Dayum that's an impressive x-ray shot.

urfurryfriend said:
this is some shit you would only know if you watch zoo porn also no socks on the paws that bitch is gonna get fucked up

post #1094632

fizz~ said:
So this is a real image thats been sketched over to create an xeay shot???

No? Everything is clearly drawn except for maybe the background. While this definitely could be a trace of a real life shot, there is nothing to indicate that is the case. And even if it was, past posts have shown that traces of real life porn are allowed.

Next time please do some research before you decide to flag a post.

That's a broken dick.

voltace said:
No? Everything is clearly drawn except for maybe the background. While this definitely could be a trace of a real life shot, there is nothing to indicate that is the case. And even if it was, past posts have shown that traces of real life porn are allowed.

Next time please do some research before you decide to flag a post.

i think it was because it was real life porn of a woman having sex with a dog

jimmybungalo said:
i think it was because it was real life porn of a woman having sex with a dog

It's not real life porn because this isn't a photograph.

fizz~ said:
Lol. Dude. All he did was sketch over the outline of the image to make it look drawn, blur it a little to stretch the drawn look, and drew the internals. You can see the real photo if you look at dogs (partially sketched over) balls, her (same deal) earring, around the dogs midleg, the texture on the blanket, shadows, wall, etc. I could find the real image if I felt inclined, Im sure it was posted to a Zoo forum before it was here.
I'm gonna flag real Zoo Pornography if I find it on my fake Zoo Pornography site, considering 'real porn' is against the rules. If you wanna see that shit its a Google search away. I have no desire to see the real stuff, especially when Im looking for *actually* drawn images. And no, I dont have a problem with humans in porn here. Just real life ones.

Your first example was entirely drawn over and not just sketched over with one section painted. And some girl taking a selfie isnt really comparable to zoo porn. Lol

I already admitted that this image could be a trace, but unless you have actual proof, you’re just speculating. To me the dog looks really fake, as he doesn’t even cast a shadow on the bed (look at his hind paws). And for what it’s worth, his balls are not visible. You’re probably thinking of the knot, which MUST be drawn because his penis is completely buried inside her.

That said, I admittedly think the girl probably is traced based on her hair and earring. She’s definitely painted over though; simply blurring an image doesn’t look like that at all. This post is therefore no different than the first example I gave you and thus doesn't violate the rules.

It's really annoying when people try to dictate what should and shouldn't be on this site based on their personal taste. I suggest you use your blacklist and stop complaining in the comments about stuff you don’t like to see, and maybe stop accusing people of spreading real bestiality when that isn’t the case.

fizz~ said:
Its not personal taste. Real porn isnt allowed here. I looked at the 'source' of this image and there is not one. You have as much hard evidence as I do. Welcome to Planet Earth, where beastiality is illegal in most places and against the rules here. Apologies for trying to uphold the rules of society and thos website I guess? lol?

You don't even know how canine anatomy works yet you insist this is real? You literally just said you don't have any hard evidence, so just admit that this image shouldn't have been flagged. I'm not gonna argue with you about the morality of bestiality, but the fact that you actually think you're making a valuable contribution to society by policing drawn porn is laughably delusional.

fizz~ said:
And just try and find an artist who can draw a face like shes got at such a low resolution. Youre blind if you dont see this was a photograph. Who knows. Guess this is some RENAISSANCE TIER skilled entirely anonymous artist.

Renaissance tier? Give me a break. You clearly know nothing about art. This post has already been approved, take the L and stop embarrassing yourself.

Find me the artist and I'll believe anything more than the internals were drawn. The person tagged as the artist is a writer who used this as a thumbnail for their story with no source of their own.

I consider the odds in my favor since reverse image searching this immediately leads to Beastiality forums; Years old posts (before e6's source was posted). Its people reposting with no caption or origin unfortunately.

oH and you think I was calling the knot his balls? No. Look where the balls would be if he was tied to a bitch. They are there but have been sketched over. What artist draws over the balls??? Not to mention has fifty art styles in one piece? It looks fake because its an old, JPEGified, reposted god knows how many times image. And any artist could tell you, putting in an internal like that onto a real image without having sketches over everything else to tie the image in, would look like shit.

Scratch all this. Just look at the base of his dick. It WAS photoshopped in off a real dog!! They cut the damn dogs balls in half. This blatantly screams of zoo porn.

fizz~ said:
Find me the artist and I'll believe anything more than the internals were drawn. The person tagged as the artist is a writer who used this as a thumbnail for their story with no source of their own.

I consider the odds in my favor since reverse image searching this immediately leads to Beastiality forums; Years old posts (before e6's source was posted). Its people reposting with no caption or origin unfortunately.

oH and you think I was calling the knot his balls? No. Look where the balls would be if he was tied to a bitch. They are there but have been sketched over. What artist draws over the balls??? Not to mention has fifty art styles in one piece? It looks fake because its an old, JPEGified, reposted god knows how many times image. And any artist could tell you, putting in an internal like that onto a real image without having sketches over everything else to tie the image in, would look like shit.

Scratch all this. Just look at the base of his dick. It WAS photoshopped in off a real dog!! They cut the damn dogs balls in half. This blatantly screams of zoo porn.

You’re lying. Even though you carry the burden of proof, I’ve done the image search for you, and I was right.
The background is blurred, the girl was painted over (using a transparent layer it seems) and the dog was never there.

By the way, the fact that she’s a writer doesn’t mean she can’t also be an artist. I have no idea why the art is such low quality, but I can’t find anything better. Reverse searching this post only brings me to the provided HF link and a Reddit repost crediting the very same artist. Also, if “everything has been sketched over” and/or “photoshopped in”, then you’re admitting yourself that this is NOT a photograph. It’s based on one, just like the repainted knotting shot I sent you earlier (which was traced from an actual real life bestiality video and thus, in a sense, more "extreme"). You rendered your own point moot.

Even when parts of the dog, including his penis, were photoshopped in from a real image and then edited (which is likely considering how the girl was done), the reality is that this image does NOT depict real bestiality. You falsely accused me of committing a crime (spreading actual bestiality) and I don’t take that lightly. Apologize.

voltace said:
You’re lying. Even though you carry the burden of proof, I’ve done the image search for you, and I was right.
The background is blurred, the girl was painted over (using a transparent layer it seems) and the dog was never there.

By the way, the fact that she’s a writer doesn’t mean she can’t also be an artist. I have no idea why the art is such low quality, but I can’t find anything better. Reverse searching this post only brings me to the provided HF link and a Reddit repost crediting the very same artist. Also, if “everything has been sketched over” and/or “photoshopped in”, then you’re admitting yourself that this is NOT a photograph. It’s based on one, just like the repainted knotting shot I sent you earlier (which was traced from an actual real life bestiality video and thus, in a sense, more "extreme"). You rendered your own point moot.

Even when parts of the dog, including his penis, were photoshopped in from a real image and then edited (which is likely considering how the girl was done), the reality is that this image does NOT depict real bestiality. You falsely accused me of committing a crime (spreading actual bestiality) and I don’t take that lightly. Apologize.

I used Google's reverse which yielded results. I'd still say its a real photo of a dog photoshopped in though. Can't say anything about the here-worthy-ness, legality aside, once its been manipulated to this degree but, a Sorry is due, Yea. My apologies. It's a cheap trick of a pic using a real dog, cock and girl. I don't think it should be here. They are both visible still, unlike your other image examples.

fizz~ said:
I used Google's reverse which yielded results. I'd still say its a real photo of a dog photoshopped in though. Can't say anything about the here-worthy-ness, legality aside, once its been manipulated to this degree but, a Sorry is due, Yea. My apologies. It's a cheap trick of a pic using a real dog, cock and girl. I don't think it should be here. They are both visible still, unlike your other image examples.

It seems to me that feral on human fantasies are more popular than people realize. I think it’s great that art like this can help people cope with and enjoy an otherwise illegal fetish without harming another living being. That’s part of the reason why I personally think it belongs, but you’re entitled to your own opinion.

It's all good dude, you tried to do what you felt was right. Just try to be a bit more mindful next time. Apology accepted. 👍

voltace said:
It seems to me that feral on human fantasies are more popular than people realize. I think it’s great that art like this can help people cope with and enjoy an otherwise illegal fetish without harming another living being. That’s part of the reason why I personally think it belongs, but you’re entitled to your own opinion.

It's all good dude, you tried to do what you felt was right. Just try to be a bit more mindful next time. Apology accepted. 👍

Still though, this is the only image on the site I've seen with a real woman (maybe dog) in it unfiltered. At the very least its bending the site rules.

fizz~ said:
Still though, this is the only image on the site I've seen with a real woman (maybe dog) in it unfiltered. At the very least its bending the site rules.

Although you can still see her, she isn't unfiltered. Typing "real human" in the search bar gives a fair amount of posts containing real life, unfiltered people. It isn't against the rules as long as the contents fit the purpose of this site; not everything has to be completely drawn. Let's stop arguing about this instead of flooding the comment section any further.

fizz~ said:
I used Google's reverse which yielded results. I'd still say its a real photo of a dog photoshopped in though. Can't say anything about the here-worthy-ness, legality aside, once its been manipulated to this degree but, a Sorry is due, Yea. My apologies. It's a cheap trick of a pic using a real dog, cock and girl. I don't think it should be here. They are both visible still, unlike your other image examples.

mf be playin irl ace attorney

tiptup said:
It's not real life porn because this isn't a photograph.

I already admitted that this image could be a trace, but unless you have actual proof, you’re just speculating. To me the dog looks really fake, as he doesn’t even cast a shadow on the bed (look at his hind paws). And for what it’s worth, his balls are not visible. You’re probably thinking of the knot, which MUST be drawn because his penis is completely buried inside her.

That said, I admittedly think the girl probably is traced based on her hair and earring. She’s definitely painted over though; simply blurring an image doesn’t look like that at all. This post is therefore no different than the first example I gave you and thus doesn't violate the rules.

It's really annoying when people try to dictate what should and shouldn't be on this site based on their personal taste. I suggest you use your blacklist and stop complaining in the comments about stuff you don’t like to see, and maybe stop accusing people of spreading real bestiality when that isn’t the case.

Who cares, just fap to it. That's what I assume we're all here for anyway. Enjoy the fap material for what it is. Kinky interspecies romance.

dog is fake