Posts made by miss-lillipants

@littlest-lily said:

so what I’m talking about is MMM/f 🤭

Sign me tf up for multi-man tomfoolery.

@Olo said:

What might be challenging for someone of the SW perspective is to realistically model how a male Biggo who never thought about being attracted to a SW before might “come around” to it. This includes, of course, what sort of stimulation he might expect or hope for from such an encounter. How does he view his own sexual self, and what would he think of a man who gets it on with a mouse-sized woman?
It might be simpler to go after a guy with microphilia, but wouldn’t it be hotter to have to make the case to him (and the reader)?

Yes! I was referring mostly to writing physiological responses + feelings of arousal for men (because I like to include little details like that, even if it’s not the major focus, because the human body is lovely and fascinating. Helps the reader relate, I think). @foreverlurk, you’re probably right in that it’s probably not that complicated. But @Olo, you’ve also brought up a very good point!

This was something I only recently noticed in my own process/preferences: that giants were sort of neutral about the size difference. Like it is an objective truth that he is big and she is small. When the initial attraction develops, it is primarily around her as a person, but he might develop an appeal for her tinyness later. Once that happens though, the challenge is describing that realisation, the moment of discovery, that being able to hold her in the palm of his hand is actually a massive turn on and how it makes him feel. Is he conflicted? Does he embrace it? When that is done well, then I am also well done.

@i-am-insane said:

I’m going to be honest: ‘brested boobily’ isn’t some ignorance of a female… anything. That is just… truly bad writing, lol.

Absolutely it is. Arguably, even without the deliberate hyperbole, any example that reflects a lack of research is bad writing and warrants the hope that it is, best case, satire.

@skysayl said:

Get a male friend to preread and draw attention to this specific aspect. I’m sure they would be happy to help you with the accuracy. I love when someone corrects me somewhere I don’t have the expertise in, just makes the writing better.

Ahaha yes, that would be the easiest route. I’ll have to sort out my many other confidence issues but for now will settle on reading other works, or asking my partner “so what your peen do when…?” And taking notes.

@i-am-insane said:

The giga/whatever male to the normal/micro female; there’s a bunch where the woman’s in the ‘I’m so big compared to them they might as well be a bug’s bug’ driver seat, but as much as I find women hot I viewpoint well through guys

Yes! I’m someone who is aroused by my partner’s arousal - I like to see and hear how turned on they are by the situation. So for sizekink, in a giant’s case, if being large and dominating (“in charge”, if you will) is arousing/enjoyable, then I’d love to hear it; the whys and what it does to him, how it turns him on. This is part of why I like literal giant scenarios - it’s about the giant being big compared to everything, not just the tiny being small compared to him. It’s one of those things that M/m has a lot more of, which I appreciate, but…again, I’m not the intended audience so, it only does so much.

It’s something I’d like to be able explore in my own writing, but I’m worried about inaccurately describing the small but specific effects of arousal on the male body. It stems from having read badly written women (think: “she breasted boobily” and other things that make you go “that’s not how that works…”).

@Olo said:

This makes me wonder if Colliaz wasn’t, in fact, a victim of DA’s notorious practice of deleting size kink accounts without warning.

Same. Not going to try to psychologise, but they weren’t in a good headspace, poor thing.

@foreverlurk said:

Does “Deactivated” means the same thing as “Deleted”, on Deviantart? Fuck if she’s been taken down we ALL could.

I think, like social media accounts, DA doesn’t allow users to delete their accounts, but you can deactivate instead. Similar with submissions: I tried to do the same with my old account some time ago and they made it VERY hard for me to delete my own art - I had to opt for “archiving” or something that essentially made it unavailable for viewing by anybody (regardless of whether they saved it in their favs or had a link to it). It still remain on DA’s servers though, I guess. Likely something in the fineprint under and ownership clause, etc. It did the job, but I was/am still miffed about it.

@blehb said:

For me, it’s not THAT unusual, but I definitely wish there was more man butt content out there. There’s so much giantess ass material- with M/f there’s only crumbs. I need to be the change I want to see I suppose. Luckily I can get my fix through the M/m side of things. Hee. Also my passion for unaware seems to not be typical.

Literally me

Similar to your example, nipple stuff on men seems pretty obscure. Men’s nipples are supposedly not as sensitive as women’s (anecdotally), but I think in general, nipple play for men is not so openly accepted, like that it’s considered “effeminate” or something, in a disparaging way. As a pec/chest gal, I’m down for more of it tbh.

@SizePrize69 said:

I have this malegaze POV on size fetishism but I would love to dig deeper into femgaze.
I somehow have this preconceived idea that female writers tend to focus more on eliciting emotional responses and focus more on the build-up to sexual scenes.

Members have shared their thoughts on the male gaze/femgaze within size stories before, if you’re curious and for your goal. Not saying that it can’t be discussed again - I’m all for discussion - just that it might be a good starting-off point. We’re lucky to have some insightful members on DD

Re: your original question
I’m a woman and far more often prefer to consume free content, but I have spent money before - on comics, namely. My recent purchase was on Angel’s Giantlands comic that she has been working on.

As @foreverlurk has mentioned, a lot of excellent M/f content is very fortunately made free by authors/artists. I think because of a general lack of M/f content (even fewer if we’re focussing on female/femme-friendly content specifically), creators are happy to share out of solidarity with their fellow M/f fans. In saying that: I would also happily support by purchasing content, so long as it’s good quality, something I would enjoy and if it’s within my budget.

@SizePrize69 said:

Do you think that the preconceived idea that erotica is more popular with women than men is grounded on some truth?

Don’t know if there are peer-reviewed studies, but there is a general consensus that women consume more literary erotica than men. People have supposedly gotten numbers from Amazon (maybe other platforms) which have also reflected majority-female consumers of erotic fiction, and it’s generally understood that FanFiction writers and readers are majority women. There are different reasons why, but it is mostly attributed to women wanting to create/consume content that better caters to them rather than most mainstream content (which takes us back to the male gaze/femgaze discussion).

@foreverlurk said:

Someone posted a nice SW artwork on DA and the girl was about 10-12" tall, everyone was like “oh perfect size, my favourite, etc”.
And I was there thinking "But what if… S M A L L E R

I am absolutely with you on this

@skysayl said:

They’re not trying to wreck the skyscrapers and squish everyone but they just keep growing and they can’t help it!

Unintentionally destructive scenarios with an anxious giant are one of my absolute favourites. He doesn’t mean to, he doesn’t want to, but he’s just so big that he can’t maneuver himself without bumping or breaking something, making things worse. I usually reserve it for softy gentle giants (other times…well, we know that power can change people).

@foreverlurk said:

Okay he’s not a “giant” in the sense we think of, but he’s still freaking SEVEN FOOT TWO (218 cm!)

But what if - and hear me out -
B I G G E R.

@Nyx said:

I’ve bought so many books and other media based on the fact that they appeared to be giant-related.

@Olo said:

Comic books are the worst in this regard. Size differential has such an immediate and universal symbolic meaning.

Aren’t they just? Like there was absolutely no chance that Reacher would have any sizey stuff happening (just posted as a bit of fun), but it’s much harder to tell with fantasy, sci-fi and horror media in general. I appreciate the imagery, but my little heart and my bank account can only take so much disappointment

Speaking of comics: here’s a few choice pages from a JLA comic someone from CF kindly posted a while ago. When I first saw the cover, I thought “oh, this must be symbolic.”

It wasn’t.

I like to revisit this one when I’m looking for “giant superheroes causing accidental chaos in a city” inspiration :3

Lame.

Anyone interested in reading the article, the Reacher crew appear to have snagged Dutch actor/bodybuilder, Olivier Richters for season 3.

Slight aside, Alan Ritchson (who plays Reacher) is on my giant celebrity list. He’s a little bit dreamy 🤭 It might come as a surprise that whilst I like my giants to be built like a god, I don’t really tread the overly muscular/muscle growth route. Still, the effort he put into transforming his already large and gorgeous physique is impressive. I bet he’d be really fun to clamber about and explore.

@littlest-lily said:

But if someone is filling out a questionnaire that asks for a partner’s ideal height and then it went “but what if it was short term?”

Yes, I am curious about how the question(s) was posed/worded and how they’re interpreted by both responders and the researchers.

Here are the results from an Australian 2019 survey with over 1000 respondents (I’m guessing all male because it was on male beauty). Of those who responded with an opinion, most found 5’5-5’9" as attractive. But the question was “When thinking of beauty, which height do you consider ideal for women?” Which doesn’t mention or overtly suggest the dating or preferential aspect, i.e. you can find features attractive but you wouldn’t necessarily prefer or date a person with those features. Maybe it prefaces in the overarching survey, I don’t know. In saying that, I think it’s a relatively safe assumption to make for most, but can still make for fraught interpretations.

@blehb no, I agree. Again disclaimer: I did skim the article, and they seem to sort of address the “shorter-than-average” statement, but there were a couple of glaring discussion points that contradict it, e.g. that preferred heights were taller or shorter relative to the responder’s height, not necessarily by the national average. Canada and the US (I think safe to say Cuba too) have the national average female height at about 5’3"-5’4". Norway seems to be the only one in the study where the preferred height actually is shorter than average (their national average height is 5’6"). Maybe they discuss it in more detail? But it could also have just been a misinterpretation on their part.

@foreverlurk said:

But seriously, 5’ 7" seems rather tall for women, no? “Ideal” height my arse.

@blehb said:

While 5’7 isn’t super tall, it is interesting that the ideal height was above the average for women.

For a long time, I defaulted on the belief that men liked short women. So I found it very interesting to learn that there are a lot of men who don’t like a big size difference (“big” by “normie” standards). They preferred shorter women, but otherwise liked for them and their partners to be of similar heights. One guy, for example, described interactions with short women as physically awkward when it came to hugs and kisses. Dude was clearly an amateur, but it was fascinating nonetheless.

@blehb said:

I’m curious how the results would differ under a more extensive study, though I wouldn’t be surprised if they were still the same.

Here is a recent (2022) cross-cultural study of height preferences in a partner, done with 500 men and women across Canada, Cuba, Norway and the US. It found a general preference for taller-than-average men and shorter-than-average women, but interestingly, they also found that the men (but not the women) had a preference for shorter women for short-term relationships, and taller women for long-term.

Anyway, so skimming through the article. For Canada: the preferred height for women was 165.6cm (5’5") for short-term relationships and 167.2cm (5’5.8" or just say 5’6"). So the preferred height has been reduced! Cuba, Norway and the US are shorter - though just a bit!

We’re just kind of boring.

Nah, we’re our own brand of compact fun

I prefer giants/growth to tiny/shrunk scenarios. For me, it’s the thrill of seeing and interacting someone so much larger and more powerful than me AND everybody/everything else. In coupling scenarios, I find an intimacy or sweetness in the “tiny” being the one and only centre of the giant’s world - he can take his pick of anything and anyone (singular or plural), do whatever he wants with them, but it’s only one little speck that makes any sort of impact on him personally.