This is a board for topics that don't fit on other boards, but that are still otaku/hobby related.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 33905)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, EPUB, GIF, JPEG, JPG, MP3, MP4, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, SWF, TORRENT, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 7000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 3174 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 157747670175.jpg - (164.38KB , 850x1205 , sample_005766acf89a387fc6488b84d665226a.jpg )
33905 No. 33905 [Edit]
What are some things that really bug you?
Things that genuinely piss you off?

I thought it would be nice to have a thread to vent about any little annoyance, no mater how big or small.
Any and all complains about the world around you are welcome here!

Old one reached bumb limit I think.
273 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 35235 [Edit]
File 159156220593.jpg - (153.41KB , 850x1181 , __kikuchi_makoto_idolmaster_million_live_theater_d.jpg )
35235
>>35229
>>35230
>>35231
On the topic of tomboys, I don't know why they are constantly conflated with homosexuality. The definition of a tomboy are girls who either look and act somewhat masculine, or are into masculine hobbies. Girls who totally look and act like men are just butch. Tomboys, while they do engage in masculine activities or look slightly masculine, there is still a blantant femininity to them. Not all tomboys have short hair, not all tomboys are into sports (some can be into vidya, tech, cars, etc. etc.), and not all tomboys hate girlish things.
>> No. 35236 [Edit]
>>35235
>I don't know why they are constantly conflated with homosexuality.
I've never heard of that before.
>> No. 35237 [Edit]
>>35228
>>35230
>I genuinely, whole-heartedly believe that being more attracted to a figure with little of what makes a woman look like a woman, bone structure wise and fat distribution wise, is quasi-homosexual.
You probably don't understand why people find teenage girls attractive. I mean you do realize that fat distribution and bone structure is going to remain the same proportionally on a thin girl who isn't underweight right? Do you think females magically change bone structure and their genetic fat distribution proportions when they gain weight? I genuinely do not understand why thickniggers think that women become less female when they aren't burdened with copious amounts of excess fat.

Post edited on 7th Jun 2020, 2:23pm
>> No. 35238 [Edit]
>>35235
Most people don't know what a tomboy is. Just like how most people don't know what a cake is. Also like how most people don't what an OL is. Further like how most people don't know what a waifu is. Etc.
>> No. 35239 [Edit]
File 159156614698.jpg - (242.38KB , 850x1363 , sample_5ce06b2e0b33a3f09d382fa370e00865.jpg )
35239
>>35237
You're so dishonest and inconsistent. There's no fat to distribute if they are "thin". "Thin" is underweight. "Thin" is narrow and boyish. You also said yourself that you like "waifish, tall, thin" girls, so that rules out hips that are wider than shoulders. Have I said I have an obesity fetish? Has any of the pictures I've posted been of obese woman? No. Your tastes are homosexual.

Post edited on 7th Jun 2020, 2:54pm
>> No. 35240 [Edit]
Can't we just get along without resorting to insults?
>> No. 35241 [Edit]
I hate it when people have really strong opinions on things they objectively know little to nothing about, other than maybe what they heard on TV or in school. Right now with the riots in the US going on, a lot of people feel the need to share their 2 cents on US politics with everyone including me, despite the fact that they don't even understand English, and thus wouldn't be able to properly inform themselves on that topic even if they tried. I'm a polyglot who has spent literally thousands of hours perusing historical documents, studies, statistics and leaked communications in half a dozen different languages, and you really think I give a fuck about what your TV told you to think about any of this?
>> No. 35242 [Edit]
>>35240
What if I want to get along while being insulting, you dumb ass? Lets be friends, idiot.
>> No. 35243 [Edit]
>>35242
I bet you're sporting twin-tails.
>> No. 35245 [Edit]
>>35241
So what's your opinion?
>> No. 35246 [Edit]
>>35243
Baka!
>> No. 35247 [Edit]
>>35245
Please no
>>/tat/
>> No. 35248 [Edit]
File 159159917253.png - (2.08MB , 1440x1080 , Neon Genesis Evangelion - 1x26 - Take Care of Your.png )
35248
>>35239
>"Thin" is underweight.
No, it isn't. Who told you that.
>"Thin" is narrow
Kinda yeah
>and boyish
No, it isn't.
>You also said yourself that you like "waifish, tall, thin" girls, so that rules out hips that are wider than shoulders
No, it doesn't
>Have I said I have an obesity fetish?
No but you've been calling me gay the entire time for liking thin girls so I don't really fucking care what you think your fetish is. I would argue that objectively no girl can be "boyish" to a level that makes them masculine without a genetic defect but that's neither here nor there.

Your pic related I would consider fairly thin, if you're really trying to argue semantics and claim you only ever thought I meant girls with wide shoulders and no hips when I said "thin", then you can suck my chode for wasting my time and pissing me off just to make shit up.
>> No. 35251 [Edit]
File 15916224777.jpg - (306.57KB , 1374x962 , sample_33e7ebf4fd743c75046ff7b8ce7ee10e.jpg )
35251
>>35248
Look up thin in the dictionary. Weak, flimsy, less than the usual number, not well fleshed, lacking substance. I didn't need to because my entire life has told me thin is a synonym for unhealthy, in every context I've seen it myself. If that's not clear enough, you also said waifish: an abandoned young animal, thin or gaunt. Gaunt: extremely thin and bony, haggard and drawn, as from great hunger, weariness or torture. It doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to put two and two together. Thin = underweight and unhealthy. Or at least, your tastes definitely do. Then you have the gall to say a more healthy look being popular is bad because you've deemed it "fat" as you keep saying? A look that's objectively better for breeding, the purpose of sex? Completely ignoring muscle and being fit too?
>Your pic related I would consider fairly thin
Oh, but the other ones are obese? Like, >>35204 ? "No hips" is different from hips that are wider than their shoulders. I'm calling your tastes homosexual because to me it resembles boys, like "twinks". Take away what makes a woman look "wonaly", and they don't look too different from boys. At the very least, you have a taste for something unhealthy, so i'm glad it's becoming less prevalent.

Post edited on 8th Jun 2020, 6:25am
>> No. 35252 [Edit]
>>35251
Why do you care about what drawings other people fap to? How is that healthy, unhealthy or has anything to do with health at all? Jesus Christ.
>> No. 35253 [Edit]
>>35252
People can fap to whatever they want or draw whatever they want, including gay porn. I strongly feel though that it's not a bad thing for unhealthy physiques to go out of fashion in media, and I have reasons for thinking it's unhealthy and unattractive. That's all.

The first thing I posted was mostly a joke, although it did express my viewpoint somewhat. They decided to take issue with my postion and reasoning, so I explained myself.

Post edited on 8th Jun 2020, 7:45am
>> No. 35254 [Edit]
>>35251
>>35253
You sound a lot like a womans rights activist. For the most part what I consider "thin" is well within globally acknowledged ranges of 100% healthy BMIs, so what you're talking about is either some pseudoscience or some bullshit you pulled straight out of your asshole based on personal bias in your own life. It's actually more unhealthy in my opinion to pretend that thicker women are always more healthy than thinner women, especially considering many women who are considered "thick" are actually clinically overweight and many women who are considered "skinny" now are clinically optimal. Waifish might have been the wrong word, but all things considered when it gets used for perfectly healthy women I might as well.
>I'm calling your tastes homosexual because to me it resembles boys, like "twinks"
You know it's funny you would say that, retard, considering that skinny men are called twinks because their skinniness makes them look more feminine but whatever. Sounds like some major mental gymnastics to me. Just like everything else that goes on in the brain of someone who wines about "unhealthy tastes in media".
>The first thing I posted was mostly a joke, although it did express my viewpoint somewhat. They decided to take issue with my postion and reasoning, so I explained myself.
I can say the same regarding you. When your first response is to call someone gay because he doesn't have the same taste in FEMALES as you, you're a shitposter plain and simple.

Before I stop responding to you I want to know what you think healthy weights for women would be. I'm really curious.
>> No. 35255 [Edit]
>>35254
Not him or too interesting in the discussion, but "Before I stop responding to you". No one who says things like this can resist the urge to get the last word.
>> No. 35256 [Edit]
>>35254
I don't need to argue about numbers or bmi. This is about aesthetics. Are we talking about 3-d or 2-d, because what's going on with 3-d people doesn't matter. When it comes to your tastes, i'm just going off of your description and what I perceive those words to mean, which agrees with what could be found in a dictionary. So either your tastes are homosexual, or you're using words incorrectly.

Twinks are called twinks because they look like little boys, not because they look feminine. To heterosexual men, the two wouldn't be conflated. People who are attracted to little boys are homosexuals. As for wanting healthy, feminine woman in my media, it's because they look better for reproduction and are therefore sexier. The more attractive girls there are, the better.
>> No. 35258 [Edit]
>>35256
>I don't need to argue about numbers or bmi
Oh I think you do buddy, if you're gonna start throwing things like healthiness into the argument.
>> No. 35259 [Edit]
>>35258
Neither bmi or weight takes muscle into account. Neither are accurate measures of health, as any physician would tell you. Muscle weighs more than fat. A woman who exercises is going to be healthier than a woman who doesn't, even if they weigh more because of muscle. Same for men. A muscular man could be considered "overweight" just because of statistics which don't differentiate where the number comes from. Going with what your eyes see is better.

Post edited on 8th Jun 2020, 2:33pm
>> No. 35260 [Edit]
>>35256
>i'm just going off of your description and what I perceive those words to mean, which agrees with what could be found in a dictionary. So either your tastes are homosexual, or you're using words incorrectly.
What's your perception of the word homosexual then? According to the dictionary it's attraction to one's own sex, so you obviously aren't using the dictionary definition.
>> No. 35262 [Edit]
File 159166763560.jpg - (36.65KB , 209x360 , download (17).jpg )
35262
>>35260
The description includes things which I see as being very unattractive in a woman and excluding the things I do see as naturally attractive. A "thin, waifish, skinny, flat" woman reminds me very much of what a little boy or a twink looks like. What is left? Going off of this picture in >>35181 too, Shinji has pretty much the same body minus the breasts. Give him some slightly longer lashes, and his face is the same as Misato's. Anon likes woman, but Anon doesn't like the things that make a woman's body look like a woman's body. It doesn't make sense. I don't see why that being popular would make sense.

I made an off-hand comment to express my own tastes in a tongue-in-cheek way. I didn't expect anybody to fly off the handle because I insinuated they might not be heterosexual. And then they go on and on about how bad "excess fat" is while ignoring other reasons a woman would be bulkier in certain areas and examples, not answering if they think they're "fat" or not. I don't get it.

Post edited on 8th Jun 2020, 6:55pm
>> No. 35263 [Edit]
>>35262
> Anon likes woman, but Anon doesn't like the things that make a woman's body look like a woman's body. It doesn't make sense. I don't see why that being popular would make sense.
Because for unknown reasons you cannot comprehend any taste other than yours as being anything but "incorrect". Oh, don't go on about nature as if that has anything to do with it. You already said yourself that we're not talking about 3D. If a girl has hips as wide as her shoulders, or slightly more, she's feminine enough for me. Obviously the fat that does exist on a "skinny" girl is still going to be in higher amounts in the feminine areas. All I really meant was that I like the female proportions to be at a more longitudinally stretched scale, the whole short and thick thing doesn't really do it for me. It's the same fucking body type but it's just longer. Or thinner, technically. Still the same shoulder proportions, still thighs thicker than other parts of the body in proportion, still narrow shoulders and all that. But I just don't find excess fat alone to be attractive. It's more about the shapes, the shape of the breast and butt as opposed to the size, and a lot of definition is lost on "larger" girls. As an artist I don't like drawing people who are hidden under layers of fat and as a man I don't like large women. I just think the "thick" look lacks class. It's fine if you like girls that look more like a slampig, but don't fucking call me gay like a little faggot thick spammer from 4/v/. I can't understand why YOU find fat attractive pat a certain point, but you do, somehow. Like the other anon said, if I was gay I would just fap to dudes. This is the anonymous internet after all. It probably all boils down to the fact that I prefer younger girls in general, and to me the more filled out look denotes an older woman. That is a natural practicality, but it is NOT aesthetic perfection. I mean, is some fat guy with man boobs more motherly or some shit? Because all you're doing is adding fat to the proportions. Think about it. Seriously, the base male and base female shape is always going to be distinct, fat will usually be proportionally the same amount to the same areas for any two people of the same gender and body type, with different weights. Past a certain point excess fat stops highlighting femininity and is just excess. There's no reason to go beyond a certain point unless you actually have a fetish for more slampiggy girls. So to claim it is the definition of heterosexuality is just silly. Are teenage girls manly because they lack the more chubby size of a mother? No, they have the same proportions at a lower weight. And that's what I prefer. If you're going to accuse me of something, you should accuse me of being a pedophile, not gay.
>> No. 35265 [Edit]
>>35254
Actually >>35181 would fall into an unhealthy range on a BMI, considering BMI is just height and weight and they really don't have much weight compared to their height.
>> No. 35269 [Edit]
>>35263
And what about muscle? What effect do you think muscle has on appearance? You haven't acknowledged it at all for some reason. You mentioned art, so I thought you might be an artist. What do you think about these drawings? >>/cr/293 >>/cr/333 >>/mai/21081
Okay. I'm sorry. You seem to actually have a mild anorexia fetish, based on the one picture you did post showcasing your preferences and your description.

Post edited on 9th Jun 2020, 5:35am
>> No. 35270 [Edit]
File 159170802973.jpg - (610.00KB , 1439x2048 , dc8d289e4734baddfb6dcc01f0442f3a.jpg )
35270
>>35265
>>35262
>Rei is too thin and manly
I wasn't sure what this discussion is about but now I know I sympathize with
>>35181

Post edited on 9th Jun 2020, 6:08am
>> No. 35277 [Edit]
>>35236
I've seen a couple of post during the years saying that tomboys are just for people in the closet. While they are relatively few in number and are most likely just shitposting, it's good to make clarification on the issue.
>> No. 35278 [Edit]
File 159173042563.gif - (49.54KB , 568x395 , 1591704512538.gif )
35278
>>35269
I dunno I'm not gonna shit on someones drawing of their waifu, they have some odd proportions but the Asuka one seems to be fine. From a technical standpoint they're pretty good. Also when you bring muscle into the equation, you change everything. Now all the fat distribution pretty much does not matter as musculature is going to be put on wherever the person is pushing the hardest. For women this is hopefully the legs.
>>35265
Take this chart into consideration. Given the average female height of 5'2 in japan, a weight of 105 lbs would not be considered unhealthy according to the top medical circles in the advanced parts of the world. I suspect the average American would immediately consider this weight to be incredibly unhealthy if they were presented with it.

Post edited on 9th Jun 2020, 12:24pm
>> No. 35282 [Edit]
>>35278
Type 5 foot 2 105 pounds into google, it looks nothing like >>35181
>> No. 35283 [Edit]
As amusing as the above is, can it please be moved to /tat/?
>> No. 35284 [Edit]
>>35282
Well, my image was a stylized depiction, it's the same aesthetic and my point was that such a look is perfectly healthy. It's a modern myth that more weight means better regarding a womans health.
>> No. 35285 [Edit]
>>35284
Your image looks like 5'6 100 lbs. Type that in google. It's not the same aesthetic.
>> No. 35286 [Edit]
File 159177707279.png - (2.53MB , 1920x1080 , natsume22.png )
35286
This thread is getting off-topic.
>> No. 35287 [Edit]
Ticks. Ticks are everywhere. They're even in Iceland.
One step outside is at least one tick on you. Some are carriers of diseases, and all are purveyors of misery.
They cling, climb, and crave you. Even if you're inside, they'll have a taste of your blood.
Even if they were anthropomorphized as cute girls, they should--no--must be dealt with great haste and no mercy.
Ticks must all die.
>> No. 35288 [Edit]
>>35287
I had dozens of cats in past years so I know what you mean, sometimes they didn't have enough with your cats and you found them climbing your hair. Truly disgusting.
I don't see them often in cities though.
>> No. 35289 [Edit]
>>35287
I've never had a problem with them even with cats, one cat we have was a stray kitten and he was covered in fleas which had to be removed but he has never had them since.
>> No. 35303 [Edit]
I hate built in carpets. They're ugly, cheap, stain easily are hard to clean, and can't be easily replaced despite getting worn down so easily. Hard wood floors with nice rugs on top are vastly superior. I hate ceiling tiles, the kinds with ugly black spots on them especially. I get the utility of them, but they shouldn't be that ugly. They put them in schools and and other places. I hate popcorn texture paint. It's ugly. Who thought it was a good idea? I hate asymetrical mcmansions with all kinds of windows shapes and sizes and random protrusions. Stupid people think it's better to build oversized, mangled houses out of cheap material even though it looks bad and drives the price of surrounding houses down.
>> No. 35304 [Edit]
>>35303
Yeah all that stuff is horrible.
> I hate popcorn texture paint. It's ugly. Who thought it was a good idea?
I think it's to prevent echos, and it's easier than trying to get an even paint coat across a large smooth flat surface
>> No. 35305 [Edit]
>>35303
>popcorn texture
These things often contain asbestos too!
>> No. 35307 [Edit]
>>35304
>I think it's to prevent echos
It's used to damper sound in general. This is why, for example, it's installed in hotel rooms.
>> No. 35308 [Edit]
>>35303
I actually like them if they are done right. But on the subject of floors I really hate modern ones. I don't like how the floor of a modern house is just a concrete slab and then whatever you put directly on top of that. I much prefer the older method of the floor of the house being raised from the ground providing the floor with some give.
>> No. 35328 [Edit]
File 159253425837.png - (808.29KB , 810x988 , 328218d05ee86ed05d7b1fb7e5f2dea5.png )
35328
This doesn't bother me, but I can't understand the prevalence of wikis for basically every single western media franchise, regardless of how obscure or seemingly irrelevant to anything or anybody they are. It's as if there's a sub-culture of wiki writing, people who enjoy writing wikis purely for its own sake without even needing to be a fan of the wiki's topic. Wikis are also mostly written and moderated in a way you'd expect from adults or teenagers. I don't think ten year olds just decide to contribute to wikis of the tv shows they watch. There is a Care Bears wiki. There is a Caillou wiki with 727 pages. Clifford the Red Dog... Sid the Science Kid. That actually exists. Why? Who are these people? Pedophiles? Parents? Why?????
>> No. 35330 [Edit]
>>35328
Probably just people with nostalgia for the shows. It is kind of odd that they'd be fans of them to that sort of extent though, considering that there's not much to those old kids shows beyond the surface.
>> No. 35331 [Edit]
>>35307
Does it even work?
>> No. 35345 [Edit]
it really bugs me when i try to read a thread but it devolves into off-topic normalfag arguments
>> No. 35347 [Edit]
It really bugs me when people can't be bothered to put in the bare minimum effort in their writing, like using correct capitalization and ending their sentence with a period.
>> No. 35349 [Edit]
>>35347
It really bugs me when people make dumb passive aggressive statements rather than just be civil, especially about incredibly minor and pointless things. I realize I'm copying you're posting style but that's intenetional. I agree with you somewhat that it can be harder to read longer posts with worse punctuation/capitalization, but that's mostly if it's below a certain point with abbreivated words everywhere, no punctuation at all, and no capitalization where you can tell the poster is giving zero effort. That's pretty rare though. Also really for a short post like that imo it doesn't matter at all.

Post edited on 21st Jun 2020, 8:13am
>> No. 35350 [Edit]
File 159276206355.jpg - (1.44MB , 1985x2806 , 9559cbc517396756e826f4ce7a2b7bb3.jpg )
35350
I hate how online services are unnecessarily mixed with social platforms and that that's what attracts people to them. Take boorus for instance. What's their purpose? Sharing images, mostly of the 2d variety. The most popular ones, like gelbooru, have a comment section, forum, mailing system and discord. Why?

It's not just unnecessary, it's harmful. The scope of content ends up getting limited on these sites and there's tyranny of mod caprice. This is justified because of harmful user communication, which was unnecessary in the first place. The idea is to drive away bad users to prevent bad communication between them. People wouldn't be able to share illegal material through mailing systems if there was no mailing systems though. Why do users need to communicate in this circumstance?

Despite that though, rather than driving people away, people flock to sites with a social component no matter what they are and use those the most. Other sites don't get as much uploaded to them because of this. Add on top of that all the usual bs username based websites have. It should all be anonymous, but far less people would use it then. Their priorities are mixed up.
>> No. 35407 [Edit]
>>35350
A lot of (most?) people are attention whores and want to feel special. Fuck Github et al.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]