I am moving.

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Links deleted. Don't post them again.
[/TGFBS]

[JonSetanta]

Well, shit.

[Crissa]

Yeah, but my point was that Loli is about making figures that look like kids or toys by proportion and style; whereas Barbie or Pageant is about making kids that look like adults via throwing in 'sexy' clothes, makeup, and underwires that children wouldn't wear.

In other words, Loli is childish sex and pageant (american pedo) is sexy children.

-Crissa

[Koumei]

Noted, fbmf. Sorry about that.

[Cielingcat]

1192594885[/unixtime]]Yeah, but my point was that Loli is about making figures that look like kids or toys by proportion and style; whereas Barbie or Pageant is about making kids that look like adults via throwing in 'sexy' clothes, makeup, and underwires that children wouldn't wear.

In other words, Loli is childish sex and pageant (american pedo) is sexy children.

-Crissa

And if we must have one, I'd much rather have the one that doesn't involve actual children.

[Koumei]

Seconded, most definitely. I'm not a fan of the way some parents dress their little girls up like adults.

[CalibronXXX]

One of the various modern social trends I loathe these days.

[tzor]

I'm really confused here. I mean the trend in most of history was to have children's clothing be adult clothing in miniature. Here is a quote I found on the web, "Children's clothing in much of Western History was chiefly similar to adult dress in miniature."
Here is a web page on children's clothing: Centuries of Childhood

The history of children's clothing reflects the attitude of adults toward childhood, as, until very recently, children had no voice in the matter. Prior to the late 18th century, children were dressed as miniature adult, in garments which limited their physical freedom and imposed societal restrictions on their behavior. From birth, infants were tightly wrapped in swaddling clothes, which immobilized their limbs. Toddlers were put into smaller versions of their parents' clothing, a practice which reflected the prevailing view that childhood was an undesirable prelude to adulthood, to be gotten through as soon as possible.

The pendulum swung back to discomfort in the 1820s when children were again subjected to the whims of adult fashions. The industrial revolution enabled a rising middle class to practice a new level of ostentation, in which children were again used to indicate the social status of their parents. Victorian materialism put girls back into crinolines and bustles, and both young boys and girls into stays, long hair and numerous petticoats. Older boys wore tunics, short pants, trousers and a variety of military-style uniforms, which at times provided ease and comfort. However the emphasis was no longer on the child's welfare and needs. Children were dressed in elaborate garments and hats, high-heeled narrow shoes, and heavy, stiff, dark fabrics until the end of the 19th century, despite the opposition of dress reformers.

Because everything old is new again.

[Neeek]

1192649213[/unixtime]] I'm really confused here. I mean the trend in most of history was to have children's clothing be adult clothing in miniature. Here is a quote I found on the web, "Children's clothing in much of Western History was chiefly similar to adult dress in miniature."

I believe the objection is more to "dressing up kids like they are slutty adults at a bar trying to score" than just having them wear suits and dresses or whatever.

[CalibronXXX]

Bingo.

Personally I'd prefer if it were just more socially acceptable, and legal, to not wear clothes in public, because when that isn't culturally odd people don't even care enough to notice.

I'm not a nudist mind you, I just think this would be a simple, elegant solution. Hopefully it'd get people to exercise more too.

[fbmf]

1192596036[/unixtime]]Noted, fbmf. Sorry about that.

No worries.

Game On,
fbmf

[Crissa]

From a blog I peruse... come some very scary pictures.

I know, fbmf, it's creepy, but apparently not against any laws in your state.

-Crissa

[the_taken]

I suddenly feel very sick... I didn't believe a picture could do that to me.

[Koumei]

Kill it with fire.

[cthulhu]

I thought they where dolls. Are they dolls? Wtf?

[MrWaeseL]

I could make a fortune selling my photshop services to adults who validate themselves by letting their daughters jump through ridiculous hoops. Not that I have any photoshop skills, but neither do the people on the sites Crissa linked.

[CalibronXXX]

The only picture on that site that does not make me shudder is the second one, Lily, who just looks like a toddler with a truly dangerous amount of glitter glued around her eyes.

[Judging__Eagle]

1192704502[/unixtime]]I could make a fortune selling my photshop services to adults who validate themselves by letting their daughters jump through ridiculous hoops. Not that I have any photoshop skills, but neither do the people on the sites Crissa linked.

I agree with WaeseL on that count.

It's the fact that the photoshopping is horribly done that makes the girls look creepy.

The faces don't look natural, the eyes are literally copy-pasta jobs (especially the two blue-eyed jobs on the 1st link, they literally used the same blue eyes for both pics).

As well some of the lips were placed as if the skew and transform tools didn't exist (making them look ridiculous since the lip sizes don't jive with the cheek muscles or the chin or the rest of the face).

Really, the tragedy here is the fact that the PSing is being done by hacks with probably pedopheliac urges and it fvcking shows in the work.

If it was an actual photo editor they'd be doing things like close-cropping, cleaning up blurred areas or even blurring areas that are too sharp. Not turning the subject into a puppet that looks like it was poorly made.

Personally though, I hate having to do photoediting. I prefer to start from scratch and use the brush tool and a wacom tablet. My photo-editing-fu is sort of weak imo.


Calibron:

Lily's eyes were probably fvcked up with a filter applied to a selected area or using a custom brush that alternates between black and white color palettes.

The glitter does jack except make the picture look horrible.

[Bigode]

And I should know better than to click "Real Doll" on Wikipedia. Excuse me, I've to turn my stomach inside out.

[the_taken]

1192740989[/unixtime]]And I should know better than to click "Real Doll" on Wikipedia. Excuse me, I've to turn my stomach inside out.

I'll take your word for it.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1192740989[/unixtime]]And I should know better than to click "Real Doll" on Wikipedia. Excuse me, I've to turn my stomach inside out.

Found Angelina Jolie's sisters?

Edit: I'm not linking to the site, because it barfs on the CoC, but they also make plush sex dolls. As soon as they figure out to put cat and fox heads on the plush sex dolls, they'll make a fortune!

[the_taken]

1192759289[/unixtime]]

1192740989[/unixtime]]And I should know better than to click "Real Doll" on Wikipedia. Excuse me, I've to turn my stomach inside out.

Found Angelina Jolie's sisters?

Edit: I'm not linking to the site, because it barfs on the CoC, but they also make plush sex dolls. As soon as they figure out to put cat and fox heads on the plush sex dolls, they'll make a fortune!

Eyuw...

[JonSetanta]

Not to be rude but would you buy a furry sex doll, Count?
I'd like to know what percentage of the world population genuinely finds furries sexually attractive. Perhaps such information is so closely guarded (from being such an obscure yet shockingly common fetish) that we will never know.
And yes once again this is coming from a guy that collects succubus pron like a fiend.

[Captain_Bleach]

Depends on whether or not you consider Cat-girls "furry."

[tzor]

I would not buy a real doll period. I once had a glass head when I lived in Key West. Found it in the appartment, was a glass manneqin used probably for whigs. I don't know if I took her back with me or if I left her in the Casa Gato when I left Key West.