what's wrong with ponies?

[rtil]

the problem that you and a few others are somehow failing to understand is that sexual fantasies with animals don't translate into real life like they do with humans. animals can't consent to sex and don't understand sex like humans do.

[Sapphire]

bronies are filthy.

[Kooh]

the problem that you and a few others are somehow failing to understand is that sexual fantasies with animals don't translate into real life like they do with humans. animals can't consent to sex and don't understand sex like humans do.

I'm just playing the devils advocate here, I don't condone either hentai or bronies but either way since the parody thread turned into a serious discussion then by all means, let's continue it

[rtil]

i knew the thread was a joke when i first saw it, i don't know why people started giving serious answers  i thought it was pretty obvious. but i have a hard time not replying to stupidity.

[trent bortknob]

dude can you please chill out? you don't have to be such a jerk.

[trent bortknob]

and anyway this is a goddamn dumb thing to be talking about. i keep saying i dont know any mlp fans that actually want to fuck a horse, or are even interested in the cartoon or the characters in a sexual way. most of the mlp fanbase just likes the show for what it is i think. i dont think the fascination with nlp is even remotely comparable to the act of watching hentai in a general sense.

[rtil]

[trent bortknob]

even the few people who, for whatever reason, DO get off to the charactes in the show probably don't have the desire to fuck an actual pony. i mean, maybe they do, i dont know, but i really dont know anyone who is interested in the show for that reason, and i dont want to know anyone who is.

but yes, i think a sexual interest in MLP would be comparable to other cartoon fetishes, but not all of them. it's not the same as looking at standard hentai, it's more similar to furrydom and loli and shit.

[rtil]

ladies and gentlemen, the self proclaimed porn expert who never looks at porn, taylor bortner

[trent bortknob]

dude you're getting mad and throwing out insults because someone doesn't agree with you about something. you seriously have the worst temper sometimes.

and i feel like you're targeting me because you have this really odd and inaccurate view of me. you seem to think that i am really judgmental and critical because whenever i post you seem to get defensive a lot. do you think that i think you're a bad person or something?

also i never said that i was a porn expert.

[rtil]

i aint mad

[trent bortknob]

ok, then i'm sorry for over-reacting. i guess i take people's responses too seriously.

[zhicago]

ok, then i'm sorry for over-reacting. i guess i take people's responses too seriously.

I think a lot of your posts just come out with an elitist overtone to them, like you just HAVE to prove or disprove whatever is being said (whether or not you do feel that way is a different matter). That being said I think it's a text based thing and I'm pretty sure if I met you in person this would be negated.

[Kött]

the problem that you and a few others are somehow failing to understand is that sexual fantasies with animals don't translate into real life like they do with humans. animals can't consent to sex and don't understand sex like humans do.

Wouldn't that argument actually justify and strengthen the whole obsession for fictional anthropomorphic characters that some people have? I mean it's pretty obvious that people like certain forms of erotic due to the deviation compared to the ordinary, especially in relation to the characters. Take goo girls for instance. That's the anthropomorphisation of lifeless matter. Or catgirls which is more or less a step into the other direction. You do not condemn either of these, do you? On the contrary, for many people those features rather are a bonus; it is additional fetish fuel as long as it does not go against one's ethical principles. Drawn girls, drawn catgirls or a drawn piles of goo, as long as they have the same humanoid features I think that they are roughly the same level.

[trent bortknob]

ok, then i'm sorry for over-reacting. i guess i take people's responses too seriously.

I think a lot of your posts just come out with an elitist overtone to them, like you just HAVE to prove or disprove whatever is being said (whether or not you do feel that way is a different matter). That being said I think it's a text based thing and I'm pretty sure if I met you in person this would be negated.

if you met me in real life you would probably feel the same way you do about me now, and that's all right. i'm pretty hit or miss with people i think, and i'm pretty sure that like 80% of people, whether they like or dislike me, really just don't understand me at all. and that's probably my fault, it's probably a problem with expression or communication on my part. in person i'm usually sarcastic and silly, but whenever i do get into a discussion or "argument" a lot of times people think i am super argumentative as if i really enjoy disagreeing with people. the fact is that i really don't, arguing usually makes me feel bad because a lot of people get upset by disagreements, i'm just really outspoken and have a hard time holding it in when i disagree with someone. from my experience, people get very upset when you disagree with them and can take it very personally, thinking it implies more negative things that it really does (at least when i do it). i'm also really long-winded, and people probably tune me out a lot. so yeah if you met me in real life you'd probably hate me because i suck

[rtil]

the problem that you and a few others are somehow failing to understand is that sexual fantasies with animals don't translate into real life like they do with humans. animals can't consent to sex and don't understand sex like humans do.

Wouldn't that argument actually justify and strengthen the whole obsession for fictional anthropomorphic characters that some people have? I mean it's pretty obvious that people like certain forms of erotic due to the deviation compared to the ordinary, especially in relation to the characters. Take goo girls for instance. That's the anthropomorphisation of lifeless matter. Or catgirls which is more or less a step into the other direction. You do not condemn either of these, do you? On the contrary, for many people those features rather are a bonus; it is additional fetish fuel as long as it does not go against one's ethical principles. Drawn girls, drawn catgirls or a drawn piles of goo, as long as they have the same humanoid features I think that they are roughly the same level.

..no, it doesn't. goo girls, catgirls, these things are still human-like figures, we identify them as having human bodies, faces, and anatomy. sure there is no such thing as a goo girl, but it's somewhat similar to some fetishes, and lots of girls plop cat ears and other accessories on their heads. a horse is an animal, and yeah you can put big sparkly cartoon eyes on it but that doesn't make it human. sure, most furries aren't going around having sex with animals. but let's not pretend people who wish they were animals fucking animals is the same as people fucking people who don't wish they were fucking animals.

[Kooh]

[ZennyPLUS]

the problem that you and a few others are somehow failing to understand is that sexual fantasies with animals don't translate into real life like they do with humans. animals can't consent to sex and don't understand sex like humans do.

Wouldn't that argument actually justify and strengthen the whole obsession for fictional anthropomorphic characters that some people have? I mean it's pretty obvious that people like certain forms of erotic due to the deviation compared to the ordinary, especially in relation to the characters. Take goo girls for instance. That's the anthropomorphisation of lifeless matter. Or catgirls which is more or less a step into the other direction. You do not condemn either of these, do you? On the contrary, for many people those features rather are a bonus; it is additional fetish fuel as long as it does not go against one's ethical principles. Drawn girls, drawn catgirls or a drawn piles of goo, as long as they have the same humanoid features I think that they are roughly the same level.

..no, it doesn't. goo girls, catgirls, these things are still human-like figures, we identify them as having human bodies, faces, and anatomy. sure there is no such thing as a goo girl, but it's somewhat similar to some fetishes, and lots of girls plop cat ears and other accessories on their heads. a horse is an animal, and yeah you can put big sparkly cartoon eyes on it but that doesn't make it human. sure, most furries aren't going around having sex with animals. but let's not pretend people who wish they were animals fucking animals is the same as people fucking people who don't wish they were fucking animals.

<_>

[redmongoose]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfyaYibw7X0

[ZekeySpaceyLizard]

One day there will be enough images and clipart online of people and animals vomiting to convey my loathe for this thread and the fans of the show.


That day is not this day.