Been practicing 3d models for a few months now and I've finally created my ideal waifu. What do you guys think?
>>657352Why is it a toddler?
>>657354wtf are you talking about?
>puckered lipsI hope you already did the rigging on her face...
>>657352Oh hey, I remember when this was used as a thread image a few months back. Not this cropped version obviously, the full (NSFW) thing. >>657358Nah, it's a pure Zbrush sculpt IIRC.
>>657368>Nah, it's a pure Zbrush sculpt IIRC.>3d>sculptinglmao its useless as a sculpt
That isn't Op's work, seen that model posted several years ago. As amusing as all the jelly faggotry in this thread is it I felt compelled to point this out.
>>657381https://www.artstation.com/artwork/schoolgirlNot my kink but clearly masterful work, lot's of disgraceful /3/pots in this thread.
>>657382>but clearly masterful workExcept for the face looking like a literal 3 year old.
>>657385Manga faces where invented to plaster infant characteristics onto grownup's anon. Letting the girl have tittsuckling toddler lips is totally inline with this japanese invention of how to ethically massmarket kiddieporn to adults.If you find this to be offensive you are just looking at this thru western eyes, try put your index fingers at the corner of your eyelids and press up.
>>657386>>657385It's just basic neoteny dudes. All the "woah so powerful Sakimichan art" ever is just neoteny. Neoteny works, it works not a little, it works perfectly. 3D neoteny is a good thing.
>>657387I think you're right anon. We are a very chronophiliac species obsessed with youthful characteristics.It's just that when you push this to it's extreme conclutions like giving an adult sexually mature body an actual infant face it makes a monstrosity of something pleasing.It starts to exist on the same axis as HR.Gigeresque vaginacockspidersnakes of facehugger horror, making a mockery out of what attracts our lust.Clearly not everyone have this adverse uncanny reaction to being presented with these features, but it's common enough to make it interesting as to just why it is 'weeb' morphology is such a polarizing topic.
>>657388You're retreading old grounds. The links between neoteny, Japanese manga, evolutionary biology, and artistic fascination have been studied for decades.The point is that we value neotenic characteristics more as a specie because of our K-selection. Children are incredibly important for us: we are genetically engineered to like, protect, and be fascinated with the well-being of our children, and to like, protect, and be fascinated with the neotenic characteristics of our own children. As an aside, the entire feline specie has co-evolved to acquire many of the neotenic characteristics of our youngs (because we selected the "cutest" cats). They quite literally mind-control us by using our own biology, in a sense, though we selected them to do so.Same thing for our women. Our women keep far more neotenic characteristics than almost all other mammals.Anyway, it's a basic fact of life understood by many artists, at least unconsciously, and used by many others. Look at that Ilya art for instance. This artists >>657352 just used it in a 3D model, and quite well I must add.
>>657389Yeah I am somewhat familiar with these ideas, nut what I don't quite understand is why the repulsion towards this enter into the equation for me and so many.I'm personally attracted to females that show neotenic features as they actually exist in what our culture holds as idealistic beauties.But something like op's image doesn't work,it tips over into a state where attraction starts to be overtaken by repulsion.Like ss it intelectual because I can recognize it is a babies face, or is there something evolutionary trying to stop me from fucking a infant? Is it that as a guy I do find babies mildly disgusting? like say a human toddler is a 1 and a juicy spider is an 11 on my creep-o-scale?You seem knowledable about this topic, perhaps you can provide insight.
>>657389Now this is a good post. Thanks for sharing.Yeah, neoteny has been a very large part of human culture for a very long time. It's just what we naturally prefer. Big eyes, round cheeks, smooth features in general. A good study of this impacting our culture in recent years is the evolution of Disney princesses. It's Okay To Be Smart has a decent video on the subject matter.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1gzpEktyKoTL;DW of it is that the Disney princesses of today (Elsa, Anna, etc.) have far more baby-esque proportions than a princess from the mid-1900s. Far larger eyes, deemphasis on features like the nose, even the entire proportions of the body changed at some point. I guess the touchier part of neoteny is that people perceive this inherent sexual connection to "childish features". It's understandable, it's something that we prefer so there's this lust for it. However many people tend to forget that there's also a larger carnal force, not just this neotenous factor. Literal sexuality. Big tits, wide hips, a nice ass, stuff that we want to breed with. The only reason I can think of as to why neoteny is growing in our culture is because we're no longer at that stage of civilisation where reproduction is our largest driver. Other features like the face start to factor into attraction since we no longer _have_ to fuck to survive. Sexual appeal still plays the largest role, but we're suddenly taking how our mates actually look into account. So the line gets blurred as we as a species begin to prefer cute baby-like faces with voluptuous bodies. (cont.)
>>657393(cont.)I'd honestly wager that at some point in our future, our women will pretty much look like anime. Not the super deformed style, I don't think biology will ever allow that, but something a little more restrained, think OP's image but with some more realismThat's just natural selection for you. Now that we're cognizant enough to process "cute", we're going to start shaping our world to just... be more cute. It's happened with dogs, it's happened with cats, it's happened with other animals we haven't even domesticated like foxes. It's probably going to happen with humans at some point.>>657391>Like ss it intelectual because I can recognize it is a babies face, or is there something evolutionary trying to stop me from fucking a infant? I personally don't see it as a baby's face, I do see the resemblances but I don't process it as one. So I can't really answer that for you. But the latter part's likely the case, you probably don't deem it sexually primed. There's no point wanting to fuck something if it won't give you offspring (in an evolutionary sense, carnal pleasure aside). >Is it that as a guy I do find babies mildly disgusting?I think this is because they don't actually meet our neotenous standards. I personally find babies pretty ugly as well, but then I realise that's because they just aren't _neotenous enough_. It's pretty crazy that we've gone so far over the standards that realism can't even be preferable to us anymore. That's probably why we partake in art that portrays women you just can't find in reality.
>>657391You're just falling into the uncanny valley. Your evolutionary tools used to recognize neotenic features are fighting against your evolutionary tools used to recognize unnatural, possibly dangerous or sickly, features, and losing. It's often due to a lack of acquaintance with a particular characteristic: uncanny valley can be (partially) deprogrammed by frequent contact with the subject of the disgust. Other factors probably exist too.>>657393This is really interesting, but removed from the point of the discussion. But if you want to discuss about it, I think there's an argument to be made for racial disparities in neotenic feature appreciation correlated to r/K selection, and probably something deep there, albeit what, I don't know.Human populations favouring r selections (either genetically or culturally) tend toward a lowered appreciation for neotenic features and a bigger appreciation for fertility markers (most appreciably, asses). Conversely, those populations keep far less neotenic features in adulthood and tend toward a lower IQ.Higher IQ populations favouring K selections tend toward a bigger appreciation for neotenic features and a lowered appreciation for fertility markers. Asians and, to a lesser degrees, modern whites are a good example of that.What it really means, I don't know. It could be a fascinating subject of research for a real social scientist though.
>>657393>>657395Interesting read, good food for thought. Sounds like you're in the deep end of 2D land anon.Had a brief period in my early tweens when I too masturbated almost exclusivly to 2D but this got overtaken by regular pornography as I started getting more sexually active with real women.Once every blue moon I still happen across some manga I deem fapworthy so I can sorta gleem both sides of the coin to these arguments.It's when it transfer into these fully shaded volumetric renditions of these manga girls it goes uncanny fast for me.
>>657401>removed from the point of the discussionYeah, it's definitely off-topic for /3/, but I thought I'd try to rationalise posts like >>657386 that diminish the touchy relationship between neoteny and sexual attraction to mere pedophilia. Just for the record, I'm nowhere near a pedophile, I like my women plentiful and well-endowed. I just enjoy trying to see both sides of an argument. And wow, that's actually very interesting insight. I personally don't like discussing race since it gets very /pol/ (and I don't want that especially on an art board like this), but it's undeniable that certain ethnic groups are just more _animalistic_ than others. Perhaps there actually is a link between neoteny and intellectual development. Preferring cuteness because you're... smart? That's actually really damn interesting. Too bad I'm no social scientist though.>>657402>Sounds like you're in the deep end of 2D land anon.Ugh, perhaps. I do indulge in regular pornography still though, shoutout to /gif/, so I wouldn't say I'm completely lost. Though I'd defend myself by saying those posts are severe generalisations. It doesn't factor in personal preferences, and doesn't go too deep into what kinds of facial preferences we're moving towards. For example, while the neotenous trend for eyes would be big and round "puppy" eyes, I personally prefer sharp eye features, where the outer eye is significantly higher than the inner eye. Something like the image in >>657401 but less rounded / exaggerated. Then there's also the whole concept of high cheekbones and sharp facial structure in general. Those aren't neotenous concepts, yet they still play a pretty big part in what we deem as facially attractive. There's just too many factors to consider. It's a very broad and currently vague topic and I don't think I'm gonna sit here and type out a dissertation. Plus, I'm not really qualified for it, I'm just some dumb anon who thinks about life too much.
>>657407I appreciate your posts, I was the author of >>657386 and I was being very hyperbolic for comedic effect, I do recognize the subject to be much more nuanced.I didn't expect this to unfold into an actual insightful discourse on the topic. I'm pleased.
>>657407>Preferring cuteness because you're... smart?Correlation is not causality. I fear I was misunderstood, so I'll try to be as clear as possible.You can either pop as many children as you can and don't care about them, or care really hard about your children (and pop only as many as you can support). Both of the strategies are found in mankind: the second one provably, causally, produces higher IQ children. It's one of the most stable causal link ever found in social science. Said otherwise, family works, and provide a boost of IQ for your children.It seems that populations choosing the first reproductive strategy tend less toward neoteny, both in appreciation of its artistic merits and in expressing neoteny while growing up, while populations choosing the family-oriented reproductive strategy care more about neoteny. There are no causal links between baby face and intelligence: it's a secondary correlation at best, and one that has never been properly explored in a study or metastudy anyway.But the discussion is far off now. Let's end it there.
>>657415>I fear I was misunderstoodNah, don't worry, I understood your point. That was me just sorta drawing my own conclusion, even if it's far-fetched compared to your original point. Not summarising your point, don't worry. I don't think I'm that dumb. >But the discussion is far off now.Yeah, fair enough. I mean I don't think there was a start point that we deviated from in the first place, but there isn't much else to add anyway, unless another anon jumps in. >>657410>I didn't expect this to unfold into an actual insightful discourse on the topic. I'm pleased.Well, it's nice to see that /3/ has it in them to not constantly bitch at each other about software. It's been a good discussion, thanks for sharing your thoughts and I hope mine were valuable too.
>idiot newfag westerners stepping out of the cave and realizing anime girl appeal
>imagine being so pathetic that you claim other's work as yours
>>657498>t. Agent that works on .. Starts with letter F
>>657352pic not related?
>>657401>What it really means, I don't knowit means both whites and asians are literally ayy lmaos to this planet
>>658267>>>hope you enjoy~~~~WHAT A FUCKING TEASE
>>657851You tease!... but it's good like that. Tease is fun.
I know this isnt yours but I just wanna say that anyone who thinks sculpting in zbrush is practicing 3d modeling is a butt pirate.
You know what, it’s fucking amazing that a faggot that plagiarizes some artwork can set off a discussion about humans being innately attracted to lolis. Never change, 4channel.
>>658271Not a very good model anyway, the shirt and face are nice.Looks like one of those japanese anime figurines.
>>658321>Looks like one of those japanese anime figurinesIs this an insult? Most figures pretty well detailed.
>>657389>the next step in cat evolution is to become catgirls
>>657388>infantIf OP looks like a toddler to you, you're the pedophile here, freak. The only thing that thing looks like is a ayy lmao at best, or a barbie doll at worse. Not realistic at all.
>>659173iirc he was called out for plagiarism a few years ago and he rebranded
>>659211https://www.patreon.com/Kuvshinov_Ilya$2500 per week dollars WageCucks BTFO
>>659678>per weekwhat the fuck
The power of stylized "legal" aged art. Powerful.
>>659681patreon babbies are just another form of welfare queens amiright
>>659681>Find a genetic glitch into the matrix of the human mind.>Exploit it to the tune of $10,000 per monthLiterally did nothing wrong.
>>659769>implying it's a glitch
>>659780It's God's design to have us create babies like rabbits. It's a glitch that our brain gets confused and sees porn as kind of the same deal.God's is a terrible designer. He was probably among the last of His class. Why couldn't we be born in the Valedictorian's Universe instead? Fuck this life.
>>659796>pornHah! You wish. That fucker's reeling in all that cash just drawing portraits of girls. Nothing NSFW nor even remotely erotic as far as I know.
>>659683thats not a child thats Kara from detroit become humanwho is a grown woman
>>659678eh he got hired now
>>659973Probably makes less now kek
>>657352>those cheeksshe looks like she's 9
>>657354kek, also this