He's completely naked. No clothes at all. Full frontal on that second link.

Different strokes for different folks. There are some pretty weird tastes out there that wouldn't necessarily be deemed "porn" by the average person. But if an image elicits sexual arousal in a viewer, it is still porn as far as they are concerned.

Type into Google Image Search (at your own risk) this exactly: gogbear

Are you attempting to imply that I use my work PC to look at inappropriate content and, therefore, my search results in Google are showing me overweight guys in tiny speedos because it thinks that's what I want to see? If so, I take offense.

Internet keeps surprising me. I've read and experienced google introduced the policy not to turn up with explicit images when something is not explicitely searched for (the name of a pornstar usually turns up only face and clothed images), yet 'pussies' doesn't reveal any cute kittens [just found out when trying to make a joke about full frontal nude kittens, but failing].

Sorry, I'm getting distracted into off-topic talk.
Thanks for the explanation. I think it's neither my nor your fault that I can't see what you see. Your Google search is done on a US based Google and however I try to access Google.com, Google.us, due to Google being context sensitive it always will default to Google.nl on my rig and turn up the 10 items I described above.

But I found what you saw, by using Duckduckgo to search free of context:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=gogbear THIS is NSFW! At least, not safe for those fat men's own health!

I didn't even think about the fact that we were searching through different regional context sorters. Derp. Props for your due diligence though, sir.

Try this one -> http://www.google.com/ncr

ncr is "no country redirect", so it won't redirect you to google.nl