Comments
Search Comments
Leave username empty to search all users' comments.
ThatOneRandomDude 6/14/2015 12:15:08 AM Rating: 0

big fan of his work
View Details
gtsquisit 6/13/2015 10:19:54 PM Rating: 6

That is one ugly chick
View Details
ThatOneRandomDude 6/13/2015 10:04:33 PM Rating: 0

ummm....hi?
View Details
ThatOneRandomDude 6/13/2015 10:03:57 PM Rating: 0

hmmmm... accept my fate or run like hell? lol
View Details
tuxedo_cat 6/13/2015 9:39:36 PM Rating: 0

Well I mean if you look at the horizon, you can clearly see it's all skies. And with nothing but a layer of clouds on the bottom, at only her waist height, you can assume it's giantess content.

Judging by the artist this comes from, it's perfectly safe.
View Details
ThisIsntReal 6/13/2015 9:24:38 PM Rating: 2

"What are you doing. Stuff me back inside."
View Details
iswear12 6/13/2015 8:55:33 PM Rating: 0

>_<
View Details
Alman001 6/13/2015 8:23:20 PM Rating: 0

I was skeptic on approving this one too. But as far as I could make out from the artist's translated comments regarding this one, she is supposed to be at cloud-height.
Hence it's an image made intentionally to be giantess related but granted can still be interpreted as otherwise too.
View Details
paranormalpussy 6/13/2015 8:15:50 PM Rating: 0

What would you say in that situation
View Details
tuxedo_cat 6/13/2015 7:18:12 PM Rating: 0

I always love to see great lighting and water effects like this. The quality is all-around beautiful. Looking at the artist's works posted in the link, I'd have to say this is probably his/her best.
View Details
GTSLover27 6/13/2015 3:53:29 PM Rating: 0

Pauletena should be Palutena
View Details
lolboy13 6/13/2015 3:34:14 PM Rating: 0

Adorable
View Details
ThisIsntReal 6/13/2015 1:20:23 PM Rating: 0

BTW
Thank you Chuck
View Details
ThisIsntReal 6/13/2015 1:19:54 PM Rating: 0

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
was wondering when this would be uploaded
i kept getting banned errors a month ago
View Details
paranormalpussy 6/13/2015 11:38:26 AM Rating: 2

Your amazing reddrop7 if you ever need a tiny guy to help relieve your tension whether it's crushing or insertion I'm here for you my goddess
View Details
Vaux 6/13/2015 10:47:38 AM Rating: 0

Shoot, sorry I thought I fixed that. I will work on the this evening, and re upload.
View Details
iswear12 6/13/2015 8:33:30 AM Rating: 4

Mousticus?
View Details
GIantessbuster209 6/13/2015 8:13:13 AM Rating: 0

Veronica Jett is wearing sky blue sexy lingerie. And
Being able to show the world, as a Porn Giantess
Goddess's should. Tag her. New!!...Welcome.
View Details
Alman001 6/13/2015 6:40:25 AM Rating: 0

Anybody recognise that artist signature in the lower right corner there? :)
View Details
darkknight 6/13/2015 6:11:37 AM Rating: 0

it‘s impossible，now that he could tied her，noting to be afraid after her getting loose
View Details
docwholigan 6/13/2015 5:39:39 AM Rating: 2

Okay, now -this- is one where I'm struggling to see the size angle. She's in some clouds? I'm having a hard time not seeing her hiding in a sauna rather than standing above a planet.
View Details
Killa 6/13/2015 4:06:51 AM Rating: 0

Hope seems to be enjoying the view. As for Snow, he might be for a nasty surprise that no Phoenix down can fix.
View Details
whatwhat45 6/13/2015 2:34:13 AM Rating: 2

Is she crying because just by existing she's killing thousands of people?
View Details
The-Immorvia 6/13/2015 12:37:36 AM Rating: 0

ditto
View Details
Phishfood12 6/12/2015 8:38:42 PM Rating: 0

If that's growth, I approve XD
View Details
Phishfood12 6/12/2015 8:36:15 PM Rating: 0

Those legs oh man XD
View Details
Phishfood12 6/12/2015 8:11:17 PM Rating: 0

Oh my god you genius! Shrink poker! Why have I never thought of that?? :D
View Details
paranormalpussy 6/12/2015 7:28:42 PM Rating: 0

You know what kind of site this is when a tag says clothed
View Details
iswear12 6/12/2015 5:21:55 PM Rating: 0

I never said a face was "required" , its just one of many common elements
As for unaware POVs a lot of them have the faces staring off or away from the viewer or over the head of the viewer
Unless you want to be unaware that its meant to be an unaware image...
Usually there is SOMETHING to indicate that its unaware content
Unless lack of faces counts as "unaware" content
And it doesnt have to be a face either, that was just in the image you linked
View Details
xmace 6/12/2015 4:58:59 PM Rating: 0

ok....so...ummmmm....twist of fate...much?
View Details
viking729 6/12/2015 2:12:31 PM Rating: 2

DragonessLife's works have a lot of anthro-type dragons and such, and while the purple eyes go with the lips and nails, they aren't a normal eye color. So I was working under the assumption that either: A.) That's not human saliva, and is acidic or whatever green indicates these days, or B.) It's a stylistic choice to pop the color. Translucent white-ish would not show up as dramatically in these tones.

Of course, do realizing that that's just my take on it. I have no source to check right off.
View Details
Mainthegap 6/12/2015 12:49:03 PM Rating: 0

would be epic if it turned out she was just faking being immobilized XD

girl -ok you're screwed-
littleman -wattafu...-

XD
View Details
Bbaass 6/12/2015 10:47:51 AM Rating: 0

This was brought up before, and we currently use the tag tgirl for photographs, while the futanari tag is used for drawings and digital renders.
View Details
Relos 6/12/2015 10:13:16 AM Rating: 0

I do. But it doesn't change the color of your saliva.
View Details
iswear12 6/12/2015 9:53:35 AM Rating: 0

"That's a bit like how http://giantessbooru.com/post/view/186665 is a POV of someone who has someone standing over him because he's a few inches tall or whatever.

Granted, this isn't particularly GREAT size content, but then again, one could question the value of a lot of explicit size content on the very same note."

But at least the one you posted has a face, which makes the case for determining if its size content stronger than for this image.
Posting one without a face and any limbs would've been a better comparison, as there is VERY few ways to tell if that's size content, or just a low angle POV.
If I or someone else has to think up an excuse or scenario for every low-angle POV image without context, its pretty difficult to qualify it as size content, is it not? Usually images provide SOMETHING to help you think of it as size content (like I said before, maybe some tiny people, or hands and feet movement, or a face or some other element) Something as barebones as this picture, which is literally nothing but an low-angle upskirt is tough to say.
The one you linked at least has another commonly used element to help its case for being determined as size content (a face).
I'm not saying I should be the judge for the criteria of things posted here, but a low-angle POV and imagination are kind of weak criteria (by themselves) for this to count as size content.
As for your comment about other explicit content and how it would be "A LOT" if we used those criteria, would it really?
How much of those are JUST low-angle POV's without ANY elements to determine if its size content at all(besides the low-angle POV itself)?
I'm willing to bet a lot of them have SOME other element that strengthens their case for qualifying as size content (like a face, or maybe feet/hand movement, or some other element I cant think of)
Or are all the explicit images you are thinking of just barebones low-angle POVs?
View Details
XxRocketDashxX 6/12/2015 6:48:13 AM Rating: 0

Should be labed futanari.
View Details
Mainthegap 6/12/2015 3:34:50 AM Rating: 0

really epic :D
View Details
tuxedo_cat 6/12/2015 3:31:39 AM Rating: 0

Ew. That's kind of a creepy notion to specifically ask people to write detailed scenarios. I wasn't making any such request.

And yes, I did notice GTSWriter's comment earlier. I thought it was a fine, perfectly legitimate case. But you have to admit that this discussion started because someone asked how it was GTS content. Meaning it's not really a strong POV.
View Details
tuxedo_cat 6/12/2015 3:13:50 AM Rating: 0

My comparison was about the interpretation of art. If artwork A can be interpreted as something in a particular context (gt/gts content in this case), then why can't artwork B be interpreted in the same type of context? Not if artwork A is interpreted like this in it's own context, then why can't artwork B be interpreted in a separate context. I wasn't saying that any picture of a person could and should be interpreted as gt/gts content. I was saying that calling a work like this POV, despite having little to interpret it that way, makes about as much sense.

Yes, you can say there's a small person in this woman's skirt. But then I'll ask you things like this: How tall is he/she? Is she aware of him/her? Is she doing anything to him, intentionally or otherwise? Would this change in any way if you said the person down there was regular sized? If you don't have an answer, or the answer is no to all of these, then why even bother considering it POV?

I saw the Tgirl pics MarkM posted recently. I have to thank you for that Mark. They were quite nice, and they did make a good point in favor of POV, that I completely agree with. In all of them, the woman of focus is looking down at the viewer. Boom! There's now an interaction, and if you change the context of the person below being small or normal sized, it changes completely. With works like this one here, if you were normal sized, you'd still be looking directly at a lovely womanhood, up a skirt. And if you were tiny... you'd get the same thing. With the Tgirl pics though, if you were small, she's aware of you, and you can fill in the blanks for yourself where things went afterwards. But if you were of regular size, then the encounter would be different. The two of you would interact in ways impossible for a tiny person, and vice versa. I guess you could say that you could make a story for this piece, where it would go afterwards. But there's a lot of questions that you have to choose for yourself.

Is the woman whose skirt you're up/under aware of you? You don't know. Is she doing anything with the area of focus? No.

POV works like those work, because you don't really have to ask how they're a point of view.
View Details
docwholigan 6/12/2015 12:55:34 AM Rating: 0

It's here. It's likely going to stay. Do we need to continue thrashing the same point repeatedly or can we let this horse decompose?
View Details
iswear12 6/12/2015 12:49:07 AM Rating: 0

The less size-fetish related elements there are in an image, the harder it is to qualify it as size content
In this case, the ONLY thing that might qualify it is the fact that it is a low angle shot
that's a threadbare link to it being size content at best.
View Details
tuxedo_cat 6/12/2015 12:44:29 AM Rating: 0

Just a response to make things clear about my earlier statement...

A. I never said I was the authority on determining criteria. That belongs to the artists who made these types of photos or art works, as well as the guidelines on this site, stated clearly at the top of the upload page.

What I was meaning was that this type of debate or complaint, depending on the post, stems from the fact that the works are being questioned as to whether or not they are gt/gts content. My answer to the question (not saying my answer was definitive truth) was to look to the source/artist; as that is generally a clear way to tell.

B. The Mona Lisa case was a poor, off the top of my head example to counter people who say they interpret pictures like this as point of views. And it ties back to what I was saying about looking up the sources or artists. If the artist didn't make a piece with macro/microphilia in mind, then saying it's POV is purely imaginative. Yes, everyone has the right to interpret art in their own way. But I used something like the Mona Lisa to say that if calling an up-skirt shot POV is valid, then why isn't something like "interpreting" a picture of a woman as gts content just as valid. Again, it was just an off the top of my head point, and not a very strong one.

And C. It doesn't really bother me. The site does clearly state that it allows POV's. I was just saying that if this piece wasn't made as one, then it's kind of just shoeing itself into the site.
View Details
SixSever 6/11/2015 10:02:22 PM Rating: 0

CUTE!
View Details
paranormalpussy 6/11/2015 6:03:40 PM Rating: 4

I hate it when someone has a better view then me
View Details
paranormalpussy 6/11/2015 6:02:31 PM Rating: 0

Your right I apologize
View Details
iHaveSomethingToSay 6/11/2015 1:51:45 PM Rating: 0

dude could not be more pleased with his own dick, like ayy lol
View Details
GTSWriter 6/11/2015 12:15:19 PM Rating: 0

I'm the one who approved this image.

That being said, I approved it because yes, it's a POV shot and I was assuming a shrunken man or woman, roughly a little over knee-height, would be seeing her like this if he or she was standing inside her leopard-print skirt/dress.

Let's all face it, she's got a nice ass and wonderful vagina between those great legs.

This was one shot of about five I saw in the queue, so I approved one of them and deleted the others because they were all so close in same composition. I've seen other POV shots, and thought, "well, if one POV is OK, then perhaps this one is OK too."

I had no idea this image would create such discussion. As a new moderator, I am still under a learning curve, so bear with me. Once a picture is approved, I don't see any way that someone in my position can delete it. I believe that's for Mark or Katelyn to override. Otherwise, I'd just take it back down if this is causing too much grief for some of you. I'll leave it up to their final say.

Again, I'm new to this whole moderation thing. I'm having fun, and I'll make mistakes like the others did when they first started. Try not to make my crucifix just yet. I'm learning. ;)

This is just my two cents on the whole thing, and please, no bashing or arguments past what I said. I meant no harm in approving this picture.

Thanks,
~GTSWriter
View Details
xzhacker 6/11/2015 12:03:18 PM Rating: 0

Well.... Everyone else joined in.... why not me?

The line is indeed a fine one, and I personally feel this work in particular crossed it, if only a little. It seems to me what we are looking at is an up-skirt shot from underneath a woman wearing a skirt (duh).

Now putting that theory (I SAID THEORY) into work, you would need to be about 2 foot or so to be that close to view from beneath.

Now that's not saying we haven't had midget to normal size ratios, or discounting the idea that she is an actual giant and the viewer happens to be smaller, it just feels unlikely to me.

There is still also the possibility that she is lying forward on her stomach and this is a small person exploring her dress / skirt like a cave, however the lightning for that feels way off, and I still get the feeling from the angles of things that she is standing.

But this is after all just me musing in the wake of an argument. It comes down to the censorship of the website, and how we as a community feel about it. As with a given government and its people, a website would do good to keep its people happy, democracy or not.

That being said, I conclude my ramble with more of my opinion: Leave this up, but try and be careful of what crosses the line, we have many things like this already, and we don't need something else that explodes with generic copies everyday
View Details
iswear12 6/11/2015 11:16:15 AM Rating: 0

"Cant be posted on this site because the participants aren't at least somewhat humanoid"
Really? I would've assumed they just get put under the furry tab and be done with it
But I don't really know the approval/moderation process so I cant really say anything about it
View Details
tuxedo_cat 6/11/2015 11:12:34 AM Rating: 0

It's actually a repost from here: http://giantessbooru.com/post/view/180920?search=anal_insertion

That one actually has a link to the source.
View Details
2050100
1,136 pages56,779 records