I am suprised.

I...thought Mikey and Flounce were buttbuddies from back in the day. Why does Mikey seem so absolutely scared to hell and back that there's a delivery at the back entrance?

>>11529

Possible: Mikey was the pitcher instead of the catcher when he knew Flounce prior to his relationship with Persia.

Likely: Naylor's an idiot.

>>11530

Viable point, really. Suppose I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now.

>>11527

If the character Flounce wasn't teabagged out of his original conception I would be totally A-Okay with said content. Plus the whole way Naylor goes about his relationship with 'Mikey' is subtly degrading and it isn't as enjoyable as it could be.

So...anal sex between men, even when facilitated by a woman, is gay...isn't it?

I assume I'm not the only one who, when looking at this page, has no idea WTF is going on?

I'm serious, his comics are moving more and more towards Cubism.

>>11527
>>It was kind of a shift to draw Persia in a more dominant role, but in the presence of such a femmy fellow, it's bound to happen.

Because naturally, female=submissive, and the more feminine you are the more submissive you are, until you can eventually actually be a tiiiiny bit more submissive than those naturally submissive real girls.

I wish he'd just re-embrace the gay. I like his gay stuff. Don't hurt me.

>>11535

Don't forget that being gay was just a phase.

LOL @ Naylor Cubism

Wow, how big are big fingers?

Big fingers are big.

Bodies tangled. Can't tell who's what. I mean, flounce isn't white furred. Shouldn't he be, I don't know, DARKER?

>>11535

To be fair, Persia has always seemed to be dominant with Flounce. See "The Better Mousetrap"; flounce seemed to be the definite sub there. Flounce has been drawn on a leash, held by a black cat before. Hell, even in "True Love", she was the assertive one.

And, it's not uncomon for people of the dominant/sub lifestyle to be dominant with This gender, Submissive with That gender. I suppose that, the girlier the guy, the more it might ping the female over the male part.

So I feel compelled to defend something when it can make sense/be done well, and isn't JUST Naylor's opinion. But, then that means I have to defend Naylor. It sucks ass when he does stuff that I Would like if only he wasn't doing them.

>>11541

You're sort of missing the point. It's not about dominance and submissiveness within the kink/fetish/lifestyle. Take a moment, breathe, and then actually look at what he said.

>>It was kind of a shift to draw Persia in a more dominant role, but in the presence of such a femmy fellow, it's bound to happen.

He SPECIFICALLY equated submissiveness and femininity.

>>11536

No, you are right. Naylor draws some decent girly-boys - it's why this sucks so much.

>>11542

And you missed my point: Persia has always been in a bit of a dominant role with Flounce from the beginning.

>>It was kind of a shift to draw Persia in a more dominant role, but in the presence of such a femmy fellow, it's bound to happen.

urge...to kill...rising....!

Am glad Sechs said it first, or I'd be ranting, as I am terrible at succinctness.

Seriously, that's just....AUGH. That mindset makes my skin crawl.

And, like someone else said, hasn't Persia ALWAYS seemed pretty dom in all his works? Although I guess by Naylor logic that's cuz Flounce is, like Mikey, a 'femmey' fella, speaking stereotypically...blaaargh.

Here's what I don't get. From what I've observed from RL gay guys, the idea that one flaming gay dude, would rehook up with an ex who is now doing "ew, girls", somehow get's him in a threesome with said girl, wouldn't Mikey not want to get it on with said girl around?

>>11561

Dude. You're expecting Naylor to have any kind of understanding of human behavior or emotion.

Sociopath, remember?

People, people - Naylor is gonna have two dudes bangin', like he did with that rabbit husband dude.

This is fuckin' fodder for the LOLJectivists.

Rofl, Dammit Sechs, you beat me to saying it!

I was wondering how long it would take for this picture to be thrown up and how long till that equation was muttered.

It's exactly what I was thinking. In the "Naylorverse" women are subs, being femmy means your the sub to a woman.. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST...

*just rolls eyes*

Off topic, I'd love to see just a group of people from this board walk up to Naylor's booth in unison at a con. The reaction would be hilarious.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3189497 Look what I found! An attempt to justify that 'cheating' kink? Naylor has..

>>11577
Forgot to add this gem as wrote by Naylor..

Emeraldvixxx is correct. Sleeping with someone you're falling in love with, after falling out of love with the person you're currently with, is not polyamory. The intent is to be monogamous with your new partner.

>>11577

I don't have a furaffinity account, can some describe it to me and tell me what it says?

>>11565
Two rabbit dudes.... When was this?

>>11582
No Remorse.

>>11578

What?

>>11581

Essentially the new context of his latest comic has to do with polygamy, which had disturbed a watcher who also pointed out various other instances of characters in the Naylorverse whom 'cheat'. Upon bringing up the subject, Naylor along with blindly loyal fans defended his viewpoint on the subject. Which Naylor essentially summed up his 'fetish' so to speak of being about falling out of love with others and with others. Along with saying cheating-partners were not callous,cruel assholes but instead people who needed to escape. But really it's a fallacious means of character development. The characters never find anything more then a better dick to fuck when they leave their current relationships for the fresh-cock. There is no real proof of better chemistry or finding a kindred spirit - usually it's skimmed over in crappy-Naylor-wrtting fashion. He never attempts to make the characters better- the people they leave are usually played out as horrible-assholes with nothing to them except being horrible-assholes. Now granted if Naylor knew a thing or two about character-development, he could play off these scenarios well.

>>11582
not only was it two rabbit dudes, they were brothers. But it was only like 1 page (don't even think it was a full page, just like 2 panels).
Everything else was skanktastic rachel getting plowed by anonymous dicks and all in all being a complete bitch to her femboi fiance/husband.

>>11529
I think he's more freaked out because persia is holding his head with her thighs/actually sitting on his head.
Course this is naylor so it could actually end up as an "Oh noes! Not teh buttsechs, I straight!" type thing.

>>11586

Rachel may have been skanky- but it was one of his few instances of having a woman with albeit a bit of control. At least sexually she was using that as power over the domain of males. Eventually if you notice - he dumped her off once he realized this.

I realize Rachel is one of the most hated characters in BD, but she was one of the few I actually LIKED. Her inner monologue in "No Remorse" was the most depth I've seen from any of his characters. I really wish she'd been in the hands of a better writer, because I think that her desire for self-destruction through excess promiscuous sex with men while simultaneously relishing controlling them and the naked mirror of herself she found in her own husband's willigness to be humiliated through sex was a really interesting angle.

Also, is it just me, or is she the only Naylor female to be shown with an interest in black/hyena ("Everyone needs a little mandingo!")fellows? Because only an evil loathsome super duper slut would bang a darkie, right? Well, I mean, Beth did get some 'multicultural' strippers but she was supposed to be going to for an 'around the world' theme rather than actually specifically wanting to fuck a black guy, so idk.

>>11594
Yeah, agreed, Naylor was probably drunk on something when he wrote No Remorse, when he sobered up, he realised Rachel wasn't some fucktoy for men anymore, he gave her a brain. So yeah. He did that drawing on his FA of Rachel with three little kids from different fathers to 'cover up his mistakes' obviously.

>>11594

1) I liked "No Remorse", and Rachel's part in it. Her relationship with Alex (the rabbit in No Remorse) was, while not "healthy", a "good" situation for them both. Alex obviously got off on being cuckolded, on his wife cheating on him. So, she got to be a whore, he got to be demeaned, and they both enjoyed the situation. Sure it's fucked up, but it was honest and worked for them.

Compared to what she was doing to Tommy, it's downright quaint.

2) Bobby, Sheila's sister, was dating a hyena at one point in Better days.

>>11585

Well. There is the Doris Hinderson comic. Where, at the end, both husband and wife are getting it put-to by the dog and cat pair, and it seems to make their lives better. There, you have a "Swinger" situation. Also, gay sex.

Also, there's the fact that Elizabeth cheated on her husband, and wound up marrying the guy she cheated with: Fisk.

Also the Red Riding Hood situation, where Red cheats on Pablo with her rapist, and her rapist trucks her off to the wilderness to live with his pack where she's a constant, happy drugged up cockwhore.

Pic related, as I'm sure this is what's really going through Naylor's head when he ain't drunk.

[/obvious]

>>Bobby, Sheila's sister, was dating a hyena at one point in Better days.

Oh god, I remember that. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Bobbie goes into the same 'bad woman' category in Naylorworld too, so it makes sense, plus there was the implication she was only doing it for shock value.

And I realize I sorta derailed/posted off-topic with the Rachel stuff. Sorry, it's late. Back on the cheating thing, it'd be one thing if he just said, yes, I have a fetish for this so I draw it. I can respect that, I think. But dressing it up with convoluted explanations to make it seem like anything other than just 'I have this kink' irks me. Just admit you have a fetish like the rest of us plebes. Not saying all kinks should automatically be immune from scrutiny, but his whitewashing his to make it seem 'not bad' and not even a sexual thing for him (which it really so blatantly is) is just...uggggh. It's not like cuckold fetishes are even that uncommon, from what I know.

That said, I wish he would keep the simplistic porn-plot of 'other spouse is 2D jerk' out of actual storytelling, because porn plots are meant to be flat and simple and not contain complex characterization...which is not so good in an actual story about people and relationships. As others have said, it is rarely that simple, and all parties have their reasons, and there's just a wealth of situations which could lead to such a thing aside from 'oh I like this guy now bai bb' not to mention resulting emotions such as guilt and...oh, wait, Naylor wouldn't have a concept of guilt, would he? Sociopath and all.

>>11601

Men cheating in his eyes tend to be studs who have lots of opportunity..unless they are with a female that 'Fisk' or other randian males have in mind. Females whom are loose are just considered slutty and terrible- or if they are loose its because of being held against will (Persia's vague drug addiction storyline?).

>>11577 Seriously how do you guys fan over this guy when he treats his fans so shitty? He's writing a comic fans have questions and when they challenge him on something that frankly is a legit question he goes and nukes them with a "why do you care". I'd have answered, you know, just why do I care about your shitty cheating characters?

>>11608

The way he acts when a fan talks to him at cons? Makes me want to vomit.

You know this is the prime example of why you can't have porn characters then try to have a sensible story with them, don't they have a fucking baby?

>>11610
People with kids aren't allowed to have sex lives?

>>11610

Porn + Good story + Good characters can co-exist.

I can't imagine that, with all the trashy romance novels out there, one has yet to get it right.

It just takes someone with good writing skills.

>>11594

Ironically, whenever Naylor tries to make a character that every one is supposed to hate, the opposite usually happens.

>>11606

tl;dr men cheating is ok, women cheating is not ok.. unless it's with Fisk.

>>11609

Elaborate, please. I've never seen him at a convention.

>>11612

Actually i've read some smut online which actuall happens to have some good characters and story in it. The problem is that it's usually not the mian focus to have good story in smut becuase most of the audience is'nt interested in that, or will quickly lose interest in the story.

Example- Wow, i really like this story and the characters are really well thought ou- zOMG!LOOK! I CAN SEE HER NIPPLE!!1!

How else could Naylor manage to make money off of his trash?

>>11613

Basically he ignores them completely except for clipped, curt responses ("Hi." "Nope." "Yep.") while looking everywhere except at the person addressing him, or on the rare occasion he actually does talk, it's in a highbrow, "Okay, I'll humor the peons" manner.

>>11614

So he thinks that he's so high and mighty that he doesn't need to address 'commoners'?

>>11615

Sounds about right; remember, this is a guy who once dismissed his detractors because he claimed he was "something they cannot understand".

Seriously.

>>11616
Don't forget "Why do you always talk down to people?" "Because they keep talking up to me."

>>11617

What the fuck does that even mean, anyway?

>>11618

Talking up, I would assume, is basically fawning behavior.

>>11611

It's not that, it's just random gay buttsecks with no cohesive reasoning other then profit. Naylor knows fans have been pandering for some gay-porns and he probably secretly habours some attraction to it (at least artistically it seems to be that way..) I mean yeah, ex porn-star junkie may be keen on the idea but her husband whom was cured of any homosexuality suddenly into a threesome with an ex-lover? After being married,with a kid and as Naylor wrote 'settled down'? Again, nonsensical but I imagine he is going to make alot on this one considering the content.

>>11627
You misunderstand my post, I think. I wasn't questioning the line in >>11610 about not doing both regular stories and porn featuring the same characters; though it's not impossible to do well, it can be difficult even for talented writers, which puts it well beyond Naylor's reach. The part I was questioning was...

>...don't they have a fucking baby?

...which seems to suggest that it's somehow improper to have a sex life if you also have a baby.

>>11634

I may be wrong, but what they might have been implying is that some people might see it as morally wrong to be screwing with a guy when she has a baby with another, or possibly even WHERE is the baby?

I see Persia in the second panel. That's literally the only character in any panel I can actually make out. I'm just going to have to take Naylor's word for it that this is a Persia/Flounce/Mikey threesome.

I can make out what's going on. It doesn't make sense in sequence, but...

1. Mikey is tonguing Persia's snatch. (That's his hair spike near the upper right.)

2. She's switched positions (somehow) and is now sitting on his neck, popping bottle of lube, and for reasons I don't get Mikey's scared like the might of God and The Holy Choir are about to run up and hold a party in his poopchute.

3. Persia, with lubed up hand, strokes Flounce's chest.

4-5-6. Then she lubes up his dick, pressed up against Mikey's backside, shoves a sausage-finger inside to grease the slide, and makes a face up at Flounce.

I'm guessing Flounce is standing on the bed, as we've seen him as shorter than Persia several times.

The weirdest part seems to be the transition between 1 and 2--Mikey is applying his oral skills to Persia from underneath with her ass in the air (her tail's facing upwards), but in the panel he's suddenly face down, not to mention going from a grin of sorts to sudden unadulterated fear at the sound of a bottle being opened. It's jarring, aside from just trying to figure out what's going on in the beginning.

Though I know why Mikey's scared. The more I look at Persia's facial expression in panel 2, the more _I_ get scared. THOSE EYES. THOSE...EYES...

>>11617

>>Don't forget "Why do you always talk down to people?" "Because they keep talking up to me."

>>11619

>>Talking up, I would assume, is basically fawning behavior.

Heh, if Naylor has a problem with that then he should'nt ban anyone who does'nt do just that.

>>11666

always thought that was persia licking mikey's ass..huh.

I guess the tuft of black hair is the only indication..i looked and look and see no vagina.

>>11671

It's because Naylor draws some weird-ass Virginia. The only things that I see to absolutely make it Persia is the placement of what he's licking (down, in the front of the pelvis, opposite the tail), the fluffy tail (Flounce's is smooth), and the slight triangular shape. My guess is she was straddling his face, and is now pulling away.

Oh, and if it were a rimjob we'd be treated to loving closeups and cutaway views.

I think Persia's rimming Mikey. The pointed teeth are there.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3189497/#cid:23785297
I tried to phrase the critique politely, and Naylor's response was...civil, if not a little taciturn. That's not really the problem here (surprisingly enough, given his usual reputation for handling criticism.) Rather, it's his actual answer.

"It's more clear with the other pages accompanying?" Really? Any artists here care to weigh on on whether or not it's ever a good idea to A) design a page that's impossible to read without other pages nearby to put it in context, and B) take that impossible-to-read-without-the-other-pages page away from the other pages that allegedly give it context and promote it as a single sample? Is it supposed to stand on its own, or not?

Persia looks like she's still coked out of her mind. That expression in the first panel is weirdin' me.

Imagine someone being loyal to you out of a sense of moral necessity, as opposed to out of a sense of their own happiness and comfortability. A sense that you fulfill someone else's selfish desire is a truly earned point of pride. A sense that someone's just with you because they feel morally obligated to, is not an earned point of pride. That they have a loving feeling for someone else and would prefer to be with them, is what matters, not that they did or didn't have sex before or after they broke up with you. The love they have for the other person is what is relevant, not the act of sex.

It may or may not be wise for someone to come out right away and reveal their intentions and feelings to the person they want to break up with, depending on their situation. They may be with a combative partner who is hard to talk to. They may be living with the person and setting themselves up for many uncomfortable days and nights before they've made plans to leave. It's all a personal decision about when they feel it's the right time, and an appeal to "loyalty" and veiled insults relating to having "spine" are just hollow words cast from a presumptuous outsider.


Earned point of pride? What? Is that some objective bullshit or something? Also what's with all the 'moral obligation' he is pulling out of his ass about his characters? Robert left his partner because she was 'fat,spent his money and bitched', Flounce left his partner cause...? He was lazy? Elizabeth's husband merely had an affair and she did the same.. but nothing was very in depth there.. So far as that one guy who married Shelia.. that seemed more of a 'moral obligation' of bitter married couples but then again they had kids.
But nothing ever goes deep enough in a story to explain this even moderately, its just 'Hey this guy/girl is an asshole, Im gonna leave em!'

>>11679

It's bad layout design. Viewer should never not be able to tell what's going on. The pictures should be able to tell the story sans text.

It's one page of a multi-page comic, taken completely out of context. And honestly...is there anyone who posts on this board that can draw any better? Not "I have access to pron in my archives", but ACTUALLY DRAW THEMSELVES. Also bear in mnd that this IS a porn comic he's drawing here...that there's ANY sort of story involved is impressive.


Playing devil's advocate cuz I can.

(And nothing of value was lost.)

>>11695

I say, how long have you been on this board?

Actually I do draw (good enough to win competitions) and even though I'm not a pornographer, even I know that the reader should be able to understand what is going on. On this page, the characters are so similar despite being different species, I prolly wouldn't have known this was a threesome if he hadn't kept it in his written description. As for context, well that still makes it a piss poor example page. What if the rest of the series is just as awkward and jumbled?

He really needs to review story boarding but good luck telling this artist how to improve anything. He just writes people off as "jealous" or "wrong".

>>11695
That's the lamest, most contrived argument one could offer. "What? You think My Chemical Romance sucks? Pfft, I don't see YOU making millions with your music!" "What's that? Stephanie Meyer is a bad author? Let's see you do better, hotshot!" Similarly, I'm not allowed to have an opinion women because I'm not one, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the Senate because I'm not in it, and I'm not allowed to have an opinion on nuclear weapons because I don't own any and have never been incinerated by any.

Point being, just because you don't/can't draw doesn't mean you can't criticize Naylor's artwork.

>>11695
OH LOOK IT'S THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN

>>11695

>is there anyone who posts on this board that can draw any better?

That fallacy is the last desperate attempt of a bootlicker who can't argue worth a damn to discredit those whom he is arguing against.

I should ban you for that. But you're lucky I'm in a generally good mood. (The other mods, however, I can't speak for.)

In short: we're going to rip on Naylor's shit until we're sick and tired of it, and if you don't like it, you can kiss our asses. Or better yet, go kiss Naylor's ass; literally or metaphorically, I don't care which.

>>11695

>>And honestly...is there anyone who posts on this board that can draw any better?

...you'd be surprised. And even if there weren't, that's still a retarded argument.

>>11695

I was instructed by a master that said that everyone is an expert on anatomy when it comes to seeing and understanding. Even if you don't draw, you can tell something is wrong. The difficulty is translating your innate knowledge into works of art and she claimed that was only a matter of rigorous training that anyone can learn how to do(The talented just have an easier time at it).

If I put full effort into drawing every day, studying everyday, and honing my craft, I guarantee I would be a better artist than Jay Naylor. There's no doubt in my mind.

>>11695

>Playing devil's advocate cuz I can.

Prepare for really-fucking-foreseen consequences.

>>11695
Yeah, but you see, just approx. 10 pages of random sex that doesn't fit together doesn't work. You NEED SOME KIND of storyline, otherwise it's nothing better than some random sketches with boxes around them.
Besides, most of us here CAN draw proportionately. We don't all have fancy webcomics and charge people to look at our stuff, but if we critique art, it's because we know better.


--Also, the banned person won't be able to read this, is it a good idea to let the banned people see the rest of their argument for about 20 posts? So they can 'read and weep' or soemthing? I dunno, I think it'd be kinda funny.

>>11695 Raises hand.

It doesn't matter if it's one page or one panel, if the viewer is confused about what's going on, you've taken them out of the story and thus your layout is not effective. You don't even have to be a great artist to do linear visual story telling. The minute people are guessing what's going on, you've done something wrong.

>>11714

This

so I'm still trying to figure out who the mystery character is on page 6 of the last chapter of better gays. What if it's Mikey? It's a stretch, but it was never resolved and Naylor would be the type to pull some gay piece of idiocy like that.

if it turns out that it is, I will shit a brick. Not because I'm so surprised, but because that would be the stupidest plot twist ever.

>>11769 Fisk gave the herm hyena a buttbaby!

Where's dat shoop of it?

>>11769

>it was never resolved
>Naylor

Gee, imagine that.

>>11771

Ah yes, "Unresolved Plot Point #49."

From the Twit's Twitter:

Looking at a next week release for the latest adult project. Then something else small before the third RRH installment.

Buckle up. Badly boarded buttsechs next week, then more antics with the wolves and lolis.

>>11769

It's Fisk's illegitimate child he fathered with the hyena. He/she will turn up in Original Life sometime to fuck things up royally, mark my words.

>>11838

nope - wont happen. naylor would never allow an action fisk does to have negative consequences

inb4"oh balls"

So when is this comic due out or is it gona be done soon or what ?

>>11771
Yes, by golly, Naylor and unresolved issues? Blasphemy!
>>11861
You're not very bright are you? Reading wasn't your strong point? >>11799

Drawing a gay porn comic is easy. It's like drawing two halves of a straight porn comic and putting them together.

http://twitter.com/JayRNaylor/status/7730110610

>>11939
Hrm. This is closer than the 'I'm not implying that bisexuality is immature' comment in his journal.
... We're very close to the motherload people, tread carefully.

Jay nay will love to role play wiff dess bitches

>>11939

>>11939

>>Drawing a gay porn comic is easy. It's like drawing two halves of a straight porn comic and putting them together.

What, i mean... what. Am i the only one who doesn't understand what he just siad?

>>11943

I get it, it's just retarded. He's basically writing two straight scripts, then taking the female out of both and gluing the remnants together--in short, where the Male in Story A would be doing something to a woman originally, he'll now do it to the man from Story B, who will respond as he would to his own woman...it's like Choose Your Own Adventure: The Very Back Of The Closet.

I think that tweet broke my brain.

Win @ "Choose Your Own Adventure: The Very Back Of The Closet."

We get it Jay, you like to cut and paste. But anyone who's been looking at your art can tell.

That tweet made my brain hurt a lot. I wonder how Jay's "friends" feel about his belief of making a gay comic...

Not sure if I should follow Naylor in order to just call him out on his inane ramblings.

>>11982

This implies he has friends.

>>11939
Sure it starts out "gay porn is easy to draw" next thing is "Fags aren't bad people" then the slippery slope to "MAN I LUV SUCKIN' DICKS!"

>>11985

I don't think you have to follow him to reply to him on Twitter. Just plug @JayRNaylor into a tweet, and as long as you aren't blocked, he'll probably see it.

>>12002

But you'll probably only get to fire one off before you're blocked.