/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>7153643
>>7157759
please add lighting.

For the anon that posted pic related last thread:
all you did was amass information over time piece by piece and string it together into a reasonable narrative to rationalize your core beliefs about the world. That's all that was and that's why you are completely absent from all your descriptions about the world and you describe as some distant "dissociated" object.

Did you know? Words create images too! You appear to have lots of images about the world, mostly related to:

>consumption
>true sexuality

>the modern vs. not-modern
>a dichotomy between 3dpd and hentai
>a dichotomy between natural and unnatural
>a dichotomy between nature and nurture
>black and white, true and false, on/off state thinking

>coomer visualization practice
>The Realm of Futanari

You don't know the first thing about "image formation" it's probably part of the reason you're awful at perspective drawing. Do I know? I actually do know anon, thanks for wondering. :)

You have a fixed sense of reality and your judgements amount to what's called "a value system."

You live in a world where there's a non-zero chance a meteor could strike your house and anon calls you autistic because you write like an incel robot.

The structure of your language and reasoning is basic.
That's why you sound like you go on "tangents" and you always have to draw opposites and say "yes, but" over and over to reason yourself out of all the corners you write yourself into when you try to articulate yourself.

>"With imagination anything is possible"
"Anything" is the limit of imagination and you probably aren't ready to go beyond it.

How do you tolerate such an aggressive avoidance of ignorance, anon?

>>7127055
>>7127206
It's definitely a sexuality developed through the consumption of images. Now, images, being representations, don't actually "exist," but they might as well be real for the mind, which can be trained to respond to sexual imagery more vividly than physical sexual contact in which one is a participant because in both cases there is information present and information is information. (And from a more wholesome context this is the same faculty responsible for people generally preferring sex with an intimate partner versus a stranger, because they have an "image" of the person they are mating with, that they are actualizing as a sexual union, which goes beyond a mere voyeurism). Excluding exceedingly rare genetic defects who our subject has no sexual interest in, there really are no futanari, if we mean persons with both a vagina and penis. It was through consumption of endless catalogs of hentai images that this niche was discovered and found to produce a response as if it were real. Of course, it's possible he always found both the male and female to be erotic, as a true bisexual, but no such "futa" was a possible object of desire until the erotic artist produced it. He would have had to satiate himself with less abstract—and less stimulating, for him—forms of sexual content, or sleep with some messy combination of male and female partners, which he may not even want to do given his satisfaction through pure image at this point. And even if he took a trip to Thailand, it wouldn't be "the real thing." This is a sexuality of becoming, of "nurture," not a sexuality of "nature."