How would you even be aware of the furry pr0n if you didn’t go searching it out? It’s not like it is mainstream, presumably you have to go looking for it to be outraged.
I hate to have to tell you, but I found a lot of surprising stuff when I would click on a web exchange icon that used to be big years ago. It went to random homepages of people that were in the group. Unfortunately homepages contain lots of non related topics.
Pornography and everything evil on the Internet does not need a search engine. It’s everywhere, I tell you. It pops up like weeds in a garden.
If it does, then you most likely have a malware problem. I see porn or anything else only when I specifically look for it.
And I just don’t understand why it’s anyone’s business what other people get aroused by. I don’t get why it bothers you, any more than I understand why a homophobe is bothered by the existence of gay people.
Oh, and I’ve seen absolutely no link between bestiality and furridom. The entire point is that they are anthropomorphic. It’s like being worried about pedophilia because guys like women who don’t have wrinkles.
High five!
BigT, I suspected that **grude ** was being disappointed in the quality of porn, or that he was searching using the wrong keywords, when he complained up-thread:
That said to me that he wants his anthropomorphic fantasy objects to be *less *humanoid and more bestial. Whatever floats your boat.
Followed by the collective decision that it’s better not to pick fights with people who have surgically implanted claws and fangs. 
I’ve often seen plenty of porn, as long as I have Safe Search* turned off. All it can take is a slight difference in search terms and you go from kittens to sexy women (the horrors).
*Which I typically do have turned off; partly because I don’t mind porn, and partly because the term “Safe Search” annoys me. What, am I supposed to think the porn is going to crawl out of my monitor and devour me?
There’s porn of that.
There are lots of peopole on the internet who find Slippery Slopes unbelievably sexy.
Especially when nude or scantily-clad women are on them.
( I am not making this up. )
Yes. Yes, there is…
This is somewhat ironic, given that this thread was inspired by a cartoon mammoth. Y’see, female elephants are one of a very few animals besides humans who do have boobies. That is to say, they have a pair of large mammary protrusions, side by side, between their forelimbs. And yet, I’ll bet that Peaches the Mammoth does not have such mammaries, even though they’d be accurate, precisely because they’d look too much like a human secondary sexual trait.
Or Fritz the Cat.
For me at least, it’s because some of the furries out there are sewing orifices into stuffed animals and screwing them. I am thankfully unaware of similar practices for other fetishes. If I did know about them, I’d probably be as or almost as grossed out by them.
Why is that particularly bad?
Porn with actual animals doesn’t creep me out as much as the various flavors of furry stuff does.
Explain that!
Wow you are correct that female elephants have two breasts between their forelimbs. Interesting!
Ohhhhhh! Fritz the Cat had slipped my mind!
grude seems to be spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about fur fetishists, and what they might be doing or thinking. Perhaps he has a fur fetishist fetish? That would be a bit niche, I would think.
Fetish nitpick; a fur fetish is entirely different than a furry fetish. The former is about furs; someone wearing them (and often nothing else), having sex on them, etc. The second is about anthropomorphized or sentient animals.
Rule 34 (b)