My new character: Lil’ Belle

Ok, so I got inspired by this new character. I named her Isabelle, or Lil’ Belle. She’s a petite, 22 yo, cheeky and individualistic tomboy. She always liked to hang out with boys and men, and she loves their cocks. Being borderline Asperger, she never really understood the bling and insecurities of her female friends. She never understood what held them back, why they didn’t just live their fantasies, like her. Without shame of their desires, kinks and bodies. She’s a mere 4ft11, but she never cared. And smashed the face of a lot of people who did.

And now, she tries on one of her favourite fantasies: to meet up with three guys and have them take turns fucking her. That fantasy has always made her soaking wet. And now, as she helps the shy black guy get his thick, short cock out, and as the older guy with the HUGE dick starts rubbing its enormous, warm tip between her cheeks, and the young guy with the glam rock look is hard like a steel spring, with a long, thin cock that looks perfect to take up the ass ... now the juices from her pussy actually runs down her leg.
They thought they would use her tonight. She’ll use them!

Love the images and ideas.

Verynow said:

Ok, so I got inspired by this new character. I named her Isabelle, or Lil’ Belle. She’s a petite, 22 yo, cheeky and individualistic tomboy. She always liked to hang out with boys and men, and she loves their cocks. Being borderline Asperger, she never really understood the bling and insecurities of her female friends. She never understood what held them back, why they didn’t just live their fantasies, like her. Without shame of their desires, kinks and bodies.

Click to expand...

That really doesn't sound much like Asperger's. Most of us Aspies get taught over and over in childhood that being our authentic selves is a bad thing that gets us shamed and punished. Especially girls. If your character has made it to 22 without learning that lesson, she's the luckiest Aspie on earth.

Yup. Actually, she’s modelled from a friend of mine. But please, the operative word here is ”borderline”. I know it’s a lot to ask, but please don’t take things so literally . It’s a fantasy, not a thesis on neuropsychiatry. And really, this is about the artwork, not anyone’s beef with society.

Verynow said:

Yup. Actually, she’s modelled from a friend of mine. But please, the operative word here is ”borderline”. I know it’s a lot to ask, but please don’t take things so literally .

Click to expand...

Sorry, can you clarify - what was the part that you didn't mean literally?

No, sorry, I cant. Because I don’t want this thread to be about your views on autism spectrum variations. It is utterly uninteresting for me in this context. I have nothing but respect for your choice of identity and personal experiences, but I wish that you respect my artwork thread by not filling it with them.

You can continue the discussion if you want, preferably somewhere else, but I’m not game. God day to you.

Wow, love the fantasy any your talent bought that to life, made me very hard.
Thank you!

More please?

Verynow said:

No, sorry, I cant.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured.

I've been round long enough to know how literal and figurative speech works, and there's nothing in the bit I was responding to that actually makes sense as figurative speech. I understand that "don't take things so literally" is often code for "whoops, didn't expect anybody to challenge me on this statement that I can't support".

But I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.

Because I don’t want this thread to be about your views on autism spectrum variations. It is utterly uninteresting for me in this context.

Click to expand...

You're the one who brought autism into the discussion, right there in your first post. If you don't want to get into a discussion about autism, I recommend not making statements about autism that autistic people might take exception to.

I have nothing but respect for your choice of identity and personal experiences,

Click to expand...

And here you're being dishonest. Snide comments like your "I know it's a lot to ask..." aren't respectful, even with a cute smiley at the end ;-)

(Also: autism is not a "choice".)

but I wish that you respect my artwork thread by not filling it with them.

Click to expand...

Well, I wish non-autistic people weren't constantly presenting weird misunderstandings of what autism is like, but it looks like we both need to get used to disappointment... besides, some of this stuff actually is relevant to your art.

I can see you've put a lot of work into developing your drawing skills, and that makes for some nice eye candy. Belle looks cute! But if you're interested in progressing from just eye candy to storytelling, it's important to think about how your visuals support the story you have in your head - are they consistent with your character concepts?

In particular: taken in isolation, your second picture (Belle standing between two of the guys) works in isolation as a sexy picture. But there's a key detail in how you've drawn her that contradicts the character concept you've described. If you can't see it, I can tell you what that detail is, but it might be good practice to see if you can find it without my help.

(Hint: it's autism-related.)

If the concept is just an excuse to rationalise drawing a sexy foursome... good news, you don't actually need that rationalisation. You can just skip straight to drawing sexy visuals and nobody will complain. As a bonus, you'll save yourself the annoyance of conversation with people like me who do get fussy about the characterisation.

But if you're trying to tell a story and communicate something about a character, if you want to move past "nice technique" to visual storytelling, then those details do matter, and your work will be more effective if you think them through.

PG564E said:

Wow, love the fantasy any your talent bought that to life, made me very hard.
Thank you!

More please?

Click to expand...

Thanks! More to come!

Bramblethorn said:

I can see you've put a lot of work into developing your drawing skills, and that makes for some nice eye candy. Belle looks cute! But if you're interested in progressing from just eye candy to storytelling, it's important to think about how your visuals support the story you have in your head - are they consistent with your character concepts?

In particular: taken in isolation, your second picture (Belle standing between two of the guys) works in isolation as a sexy picture. But there's a key detail in how you've drawn her that contradicts the character concept you've described. If you can't see it, I can tell you what that detail is, but it might be good practice to see if you can find it without my help.

(Hint: it's autism-related.)

If the concept is just an excuse to rationalise drawing a sexy foursome... good news, you don't actually need that rationalisation. You can just skip straight to drawing sexy visuals and nobody will complain. As a bonus, you'll save yourself the annoyance of conversation with people like me who do get fussy about the characterisation.

But if you're trying to tell a story and communicate something about a character, if you want to move past "nice technique" to visual storytelling, then those details do matter, and your work will be more effective if you think them through.

Click to expand...

NOW we’re talking! Finally you get to the art.

And since it is highly relevant to THAT discussion: yes, there was a word used figuratively in my text, and that word was “Asperger”. It is not uncommon to use diagnostic terms in a descriptive manner: “paranoid”, “schizophrenic” (always misused though, but even so it’s still communicative), “psychopath”. If you think that’s sloppy or incorrect, that’s fine and expected, but I think it’s creative and effective.

And then: I did use the combination of the words “borderline Asperger” which should have tipped you off that the term was used descriptively rather than literally.

Also: there isn’t ONE definition of autism, and you don’t own it. With the introduction of DSM V, there’s a SPECTRUM. While you’re entirely free to define your own place on that spectrum, you are not entitled to speak for everyone else. Like me.
Therefore, it is perfectly possible that my character has no problems with eye contact in certain situations, even IF the word Asperger was used in its diagnostic context.

Now, enough about that and then to the rest of your art critique. It’s not a rationalisation, it’s an inspiration. I do pornographic texts and drawings, not really erotic ones, since I honestly find the ambitious stuff on this site really really- excruciatingly so even- BORING.


But still, I’m a comic artist and I like to imagine stuff while I draw, since that turns me on. So I imagine this sexual superhero kind of character with a lot of unrealistic traits. For someone to get triggered and go on at length about a minor detail in that description is about as much to the point as a pilot complaining that it’s absolutely unrealistic that superman can fly. And then proceed to lecture on the aerodynamic reasons.

Next there will be someone obese complaining that she has big breasts AND a thin physique, and then someone of colour going on about how racist it is that the black guy has a thick dick or is wearing sneakers. And so on. I really only have one thing to say about nitpicking like that : GET OVER IT.

I saw it. It's, like, the one external feature of autism. Drawing it is like drawing an albino in a white room: there's no contrast and it all blends together.

Verynow said:

NOW we’re talking! Finally you get to the art.

And since it is highly relevant to THAT discussion: yes, there was a word used figuratively in my text, and that word was “Asperger”. It is not uncommon to use diagnostic terms in a descriptive manner: “paranoid”, “schizophrenic” (always misused though, but even so it’s still communicative), “psychopath”. If you think that’s sloppy or incorrect, that’s fine and expected, but I think it’s creative and effective.

Click to expand...

If I refer to something as "purple" when it's actually orange, that's not "descriptive", it's not "figurative", it's just wrong. Same here, when you're using "Asperger's" to refer to behaviour that's got nothing to do with Asperger's.

Also: there isn’t ONE definition of autism, and you don’t own it. With the introduction of DSM V, there’s a SPECTRUM.

Click to expand...

If you want to argue that "there isn't ONE definition of autism", DSM-V is a really bad choice of authority to invoke, because its position is that there is a single definition that covers all varieties of "autism". Indeed, where autism is concerned, this is the biggest difference between DSM-V and previous editions.

Earlier editions (DSM-IV-TR et al.) defined separate diagnoses of "autistic disorder", "Asperger's disorder", CDD, and PDD-NOS, each with its own definition. For better or for worse, the compilers of DSM-V decided that all of these things were really just different names for "autism" and rolled them all into a single category with a unified definition.

I'm not in love with the DSM-V definition - I have my own criticisms of it - but if you want to cite it in the course of nitpicking an actually autistic person, you'd be advised to know what it says and how it came to say that.

Also, the terminology of "spectrum condition" was around for literally decades before DSM-V. See e.g. "Diagnosis and Treatment of Autism", ed. Gillberg, published 1989.

While you’re entirely free to define your own place on that spectrum, you are not entitled to speak for everyone else. Like me.

Therefore, it is perfectly possible that my character has no problems with eye contact in certain situations, even IF the word Asperger was used in its diagnostic context.

Click to expand...

Is it possible? Sure. Abnormality in eye contact is mentioned in every definition of "autism" I've ever encountered, including DSM-V, but those definitions don't require every autistic person to have all of the listed traits. Somebody who doesn't have an aversion to eye contact could still qualify as autistic/Aspie.

But it is a very common autistic trait, and (if you were using "Asperger's" to mean "something similar to Asperger's", rather than something unrelated) it's probably the easiest to communicate in a still visual.

More than that, it's a way of expressing the "DGAF about social expectations" attitude that Belle is supposed to have - most of us are socialised to make eye contact despite the discomfort it causes us, and choosing not to make that eye contact is prioritising our own happiness over social expectations.

So if you were trying to communicate an Aspie-ish character with Belle's attitude to life, you're forgoing one of the few things you can do in a still image to show that. For somebody familiar with autism, it looks more like an accidental oversight than a conscious choice to draw the rare Aspie who's happy to make eye contact with strangers.

But still, I’m a comic artist and I like to imagine stuff while I draw, since that turns me on. So I imagine this sexual superhero kind of character with a lot of unrealistic traits. For someone to get triggered and go on at length about a minor detail in that description is about as much to the point as a pilot complaining that it’s absolutely unrealistic that superman can fly. And then proceed to lecture on the aerodynamic reasons.

Click to expand...

Kryptonians aren't real. No Kryptonian will ever be harmed by fictional representations of Kryptonians, because Kryptonians aren't real.

Autistic people are real, and we are affected by fictional representations of autism, because most people know very little about RL autism and fill the gaps with whatever they've absorbed from Big Bang Theory.

That's the difference. That's why you're being challenged here by autistic people, and not by Kryptonians.

Next there will be someone obese complaining that she has big breasts AND a thin physique, and then someone of colour going on about how racist it is that the black guy has a thick dick or is wearing sneakers. And so on. I really only have one thing to say about nitpicking like that : GET OVER IT.

Click to expand...

Well done. You certainly taught those imaginary people who haven't actually posted in this thread a lesson.

Bramblethorn said:

If I refer to something as "purple" when it's actually orange, that's not "descriptive", it's not "figurative", it's just wrong. Same here, when you're using "Asperger's" to refer to behaviour that's got nothing to do with Asperger's.

Click to expand...

No. Its not just wrong. Its fugurative. And you conveniently disregarded the other examples I mentioned, also widely used in a non-exact manner.

But you know, it’s apparent that you are unable to see anything else than that word when it’s written. I explained to you that it wasn’t meant to be taken literally, and I explained to you that this is a fictional character with unrealistic traits written and drawn to be sexually arousing. If you can’t understand that and need to go on about one word in the description- well, I guess you have to. But I’m out. And you’re on ignore. Bye.

If little things like facts, proper representation, and logic aren't good reasons for you to do something, maybe you'll consider this.

In real life, people can exist at any place on a spectrum. We can be borderline anything. In storytelling, there is no functional reason to be borderline, almost, or nearly anything.

Character A = Nervous + introverted + autistc
Character B = Nervous + introverted

Character A = woman who has a lot of sex with multiple partners
Character B = Autistic women who has a lot of sex with multiple partners

Character A and Character B would act in functionally identical manners given the same situation. The inclusion of a diagnosis of autism doesn't add anything unless you're telling a story about autism, which you are not.

Don't include extraneous details, especially ones you know nothing about. It doesn't improve the art to know that the black guy has a gluten allergy, or that the older man wet the bed until he was 11. The younger man clearly has a parasite, which is why he's so skinny, but do we really care about how he suffers from night terrors?

Be more purposeful in your work.

Purposeful . Oh my god, I don’t think I could disagree more. A text written, or a picture drawn, or a music composed that lacks anything but the purposeful content would be a chunk of information. Food without scent (oh, before we get into a 20-post-long argument over food and smell: that was also a simile/metaphor/parable). Completely and utterly boring.
So no, I won’t be more purposeful in my creations. That’s really bad advice.
And i’ve worked in the creative field, successfully, for the larger part of my life.

I say: be LESS purposeful. Be creative, be free, let your associations fly freely and paint with words in any way you want. There’ll be dullards like this nagging every step of the way, but don’t let them hinder you as much as they probably hinder themselves. In the end, best just put them on ignore. Click.

Verynow said:

No. Its not just wrong. Its fugurative. And you conveniently disregarded the other examples I mentioned, also widely used in a non-exact manner.

Click to expand...

I ignored them because they weren't particularly relevant, and it was late and I didn't feel like getting into why they weren't relevant. I felt like my answer was already getting pretty long and I figured you wouldn't mind if I didn't respond to every last word in your post.

But apparently I was wrong about that? So, if you insist:

"Paranoid", like many words in the English language, has multiple recognised meanings. For example, if you look it up in Merriam-Webster, you'll see three different definitions listed; it acknowledges it as a clinical term, but it also acknowledges more colloquial meanings which are similar to the clinical usage but have some differences in nuance. (I think the colloquial meanings actually predate the clinical definition, but I won't swear to it.)

So when somebody refers to a suspicious/untrusting person as "paranoid" outside the context of a psychiatric diagnosis, they're following an established and widely-recognised use of the word. Even there, it's not really a figurative usage, more of a colloquial one.

By contrast, the entry for "Asperger's" gives only the clinical meaning, because that's the only widely-understood usage of the term. So, no, this isn't a parallel.

Your example of "psychopath" has the same flaw, only more so: the colloquial usage is very widely used, but the clinical one isn't really around any more. It's a long and complicated saga, but roughly speaking: psychiatrists couldn't agree on exactly what "psychopathy" was or how to measure it, so they've largely abandoned the term in favour of other terms, more clearly defined without as much complicated baggage. You'll still find it in some pop-psychology material, but it doesn't get much of an airing in serious medical work any more.

As you've noticed, "schizophrenic" does have both clinical and non-clinical usages with significant differences in meaning. That's not a great thing, since it does lead to some confusion which isn't at all helpful to people with schizophrenia. But both those usages are pretty deeply entrenched in the language, enough so to be acknowledged by Merriam-Webster - again, unlike the distinction you're trying to claim with "Asperger's".

Your art work is excellent. I had to stroke and get myself off looking at these. You have real artistic talent, keep it going!!!