Furry Porn Thread (NSFW)

[MSPcomix]

I've never drawn anthropomorphic porn.

[Ahaugen]

but you did, I've seen it

[MSPcomix]

but you did, I've seen it

There is no pornographic art in my gallery. I've never drawn anthropomorphic porn.

[Ahaugen]

but you did, I've seen it

There is no pornographic art in my gallery. I've never drawn anthropomorphic porn.

well, at least your non-pornographic pornographic boobs are descent

[MSPcomix]

but you did, I've seen it

There is no pornographic art in my gallery. I've never drawn anthropomorphic porn.

well, at least your non-pornographic pornographic boobs are descent

Nudity does not equal pornography. Even depicting sex does not equal pornography. The sex in Horndog happens off camera. There's no explicit details. Though explicit sex doesn't necessarily equal pornography, either. If your intent is to arouse the viewer, it's either "erotic" or "pornographic", depending on how one sees pornography as a medium. I'm not saying the things I've said because I don't like porn. I'll freely admit that I've drawn porn. Not only that, I publish and sell a pornographic horror comic. But Horndog isn't pornography. It's a stoner comedy.

[Turnsky]

Okay, let's tally up a few examples. bear in mind NSFW tags are in effect for any links posted, folks..

You draw cartoon animals often throughout your comic, sex is oft talked about within.
Like this
to something further up the tree.. like this

going on further through your gallery, one finds these little nuggets of your characters drawn by you in your own gallery.
This
This
This
and This

There's Furry porn in them thar hills!

You can come out of your fuzzy little closet, now.

[MSPcomix]

None of those images are pornographic. In fact, there's no explicit detail in the last one, which is a poster that I sell. The poster's purpose is for a joke. Every positive response I've gotten from that poster are from people that laugh at it. The porn people hate the poster, purely because I didn't draw the character's spread vulva.

Secondly, there are no furries in my artwork, so there is no furry porn. I'm a cartoon artist. There's a certain way a furry character is drawn that is different from a cartoon character.

Bugs Bunny = Cartoon
Fritz the Cat = Cartoon

Anything with the word "furry" in its title = Furry

[Turnsky]

None of those images are pornographic. In fact, there's no explicit detail in the last one, which is a poster that I sell. The poster's purpose is for a joke. Every positive response I've gotten from that poster are from people that laugh at it. The porn people hate the poster, purely because I didn't draw the character's spread vulva.

Secondly, there are no furries in my artwork, so there is no furry porn. I'm a cartoon artist. There's a certain way a furry character is drawn that is different from a cartoon character.

Bugs Bunny = Cartoon
Fritz the Cat = Cartoon

Anything with the word "furry" in its title = Furry

Neither have any sexual organs showing, however. Guess what? you do.
and nipples on breasts count, meladdio. Your stuff isn't exactly "G-rated" which is what the majority of cartoon critters ARE.

[SergeXIII]

Children, please don't feed the troll.

[MSPcomix]

None of those images are pornographic. In fact, there's no explicit detail in the last one, which is a poster that I sell. The poster's purpose is for a joke. Every positive response I've gotten from that poster are from people that laugh at it. The porn people hate the poster, purely because I didn't draw the character's spread vulva.

Secondly, there are no furries in my artwork, so there is no furry porn. I'm a cartoon artist. There's a certain way a furry character is drawn that is different from a cartoon character.

Bugs Bunny = Cartoon
Fritz the Cat = Cartoon

Anything with the word "furry" in its title = Furry

Neither have any sexual organs showing, however. Guess what? you do.
and nipples on breasts count, meladdio. Your stuff isn't exactly "G-rated" which is what the majority of cartoon critters ARE.

Have you SEEN Fritz the Cat? It's as explicit as my comics.

Sex in a funny animal cartoon doesn't equal furry. Take your own stuff for example. No sex or porn, but the designs are clearly furry.

Children, please don't feed the troll.

Are you accusing me of trolling? How do you ration that when I'm more well known than you are?

[Ahaugen]

None of those images are pornographic. In fact, there's no explicit detail in the last one, which is a poster that I sell. The poster's purpose is for a joke. Every positive response I've gotten from that poster are from people that laugh at it. The porn people hate the poster, purely because I didn't draw the character's spread vulva.

Secondly, there are no furries in my artwork, so there is no furry porn. I'm a cartoon artist. There's a certain way a furry character is drawn that is different from a cartoon character.

Bugs Bunny = Cartoon
Fritz the Cat = Cartoon

Anything with the word "furry" in its title = Furry

the way I decide if something is porn is to run the "Mom test" on it. basically, if it was hanging on the back of my door when I was 16 and my mom saw it, how many weeks I would be grounded for it would translate to how pornographic it is. And I've got to tell you, if she saw that, I wouldn't see daylight till I reached the age of majority

[Laemkral]

Sniff. Sniff. Man, somebody in here reeks of hardcore denial about their softcore porn.

Are you accusing me of trolling? How do you ration that when I'm more well known than you are?

The actor who plays Borat is more well known than you and he's a bigger troll than you. Your logic is apples and pencils. They have even less to do with each other than apples and oranges.

[SergeXIII]

Children, please don't feed the troll.

Are you accusing me of trolling? How do you ration that when I'm more well known than you are?

Well, yes I am accusing you of that, and I don't have to be more well known than you to call bull shit. But even if that logic did make sense, I've got an answer: I'm a good cartoonist, and don't need to provide masturbation aids to fetishists to gain readership.

I'll be ignoring you now, I adivise everyone else to do the same.

[Turnsky]

Are you accusing me of trolling? How do you ration that when I'm more well known than you are?

stop trying to wave your epeen about, it's quite unsightly.

[MSPcomix]

the way I decide if something is porn is to run the "Mom test" on it. basically, if it was hanging on the back of my door when I was 16 and my mom saw it, how many weeks I would be grounded for it would translate to how pornographic it is. And I've got to tell you, if she saw that, I wouldn't see daylight till I reached the age of majority

If anything I've drawn appeared in a movie, it would be given an R rating. The legal age to see an R rated movie is 16. Parents may dictate what is and isn't appropriate for their off-spring at certain ages, and one may decide that something is not appropriate at a certain age, but this has no bearing on whether it constitutes pornography.

The film Lust, Caution is far more explicit than Horndog, but it's not pornographic. As far as your "Mom test" goes, I saw the Fritz the Cat movies when I was 13. I saw Kevin Smith's Chasing Amy when I was 10. I watched violent, gory horror movies when I was younger. So I can't relate to the idea that if you were 16, your parents would kick you off the computer for reading my comic. (Note: 16 is the legal age of consensual sex in the UK.)

Frank Zappa was on trial for obscenity charges in an English court, and discussed the appropriateness of a song with sexual content, "Dinah Moe-Humm", which is about a bet to see if the narrator can make a couple of gals "cum". It got down to a certain age where Zappa noted that it might be questionable. As far as I'm concerned, I'll leave the appropriateness of Horndog up to the parents. I don't recommend my comics for kids. I think that at least 13 would be fine, in my view. But that would depend on the sensibilities of an individual.

If someone has the intelligence and maturity to read Horndog, it's appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, my comic is not appropriate for adults over the age of 18 who are too immature to see this comic as anything other than pornography, despite the lack of pornographic content. It's not even an erotic comic. As I've stated earlier, there's semen in There's Something About Mary, but none in my comic. Is Mary suddenly a pornographic film?

[MSPcomix]

Sniff. Sniff. Man, somebody in here reeks of hardcore denial about their softcore porn.

There is no softcore porn in my comic or art gallery. It's a comedy.

The actor who plays Borat is more well known than you and he's a bigger troll than you.

Sacha Baron Cohen is not a troll, he's a comedian.

I'm a good cartoonist, and don't need to provide masturbation aids to fetishists to gain readership.

It's pretentious for someone to flat out say that he gets to insult people because he is a "good cartoonist". Who decided that you were a good cartoonist? What qualifies "good" art in the first place? If something is enjoyable to one person but not to another, is there a definable level where you can put down something that someone else put serious effort into that a lot of people enjoy because you personally have no taste for it?

I don't draw "masturbation aids to fetishists". I draw humor. If you are not mature enough not to snicker every time you see a breast, this comic is inappropriate for you, even if you are over 18. I don't appeal to fetishists, generally. Everyone who enjoys my comic reads it for the humor and story and could care less about the nudity. If they do care about the nudity, they're not responding in a fetishist response, they're responding to the nudity as a joke or a point of humor. When you saw the title, what did you think the comic was going to be about?

The majority of underground comix involve satire and humor. I didn't gain readership because of the nudity. I gained readership because people find my comic funny. I don't particularly care if someone masturbates to it, because I didn't draw it for that purpose, and I'm not interested in the personal lives of my readers - even the readers who buy my porn.

Robert Crumb draws comics with nudity and sex, and he also draws porn. It's not the same thing. One's explicitly for one purpose, the other's explicitly for another.

As far as I'm concerned, in addition to your over-inflated opinion of yourself, it's amazingly pretentious to suggest that I'm trolling and to tell people to ignore me, even though my posts entirely consist of intelligent, well thought out statements and opinions. The trolling would be coming in here and posting flat insults.

[Turnsky]

Sacha Baron Cohen is not a troll, he's a comedian.

Yeah but he's funny

It's pretentious for someone to flat out say that he gets to insult people because he is a "good cartoonist". Who decided that you were a good cartoonist? What qualifies "good" art in the first place? If something is enjoyable to one person but not to another, is there a definable level where you can put down something that someone else put serious effort into that a lot of people enjoy because you personally have no taste for it?

Tit for tat: you were also waving the 'popularity banner of pretentiousness' about, even though we've never heard of you before this topic started up.

The majority of underground comix involve satire and humor. I didn't gain readership because of the nudity. I gained readership because people find my comic funny. I don't particularly care if someone masturbates to it, because I didn't draw it for that purpose, and I'm not interested in the personal lives of my readers - even the readers who buy my porn.

Satire and humor, neh?
<Stadler>"Underground comix?"
<Waldorf>"well it does deserve to be buried"
<Both>"Doh-ho-ho-ho!"

Robert Crumb draws comics with nudity and sex, and he also draws porn. It's not the same thing. One's explicitly for one purpose, the other's explicitly for another.

he also is a professional artist, who draws people for the vast majority of his work, with quite a few decades under his belt.

As far as I'm concerned, in addition to your over-inflated opinion of yourself, it's amazingly pretentious to suggest that I'm trolling and to tell people to ignore me, even though my posts entirely consist of intelligent, well thought out statements and opinions. The trolling would be coming in here and posting flat insults.

Pot calling the Kettle black here.
This is how i see it. Fritz the cat and so on is anthropomorphic, and made before the "furry fandom" even started to arise. HOWEVER, given that your stuff is only what? less than a few years old?, it's a vast exaggeration on your part, or the "popularity" of your work to even consider it being better than it actually is.
Style or otherwise.
I've seen plenty of people like you. Same, overinflated sense of ability and popularity just because they have a few followers who think their work is good, tries to publish a few books that again, are prolly purchased by people who think their work is good. But, then again, somehow Rob Leifeld does seem to keep getting work, so there might be some truth in there, deep down, below the various detritus.
Suffice to say, they get burned pretty regularly by those who have a sense of professionalism in the way they handle things, and you sir, are no professional. In ability nor attitude.

[Spaceprincess]

you may not consider yourself a furry or your work pornographic but there are probably people who do. I run a group on DA and If someone submitted work like those examples I would probably remove them. looking at the groups those pics are in they are adult oriented any not everyone one wants that stuff in their group.

more well known than you are?

looking at you're DA page you aren't that popular. besides being well known on the internet is like being the funnest guy at Shenanigans or the smartest kid in remedial english. its nothing to hang your hat on.

[MSPcomix]

It's pretentious for someone to flat out say that he gets to insult people because he is a "good cartoonist". Who decided that you were a good cartoonist? What qualifies "good" art in the first place? If something is enjoyable to one person but not to another, is there a definable level where you can put down something that someone else put serious effort into that a lot of people enjoy because you personally have no taste for it?

Tit for tat: you were also waving the 'popularity banner of pretentiousness' about

1. My work actually is popular, and has been featured on some major websites.
2. I never said that I was good, just that people like what I do.

Robert Crumb draws comics with nudity and sex, and he also draws porn. It's not the same thing. One's explicitly for one purpose, the other's explicitly for another.

he also is a professional artist, who draws people for the vast majority of his work, with quite a few decades under his belt.

Irrelevant. I brought Crumb up only to note that drawing some pornography does not automatically qualify one solely as a porn artist.

This is how i see it. Fritz the cat and so on is anthropomorphic, and made before the "furry fandom" even started to arise. HOWEVER, given that your stuff is only what? less than a few years old?, it's a vast exaggeration on your part, or the "popularity" of your work to even consider it being better than it actually is.

I've been around since 2003, and I've had more of an impact on comics than you have. I'm not involved in furry fandom because I have more of an interest in other types of stories than stories involving anthropomorphism. I never praised my own work, only stated that it has a significant following.

That you don't know who I am is significant. I don't know who you are. So what? I don't exaggerate when I point out my status in underground comix. I've been heavily and consistently putting out work for 7 years. My work isn't necessarily better than that of another artist, but I've had more success in putting out comics independently without mainstream promotion than some people have had by spending $20 a week to have their ads posted on huge corporate sites, so obviously my fans see something in my work that they don't see in another artist's work. That doesn't mean that I'm better than those artists, it just means that those artists have to rethink their approach and change to a new strategy. Dissing another artist out of jealousy is an instant career killer.

[Laemkral]

I'm tired of arguing with this guy about what he wants to argue about. Time to argue about what I want to argue about!

Ahem.

Give me back my sweater, asshole!