Upload
Login or register
x
Anonymous comments allowed.
29 comments displayed.
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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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]ONLINE (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.

Top Content in 24 Hours

 Friends (0)