Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(147):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
[ 147 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
122 comments displayed.
#7 - vpiii (01/10/2016) [-]
Mods' Face when
#13 to #5 - warriorprincess (01/10/2016) [-]
Here you go
User avatar #99 to #57 - darealmcfanyt (15 hours ago) [-]
] : )
User avatar #81 to #13 - adu (20 hours ago) [-]
I was thinking about making this exact image earlier today. Glad I don't have to now.
#11 - selrahcrox ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-]
I guess you can say boobs without nipples are just "pointless".
#2 - celdak (01/10/2016) [-]
Well they're not mammals so they don't need bewbs either...
She's monster, there's nothing preventing her from having them
#63 - clavatninenine ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Neither do snakes but we still enjoy them.
#136 to #63 - blackoutonetwotwo ONLINE (10 hours ago) [-]
Better if you chose the right reptile tho.

yeah this **** again ikr
#124 to #63 - anon (12 hours ago) [-]
BRADFORD WILL SMITE ALL AYYLIEN SCUM OFF OF EARTH!

THOSE WHO WILL ABANDON HUMANITY TO SUPPORT THE AYYLIENS SHALL BE PURGED JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE FILTHY PESTS!

VIGILO CONFIDO! VIGILO CONFIDO! VIGILO CONFIDO!
User avatar #138 to #124 - mrshrapnel (10 hours ago) [-]
Psst. hey achmed, shouldnt we keep the viper for "interrogation"?
#90 to #76 - mrshrapnel (19 hours ago) [-]
We require more!
User avatar #83 to #28 - blackmageewizardt (20 hours ago) [-]
Man that´s so ******* fake, anyone knows Ezreal is interested in Taric´s Family gems.
#89 to #83 - gentlemenmew (19 hours ago) [-]
**gentlemenmew used "*roll picture*"**
**gentlemenmew rolled image****gentlemenmew used "*roll 1, 1-99*"**
**gentlemenmew rolls 33** so outrageous
#3 - xskullgirlsx (01/10/2016) [-]
So hot
#98 to #3 - anon (15 hours ago) [-]
not big surprise
#123 to #3 - alpako (12 hours ago) [-]
i always thought they turn to bacon
#61 - floran ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
Fish don't have tits to begin with
#106 to #61 - anon (13 hours ago) [-]
Source?
User avatar #110 to #106 - galkawhm (12 hours ago) [-]
For some reason, I'm reminded of Floran from Starbound.
User avatar #111 to #110 - crazylance (12 hours ago) [-]
That's b3caus4 it IS!
User avatar #112 to #111 - galkawhm (12 hours ago) [-]
Yay, I'm right!
User avatar #113 to #112 - crazylance (12 hours ago) [-]
Tho, I don't r3m3mb3r Floran having vvat3rm3lon tits...
User avatar #114 to #113 - galkawhm (12 hours ago) [-]
Floran are genderless. They just sometimes look more feminine or masculine.
User avatar #115 to #114 - crazylance (12 hours ago) [-]
"Though a unisex race, Floran culture values survival through reproduction and expansion over environmentalism or any perceived bond to Mother Nature."

I am confused. They're unisex, but reproduce. That means there is a Male/Female system going on.
#121 to #115 - floran ONLINE (12 hours ago) [-]
Floran is Both
User avatar #116 to #115 - galkawhm (12 hours ago) [-]
Maybe they're like actual flowers. They spread pollen in some way and pollinate other floran.
#96 to #61 - XanicLyoka ONLINE (16 hours ago) [-]
Whelp. That's a thing that exists.
User avatar #16 - bulwark (01/10/2016) [-]
And the streak of "Softcore porn with little to no jokes" continue.
User avatar #19 to #16 - buddywuggle (01/10/2016) [-]
It's interesting though.
User avatar #58 to #19 - heartlessrobot (01/11/2016) [-]
No it isn't.
User avatar #36 to #19 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
it's not even interesting, it's just softcore porn
User avatar #38 to #36 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
If you were an artist yourself, you might be impressed by the attention to anatomic detail.
User avatar #39 to #38 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
i really don't care, it's softcore porn and belongs in /nsfw/ with all of the other **** content
User avatar #40 to #39 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
"I'm not the demographic, so it must be pushed away from convenient access of the general public."
User avatar #41 to #40 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
why should there be a demographic for softcore porn on the sfw part of the website, exactly? if i'm feeling horny (and i am) i'll go look at porn (which i am), not fj's sfw section
User avatar #43 to #41 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
Well sometimes people who are not horny want to look at such images without gifs of pornography burning their eyeball every .05 seconds.
User avatar #44 to #43 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
i'm not sure i understand your point. can you please rephrase?
User avatar #47 to #44 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
What you call "softcore porn" is arguably non-pornographic nudity. It should have it's own section where people who do not want to see any nudity no matter the circumstance can avoid it, you make a valid point there, but to jumble it with pornography is a bad idea, as pornography is obscene for the sake of being obscene, whereas this is artistic.
Maybe there should be a artistic nudity section.
User avatar #49 to #47 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
let's not beat around the bush; this post is essentially softcore pornography. there is obviously an "artistic" slant to it, but i can find artistic regular pornography as well. should that mean that that porn, just because it is artistic, is allowed to be posted? i don't believe so, personally. we obviously have differing opinions here, but when it comes to content like this that's only redeemable quality (for you anyways) is that it is artistic, it really has no purpose anyways on this section of the site. there is no attempt at humor whatsoever and it is purely intended to just be looked at and admired / fetishized / gawked at / fapped to.
User avatar #50 to #49 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
Well I still think there should be a distinction made when something is nude yet not sexual, even if it is able to be used for gratification.
User avatar #51 to #50 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
maybe. but this is getting completely off-base. i'd rather stick to the original discussion, which is that this post should not be allowed in sfw.
User avatar #52 to #51 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
It (Poorly) attempts at a joke, and isn't any more obscene than most OC and anime posts. I think it should stay.
User avatar #53 to #52 - Sunset (01/11/2016) [-]
"(Poorly) attempts at a joke"

i see no joke whatsoever attempted. though i will admit that it is subjective, however.
User avatar #55 to #53 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
Meh, valid point, I could see how it could be missed.
0
#54 to #53 - buddywuggle has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #20 to #19 - bulwark (01/10/2016) [-]
We got a **** section... why not go there and look at something truly interesting?
User avatar #21 to #20 - buddywuggle (01/10/2016) [-]
it has no genitals and the breasts without nipples means nothing obscene is shown. It doesn't make the **** quota (Though it wouldn't be wise to show your colleagues.)
User avatar #23 to #21 - bulwark (01/10/2016) [-]
I know, I know. But my point is why even post stuff like this? It's borderline softcore porn and with no real joke to it. It's pretty much a waste of bandwidth. Why not post some actual **** in the **** section instead.

It's like these OC comics that have started to sprout up these days, where every single character is constantly semi-nude and every joke is leaning towards something pornographic or sexual. I just don't get the appeal of it, when there is a perfectly fine ACTUAL porn section.
User avatar #25 to #23 - buddywuggle (01/10/2016) [-]
It's neat art.
User avatar #27 to #25 - bulwark (01/11/2016) [-]
So why not make an actual comic, without it having to be borderline pornographic?

There is only one way I can describe what I am thinking and to do it, I need the help of a certain funny guy.

Dara O Briain - Somethin Fer Da Dads

His point is exactly the same one I have. Why does it HAVE to be, to use a very popular term nowdays, be lewd? Why not keep it straightly **** in the correct section, or not at all?

It's the same reason I never could stomach those Tardassaaa or how the **** you spell it comics... because they weren't fun. It was just a retarded girl, trying to make herself seem like some sex starved deviant.
User avatar #30 to #27 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
I'm not certain, but I think the OP is not the original artist, so the artist never considered it would be on a funnyjunk post with 69 green thumbs.
User avatar #33 to #30 - bulwark (01/11/2016) [-]
Possibly, but I am taking this as an opportunity to point out, that is has become an epidemic on FJ as a whole.
User avatar #35 to #33 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
True, you make a good point when it comes to FJ as a whole. Especially with OC.
User avatar #37 to #35 - bulwark (01/11/2016) [-]
I sure hope so. I know I am not the only one who thinks this is becoming a problem. I mean, I can't tell people what to post, that would be retarded. But if people stopped gaping and drooling over non-funny semi-porn posts, maybe they would go away.

I miss when I first joined FJ and stuff like Inglip was the **** .
User avatar #17 to #16 - crixuz [OP](01/10/2016) [-]
you`re on funnyjunk what did you expect?
User avatar #18 to #17 - bulwark (01/10/2016) [-]
Something a bit more substantial perhaps? It hasn't always been like this ya know.
User avatar #8 - mrmask (01/10/2016) [-]
yeah, they don't have noses either, didn't seem to bother the artist though.
#4 - tylerkade (01/10/2016) [-]
Still Hot
User avatar #56 to #4 - muffincannibal (01/11/2016) [-]
That's what bugs me
#10 - meatygoodness (01/10/2016) [-]
Breasts without nipples are basically just lumps of fat stuck to a chest
User avatar #59 to #10 - warzon (01/11/2016) [-]
But you can still tit **** em.
#14 - kinzoi (01/10/2016) [-]
Okay, I get it, it's supposed to be funny, I guess, but if the point of getting rid of posts with porn in it is to prevent children from seeing something inappropriate? Is this really any less inappropriate than porn posts if you're being honest with yourself? I hate to be a downer with things, but really, you guys are kidding yourselves.
User avatar #22 to #14 - buddywuggle (01/10/2016) [-]
It's only tits. It's only obscene if you have a fetish for that.
User avatar #24 to #22 - kinzoi (01/10/2016) [-]
But do you think that if you were 10 and your Mom saw you looking at this she would consider it okay?
User avatar #26 to #24 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
If you show no signs of getting gratification from it, depending on cultural background the mom would be more worried about the fact you don't since not many people realize it's a fetish.
User avatar #29 to #26 - kinzoi (01/11/2016) [-]
Boob fetish...? Not really following you. Also, you never addressed my question; would you think that an average mother would like their child looking at this?
User avatar #31 to #29 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
I thought I did, could you tell me what bits I missed?
User avatar #32 to #31 - kinzoi (01/11/2016) [-]
You said they'd be worried, but that's not really telling me whether or not they'd tolerate it.
User avatar #34 to #32 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
Well if you are just browsing and you tap the on the shoulder so you can tell them you think the art is neat, they likely won't be mad at you, as much as, at least if you live in a western country, would wonder why you are not embarrassed to show you mom a drawing of a fish with tits.
User avatar #42 to #34 - kinzoi (01/11/2016) [-]
Your example is rather situational in the first place, and knowing my parents, and my friends parents growing up, this wouldn't fly in the slightest. Now think, if this would go with severe punishment back then, and let's say that the world has become less conservative, which it has, do you really still believe that there wouldn't be repercussions from such a an image being viewed?
User avatar #45 to #42 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
If you were honest about it, a responsible parent might find it to be a good parenting opportunity.
Yes I avoided the main question, I don't understand it. Please rephrase it in simpler terms.
User avatar #46 to #45 - kinzoi (01/11/2016) [-]
Do you think that, among the common American household, the parents would agree with this content being suited for a minor? Not what the parents should do, but what they would do.
User avatar #48 to #46 - buddywuggle (01/11/2016) [-]
I suppose not. you got me there.
User avatar #128 to #14 - everyziggy (12 hours ago) [-]
Whether topless women should be considered pornographic or not has been under debate recently. Breasts produce milk for feeding children and so biologically there is nothing sexual about them. Is it pornographic for a mother to breast feed her infant in public? A hundred years ago a woman exposing her thigh would have been considered inappropriate. I think it's just a matter of time before the ban on women being topless is lifted.
#60 - thegreatpapyrus ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-]
FISH ALSO DON'T HAVE ARMS, LEGS, HANDS, FEET, VOCAL CHORDS, HAIR, AND A STRONG SENSE OF JUSTICE. THEY ALSO AREN'T FRIENDS WITH TWO REALLY NEATO SKELETON BROS, THREE GHOSTS, THE HUMAN, A FLOWER (I GUESS), TWO... WHATEVER THE KING AND HIS CLONE ARE OFFICIALLY... AND IN A ROMANTIC RELATION WITH A NERDY REPTILE ALMOST ALL OF WHICH HAVE ACCESS TO INSANE MAGIC ABILITIES. YET, HERE WE ARE!
#95 to #60 - hongkonglongdong (17 hours ago) [-]
Goats. They're goats.
User avatar #127 to #95 - bonlino (12 hours ago) [-]
their theme account is papyrus and canonically, papyrus has no idea what they are. im sure the actual person does but acting
#102 to #95 - thegreatpapyrus ONLINE (14 hours ago) [-]
BUT, I REMEMBER TOBY FOX STATING THEIR ACTUAL TITLE ON HIS TWITTER. I KNOW HUMAN CALLS THEM "GOATS" AS SORT OF A NICKNAME, I JUST THOUGHT THERE WAS AN OFFICIAL TITLE.
BUT, I REMEMBER TOBY FOX STATING THEIR ACTUAL TITLE ON HIS TWITTER. I KNOW HUMAN CALLS THEM "GOATS" AS SORT OF A NICKNAME, I JUST THOUGHT THERE WAS AN OFFICIAL TITLE.
#104 to #102 - anon (13 hours ago) [-]
They are, in fact, goats. It mostly plays in with Asgore's satanic theme. King of the underground, castle sits above a lake of fire, wields a trident (pitchfork analogue), his name is an anagram for Sage Or Murderer, and he collects human souls for the purpose of making war on the world above. Satan was referred to as having the cloven hooves of a goat, and is usually associated with goats.

tldr: The Undertale underground-world is Hell and Asgore King Fluffy is Satan, and Satan is goats.
#67 - kameken (23 hours ago) [-]
Nor tiddies.
#92 - meroune ONLINE (18 hours ago) [-]
I disagree!
User avatar #97 to #92 - thechosentroll (16 hours ago) [-]
That's not a fish, though. It's a mermaid.
User avatar #100 to #97 - animationhac (15 hours ago) [-]
Tech, Undyne is a demon, and not a fish.
User avatar #108 to #100 - guardianatreyu ONLINE (13 hours ago) [-]
No she's a fish monster. Not a demon.
#103 to #100 - anon (13 hours ago) [-]
She's a fish. Even referred to as a fish. Also why she collapses in hotlands.
User avatar #130 to #97 - bonlino (12 hours ago) [-]
see, thats the thing that confuses me. since a mermaid is a mythological creature, we cant study them, we cant analyze them beyond what we see and what whoever is explaining them to be, so they cant be associated with a fish or a human. so would they just be called a hybrid, or would they be associated solely with one or the other?
User avatar #140 to #130 - thechosentroll (10 hours ago) [-]
There's actually a field called cryptobiology, which deals with mythological creatures and how their bodies would work if they were real. And there is no logical reason for fish species to develop human-like features. Therefore, it makes sense that mermaids originated from an ancient human subspecies, which started living in the water and developed fish-like features to adapt. Like whales and other sea mammals did.
User avatar #141 to #140 - bonlino (10 hours ago) [-]
which still begs the question, if they had to commit to one kind species, would they be considered human, or fish? or does cryptobiology explain this too.
User avatar #142 to #141 - thechosentroll (9 hours ago) [-]
Depends. If they still have the ability to breed with humans, they'd be considered a human sub-species. Like dog breeds are dog sub-species. If not, they'd be their own species.

In the mango, I think they mention that all the monster girls are human sub-species. And it'd kind of make sense, given how they're essentially all trying to **** the MC.
#143 to #142 - bonlino (9 hours ago) [-]
regardless, suu is best. she can't be a subspecies of human, surely.
User avatar #144 to #143 - thechosentroll (9 hours ago) [-]
Yes, she's the least bitchy of the bunch. And I have no idea. The mechanics of how a slime girl would function are beyond me. Just trying to figure out what's giving that adorable little serial rapist her shape and preventing her from turning into a puddle would take forever.
User avatar #145 to #144 - bonlino (9 hours ago) [-]
there is a biology... thing about her. the head antennae thing is her, or rather her brain. everything else is completely malleable. not even her eyes are necessary. theyre there for aesthetic effect purely. but i guess, if i were to make sense of it, the brain thing has a psychic power of some sort which keeps the gel she's made from as one. reminds me of Goop from that newer ben 10 show.
User avatar #146 to #145 - thechosentroll (9 hours ago) [-]
That still makes no sense from a biological standpoint. There has to be SOME internal structure keeping her together, unless she can individually control every single damn cell in her body.
User avatar #147 to #146 - bonlino (9 hours ago) [-]
that is likely, which may or may not correlate with the special psychic thing. then again, slimes dont have much explanation as to their existence. im curious now, im gonna look it up. though in all said and done, shes still my favourite.
#109 - galkawhm (12 hours ago) [-]
Fish don't have mammaries so undyne wouldn't even have boobs in the first place.
#118 to #109 - alboorack (12 hours ago) [-]
Why you had to go and spoil it?!
User avatar #119 to #118 - galkawhm (12 hours ago) [-]
Facts don't get in the way of porn in the first place. I didn't spoil a thing.
User avatar #120 to #109 - holycrapimacupcake (12 hours ago) [-]
Peri is slowly replacing Amethyst as my favorite. She's so ******* aodrable sometimes.
[ 147 comments ]
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

No entries found.
 Friends (0)