Hehehe...I will admit that's funny. As for anti-yiff, I'd say I'm there already....(still has boobs in art sometimes...)...as for my faves...hmm...

Chocobo and pokeballs have got to, indeedly.
I would, however, humbly suggest that porn without genitals is a little hard to perceive as such - after all, there is much sexual undertone in the nature of our daily interactions.

Try to find the word "porn" in this post. I merely said "yiff". I was too lazy to go to the bottom, but looky:

http://zlodeylkk.net/gallery/Feu_&_Umberto.jpg
http://zlodeylkk.net/gallery/Hippie_&_Ten2.jpg
http://zlodeylkk.net/gallery/paw_licking.jpg
http://zlodeylkk.net/gallery/Flocky_&_Trely.jpg

The bottom link does lead to a very suggestive pic, but the rest fall nicely within the cuddling category. Yeah, through the application of a tedious semantostructural analysis these situations can be determined to be blatantly sexual, yet personally I don't think the evidence is enough.

I don't, however, agree with their crusade and you're justified to doubt their judgement and consistancy, but they're not forcing their beliefs upon others - just stating their POV, however clumsy and flawed they may appear to be.

'kay then, may I cuddle with you that way? ;)

It would be okay if both of us were actual anthropomorphic animals in the perfect utopian world with all the sex-based taboos and neuroses globally abolished. Doesn't quite seem like reality ? That's why it's art. I don't think Mr.Zlodey is aiming to depict an actual reality, but rather his own version of it - and yes, it is strange that an artist would like to limit others` freedom of expression.

What makes it not okay in our so imperfect utopian world? :) Mrrr..

_Not_ utopian, I mean.

I don't know...maybe all these imperfect things that turn people into intolerant paranoid pricks and insensitive hypocritical bastards.

What do you have to lose? :)

The last remains of my sanity 0.0

Well, it rather depends on what you call "yiff". I can't deny that those pictures you gave links to are not just cuddling scenes. But they are harmless compared to those that yiffers draw.
In my understanding "yiff" is when some parts of body (you know what) are left visible for everyone. May be I'm wrong but this is how I see it. So from this point of view none of my works can be called "yiffy".

Ok, so those famous ancient statues of David and Venus are openly sexual. After all, it would be wrong to have different definitions of "sexuality" for furries and humans, wouldn't it?
And those Renaissance artists with their numerous depictions of naked female bodies.. What a bunch of dirty and perverted old men they are :P
I can't see why a penis or a pair of breasts should be more obscene than, for example, a nose. You know, boogers and stuff.. Ears have earwax, even a navel has its navel lint. The most perfect body is not completely perfect.
And returning to breasts - imagine a female fur feeding her baby. Is it.. yiffy? :)

*smiles* Why not? Yeah, David's masterpieces are yiffy. But if you take for example Greeks, you would see that many of them tried to hide those parts of a body that should not be visible or even make them lesser. Have you ever seen any ancient sculpture with a huge penis or with the breasts size of a head each? I never did.
Well, really OUR body is not perfect. But furries claim to be better than humans, and they can be better and even perfect as they don't really exist. So why on earth give them our sins? I don't see any reason.
Female fur feeding a baby... Quite disgusting but true, I wouldn't call it yiffy. Anyway I like cartoon style, had Simba any penis? But he had a daughter, had Nala any tits? But she somehow fed her child! And no breasts were needed.

I meant this David:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.....elos_David.jpg :)

Oh, but you've already given them our sins :) Those are not Simbas and Nalas, those are businessmen, punks, bullies and even a homophobic character. You gave them such an imperfect background.. Are they better than humans?
Do they need to urinate and defecate?

Btw, why would breast-feeding be disgusting? ;)

Don't worry I understood what David you meant :)
I'm not speaking about the characters, of course furries do have sins! They are pretty similar to humans from this point of view, there are bad ones and good ones, it's natural. I'm speaking about the appearance. They look much better than humans to me, and naked humans look ugly and those yiffers make furries look ugly too, what I really hate.
Does Bugs Bunny need to urinate and defecate? Even if he does nobody sees it.
Well, may be furries wouldn't look that disgusting feeding their babies, but humans certainly would. Why? Who knows, but such scenes make me wince in disgust, bleh.

Ok, let's look at all this anti-yiff stuff from another angle.
Are there really two armies, one of yiffers and another of anti-yiffers? Is someone who has drawn one or two (of 200-300) yiff pictures a yiffer? How "disgusting" should such pictures be? What is "worse" - Doug Winger's sperm overloaded herms or well drawn erotica with emphasis on beauty?
It's all windmills to me.
But some people think they might be giants.

Of course it's hard to draw a line between yiffers and anti-yiffers, here you are right. Many artist draw yiff... sometimes, but most of the time they draw general stuff. I wouldn't call them yiffers, yiffer to me is the one who draws yiff constantly, most of the time. Take for example BlackTeagan, if we look through his works it becomes obvious that most of them are yiffy, though it's no doubt that his style is quite nice.
But erotica with emphasis on beauty... beauty of what? I can admit that some yiffy pictures are not that disgusting, but there are only rare pictures that I can take as an example.

Beauty of body, of course.

Beauty of body, of course.