Sensible Erection | vore swallowing unbirthing comics

Wednesday, 17 January 2007

After carefull reviewing, I deemed this site suitable for sensible consumption.

In an article on somethingawful, a suggestion was made to look up the word 'unbirthing' on google. Under 'pictures' came these babies, and I was hooked.

Enjoy!

[porn] [by Vernes@10:54pmGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

foobar said @ 11:05pm GMT on 17th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
Double-You Tee Eff

blacksun said @ 11:08pm GMT on 17th Jan
What The FUck.
Teh art isn't bad. The other stuff....
I just wonder what kind of poeple the artists are.

mao tse helen said @ 11:24pm GMT on 17th Jan [Score:2 Insightful]
I'm not particularly stoked on the quality of the art, either. I mean, it's a lot better than the stuff that this asshole puts out, but the fact is you can't tell what you're supposed to be looking at half the time.

hunk said @ 11:10pm GMT on 17th Jan
uh...

Omagus23 said @ 11:25pm GMT on 17th Jan
I had run into "consuming" fetish sites way back in like 1998 or something, but now that they have coupled it up to furry porn its achieved a whole new level of madness.

theolypse said @ 11:49pm GMT on 17th Jan
There's a furry version of everything.

foobar said @ 12:41am GMT on 18th Jan
How about the sane and well balanced?

Resplendent_Elk said @ 3:15am GMT on 18th Jan
If furry was my thing I'd go for href="http://www.pleasurebonbon.com/sample_pbb6.html">Pleasure Bon Bon. It has quite spectacular art and is drawn by a seemingly quite sane woman.

Resplendent_Elk said @ 3:15am GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Interesting]
Pleasure Bon Bon.

foobar said @ 6:29am GMT on 18th Jan
A seemingly quite sane woman, who fetishises animals?

Resplendent_Elk said @ 9:04am GMT on 18th Jan
Not animals. They're humans in another guise. Look it up, it's a common thing throughout many cultures, a long way back.

shortstop4313 said @ 9:33am GMT on 18th Jan
Honestly, the reason why furries is not some sort of Humans in another guise issue. It more combines the attraction of Escapism, and for artists, allows them to create without having to worry about drawing even vaguely accurate anatomy.

Resplendent_Elk said @ 12:51pm GMT on 18th Jan
Look at the art for Pleasure Bon Bon. It's unarguably very well drawn. In fact, as far as drawn porn in general goes, there are some very talented artists producing it, with varying degrees of realism. I won't argue against that furry seems attract less talented artists as well, but so does any kind of art with a large fanbase online.

Anyhow, furry is in fact just an extension of fables and mythology. Even today we liken certain behaviors to those of animals. Fables and furry is just taking the allegories of humans with animal characteristics a bit more literally. If you can't see that you've spent too much time on internet forums with your brain shut off.

eIfish said @ 3:00pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
If it were fables and mythology, then they'd do more animally things. Whereas, in fact, most of the furry stuff that isn't porn (and quite a lot of the stuff that is) could be redone with humans with next-to-no changes.

I'll case in point Better Days, which (for some reason I can't fathom*) is considered by many to be an example of credible furry art. And yet all the characters really are is republicans with fur on. Even though there appear to be several different species, none of which appear to hybridise, they all live together in near harmony, because they all have exactly the same basic drives and behaviour.

Frankly, it's unimaginative.

Furry is like a masquerade ball: you can use it get away with stuff you're too ashamed to draw actual humans doing.

* Games to play while reading include spot-the-avatar, and guess-which-race-this-species-corresponds-to.

Resplendent_Elk said @ 4:22pm GMT on 18th Jan
It's based on the same thing as fables and mythology. I didn't say furry stories are actual fables, the way

Of course it's a masquerade. So is drawing humans, especially when there's a high degree of stylization. That's not an argument against furries or any kind of imaginary character. Noone bats an eye when you dress your imagination up as superheroes, ninjas, robots or vampires. So what's the big deal with anthropomorphic animals? That there's a group of people doing wierd shit with it? Go see an old martial arts flick or go to a LARP. You don't write off all ninjas and vampires just because of the wierdos there.

shortstop4313 said @ 7:05pm GMT on 18th Jan
The problem is, they are all weirdos.

eIfish said @ 8:55pm GMT on 18th Jan
Compare with, for example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's based on Dracula, Frankenstein, and a whole hell of a lot of B-movies.

In it, there are three major groups: the paranormal, humans, and the humans that are in on it. These groups are (with the exception of the plain humans) aware of each other's existence, and behave at least somewhat convincingly towards each other: the government responded to the presence of the vampires by forming The Institute, in order to capture and study them; the Master tried to start an agricultural revolution to bring vampire society into the modern era; Buffy had several socially awkward relationships with vampires; The police just keep investigating all the murders, but the higher-ups hush it up as gang violence.

Or how about the Uplift series: it has at least ten species that get a good airing, including three from earth. And the differences are striking, even between the two primates. There are prejudices, there are bizarre rituals, and there are intriguing languages. One of the species has wheels. And one of the best things about it is that it doesn't spoon-feed you anything, but leaves you to make sense of the bizarre universe.

Whereas in pretty-much every furry thing I've seen, there's just this kind of conceit that no-ones really a mouse or an ocelot or whatever; it's just some kind of affectation like the way no-one in manga/anime really has the funny hair colours.

And that is, I think, the crucial difference. It's not the specific choice of affectation, but that there's so much effort put in to something that's essentially just a way to tell the characters apart. A work in which everyone was a superhero or a ninja, or a robot*, or whatever, but the fact that they were had no effect whatsoever on the story would be equally ridiculous. Imagine if Lord of the Rings or Discworld did that.

* I believe Dreamworks has actually done this.

Jewbacchus said @ 10:10pm GMT on 18th Jan
What, like Redwall?

Resplendent_Elk said @ 2:40am GMT on 19th Jan
I've seen furry comics where the characters' animal side has meaning and isn't just a visual thing. I remember seeing some of that even in Better Days. But even where it's only the anthro aesthetic that an artist uses, I don't see any difference from genres and styles where characters have a certain look just because it's considered appealing. Porn in itself is full of conventions that are there simply because some find them nice to look at. I don't see any real difference in wierdness between a humanoid cat having sex and an actual human woman with a body modified for porn.

If you boil things down, noone is really a vampire in Buffy either. They're all variations of humans. Take away the surface and you'll find a human archetype (or stereotype) beneath. Fantasy is rife with such dressed-up humans. The Uplift series is a bit different, but regardless of how bizarre the aliens are they're still projections of human minds and therefore basically human. That's going far beyond just furry porn and how much I care about it, however.

foobar said @ 9:36am GMT on 18th Jan
So is paedophilia. That doesn't make it sane or healthy.

Resplendent_Elk said @ 12:44pm GMT on 18th Jan
Something has something in common with pedophila and must therefore be bad.

Sharp reasoning there.

foobar said @ 11:03pm GMT on 18th Jan
Did I make that claim? Read it again carefully. I was simply pointing out your argument to antiquity fallacy.

Resplendent_Elk said @ 2:40am GMT on 19th Jan
...by bringing up the sickest sexual deviation there is. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Resplendent_Elk said @ 9:07am GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
Also, I find anthropomorphic animals a lot less scary than many actual porn stars.

contrast said @ 12:22am GMT on 18th Jan
just when you think some territory is uncharted, there's already a hentai.

Tang said @ 1:09am GMT on 18th Jan
soul pooping.. thats a new one i guess

.... No Sir I Don't Like It

i think we need a +1 creepy

asnosmaniac said @ 5:40am GMT on 18th Jan
Are you serious? I think soul pooping is hilarious! Well, I do now that I heard of it. Those furries come up with the craziest shit.

Ok, well, I'm gonna go puke.

Garibaldi Biscuit said @ 7:47am GMT on 18th Jan [Score:2]

"Well I'll be godamned if some undead son of a bitch is going to shit their souls down the visitor's toilet!"

Roulette1337 said @ 8:05am GMT on 18th Jan
+1 Ho-tep

NuncEstBibendum said @ 1:14am GMT on 18th Jan [Score:4 Funny]

mao tse helen said @ 1:18am GMT on 18th Jan [Score:5 Funny]
A banana that eats you? I thought we were supposed to have won the Cold War.

NuncEstBibendum said @ 1:28am GMT on 18th Jan
(+1 elegant Soviet Russia joke reference)

Supreme_Coconut said @ 8:21am GMT on 18th Jan
Is that from Courage the Cowardly Dog? From the episode where they go into the future and bananas are a sentient species?

Khafra said @ 1:17am GMT on 18th Jan
The spiritual heir of fbonnaci?

Mr Coffee said @ 4:03am GMT on 18th Jan
too intoxicated to react appropriately to the shit. The quality of line is erratic though, i would not like to meet the artist after a few coffees and offend them in any way.

shortstop4313 said @ 9:34am GMT on 18th Jan
The artist's response you you offending them: 'I will eat you, rar!'

Arboris said @ 4:52am GMT on 18th Jan
+1 Eye's are bleeding

=_=

-_- said @ 10:11am GMT on 18th Jan
=_=

sacrelicious said @ 11:01am GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Funny]
*holds gun nervously*

they both look so much alike, I don't know which one is the real one and which is the imposter! OMG, which one do I shoot?!

'_' said @ 11:05am GMT on 18th Jan
There's only one way to be sure... ¡You'll have to shoot us both!

sacrelicious said @ 11:07am GMT on 18th Jan
the real -_- would never say that, cowardly sort that he is! you must be the imposter!

*shoots fake face*

Jewbacchus said @ 11:19am GMT on 18th Jan
But where is evil face?

x_x said @ 11:44am GMT on 18th Jan
-----------------------

ˆ_ˆ said @ 4:11pm GMT on 18th Jan
ya missed

Dalej said @ 7:31am GMT on 18th Jan
Jesus christ.

shortstop4313 said @ 8:26am GMT on 18th Jan
I found this website a while back, I was too scared to share.

shortstop4313 said @ 8:34am GMT on 18th Jan
And this is why God Hates Furries

f00m@nB@r said @ 4:12pm GMT on 18th Jan
i'll ask again... :/ what's that webcomic with the super-cute nazi main characters?

-_- said @ 6:53pm GMT on 18th Jan
oooooooooo sounds fapalicious.
Faptastic even.

Vernes said @ 11:02pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Informative]
http://toydivision.transplantcomics.com/

seems to fit the description

f00m@nB@r said @ 1:53am GMT on 19th Jan
that's the one! thanks!

eIfish said @ 9:15pm GMT on 18th Jan
OOOOooooh, new Dan Kim comic.

This goes some way to filling the void.

It'sGoTimeDawg said @ 10:15pm GMT on 18th Jan
new username time!