Disturbing pictures/fanart

11516171820

Comments

  • edited May 2010
    whydidimakethis.png

    EDIT: He's just posing, guys, he's not being...intimate...with the mast.
  • edited May 2010
    AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
  • edited May 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    whydidimakethis.png

    You missed out Winslow in the background instructing him to "treat her as though she were his second wife"
  • edited May 2010
    :D Well, I do have an idea for a Winslow-based follow up...
  • edited May 2010
    *sighs* AHAHAH!
  • edited May 2010
    Now THAT is disturbing! XD
  • edited May 2010
    Ignis wrote: »
    Ah, that's what I have the problem with.
    I admit furryism seriously squicks me out, but I don't think it's technically any more "wrong" or abominable than say, homosexuality and there are plenty of other technically healthy sexual fetishes out there that gross me out more. Eh.

    P.S. I used to love yaoi, except now I've pretty much lost my attraction to Anime characters. :p

    The thing is, Furries aren't zoophiles. You gotta get that straight.
  • edited May 2010
    I think Ignis is just seeing that from a point of view of being attracted to humans.

    Take animals + give them human sexual characteristics = they're sexier!

    But for someone attracted to animals, you have to realise that it's more like "take animals + give them human sexual characteristics = they're less sexy!"

    Even sexual furry stuff is sexual in a human way, therefore being aroused by it has more to do wth being aroused by humans than being aroused by animals. If someone is somehow attracted to birds, they're not going to find it arousing that the bird is given boobs, because that makes her look less like a bird, which is what they're attracted to.

    Even someone who is equally attracted to both has chances not to be attracted to a mix of both because ultimately it looks like neither and more like a freakish creature.

    So I think the whole "it's bestiality!" comes from the fact that the observers see the humanisation as making the animals more sexual... which is probably because the observers aren't zoophiles, as a zoophile would be more likely to be aroused by a picture of a perfectly normal, unaltered animal that the observer would have no problem with since, to them, it's absolutely not arousing.
  • edited May 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    whydidimakethis.png

    EDIT: He's just posing, guys, he's not being...intimate...with the mast.

    You turned one of my favourite quotes from whatever episode, especially when continuously repeated, into disturbing art. Kudos!
  • edited May 2010
    winslow.png

    Ohh, Winslow, he is one saucy beast.
  • edited May 2010
    I think it's safe to open my eyes after that last pic - AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :eek:
    Will it never end??!!
  • edited May 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    winslow.png

    Ohh, Winslow, he is one saucy beast.

    "Good day, sir! Where would you like to go today? Keeping in mind we have to go somewhere, and you MUST TOUCH THE MAP!"
  • edited May 2010
    The thing is, Furries aren't zoophiles. You gotta get that straight.

    I know that. For god's sake, I know being a furry doesn't automatically mean that person has sex with animals, but furryism is close to zoophilia (I never said it was the same thing) in a way that disturbs me. End of discussion, yes? :rolleyes:
  • edited May 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    winslow.png

    Ohh, Winslow, he is one saucy beast.

    We frown on that around here. :|
  • edited May 2010
    Ignis wrote: »
    but furryism is close to zoophilia

    It may seem that way, but it isn't. Furries don't want to have relations with their neighbor's dog. They're even disgusted by it.
  • edited May 2010
    If I think took deeply about it, I'm slightly disgusted by the thought of people getting turned on by being inside of a fursuit, but I'm sure there's plenty of furries and other people out there who might be disgusted by some of my fetishes, so my feelings on the whole thing basically boil down to "whatever works for you, as long as I don't have to see or hear too much about it".

    Edit: In other words, I'm basically okay with the existence of furries as long as I'm not made to think about them and what they do. Which I guess is a way of saying I'm pretty tolerant of things that squick me out as long as I can remain ignorant to them.
  • edited May 2010
    That whole thing reminds me of a quote: "Twilight: the story of a teenager who needs to choose between necrophilia and bestiality".
  • edited May 2010
    Avistew wrote: »
    That whole thing reminds me of a quote: "Twilight: the story of a teenager who needs to choose between necrophilia and bestiality".

    It's obvious she's a deranged emo freak, I mean she has no life so she whines about it then decides that a dead blood sucker is better than a living person.
  • edited May 2010
    Didero wrote: »
    Beard concepts!
    29500390289883363788837.jpg
    puzzlebox wrote: »
    One of those sketches looks like it was an abandoned concept for Scar in The Lion King. :p
    attachment.php?attachmentid=1530&d=1274876282
    scarface.png
    what is that?
    Something that should never have been...
    its hilarious.
    scarface.pngscarface.pngscarface.pngscarface.pngscarface.png
    Jenny wrote: »
    This needs to be posted on the Disturbing pictures/fanart thread, because it outdoes just about every image on there, but 1000 times. :eek:

    Edit: Because I need to talk through the horror. I keep trying not to look, but my eyes keep going back. Maybe memory loss would let me sleep again.

    ...
  • edited May 2010
    well it is hilarious. i love it. I'm gonna use it more often. OFFICIAL IMAGE!!!
    scarface.png
  • edited May 2010
    Have I just gone insensitive to nastiness from seeing all the other abominations in this thread, or is everyone overreacting to the LeChuck/Scar picture? It's not that bad.
  • edited May 2010
    Once was really enough. You remind of a troll I wish I had never known. I'm not referring to you, at least I really hope I'm not. You could be the SithLord we've been looking for.
  • edited May 2010
    All right, ill stop! :D

    (only because i overrid the copy of that with a copy of this: ∞)
  • edited May 2010
    Yeah, I have to say it's really not disturbing at all, especially right after naked Winslow.

    Incidentally, what was Scar called before he got the scar? Unblemished Face?
  • edited May 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    Incidentally, what was Scar called before he got the scar? Unblemished Face?

    It may just be that it's quarter to two in the morning, but i found that insanely funny
  • edited May 2010
    It may just be that it's quarter to two in the morning, but i found that insanely funny

    No, its just that funny!
  • edited May 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    Incidentally, what was Scar called before he got the scar?

    Hot. Very hot.
  • edited May 2010
    I dunno, I find that Scar picture more annoying than horribly disturbing, although I do find myself very eager to look at something else when confronted with a screen full of it repeated over and over. xD
    Teeth wrote: »
    Incidentally, what was Scar called before he got the scar? Unblemished Face?

    *coughTakacough* :D
  • edited May 2010
    Maybe he was born with that scar, or got it before being named.
    Rafiki wasn't cutting his nails as carefully at that time.

    Also, I'm glad you're done, Highway, but I'd like it even more if you deleted the spamful posts of "LeScar's head x lots".
  • edited May 2010
    awww... can i keep the first one?
  • edited May 2010
    Sure :)
  • edited May 2010
    i literally kept the first ONE ;)
  • edited May 2010
    i literally kept the first ONE ;)

    *hugs*
  • edited May 2010
    *hugs back* but with the face of LeScar!
  • edited June 2010
    This idea just popped into my head, and I just HAD to bring back this thread so I could use it. :D

    moredisturbingness.png
  • edited June 2010
    YES! WHOOO! This thread is back!! :P

    Good to see Teeth's pic is maintaining the level of disturbing
  • edited June 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    This idea just popped into my head, and I just HAD to bring back this thread so I could use it. :D

    moredisturbingness.png

    Winslow: Oh, that's nothing, sir! Why, once...


    and how many girls go about sex with a bra on once they're in bed?
  • edited June 2010
    Erm...I didn't wanna draw bare boobies. :p
  • edited June 2010
    tbm1986 wrote: »
    and how many girls go about sex with a bra on once they're in bed?

    If TV is believed, 60% of them. 30% of the others have an L-shaped blanket that covers men to their waist but women to their neck.
  • edited June 2010
    Teeth wrote: »
    Erm...I didn't wanna draw bare boobies. :p

    That's fair enough but the covers could have come up to Elaine's nose (so that she could see underneath) or something.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.