>>27086
Do you even read what you fap to? "Her blonde hair shoulder length hair…. stares at you with her glistening brown eyes" doesn't give a lot of information about how blonde here hair is or what cut she has, and how glistening could shitty brown eyes be? The descriptions come in parts, any more description would make the text sound autistic, and if you fap to what's there, you're literally filling in holes with your imagination. It is daydreaming.
>>27111
>When I was younger and didn't have internet, I became quite adept at forming very vivid pictures in my mind. It was, for a while, the only thing that could assist me in masturbation.
And you graduated to the internet either way, guess those head fuzzies weren't as clear as jpegs eh, "fucking retard".
>When that happens, the people who spent time cultivating their ability to see things that aren't right in front of their eyes will be the only ones with something to masturbate to.
And that's a scenario that could only happen if people settle for literature rather than defending their right to have visuals. But since you're so keen on heading straight towards pure imagination instead of defending literature, it wouldn't mean a thing.
>>27147
>evoking imagery
What imagery? How on earth can 2 or 3 more descriptors make male text anymore imageable than female text, it's still non-concrete.
>whycantwehaveboth.gif
You already have both, one is better than the other, why would anyone request the inferior one?