FloofyPrince >> #14785619
Posted on 2023-07-12 03:46:57 Score: 21 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

god self inserts are cringy af

HughthyDerg >> #14785658
Posted on 2023-07-12 03:50:14 Score: 4 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

^what are you talking about?

J03STAR1888 >> #14786145
Posted on 2023-07-12 04:37:14 Score: 10 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

^ they're talking about how the name on the women's rear says slash, also the name of the artist, henceforth, self insert

Biggie78 >> #14787760
Posted on 2023-07-12 07:22:04 Score: 19 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

Thats how to tell they get no pussy

KinkyPants >> #15418094
Posted on 2023-08-24 12:25:08 Score: 0 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

That's not self insertion though, self insertion would be Slash having himself as a character in his porn

SentrySlut >> #15456951
Posted on 2023-08-27 03:54:44 Score: 2 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

Self-insertion doesn't always mean that the person is in the picture in the literal sense, the fact that they are mentioned is enough to be considered a self-insert. It doesn't matter how exactly it is done, but as long as it's in the picture/text/other and it technically exists for the characters (i.e. it's not just a signature or something similar that's there to show the viewer who's the author or something similar) - it is self-insertion.
While this also can be considered an author's signature - it's made in a way that makes it clear that the writing exists in the picture's "world" and clearly bears more purpose than to just claim authorship over the picture itself. It is self-insert.
TL;DR - I have too much time to waste on comments here, and this should be considered a self-insert.

CRUSADER2522 >> #15736027
Posted on 2023-09-15 03:06:09 Score: 3 (vote Up) ( Report comment )

That is a lot of words, good thing I'm respectful enough to read them. Quite interesting I do say so myself.