Feed aggregator

submitted by AlphaMegaMan
[link] [7 comments]

Author: rodney Here’s another of those “How did we miss this?” kind of things: Some of you might be familiar with the surreal works of Jim Woodring, especially his wordless funny animal comic Frank. Based on his own colorful dreams (and, some would say, rather scary dreams!), Frank follows the adventures of a “generic anthropomorph” […]

submitted by Black_Muzzle
[link] [7 comments]

Here’s another of those “How did we miss this?” kind of things: Some of you might be familiar with the surreal works of Jim Woodring, especially his wordless funny animal comic Frank. Based on his own colorful dreams (and, some would say, rather scary dreams!), Frank follows the adventures of a “generic anthropomorph” (to use the creator’s words) across a surreal landscape known as The Unifactor. Well in 2011, Jim Woodring completed his first graphic novel starring Frank,  Congress of the Animals. Frank’s world becomes even stranger, if possible, when he is forced to venture outside of the frightening yet familiar realm of The Unifactor and into the larger world around him. Fantagraphics is again offering this full-color graphic novel in hardcover at Amazon and other sellers. Attention Deficit Disorderly has an extensive review as well — one likely to make your head spin in fact.

Image. c. 2013 Fantagraphics Books

submitted by TheDoctor7777
[link] [4 comments]

submitted by FuraFume
[link] [1 comment]

submitted by JamesyBelfast
[link] [24 comments]

submitted by chipfoxx
[link] [8 comments]

submitted by Darkmayne
[link] [19 comments]

submitted by popgoeskia
[link] [11 comments]

Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things. - George Carlin

submitted by killabydemand
[link] [5 comments]

Author: Fred Love it or hate it, you gotta admit that Pocket Monsters, a.k.a. Pokémon, are anthropomorphic. In Japan, “monsters” are any fantasy animals; “pocket monsters”, like

Author: Dear, Papa Bear. I have been having this mental conundrum for quite some time and generally it began like half way into my 16 years of being a furry. I am not writing this to bash any one or to shame a group but I just want to have a bit more of an […]

Author: Smokescale Aquatos Howdy there! This is Fuzzy Logic, episode 94, Working Title! (we kinda didn’t make up a name for this one). Kyo could not be present due to the government shut down requiring him to spend more time stabbing hookers. Isty, Halfwit, and Smokey are still here to prattle on about all sorts […] Fuzzy Logic: Episode 94 – Working Title

submitted by gytrash
[link] [14 comments]

Why is this so difficult :P?

submitted by Cirkah
[link] [8 comments]

submitted by katakos
[link] [1 comment]

submitted by Hyane_Fleischer
[link] [3 comments]

submitted by AlligatorJesie
[link] [27 comments]

Dear, Papa Bear.

I have been having this mental conundrum for quite some time and generally it began like half way into my 16 years of being a furry. I am not writing this to bash any one or to shame a group but I just want to have a bit more of an understanding of things as a whole. 

Now I am a part of several groups on my G+ and my interest is very wide I feel a connection to "most" things that exist in our community but the thing that confuses the hell out of me is the part in the baby fur community where some stuff likes okay but other things I've seen generally rustle my jimmies to the point of nose bleeds. 

Again, not bashing any one, I am apart of several abdl furry communities and some of my best friends are, too. However, a while back there was a set of pictures depicting humans, presumably baby furs, doing naughty things as children. Yes, I know they aren't real children. Yes, it’s just art. Yes it’s not real. But at what point do you draw the line in what is okay and what makes you feel like a pedophile just looking at it. 

I've had this debate several times and it just does not end with a proper answer. I like cute and cuddly art and I've even been known to wear padding once every other full moon, so I am not saying baby furs are bad. I just want to know where that stupid line is that shit should be called pedophilic or not! 

Please, Papa. . . Help!

Random Background Pony

* * *

Hi, Random,

That’s a very good question. To me, there are two kinds of babyfurs: the ones who just like to wear diapers and pretend they're infants and like innocent pictures of infant furries doing G-rated things, and then there are the ones who sexualize innocent children, and that, to my mind, is wrong. The reason it is wrong is that sex should be between two consenting people, and when one is a sexually immature child who doesn’t even understand what sex is and is at the mercy of the power of an adult, that child is not consenting, and taking advantage of that is rape, pure and simple. Displaying images of infants doing sexual things stimulates and encourages this lust for rape, and so that, too, is wrong.

I looked up California code on child porn laws, and found this passage: 

Even though it may depict children engaged in sexually explicit activities, there are some types of "content" that are excluded from child pornography prosecutions. Possessing "pornographic" images of minors in drawings, figurines, statues or in films that have been rated by the Motion Picture Association of America are exempt from California child pornography laws.

So, I’m not actually sure if illustrations of children or babyfurs would be against the law under that definition, but it seems that it isn't, at least in my home state. If it were, there would be a lot of furries being arrested right now. The law seems mostly concerned with photos and film of real children being exploited for sex, not in illustrations.

I have no issue with someone who likes to wear a diaper, even if he or she is not incontinent. I think some people do that because they have a very strong desire to return to that innocent past that they have either lost or that was denied them in the first place, so they find diapers comforting. Also, many people just find drawings of little infants to be adorable; nothing wrong with that. There is, indeed, a charm about young life.

If you have been reading my column for very long, you know Papabear is extremely tolerant of unconventional behavior. I have written on everything from zoophilia to polyamorous relationships and even incest. Being a gay man and knowing that most of society disapproves of my behavior, I feel I should be open-minded about other people’s behavior, too, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and that no one is getting hurt.

But when someone exploits a child sexually, the psychological scars are impossible to recover from fully. Drawing pictures of such exploitation, therefore, in my mind, is actually worse than pornography—it’s disturbing. I would recommend that people who get off on this type of art seek some counseling, because there is definitely something not right with their heads.

In today’s society, children are allowed precious little innocence as it is. Let’s please not expose them to the idea of sex until they have reached puberty. Childhood should be a time of innocence and wonder and discovery. They’ll learn about sex more than soon enough.

Papabear