>>32274 and >>32276
Having a girl butchered but showing it only by innuendo: I'm probably just not subtle enough to it that way. So I'd rather not butcher.

And some more answers to Onix. I guess I haven't expected to be called lazy here. But maybe you are right in a way, maybe I am concentrating too much on continuing my stories, mostly using techniques that I already know instead of learning new tricks. (In my defense though: I am also trying to get better with those techniques.)

If I say that I can't do something, I actually mean I can't do it in a way that I would be satisfied with. I mostly do rather small "Gore" stuff like ripping out fingernails or cutting off toes and nipples or branding because I think it looks better than "big" gore like gutting or cutting off limbs.

Don't misunderstand me. You have posted some amazing images here. The hooks, skewers and the burning candle in your pictures >>28348 to >>28383 are just one example. In many ways you are clearly better at gore techniques than me or most other artists here.

But again: "Actually debreasting is pretty simple task " you say just like that. What? I mean yes, the cut off tits are not that much of a problem with a cutout mask or hiding all other parts of the body. That does not mean they look very convincing and they could only be shown from the front.

But the much bigger problem for me is the girl that has just had her breasts severed. You mentioned "It was kinda what I did in my second series in my 3d "carrier". So it is a bit surprising that you can't do it." I think you mean >>9431 for instance. That, to be honest, does not look good to me. Not that the wound would not look good in a 2D picture. But it in my eyes it clashes hard with a 3D picture.

>>14805 looks much better already and I would like to know how you did that. But then >>15714 was a step back again.

Well, that was the very long answer. The short one is: You say "debreasting is pretty simple task" and I say "No it isn't". Not for me.