Close
This post has a child post. (post #913750)
Search
Tags
  • ? personal ami 332
  • ? brand new animal 80
  • ? kagemori michiru 72
  • ? breasts 95773
  • ? nipples 188741
  • ? pantsu 169909
  • ? panty pull 32879
  • ? pussy 110260
  • ? shirt lift 28823
  • ? tail 103570
  • ? uncensored 62109
  • ? undressing 37663
    • panties vulva pantsuga breast underwear dressing pantypull nipple big breasts small breasts medium breasts huge breasts pantsu2 large breasts panties under pantyhose clitoris spread pussy pink panties black panties cervix pussy pils bna pink pantsu blue pantsu boobs pantsy vagina animal tail cat tail butt plug tail anal tail bow panties white panties red panties wet pussy bikini bottom pull frilled panties visable panties panty peek inverted nipple plump pussy blue panties orange panties puffy nipples lace panties bunny tail monkey tail maid panties dragon tail panties aside
Options
Related Posts




brand_new_animal breasts kagemori_michiru nipples pantsu panty_pull personal_ami pussy shirt_lift tail uncensored undressing

Edit | Respond

dick dickinson
almost 3 years ago
And this is explicit furry which is I think not allowed.
Deadhunt
almost 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure it's not furry, at least because most of the body is standard human. Only hands a little 'weird', but that's all,
BattlequeenYume
almost 3 years ago
And her nose isn't human too.
Deadhunt said:
I'm pretty sure it's not furry, at least because most of the body is standard human. Only hands a little 'weird', but that's all
And her nose isn't human too.
dick dickinson
almost 3 years ago
Nothing is human about her except her general body shape. Here she is drawn in a way that her body doesn't appear hairy, but in her tanuki form, she is a furry.
BaldurAnthology
almost 3 years ago
It wasn't human on the picture that dick dickinson uploaded just the other day either, yet apparently that was acceptable?
Arknovalisk
almost 3 years ago
It's definitely "not furry enough" for most people, so there.
Abraxas
almost 3 years ago
this conversation is why i made fun of the sites furry policy on that other pics comments.
dick dickinson
almost 3 years ago
BaldurAnthology said:
It wasn't human on the picture that dick dickinson uploaded just the other day either, yet apparently that was acceptable?
The barrier for entry I got was ►►no explicit◄◄. This IS explicit. I linked the forum topic about the issue where an ►admin◄ stated what's acceptable and what's not.
BaldurAnthology
almost 3 years ago
Yet the staff haven't deleted it yet... so even though Moonian knows about it... guessing there's some sort of debate about it cause the character IS human just looks that way...
dick dickinson
almost 3 years ago
I don't think there is any discussion. Probably there is one mod who manages reports and the rest just ignores it, same for approving low-res posts. I had this post being flagged for some 2+ months by now: post #823638
BaldurAnthology
almost 3 years ago
huh.. apparently approved for being here. Nice
otakusheep
almost 3 years ago
I really like this picture. Doesn't seem furry to me.
blooregardo
almost 3 years ago
To exclude this image from this site would need to ban all Brand new animal images, it can be done but does not seem necessary at the time. Images from the anime not fitting to the site's aesthetic (as in being too western) should be deleted.
BaldurAnthology
almost 3 years ago
Pretty sure Personal Ami's style isn't too western