucking feet
No.11649
>>11618
>based entirely on my own personal preference
No they shouldn't always be, theres room for all shapes and sizes. Either way I think that was just a perspective/anatomy error on the part of the artist.
No.11651
>>11618
>compare her feet to her head… she just have massive fucking feet
or you know, it could me perspective. unless you think her feet are three inches from her head somehow.
No.11653
>>11651
I think its more about how small the hands are by comparison that are tickling them in the second pic.
No.11654
>>11649
>personal preference
No, the sexual dimorphism they show is what makes them attractive. Female feet are dainty and shapely compared with big ugly man feet.
>>11651
I don't think it's perspective, based on the length of the box she's in she seems to be curled up in it, so her feet aren't that far from her head. If it's perspective it's bad perspective.
No.11656
>>11654
Are you fucking serious man? There's a pretty significant fan base for women with large feet out there. You telling me all of them are wrong?
No.11657
>>11656
This is the Internet, everyone believes everyone else is wrong.
No.11658
No.11660
>>11658
You're also citing studies done by people who aren't actually foot fetishists or using that as a control in the study. Its based on the connection small feet has to physical appearance and instinctual reactions based on evolution.
Therefore your argument is flawed and if you honestly believe that your opinion is fact, than yes, you are indeed an idiot.
No.11661
No.11662
File: 1450785072942.png (174.91 KB, 560x682, 280:341, 00754e6615cc3399a0cdb39fe3….png)
>>11660
>>11659
>>11661
>immediate virulent response from buttmad bigfootfags ashamed of their inferior shit taste
>>11660
>You're also citing studies done by people who aren't actually foot fetishists
ahahaha WHAT. Whoever said that people who conduct a study have to belong to the group that the focus of the study is on?
No.11663
>>11654
Can you actually tell the difference between male and female feet?
No.11665
>>11658
>>11654
>>11662
If I can interject for a moment. You are fully entitled to your opinion and preferences as much as anyone else but to sit there and claim that definitively "this" is sexy/beautiful and "that" isn't, end of story is where the main issue lies. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all, especially on the internet.
I actually like feet of all sizes and tend to prefer smaller but am not about to sit here and claim everyone else is invalidated in their preferences. I frequent foot forums a lot and there is always a wide range of content covering everything from a size 5 to 12+ and actually the larger foot posts tend to get more of a response.
And as for the case studies you posted, the main problem there is its based on feedback from the mainstream populace, most of which simply do not feel the same way about feet as the rest of us do. It'd be like going to Mexico and telling everyone the end all be all best Mexican food item is the taco based on a poll they took in Canada. The preference for feet among the mainstream is of course smaller due to what it represents/symbolizes as opposed to the appeal of the feet themselves.
Also how is it that you defending your point of view is valid but other people disagreeing is "buttmad bigfootfags ashamed of their inferior shit taste"?
No.11678
No.11681
>>11678
So I get banned for talking shit about rajee tier "artists" but this faggot can keep stirring shit up? Get a grip and go outside.
No.11683
>>11665
Only one of those replies made any actual attempt at a counter argument to be fair.
Not that anon, you're free to like what you want. Liking smaller is backed by evolution, sure, but I'm not about to parade about that big is bad taste even if I do feel that small just happens to be the better taste>>11665
No.11684
>>11678
>ignoring every solid point except the one detail you can use to act like a douche.
You've pretty much proven at this point that your entire argument is inferior and shit since you refuse to acknowledge a single counter argument, preferring instead to act like a fucktard and essentially using the "NO U!" rebuttal every time. By doing so you hurt your own case more than help it.
And again, case studies focused on foot preference among the mainstream populace used as evidence to support your point of view against foot fetishists who's tastes are much more varied is inherently flawed.
You insist that people who don't share your preference have inferior and shit taste based purely on nothing more than a smug sense of superiority and misplaced anger directed at people who like stuff you don't like.
Whether you can be convinced otherwise is irrelevant since the FACT remains that there is quite a large fan base who think big feet on women are sexy/beautiful, said fan base is not made up of sexual deviant freaks of nature who are of less worth than you and you sir are just deluding yourself. Anything you say at this point is pretty much you just throwing a tantrum because you can't get your way.
But hey, if clinging to that belief that you're right and everyone else is wrong helps you sleep at night, go for it man.
No.11689
>>11678
>using pre-established backwards logic that you're inherently right in what you believe to be true as a way of excusing your own hypocrisy of condemning others for defending their views while supporting your own.
…sounds like Catholicism…
No.11690
>>11689
A tip of my fedora you huge raging m'faggot
No.11692
Why the hell does one size range need to be superior to the other? Why can't we all just like what we like without being judged for it? I mean being into all this sexually in the first place is pretty strange to most people and yet we need to criticize each other for what strange is the better strange?
And for the record, regardless of the control group used in those studies, its based more on the fact that historically women always did have smaller feet and that was equated to femininity and grace. However that's also been changing meaning popular opinion on it will also change….
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-our-feet-are-getting-bigger-9481529.html
No.11693
>>11681
Because this guy is an idiot who is just here for a few days to stir up some very minor butthurt and you're an idiot that just refused to take a hint over a series of weeks.
No.11694
y'all are retarded I just want to see some idol girls tickled senseless in english
No.11698
Would love to see the translation for this
No.11699
>>11681
What's the full story on why you were banned?
No.11702
>>11684
>You insist that people who don't share your preference have inferior and shit taste based purely on nothing more than a smug sense of superiority and misplaced anger directed at people who like stuff you don't like.
It's not misplaced, people with these shitty tastes produce and cause the production and perpetuation of shitty art for their shitty taste.
Pic related, this artist used to draw reasonably sized and shapely feet but I'm sure at the behest of some faggy commissioners has now switched to drawing disgustingly ugly elongated clown feet.
No.11704
>>11702
>not being able to fap to both
you are weak and will not survive the winter
No.11716
>I'm weak because I have some fucking standards
Oh and before someone inevitably tells me to draw my own artwork if I don't like other people's, I actually do, but that's the beauty of anonymity I guess.
No.11717
No.11718
>>11716
>I-I do draw my own artwork! b-but I want to stay anonymous so I wont p-post it! I swear its not rajee-tier!
No.11720
Ahh…
It's beginning to look a lot like 4chan.
Opinions out the ass…
No.11721
>>11702
>doesn't understand how foreshortening works
My fucking god please tell me you're just trolling. No one can be this retarded. Pic related; model wears a size 6 but what's this? THEY APPEAR BIGGER?! WHAT WITCHCRAFT IS THIS?! It's called foreshortening dumbass and the reason why that artist is suddenly drawing feet that look bigger in that POV is because he got better at perspective.
>>11720
Yeah well you may notice tickling threads have totally disappeared off 4chan entirely. Looks like they all migrated here.
No.11722
Damn, I was hoping to see this guys stuff finally translated, and all I got in this thread was some autist having a sperg out.
I just fap to fucking anything regardless of size, feet getting tickled are feet getting tickled, but that being said, in a lot of art, feet are made to LOOK bigger to highlight the tickling, like the dimpling of the flesh and so forth. They're not necessarily big, its more to do with perspective, so this whole argument is useless from the word go.
That horseshit aside, I assume we haven't had any luck in regards to translation?
No.11725
File: 1450982030547.jpg (179.19 KB, 712x515, 712:515, e57e98a4a772f46e5a6726a92b….jpg)
>>11702
The only way the perspective in that first picture would be accurate is if they had toddler sized feet. Or like really tiny legs. Goddamn.
No.11726
>>11716
m8 theres having standards and theres being a persnickety pissbaby who throws bitchfits when things don't cater to your delicate sensibilities
No.11727
>>11722
Who could we go to actually get it done, anyway?
No.11728
>>11699
Some guy drew a tickle mascot or some shit and it looked like complete shit that took like 8 minutes to make. Got banned for insulting "artists" .
No.11730
>>11727
There's this guy who does translations at a rate of $2 a page iirc I'll pull up the website once I find it.
No.11733
>>11730
Yeah show me and I'll kick in some.
No.11734
>>11702
I actually prefer the second picture, the feet in the first are a little too on the squat side for my tastes.
>>11733
I might kick in some as well even though I don't think I really care for the work in the OP, if only to kickstart something that has no real drawbacks.
No.11737
>>11721
Nigger I know what foreshortening is, there's a way of doing it right, and I was talking about the shape and proportions of the feet.
See >>11662 (You) or >>11618 (You), similar up close up close perspective but the feet actually look nice.
Pics related a couple more examples of DOING IT RIGHT.
No.11738
>>11737
>bitching about peoples tastes
>posts pedo shit
Dr. Kekyl and Mr Hyde
No.11740
>>11738
Did you expect that autistic fuck NOT to be a pedophile?
No.11741
>>11738
>pedo shit
What? All the girls I posted are around the age of the girl in the fucking OP pic(15). Yoko is 14 I think and Tsuruya and Ryoko are in high school.
No.11745
>>11741
Couldn't help but notice you didn't actually deny it, but rather rationalized it.
No.11749
>>11702
Actually I think in this case the artist was trying to best emulate the original art styles of the characters themselves in each piece respectively. I mean I know the Wakfu characters are usually rendered with more short/pudgy feet for the most part.
No.11753
>>11745
It is denying it, saying the girls are teenage, "pedo" means prepubescent, which none of them are.
No.11760
>>11753
Nice try. Legally pedo means anything under legal age. If the idea of someone younger than legal age arouses you BECAUSE they're younger than legal age, then you're a pedophile. That's just how it works.
No.11762
>>11760
The autist also linked to two pictures where the women in question are of age. Also, by that logic, even the three 'high school' girls that he just posted are way beyond 18 now, since it has been years from their creation.
Or you know, someone could just point out that these are lines drawn on a paper or pixels on a screen.
So how many pages are there to translate all in all? $2 a pop? I'd contribute to pages I felt were of better drawn quality.
No.11763
>>11760
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.[1][2] As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1]
No one posted in this thread by anyone is 13 or under
Fucking really? There are hundreds of pictures on this board of high school age characters, and you choose to single me out?
No.11764
>>11749
OK, well none of the 3 characters in the second pic are from the same series as each other, and I don't remember the girls in Infinite Stratos(only series I know) having freakish clown feet.
No.11766
>>11753
>I-it's not pedo shit! The girls just LOOK 12! They're actually 14!
No.11767
>>11766
>trying to troll people for liking underage characters
>on 8chan, a website known for happily hosting such content
0/10
No.11773
>>11767
>still not denying anything
While 8chan overall does have a lax attitude towards pedophilia, each board tends to have their own general attitude towards it.
Just like on the /d/ tickle threads, the majority of us would rather keep that shit out of here. A few may fly under the radar at times but overall you can take your kiddie tickle porn somewhere else. There are a few kid feet boards that in sure would love you guys.
However in the case of the stuff posted in this thread, that's not pedophilia, it's just jailbait/preteen at best. Is it kinda creepy? Yeah but it's sort of a staple in the medium you can't really avoid.
No.11776
>>11773
Again, seriously…. nobody posted in this thread was preteen, and if you're honestly cribbing about high school age/youthful looking characters in anime style artwork(ie the bulk of the subject matter of most anime) you need to fuck outta here.
No.11777
>>11766
>girls that look young are pedoshit
They're not even lolis/don't look like lolis?
Literally Australia-tier man.
No.11778
Can we change the title of this to the "Cringe Thread V 2.0".
Or maybe we should just post all things anime under Cringe since …ugh these responses.
No.11780
>>11778
we can now that you've postes
No.11781
I think the reason why people are so touchy about the underage stuff is because there's a huge demographic in the community who are into this weird sexual/non-sexual appeal to younger characters where its ONLY about the tickling alone without any other sexual impulses present. As a result they rationalize why its okay since no actual sex is involved even though they get off to it. They don't equate what they're into with pedophilia since they have no "actual" sexual desire for kids. DeviantART is just crawling with this people and are a consistent annoyance on the various forums.
So I guess a lot of us would prefer to play it safe if anything but to just prevent attracting more people like that who'll start posting shitty "clean" tickling art of kids to fap too. That being said, yeah I agree the stuff posted in this thread really doesn't count in this situation, as they're all clearly in their teens (I could cite the different legal age laws in other countries but I'm not about to open that bucket of worms)
No.11786
We've talked/bitched at each other about this for years, across different sites and chans. Blah blah blah pedo, it's not really something that's going away nor is it something people are going to stop complaining about.
I'd rather just post pics to fap to and leave the complaining to people with more time on their hands than me.
No.11787
>>11781
>those people who post comments on tickling art clearly created for people to get off on insisting that their interest is completely-nonsexual
I never bought this BS
No.11790
>>11787
Like that creepy guy who makes stories about boys being kidnapped and tortured yet starts every story like a federal warning bumper you get with videos.
Even if he wasn't it still fucked up shit.
No.11791
>>11773
>Just like on the /d/ tickle threads, the majority of us would rather keep that shit out of here.
Pretty sure those people on /d/ were not the majority, they may not have even seriously held those opinions. It also may not have been directed at loli or shota, but those pictures in which the kids are drawn or rendered realistically, which are creepy.
It's also another matter when people are talking or writing stories about 3D children and not those from anime, manga, or video games.
No.11802
>>11786
>>11791
>>11781
>>11777
>>11767
>>11763
>>11762
>>11753
>>11741
>11776
Stop replying to this retard troll. Nothing posted in this thread is pedo shit at a glance to even the most prude of sensibilities. He's just trying to rile up the other autist.
No.11804
>>11802
I disagree, there's plenty of pedo shit to go around. It's a Freudian Nightmare come true.
No.11806
>>11760
Don't know if trolling or just this retarded