>/h/ complains about /d/ fetishes
>create /d/
>create /aco/
>put /d/ in /aco/
>/aco/ complains about /d/ fetishes
genius
>what are containment threads/generals?
>>359636
I don't know, what are they?
>>359644
Generals are cancer. That's why we're campaigning to get rid of them
>>359636
>/d/ was/is a containment board
>make a new board and deliberately break that containment when most people were perfectly fine with being contained
Good job mods, good effort.
>>359606
>After spamming nearly 30 threads on this topic, my problem still isn't solved.
>I'll just make another one!
>Surely the mods will agree someday!
>>360193
Worked for /a/
>>360201
/a/aaay
>>360193
good idea
>>359606
This is what happens when your boards are run by people who never used them
>>360193
Seems pretty effective so far. /mlp/ has a NSFW board now after all.
>>362343
Good idea
>>359606
What can you expect for free
>>363922
Apparently there's plenty of people willing to do it FOR FREE. Why not replace the shitty ones we have with somebody else?
It literally cannot get any worse
>>359606
So are they going to make /acod/
>>366133
I'm holding out for western adult requested deviant Okeaki automotiev transportation.
Where the fuck is /acordion/ hiro?
>>366164
This. We need more ultra specific boards
>>367148
Give us these boards:
>/fat/ - fat and bbw
>/futa/ - dickgirls, herms, and traps
>/tf/ - transformation
>/vore/ - vore
>/exp/ - expansion and inflation
>/gts/ - giantess and size
>>368132
>futa board
yes
Hiro?
>implying I'm not going to hide this thread
>>372910
ok
>>368132
This is a terrible idea. Making a board for every fetish is the opposite of a solution to this problem
>>370356
And I'm sick of seeing race-baiting interracial everywhere, but you don't see me complaining about it or trying to have it banished to a containment board.
Besides, /d/ WAS the futa containment board.
>>373005
Yes, and then /t/ and /d/ were combined.
Futafags never got over it and have been futaspamming ever since. They're incapable of sharing a board with anyone.
/aco/ already hates them, too.
>>368132
As much as I would love for tf to have its own board it's to specific. The problem with /d/ is futa has over run the damn place and I can't find my transformation fetish material anymore
>>373269
Futa spamming has always been a problem on /d/ because the mods refused to apply the rules to them.
Now the futafags are doing the same thing on /aco/ too and chasing people off.
Futa is the biggest cancer on the porn boards. Moot admitted that he received more complaints about futa than anything else, yet refused to do anything because "I made /d/ for futa" (yet conveniently ignoring that he sent everyone else there too.)
D master race reporting in.
>>360193
Thats how MLK got people to give blacks rights.
>>360201
didn't work for /l/
>>373614
>D
New to 4chan?
>>373614
>can't even spell /d/ right
>posts an image of the average /qa/ troll
Comedy gold, really.
hiro
>>373549
Don't expect logic to work with that crowd. They don't care that /d/ was doing fine until the /aco/ shit popped up. They don't care that the mod is engineering the futa spam. They just want to bitch about a fetish they don't like.
>>375757
The mods want it that way too. The more people turn on themselves and bitch among each other about frivolous fetish wars the less ire is directed at the shitty moderation that created the problem. You faggots are literally playing into their hands by bitching about which fetish is worst right now.
>>375757
Permanently having 30 threads MINIMUM dedicated to one topic at one time is not "fine." Futa spammers chased the rest of us off /d/ because "/d/ is for /d/ickgirls LOL." You faggots deserve to die the slow death that being split will give you. The rest of us deserve a board away from your cancer.
MAKE /fet/, A BOARD FOR THE FETISHES WHO DON'T SPAM
>>375769
There weren't 30 permanent threads for futa before the /aco/ split.
I counted a week before it happened for the sake of an argument in /gif/ and found 11 dedicated futa threads. The recent flare up is because other fetishes have been barred from /d/ by the mods and they're more than fine to let the shitposters and spammers fill the vacuum.
Stop trying to turn /d/eviants against each other for your own "stop liking what I don't," crusade. It achieves nothing but distracting from the shitty moderation that created the problem to begin with.
>>375786
>it was only eleven threads for the same topic, GAWH
The fact that you think that this makes it better shows just how fucked up the situation on /d/ was. Normal people make due with 1 or 2 threads, maybe 3 if some retard didn't use the catalog. You faggots have been spamming your shit all over the place, and commandeering every thread that doesn't have a specifically non-futa topic (and even ones that do if you're feeling extra ornery) for years now. You've been pushing every other fetish around since the beginning, and now you expect us to help you save the place that you've constantly reminded us that we aren't welcome in? Grab your ankles, give 'er a good tug and LITERALLY FUCK YOUR OWN FACE. You faggots won't change even if the split gets resolved. You will always expect to be able to post all the spam threads you want, all other users be damned. You people don't want /d/ "fixed," you want it back to the way it wasbefore the split, which was shit-tier for the rest of us.
You've spent years telling us that /d/ was for /d/ickgirls, and that it was YOUR board. Well I hope you fucking enjoy it, because the rest of us deserve getting /fet/, and finally leaving your precious shitstain.
>>375798
>You
>Your
Projecting much, Anon?
And yes, 11 threads on a board with 150 threads is a far cry from the days of the Futaspammer where it could get upwards of half the board. The reason there's multiple futa topics is because it's become such a prevalent fetish that it ends up being more of a modifier fetish at this point. The people who don't want futa content in their fetish general rightfully push those that do out, they make their own topic, and the only one pissed off is you. Just realize, if it wasn't futa, it's be something else. If you ever get your split-off board, you'll wind up right back on /qa/ within 6 months complaining about FUCKING TENTACLE SPAMMERS or some such.
And nobody's expecting anything from you, /qa/ck. We're asking for Hiro, not some random backseat mod who gets uppity when he sees a girl's dick.
>>375803
>we've been worse in the past, be grateful we're only as bad as we are now
>besides, other fetishes will totally do the same, we're just popular
You know what else is a popular fetish? You actually already guessed it: it was tentacles. You know who DOESN'T spam 20 threads a day? Tentacles. They probably have twice the content that futa has, but strangely enough, they don't make a shitload of retardedly similar threads (red tentacles only/tentacles with suckers/tentacles without suckers/red tentacles without suckers). The fact that you are physically incapable of percieving that having 11 threads permanently up on one topic on a good day is a bad thing just accents my point. The futa community has proven that they don't give a shit about the board or the other users on it. So you stay on your board but give the rest of us a different one, since sharing is not such an alien concept to us.
By the way, how's that face-fucking coming along?
>>375811
First
>we
What position do you play on /d/, besides shitposter?
> You know who DOESN'T spam 20 threads a day?
Nobody, at the current speed there's not even close to 20 threads a day. And I'd bet dollars to donuts there's a ton more futa than tentacle stuff out there. It's a lot harder to add tentacle rape into something than it is to add a cock. Once again, it's a more modifiable fetish, so obviously it's going to show up more often.
> The fact that you are physically incapable of percieving that having 11 threads permanently up on one topic on a good day is a bad thing just accents my point.
>On one topic
Just because there's a Futa on Male and a Futa goo girl thread up at the same time doesn't mean they're one single topic. That'd be like saying a fart thread and a thread you made were the same because they both come right from the ass.
>The futa community has proven that they don't give a shit about the board or the other users on it.
>Hey, no futa allowed in this topic
>Okay, i'll go make my own futa-allowed version
>HURR STOP SPAMMING THE BOARD FAG
If they really didn't care, there wouldn't be a single thread without futa if they were as bad as you say they are.
>since sharing is not such an alien concept to us.
Says the guy advocating for a large board to continue splitting into several smaller boards because he's afraid of the big bad penis.
>By the way, how's that face-fucking coming along?
Pretty well. I'd ask for yours, but instead I'll just ask you to say hello to your prostate for me when your head's on it's way out of your ass.
>>375823
>majority of site doesn't like futa
>futafaggots have proven incapable of acting like adults
Personally I wish you were all given the furry treatment. Giving you guys your own containment board is too good for you, but there you go.
You should be happy to get your own board. We don't have to suffer your autism, and you people get a board to spam freely. Everybody wins. Unless your goal is actually to just try to force futa on people, of course.
>>375918
>>>majority of site doesn't like futa
[citation needed]
I'm pretty sure most of the site doesn't care one way or the other.
And if you want people to actually stay on containment boards, you should be the one to lead by example and stay on [s4s] and/or /b/ yourself.
>>376018
You're brain damaged if you think a majority of males like dick
>>376034
You're brain damaged if you think not caring means an active dislike of something. Most humans in general are capable of not giving a shit about things they don't give a shit about.
>>375798
Where are you getting this idea that every fetish on /d/ is a mutually exclusive interest?
I can post two succubi in a demoness thread, one futa and one not and then post two bimbos in a bimbo thread, one futa and one not.
People generally have more than one solitary interest. You seeing futas in a bimbo thread is not futanari fans trying to sabotage and hijack a thread for their fetish, but more likely bimbo fans who also like futanari. What makes you think people can't like more than one thing at a time?
It's not realistic to expect futanari to stick to one or two threads based on that criteria alone. It's a popular body type. You might as well try to confine large breasts to one or two threads.
There's no reason to post it in threads that ask for none of it and as someone who likes both futa and non-futa content I always abide by those requests, but expecting it to stay out of threads with no stipulation is the same thing as getting mad at the itty-bitty-titty brigade for showing up in a redhead thread even though the OP never stated a preferred breast size.
I feel safe in saying the majority of /d/eviants are into more than one fetish and are capable of mixing and matching to their heart's content. Someone posting non-futa content in place does not mean they're not posting futa content elsewhere and vice-versa.
Think about this for a second. Would people who seriously like a multitude of fetishes spam just one of them in dozens and dozens of threads with little thematic coherency with often subpar content actually benefit from that? I want /d/ to stay the home for numerous fetishes and one of those is futanari.
The mods engineering a clusterfuck and then trying to fill the hole with shit from the past is not beyond the realm of the crap they pull. Please drop the Tom Cruise act and try to realize that all you're doing is playing right into their hands to spite a fetish you don't personally like.
>>376330
I like fat girls.
How would you react if I made "Fat girls sitting down," "fat girls eating," "fat girls taller than men," "fat girls shorter than men," "fat girls exercising," "fat girls looking embarrassed," etc threads, and kept them up constantly for weeks, months or years on end?
>>377402
Probably the same way I feel when there's multiple fart and diaper theads:
Ignore them. I'm not a petty fuck who needs every thread on the board engineered directly to me at all times.
>>376054
>You're brain damaged if you think not caring means an active dislike of something.
While true, being vocal about not caring kind of shows you care on some level.
>>377402
The same way I feel about those kinds of futanari threads. I don't go to them because they often have little content that barely qualifies for what the thread is meant for in the first place.
What benefit do I get as a futanari fan to have dozens of threads full of lousy content that either is stupidly specific in its criteria or hopelessly vague without any coherence?
I'll post a futanari demoness in the demon thread because I like demons both futa and non-futa. I'd do the same with any other fetish unless the OP reasonably specified what they'd like.
Futanari is an incredibly popular fetish so there are going to be more than a few threads with it in mind as well as enough content that overlaps with other fetishes.
I'm not saying the futanari spam isn't a problem mind you, it is, because I as a serious fan of the fetish don't gain anything from the multitudes of discussion-free, sub-par threads that the spam generates and I don't gain anything from having other fetishes I like knocked off the board.
What I am saying is that the spam was largely a problem of the past until the /aco/ debacle where /d/ was scrubbed clean of many fetishes and had the subsequent void filled with boring image dumps.
The problem that brought back the rampant futanari spam is the same one that split /d/ in the first place. Shitty moderation. Wasting your time and energy getting pissed off at a fetish being exploited by spammers loathed by the fans of said fetish is playing right into the mods looking to distract you from their shitty handling of /d/.
The recent futa spam is a symptom, not the cause.
puu(dot)sh(slash)lTmoV(slash)474b9aea2e(dot)jpg
See for yourself
>>378597
why don't you just fucking post it instead of doing a fucked up link dude
>>378608
Its too big to post. And its not rocket science. You know what to add in. Add it in and you'll see how bad things really are on /d/
>>378613
Imgur exists
>>378616
Too big for imgur as well. Its the entire thread, so its quite big.
>>378597
>posting an image with porn in it on a non-porn board
Really, m8?
>>378794
A blue board just means you can't post NWS on it.
You can link to whatever the fuck you want. /a/ has regular ExHentai threads
>>378613
I don't even know what you're trying to prove. Everyone knows /d/ has had fetishes axed and that there's a torrent of futanari spam to fill the hole.
The contention is coming from people who think this is a good reason to eliminate futanari altogether instead of the shitty moderation that's causing the spam and hemorrhaging of other fetishes.
>>379759
For the most part only guro wasn't allowed. Every other fetish was fine.
What I'm proving idiot, is that the mod on /d/ is banning fetishes he doesn't like at all and moving them to /aco/, who in return don't want /d/'s fetishes
>>379786
>They don't get along with the rest of /d/, so its time for a split.
/d/ is for futa, if there were to be a split it would be to give the niche fetishes their own board while leaving /d/ exclusively for futa. That won't happen though, if niche fetishes can't survive on a board as slow as current /d/ they really don't deserve their own board.
>>379798
oooh boy this again. I love talking to newfags.
>>>/d/6578620 →
>/d/ has gotten progressively "gayer" since its inception. Once upon a time, any futa at all outside of a designated futa thread would provoke massive flamebait arguments about what constituted being gay. Shemales of any kind even in futa threads often provoked these "conversations." And traps just weren't posted at all except as troll attempts or when they were confused for futa. With the occasional exception of Bridget. And pictures with an honest to goodness man as the focus of the image, regardless of whether he was with another man or not, was completely taboo, even though mods never acted against it and it wasn't against the rules.
>It took a while for shemales to become relatively accepted, though of course even today the old "is it gay" fight continues. It goes without saying that everyone still involved at this point is beyond austist.
>It wasn't until about six years ago that trap threads became a thing on /d/, and it took a while for them to become established.
>Since then, content focusing on men has become more and more acceptable.
>if niche fetishes can't survive on a board as slow as current /d/ they really don't deserve their own board.
They can't survive because the mods delete them you stupid fucking faggot
>>379801
None of what you posted changes what moot said in the past about this issue.
>But moot isn't here anymore
But the rules he laid out are.
>They can't survive because the mods delete them you stupid fucking faggot
Then according to the mods they don't belong on /d/. So why on earth would they be given a board they don't belong on while getting rid of the fetish the board was actually created for?
>>379809
Moot also said futa was the #1 most complained about thing on 4chan.
It's obviously been a problem for years. He just refused to change it because it's his fetish
>>379809
> So why on earth would they be given a board they don't belong on
I don't know, why WERE so many fetishes moved to /aco/?
fucking /aco/ shitters
>>379786
>They don't get along with the rest of /d/, so its time for a split.
You have nothing to go on that with but the shitty spam that the mod's actions facilitated. Before that it was fine along with the other fetishes. Please stop trying to turn efforts to fix /d/ into your personal anti-futa crusade.
>>379798
They did survive on /d/ though, the reason they're not there now is because the mods and janitors delete shit left and right. Current /d/ is a hogtied and beaten shadow of what it was before the /aco/ disaster.
>>379988
There was spam before /aco/ though, and futa posters dumped in non-futa threads all the time.
Check LoveIsOver
>>381651
With the exception of the Futaspammer era, it was nothing like the volume it's at now, and it only is now exactly for the reasons that have already been laid out: Content being removed leaves a vacuum that something has to fill, and naturally the more popular stuff will come to fill it first.
And I may just be blind, but I haven't seen large non-futa thread takeovers in years.
>>381928
I mean, I was the other guy that anon was replying to. There was occasional futanari posting in threads not asking for it, but that's not something unique to that fetish. You'd have people doing it with other fetishes or hell, anything in general.
It also largely depends on how an OP opens their thread too. "Please post non-futa only," will get a different reaction than "Keep that faggot futa shit away you degenerates," will and again that's not unique to the fetish. If you open any thread on any number of boards in that combative way people will deliberately shitpost in it.
There needs to be less posting futanari in specifically non-futa threads, but at the same time others need to realize futanari is going to get posted in a thread if it doesn't have that qualifier. I've seen people get pissy when futa demons pop up in a demon thread even if the OP never specified.
>>382541
But that gets back to the root of the problem: futa is totally different to what anybody else in a given thread is actually looking for, and many don't like it.
Think of it this way- you have one image that is fat, vore, and giantess. Therefore it can go into any of those three threads technically, right?
But there's always a logical order to these things. People in a vore or gts thread may not like fat, so it goes there, because that's where the most people will enjoy it.
On old /d/, this is how it used to be. Most people in a thread are not going to like futa, so dumping it in a non-futa thread in the first place, even if it doesn't say "no futa," is a hostile act in and of itself.
By their nature, the porn boards are always going to be female focused. That's what the vast majority of people go there for. People are going to have a problem with other people filling up the board with dicks.
>>382866
>Most people in a thread are not going to like futa
I was going to dismiss this outright, but I would kind of like to see what percentage of /d/ users actively dislike futa outright. I cant' say iactually know either way, it just seems like one of those things where the only actual dislike is from those who hate dicks or hate it from when it was being spammed all over the place.
>so dumping it in a non-futa thread in the first place, even if it doesn't say "no futa," is a hostile act in and of itself.
That seems a bit much, though. it also says "if you want futa on this topic, you'll have to open an entirely new thread on it that's futa only", which will lead to there being a mirror of the other topics on the board, but "futa version". It'd flood the board with duplicate threads, but for dick versions.
>>383251
No, it would mean that futa consolidates into a much smaller collection of threads than it normally does. You don't need a thread for every single permutation of a fetish.
In the old days of /d/ futa stayed confined to one thread.
>>382866
>futa is totally different to what anybody else in a given thread is actually looking for, and many don't like it.
I don't actually think that's true. Take my example of succubi, both futa and non. The only difference between the two is a dick betwixt the legs. Hell, you can find works by artists where that's literally the only difference between two different versions.
In that context the futa succubus is more relevant and on-topic for the demon thread than it would be in any other random generic futa thread.
Think of it like a chubby demoness getting posted in the demon thread because it's more on-topic than posting it in a thread full of unrelated fatties.
And that's kind of the point. I think most people on /d/ share multiple fetishes and given how popular futanari is I think that's one of the major fetishes with overlap. It's also a bodytype fetish which means it can be combined with anything else in the same way hair colors or breast sizes can. I think you're making a mistake by saying anything that doesn't have futa in the thread title is a non-futa thread at all instead of a neutral topic where both apply as long as they fit the thread's criteria.
If you want people to stop posting futanari in threads where it's on-topic and appropriate even when the OP doesn't specify either way then threads specific to those things are going to pop up, just like >>383251 said.
This was actually a major part of the futa arguments a few years back. People who were most vehemently against futa didn't want it in threads where it was appropriate, but they also hated the stupidly specific threads that would sprout up as a response to the former.
You're creating a situation where either option is going to lead to an irate minority (I'm sympathetic to people who don't like it, but I haven't seen anything suggesting people who hate it are anything close to a majority around /d/) pissed off at you when you're just trying to enjoy the board.
>>383536
That works for situational fetishes like hardcore BDSM or Bimbofication, but not really for popular bodytypes.
Imagine it's not futanari, but large/small breasts instead. Would you realistically expect everyone to keep something as versatile as large/small breast sizes out of threads where an OP makes no distinction and the work is completely relevant?
You're asking everyone who likes large breasts to keep their stuff out of threads that don't state a preference because some people don't like them. You're asking them to throw all the stuff they have with big breasts into fewer threads with no thematic coherency where things as unrelated as bimbos, centaurs, cyborgs and mermaids all show up simply because they have big tatas.
>>383539
You don't seem to understand that not everybody is bisexual. For the same reason you don't post male content in threads based on female content, you shouldn't post futa in a thread for female content.
Also, the chubby demoness you're talking about would be posted in the fat thread instead of the demoness thread for the exact reasons I posted before: there are people who don't like fat, while the people who do like it would be consolidated in the fat threads.
The fact that futa, like fat, is a "body type" fetish means that it has all the more reason to not be spread into every thread. It's something that doesn't appeal to everyone.
It's about being polite and respecting people's tastes.
>>383546
Futa and transgenderism is not nearly on the same level as breasts.
You have a very skewed view of sexuality.
>>383552
So a futanari vore picture should be in the futa thread instead of the vore thread, despite vore being a much more "love it or hate it" fetish than futa? Things aren't this black and white.
As much as it'd be nice to have clear laylines between the content you're wanting and the content you don't, the fact of the matter is that things have been mixed together and will be mixed together more and more in the future, so the only solutions are for people to learn to ignore posts they don't like, or to have 20 different kinds of threads for each fetish.
Unless you want to make some kind of flowchart for which fetishes supercede others, and find some way to get everyone on the board to not only agree to it, but also agree to follow it, you're not entirely wrong but I don't see any real way for this to be... fixed, for another word.
>>383613
Or, how about this- we could stop trying to force alternative sexualities onto everybody else.
Futa is literally one of the things that either does or does not belong in a thread. You don't put men in a thread about women, and you don't dump girls with dicks attached either.
The majority of people are straight. There are fewer gays than straights. There are even fewer who enjoy transsexuals. There's no way you don't realize this.
This whole conversation is the very reason that there needs to be a separate futa board. We aren't compatible in the slightest, and will never get along.
>>383613
>So a futanari vore picture should be in the futa thread instead of the vore thread, despite vore being a much more "love it or hate it" fetish than futa?
You can't actually believe this.
>>383642
So, remove futa from the equasion. Let's go back to the earlier example of "fat vore giantess". That poster said it would go into the fat thread. Why do we assume the overlap between fat and vore is there? Why must the fat fetishists be forced to see vore that they dislike in their thread? If you move it to the vore thread, same question, same lack of decent answer. Giantess thread would make no sense, but for completion's sake it'd be the same question/answer combo.
The only real solution is to make a Giantess Fat Vore thread, which then would be filled with people complaing that one (if not all three) of them is spamming the board with their fetish, and we wind up right back here lobbying for /lard/ or /vore/ or /giant/.
The days of really being able to split them up nice and neat is long gone, and the sooner you learn how the ignore post function works the better. Unless the OP specifically states "no x" then whatever X is should be allowed (as long as it still pertains to the topic).
Also, the number of people who like transsexuals is still likely bigger than the number of people who jerk off to cannibalism, body mutations, living petrolium jelly, Petri/Objecti/etc-fications, insect sex, monster girls in general, and many other /d/ fetishes. If we want to go by general population statistics instead of /d/'s population statistics for whatever backwater reason, things wouldn't change as much as you think they would.
Finally, the reason "we can't get along" is because you don't want to get along. You want everything run your way and have no desire to co-habituate peacefully with others. You sure you're not the mod?
>>383736
The reason is that you go with the thread which causes the least amount of issues. Ask yourself which thread has the most people who would enjoy, and which would bother the most people.
And regarding the population of fetishes, you're being wilfully dense. Do you really think the people who like those fetishes in all those threads also like futa? You seem convinced that it's some great equalizer that everyone loves just because it's /d/.
>>383820
>The least amount of issues
So, in other words, dump it on the fatfags because apparently they're second class citizens? That's not /d/, man.
And you're just as willfully dense if you believe as many people hate futa as you claim, or at the very, very least, aren't capable of scrolling down to the next pic without causing an international incident.
>>383557
I'm not trying to be rude here, but if you're equating futanari with transgenderism it's probable you don't quite understand the appeal of the former. It's chicks with dicks. That's all it is. It doesn't have to have or need to have anything to do with the latter unless the author chooses so.
I'm not under any illusion that real life transgenderism is anywhere near as popular in the real world, but in a hentai context, a chick having a dick is really nothing more than a simple physiological difference in the same vein as big/small tits or long/short hair.
There are quite a few people who are into futanari who aren't into transgenderism.
>>383552
It has nothing to do with being bisexual. If you're simultaneously turned on and into both men and women to varying degrees that's bisexuality. Taking one physical feature from one sex and attaching it to another in a ridiculously outlandish and fantastical way does not equate finding both sexes desirable.
I fail to see why a chubby demoness who might share every thematic feature in common with the approved criteria for a hypothetical demon thread should be expunged and instead posted in a thread where the only unifying factor is cute chubbies.
You're essentially arguing that a gluttonous devilbitch get posted in a general purpose chubby thread because of the extra pounds rather than a demon thread where every other part of her would be more than appropriate.
>It's about being polite and respecting people's tastes.
Begging your pardon, but if it's on-topic and the OP never made any specific stipulations why does your taste override that of others? I assure you that if you go down this road, it won't just end at fetishes you're not fond of.
>>383645
I personally don't think vore is a love it or hate it fetish. Hard vore definitely is, but that often has overlap with snuff and guro which are indeed very love it or hate it. Softcore "swallow only," vore though certainly has nuance to its appeal.
I however think he's right when he says futa has a broader appeal again because it's a bodytype fetish that can be paired with anything and vore is situational. I mean, go to any major site hosting hentai or explicit erotic art and tally the search results for futanari versus vore and I'd imagine the results support me on this.
>>384200
You're fucking delusional if you think futa is normal.
Liking dick makes you gay.
>>384379
Unless you also like pussy at the same time, then you're bisexual.
Dipshit.
>>384379
Are you under some false assumption here that most of the content on /d/ is normal to begin with?
The fundamental difference I always see between the two sides of this debate seems to be whether or not someone is capable of suspending their disbelief when it comes to drawn dick.
In the real word dick equals male, but in hentai/erotic art the real word does not apply. There are absolutely no rules that say what you can or can't do beyond the limits of your imagination.
Have some perspective here. Hentai/erotic art is full of all sorts of wildly unrealistic shit that people know is unrealistic but accept anyway because it turns them on.
Real women aren't capable of taking 24 inch dicks without being disemboweled. Real women aren't able to insert things into their nipples without excruciating pain and risking permanent damage. Real women don't share body parts with any number of animals or grow cat ears. This shit abandoned reality a long time ago.
Now, that doesn't mean you're obligated to like all of it and it's perfectly fine if there's a fetish in there that you just can't accept for whatever reason. It's no different than people having differing thresholds to their suspension of disbelief when it comes to something like an authorial asspull or retcon in a Sci-fi series for example. There's nothing wrong with not being able to make a specific disconnect, but telling people who enjoy an unrealistically fantastical form of art and have absolutely no interest in men or male people, drawn or otherwise, that they're really gay is not only a misuse of the term, but shows a biased lack of being able to tell reality from fiction.
It's no different than suggesting mermaid fans secretly want to fuck rainbow trout or arguing people who like violent media are all violent people.
>>385485
Deciding to like dick is not "suspending your disbelief." It is gay.
If you want to suck dick, or be fucked by dick, or jack off a dick, you are gay.
/d/ is one of the only porn boards that doesn't divide content by gender, and that's a mistake.
>>385681
Deciding to like catgirls is not "suspending your disbelief". It is bestiality.
If you want to eat out catgirls, or fuck a catgirl, or marry a catgirl, you're an animal fetishist.
See how that doesn't work whatsoever? You're an idiot, anon. Deal with it.
>>385821
>comparing girls with cat ears to homosexuality
Further proof that faggots are mindless degenerates
>>385861
Says the guy who can't understand that a senseless comparison is the same as another senseless comparison. Also, I compared it to bestiality, not homosexuality. Good reading comprehension.
Neither futas nor humans spliced with animal DNA exist in reality, therefore what it "means" is not a goddamn thing. It's a visual stimulus that turns people on, nothing more, nothing less.
>>385994
>Neither futas nor humans spliced with animal DNA exist in reality
They're called transexuals
>It's a visual stimulus that turns people on, nothing more, nothing less.
If a dick turns you on, you are gay.
>>386055
I presume you jack off exclusively to lesbian porn
>>386064
When you watch porn, are you jacking off to the girl or the man?
Because if you jerk to the man, I've got bad news for you.
>>386055
Transsexuals =/= Futanari.
You dense motherfucker.
>>386055
>Look at futa
>see vagina
>see tits
>get turned on
>Not bothered by dick either way
What now, buddy?
>>386190
>futa
>vagina
Spot the vaginas:
>>>/d/6575506
Just accept that you're gay. You aren't fooling anyone.
>>386128
"Female" with male genitals = trans. Same as traps and shit.
>>386194
Right here
>>>/d/6566237
also >posting an image where it's impossible to even ascertain what genitals are there in the first place
You sure you know where the pussy is, m8? I mean a real vagina, not the thing at your computer.
>"Female" with male genitals = trans. Same as traps and shit.
>Saying crossdressers are the same as gender-reassignment-surgery trans are the same as actual hermaphrodites
Please return once you've completed 6th grade health class. If your "brain" can handle such a thing.
>>385681
>If you want to suck dick, or be fucked by dick, or jack off a dick, you are gay.
I don't though, because in order to do any of that I'd need to partner with a man or transsexual and neither do anything for me.
You're showing a clear lack of being able to tell reality from fiction here my friend. Do you think people into tentacle fetishes absolutely want their bed to morph into a raep squid? Do you think women into cowgirls honestly would just love to be turned into human chattel?
It's fantasy anon. Some people do carry theirs into reality, but that is a specific connection they choose to make. It is not an inherent quality of the fantasy itself and trying to connect the dots anyway is again the same kind of argument that sees moral guardians telling people violent movies and video games lead to mass murderers.
>>385861
They're both fantasy forms not found in reality by attaching parts to women. They're the same thing.
>>387199
So you're really pretending that being turned on by dicks is not a big indicator of your hokosexuality?
>>387570
Are you really pretending that many people haven't already explained this to you in the thread or are you just conveniently ignoring every argument that exposes your terrible logic for the sake of repeating yourself over and over?
>>388237
>"Explained"
>"JUST BECAUSE I LOVE DICK DOESN'T MAKE ME A FAGGOT!!!!"
>>388260
Multiple people explained it multiple times. If that's all you got out of it then that's the failure of your own bias and sub-par reading comprehension. Nobody said you had to like it or accept it, but completely ignoring any arguments that don't suit your need to shout faggot and get mad at people liking things you don't is retarded and childish.
>>388260
Also, let this be a lesson. These people endlessly bitching about this fetish would rather do that instead of try to fix the /aco/ - /d/ problem thereby derailing every thread devoted to said topic into a useless, trollish argument between a single fetish's fans and detractors.
