HOME | DD
crackspid3r β Simple Guide to Conjoinments
Published: 2013-02-11 03:12:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 197413; Favourites: 659; Downloads: 485
Redirect to original
Description
Visual depictions of basic conjoinment terminology. I guess it sort of help.Did I make this in 2008 or 2009? My only copy was re-dated to the time I downloaded a back-up of it, which is retarded.
Related content
Comments: 128
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 2 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
Huh. This is pretty cool. Nice and informative. 
π: 1 β©: 0
It breaks my heart when people like you use your amazing talent I wish I had, than use it for nothing but stuff for you and your "fans" to get your rocks off to!
Honestly, i encourage you to draw whatever you want, but if you want less hate, you should censor your artwork. It's best for both sides.
You get less hate,
And this site can be friendly for both demographics! Please, help me accomplish this goal and censor all your "fetish" art.
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
Reasoning, please.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm pretty anti-censorship (save for a few exceptions, like making threats or inciting racial tensions), so you're running up a very steep hill. It's cool if you hate me; others have given me similar suggestions, warned me of the same consequences, and have excommunicated me. If you want to hate me, that's great. I won't take it personally.
I do appreciate your complement, though. Thank you.
By the way, not everyone here likes my art because they "get [their] rocks off". Some people just think the idea is fun/cool/cute/whatever. I know you don't intend to generalize, but I would still like to set the record straight.
π: 2 β©: 1
I don't hate fetish artists. I hate those who are dicks to me.
Also,
I use the word "their" because you have more than one fan who is sexually attracted to that kind of stuff. You aren't a dick to me, so you're a good person in my book. You know, there's nothing fun, cool, or cute about being literally attached to someone else. I never understood that. Can you explain that to me?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, sure, I'm not denying that lots, if not most, of my viewers enjoy my art for the fetish aspect of it. I'm not THAT dense (that's why I made it, too 
Geez, trying to explain the appeal is difficult. Just a disclaimer: I can't speak for anyone other than myself, so if you really want to know, you should ask many other people the same thing. With that said...
I was simply naturally attracted to the concept, just as naturally as I find women in general. When I was a child, it started off as a strange fixation that couldn't be explained (how could I? I was maybe only 11 or 12, so I couldn't rationalize my developing sexuality). It's just there, inside me. It's a rare fetish, and therefore unthinkable to 99.9% of people.
I can sympathize with your perspective, by the way. When I see art about furries, inflation, guro, and so forth, I find those the opposite of cute, cool, or fun. They are not my preferences, but I won't judge people for that. We all have certain kinks and must learn to accept that no one else will appreciate, outside of these insular online communities. I see no reason to demand that they censor their work, no more than I should expect them to demand it of me.
Does that help?
π: 1 β©: 1
Kinda, but because if it is a fetish, and it's made by/ for a fetishist, it's considered porn and DA doesn't like uncensored porn.
Stop using the SJW motto.
You do bring up good points, but what you are forgetting, sir, ma'am, mailbox, whatever gender you are, is that people fap to this art. If it's meant to be fapped to, it's porn. You won't see uncensored pictures of people showing off their naked bodies, which is porn, so why can you find uncensored fetish art almost immediately?
π: 0 β©: 3
"Β it's considered porn"
Pornography
noun
1.sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like, whose purpose is to elicit sexual arousal.
sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like
sexually explicit
sexually
explicit
Need I say more?
π: 0 β©: 1
WHOSE POURPOSE IS TO ELICIT SEXUAL AROUSAL
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, it still has to be sexually explicit, that's quite literally the first part of the definition
π: 0 β©: 1
Also, if it's made for sexual arousal.
π: 0 β©: 1
If it's sexually explicit and made to sexually arouse. That is the entire definition. By your logic, a pinup calendar is porn, bikinis are porn, being attractive makes you porn. You can continue to ignore the actual definition just cause you're too triggered by better artists drawing stuff you don't like, but the reality does not change.
You might love sharia law, but the rest of us don't
π: 0 β©: 2
No, the thing is that some people make it and post it to DA. I mean on this same art piece were commenting on, somebody said that certain types of attachment are SEXY. Yes, sexy. However, you have a good point. But however, I have another reason why I want it censored. What if a little kid who had no account got on this site and found this art piece. He would probably freak out and call his mummy over and now he's not allowed on the Internet anymore for a long time because of you guys.
π: 0 β©: 1
So we should censor our work because of an oddly specific hypothetical situation you made up? Feels don't equal reals kid.
And that not even mentioning that people under 13 shouldn't even be on the site.
At least you finally stopped pretending that it actually counts as porn.
π: 0 β©: 2
Bitch, please. If you don't want people like me to ask people to censor their fetish art, go onto a REAL fetish site. Yes, they have those. Now stop corrupitng this website you Type:Null looking arse cuck and tell all your fetish fag friends. I promise you that I will get each and every art piece meant for a fetishist, one by one, starting with attachment, vore, than that inflating one, etc. I will make sure not a single fetish artist who knows what they're making, censors their fetish. Plus, aren't fetishes supposed to be kept to yourself?
π: 0 β©: 1
So you have no actual response to what I said. As we see, I've already showed that none of us have to censor our art (unless it meets the actual DA requirements for tagging).
You and your kind are more than free to go around and demand people hide their work because you're unable to control your own emotions, but my kind have the respective right to point out the flaws in your self-centered authoritative-left philosophy.
You can continue to kick and scream, but there comes a time when every 12 year old finally learns that tantrums get you nothing
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, but I didn't throw a tantrum, and I got you. That's worse than nothing. Plus, people have fetish sites for a
Reason, and this is not a fetish site. So if you could tell all your friends to move to the fetish site and censor all their work because it's the equivalent to porn for you sad fucks, that'd be great...
π: 0 β©: 1
Except it is not porn (in the cases of stuff we do post here) by any definition, as we've been over before. And while this is not a fetishist art site, it is an art site that has no regulation against fetishist art.
If you think none of us follow the rules, you'd be wrong. I run the main conjoinment art group here on DA and make sure that all submissions break no rules.
So again, none of us are leaving or censoring our work just because you're triggered.
In fact, why do we have to move? We're the ones with plethoras of art ingrained into the DA community, while you have nothing more than apparently being a pest according to messages I have received. You could easily move to Tumblr's hug box where you can make your own safe-soace away from the evil artists who have committed the greatest Sim of drawing art you do not like.
π: 0 β©: 2
God damn, can you leave me the hell alone?
π: 0 β©: 1
You, the child who goes out of their way to annoy people who draw things you don't like, are demanding I leave you alone? Oh the hypocrisy.
So what, no more insults? No more delusions about how you dictate the rules? No real response at all?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not dictating anything. I'm asking
π: 0 β©: 1
You made multiple false claims about the rules and how they applied to our works.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes it is considered porn.
If someone faps to something and that's the purpose of said art, it's porn. Nothing more or less. Now good day.
π: 0 β©: 2
Oh yes, and speaking of breaking the rules, guess what you just got reported forΒ help.deviantart.com/696/
I also have a backup in case you try anythingΒ sta.sh/01a2g5ojb2m1 I have it backed up
π: 0 β©: 1
By a guy who draws uncensored porn?
π: 0 β©: 1
Why do you continue to ignore every shred of evidence I give that shows that this stuff isn't porn?Β
Fuck, even by your standards, the stuff I draw isn't porn because I don't draw with the intent of fetish appeal.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you're admitting you were being deluded and that your claims are false?
π: 0 β©: 0
Again, the definition is SEXUALLY EXPLICIT media created for the purpose of sexual arousal. DA even has a list that confirms itΒ help.deviantart.com/565/
You can continue to delude yourself, but your feelings have no effect on the reality of the situation.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ooo, how about this? Should this be censored, too?
www.deviantart.com/art/If-I-doβ¦
π: 0 β©: 2
Personally, I find that to be more humor than anything else...
π: 0 β©: 0
Was it made by/ for a fetishist? If something depicts a fetish and isn't meant to be fapped to, not fetish porn.
π: 0 β©: 0
lol "SJW motto"? Are you kidding me? Those nutcases hate the kind of art I do. Me saying anything that a SJW also says does not automatically make it an "SJW motto".
Hm... so should a picture like this kilalaaa.deviantart.com/art/Ne⦠be censored?
π: 0 β©: 1
First, chill, just a joke("feels over reals" is the SJW motto.) and second, no, not meant to be fapped to. Honestly, the first one you showed me, maybe.
π: 0 β©: 2
It may be a joke, but where did that even come from? What did I say that reminded you of "feels over reals"? (which I do agree is currently the annoying approach of hard-left ideologues)
The point I'm trying to make with those two links is that either one can turn someone on, whether or not it's intended to be. Much the same way, I can make something that's intended to be fapping material, but not everyone will interpret it that way (see my previous comment about some thinking it's fun or awesome, and nothing more).
You're trying to measure what is or isn't appropriate by perceived intentions. That isn't something we can easily anticipate. Will you literally ask every artist what their intent is when they made their art...before requesting that they censor it? (something not typically popular among artists)
Also, some work will not immediately appear fetishistic, even if it was intended that way. How will you go about identifying that?
π: 0 β©: 1
Good point. I don't really know. I'll just check the comments and guess based on the artists responses and other artwork to find out. It's surprisingly easy.
π: 0 β©: 0
He never stated anything close to the idea of "feels over reals"
so far you have been to only one to do so.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nope. There are many people who imply that stuff.
π: 0 β©: 2
| Next =>