Is /trash/ patrician enough to fap to non-explicit stuff?
Easily. You just have to fill in the missing lewd with your imagination.
Everything by Rick Griffin.
You bet your ass I do.
It depends really
wouldn't call it "patrician" since explicit is just as good if not better, however, half my "no panties" folder is actually just a SFW pic of slut in a skirt or dress
so, yes. a lot. all the time
i don't even register explicit as being explicit anymore; it's all hot to me bby
obligatory Aqua from Konosuba
>>3141769
>i don't even register explicit as being explicit anymore; it's all hot to me bby
Now this is partrician
But of course!
Would sniff
>>3141830
Same here sometimes I have to catch myself before I post a lewd because it otherwise fits the conversation
>>3141830
actually thought this was more or less the standard furry mindset, cause animals don't wear clothing. so at most a furry OC's wear say a loincloth and simple bra that just hugs the bust.
i'm surprised it isn't, if it's not. it's less about exhibitionism, and more about being comfortable with your own flesh. it's not that exhibitionism isn't hot; it's that you openly consume it all. So, nudity is just as any other form of art to you since you live and breathe it
I've fapped to perfectly SFW pictures of my husbando before.
>>3139591
Jokes on you, featureless is my fetish!
>>3139591
Them wearing clothes gives a greater opportunity for imagination
>>3145438
as if that matters when you're fapping to the bare feet anyways
>>3139591
exclusively
>>3145564
Fuck you got me
>>3139591
Could only ever do it to this pic.
>>3139642
that belly is explicit to a fat fag
>>3149090
but it is not explicit to the normalfags irl who decide genitalia (and cum for some reason, according to my being banned for it once) is specifically what's "explicit" and to be systematically-censored
not him tho
>>3149090
That's just a tummy, a person thinner would be horribly thin
>>3139591
I often prefer it.
>>3141543
That is a lewd Seel
>>3149090
this
now if bellies and shit don't count then I fap to nonlewd stuff most of the time
On occasion.
If it conforms to my weird and specific fetishes, yes. I can fap to quite a bit of non-sexual things, hell, even non-lewd things.
Yoshi's Island alone has given me like 5 different fetishes. Thanks, Miyamoto.
>>3160823
I can agree with that. My favourite piece of erotic literature is JLape
i love softcore, but, i'm sure people somewhere would be offended-enough by it to ban you for posting it in some places....
>>3161856
also sssonic2 is basically on this all the time yet his stuff drowns in upboats on e6 forever, yeah
Close-ups on monsters/animals roaring growling or just being intimidating fuels my fear boner.
>>3141660
Yes. Also, everything by Tom.
Something-somthing-paw-fetish, etc. Tease or not, I'll happily fap it.
There isn't even anything showing, and yet I'm almost willing to do unsavory, deviant things to this picture.
>>3169084
i have no idea what is going on with these muzzles.
if that one tiny black dot on their face is the nose, what is all that empty space between their nose and their mouth...?????????
>>3139591
I do it all the time
>>3139591
This is the picture that finally made me give in and start clopping.
According to Nintendo, there isn't anything necessarily lewd about Midna's appearance. I mean... my erection would disagree, but hey if everyone else out there can agree that it's considered non-explicit, who am I to argue?
>>3169413
:^)
I'm not really /trash/ tier but I fapped to this ingame model once
[incest implications intensify]
>>3178455
Mewtwo's pretty fucking hot.
Not that one tailfag who keeps posting shit on /v/, but Mewtwo's tail has something lewd about it.
Lingerie & Cute Outfits > Nudity
every time
[spoiler]
also once I had to whip my dick out after playing the Tokyo level in HAWX because that kind of high speed close range dogfighting makes me really aroused for no good reason[/spoiler]
If it's sexy enough then yes
mechs are cool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cVIo1xoFCw
>that tail swish anubis is always doing
bladewolf does it in MGR too, they must have gotten the same character art director that ZOE2 and MGS2 had
I keep cumming and I can't stop cumming
>>3181069
Yummm <3
>>3181703
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfe-udB9My0
>>3139591
I actually did try this once. Wanted to wean myself off of porn by fapping to grandiose fanart.
>>3196242
why would you want to wean yourself off of porn but not fapping anon? I fail to see the motivation or point for you trying that.
>>3196242
>Wanted to wean myself off of porn by training my brain to treat SFW art as porn
You aren't breaking the addiction, you're just finding new ways to feed it.
>>3196242
original ponyfag here
wasn't what could have been so much better than what we got
>>3203988
not him but i don't understand the context for this post at all please explain
you and him are in a sub-fandom in the pony fandom, and you were expecting something specific, but received the pic he posted instead? please explain. thank you
Whenever a character is dressed up normally and just acting like a civil person, I wonder what they are like when they are having hot beastly sex
>>3169833
Is that a ballsack?
>>3215480
so it appears
but iirc it is an unedited episode gif. of the episode with the crippled OC in a wheelchair who got a cameo, who people made porn of, which resultee in the mother of the child claiming her child didn't want porn of his OC, only to have the actual child and owner of the OC say he's fine with it
>>3208973
bonus points if they experience heat-cycles.
> you're over at her place babysitting Molly
> Rebecca comes home after a long day of work, hot and bothered
> she straight up tells you it's that time of the year
> Baloo is away on a delivery, she needs a male right now
> she tells you to take off your clothes, throw her against the wall, and pound her until she can't see straight anymore
MFW
>>3139591
I once paused an episode of FIM on a frame that showed Rainbow Dash in a slightly suggestive pose and jerked off to it. Feels good man.
>>3139591
>fap to non-explicit stuff
Easily.
Like >>3141543 said, you can just fill in the rest with your head.
Hell, with a good enough imagination you can even animate still images.
>>3216158
if she is that in heat I'd prefer if she'd just dom me like mad.
As for whats hottest, I like it when they dress up all nice but in bed they are complete animals. They grunt, roar, and howl. They drool on themselves and make the most deliciously retarded facial expressions
Always. If a picture is not sexy without explicit details, then it's not sexy with them
Sometimes all fan art falls short of the source material anyway.
It depends.
well i didnt really fapped but i do sometimes get a hard on when i see a big tank with a lot of firepower like pic related in game. But if the tank is a tanklet and has a lot of firepower it will loosen the boner.
>>3181995
That is DEFINITELY explicit. Pussy juice everywhere.
Anyway I don't fap to it but I have an almost sexual love of designs like this semen demon right here
>>3139591
Non-explicit stuff is superior. I'm pretty sure most of my porn comes from /e/ and various lewd threads on blue boards. Most explicit stuff just stops at "genitals = porn" and doesn't bother to actually make it appealing.
>>3262735
>Most explicit stuff just stops at "genitals = porn" and doesn't bother to actually make it appealing.
What is this in reference to? All explicit porn ever, or "/e/ and various lewd threads on blue boards"? or something else?
And what does the state of being "appealing" entail and why would genitals be what renders an art piece liable to being of the supposed majority of explicit porn that is not "appealing", if that is what you are implying....
mind you, i an the no panties fetishist from earlier in the thread, so the side slit in that pic = fukken saved as far as i'm concerned, but i feel you're generalizing really hard here
>>3262899
It is a generalization, of course. Obviously not all explicit porn is bad. There is quite a lot that isn't.
The simplest way I can put it, I suppose, would be that non-explicit images that aren't sexy generally aren't considered porn, while explicit images are treated as porn regardless of how sexy they may or may not be.
Essentially:
>sexy non-explicit image = porn
>non-sexy non-explicit image = not porn
>sexy explicit image = porn
>non-sexy explicit image - non-sexy porn
And genitals aren't what specifically makes something appealing or not. What I was saying was that someone attempting to make non-explicit porn would have to actually make a sexy image, while somebody making explicit porn can just slap a set of genitals on a non-sexy image and create something that technically qualifies as porn. And for many artists, that's as far as they ever get. Obviously, an artist who does know how to make a sexy image can generally do well for both explicit and non-explicit images.
>>3264412
pornography is by definition explicit, so, considering your entire argument is semantics, i think you should acknowledge this fact....
The distinction between "explicit" and otherwise is entirely man-made, anyway... humans aren't born offended by nudity... i feel the line between "explicit" and otherwise should just not be considered, because i believe content can be sexually-arousing regardless of whether or not it is explicit... which is something you agree with. the arbitrary distinction of "pornography" seems ENTIRELY irrelevant imo.
>>3264736
I think that you're overthinking this whole thing far too much, and I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make. But whatever argument you're going for, congratulations you win.
>>3264944
>I think that you're overthinking this whole thing far too much, and I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make. But whatever argument you're going for, congratulations you win.
wow
did you miss the part however where i wasn't "overthinking" anything; instead all i did was say your distinctions are false and irrelevant? The only thing that happened in this conversation was you proposed something, and i shot it down.
If something is meant to be sexually arousing by the creator, then it's porn, whether it manages to do the trick or not.
However, a nude photograph isn't porn if the subject is in a mundane, nonsexual situation, and not sending any sexual signals.
>>3264977
I proposed my opinion that most explicit stuff isn't that appealing to me because I find a lot of artists to be lazy when drawing it. Then you broke the sentence down piece by piece and attempted to treat it like a legal declaration that had to be disproved. You were overthinking everything as soon as you made that first post.
But like I said. You win! I fully acknowledge that you have somehow proven an opinion to be false. Congratulations! You are the master arguer!
>>3253640
I swear it was this cartoon that made me a furry.
>>3143100
>Daydayday
My nigga
glowing eyes and yandere stares are hot, and so is Adeleine
>>3274310
this doing anything for you?
Before Judy Hopps got porn I fapped to her in the release trailer. Also some pics of deer.
Ponies in showers all day everyday
Define explicit.
>>3314518
Explicit is something that would be rated 18+ or R. Non-explicit is G or PG. Things you could show to kids without concern because whatever lewdness there is is extremely understated, or it would go right over their head.
Pic related is where I would draw a gray area. It was in a G-rated movie, and the animators threw it in because they thought it'd just be funny to have a sexy bunny. But obviously this kind of stuff is going to generate a reaction...
>>3316167
That's not from the movie, that's fanart.
