Genetically distinct photoshop fetish discovered
Every time I think I've seen it all on the internet, someone informs me that I have not. Evidently, there is some population of folks online who take visceral delight in gazing upon poorly-photoshopped images of pinups being squished alive by pythons or elephant trunks. NSFW, some include hand-drawn bodily fluids being squeezed from helpless modelbodies. The only thing that could make this crude cropping any sexier is a li'l drop shadow and some emboss. Mmmmm. Link. (thanks, Reverse Cowgirl)
the latest
latest episodes
i think they missed that one on the last episode of south park.
Er, yeah. Not even sure what to say, other than mumbling the obvious about REALLY crappy photoshop work. Maybe the bad 'chops are part of the fetish?
You learn to look past the clone stamps and artefacts and see the woman in a way you've never seen them before.
This is Anonymous. I am here to inform you.
This is an offshoot of the "crush" fetish (large creatures sitting on, smothering, or crushing to death smaller creatures; usually associated with a woman crushing small animals or bugs, or a giant woman crushing men under her feet).
The "crush" fetish itself is an offshoot of the "hard vore" (itself an offshoot of "vore") and "giantess (gts)" fetish groups.
Examples of this can occasionally be found on 4Chan, or (in the specific case of "crush" fetishism) on GuroChan.
Signed,
Anonymous
(We do not forgive. We do not forget. We are legion.)
(PS: Join us in May!)
That's somewhat troubling.
You learn to look past the clone stamps and artefacts and see the woman in a way you've never seen them before.
Focussing on the elephant says more about you than it does the image.
"you must be signed in..." screw that.
You can get off on clone stamps and liquify tools without the babes anyway.
@vjinterkosmos, ah, right, Flickr has imposed some new automagical cockblockery that makes it impossible to look at photos in someone's photostream if their stream includes images flagged as "adult." It's something they do to prevent liability with minors potentially accessing sexually explicit material.
"Genetically distinct photoshop fetish discovered"
[citation needed]
It's not photoshopped, but would this picture of me humping an elephant's face in Nepal count?
Antinous, nice trous guy.
From International Male, one-stop shopping for men trying to make absolutely sure that nobody thinks they're straight.
"t's nt phtshppd, bt wld ths pctr f m hmpng n lphnt's fc n Npl cnt?"
n fck r gy thts sck
Anon here,
Not that I am into that sort of thing but this fetish is actually more widely spread than one would think. It has been given the name of vore. Vore seems to include alot of women being swallowed by mostly reptiles and the occasional frog, giant frog that is. Most of the people who enjoy this fetish do not seem to like the idea of the women getting hurt. Thus often the snakes in the vore comics and lit are defanged and the digestive tract seems to do very little digesting. The women that are depicted are more often than not happy to be swallowed. I would like to stress that this is just something I know a bit about and not actually something that appeals to me. It really makes me wonder why at all it would appeal to men. What part of the male brain would want to swallow things in a sexual way?
Thanks for that cogent response.
i'm torn between my knee-jerk, "hetero-goddamn-sexuals" response and some crack about a long tail.
i think it's time to put the internet away, for the evening.
that looks like a very happy elephant
Rule 34, corollary A? "You have not yet imagined everything of which there is porn."
Ugol's Law. It's not just a good idea. Also, "Please specify color of goat.".
I concluded long ago that, if you can describe something, someone somewhere probably has a blog about all the websites dedicated to that thing. And they've had to upgrade their servers twice to handle the increasing traffic.
Okay, I know I've said this before, but NOW I've seen everything. For sure this time. God please let it be for sure this time.
the elephant goatse link doesn't work
You think this is bad? Do NOT Google conjoined twin porn. You will not be delighted.
Takuan: And thank goodness for that.
Have you seen that video where the zoo elephant starts to sit down and the keeper's head goes right up inside its ass? It was all over the news about ten years ago. Oh, why describe it when I could just link to the video on YouTube?
the apocryphal tale of the constipated elephant, the keeper with the hosepipe enema, the slip, the crack on the head on the concrete floor and the subsequent discover next day of boots protruding....
...it's not so much the subject as how poorly executed the photoshoppery is. It makes my soul weep. :(
Todd #20: +1
I am continually humbled by the interweb's fetish power.
Wow. Do you think I could make a living doing this? I could do a better composite than any of these in about 30 seconds.
weird weird weird.
There's something a bit Roger Dean about it all, too. Suitable cover material for that Yes comeback album?
Okay, okay . . . the species specifity is moderately amusing, and the Bad Photoshop element gives it a connection to previous BoingBoing posts and geek culture, while hinting at the fact that it might all really be tongue in cheek. But still.
This is fetish porn where women are being killed and/or injured for the purposes of entertainment and titillation. There's not even a question of willing participation, since the images are are all swiped from other sources. If this was poorly photoshopped images of nude women being stabbed or strangled with "hand-drawn bodily fluids being squeezed from helpless modelbodies" you wouldn't link to it, would you? What is it that makes this different enough to be acceptable?
I think some fetishes are invented to make Furries look just the little bit less weird. Once, while looking for information on quicksand (why, I don't know, but honestly, I wasn't looking for what I found), I happened upon a site devoted to non photoshopped, for the most part, posed pictures of women stuck in quicksand, or at least stuck in mud. Also, on the same page were photoshopped pictures and drawings of women being consumed by huge carnivorous plants. Both had the same feeling of the Flickr set mentioned here. Kurt Vonnegut once said something along the lines of our brains becoming too big for our own good, and I must say that I agree with him. What did we ever do before the internet?
What is it that makes this different enough to be acceptable?
CrunchBird..
How about: that it is different. It seems far more cartoon-violent (less so even, because there are no anguised/pained reactions or consequences) which we don't have a problem with at all. No one looks like they are suffering, which is a large part of torture-fetish, so it's unlikely to be about getting-off on hurting women.
This honestly feels quite benign, and the BadPhotoshopping only serves to illustrate this. If it was done with a serious intent, with teh mad l33t 'shopping skillz, so it actually looked like it was happening and had the models reacting appropriately, screaming in pain, bleeding, frantically trying to escape etc (like evrey second horror film out there, male or female victims), it might have had a more negative impact.. It really just looks like microlulz to me.
Is the problem that it focuses on women? Or that they are porno women? Or that it is humourizing people suffering? (or indeed, animal suffering)
What if you found out this was a feminist artist's reaction to objectification of women?
I wouldn't be surprised to find out there wasn't much intent or community at all in these pictures, and the quality of finish suggests that they could have all been done in a weekend for weak grins.
The ones with no eyes are, however, a bit weird :)