>>31526 Got a sauce?

>>31527 https://www.deviantart.com/tydos

>>31529 Thanks

More Ahsoka

Are there notable anime-oriented 3D artists? I only saw a couple of pics/animations like that on twitter.

>>32118 This is one of my early pieces :) I'm doing renders with many different Anime / Gaming models, whatever is available to me and I feel like doing, or getting commissioned. https://www.deviantart.com/artoriastk

>>32120 Cool, what software do you use to make these?

almost everything tydos deleted when he recently received some mild probably valid criticism

>>32121 Daz3D is what I am currently using. The bleach picture(s) were created when I was still using XNALara, so I can't use these models anymore (also not sure if I still have them..) But there are some other anime models around. Tatsumaki, Zero two, Yoko Ritona etc

>>32125 I think it's better that way, eventually he would get banned for that

>>32118 I'd be glad to know that as well

Open to feedback and critiques.

>>32813 not bad at all

>>32125 >age: 10 >age: 13

>>32118 Coffee tea bag is a recent one I've found https://twitter.com/Coffeeteabag1

>>33196 Kinda cool that he does Hololive stuff but man does it suck to put a paywall after just like 5 posts of content.

Anyone got any more of Tydos' loli stuff?

>>33219 >>33220 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia Take your meds.

>>33221 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

>hello, 911 operator? >yes, I found an image of an underage fictional character being tickled.. >yes, please send a squad car immediately, thank you

>>32125 Only thing I find strange about this is a 13 year old with size 11 feet. Seems just a tad too big.

>>33225 It is, but only if we are talking about an average person, but it could be as an anomaly – there was a story about a 16 year old guy with 21 size, so it's possible also, I think such was a request from the comment section

>>33519 Such size*

>>33221 they have a point though, it may be fiction, but these victims way too young, they're not even teens

>>33523 >they're not even teens say 13 out loud

>>33524 lol

>>32125 First pic - 10 years old. Fourth pic - they look like 9 or 10. I don't know what are you talking about here. That is kid tickling. Even 13 is too young for that kind of art.

>>33527 I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated: Fictional characters are not real, you retarded schizo.

>>33529 >retarded pedoanons when they try to convince people jacking off to virtual children is okay

>>33530 I'm guessing you still believe in Santa, too. lmao

>>33531 Even if its a fictional child, you're still wacking it to something designed to look like a child

>>33532 The way it's drawn or modeled means absolutely nothing. It's a cartoon character who does not, has never, and will never exist.

>>33533 >wait you jacking it to children? >"oh no you got it all wrong, these are IMAGINARY children" Discuss laws and difference between real/imaginary all you want, it's still weird that a text box that says "13 years old" doesn't urk you

>>33534 >"the text box doesn't have the approved number so the fictional character must be the same as a real person"

>>33535 Why are you being aggressive though? Is it some kind of defense mechanism? Only a fool won't see WHY people don't like kid tickling. Your point is that it's harmless, but you do understand why people react in such way, right? Because if not, I don't know what to tell you.

>>33536 What can you say? It's their instict to defend their weirdly placed stance on pedoshit, but they're so autistic to see what's wrong with it. Arguing with them is literally talking to a brick wall. They will never see the error in their ways. They will always love fiddling dem kids. They will always come back. At least we got a huge supply of copium though.

>>33537 Yeah, they can't admit that it's wrong, because it's a dead end for them. Denial, as was said before. But I was actually shocked how many people find underage tickling CUTE or ADORABLE on DA, lol. Many of average tickling enjoyers (with mostly adult victims in their favorites) have 0 problems with enjoying some pic with 10 year old girl. This is fucked up.

>frogs >herdshit >loli is pedo Ah so heres where you pedos got to. Convinced anyone to join your depravity? No? And yet here you are. Day after day. Still trying to convince anons. Sad really. Now why dont you all fuck off back to half cuck and leave the twisted weirdos into tickling alone.

>>33538 Ikr, their logic is so weird. >imaginary != real, so therefore it's completely fine and normal It just doesn't make sense. It's like seeing someone get raped or murdered on a TV show and jacking off to it. Sure its not real, but it doesn't make it any less weird and would cause some heads to turn

>>33540 I also saw one guy explaining it like this: The character is fully clothed. It's only feet that are being tickled. Therefore, it's ok. Lol.

>>33540 I mean, I'm not one to judge people who have nonconsent or snuff kinks, either, if they're getting their rocks off to fictional or simulated versions of the act. I do think it's weird to put clearly Democrat supporting children in tickling situations, but for people creating art or whatever, that's their business. Just as long as they're not doing it in real life.

>>33538 >Many of average tickling enjoyers (with mostly adult victims in their favorites) have 0 problems with enjoying some pic with 10 year old girl. This is fucked up. You'll find most people don't give a shit if it's not real, anon. Sorry we can't all gasp and clutch out pearls and cry that the person who doesn't exist and will never exist hasn't had enough imaginary birthdays to be tickled.

>>33540 The exact same thing could be said about noncon torture, and yet ticklefags fap to it on a daily basis, you absolute brainlet. People enjoy messed up fictional stuff. Why do you think they made so many Saw movies? Their dicks may not have been out, but the people willingly paying to sit through two hours of torture porn weren't having crisis of conscious all the while, they were shoving popcorn in their face and enjoying themselves. Only retards think this is a big deal.

>>33546 It’s not so much as it being a big deal as it is the intense level of denial and excuses these people use to justify being into kids. If you get turned on by children than just friggin say it already and we can move on. When all is said and done, whether the material is fictional or not, it’s the idea/concept of the child being tickled that turns them on. Them being underage is the source of appeal and arousal and if they weren’t then it wouldn’t be as appealing. No matter how you choose to spin it, that means they’re technically a pedophile or have pedophilic tendencies. I mean I’m sure there are thousands of people who deal with this and never act on them of course, just as there are thousands of sex fiends out there who have the self control not to go out and rape someone. I agree that most of these people can’t help the way they are, no different than any of us being able to control being turned on by tickling in general and that must suck but just enough with the fucking excuses already! Own up to it and just move on with your life

>pedosperging Overtly realistic pre-pubescent children (not like Sailor Moon where she's "supposed to" be like 14 yet identical to the "adults" on the show) is pedoshit. it doesn't matter "hur hur but fake...", you're jerking off to the image of a pre-pubescent child. You can whattabout this and "it's just fake" that; you're beating off to a realistically stylized picture of a kid. You're never going to debate your way out of this. You'll never going to find a group of people in society that are going to be swayed by your reasoning, outside of those who will admit you are a pedo and think it's a "healthy outlet" for you. You're chmos. Hopefully you just haven't acted on it yet.

>>33565 >When all is said and done, whether the material is fictional or not, it’s the idea/concept of the child being tickled that turns them on. So, you choose to double up on the stupid. So every person that has ever enjoyed playing a Call of Duty game enjoys murdering people. After all, whether the material is fictional or not, it’s the idea/concept of a person being murdered they're cheering on after they get a killstreak. Same for every horror movie with teens being brutally killed, every Saw or Hostal out there with people being horribly maimed, or every Game of Thrones book with rape every other two pages. If someone's choosing to consume this media for enjoyment and there is no distinction between real people being hurt and the idea/concept of one being hurt, that means they have a severe lack of empathy and possibly psycopathic tendencies. And somehow they need to acknowledge this, and do away with the silly excuse of "it's not real bro, lmao". Do you really not realize how batshit the implications of your words are? Look, I get it, it's icky. Everybody draws the line somewhere, and fictional kids is as good a place as any. But the way you're presenting this idea is absolute dogshit and makes you sound like a hysterical facebook mom. Enjoying disturbing stuff in a safe fictional setting is normal for the vast majority of people out there. It means jackshit to their everyday life because there is a clear disconnect between fiction and reality. You can debate as much as you want whether that puts them higher or lower on the morality spectrum, but to suggest it literally means the same as them enjoying stuff like that happening in reality is some high octane retardation. I'll leave it at that, the dead horse meat has been tenderized enough, but I'm reminded of a interesting idea presented in one of the books of the Rifters Trilogy by Peter Watts, so I'll throw it in here for your consideration: Achilles Desjardins, an engineer living in a distopic future, is a sexual sadist. He gets off on torturing and hurting others. But thankfully for Desjardins, living in a futuristic society, virtual reality has advanced enough to bring his sexual fantasies into reality by way of hyperrealistic simulations in which he gets to torture others for his sadistic pleasure, which he uses to control his sexual deviancy urges. And yet, Desjardins isn't happy. Because in the end, what he enjoys isn't the idea of torture and blood and gore, it's making others suffer. And no matter how high the realism settings are on this simulation of a woman screaming in pain, it will never give him the high he's actually after. "It's not about the sights or the smells, okay? You can't hurt a hallucination. It's play-acting. What's the point of torturing something that can't even suffer?"

>>33546 Good point about non-con, yes. Renfaire clips were popular as hell. Both are fantasy. But unlike non-con tickling with adults, kid tickling is a no-go for many people just because it's kids. Imaginary, yes, but people don't like the idea that you enjoying pictures with them in a sexual way. And they're not wrong saying that it's weird.

>>33575 There’s a pretty big difference between enjoying a horror film or video game and masturbating to children dude.

Wasn't this supposed to be a thread for 3D art? Yes, jerking off to children is weird. Yes, fictional characters don't have human rights. Yes, it's weird to pretend seeing a minor tickled somehow isn't sexual. Yes, there are plenty of kinks in the community and as long as nobody is harmed, things should be fine. Happy?

>>33584 yeah i'm not even gonna argue it's not weird/gross, all I'm saying is "it doesn't fucking matter, they're not real' is a flesh and blood human being exploited/harmed? no? Then who gives a shit. If someone made an OC who looked exactly like Harley Quinn, but was 13 years old, does that make everybody who's ever drawn/masturbated to harley quinn a retroactive pedo? No, that's fucking insane logic, because they're fucking drawings. But here, here's a LEGAL character being subjected to indefinite imprisonment/nonconsensual tickle torture by her adoptive mother so you can all masturbate with a clean conscious.

The lengths you people will go to to justify jacking it to children is almost admirable.

>>33594 He does have a point from logical or philosophical point of view. But he doesn't consider social and cultural points of view, or maybe he doesn't care about it. That is what's wrong. Most people see WHY children shouldn't be pictured like this. If he doesn't - then he is sociopath or something.

>>33585 > is a flesh and blood human being exploited/harmed? no? Then who gives a shit. That’s not what’s being debated here dumb shit. I don’t care about the moral implications here, just that you admit that children turn you on without any of this “they’re not real so it’s different.” bullshit. When you jack off to your fictional kiddie porn, do you imagine yourself doing the tickling? Scribbling your fingers across their smooth little bodies, maybe make them cry out for their mommies for help? Yeah it being fictional doesn’t mean shit. You become sexually aroused thinking about tickling children. Anything and everything in your head becomes “fictional” by way of your imagination so it’s a moot point. Get over it.

Imagine if people didn't sent kid tickling here... Then we wouldn't be having this wild debate.

Who the fuck cares? People jerk off for literally everything, being mad about is not going to change that, only makes you a cunt, if you jerk off to lolis try to defend youself only makes worse, just keep to yourself, this is just a pointless discussion Rant over, have a nice day

>>33598 >Scribbling your fingers across their smooth little bodies, maybe make them cry out for their mommies for help? anon do you have something you wanna tell us

>>33600 That’s the whole thing. I honestly don’t care about whether it’s right or wrong. People can jerk off to whatever they want, it’s just these closet pedo’s and their encyclopedia of excuses they use to deny the fact that they get aroused by children that’s just so damn hilarious. If you get turned on by kids, just say it! Most of us here will accept you here either way. But enough with the fucking semantics and rhetoric trying to convince everyone and perhaps yourselves that it’s somehow “different” because it isn’t!

Personally I don't have a problem when I see something like on the first pic, innocent and stuff. Then again, I don't enjoy tickling without bondage. Maybe that's the reason. The second pic is bad, though. I don't know how some people don't get it. Aaand it's probably illegal to draw such things.

>>33607 >But enough with the fucking semantics and rhetoric trying to convince everyone and perhaps yourselves that it’s somehow “different” because it isn’t! anon If you're earnestly arguing that the real thing is exactly the same as the fake thing, there's really nothing else I can say to you.

>>33609 Obviously there’s a difference between the media; an actual photo or video of a kid being tickled versus art of a kid being tickled but the reason it arouses someone is exactly the same, yes. What’s hard to understand?

>>33608 > Aaand it's probably illegal to draw such things. Nah see that’s the thing. That’s the magic golden shield that all these people hide behind constantly. Real erotic material involving minors is illegal but art of the same subject matter is not since no actual children are being harmed or victimized. They trot out this fact any time someone raises a fuss and waves it in peoples faces but we aren’t arguing the legalities here, we’re arguing motive and intent. If you seek out fetish art involving a child and it turns you on EXPLICITLY because it is a child and not an adult, it would not turn you on nearly as much or at all if it was an adult and not a child, you masturbate to said art and imagine yourself doing things to that same child and you bring yourself to orgasm… Then you’re a pedophile…and honestly around here that seems to be accepted and I’m not going to judge either. Jerk off to whatever you want, you aren’t hurting anyone unless you act on your impulses and go kidnap a kid or something. But for the love of god none of your flawed logic based arguments make any sense and can be picked apart pretty easily. Stop with this bullshit “it’s just art” crap that people have been spouting for years followed by covering your ears and going LALALALALALALALA when people say things you don’t want to hear. Just embrace it, own it, admit to yourself that you’re sexually aroused by children and just be done with it.

>>33621 "It doesn't matter if you did anything actually wrong, muh feefees! It's icky! BURN THE WITCH!"

>>33626 I literally said “… I’m not going to judge either. Jerk off to whatever you want, you aren’t hurting anyone…” How can you be that retarded? Go back to deviantart I’m sure they miss you.

>>33195 Is there more where this came from? The account is deactivated

>>33659 Their art is still hosted on DA and could still be accessed by googling the username and "Asari Interrogation" and then browsing random images in "more by" menu. I got no idea why but some deactivated DA accounts just work that, they are essentially just delisted instead of removed. I suspect the deactivation might have happened because of plenty of uncensored nudity and wasn't necessarily a self-nuke, so maybe they still come back somewhere.

>>33660 Most of the art seems to be just regular BDSM so not really related to this thread, these are all tickling/tickling adjacent pics that caught my eye.

He’ll probably come back on pixiv or somewhere else

Can we have a thread that isn't full of you nitwits arguing about trans people or pedophilia? There's already like 5 other fucking rage threads on this board alone When will literally any internet user learn that arguing back and forth endlessly will literally not change anyone's mind. It literally never has. Even in the 1/1,000,000 chance that you did, they aren't gonna be a cuck and say "oh well you're actually right and i'm not smart hurr durr." I just wanna fap to my niche fetish not use twitter.

>>33695 >Can we have a thread that isn't full of you nitwits arguing about trans people or pedophilia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzYGWF6qrts

>>33585 sauce?

>>33695 You can't expect people not to talk about stuff, especially with such topics like in this thread

>>33609 NDT2000 did so much good stuff, it's a shame they never kept up with it. The world where they kept evolving and making quality art -- instead they sorta experimented a little with more cartoony stuff and then basically went inactive. Ah well. I hope they return. >>33709 That first pic isn't so bad. I mean, the ticlkling is weird, the bondage makes no sense, and the Gwen isn't very accurate to any of her depictions, but Spiderverse Gwen is incredibly fucking hot.

>>33709 >Zehab lolwut

>>33714 Lol, it was a story about vacation in Middle East, therefore the name. Turkish, I don't know

>>33713 Yeah, I don't like that kind of stocks, to be honest. Looks weird

>>33708 Deaathtraap on FA.

>>33713 Damn, NDT2000 was my first 3d tickling art fap. I still remember his small game of his WoW characters, I had a tickle crush on his blood elf girl. NDT2000 would be horribly outdated by today's standards of 3d tickling material however and asking them to come back is incredibly cruel anon.

And people say XNALara is outdated, lol. What a hell is NDT2000???

Oh, I thought it's a program, LOL. SORRY

>>33713 He has posted a little bit more on his Twitter, but has been inactive there too since summer. https://twitter.com/ndt2000

>>33720 honestly if NDT2000 started producing so much more art in their old style I'd be down for that. I'd be incredibly interested even today. also I liked that blood elf but this one even more, and the other two elves...dang. good times. >>33723 oh neat, thanks

>>33720 NDT is awesome when he's not doing the lame ass 2D stuff.

Is FFXIV screenshotting considered 3D art?

>>33763 what do you mean by screenshotting? It's clearly not in-game pic

>>33771 iirc that is an in game pic with mods

>>33763 There's a thread specifically for FFXIV screenshots and renders as NSFW FFXIV is a community in itself >>1264

>>32815 thanks dawg

>>34270 love this, are you posting your work anywhere else?

>>34294 Thanks mate. No where else at the moment.

For people who wantmore anime pics, you might want to check this guy's stuff https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/103243624

>>35027 Wish I could read that sign

>>31525 Third pic >carrotkinesis LOLWUT

>>35027 Ooooo recreation of one of my fav images! Hope you do more like this hehe

>>35156 >>35194 Gotchu fam

>>35429 You are a gentleman good sir

>>35429 ABSOLUTE LEGEND!

So yeah this is a thing apparently

>>35759 Damn nigga, my boy Howard's fallen on hard times bruh

>>35764 Ayo mods? We got a psychiatric ward escapee loose in our thread

>>32118 If you go on Nico Nico and search for mmd tickling there’s a lot of videos

>>35759 lmfao this is some backrooms terror shit

Sume Yurihausen stuff I don't think is in his Deviantart gallery.

By https://www.tumblr.com/f-cat

>>51906 Source? These are great!

>>51970 It's literally few posts up.

>>51970 Third pic of Aeirth >>51905 is the small pink watermark for "FCAT" which is @FeatheryCat on twitter. I was gonna link it but come to find out, the account is gone. I only have these left either from other boards here or vk groups. Now my question is where the OP got those pics because those are clearly Tumblr images if the filenames are to be believed

>>52000 The source Tumblr is literally linked in >>51904

https://twitter.com/Ctrlzctrlz22 slight uncanny aside, this person is on to something

>>52068 not bad, their stuff looks like it has potential if they improve the faces and make the movement better

3D art sucks because it get's a fraction of the work regular porn gets and the shit we get ranged from kinda okay to down right 3D movie maker quality.

>>33191 >>33190 These from a VR video/game? The perspective looks like it’s meant for a 360 view.