[Travaris Rhade] How To Prevent Raping (WIP)

Posted on 15 November 2016, 03:10

Uploader Comment

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/theblackrook/

Posted on 21 October 2016, 20:09 by: linksbro1

I can't tell if the text is serious or not, but it's hilarious, and the comic itself is pretty hot too. Awesome comic all around!

And is it just me, or does it seem like they don't really mind that they're being "raped". Well, if it's anything to go by, all of this artist's comics show that everyone is pretty much welcome to any surprise sex.
What an incredible Utopian Society

Posted on 21 October 2016, 20:59 by: 8bitdahpandah

the rhymes got real old real quick for me to be honest

Posted on 22 October 2016, 02:48 by: Trilian

This is some all men are rapists cancer. Down-voted

Last edited on 22 October 2016, 03:35.

Posted on 22 October 2016, 04:40 by: dankbeems

awful message

Posted on 22 October 2016, 04:43 by: totally not gay

SJW ass hats

Posted on 22 October 2016, 04:48 by: Jizanthapus

All men are rapists? I didn't know

Posted on 22 October 2016, 06:42 by: rwpikul

@linksbro1:

The text is based on a serious bit about how to really prevent rape that addresses itself to the people most able to prevent rape: The would-be rapists.[1]

The art is, indeed, a silly take on it.

@Jizanthapus:

Also not what this, or the inspiration, says. However, since people don't have glowing signs saying "this person is willing to rape", you need to tell everyone how not to rape so that you can be sure you have told the one who are willing to rape.

[1] One of the most effective types of anti-rape campaign involve telling people, (and to be honest, it's mostly men that need to be told): "Doing (insert way of committing sexual assault) is rape, don't do it." One reason it works is that it helps reduce the types of rape that the person doing it isn't thinking of as rape, (e.g. "she isn't saying no", or "we were already doing it when he changed his mind and started saying no").

Posted on 22 October 2016, 09:42 by: Infinite Succor

I hope this is parody, because if you think that treating all men like they are rapists just waiting to happen will stop rape, you are insane.

Who actually thinks that if you just tell people not to rape, they'll just...not rape people? Like a rapist gives a shit what you tell him to do or not. Nobody rapes anybody and thinks "Yea, this is totally something that's okay for me to do". Rapists don't give a shit what the law is or what you tell them. Anybody who is willing to rape somebody is not going to just decide not to because it's against the rules.

And treating all men as if they are rapists waiting to happen is incredibly insulting. It's like telling all Muslims that they're suicide bombers just waiting to happen.

Posted on 22 October 2016, 10:51 by: Wolvien

Lol, of course that's parody. The MC sucks that one guy's cock, a submissive act. Rape is all about exercizing dominance.

It's fine art, would cum again. (Though you could lose the rhyming.)

Posted on 22 October 2016, 12:36 by: DennoCoil

EVERYONE knows that rape is bad and it's only a very very small minority that actually does it. Even from the way the judicial system is set up, raping someone will have a good chance of landing you in prison, being on a sex offenders registry, and your name and face plastered on the internet. That's how bad it will get if these people are caught. This seems like it's coming from the perspective that only men can be rapists, women get away with rape more often since the courts are biased in favor of them.

We're so overly sensitive to it that we will destroy people with only an accusation alone. Do a search for Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz. You'll be amazed at how quickly a guy was thrown under the bus with just an accusation and no evidence. Read your regional News too, see how many women get more of a slap on the wrist while men are thrown in prison and called animals for the same crime.

This is a fucking parody furry porn, not an endorsement of anything.

@Infinite Succor

Actually, if you read the Quran, it practically tells every Muslim believer to convert or kill the non-believers of the world and to conquer it in the name of Allah. So yeah, a lot of Muslims are potential terrorists, especially considering there's roughly a billion Muslims and 20 million of them are considered by intelligence agencies to be "radicals".

Posted on 22 October 2016, 14:07 by: Kilves

You know what, I don't even bother reading porn trying to send a message anymore.

Posted on 23 October 2016, 07:33 by: rwpikul

@Infinite Succor:

Funny how campaigns based around "Doing (insert way of committing sexual assault) is rape, don't do it," _actually work_. A basic poster campaign on those lines in Vancouver reduced rapes by 10% in just a couple months and these sorts of results are the norm, (the more focused and intensive, the more effective).

One of the reason they work is because it reduces the window of things that people justify as not really being rape even though they actually are.[1] By reducing that window, it reduces the number of people who are willing to engage in the act of rape because more versions of that act have been moved from being something they see as "a bit aggressive" to something that is "solidly evil".

From your comment, I suspect you are one of those people who believe rapists are people who lurk in dark alleys. In reality, they're at a party with you and leading someone who's had a fair bit to drink off to another room. In reality, they are the people who keep going when told to stop. In reality, they are dates who think that paying for the evening entitles them to sex.

@DennoCoil:

You consider 0.7% "a good chance"? That's the portion of rapists in the US that get convicted, a reported rape is more likely to be blown off by police without any real investigation than it is to result in someone getting convicted.

[1] This is why studies that look into things like people's willingness to rape get different results based on weather the question is "if you knew you could 100% get away with it, would you rape someone?" or "if you knew you were 100% safe from consequences, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse?” (Note that the latter would be rape but many more people will answer "yes".)

Posted on 23 October 2016, 16:39 by: DennoCoil

@rwpikul

Wow, you are such a Feminist. If you're going to start posting "facts" and "statistics" as if they are real, please give your citations so other people won't know you're full of shit. I've seen too much Feminist and "awareness" campaigns that use an outdated, misleading, or factually inaccurate study to believe that you are even right.

Let me examine your post... The "basic poster campaign" you're talking about is the "Don't Be That Guy" campaign in Canada of 2010-2014, right? ( http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/07/vancouver-police-launch-dont-be-that-guy-campaign/ ) These were a bunch of highly provocative and infuriating posters that were originally put out in the downtown bar districts of several Canadian cities. They're meant to seem like men are out to rape women at any given moment, especially when they're out partying and getting plastered drunk. It's in the name alone, "Don't Be That Guy" is saying that men are prone to this kind of behavior a lot. It also absolves the fact that women can take advantage of men as well when he's in a passed out or in an inebriated state, and absolves the women from taking responsibility too. That is just as bad as the Feminist mantra of saying "Teach Men Not To Rape".

Oh, but you're talking about how it "reduced rapes by 10%", right? Well, what are the real figures? Are we talking about tens, hundreds, thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands of people being sexually assaulted in each year? Did you get that buzzword from here? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dont-be-that-guy-ad-campaign-cuts-vancouver-sex-assaults-by-10-per-cent-in-2011/article1359241/

I can't trust the word of a clipped Deputy's quote or a single article alone because there is no real figures to deal with here. Red flags went up immediately when this article starts stating that sexual assaults rose 20% each year for 2 years in a row across 3 major cites in Canada. That tells me 1 of 2 things already: Either the sexual assault rates are so low in major Canadian cities that a few each year can make it rise dramatically or not. Or, Canadians seriously do have a sexual assault epidemic in the bar and party districts of their cities. This article is so vague and wishy washy when you critically analyze it, I have a difficult time to take seriously unless there's hard statistical evidence put out.

Let me analyze and unpackage more of what you're saying:
"One of the reason they work is because it reduces the window of things that people justify as not really being rape even though they actually are."

Define "rape" here because there's a LOT that can be packed into that word, especially when Feminists are involved. http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-assault/ is something I can actually define in a succinct list, while some Feminists also add kissing, consensual penetration, or some bad behavior like being seduced or a man being needy as "rape". Here's a different perspective from another woman that you would have defined as possibly being "raped":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/?utm_term=.782956b90fb2

"From your comment, I suspect you are one of those people who believe rapists are people who lurk in dark alleys. In reality, they're at a party with you and leading someone who's had a fair bit to drink off to another room."

And I believe you're paranoid as fuck for thinking that there's a potential rapist in every party you go to and could be lurking around every corner. You do know that kind of sociopath predator that you're insinuating is very rare, right? This can also be related to similar ideas being pushed by the Yes Means Yes or Affirmative Consent campaigns, where if a woman is drunk in any way, she can't give consent to any sexual act. It puts all the fault on the male if he does anything with her, making him a predator or rapist by default, and absolves the woman of responsibility too while she's drunk.

"You consider 0.7% "a good chance"? That's the portion of rapists in the US that get convicted, a reported rape is more likely to be blown off by police without any real investigation than it is to result in someone getting convicted."

I need citation here too, and rape is a very hard crime to prove since, evidence wise, can be the same as a legal consensual act. And no, cops do not blow off rape without an investigation. They take rape very seriously, but they don't "Listen And Believe" the "victim". Cops need to gather evidence, testimonies, etc, so they have the story right before a suspect can be prosecuted. It's called "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". But hey, when has that stopped Feminists from putting in bullshit police procedures like the Duluth Model Of Domestic Violence so that the man are automatically arrested when the cops first get onto the scene. Everybody, look that shit up if you want to be horrified. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-abusers-02-jan02-story.html

"[1] This is why studies that look into things like people's willingness to rape get different results based on weather the question is "if you knew you could 100% get away with it, would you rape someone?" or "if you knew you were 100% safe from consequences, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse?” (Note that the latter would be rape but many more people will answer "yes".)"

Oh my god, you actually believe those two shitty things? Those two that you got those ideas from are actually from 2 studies that have been found to be WOEFULLY UNRELIABLE as the questions are misleading as hell and doesn't represent anything except how stats can be manipulated and used with someone's agenda. The "If you knew you could get away with rape" study alone is a one that's 30~ years old and had a sample size of 100 college students at a single university. That shit is a popular part of Feminist fear mongering that keeps being spread around and helps to perpetuate the "1 in 4 female college students will be raped" myth. Read Myth 4: http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

For everyone, sorry to get in the way of your porn, but I can't stand Feminism anymore, especially it's very popular, mainstream, modern 3rd Wave Intersectional cult.

Posted on 24 October 2016, 09:12 by: rwpikul

Here's a hint for you: Telling people to not be "that guy" inherently implies that not all guys are "that guy". (Oh, JSYK: Those aren't "three major cities", those are three neighbourhoods in one city.)

And since you seem to not know: Rape = sex where consent is absent. It's really not that complicated unless you want to excuse things that rapists do.

"This can also be related to similar ideas being pushed by the Yes Means Yes or Affirmative Consent campaigns, where if a woman is drunk in any way, she can't give consent to any sexual act. It puts all the fault on the male if he does anything with her, making him a predator or rapist by default, and absolves the woman of responsibility too while she's drunk."

Yes, having sex with someone who is incapable of giving consent is rape. Is that really so hard to understand? (Cue the standard "what if they're both drunk?" bit that shows you don't understand the difference between a criminal act and criminal intent.)

The 0.7% comes from a comparison of convictions, (note that that is convictions, not incarcerations), to the figures of the National Crime Victimization Survey.

You are also conflating believing a victim's identification of a particular perpetrator and believing a victim when they say that the incident happened at all, (a common bit of bad faith with rape apologists). Rape is the only crime where there is a significant risk of officers questioning if it even happened from the get-go, (for instance, the Kelly et.al. study from 2005 found 3% of cases to be possibly false reports, but the police had recorded 22% of the cases as 'no crime'). There are a few reasons police do this: First, as you say, rape is a hard crime to investigate. It's often easier to browbeat the victim into recanting. Second, many police officers believe the false reporting rate to be an order of magnitude higher than it actually is. Third, if the report gets classified as 'no crime' then it doesn't count for either crime or clearance statistics.

"Oh my god, you actually believe those two shitty things? Those two that you got those ideas from are actually from 2 studies that have been found to be WOEFULLY UNRELIABLE as the questions are misleading as hell and doesn't represent anything except how stats can be manipulated and used with someone's agenda."

I'd love to know how you would know what studies I am referring to, given that those were paraphrased questions. You also clearly missed the point of the reference: The same study, with the same subjects, gets more people saying "yes" when the question avoids calling the action in question rape. This is true if the question is "would you do it?" it's true if the question is "have you done it?" and it's true if the question is "has it happened to you?"

And I'll let you in on a little secret: Christina Hoff Sommers was lying in that editorial, (no shock, lying for the AEI is what she does for a living). She misrepresents the study in a couple of ways: To begin with, the study was making a claim about incidence rates over women's entire lives to that point. She also lies about what questions were included in determining that rate.

(Something to think about: If you seriously think that a message of "don't commit rape" is targeting you, it might just be that you are right.)

Posted on 25 October 2016, 03:40 by: DennoCoil

"Telling people to not be "that guy" inherently implies that not all guys are "that guy""

How does that not imply that all guys are culpable and capable of being "that guy", aka, a rapist? Here's the underlying thought process, I don't believe that all people are inherently evil, but these posters imply that there is inherent evil and intent within all men. It's a very casual implication that everyone could be "that guy" and have such bad behavior within them. It's also fucked up there doesn't seem to be a female version of these posters. Like saying how women shouldn't be "that girl", like a woman who molests a man without his consent, twisting a guy's emotions for money, objects, or favors, or getting violent and smashing a shot glass into a man's face. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/x-factor-contestant-lucie-slater-1500180

"And since you seem to not know: Rape = sex where consent is absent. It's really not that complicated unless you want to excuse things that rapists do."

And this is where Feminists try to redefine rape or sexual assault again for their own agenda. I already know what rape is and it's defined succinctly here: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-assault/ It's fairly well known stuff that anyone can look up where they live. It's a very serious crime in almost all countries, except those that have regressive attitudes towards women and sexuality, like much of the Middle-East. The opening statement in that link shows what is legally defined as sexual assault or rape, but what I'm very curious about is your apparent obsession with what "consent" is. This is why I also hinted this being related with the Yes Means Yes or Affirmative Consent campaigns Feminists have been pushing hard in places like California.

You, Feminist activists, and Feminist organizations seem to be trying very hard to redefine sexual assault by using this thing known as "consent". As in, all parties have to say Yes for each and every sexual act that both are going to be involved in, and it's usually on the part of the man to make sure that he's the one having to ask for consent. (Take this unsexy example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI ) You're trying to redefine sex as being a contract with terms and conditions that all parties must agree to, usually one HAS to ask a question and the other HAS to answer in a hard Yes or No fashion. If while fucking, someone forgets to ask a question while both of them move onto some other sexual act, they're now a rapist. All because one of them forgot to ask a question in the middle of sex. It's impossible to legally enforce or defend against it, unless you video tape each fuck session while "consenting" into a microphone, or sign a document stating all intended purposes and acts were done consensual. For God's sake's, I just read back over this and feel like I'm in a South Park episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGWKKI2ky8w

What's also very fucked up that nobody talks about when discussing this and in our society, is a woman can actually TAKE AWAY CONSENT AFTER SEX. So after she gets fucked, she can actually change her mind and falsely accuse her lover or boyfriend that he's a rapist in order to protect her ego, reputation, or she wants destroy him . Women usually get off without punishment from false accusations while the man usually has his life and reputation destroyed. I'm reminded of the Jian Ghomeshi trial where that just happened. He was a popular Canadian radio broadcaster who's infamous for having freaky BDSM-style sexual encounters, and 2 women started accusing him of being a rapist from acts he and the 2 women did 10+ years ago. Thankfully he was paranoid enough that he saved emails of that time that showed both women were lying their asses off, and other evidence has showed that they were conspiring with another woman and possibly a corrupt journalist in an attempt to destroy him.

And before you go accusing me, I know what fucking consent is: Verbal or non-verbal communication that you can fuck other said person and do whatever each of them wants, unless one of them stops the act when it goes too far or doesn't feel comfortable. No take backs later on, like if the sex was bad or a woman was found out to be cheating with another man and accused the other of rape to save face. That is definitely not your Feminist idea of "consent", and it's a natural one I believe in. You and other Feminists however, are the reason why there's a lot of men who stopped giving a shit about dating women and a movement like MGTOW exists. A lot of people don't want that goddamn political bullshit mine field you've put in place just for sex.

"Yes, having sex with someone who is incapable of giving consent is rape. Is that really so hard to understand? (Cue the standard "what if they're both drunk?" bit that shows you don't understand the difference between a criminal act and criminal intent.)"

Straw man, much? Also, drunk sex isn't rape. If they're drunk, but still consent, it's not rape. If they're stumbling over themselves and isn't immediately responsive, that's a very fine grey area. If they're passed out, it's rape. Not hard to understand. But I know what a Feminist might say, "it's still rape if they're drunk". Who's getting raped and how much alcohol does one need before it counts as rape? This type of Feminist garbage about consent really needs to be scrutinized to hell and back before it should have been put into law.

"The 0.7% comes from a comparison of convictions, (note that that is convictions, not incarcerations), to the figures of the National Crime Victimization Survey."

I need more information than that. For one, the convictions estimate of the first part. Two, the comparison to a self-reported survey by the Bearua of Justice Statistics. Why not use the statistics paper itself instead of conflating it with another unlinked study? This seems very suspicious.

"You are also conflating believing a victim's identification of a particular perpetrator and believing a victim when they say that the incident happened at all, (a common bit of bad faith with rape apologists).

...I'm going to come back to that "rape apologist" bit later.

So I'm confusing the concept where an accuser of sexual assault identifies a certain culprit, and when an accuser says that a sexual assault happened. You're also confusing that what I said in a vague part of my reply (I have no clue what you're referring to) is that I somehow give a certain culprit more leeway than not because they're a certain... person. Is that right? Are you actually trying to say that I want male or female rapists to go free or get reduced punishments here?

"Rape is the only crime where there is a significant risk of officers questioning if it even happened from the get-go, (for instance, the Kelly et.al. study from 2005 found 3% of cases to be possibly false reports, but the police had recorded 22% of the cases as 'no crime'). There are a few reasons police do this: First, as you say, rape is a hard crime to investigate.

Yeah, no real problems here unless I take another hour to read through the study. I'll save that for later.

"It's often easier to browbeat the victim into recanting."

Whoa. Is this the Patriarchy conspiracy thinking where you think cops love to yell at rape victims to make them stop confessing to a crime? What the fuck? If it's a hard questioning, it can be a bad time for the accuser, but that's because they need to know all the evidence. If it's just them being an asshole and laughing in her face, don't you think the accuser is going to rile up the community to try and get that asshole fired or for something like the FBI or the Justice Bureau to investigate it?

"Second, many police officers believe the false reporting rate to be an order of magnitude higher than it actually is."

Could be that there is, especially when it's obvious in some instances where women try to get back at others. Most men usually do physical acts for revenge. Women are much more into scheming and manipulative forms of revenge, hence possibly higher false reporting claims than there have been studied. Who knows.

"Third, if the report gets classified as 'no crime' then it doesn't count for either crime or clearance statistics."

Yes, and? Are you trying to put this in a "unreported sexual assault" framework to make it look like Rape Culture or rapes are happening more often than not?

"if you knew you could 100% get away with it, would you rape someone?" or "if you knew you were 100% safe from consequences, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse?”

I'm having an incredibly hard time finding it. I spent around 2 and a half hours searching back and forth while getting more bits down. I do know it's an old survey from the mid to late 1980's that seems to get passed around now and again that has those exact words on it. I do keep finding surveys about exaggerated rape statistics though.

Like this one from a 2014 Edwards et al study that seemed to almost be tailor made advocacy research.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201601/exaggerating-statistics-about-rape
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/13/bogus-study-rape-discredits-itself-first-sentence-goes-downhill-there
http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%e2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/ (Hi, Christina.)

"And I'll let you in on a little secret: Christina Hoff Sommers was lying in that editorial, (no shock, lying for the AEI is what she does for a living)."

Honey, I can dig up shit on a lot of major and minor Feminists who are just human piles of garbage, even the not so famous ones that I've seen around when looking into GamerGate, Sad Puppies, and the Men's Rights Movement.

Stones and glass houses, mate.

As to the study you say she was "lying" about, perhaps, or looking up the study, I keep on finding articles that show that 2007 sexual assault survey is horseshit anyway.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/09/aau_campus_sexual_assault_survey_why_such_surveys_don_t_paint_an_accurate.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/

"(Something to think about: If you seriously think that a message of "don't commit rape" is targeting you, it might just be that you are right.)"

*clap clap clap clap* Ladies and Gentleman, I give to you: Modern Feminism in a nutshell.

This is also related to the "rape apologist" bit from earlier. Now, I know what rwpikul is doing right here and it's a common underhanded tactic that Feminists, Social Justice Warriors, hard core activists, cults, political ideologies, etc, use a lot as a tool in most arguments.

This is shaming language. Shaming language is a form of straw man where one person, who is in disagreement with another, relies on not only a misrepresentation of reality, but one that is (or should be) considered by most of society to be a shameful position.

For example, when have I said that rapists should be given a slap on the wrist? Never.

But because rwpikul needs to get that edge in, they toss the label of "rape apologist" in to try and disrupt the conversation because they can't win the battle fairly and to try and insult their opponent. What a normal person does when they don't expect this, is to go on the defensive. This is a two fold strategy.

First, by going on the defensive, it makes it seem like the person defending themselves from the shaming language seems like they have something to hide or are less credible than they were before, while possibly have their confidence being broken during this attack.

Second, it switches the conversation away from the original topic at hand and tries to silence the opposition in order to not have to deal with the facts of the original topic.

Your stupid cowardly insults will not work here and you've practically outed yourself right there as being a rabid Feminist ideologue instead of logical person. Try harder.

Posted on 28 October 2016, 02:41 by: DmbfonddIllitrate

Based off this comic, all men are (potential) rapists...Wow...thanks for telling all us men where our priorities actually lay...You know if it wasn't for you, I'd never have known my future was to be a (potential) rapist...Thanks for all the hard work the artist put into this comic. Oh, and before I forget, I have to mention one last thing. /sarcasm off

I wonder what it would be if this were reversed instead of "don't be that guy" it would say "don't be that girl"? We all know women can be just as rapist as men and they can get away with it more than we can. Men have barely any rights anymore...Gee I wonder why that could be...hmmm...

And this is why I keep my distance from women. If I see a woman walking the same walkway, I get the heck over to the other side of the road and walk until she is past me (I do this with men also). Can you tell how much trust in people I have? I like women don't get me wrong, I just hate the way of thinking that some of them seem to have.

Last edited on 28 October 2016, 03:06.

Posted on 06 November 2016, 15:10 by: PlayPanther

What tune should have be singing the words to?

Posted on 12 November 2016, 14:42 by: akoldon

Wtf are you talking about? It never stated that all men are rapists. Just some hot comic telling us that rape i good, fine and stuff. Which is obviously not a good thing.
And it's not even about "not rape if willing", on first pannel fox guy drugs those girls to later rape them while they are unconcious. How willing is that? I guess author just jerked his brains out.
Comic is pretty hot though.

Posted on 15 November 2016, 04:42 by: OhLong

Holy shit at these comments. God damn.

Posted on 15 November 2016, 09:07 by: jimbo21

I enjoyed the comments more than the comic.

Posted on 15 November 2016, 13:11 by: SSSdriver

HOLY FUCKING SHIT WHAT IS THIS COMMENT SECTION.
IT'S (FURRY) PORN, GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!

Posted on 16 November 2016, 07:52 by: Cloud1120

For fucks sakes. This wasnt made for all you sjws to come popping out the woodworks and posting your opinions... In all sense of the word this was made ironically. If you cant take a god damn joke and enjoy some good porn get the fuck out.

Posted on 16 November 2016, 21:55 by: texasallstar

Oh god, these comments are fucking lame. This is a cute sexy comic that is just some sensual satire. Plus as a furry I can assure you if a sexy fox surprise fucked me I would love every second of it <3

Posted on 19 July 2018, 01:49 by: nkei

I can't be the only one to catch this gem of a quote...

http://chutzpah.typepad.com/slow_movement/2009/07/calvin-and-hobbes-as-if-life-isnt-short-enough.html

Posted:	2016-11-15 03:10
Parent:	988526
Visible:	Yes
Language:	English
File Size:	8.20 MiB
Length:	7 pages
Favorited:	230 times

language:	english
artist:	travaris rhade \| the blackrook
male:	anal bisexual crossdressing fox boy furry rape wolf boy yaoi
female:	big breasts fox girl furry rape
other:	comic full color

Rating:		128
Average: 3.93