/jp/ - Otaku Culture

We had this thread last week.

This picture is not arousing because it means a girl has made a conscious choice to flash me and that's unattractive.

So basically very important, but only in the most awkward way possible.

I've done well without them so far.

>>10658455
I need at least a B-cup to work with. Girls can thicken up a little bit to get dat ass.

>>10658455
As long as it's a girl it doesn't really matter to me. Big or small breasts are breasts.

I prefer bigger ones, but small is by no means a deal breaker.

Terrible proportions.

>>10658499

What this gentleman said. I just need to like the girl they're attached to.

>>10658459
We have some threads on a daily basis but I don't see you complaining about them.

>>10658511
How do you know what threads I post in and which I don't, or if I'm even here at the time?

Nothing larger than a D.

Breasts are just gravy for bellies.

Depends on who is wearing them.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/03/15/study-men-who-prefer-bigger-breasts-are-more-sexist/

If you like large breasts you are sexist and need to leave /jp/ forever.

Small breast that grow to a fresh pair of large breast during pregnancy.

I like them as a hat

Hips are what is truly important.

Small breasts with puffy nipple are the best.

>>10658575
What a crock of bull. The Greeks said that "more than a handful" is wasteful, but they were sexist as hell

Although I think hell would probably be quite egalitarian- equal eternal torture for all!

>>10658641
Don't apply modern context onto ancient Greece, they weren't sexist.

>>10658641
I doubt that all Greeks felt that way. It just proves that sexism is based on social conditions.

Also what this person said:
>>10658644
Sexism wasn't a thing back then.

>>10658644
You're right, I suppose they were technically speciesist,
considering how they thought women were literally subhuman on a fundamentally biological level

But my issue is with that ridiculous study, not with the ancient greeks

>>10658587
But would you wear them with a cat?

>>10658587
I liek dem as a mask, if you know what I mean

>>10658455
Not very. Personality is much more important. I just need to find a yandere partner so we can go on a rampage together.

>>10658664
>Sexism wasn't a thing back then.

Except it was. The whole greek homosex thing was based on the idea that women are so inferior that you can't really share love with them. You should read some Aristotle. He more or less said that women are inferior to men - "The courage of a man lies in commanding, a woman's lies in obeying"

>>10658707
Yeah right.

>>10658707
No, I mean, sexism wasn't a concept. It hadn't been socially constructed yet.

It's historically anachronistic to label the Athenians as being sexist.

Some girls look better with large breasts, some look better with flat breasts. You can't just look at the breasts and not the rest.

Though my personal preference..medium breasts. A little on the small side, but not quite flat. Big enough to look erotic, but small enough to look cute.

>>10658693
/crazy eyes/
yes.

They're...
nothing.
Everything.

>>10658729
>medium breasts. A little on the small side, but not quite flat. Big enough to look erotic, but small enough to look cute.
Couldn't agree more. For me, it's:
Medium breasts > flat chest > large breasts >>>>> cowtits

>>10658722
That's like saying that certain diseases, disorders, or animal species didn't exist because they weren't discovered yet. It's not incorrect to label something a society as sexist just because sexism wasn't a concept at that point.

>>10658874
Let's do it. Weapon of choice?

>>10658668
I dont know what you mean.

>>10658961
Ruler made out of metal with a slight sharpness to it on one edge.

>>10658985
Why not a knife instead?

>>10658990
A knife is too obvious. I would rather be close to them, have them realise it's sharp and feel that fear overcome them. Breathe down their neck type close.

i like gigantic, nasty, hanging, swinging, long tits.

i can enjoy and indulge myself in fantasy.

>>10658997
That's hot. I like your style.

>>10659008
Your weapon?

>>10659019
I envy your creativity. Unfortunately my weapons are just a plain folding blade and a handgun. Of course I do have a spool of plastic and a variety of prescription grade sedatives meant for manic episodes that I could use for more intimate encounters.

No bigger than a C but I'd like at least a medium B.

>>10659027
Lace your folding blade with the sedative. If you're going to get intimate, get a head start.

Fuck all y'all with the subtle weapons. I'd go full battle axe or claymore with a dagger for small, cramped spaces.

>>10658455
My girl has almost none, very cute

>>10659052
fuck off, trashbag.

>>10659038
I'm not sure how effective that would be. The meds wouldn't stick to the blade-- even if I were to grind them up into some sort of solution. I don't see why I couldn't rub the crushed up sedatives into an open wound after the fact though. I'm pretty sure it would have a similar effect as ingesting them would.

>>10659044
The only real way to use a battle axe is to dismember someone. The pain would be stunted from the shock and they would quickly bleed out in a few minutes. How dull.

>>10659056
What, are you jealous of my girl? Pic related its her.

>>10659062
She's cute.

>>10659071
Thank you

>>10659059
I guess the point here isn't to win at murder with a melee weapon huh?

>>10658455

VERY

>>10659099
Anyone can murder someone with a melee weapon. The point is to maximize pleasure, murder isn't even necessarily a goal.

>>10659059
How about, while gripping them so tightly they can't escape you make them eat it or else you press the blade harder into their exposed flesh. All while muttering under your breath everything you like about them.

>>10659109
That sounds great. I hate the word "mutter", but I'll let it go this time because of the exciting visual you've created. Fear is the most intense feelings you can experience. My finger tips get tingly when I think about evoking this emotion in someone.

>>10659120
You eventually throw the blade away.Still holding them from behind. You run your fingers along their arm, causing it to bleed. They moan in agony.
The sight of blood sets you off and you push up hard against them.
You decide you'll stop there.
That was enough.
Time for your intimate side.
It was spent up inside you.
You pull up her shirt, ober her breasts.
No, need more. You pull the shirt back and it presses into her body.
She looks up into your eyes.
The. Crazy. Eyes.

>>10659134
Good scenario. Is this coming from within you, or are you just mashing up stories that you think I'll enjoy? If the former, I'd like to keep discussing this with you further elsewhere as to not pollute this thread. If the latter, I'm genuinely disappointed, but not surprised.

>>10659148
This is coming from me. The course I do leaves my imagination untouched so I have these bursts that come out every now and then.

A girl I know kind of introduced me to the whole genre and well...

/jp/ - Serial Killers/General

>>10658930
>disorders

Those are socially constructed as well. You'e confusing physical and conceptual things. I didn't invent cultural anachronism.

>>10659153
Great. My email is in the field.

>>10659184
messaged

>>10658548
This

I like very small breasts.

Don't matter what size they are though.

>>10659247
That size is perfect.

>>10659253

Mahoro's are more perfect.

>>10659268
remember that crappy time period where we got no nipples for like 10 years
that sucked

>>10659277

You mean right the past decade until now?

why are mens nipples fine but womens offensive? I don't get normalfags.

>>10659330
who knows.

>>10659330
one of those is highly distracting to some

>>10659182
Conceptual things - Like gods?
So gods existed back then because they were labeled "a thing"...
Anachronism is not what you seem to believe it is. If you say the greeks are being sexist because, you know - they were sexists, that is not anachronism. It is anachronism if you think the greeks labeled something sexist themselves and were in possession of this term.
Anachronism doesn't mean that "modern" concepts like that can't be found in social standards of various periods of the past. It's more like you can't think of something as being used/known back then.
That is the essence of it.
Because no matter what you say, this particular idea of women being inferior is pretty sexist.

I have a small penis. Whenever a lady makes a remark about the size of my penis I respond about the size of their breasts and vagina.
They never make that same mistake again.
Funnily enough, bitches think it's funny to mock guys, but they don't like it when the tables are turned.
#equalrights
#irony
#feminism
#dumbwhores

>>10659494
They are the slavedrivers. Develop autism and you will become immune - there will be no need to be mad at anything.

Could you please go back to >>>/r9k/?

>>10659504
It's probably ironic shitposting. Which is actually worse, but for some reason people find it more acceptable.

>>10659494
And despite of the whole "equality" and emancipitation thing, they still want to be treated softly and want special requests fulfilled. "Can't hit a woman" my ass.

>>10659504
>>10659505
angry lesbian feminists detected

>>10659505
It doesn't matter, that kind of ironic shitposting isn't funny. Blind niggy.png spam is much more likely to make me amused.

>>10659519
>>10659505

It's not even shitposting. He's being serious and the things he brought up are real concerns.

>>10659519
I'm not here to personally amuse you.

Shouldn't you be on /q/ whining about how shitty /jp/ is?

>>10659494
This doesn't really work, since some people (like me) prefer flat girls.

But I guess you can make fun of their vaginas being loose and ugly. Circumsized women usually don't have the latter problem, though.

Very

>>10659530

How is a woman circumsized?

>>10659528
Are you here to educate me?

I like all breasts.

>>10659533
It's not hard to find out if you can use the internet.

Also, I love how the male and female circumcision wikipedia pages are named. Brilliant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

>>10659536
I'm here for my own amusement.
not my fault you're an uptight angry virgin
d/w it

>>10659583
you don't usually come to /jp/ do you?

>>10658575
Hah! Joke's on them, I'm a feminist!

>>10659597
I just came from /b/

>>10659663
hello /b/ro

>>10659663
If you lurk and take it easy, you will hopefully start to blend in, and ultimately discover what a nice place /jp/ is! Thank you, and have a nice day! Remember to quality check your posts before clicking the submit button!

>>10659182
>>10658930
>>10658722
>>10658707
>>10658664

This line of discussion is horrifically retarded. Sexism is not a 'social construct', it's a theoretical idea which has existed before someone thought up a name for it.

>>10659700
The core of the problem is: there was no sexism back then. It was the norm. Standards change across the ages; new rules are made around new concepts, and now we've got such a thing as sexism. Back then there was no such thing, and the treatment of women they saw back then was perfectly normal. Not sexist. Normal. It was the norm. The standard.

>>10659710
>there was no
>it was
My lobes!

>>10659716
There was no sexism. It was not sexism. It was the norm. Not sexism. Norm. Get it yet?

>>10659710
I'm not really sure what your point is, but "sexism" does not imply "abnormality". It implies sexism.

>>10659718
xor 1 0

>>10659710

Stop being a pedantic fuck. Everyone was sexist. Everyone thought women were inferior life forms. This is sexism. The nazis were still fucked up even though all of them were that way.

>>10659733
Stop calling mass psychosis pedanticism.

>>10659723
The situation existed; women were seen as inferior. It was not, however, sexism. There was no explicit definition of women as inferior. It was merely the natural course of things that women did not engage in the same activities as men. Ancient men weren't "sexist". They followed the natural course of affairs.

Such behaviour/worldview only became "sexist" in the 19th century. Before that it was not "sexism". It was just how things were: the normal state.

>>10659738
>They followed the natural course of affairs.
Which made them sexist. You seem to think that sexism can't be a normal state of affairs.

>>10659738

>There was no explicit definition of women as inferior.

how retarded can one person be

i'm going to stop responding and do something productive now

>>10659745
The concept of sexism didn't exist until the 19th century. They couldn't have been sexist because they had no such concept. By TODAY'S STANDARDS they were sexist, but by themselves they didn't even know what sexism is, nor even had such a word.

>>10659752
But then, it's rather dumb to judge past societies based on modern standards, so yeah.

>>10659733
>I will apply modern concepts to cultures that existed thousands of years ago and pretend there is nothing inherently wrong with it! Surely this is a reasonable course of action!
Is this how you got booted from your highschool?

>>10659752
>>10659766
>>10659755

samefag :)

>>10659767
>>10659766
>>10659755
>>10659752
samefag >:(

>>10659752
>They couldn't have been sexist because they had no such concept.
They certainly could.

>by themselves they didn't even know what sexism is, nor even had such a word.
This is irrelevant.

In my neighborhood there is no concept of homosexuality. Therefore if I prefer to fuck men in the ass I am still heterosexual. c=

>>10659793
People in your neighbourhood don't know what homosexuality is?

>>10659766
Is this how you didn't get into a science faculty? Do barbarians stop being barbarians if they don't know that they're barbarians?

We are the ones who use the words. They are our concepts.

A sexist idiot who thinks that the world is flat is a sexist idiot until I want to trade with him.

>>10659799
quantum physics says that if you don't look for it it doesn't exist

checkmate

>>10659793
What about men fucking you in the ass?

ITT: People shit their "common sense" all over everything they don't agree with or understand.

It's pretty much the same principle why even self-righteous idiots don't hold small children "accountable" for things they consider to be "wrong." The children have no concept of such idiocy.

>>10659799
Of course barbarians don't call themselves barbarians, what are you, dumb? In their eyes they're not barbarians. It's only other cultures/later historians that thought up and applied this term to the cultures that fit the definition.

>>10659806
Who are you even talking to?

>>10659807
>In their eyes they're not barbarians.
Well, are they barbarians?

>>10659806
I'm also a fan of uncommon sense.

>>10659818
Today, they would be. Back then, they weren't.

some epic ruseman trolling the jimmies off this thread =D

>>10659825
They aren't anything. They don't exist anymore. They were barbarians.

>>10659825
So, it is left us to decide, and you've decided that they weren't barbarians.

>>10659837
Not in their experience, I'm sure, no.

>>10659843
Next time we see one we'll ask them about their experiences. But he's asking you. Were they barbarians?

Breasts are the bests.

>>10659847
By today's standards, probably yes. But who's to say this won't change in the coming years? Maybe we'll get a new definition of barbarism. Maybe the concept will fade out, or change drastically. You never know. Categorizations like these are ephemeral like that. I mean, we came up with the concept and definition of sexism around the end of the 19th century; before then such a term didn't even exist. Times change. So do our views.

Thanks, /jp/. I knew that I'm not a faggot.

>>10659855
>By today's standards, probably yes.
So, they were barbarians. And we can call them barbarians. Similarly, we can also call the Greeks sexist. Thank you for clarifying.

When today's standards change into tomorrow's standards and they are no longer barbarians, you can get back to me.

>>10659859
>they are no longer barbarians
The past doesn't magically change when our definitions do. Don't be purposefully daft. They still weren't barbarians back then; we just call them that because they fit our modern definition. They didn't know what sexism is; they couldn't follow it as a philosophy. They followed perhaps other philosophies that declared women as inferior, but none of them were "sexism". Because the term only came up lately.

>>10659855
Why are you so afraid of calling them barbarians? You're ignoring a fine concept. It's there for you to use.

>>10659866
>The past doesn't magically change when our definitions do.
Sorry, I should have said, "it will no longer be correct to state that 'they were barbarians.'"

>They still weren't barbarians back then.
So, were they barbarians? Or were they not barbarians? I'm asking you, not Genghis Khan.

>They followed perhaps other philosophies that declared women as inferior, but none of them were "sexism".
Sexism is not a philosophy. Sexist is a descriptor.

>>10659793
For most of history, homosexuality was behavioral, not a matter of identity. In Japan this was the case until very recently. So, in some cultures, you could commit sodomy and only be charged for the crime, not the "condition". It wasn't a "condition" until modern psychology became a thing. Then it was a mental illness.

>>10659799
I find it funny that you gave no timeframe for your definition of barbarism. A common definition would be hunter-gather tribes that were gradually pressured off the face of the planet by agricultural peoples. By many definitions, we are still barbarians today, or at least practice things we will consider barbaric soon.
See:
>>10659545

>>10659892
Your applying a lot of weight to a relative term. Funnily enough, "barbarian" was originally a Greek word to describe anyone who wasn't Greek. Was this racism? How could it be when our modern concept of race didn't exist back then.

I'm guessing you're someone who believes society is "progressing" towards something, and that all previous behaviors should be looked at with scorn. I guarentee your current idea of history will be looked upon as flawed and discriminatory in the near future. You have no respect for your ancestors.

>>10659972
>Your applying a lot of weight to a relative term.
I haven't applied "a lot of weight" to anything. All I did was ask you a simple question as to whether it was valid to use that term in its most basic instance.

>Was this racism? How could it be when our modern concept of race didn't exist back then.
They were probably racist, too, even if nobody would have used that term to describe society back then. Whether denoting all non-Greeks as barbarians was racist in and of itself depends, I suppose, on whether race was an integral part of Greek identity.

>I'm guessing you're someone who believes society is "progressing" towards something, and that all previous behaviors should be looked at with scorn. I guarantee your current idea of history will be looked upon as flawed and discriminatory in the near future. You have no respect for your ancestors.
All of this you pulled completely out of your ass.

>>10660051
You asked a "simple question" about a relative term and when someone explained to you why the question was flawed you asked it again.

Barbarian is relative. It is also an inappropriate, discriminatory and somewhat racist word to use today.

>>10660072
>You asked a "simple question" about a relative term and when someone explained to you why the question was flawed you asked it again.
You never actually explained why it was actually flawed. You simply continued to answer it with additional caveats, repeatedly, when I specifically requested that you do not add those. "They didn't have such a term back then" is not a flaw of the question I was asking, but an irrelevant triviality. It would be different if we were discussing a particular movement, ideology, or philosophy tied to a certain space in time, such as fascism or feminism, but sexism is none of those.

>Barbarian is relative. It is also an inappropriate, discriminatory and somewhat racist word to use today.
That's good to know. I'll inform the local university history department immediately.

>>10660094
This is the first post I made:
>>10660051
I'm not the other person you were arguing with.

>I'll inform the local university history department immediately.
History as a discourse is losing relevancy. It is gradually being replaced by Geography.

It's not *his* story anymore you sexist. It's everyone's.