Ponibooru

Tag History

(edit info)

Prev | Index | Next

ZeCaptain #1099979 4 months ago

*sniff sniff* Smell that? That's the smell of butthurt.

ZePassionateOne #1099985 4 months ago

Anonymous #1099991 4 months ago

U MAD BRAH?

Psychopomf #1099992 4 months ago

Hey. We're all adults. Some adults show their love by sexualizing things. I can bet you if you tried to find forums of those TV shows, there would be dozens of people saying they'd want to being (character)

Psychopomf #1099999 4 months ago

Just don't stress it too much. I don't get all bent out about the fetishy pictures even though I find them weird. Oh. I forgot my condescending reaction image.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100002 4 months ago

I'm so sick. I have an incurable disease. It's call clopping and the only cure is more sexy ponies and some lotion. You can keep the socks if you want bro.

marioandsonic #1100004 4 months ago

*yawn*

CKSM96 #1100007 4 months ago

It is rule 34 for reason. If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions. Ever. OP is clearly not looking hard enough.

Michos #1100015 4 months ago

Yes, you fail at searching.

RepentantAnon #1100024 4 months ago

k. i gave enough of a fuck to read this and comment. hope you're happy cuz its all youre getting. :P

Harlequin_Jester #1100027 4 months ago

PVRyohei #1100043 4 months ago

I fail to understand how one can be bothered by what others fap to.

Gittonsxv #1100060 4 months ago

....maybe this is just me but most of rule 34 seems to be made of non real people and things, like cartoons, games, anime, animation, objects etc drawing one of those people fucking someone seems kind of pointless when you can go to Redtube and see hundreds of real people fucking....leave the cartoon loves to there cartoons, a long while ago gay was nothing more then a fetish now it is a sexuality.......i get off topic easy.....

Simlun #1100061 4 months ago

I fail to understand why she brought up metamorphosis. It's a great book and all, but why?

HotFuzz #1100063 4 months ago

ProfessorOfHoers #1100073 4 months ago

^^Gay people were a fetish and not a sexuality? I find that an odd statement.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100081 4 months ago

Gittonsxv #1100094 4 months ago

it is a bit odd but basically people thought it was imposable for a male to love another male, any attraction between the 2 was counted as a weird sex thing, it is nice that people are more understanding now a days, maybe in a couple hundred years we will have dozens of sexualitys.....hmmmm

ProfessorOfHoers #1100109 4 months ago

I personally think (I live in the US) our Puritan inspired sexuality is beyond stupid and repressive. So long as you're not harming anyone or exploiting someone who can't fend or reason for themselves I don't see the problem. Of course, I don't even think bestiality is a big deal so I'm in the VAST minority.

Anonymous #1100118 4 months ago

The examples he gave weren't very good. SVU, CSI, and The Wire don't have the same sort of intensely devoted fanbase that MLP and other shows have. The type of shows as well as the fact that they're live action means that they're much less conducive to erotica. Animation and video games are much more susceptible to rule 34, IMO.

Gittonsxv #1100123 4 months ago

Professor, i agree with you there

Anonymous #1100139 4 months ago

Fact 1: Rule 34 isn't only restricted to the internet. Fact 2: Rule 34 isn't no set manner, it can come anytime, anywhere, and anyway shape or fashion. Fact 3: Almost anything can be interpreted as rule 34, depending on the people.

Anonymous #1100159 4 months ago

The fact is, is that it CAN happen to anything.

Anonymous #1100171 4 months ago

Being attracted to cartoon ponies is weird, guys. But, I mean, it's not hurting anyone. And plenty of people are into weird shit.

Anonymous #1100184 4 months ago

You'd be surprised what human minds are capable of.

Anonymous #1100192 4 months ago

@Professor And let's hope it stay this way.

Nebbie #1100200 4 months ago

@ProfessorOfHoers "Vast majority" is saying the majority is very big, so unless you meant a minority like 49%, it should be a smallness adjective. I don't think anything's a big deal as long as you don't do anything to someone that they don't want (note:this means rape fantasies are A-OK when you don't act them out). Even then, I don't object to it in principle, I just object to it being done to someone I really care about.

Cipher #1100211 4 months ago

OP is a faggot and should typing in pokemon and other popular cartoons. It's fucking hard to make porn of live action shit.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100217 4 months ago

^^You can hope. I will despair at a society that thinks death and violence is ok but sex is somehow horrible.

Nebbie #1100220 4 months ago

^^OP has a live action fetish and is all "OMG GUYS STOP LIKING WHAT I DONT LIKE! AND Y U NO MAKE PORN THAT I AND NOT MANY OTHERS WANT?"

Anonymous #1100234 4 months ago

@Professor Wut? Were did you get that? Comments on the internet?

ProfessorOfHoers #1100250 4 months ago

American TV.

Nebbie #1100267 4 months ago

Comments on the internet, when taken as a large sample to weed out trolls, are far more honest than American tv. That itself actually provides information when you consider that American tv is regulated, which reinforces what you'll find in those comments.

Anonymous #1100271 4 months ago

@Professor I am not american, but I think you should go talk with real people instead of only relying on TV. TV usually only shows disgrace, because it's what attract attention.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100294 4 months ago

The truth is America at large has no problem showing graphic violence on TV, for example, while it would censor out a bare breast or a swear word. It seems silly to me. I remember watching Die Hard on basic cable and they censored Willis saying "Yippie Kie Yay Motherfucker" but had no problem leaving in violent shooting scenes, walking on glass, and other scenes of death and violence. That is typical here, for some reason.

Anonymous #1100304 4 months ago

@Nebbie Okay, tell me how do you decide what it's a troll comment and what is a honest one. @Professor Before I continue, are you in favor of showing graphic violence in TV or against it?

ProfessorOfHoers #1100326 4 months ago

I personally have no problem with showing violence on TV with proper ratings or whatever. The issue is that somehow violence is treated as less offensive than sex, or swearing. In all truth I'm not a firm believer in any kind of censorship but I am in favor of rating content so that people can know what they are getting into.

Nebbie #1100347 4 months ago

@anon271 Yeah, because I can just gather what my friends think and get an inaccurate picture or go out and poll random people (which would also be inaccurate. people are not honest in America. They lie once per conversation longer than 10 minutes on average, more if it's a touchy subject). Disgrace? Yeah, American tv is not like tv in your country. @anon304 The easiest way is to chekk it vs. other comments, to see if it's a common view. Unless you're on 4chan or something, you won't hav most comments about a subject being troll comments. It does not matter what his position is. His problem is with the hypocrisy.

Anonymous #1100652 4 months ago

@Professor I thought so. Okay, let's start. You are forgetting that violence is not only a physical act. For example, tell me what would shock more a little boy: seeing a gruesome scene or a sexual one? Probably the sexual. Why, because kids get to 'mature' to violence sooner than to sexual acts. Who never stomped a bug, for example? Who never cut a finger? Seeing blood is far more natural than seeing sex at an early age. Also, just ratings aren't enough. Kids don't care about rantings. You will probably say it's the parents fault then... but how many parents can stay with their children the entire day? How about school? Lock then on their bedrooms? A efficient level of censorship is needed. The ideal in my OP would be: do as Ponibooru, having filters that can only be changed through password. That would be far more effective. While that isn't possible, censorship on TV seems reasonable. It's far easier to see a gore movie on TV than renting it at a DVD store. PS: I don't know about US, but here DVD owners can get in trouble for renting movies to young children. And that is quite dangerous. Here is a site: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp I was a bit worried to post it, since most people say: “Ah, that is not reliable.” or “Your just a moral guardian.” So here is a few more: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/television/tv_impact_kids.cfm http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_tv_violence You are free to do your own research if you want, too. Feel free to share some links, but please be of orgs or a main source, not just some blog. Back to the point. You may believe things are considerable “bad” because people say they are. That is true, but there is more. People say they are bad, because they are bad to us. Some things are natural to us. This I won't even source, because you can say for yourself: if you touch a hot iron, won't you pull away in pain? Some things are natural. Here is another example: Fear of Death - http://www.dealingwithfear.org/fear-of-death.htm/ Fearing death is natural, even since the beginning. Therefore, it's possible to say death is a bad thing. After all, people want to be alive and only seeks death when they are on the edge. Legality of Crime- http://tutor2u.net/sociology/deviance-crime-and-society.html As it's been debated a lot of times, the reason people do crime is only when they are also on the edges of emotional health. So crime can be a considerable, universal bad thing. Reaction to Shit - http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=171760 Yes, I want this far. /o/ Even through they aren't scientists, I stumbled upon it and thought it was a good read. The fact is, it's instinctive. There are things which naturally gross us out. And at least, Beastility - http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/animals.htm Finally at my main beef. You said there is no problem in doing things as long as they don't affect others, right? What about animals? Animals can't talk. They can't say if they like it or don't. Like kids. Kids may talk, but they don't have the emotional strength needed to defend themselves. Therefore, why it wouldn't be wrong to abuse animals, as it is to abusing children? Also remember that different species aren't suppose to have sexual acts, and the results can be severe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case And another: http://www.pitbull-chat.com/showthread.php?90624-Woman-Dies-of-Allergic-Reaction-to-the-Dog-She-Had-Sex-With There is more, but I am too lazy to keep searching. So, as you see it's natural people get irked at some things. Remember that while certain customs are local, other concepts evolved naturally in most places. I really don't care if you people clop to cartoon ponies, but I do care to those who want it to be viewed as a normal thing. Because it's don't. Why not? Because it's something made for children. Children are considerated pure, so it's like clopping to children 'dreams', as sappy as this sounds. A more realistic example would be like loli. You may argue it's not a real children, and on RL is deplorable. But then inside your mind it's acceptable? That's controversial. I can't say for real if this, like pedophilia, is a disturb or something that affects a minority, but both things are irking and people should expect a reaction when you admit to those things in public. The same way as bestiality. You are feel to counter argue. @Nebbie I thought it was pretty clear I am same anon. How many friends do you have? How diverse are them? I have one that is pretty capitalist, another who likes socialism, another that is religious. I think it's won't be so inaccurate if you have a good number of friends. Also, if it was an anon poll, I am sure most wouldn't lie. Most people lie in worry of being taken the wrong way. Also you shouldn't throw a jab at your own country. Just because certain comments are common, it's doesn't mean it's a common view of a society. Here, I will give you an example: www.folha.com.br. (It's Brazilian, so you probably won't understand what is written, but feel free to ask a Brazilian or Portuguese friend to check) Basically, there is two main political parties: PT and PSDB. Where one party is being flamed, posters of that group don't post on it. Unless you are a troll, you probably won't go against the common opinion, unless you really don't have anything to lose in the internet. Some people get really attached to their nicks, for example. And it's does matter what he thinks. Check my answer above. == I worked more than a hour on it, so please read everything, including the main paragraphs in the sources.

Anonymous #1100654 4 months ago

PS: What the... I didn't think this would be so long.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100722 4 months ago

That whole statement was silly and didn't provide a single "fact." I would love to argue but I'm already half drunk at this point and I don't need the idea that "violence" is somehow natural and "sex" needs to be preserved as something that should be considered immoral or hidden. Furthermore, your whole "bestiality" argument doesn't hold up in a society that eats meat and uses animals for products, services, etc. Perhaps a dog is protected from cruelty and murder but a chicken or cow in a factory farm is not. Your argument on pedophilia is weak and specious since it assumes that children's fantasy-wanting to fuck children. I want to fuck cartoon horses. I have no interest in fucking children. The problem is that the whole of your "moral" argument is based upon a fallacious premise; namely that the way that society is set up and functions must mean that behaviors that come out of that system must be "natural" or even virtuous. In truth natural does not mean moral or virtuous in and of itself and what is "moral" is a tentative concept that is often changed and revised to meet current societal norms.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100757 4 months ago

Reading again, your "evidence' that interspecies sex indicates danger is also a flawed premise. You can find little count of people dieing from sex with animals yet among human to human sex you can find numerous (and often fatal) cases of STDs including things such as HIV or aids. The case of the man dying from anal sex with a horse is merely a problem of technique and size and not of logistics. That's like saying you can crash your car 100 mph into a telephone poll and therefore driving is wrong. The case of the allergic reaction in the woman from the dog is also a case that does not somehow conform to the idea that inter-species sex is deadly any more than eating peanuts is deadly. Eating peanuts is deadly if you are allergic to peanuts.

ProfessorOfHoers #1100775 4 months ago

also, from the "mr hands" article on wiki (which is always a reliable source) Other factors surrounding the death were apparently that the deceased, concerned about appearing in a hospital with an unusual internal injury and the effect on his security clearance as an engineer for aerospace company Boeing, had apparently refused his friends' urging to go to the hospital for several hours after being aware he was internally injured.[citation needed] He was anonymously dropped off at the Enumclaw Community Hospital.[10][14] On July 2, 2005, a man asked hospital staff for medical assistance for his companion. Pinyan was found dead in the emergency room. The man who brought Pinyan into the hospital had disappeared by the time hospital staff came to contact him.[10] Media reports at the time of the trial suggested that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of injury to the horses was found, precluding animal cruelty charges, and that the trespass charge against Tait were brought due to lack of grounds for any other matter: So basically he died (no injury to the horses) because he was AFRAID to go to the hospital due to the judgement he was sure to recieve. Further accounts I have read have shown without doubt that if he HAD gone to the hospital after the incident have occurred without delay he would have most likely survived.

Dysons_Fear #1100853 4 months ago

Rule 34 is a dare for some people. If it exists, I must make porn of it. Seems that way to me anyway.

Anonymous #1100866 4 months ago

MaroonBunyip #1100896 4 months ago

Anonymous #1101781 4 months ago

Quit frankly. I Think in 2 month the "My Little Pony" Tag on R34 will have more Pics than the "R63" tag. In a half year it hit probably the 10000 spot, maybe earlier. I doubt that this is a good thing. The amount of questionable pics here is already pretty high. High enough for its own Imageboard.

Anonymous #1101793 4 months ago

Ohh that's a stupid, but funny typing error I did in the very first word... *quite frankly

Anonymous #1101959 4 months ago

“That whole statement was silly and didn't provide a single "fact." I would love to argue but I'm already half drunk at this point and I don't need the idea that "violence" is somehow natural and "sex" needs to be preserved as something that should be considered immoral or hidden.” So, you don't wanna argue. Okay? “Furthermore, your whole "bestiality" argument doesn't hold up in a society that eats meat and uses animals for products, services, etc. Perhaps a dog is protected from cruelty and murder but a chicken or cow in a factory farm is not.” And now we are arguing. Okay. Just because there is something who may be wrong, doesn't mean other wrong are acceptable. But since I don't consider eating meat wrong, it's important to remark there are rules in the way an animal may butchered and those who violate can be fined. “Your argument on pedophilia is weak and specious since it assumes that children's fantasy-wanting to fuck children. I want to fuck cartoon horses. I have no interest in fucking children.” I never said it's was the same. I used it as an example. My point was that is one of the reasons people view it negativity. Because you are clopping to cartoon horses meant to children. The same way if you clopped at a Strawberry doll. “The problem is that the whole of your "moral" argument is based upon a fallacious premise; namely that the way that society is set up and functions must mean that behaviors that come out of that system must be "natural" or even virtuous. In truth natural does not mean moral or virtuous in and of itself and what is "moral" is a tentative concept that is often changed and revised to meet current societal norms.” I am sorry, but you truly are wrong. Here, for example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/09/12/is-morality-natural.html And I found it on five minutes on google. Morality is one of the greatest achievements as a human being, and it's something natural and one of the main tractors from the our species to other animals. It may differ in some points, but as the article say, it's believed to have a universal morality in the world, something natural. “Reading again, your "evidence' that interspecies sex indicates danger is also a flawed premise. You can find little count of people dieing from sex with animals yet among human to human sex you can find numerous (and often fatal) cases of STDs including things such as HIV or aids. The case of the man dying from anal sex with a horse is merely a problem of technique and size and not of logistics. That's like saying you can crash your car 100 mph into a telephone poll and therefore driving is wrong. The case of the allergic reaction in the woman from the dog is also a case that does not somehow conform to the idea that inter-species sex is deadly any more than eating peanuts is deadly. Eating peanuts is deadly if you are allergic to peanuts.” Like I said, it's was one of the examples. It's not hard to understand that trying to put something in a place it wasn't designed to may cause injury, both to the human or the animal. Also animals have various diseases, and humans have many others who are pretty dangerous one another. I will dig more into this if you want to, but know that not only human, but animals are far more vulnerable to our diseases. To end, you argued against but didn't dig any supporting information. It seems for me you have a solid opinion and are not going to change, no matter how many sources I show you. If so, please tell me so I won't lose anymore of my time.

Anonymous #1108879 4 months ago

The argument that Animals cannot consent to Sexual contact with a Human is false for two reasons: First of all, If you know anything about Horses in particular; then you know that their fight-or-flight reactions are a primary reaction to negative stimulus. So anyone trying to engage them in sexual activity that they consider unwanted or distressing would end up with busted ribs or worse. Animals put no Emotional or Ethical constraints on their experience of Pleasure, I work with Horses myself and the Boys are notorious for dropping a Boner from getting a good massage. I've had Mares "Wink" at me before too, the fact that you are a different species doesn't matter to them at all: If an Animal Loves and Trusts you, it often comes naturally to them to express that bond by seeking further intimacy. It's really no different from how Human's express themselves Sexually, there is a biological drive: However, just imagine if you had no guilt, fear or Moral construct holding you back from seeking Sexual Intimacy; Keep in mind that that does not mean that you lose Empathy or Emotional context: In such a case, you'd seek out another individual who you know you can Trust, who is close to you as a companion and satisfies your emotional needs. What makes us so certain that we are so different from Animals in our Capacities and expression of our needs? The argument that there are high rates of transmissible diseases between Humans and Animals doesn't make sense either. I'd like to see more sources on that because you are indeed at far greater risk of catching an STD from another Person then you are an Animal and that's because the Majority of Human-borne STD's are incompatible with other Species in the first place. Looks to me like you are basing your arguments on out-dated concepts and information just to support your own prejudices.

Anonymous #1114991 4 months ago

@879 Who said that? You or a researcher?

Takashi_0 #1115050 4 months ago

OP, it's a RULE of the internet for a reason. It was inevitable. Bitching about it won't change anything. The best you can do is to ignore it and move on, because complaining about it and the people who like it just makes you look like a tremendous douchetard.

Anonymous #1115065 4 months ago

^I thought the idea of a confession was to say what you think without looking like a douchebag.

Takashi_0 #1115081 4 months ago

^If that's the case, he's failed miserably. Also OP, I link you here because I want you to see comments 1114943 onward and see how they all apply to you.

Anonymous #1115095 4 months ago

^I don't think acting like a douche disproves his point.