# Is furry porn zoophilia?



## Dan Skunk (Feb 19, 2010)

I had a couple friends arguing with me that it was.

I don't think so myself, of course.


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

No, Zoophilia is the act of sexual interourse with animals.


----------



## Morroke (Feb 19, 2010)

This will be a fun thread.


----------



## torachi (Feb 19, 2010)

No, because that would make me a zoophile, and I'm not, so it's not.


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

torachi said:


> No, because that would make me a zoophile, and I'm not, so it's not.


 

Great logic there bud..


----------



## Carenath (Feb 19, 2010)

inb4rauken
Short answer.. it's debatable as the former can include the latter.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 19, 2010)

It's borderline. 

I look at it like this, if you're attracted to the animal features, then yes, you are a zoophile. 

I'll use Blotch as an example. They actually draw dog dick on their characters.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Feb 19, 2010)

leon said:


> No, Zoophilia is the act of sexual interourse with animals.


That's bestiality.
The suffix "philia" regards attraction.

*OP:* Yes. Otherwise you'd be fapping to plain humans, not animal-human hybrids.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 19, 2010)

In the purely linguistic sense: no. Zoophilia refers specifically to liking animals.

Psychologically... well then yes, furry porn is zoophilic.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 19, 2010)

If you want to stick your dick in a humanoid with a dog head: no.  It's an anthro character.

If you want to stick your dick in a dog: you're a zoophile.

If you HAVE stuck your dick in a dog, you've committed bestiality.


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

Telnac said:


> If you want to stick your dick in a humanoid with a dog head: no. It's an anthro character.
> 
> If you want to stick your dick in a dog: you're a zoophile.
> 
> If you HAVE stuck your dick in a dog, you've committed bestiality.


 

Disregard my previous statement.

This.


----------



## wolfrunner7 (Feb 19, 2010)

Telnac said:


> If you want to stick your dick in a humanoid with a dog head: no.  It's an anthro character.
> 
> If you want to stick your dick in a dog: you're a zoophile.
> 
> If you HAVE stuck your dick in a dog, you've committed bestiality.




Right on the $$ ...

Don't ask, don't tell ...


----------



## torachi (Feb 19, 2010)

leon said:


> Great logic there bud..


 
Yeah, a touch of dry wit was the point there, bud.


----------



## Unsilenced (Feb 19, 2010)

I would say that if you have an attraction to animal characteristics, it's still zoophilia. 

Can understand not wanting to think of oneself as a zoophile though...


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

torachi said:


> Yeah, a touch of dry wit was the point there, bud.


 
Not much wit there to begin with let alone it being dry.


----------



## MeadowTheDragon (Feb 19, 2010)

is animal porn legal?


----------



## JoeStrike (Feb 19, 2010)

If an anthro 'animal' has human intelligence & a semi-human appearance, it's *not* a real-world animal and therefore it's not bestiality (real-world sexual contact with a real-world animal) or zoophilia ((real-world sexual desire for real-world animals). It is, however a kinky fantasy (not that there's anything wrong with that.) I do have to say when it comes to fap material, art of a human being being naughty with an anthro character squicks me out; anthro/anthro porn seems much more...natural.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

Anthro animals are basically "Humans" that have followed a different evolutionary line. The different species they are can be considered races in itself. If that were the case that Anthro characters were zoophiliac, then by logic, that Twilek you are fapping to is Zoophilic in nature.


What makes some art Zoophillic in nature is if it has certain "Sexualized" parts of animals, like the genitals, or if it is just plain feral it can be considered Zoophilic in nature.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 19, 2010)

MeadowTheDragon said:


> is animal porn legal?


Depends where you live. Some places don't allow the distribution of bestiality, but in America the laws are very vague. In some places the act is a felony, but the ownership of porn is debatable.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Depends really. The only Furry shit I like is usually mostly Human by 80% save some more hair some new ears and a tail perhaps even some minor facial swaps  (Not into woman with a  dog head FUCK NO.)


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Yes and no, but I don't really care. I like it anyway.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 19, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> It's borderline.
> 
> I look at it like this, if you're attracted to the animal features, then yes, you are a zoophile.
> 
> I'll use Blotch as an example. They actually draw dog dick on their characters.



This, pretty much.

The really feral porn is zoo, by no stretch of the imagination.

The really toony stuff is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Most falls somewhere in between.

If you know someone who only likes feral porn and complain there aren't enough realistic looking dog dicks they are a zoophile.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> This, pretty much.
> 
> The really feral porn is zoo, by no stretch of the imagination.
> 
> ...



Or if most of their Favs are Blotch.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 19, 2010)

Furry porn can't be zoophilia because zoophilia is an emotional attraction to animals, the key being emotional.

It could be considered bestiality porn, since there is an aspect of an animal. Furs say, "look at the sexy wolf," rather than, "Look at the sexy human."


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Furry porn can't be zoophilia because zoophilia is an emotional attraction to animals, the key being emotional.
> 
> It could be considered bestiality porn, since there is an aspect of an animal. Furs say, "look at the sexy wolf," rather than, "Look at the sexy human."



.....
-head desk-


----------



## Elessara (Feb 19, 2010)

Oh gawd... not this again...


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 19, 2010)

Zoophilia is defined as a paraphilia towards actual animals and not anthropomorphic ones. I think that pretty much covers it.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Furry porn can't be zoophilia because zoophilia is an emotional attraction to animals, the key being emotional.
> 
> It could be considered bestiality porn, since there is an aspect of an animal. Furs say, "look at the sexy wolf," rather than, "Look at the sexy human."


something is wrong with you.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 19, 2010)

> something is wrong with you.



I assume that means you disagree with me but can't find a flaw in my post?


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I assume that means you disagree with me but can't find a flaw in my post?


 ... Your argument is about as flawed as the Titanic's hull was as it hit the ocean floor.
Zoophilia is attraction to animals. PERIOD. Bestiality is fucking animals. PERIOD. Don't say else wise or your just deluding yourself and sounding like you are trying to justify something you should have no interest in.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 19, 2010)

> ... Your argument is about as flawed as the Titanic's hull was as it hit the ocean floor.
> Zoophilia is attraction to animals. PERIOD. Bestiality is fucking animals. PERIOD. Don't say else wise or your just deluding yourself and sounding like you are trying to justify something you should have no interest in.



o.0 When did I say otherwise? What are you disagreeing with?


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 19, 2010)

Beyond a shadow of doubt, yes.

I am the biggest furry here.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> o.0 When did I say otherwise? What are you disagreeing with?


 hahaha emotional attraction.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 19, 2010)

> hahaha emotional attraction.



Yes... As it's defined by sexologists. Professionals > random person on the internet.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Yes... As it's defined by sexologists. Professionals > random person on the internet.


 Mainstream psychologists disagree with many sexologists (which is not a well recognized field) on many things... I side with the prior group.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 19, 2010)

> Mainstream psychologists disagree with many sexologists (which is not a well recognized field) on many things... I side with the prior group.



Let me get this straight. Because some psychologists disagree with some sexologists, you are going to disagree with whatever sexologists say, regardless of whether there is any disagreement about that particular topic? If a sexologist says rape is bad will you disagree with that too?


----------



## Aurali (Feb 19, 2010)

blahblahblah, 

It depends on how you define a few things. 
So honestly, yes, and no..

Now the question is.. I know 4 people on this thread who are zoophiliacs admittedly in one form or another... so how close is the fandoms ties to the bestial ones.. and how many of you actually would do it if there could be legal/proven consent. :/


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

God I am mundane here a strait man who has no interest in animals in any sexual context. God I feel like a minority.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Let me get this straight. Because some psychologists disagree with some sexologists, you are going to disagree with whatever sexologists say, regardless of whether there is any disagreement about that particular topic? If a sexologist says rape is bad will you disagree with that too?


 on this matter? My choice is obvious as emotional attraction has fundamentals based in physicality as well, Plus the diagnosis is not done by someone in a field which is regarded by many.. many academics as a "new wave offshoot"  more then a serious field.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 19, 2010)

> on this matter? My choice is obvious as emotional attraction has fundamentals based in physicality as well, Plus the diagnosis is not done by someone in a field which is regarded by many.. many academics as a "new wave offshoot" more then a serious field.



Fair enough, though I don't think it's too difficult to figure out whether someone has an emotional atttachment to something.


----------



## HoneyPup (Feb 19, 2010)

I'd say its borderline.
I think in a way, it sort of is. It seems to me that furries who look at it, like it for the animal traits just as much as the human form. And then, it also isn't exactly zoophilic because it is still the human form. 

I can see why furries get defensive about this, but like it or not, it is crossing over the line. 
Still there is a big difference between enjoying looking at animals (anthro or not) having sex and actually wanting to fuck real animals. 

I really don't care either way. It's all just fantasy.


----------



## Hateful Bitch (Feb 19, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> a strait man


lol


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Teto said:


> lol


 What?


----------



## TDK (Feb 19, 2010)

No. Because if that were the case then every fur would be in violation of bestiality laws in about 47 states >:<. DON'T LIE FURS, YOU KNOW YOU WOULD TAKE IT TO THIRD BASE WITH THE DOG DOWN THE STREET IF YOU HAD THE CHANCE.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Furry porn can't be zoophilia because zoophilia is an emotional attraction to animals, the key being emotional.
> 
> It could be considered bestiality porn, since there is an aspect of an animal. Furs say, "look at the sexy wolf," rather than, "Look at the sexy human."



Trivial fucking pedantics.

It is zoophilia porn, aka porn made for zoophiles.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

By summary of everyone's posts:

Furries are, without a doubt, closet Zoophiles when they look at the porn. :V

Lol que?!


----------



## Xipoid (Feb 19, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> What?




Strait is a narrow channel of water that joins two larger bodies. Straight is the word you were looking for.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> By summary of everyone's posts:
> 
> Furries are, without a doubt, closet Zoophiles when they look at the porn. :V
> 
> Lol que?!



 Sadly, too many people admit to liking it..

Many many more won't do so.



Xipoid said:


> Strait is a narrow channel of water that joins two larger bodies. Straight is the word you were looking for.


hey! don't make fun of a guy just cause he likes to be in the middle...


----------



## Ricky (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> By summary of everyone's posts:
> 
> Furries are, without a doubt, closet Zoophiles when they look at the porn. :V
> 
> Lol que?!



I'm going to add "only if it's feral."

I like some furry porn but only the more toony stuff.  The realistic stuff does nothing for me and 100% sure I have no sexual attraction to RL animals.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

Xipoid said:


> Strait is a narrow channel of water that joins two larger bodies. Straight is the word you were looking for.


 aye thanks. common spellings irk me.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I'm going to add "only if it's feral."
> 
> I like some furry porn but only the more toony stuff.  The realistic stuff does nothing for me and 100% sure I have no sexual attraction to RL animals.



Adding non-human animal genitalia puts it into the realm of "Uncanny valley" as well as Zoophilic in nature (IMO). 

Feral porn is just Zoo.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

What if you do not find anthro porn really that attractive at all? Hell I would not be able to get off on that.


----------



## TDK (Feb 19, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> What if you do not find anthro porn really that attractive at all? Hell I would not be able to get off on that.



Then you'd be a pretty shitty furry. Just ask H&K, he's a pro at being the least sexually charged furry ever.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

TDK said:


> Then you'd be a pretty shitty furry. Just ask H&K, he's a pro at being the least sexually charged furry ever.


=[


----------



## Ricky (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Adding non-human animal genitalia puts it into the realm of "Uncanny valley" as well as Zoophilic in nature (IMO).
> 
> Feral porn is just Zoo.



Agreed.



The Drunken Ace said:


> What if you do not find anthro porn really that attractive at all? Hell I would not be able to get off on that.



Then you're not a normal member of this fandumb. (as you already stated)

That, or a repressed furfag


----------



## TDK (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> =[



Awww... I know what'll cheer you up. Wanna yiff? Then maybe play some Bioshock 2 afterward? =)


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

TDK said:


> Then you'd be a pretty shitty furry. Just ask H&K, he's a pro at being the least sexually charged furry ever.



lolz

but he did... never mind


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 19, 2010)

TDK said:


> Then you'd be a pretty shitty furry. Just ask H&K, he's a pro at being the least sexually charged furry ever.


 for me its a rare thing for me to even like antros beyond just art. Sure i was into it for a short while but it was a novelty thing, wore thin months ago. hand me a real woman or some nice lesbian porn or something I will enjoy that.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

TDK said:


> Awww... I know what'll cheer you up. Wanna yiff? Then maybe play some Bioshock 2 afterward? =)


No yiffing =[



LonelyKitsune said:


> lolz
> 
> but he did... never mind


I didn't do anything


----------



## TDK (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> No yiffing =[



*No blackmail opportunity* Well what about Bioshock 2 at least? I know my favorite gun company loves his Bioshock 2!


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I didn't do anything



lol damn i love messing with you! XD


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

TDK said:


> *No blackmail opportunity* Well what about Bioshock 2 at least? I know my favorite gun company loves his Bioshock 2!


I tried the MP the other day, and while it seemed like it had potential, it was really laggy for me for some reason... Damn the lack of dedicated servers...



LonelyKitsune said:


> lol damn i love messing with you! XD



I don't. =[


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I don't. =[



aww, dont be that way.

you know i love you!


----------



## Whitemountaintiger (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I tried the MP the other day, and while it seemed like it had potential, it was really laggy for me for some reason... Damn the lack of dedicated servers...



That's because so many people are playing it. I want that game.
Back on the subject. Since I don't get off to yiff, I can easily call it borderline. Like previously stated, it depends on what parts you like about it.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

LonelyKitsune said:


> aww, dont be that way.
> 
> you know i love you!


Yes, you love me too much... Way too much... =[


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 19, 2010)

Yeah it's not. For the simple fact that they're anthros.
If you were attracted to only the animal features then sure.
But most people who don't identify as a zoo, will say that yes
they have animal features, and without them they'd just be humans,
but without the human parts they'd just be animals, and in that case,
I wouldn't find them attractive at all. :<

And also, I dun like dogcock.


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Yes, you love me too much... Way too much... =[



ya, your probably right! 
i need to find someone els to fuck around with.

But that would feel like im cheating on you... lol


no, i would like to think that furry porn is *not* zoophilia.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

LonelyKitsune said:


> ya, your probably right!
> i need to find someone els to fuck around with.
> 
> But that would feel like im cheating on you... lol
> ...


How would you be cheating on me if we don't have a relationship?


----------



## Tycho (Feb 19, 2010)

brb, putting a curse on OP that will make his genitals shrivel and fall off, in retaliation for exhuming a dead stinky horse.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 19, 2010)

It can't really be called bestiality when the anthros involved are human in nature, i.e. can make their own decisions and judgments and thus consent.

As for zoophilia, that's a bit more debatable.  I guess you could say that it partially zoophilic is because it's humans with animal characteristics applied... but it's not complete zoophilia because I, and most other furries, don't find actual animals sexually attractive.

So my answer is, partially, but not completely.


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> How would you be cheating on me if we don't have a relationship?



JK dude, i will leave you alone from now on. :3

Truce?


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

LonelyKitsune said:


> JK dude, i will leave you alone from now on. :3
> 
> Truce?


Never, I don't take the pussy way out, it's do or die man!


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

Qoph said:


> It can't really be called bestiality when the anthros involved are human in nature, i.e. can make their own decisions and judgments and thus consent.
> 
> As for zoophilia, that's a bit more debatable.  I guess you could say that it partially zoophilic is because it's humans with animal characteristics applied... but it's not complete zoophilia because I, and most other furries, don't find actual animals sexually attractive.
> 
> So my answer is, partially, but not completely.



^this


----------



## LonelyKitsune (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Never, I don't take the pussy way out, it's do or die man!



Oh, i can do, and i will never die, so bring it! lol


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

LonelyKitsune said:


> Oh, i can do, and i will never die, so bring it! lol


You'll never take me alive damnit!


----------



## Tabasco (Feb 19, 2010)

Furry porn involves sentient, pretend animals or anthros.

Zoophilia and beastiality involve real, non-sentient animals.

Not the same imho.


----------



## Carenath (Feb 19, 2010)

Telnac said:


> If you want to stick your dick in a humanoid with a dog head: no.  It's an anthro character.
> 
> If you want to stick your dick in a dog: you're a zoophile.
> 
> If you HAVE stuck your dick in a dog, you've committed bestiality.


Again, this is highly debatable, and you'll have half a dozen and 6 of the other arguing over it ad nauseam.

You could argue that "its an anthro character" is just a cop-out to allow furries to save face and avoid dealing with an uncomfortable association with people who like boning fido.
Equally, what you said, can be held valid, it is subjective and I do not believe everyone will ever agree to a definitive answer on the subject no matter how long this debate goes on.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 19, 2010)

Well I can't answer this as I'm biased so


----------



## Aurali (Feb 19, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Again, this is highly debatable, and you'll have half a dozen and 6 of the other arguing over it ad nauseam.
> 
> You could argue that "its an anthro character" is just a cop-out to allow furries to save face and avoid dealing with an uncomfortable association with people who like boning fido.
> Equally, what you said, can be held valid, it is subjective and I do not believe everyone will ever agree to a definitive answer on the subject no matter how long this debate goes on.



I broke down laughing.. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Again, this is highly debatable, and you'll have half a dozen and 6 of the other arguing over it ad nauseam.
> 
> You could argue that "its an anthro character" is just a cop-out to allow furries to save face and avoid dealing with an uncomfortable association with people who like boning fido.
> Equally, what you said, can be held valid, it is subjective and I do not believe everyone will ever agree to a definitive answer on the subject no matter how long this debate goes on.



People will say it is because of the fact that it does not like a pinkskinned tail-less ape and it is not of the norm (To some).

Yeah, it can be based on perception and how others view it, but if you take a look at it deeper, you can tell which anthro works have Zoophilic tendencies and others that do not and the treatment of the art by the artist.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 19, 2010)

hey guys


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Or if most of their Favs are Blotch.



Blotch is cool okay? Geeze.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Blotch is cool okay? Geeze.



Seconded, Name one artist BETTER than blotch....


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Seconded, Name one artist BETTER than blotch....


 
Many, becuase it's all on personal preference, I could like Dave hopkins and say he's better than Blotch.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Seconded, Name one artist BETTER than blotch....



Ratte.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Seconded, Name one artist BETTER than blotch....


the two artists that is Blotch


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Ratte.


 
Ratte is amazing.


----------



## CaptainCool (Feb 19, 2010)

Aurali said:


> Ratte.



seconded! ratte's art needs more attention >:

about this topic... no, its not. anthros are hybrids and no real animals. if you look a little closer they are even closer to humans than they are to animals! the shape has animalistic traits but everything else is rather human


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 19, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Yes... As it's defined by sexologists. Professionals > random person on the internet.


 
That's dumb logic. Professionals are not infallible and are wrong on many things.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> the two artists that is Blotch



I'm well aware that Blotch is actually two people....anyone who didn't know that isn't a true blotch fan....




leon said:


> Ratte is amazing.



I agree although most of his pics don't get me as hawt as Blotch
In other words, great artist but bad yiffist (yiff artist) 
<333


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> I'm well aware that Blotch is actually two people....anyone who didn't know that isn't a true blotch fan....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's two artists? 

And I like most of his pictures. Hotness <3

Also, canine dicks>human dicks.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> He's two artists?
> 
> And I like most of his pictures. Hotness <3
> 
> Also, canine dicks>human dicks.


Change your avatar back


----------



## FluffMouse (Feb 19, 2010)

If you like dogcock, yes. Why? Because it's dogcock.. and you know.. humans can't have a dogcock.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

SugarMental said:


> If you like dogcock, yes. Why? Because it's dogcock.. and you know.. humans can't have a dogcock.



Then I'm obviously into bestiality.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Then I'm obviously into bestiality.


Freak. >=[


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Then I'm obviously into bestiality.



Bestiality =/= Liking dog cock.....if you would pleasure a canine in real life then it does but looking at yiff that just happens to show one is not bestiality....


----------



## Seriman (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Bestiality =/= Liking dog cock.....if you would pleasure a canine in real life then it does but looking at yiff that just happens to show one is not bestiality....


>_< !!! I couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Bestiality =/= Liking dog cock.....if you would pleasure a canine in real life then it does but looking at yiff that just happens to show one is not bestiality....


That's like saying looking at child porn doesn't mean you are sexually attracted to children.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> That's like saying looking at child porn doesn't mean you are sexually attracted to children.



So what if I fucked Fido? You're some kind of freaky child porn addict.

Mine is totally the lesser of two evils.

_*AND NO i WILL NOT CHANGE MY AVATAR BACK!!!!!*_


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> So what if I fucked Fido? You're some kind of freaky child porn addict.
> 
> Mine is totally the lesser of two evils.


Just because there are worse things out there than giving fido the bone doesn't mean it's normal or acceptable behavior.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> So what if I fucked Fido? You're some kind of freaky child porn addict.
> 
> Mine is totally the lesser of two evils.
> 
> _*AND NO i WILL NOT CHANGE MY AVATAR BACK!!!!!*_


 
But still an evil.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Just because there are worse things out there than giving fido the bone doesn't mean it's normal or acceptable behavior.



This still doesn't change the fact that you wank to miley cyrus.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> That's like saying looking at child porn doesn't mean you are sexually attracted to children.



No, it's more like saying looking at those school uniform hotties (which happen to be considered children) is like being sexually attracted to children....I think we can all distinguish between the pictures and reality itself.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> This still doesn't change the fact that you wank to miley cyrus.


When did I ever say that? =[


----------



## Ricky (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Also, canine dicks>human dicks.



*rocks back and forth* please be a troll...  please be a troll...  please be a troll...


----------



## Tommy (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> This still doesn't change the fact that you wank to miley cyrus.



Oh god.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> *rocks back and forth* please be a troll...  please be a troll...  please be a troll...



I'm not, sorry to disappoint.

Well maybe... But only with Heckler.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> I'm not, sorry to disappoint.
> 
> Well maybe... But only with Heckler.


The comic your avatar is from is terrible.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> The comic your avatar is from is terrible.



Didn't we already establish this?


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Didn't we already establish this?


I need to convince him to go back to the old one, which was better


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Didn't we already establish this?



We did, but I still stand firm in my belief that it's an awesome comic.

*I'M NOT GOING BACK TO MY OLD ONE JESUS!!!!!!*


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> We did, but I still stand firm in my belief that it's an awesome comic.
> 
> *I'M NOT GOING BACK TO MY OLD ONE JESUS!!!!!!*


I liked your old one, this one sucks and is from the most furry cliche comic ever.

The first few strips were funny but then he tried to make some sort of plot for it and it sucked.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I liked your old one, this one sucks and is from the most furry cliche comic ever.
> 
> The first few strips were funny but then he tried to make some sort of plot for it and it sucked.



I actually like the plot. I don't read it for the comedy.

On Topic: Dog penis.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> I actually like the plot. I don't read it for the comedy.
> 
> On Topic: Dog penis.


You'd probably suck off my dog...


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

I can't even remember the first avatar, do you happen to have a link for it?


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You'd probably suck off my dog...



Possibly and no. It was on my old computer when it got wiped.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Possibly and no. It was on my old computer when it got wiped.


You sick fuck =[


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Seconded, Name one artist BETTER than blotch....



Alectorfencer.



RetroCorn said:


> Blotch is cool okay? Geeze.



There was one Zoo here that had Blotch on their watchlist and faved a lot of their porn.
Just Blotch, mind you. :V
He praised Blotch for making "Accurate dog penises".

On topic: Pene de perro.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> You sick fuck =[



No, I don't do vomit stuff.

I praise blotch for making accurate dog penises.

But mostly for his work. Most amazing use of watercolors ever? Probably.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> I praise blotch for making accurate dog penises.



So, you are a closet Zoo?



> But mostly for his work. Most amazing use of watercolors ever? Probably.



I can agree that they can do watercolors better than some FA artists.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> No, I don't do vomit stuff.
> 
> I praise blotch for making accurate dog penises.
> 
> But mostly for his work. Most amazing use of watercolors ever? Probably.



You're not a true fan!
First off, blotch is run by two women (based on their actual names, not 100% positive though as Teagan is a gender neutral name to me...)

That said, Teagan is actually "colorer" while the other (Tess) draws and they rarely ever use watercolors. Their main materials are acrylic based paint if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> So, you are a closet Zoo?



Who said anything about a closet?

Would I fuck a dog in real life? No. End of story.

Everyone is into weird stuff.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Who said anything about a closet?
> 
> Would I fuck a dog in real life? No. End of story.
> 
> Everyone is into weird stuff.



What about a cat?


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Ricky said:


> What about a cat?



God no. I hate cats. Living with three of them quickly changes your opinion from "Awwww!!! A kitten!!!" To "God I hate these fucking cats!".


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> God no. I hate cats. Living with three of them quickly changes your opinion from "Awwww!!! A kitten!!!" To "God I hate these fucking cats!".



Awww, I loved my cat to death. Miss her so much </3

Edit: No, not literally loved her so much that it killed her...


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Awww, I loved my cat to death. Miss her so much </3
> 
> Edit: No, not literally loved her so much that it killed her...



I like only one of my cats. She was my first pet. ^_^

She's like 9 years old.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> I like only one of my cats. She was my first pet. ^_^
> 
> She's like 9 years old.



Yeah it was hard, she was only 14 (equivalent to like 60 for us) and she didn't drink anything while we were on vacation and she passed about a month later because she was so dehydrated she couldn't eat so we humanely euthanised her.


----------



## Carenath (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> God no. I hate cats. Living with three of them quickly changes your opinion from "Awwww!!! A kitten!!!" To "God I hate these fucking cats!".


Oh God. Try living with a cat who's voice could outdo a jet taking off.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Oh God. Try living with a cat who's voice could outdo a jet taking off.



Why do I not doubt that....Lol I can see it now.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> We did, but I still stand firm in my belief that it's an awesome comic.
> 
> *I'M NOT GOING BACK TO MY OLD ONE JESUS!!!!!!*



concession is fucking stupid.

see, that's anger not directed at you, but at concession because I FUCKING HATE IT.

LOL PENIS JOKE LOL SEX JOKE LOL SEX JOKE WHAT THE FUCK


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> concession is fucking stupid.
> 
> see, that's anger not directed at you, but at concession because I FUCKING HATE IT.
> 
> LOL PENIS JOKE LOL SEX JOKE LOL SEX JOKE WHAT THE FUCK



 Harley you got a new ava! I likez it 

I never read Concession and I don't plan on it now haha.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Anthro animals are basically "Humans" that have followed a different evolutionary line. The different species they are can be considered races in itself. If that were the case that Anthro characters were zoophiliac, then by logic, that Twilek you are fapping to is Zoophilic in nature.
> 
> *
> What makes some art Zoophillic in nature is if it has certain "Sexualized" parts of animals, like the genitals, or if it is just plain feral it can be considered Zoophilic in nature.*



I hate it when artists draw animal genitals on anthro's.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Harley you got a new ava! I likez it
> 
> I never read Concession and I don't plan on it now haha.


It's like smashing your balls with a sledge hammer.


----------



## Bando (Feb 19, 2010)

I have one thing to say to OP:

*Mario voice* NOH!


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> It's like smashing your balls with a sledge hammer.



Gosh, is it really THAT bad??


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Gosh, is it really THAT bad??


Yes, it really is THAT bad. The only people who would ever enjoy it are furries who only care that the comic has sex and furries in it.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 19, 2010)

^ truth


----------



## Bando (Feb 19, 2010)

Agreeing with harley and H&K. I stay away from furry webcomics because of this. That and hardly anything is better than xkcd


----------



## Tommy (Feb 19, 2010)

Bando37 said:


> Agreeing with harley and H&K. I stay away from furry webcomics because of this. *That and hardly anything is better than xkcd*



This.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

Bando37 said:


> Agreeing with harley and H&K. I stay away from furry webcomics because of this. That and hardly anything is better than xkcd


It kills me man. I want a good furry webcomic to kill time with, but all of them are either porn, gay furry adventures, or stupid anime shit. There are no good furry webcomics.


----------



## Bando (Feb 19, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> It kills me man. I want a good furry webcomic to kill time with, but all of them are either porn, gay furry adventures, or stupid anime shit. There are no good furry webcomics.



Exactly. So I stay within gamer and science jokes.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 19, 2010)

Read it before you judge it.

Jesus you people make me sick.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Read it before you judge it.
> 
> Jesus you people make me sick.


I did read the god damn thing. It was horrible.


----------



## Leon (Feb 19, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Read it before you judge it.
> 
> Jesus you people make me sick.


 
Wow getting butthurt over a comic? How original. :V


----------



## Willow (Feb 20, 2010)

Yiffy art and zoophilia fly over each others heads...

Because yiffy are is the same as hentai or normal porn, zoophilia is actually having sex with animals or getting animals to perform sexual acts on you..is there porn for it, yes, but it is in no way furry porn..because they're two totally different things by far...


----------



## Geek (Feb 20, 2010)

Dan Skunk said:


> I had a couple friends arguing with me that it was.
> 
> I don't think so myself, of course.



Anything cartoon animal porn is related to "Toonophilia" and not Zoophilia.

Toonophilia refers to sexual and romantic attraction of a human being toward a cartoon character.


----------



## wolfrunner7 (Feb 20, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> It kills me man. I want a good furry webcomic to kill time with, but all of them are either porn, gay furry adventures, or stupid anime shit. There are no good furry webcomics.



Some might not classify as furry.. but..

DMFA
Dragon Tales
LFG
PoL
D&D
Beyond Rapture

To name a few .. some good, some bad.. lotta the better fury type comics I find tend to go on for a while, then go on indefinite hiatus.  "Sink or Swim" did that .. same as "Sacred Grounds".


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 20, 2010)

is furry porn zoophilia?

YES


----------



## Lazarian (Feb 20, 2010)

DanSkunk asked: "Is furry porn zoophilia?"

Zoophilia is defined as an affinity or affection towards animals, and bestiality is sexual relations with same. The key word here is "animals". Anthropomorphic characters, by definition, are non-humans imbued with human characteristics such as intelligence, mannerisms, etc. Physical characteristics like bipedal form changes the context of the question as well. If you're talking Balto, zoophilia probably is an appropriate term. In the case of a sapient bipedal fox or whatever, no. Xenophilia would be more accurate.

Danskunk, if you're going to drop a charged question on the forum at least stick around and participate in the thread instead of sitting back watching the shitstorm. Or are you going to necro this thing two weeks later like you do over at CYD?


----------



## Delta (Feb 20, 2010)

What if it has nothing to do with the with the liking of animals at all?

I think what a lot of people forget and overlook is that furries are the offspring imagination. Fantasy.

The allure doesn't come from the fact that we're attracted to animals deep down inside, but rather from fact that these beings do not exist (at least on our plain/dimension of existence). 

Simply put: Being only human, we crave what we can not have. Anthropomorphic animals do not exist, so we can not have them. In thus, we crave them.


----------



## Leon (Feb 20, 2010)

Winds said:


> What if it has nothing to do with the with the liking of animals at all?
> 
> I think what a lot of people forget and overlook is that furries are the offspring imagination. Fantasy.
> 
> ...


 
True, but the animal characteristics is what we desire, so in the sense of zoophilia meaning a liking or love for animals, then wouldn't it still be zoophilia?


----------



## Delta (Feb 20, 2010)

leon said:


> True, but the animal characteristics is what we desire, so in the sense of zoophilia meaning a liking or love for animals, then wouldn't it still be zoophilia?


When you say "but the animal characteristics is(are*) we desire" are you speaking for everyone?

A bit bold, dear boy.

I think the reason animal characteristics are used is simply the result of it working. Animals are familiar to us. We can readily distinguish them from one another without much study or training. They are capable of various feats and in a sense we find them beautiful because the natural grace and function they have. 

Mix that up with an artist who has a desirable style, slap some tits on em and give em humanity and we have ourselves an anthro. Sex is natural and wanted by most everyone so that comes along in art gradually so now we have furry porn. 

We're turned on by the sex itself, we're interested in the anthros because they're something that could never happen.

That and they're usually drawn well.
Its hard not to like a flawless hour glass form with huge breasts, perfect hips and a seductive stare. Hell Im attracted to that whether its anthro or human!


----------



## Bando (Feb 20, 2010)

Winds said:


> When you say "but the animal characteristics is(are*) we desire" are you speaking for everyone?
> 
> A bit bold, dear boy.
> 
> ...



Winds, you put this very nicely, couldn't have said it any better myself.


----------



## Leon (Feb 20, 2010)

Winds said:


> When you say "but the animal characteristics is(are*) we desire" are you speaking for everyone?
> 
> A bit bold, dear boy.
> 
> ...


 
True once again, but do you think that the animal features don't draw us in?


----------



## Bando (Feb 20, 2010)

leon said:


> True once again, but do you think that the animal features don't draw us in?



It probably varies from person to person.


----------



## Delta (Feb 20, 2010)

Bando37 said:


> It probably varies from person to person.


Ding.


Its all in what the individual finds attractive.

The concept of sex with something that doesn't exist?

Or the concept of sex with a humanoid animal?

Its all relative to the viewer, my friend.


----------



## Bando (Feb 20, 2010)

Winds said:


> Ding.
> 
> 
> Its all in what the individual finds attractive.
> ...



There is no spoon. Or mabye it's just covered in fur... Hmm...


----------



## Leon (Feb 20, 2010)

Winds said:


> Ding.
> 
> 
> Its all in what the individual finds attractive.
> ...


 
Yes, but the animal qualities are still there, which brings in the concept of zoophilia, but either way it is as you say "relative to the viewer".


----------



## Bando (Feb 20, 2010)

leon said:


> Yes, but the animal qualities are still there, which brings in the concept of zoophilia, but either way it is as you say "relative to the viewer".



Some may find animal features attractive, others may not. It all has to do with the person's own prefrences.


----------



## MeadowTheDragon (Feb 20, 2010)




----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 20, 2010)

I can haz Playfur!? *Beady puppy eyes gleaming in the aura of awesomeness before me.*


----------



## Bando (Feb 20, 2010)

*headdeskX9001*


----------



## Taren Fox (Feb 20, 2010)

o murr furries in g-strings


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

MeadowTheDragon said:


>



Where can one purchase such a hilarious magazine?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 20, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Where can one purchase such a hilarious magazine?



Says canada in the top right....drats


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Says canada in the top right....drats


They have to have it available in the good ol' US of A! It has to be!


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 20, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> They have to have it available in the good ol' US of A! It has to be!



Or the internet....?
Go to google and tell me if you find anything...I wanna do something a bit more productive with it than what you would do....


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Or the internet....?
> Go to google and tell me if you find anything...I wanna do something a bit more productive with it than what you would do....


What, masturbate? I''d laugh at it...

and maybe some of the former...


----------



## Taren Fox (Feb 20, 2010)

This thread needs more furry smut.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> This thread needs more furry smut.


But doesn't everything need more furry smut?


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 20, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> What, masturbate? I''d laugh at it...
> 
> and maybe some of the former...



Not quite, I'd just get hot to it but I have the decency to control myself


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

Every time I scroll through this thread I can't help myself from stopping and lolling at that magazine.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 20, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Every time I scroll through this thread I can't help myself from stopping and lolling at that magazine.



Ah you haven't found the little trick on getting to the end of the post. While you're at "The Den", there's a little orange arrow on the right side of the thread's name. If you click on that with your mouse wheel it will open it up in another tab and will automatically scroll down to the last post. It's very handy.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Ah you haven't found the little trick on getting to the end of the post. While you're at "The Den", there's a little orange arrow on the right side of the thread's name. If you click on that with your mouse wheel it will open it up in another tab and will automatically scroll down to the last post. It's very handy.


yes but do I get to look at giant furry tits if I do that? NO!


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 20, 2010)

leon said:


> Wow getting butthurt over a comic? How original. :V



No, I can't stand ignorance. :S

That and Heckler still owes me a good time. :l


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 20, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> yes but do I get to look at giant furry tits if I do that? NO!



^_^ Good point


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 20, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> ^_^ Good point



I've got a better point...

Giggidy.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 20, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> No, I can't stand ignorance. :S
> 
> That and Heckler still owes me a good time. :l


PM me if you want a good time baby


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 20, 2010)

Winds said:


> When you say "but the animal characteristics is(are*) we desire" are you speaking for everyone?
> 
> A bit bold, dear boy.
> 
> ...


 
I got to agree, that's the reason.


----------



## Duality Jack (Feb 20, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I got to agree, that's the reason.


 seconded. but really I like anthros in more of a pinup style then porn its a thing of beauty that way not just sex.


----------



## Takoto (Feb 20, 2010)

_Zoophilia_ = actually having sex with an animal.

So no.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 20, 2010)

Takoto said:


> _Zoophilia_ = actually having sex with an animal.
> 
> So no.



Wrong. Beastiality is the act of sex with an animal, zoophillia is the sexual interest in an animal.


----------



## Takoto (Feb 20, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Wrong. Beastiality is the act of sex with an animal, zoophillia is the sexual interest in an animal.



Really? Thanks for correcting me. I though they were the same thing, I never really bothered to look them up.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 20, 2010)

roadkill


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Feb 20, 2010)

I kind of decide on a picture by picture basis?

I mean if whatever it is actually has the capability of a seductive expression/humanity rather than looking like some photograph of a dog somebody took at just the right time to sort of have a 'come hither' look until the vomit wells up and I have to close the tab and throw my computer out the window

to give some non-paranoid but sort of new-agey explanation I think some furry shit is sort of knowing features that you'd want in a person but before the conscious mind exactly can figure out what the full person would look like. Like I've seen 2 or 3 girls that were totally ottery but I can't narrow it down to like an exact facial/body structure (I guess the cheeks figure into it) also extracting the potentially hot aspects of people who wouldn't actually be hot (I uh had impure thoughts about Big Blag once but what would the human equivalent to him be? Like somebody who isn't even doing a very good job looking like Jack Black) also credence to this theory that a lot of old school furries that are like in their 40's now draw their characters with like this either 80's or Farrah Fawcett look or I dunno

also people who do many species rather than fixating on specific ones I trust more just playing with the male/female form abstracting from it to a small extent

but some people are just pedos some people are just dog fuckers

also the vast amount of artists who can draw a really nice anthro with loads of personality and then draw some shit-looking human character. I mean the whole part that the anthro character almost does a better job looking human, that kind of artist

also the fact that some species have an anthro 'look' that really doesn't resemble the actual species in any way. Like at least 80% of lizard anthros don't look anything like lizards aside from colors and markings and extra appendages

Edit: to test this theory wiki random anthro characters you like and see if you can find any trivia about "when designing the look of _________ for [Disney Movie I dunno], they incorporated the features/demeanor of actor of screen and stage _________"


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 21, 2010)

TDK said:


> Then you'd be a pretty shitty furry. Just ask H&K, he's a pro at being the least sexually charged furry ever.


 
That would be my spot but breasts look good be it humans or anthro :\


----------



## blackedsoul (Feb 21, 2010)

Technically its not 100% animals, so I should think not.


----------



## Bando (Feb 21, 2010)

TDK said:


> Then you'd be a pretty shitty furry. Just ask H&K, he's a pro at being the least sexually charged furry ever.



I'd have to contest that title. I don't even want to date D:


----------



## GoldenJackal (Feb 21, 2010)

No. It's fantasy. I have no interest at all in real animals in that way (the thought even grosses me out) but I do have an interest in fictitious anthropomorphic characters. The difference is that, if they were real, they would be intelligent, be sexually compatible, be able to keep good hygiene, etc.


----------



## blackedsoul (Feb 21, 2010)

GoldenJackal said:


> No. It's fantasy. I have no interest at all in real animals in that way (the thought even grosses me out) but I do have an interest in fictitious anthropomorphic characters. The difference is that, if they were real, they would be intelligent, be able to keep good hygiene, etc.


Agreed


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

I was role playing till about 1:00 AM and what the scenario was was to be a specific clan member of a vampiric bloodline and I immediately went for the vampire that shapeshifts and gains animalistic qualities whenever he/she gets into a fight. God I love the thought of being an animal and the weird thing is, the people I played with all referenced furries although they have no knowledge of it whatsoever....We were watching the olympics and the US speedskater (yeah, that one 19 year old) was disqualified cause the dang canadian grabbed his ass when they were going around the turn and everyone there shouted "Surprise buttsecks" which is typically a furry fandom term.....They also agreed that foxes would be the sweetest thing to morph into with the forementioned vampires....Ahh, good times


----------



## Bando (Feb 21, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> "Surprise buttsecks" which is typically a furry fandom term.....



Nope. This is all over the Internet my friend.


----------



## wolfrunner7 (Feb 21, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> I was role playing till about 1:00 AM and what the scenario was was to be a specific clan member of a vampiric bloodline and I immediately went for the vampire that shapeshifts and gains animalistic qualities whenever he/she gets into a fight. God I love the thought of being an animal and the weird thing is, the people I played with all referenced furries although they have no knowledge of it whatsoever....We were watching the olympics and the US speedskater (yeah, that one 19 year old) was disqualified cause the dang canadian grabbed his ass when they were going around the turn and everyone there shouted "Surprise buttsecks" which is typically a furry fandom term.....They also agreed that foxes would be the sweetest thing to morph into with the forementioned vampires....Ahh, good times




Gangrol.  Used to play one myself.. though for some reason our GM allowed me to have SS and Earthmeld, which if I understand the lore correctly you cannot have both *shrug*


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 21, 2010)

I think it depends solely on the picture itself. For example I have seen art where the "anthro's" a way to animal like, all features pretty much resemble an animal, no hair, hands that look more like foot paws, digitigrade legs with actual animal paws and animal anatomy. 

If the picture looks very animal like then I can understand why some would class it as zoophilic. But if it is cartoony then no, it is not zoophilic.


----------



## Geek (Feb 21, 2010)

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP





She doesn't look like an animal at all but i love her shape.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> Technically its not 100% animals, so I should think not.



Furries are 50% machine? I know what you mean but while that might mean something to you it doesn't really come anywhere into the definitions. Are furries human? No. Then a human having sex with a furry would be bestiality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Furries are 50% machine? I know what you mean but while that might mean something to you it doesn't really come anywhere into the definitions. Are furries human? No. Then a human having sex with a furry would be bestiality.



We are talking about the artwork not the fucking act between humans and animals.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> We are talking about the artwork not the fucking act between humans and animals.



Yes, does furry porn count as a depiction of bestiality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Yes, does furry porn count as a depiction of bestiality.



99% of the time, no.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

It certainly could be taken that way considering the characters are part animal. If there's a fur with a human then I'd say definitely.

On a similar note would you count pictures of non-anthros as bestaility porn? If there's no human involve then it can't be bestiality. 

Suppose the answers all depend on whether you classify the pic by the scene depicted inside of it or how the scene depicted is interpreted by the viewer.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It certainly could be taken that way considering the characters are part animal. If there's a fur with a human then I'd say definitely.
> 
> On a similar note would you count pictures of non-anthros as bestaility porn? If there's no human involve then it can't be bestiality.
> 
> Suppose the answers all depend on whether you classify the pic by the scene depicted inside of it or how the scene depicted is interpreted by the viewer.



You would class anything that resembles an animal as beastiality, Your argument is void.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

No I wouldn't.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> No I wouldn't.


I don't even know you and your avatar, name, and sig already make me hate you.


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 21, 2010)

Fucking an anthro is no more bestiality than fucking an alien would be. They're generally assumed to be sapient creatures with human intelligence and probably perfectly capable of communicating too. There isn't a word for it, since it doesn't really exist, but it would not be bestiality.

Just pretend they're really deformed humans. It makes more sense that way.



Heckler & Koch said:


> I don't even know you and your avatar, name, and sig already make me hate you.



^5


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> I don't even know you and your avatar, name, and sig already make me hate you.



Well that seems totally reasonable... Um... Why?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> Fucking an anthro is no more bestiality than fucking an alien would be. They're generally assumed to be sapient creatures with human intelligence and probably perfectly capable of communicating too. There isn't a word for it, since it doesn't really exist, but it would not be bestiality.



I'd consider an sex with an alien bestiality. It's intelligence doesn't come into it. And an alien won't necessarily be more intelligent.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Well that seems totally reasonable... Um... Why?


1. I hate pokemon furries.
2. Your name has your fursona in it.
3. Your sig has a link to a furry BDSM site.



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I'd consider an sex with an alien bestiality. It's intelligence doesn't come into it. And an alien won't necessarily be more intelligent.



Well shit, better take Star Trek off the air and Mass Effect off shelves.

BEASTIALITY!


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I'd consider an sex with an alien bestiality. It's intelligence doesn't come into it. And an alien won't necessarily be more intelligent.



I don't mean some random alien dog on planet Bumfuck, come on


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> Well shit, better take Star Trek off the air and Mass Effect off shelves.
> 
> BEASTIALITY!



It is. It's sex with a non-human. Whether you find aliens acceptable or not doesn't change it.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It is. It's sex with a non-human. Whether you find aliens acceptable or not doesn't change it.


I'm pretty sure beastiality is sex with animals, not necessarily something that isn't human. I'm sure if some other sentient race existed nobody would really care if you banged them.

Now go jack off to more kid's videogames.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> I'm pretty sure beastiality is sex with animals, not necessarily something that isn't human. I'm sure if some other sentient race existed nobody would really care if you banged them.



Another sentient race would still be animals. Furries are still animals. Humans are still animals. There's a difference between bestiality and sex with non-sentient animals.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Another sentient race would still be animals. Furries are still animals. Humans are still animals. There's a difference between bestiality and sex with non-sentient animals.


No there really isn't a difference, beastiality IS sex with non-sentient animals.

Also I love how you completely ignore anything negative I say about you, that's how I can tell that it's really pissing you off.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Feb 21, 2010)

> No there really isn't a difference, beastiality IS sex with non-sentient animals.
> 
> Also I love how you completely ignore anything negative I say about you, that's how I can tell that it's really pissing you off.



Non-sentient never entered the definition because it hasn't ever been a problem before.

I ignore the negative things you say because I actually know that in a debate you address the other person's points. It's a difference in maturity.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Non-sentient never entered the definition because it hasn't ever been a problem before.
> 
> I ignore the negative things you say because I actually know that in a debate you address the other person's points. It's a difference in maturity.


I know man, you're so mature with a god damn pokemon avatar and fursona. Can you teach me how to be mature like you?


----------



## LizardKing (Feb 21, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Well shit, better take Star Trek off the air and *Mass Effect* off shelves.
> 
> BEASTIALITY!



Well, actually...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTKr7fpiCfE

xD


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Well, actually...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTKr7fpiCfE
> 
> xD


I didn't know furries existed in Mass Effect.


----------



## blackedsoul (Feb 21, 2010)

Well shit, better take Star Trek off the air and Mass Effect off shelves.

BEASTIALITY![/QUOTE]



Heckler & Koch said:


> I didn't know furries existed in Mass Effect.



Well you do now! and how the hell did we get to this???


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 21, 2010)

best question ever
i love this guy

edit: damn typos


----------



## blackedsoul (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> best question ever
> i lobe this guy



Who are you talking about?


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> best question ever
> i lobe this guy


Agreed

It very well may be a troll but this is the best shitstorm ever


----------



## Geek (Feb 21, 2010)

If i FAP at a cartoon character that doesn't look like an animal but it is considered as an animal (Sonic, Tails, Amy...), is it part of Zoophilia?


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 21, 2010)

Geek said:


> If i FAP at a cartoon character that doesn't look like an animal but it is considered as an animal (Sonic, Tails, Amy...), is it part of Zoophilia?



I think that would make more of a toonaphile than a zoophile, since they're not realistic.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 21, 2010)

Shenzebo said:


> I think that would make more of a toonaphile than a zoophile, since they're not realistic.



Most furries here are toonaphiles. :3


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 21, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Well shit, better take Star Trek off the air and Mass Effect off shelves.
> 
> BEASTIALITY!



Quarian sex lolololololololol!!!!

I've come to the conclusion that it's only beastiality if it isn't consensual. And since animals can't really communicate that... Having sex with them is for sure beastiality.  

For example, let's say that you're boyfriend/girlfriend temporarily transferred their mind into the body of a dog (work with me people). They can talk, and they're still sentient and themselves on the inside. So you have sex with them. Is that beastiality? Well kinda, but not really.

I confuse myself with this logic, but somehow it makes sense. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 21, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Most furries here are toonaphiles. :3


Yeah, and there's nothing really wrong with that. Would I be a toonaphile if I liked anime characters?


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 21, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> For example, let's say that you're boyfriend/girlfriend temporarily transferred their mind into the body of a dog (work with me people). They can talk, and they're still sentient and themselves on the inside. So you have sex with them. Is that beastiality? Well kinda, but not really.



http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg135/AZHeat75/wtf-animated.gif

EDIT: disregard that, i suck cocks.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg135/AZHeat75/wtf-animated.gif



Dead link, sorry bud. 

Btw, HI!


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 21, 2010)

to answer the question, it depends
zoophilia is the attraction to a different species
so if you see dog on dog furry porn it's not zoophilia
but if it's dog on cat, it is, because they are different species
so if your fursona is a dog and ya do it with a cat or anything else that isn't your species then your a zoophilia.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

Love your avatar Lazyredhead


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 21, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Love your avatar Lazyredhead



me too
shows how i feel about everything


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> me too
> shows how i feel about everything



Can't stand the stupidity of the Den?
Hehe.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 21, 2010)

ITT Scotty is hitting on lazy.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

HarleyParanoia said:


> ITT Scotty is hitting on lazy.



Oh please, I'm not going to pester people about it...what do you take me for, a whore!? <3


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 21, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Oh please, I'm not going to pester people about it...what do you take me for, a whore!? <3



your a fox, so yes


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 21, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> Oh please, I'm not going to pester people about it...what do you take me for, Harley's whore!? <3



yes


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> your a fox, so yes



A very whorish gutterslut fox at that 

God I love gutterslut, it's so damn funny and offensive at the same time.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> your a fox, so yes


I am offended by that asshole! >=[


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 21, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> I am offended by that asshole! >=[


tell some one who cares


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> tell some one who cares



As your cute doggie glares at his post, hehe.


----------



## Ikrit (Feb 21, 2010)

Scotty1700 said:


> As your cute doggie glares at his post, hehe.



but he is rolling his eyes!


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 21, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> but he is rolling his eyes!



While glaring intently


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 21, 2010)

I AM SO SLEEPY


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 21, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Most furries here are toonaphiles. :3



Then I'm a toonafile, I need me some toon ass.



HarleyParanoia said:


> I AM SO SLEEPY



Go sleepy then! Nice, cozy, comfortable bed.....


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 21, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Then I'm a toonafile, I need me some toon ass.



Bah, forget about them. Let's go fuck some dogs.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 21, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Bah, forget about them. Let's go fuck some dogs.



At least I could really call her my "bitch".


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 21, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> At least I could really call her my "bitch".



You take the fem, I'll let the male take me.


----------



## foxmusk (Feb 21, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Then I'm a toonafile, I need me some toon ass.
> 
> Go sleepy then! Nice, cozy, comfortable bed.....



i love me some toons. and i did have a nap <3



RetroCorn said:


> Bah, forget about them. Let's go fuck some dogs.



i also love me some dogs.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 22, 2010)

yes.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 22, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> yes.



No.


----------



## Tommy (Feb 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> No.


Truth.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> No.


 
I say....


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 22, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> I say....



You win.


----------



## Tommy (Feb 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You win.



...that didn't take long.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You win.


 
conversation I had with my bf:

"what should we play?"

"yes."

"yes?"

"yes."

"what yes?"

"the yes album"

"yes?"

"yes."


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 22, 2010)

Tommy said:


> ...that didn't take long.



I can't be arsed to find a bigger no picture.


----------



## Tommy (Feb 22, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I can't be arsed to find a bigger no picture.








Would this work?


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 22, 2010)

Tommy said:


> Would this work?


----------



## bearetic (Feb 22, 2010)

Read through 5 pages of this thread.
Whoever said that the first few Concession comics were funny was right. LMAO. Haven't gotten to the "bad ones" yet.

OP: A little bit; but who gives a shit?


----------



## Mentova (Feb 22, 2010)

bearetic said:


> Read through 5 pages of this thread.
> Whoever said that the first few Concession comics were funny was right. LMAO. Haven't gotten to the "bad ones" yet.
> 
> OP: A little bit; but who gives a shit?


I said that. And it stops being funny after like the 3rd one. Better kill yourself before it's too late!


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

lazyredhead said:


> to answer the question, it depends
> zoophilia is the attraction to a different species
> so if you see dog on dog furry porn it's not zoophilia
> but if it's dog on cat, it is, because they are different species
> so if your fursona is a dog and ya do it with a cat or anything else that isn't your species then your a zoophilia.



Zoophilia is the sexual attraction from a human to an animal. If a human likes to watch 2 dogs mating, it counts as zoophilia, because the human is attracted to them, even though there aren't any humans involved in the mating itself.

A dog mating a cat isn't zoophilia, it would be inter-species mating or something like that.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Zoophilia is the sexual attraction from a human to an animal. If a human likes to watch 2 dogs mating, it counts as zoophilia, because the human is attracted to them, even though there aren't any humans involved in the mating itself.
> 
> *A dog mating a cat isn't zoophilia, it would be inter-species mating or something like that.*


Lolque?


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 23, 2010)

I'm just enjoying this back an' forth


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

bearetic said:


> Read through 5 pages of this thread.
> Whoever said that the first few Concession comics were funny was right. LMAO. Haven't gotten to the "bad ones" yet.



That would be me. I'm Mr. Concession fan on these forums.

Although I don't think they're funny and I don't even read them for the comedy. It's refreshing to have a comic that actually has a story and a good one at that. 

H&K you can just keep your grubby little paws off this post.

But you're more than welcome to touch... Errr... Nevermind.


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

Shenzebo said:


> Lolque?




I'm just saying that zoophilia=A human's sexual attraction to animals.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> I'm just saying that zoophilia=A human's sexual attraction to animals.



But the real question is this: Are any of you sexually attracted to animals?


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> But the real question is this: Are any of you sexually attracted to animals?



Maybe I am attracted, but I need to apply a little of imagination. For example, If I see a photo of a nude animal (I mean, showing genitals) I like to think the animal is intelligent and aware of the situation, or that it has a human soul trapped inside the animal's body, so it suffers, and I feel attracted to that.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Maybe I am attracted, but I need to apply a little of imagination. For example, If I see a photo of a nude animal (I mean, showing genitals) I like to think the animal is intelligent and aware of the situation, or that it has a human soul trapped inside the animal's body, so it suffers, and I feel attracted to that.



Zoophile.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Maybe I am attracted, but I need to apply a little of imagination. For example, If I see a photo of a nude animal (I mean, showing genitals) I like to think the animal is intelligent and aware of the situation, or that it has a human soul trapped inside the animal's body, so it suffers, and I feel attracted to that.


...
I would advise running away NOW


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> ...
> I would advise running away NOW



I just said I'm attracted, it's not like I have had sex with them.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> I just said I'm attracted, it's not like I have had sex with them.



No, but you just basically admitted to being a zoophile.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> No, but you just basically admitted to being a zoophile.



Now people. Let's not harass him.

And I suppose I'm one too then.


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

Actually it's a problem I have had since a lot of time ago...I have these fantasies since I was a little child...But don't worry, I may have fantasies but I don't want to act on them.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Actually it's a problem I have had since a lot of time ago...I have these fantasies since I was a little child...But don't worry, I may have fantasies but I don't want to act on them.



Everyone has fantasies. It's what you do with them that matter.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Everyone has fantasies. It's what you do with them that matter.



Some fantasies are best kept to ones self. Personally I'd rather not know what a zoophile fantasizes over.

inb4 acceptance. Just because I'm a furry doesn't mean I have to accept everyone and/or the things they do/like.


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Everyone has fantasies. It's what you do with them that matter.



Thanks for your comprehension.

I've always had problems relating to people (I'm in the high-end autism spectrum by the way) so I always fantasize over weird things.



> Some fantasies are best kept to ones self. Personally I'd rather not know what a zoophile fantasizes over.
> 
> inb4 acceptance. Just because I'm a furry doesn't mean I have to accept everyone and/or the things they do/like.


Okay, I'll stop describing my fantasies, I just wanted to say that I have attraction to animals but don't want to have sex with them. Thanks for reading me.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Some fantasies are best kept to ones self. Personally I'd rather not know what a zoophile fantasizes over.
> 
> inb4 acceptance. Just because I'm a furry doesn't mean I have to accept everyone and/or the things they do/like.



No, you don't have to accept what they do. But respect them at least. It's not because you're a furry that you should respect people with differing opinions, it's because you're a human being.


----------



## TelknorDragon (Feb 23, 2010)

Removed.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> No, you don't have to accept what they do. But respect them at least. It's not because you're a furry that you should respect people with differing opinions, it's because you're a human being.


since when do humans started to respect one another, even though the majority of the time Respect is found when we are fighting each other


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> No, you don't have to accept what they do. But respect them at least. It's not because you're a furry that you should respect people with differing opinions, it's because you're a human being.



I'm not going to respect something that's morally wrong. I'm not going to respect a pedophiles views just because A: his/her opinions say that what they do is fine and B: Just because they are human. Same goes for zoophilia, also morally wrong I'm not going to respect someones opinions that pretty much say zoophilia is fine.

Some things in life don't deserve respect.

I know I sound rather harsh and mean but I just can't respect some one for having such morally wrong views.

Edit: Actually I can, if they understand that what they do/think is wrong.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> No, you don't have to accept what they do. But respect them at least. It's not because you're a furry that you should respect people with differing opinions, it's because you're a human being.


You should only respect people for things that are respectable, beastiality sexual fantasies are not one of them.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'm not going to respect something that's morally wrong. I'm not going to respect a pedophiles views just because A: his/her opinions say that what they do is fine and B: Just because they are human. Same goes for zoophilia, also morally wrong I'm not going to respect someones opinions that pretty much say zoophilia is fine.
> 
> Some things in life don't deserve respect.
> 
> ...



Respect and agreeing with what they do are two different things. I should hope you know that. Respect them for who they are, not what they do.

And how exactly is it morally wrong? Morals can be relevant you know. Is it what society finds acceptable? What if society though being a pedophile was acceptable? Would it be moral then? 

Food for thought.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Respect and agreeing with what they do are two different things. I should hope you know that. Respect them for who they are, not what they do.
> 
> And how exactly is it morally wrong? Morals can be relevant you know. Is it what society finds acceptable? What if society though being a pedophile was acceptable? Would it be moral then?
> 
> Food for thought.


Don't open this can o' worms. Beastiality is wrong and will always be wrong, same with being a pedophile. And why should I accept a dog fucker for being a dog fucker? What the hell is wrong with you?

(if you're a troll, nice troll. damn this website for having so many idiots that it makes it hard to weed out the trolls sometimes...)


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> And why should I accept a dog fucker for being a dog fucker?



Because they're people, with their own lives, you can't just judge people by their secret fantasies.


----------



## Gavrill (Feb 23, 2010)

It's best to just not mention your fantasies here. You'll get more respect that way.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Because they're people, with their own lives, you can't just judge people by their secret fantasies.


Yes I can actually, because dog fucking is not only nasty, but it hurts the dog both physically and mentally.

Jesus fuck what is with the furry fandom and "being accepting and respectful to everyone!" There are some scumbags out there that deserve neither respect or acceptance, dogfuckers are one of them. Also in most places they are breaking the fucking law.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Because they're people, with their own lives, you can't just judge people by their secret fantasies.


actually you can =3


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Respect and agreeing with what they do are two different things. I should hope you know that. Respect them for who they are, not what they do.
> 
> And how exactly is it morally wrong? Morals can be relevant you know. Is it what society finds acceptable? What if society though being a pedophile was acceptable? Would it be moral then?
> 
> Food for thought.



Oh right so you are now saying that it is perfectly ok for a paedophile to come a long and do sexual things to my two year old niece now? Or for a zoophile to come a long and fuck fido's asshole? 

I refuse to respect a paedophile for "who they are".

Remember this: Respect is earned, not given.

If a zoophile just plainly admits what they are to me, fine, I can live with that and they will get some sort of respect from me. However if they are intent on telling me their fantasies about what they'd like to do to the neighbours dog, then they would loose some of the respect I did have for them. Some things are best kept to yourself.


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 23, 2010)

Words of wisdom ^^ I found out the hard way v_v


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> Because they're people, with their own lives, you can't just judge people by their secret fantasies.



Of course we can't, they would be "secret" fantasies, as in, we wouldn't know about those "secret" fantasies, if we did know, they wouldn't be secret.


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Of course we can't, they would be "secret" fantasies, as in, we wouldn't know about those "secret" fantasies, if we did know, they wouldn't be secret.


 
I agree with Randy 100% just keep your fucking fantasies to your damn self unless someone actually asked :\

Also you zoo/pedo bastards think its a ok to do that and try to justify it cause your human and that you can't judge them by these insane actions they take.  Fucking an animal is wrong in so many ways but I don't feel like getting into it cause this topic has been beaten way past its prime :[

I'll say it politely, dog fucker please GET THE FUCK OUT cause we don't need anymore than what we already have D:


----------



## Scotty1700 (Feb 23, 2010)

Agreed with Randy and South syde, pedophilia is wrong and unjustifiable. I'm not as strongly against bestiality but I still think it's wrong and shouldn't be practiced at all. Leave it at man's best friend, not man's bedtime butt buddy.


----------



## grrside (Feb 23, 2010)

> Also you zoo/pedo bastards think its a ok to do that and try to justify it cause your human and that you can't judge them by these insane actions they take.


I never said that pedophilia and/or zoophilia are good. And being attracted by them it's not the same as doing perverted things to them. Zoophilia is not bestiality.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> I never said that pedophilia and/or zoophilia are good. And being attracted by them it's not the same as doing perverted things to them. Zoophilia is not bestiality.


It's still fucked up. Stop defending it. Why the fuck do so many furries defend shit like this?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

grrside said:


> I never said that pedophilia and/or zoophilia are good. And being attracted by them it's not the same as doing perverted things to them. Zoophilia is not bestiality.



Zoophilia is the attraction to animals, bestiality is the act. If someone has sexual fantasies of doing something to an animal that would be classed as zoophilia.



Heckler & Koch said:


> It's still fucked up. Stop defending it. Why the fuck do so many furries defend shit like this?



Probably because many furries are they just wont admit it.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

in b4 Zoophi--

Oh...wait. >.>

The only people that would say it is are either "In the closet" dog monglers or don't understand some of the basics to fantasy art. 
It is pretty easy to know the difference between Zoophiliac and just plain fantasy. :V

Tauren Porn: Fantasy

Two cartoon Feral wolves fucking: Zoo.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> in b4 Zoophi--
> 
> Oh...wait. >.>



To late.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> in b4 Zoophi--
> 
> Oh...wait. >.>


Yeah little late there. >_>
The dogfuckers are already here telling me that I should love them because they want to bone my dog.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> To late.





Heckler & Koch said:


> Yeah little late there. >_>
> The dogfuckers are already here telling me that I should love them because they want to bone my dog.



I know. 
I am sad.

-shudders-


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I know.
> I am sad.
> 
> -shudders-


It's ok... they're gone, we can rest easy.....



.... for now.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> It's ok... they're gone, we can rest easy.....
> 
> 
> 
> .... for now.



Relevant

Very.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Relevant
> 
> Very.


STUPID MUNDANES THEY NEED TO RESPECT THAT MAN, WHAT HE'S DOING IS NORMAL! :V

It saddens me that people do this, and that furries defend them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Feb 23, 2010)

This is still going on?
Short answer *NO!*


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> STUPID MUNDANES THEY NEED TO RESPECT THAT MAN, WHAT HE'S DOING IS NORMAL! :V
> 
> It saddens me that people do this, and that furries defend them.



Because we should be accepting and full of free asspats when needed. We need to accept and not judge the Dog and Horse fuckers because they are humans and humans make mistakes. Besides, the animal will not get hurt and the human will be fine. Zoophillia is beneficial to everyone. Without it, people would rape children.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Because we should be accepting and full of free asspats when needed. We need to accept and not judge the Dog and Horse fuckers because they are humans and humans make mistakes. Besides, the animal will not get hurt and the human will be fine. Zoophillia is beneficial to everyone. Without it, people would rape children.


Exactly! If only the world was more understanding and accepting!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Because we should be accepting and full of free asspats when needed. We need to accept and not judge the Dog and Horse fuckers because they are humans and humans make mistakes. Besides, the animal will not get hurt and the human will be fine. Zoophillia is beneficial to everyone. Without it,* people would rape children.*



That happens anyway.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Exactly! If only the world was more understanding and accepting!



Pigs might fly first.



Oh wait, they have helicopters now.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Exactly! If only the world was more understanding and accepting!



You get me! We need to accept the zoophiles because if the mundane society won't, who will?



RandyDarkshade said:


> That happens anyway.



Proof?

You lie! Next thing you'll say is that cub porn is Child pornograph. /lol


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You get me! We need to accept the zoophiles because if the mundane society won't who will?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We do, especially because they are furries! And everyone knows all furries must accept each other for everything because we are furries!


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> We do, especially because they are furries! And everyone knows all furries must accept each other for everything because we are furries!



And we are better than humans.
Us half animal people do not judge others! It is not right!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You get me! We need to accept the zoophiles because if the mundane society won't, who will?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it didn't happen, pedo's wouldn't exist, but they do, so it happens.

Cub = anthro child = technically child porn


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> And we are better than humans.
> Us half animal people do not judge others! It is not right!


No sir, it is not right for us to judge each other! No matter what weird fetish you have, no matter what bizarre activities you engage in IRL to get in touch with your true animal self, no matter what those damned mundanes think! We should be proud of us, and accepting because we are furries!

(it's people like you that keep me from ragequitting this fandom due to their freaky shit)


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 23, 2010)

"There nothing wrong with me TRAINING fido to take mah cawk" :V


----------



## Leon (Feb 23, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> "There nothing wrong with me TRAINING fido to take mah cawk" :V


 

I know right? :V


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> No sir, it is not right for us to judge each other! No matter what weird fetish you have, no matter what bizarre activities you engage in IRL to get in touch with your true animal self, no matter what those damned mundanes think! We should be proud of us, and accepting because we are furries!
> 
> (it's people like you that keep me from ragequitting this fandom due to their freaky shit)



That's right!




RandyDarkshade said:


> If it didn't happen, pedo's wouldn't exist, but they do, so it happens.
> 
> Cub = anthro child = technically child porn




Nuh uh. It is not true! They are not real, therefore it is not paedo-porn!

 :V lol


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 23, 2010)

lol and those dog fuckers think its safe to do that too, that it hurts nobody...man that makes me laugh xD

I'm surprised whats his face thats that fire pokemon didn't show up here, that really surprised me :O


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 23, 2010)

south syde fox said:


> lol and those dog fuckers think its safe to do that too, that it hurts nobody...man that makes me laugh xD
> 
> I'm surprised whats his face thats that fire pokemon didn't show up here, that really surprised me :O


D= what have you done, now hes gonna show up


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That's right!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


YEAH MAN ANYONE WHO THINKS CUB PORN = KIDDY PORN IS JUST A JUDGMENTAL FUR HATER =[


----------



## south syde dobe (Feb 23, 2010)

Crysix Corps said:


> D= what have you done, now hes gonna show up


 
Damn me and my big mouth =_=


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> YEAH MAN ANYONE WHO THINKS CUB PORN = KIDDY PORN IS JUST A JUDGMENTAL FUR HATER =[



Randy is not a real furry because furries do not judge others. :V


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Randy is not a real furry because furries do not judge others. :V


It's true! I bet he is just a mundane trying to find more lies about us!


----------



## xXNibiNoNekoXx (Feb 23, 2010)

Telnac said:


> If you want to stick your dick in a humanoid with a dog head: no.  It's an anthro character.
> 
> If you want to stick your dick in a dog: you're a zoophile.
> 
> If you HAVE stuck your dick in a dog, you've committed bestiality.



You win the lottery. xD This is how I see it. ^^


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 23, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> Don't open this can o' worms. Beastiality is wrong and will always be wrong, same with being a pedophile. And why should I accept a dog fucker for being a dog fucker? What the hell is wrong with you?
> 
> (if you're a troll, nice troll. damn this website for having so many idiots that it makes it hard to weed out the trolls sometimes...)



No I'm not a troll. I'm just looking at this from the logical side.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Oh right so you are now saying that it is perfectly ok for a paedophile to come a long and do sexual things to my two year old niece now? Or for a zoophile to come a long and fuck fido's asshole?
> 
> I refuse to respect a paedophile for "who they are".
> 
> ...



And no, I'm not saying that a pedophile who actually commits such actions is alright. I'm saying that they are another human being. Granted they did something really fucked up, but they ARE human. And humans do stupid stuff.

I also agree on the last part. Some things really are best kept to yourself.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 23, 2010)

The line ehre's very fine and hard to draw. I just have to jump in and say that bestiality is very cruel nd unfair and I have some things to do to people who do it. It involves knives. And death 

Some beastieality-people (fail term there) put gerbils up thier asses until they suffocate. Evidently the sturggle of the dying creature gives them pleasure. They often get bitten or the corpses get stuck and they go to the ER for my poor aunt to pull out.

I can't stand people that not only kill animals and get off on it, or have sex with them etc etc, and would kill themall.


----------



## Beastcub (Feb 23, 2010)

i say no

i never even considered the idea that anthro pron could equal a lust of real life animals untill some one brought it up, frankly i don't see it, i mean the characters are still human in shape :/


----------



## Bando (Feb 23, 2010)

Beastcub said:


> i say no
> 
> i never even considered the idea that anthro pron could equal a lust of real life animals untill some one brought it up, frankly i don't see it, i mean the characters are still human in shape :/



This. I had a few bad times starting here before I learned to dance around taboos with my word choice.


----------



## IggyB (Feb 23, 2010)

I say that furry is not zoophilia. I like furry art of adult nature, but that doesn't mean I now want to got fuck a dog, never. For me, and many other furs, it's just a hobby/fetish thing.

Basically... what Telnac said.


----------



## grrside (Feb 24, 2010)

What I was trying to say wasn't that bestiality is good, you don't need to accept the bestiality itself.

For example, a zoophile thinks a certain animal is "sexy", but isn't going to have sex with it. If society can't let him/her admit it, nobody will help him/her and the zoophile will keep it secret and obsess all over it, which can lead to real bestiality (which is bad).


----------



## Wreth (Feb 24, 2010)

I'd say it depends whether the sex organs are portrayed like a human or an animals parts.


----------



## ToeClaws (Feb 24, 2010)

Is it zoophillia?  No.  Zoophillia is when humans have a loving relationship with a highly sentient real animal (IE, an animal that is capable of loving in return).  That relationship is supposed to be equally desired and pursued by both sides.

Furry porn is the portrayal of fantasy creatures that are more humanized, and more sentient than real animals, so it goes a little beyond the description of what zoophillia is.  Heh - you could say it's more in a category of its own.

Bigger point: Zoophillia is something that can be real and tangible.  Furry porn is fantasy.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Wow! just consider the huge interest this observation generates. Surely that indicates a high level of emotional investment in the idea. There is a whole lot of denial going on here. When someone takes a keen interest in art that sexualizes animals and animal characteristics, the "orientation" involved is transparent. But all this denial and clinging to taboo ideation is largely what makes it such a turn on to the closet furs. Consider the fact that the most common phallic renderings are unambiguously canine- indeed, how anatomically accurate the renderings - and it's just plain obvious that most furs are turned on by dog cock. 

The only thing _I_â€‹ find disturbing in any of this is the cowardice implicit in the (often hysterical) denials of most. Sure, there must be some who are only incidentally aroused by animal elements added to the human but I wonder how many, who keep there real desires secret or safely in the realm of fantasy, are just poor victims of fear and self loathing?


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

Necroing three-year-old threads is bad.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Well he's on topic... If I read the rules right, this is allowed, but I can't remember if they changed. I'll go check.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2013)

Machine said:


> Necroing three-year-old threads is bad.



You need to go and read the rules properly.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

"necroing" -good! But it's not dead, just in a coma .. or maybe i'm "defibrilating"


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 25, 2013)

Well zoophilia implies attraction to 'non-human animals'. I'm not sure we have a word for attraction to _anthropomorphic_ animals. If we did furry porn would represent that.


----------



## Calemeyr (Apr 25, 2013)

It depends. Do they have human privates or animal privates? Do the females have six breasts or only two?
I think the better question is: are the furries sapient? If not, it's rape. And that's one thing I'd like to see less of on the internet in all nerd fandoms (Rape fetishism).


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> "necroing" -good! But it's not dead, just in a coma .. or maybe i'm "defibrilating"



No it's not dude and shitposting is also against the rules. I'm guessing you're one of these noobs who doesn't bother reading the rules before posting.



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> It depends. Do they have human  privates or animal privates? Do the females have six breasts or only  two?
> I think the better question is: are the furries sapient? If not, it's  rape. And that's one thing I'd like to see less of on the internet in  all nerd fandoms (Rape fetishism).



I don't see why some people have to have animal genitalia on them. To me that is just weird and creepy.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Says the "noob" chiming in with irrelevant nonsense. And, behold ...it's alive!!!

But go ahead "noob"  and have the last word, I know you want it. Yeah, you want it bad - uh, uhh, uhhh.
No, really, I insist.


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

Your bump is on-topic at least, I don't see why people are complaining. :u

 But hey, I guess furry porn is pretty much zoophilic. That doesn't mean everyone who enjoys it is a zoophile, and 5 out of 6 say they aren't, but I'm just answering the question. It's difficult to avoid that conclusion unless you engage in some crazy rationalisation.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Yeah, 5 out of 6 deny it. And those denials involve a lot of equivocating and non-reasoning; what does that tell us? It's like masturbation. 50 years ago no one admitted they masturbated but then the Hite study showed that when dignity and anonymity were protected, almost everyone then admitted it. Similarly with homosexuality: no one would admit it, and then Masters & Johnson and Kinsey did their famous surveys and Voi La - at least 45% admitted to some experience or desires, and this was in the late 1950's ! Is it a stretch to intuit the same thing is going on here?


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

no, it isnt. sexualizing a cartoon and fucking your dog are light years away from one another. why was this even a thread? may as well say loli and ageplay art makes a person a practicing pedophile. given the length and effort of the op, this thread was trololo from the start, and nothing was accomplished. way to go digging it up, this will be interesting. 

here everyone, actually do some reading, and understand what zoophilia actually is. then the context it is used in will actually be correct, and there wont be so much needless, ignorance driven debate


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

All of the above are exemplary of their respective sexual aesthetics. It is so painfully obvious that only two explanations recommend themselves: Either you don't want to _see_ or you don't want to _admit._ 

I tell ya, the Emperor ... er, the Lion King has no clothes!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Says the "noob" chiming in with irrelevant nonsense. And, behold ...it's alive!!!
> 
> But go ahead "noob"  and have the last word, I know you want it. Yeah, you want it bad - uh, uhh, uhhh.
> No, really, I insist.



I've been here a lot longer than you. Or can't you read?



Azure said:


> no, it isnt. sexualizing a cartoon and fucking your  dog are light years away from one another. why was this even a thread?  may as well say loli and ageplay art makes a person a practicing  pedophile. given the length and effort of the op, this thread was  trololo from the start, and nothing was accomplished. way to go digging  it up, this will be interesting.
> 
> here  everyone, actually do some reading, and understand what zoophilia  actually is. then the context it is used in will actually be correct,  and there wont be so much needless, ignorance driven debate



The day people actually read what the actual meaning of a word is is the day hell freezes over. The only reason people associate the two is because both include animals in one way or another. But they fall blind to the blatant differences anthro's have over your pet doggy.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> All of the above are exemplary of their respective sexual aesthetics. It is so painfully obvious that only two explanations recommend themselves: Either you don't want to _see_ or you don't want to _admit._
> 
> I tell ya, the Emperor ... er, the Lion King has no clothes!


how utterly devoid of substance this particular argument is. clearly because you masturbate to pictures of heavy machinery, one day you will go out and fuck a bulldozer. what a fallacious approach to such a nuanced subject.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

noob


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Did your brain get tired? take a nap


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> how utterly devoid of substance this particular argument is. clearly because you masturbate to pictures of heavy machinery, one day you will go out and fuck a bulldozer. what a fallacious approach to such a nuanced subject.



Dude, you're arguing with an obvious troll.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> how utterly devoid of substance this particular argument is. clearly because you masturbate to pictures of heavy machinery, one day you will go out and fuck a bulldozer. what a fallacious approach to such a nuanced subject.



Oh, don't take it so hard. You are more or less anonymous around here. But "nuance"? really? about the general tenor of interest here there is no ambiguity at all. That is one point. And the efforts to deny in the face of that seem cowardly to me - the larger point. There is probably a nicer word than "cowardly" but it does seem to fit and courage starts when we face up to it.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Oh, don't take it so hard. You are more or less anonymous around here. But "nuance"? really? about the general tenor of interest here there is no ambiguity at all. That is one point. And the efforts to deny in the face of that seem cowardly to me - the larger point. There is probably a nicer word than "cowardly" but it does seem to fit and courage starts when we face up to it.


i dont really take things hard, which is a given testament both to your newness here and your failure to read character in general. upon what do you base your claims about the "general tenor of interest here"? in fact id challenge you to come up with a convincing statistic that can relate such a thing. remember, methodology is important in such a study, so be sure to clearly delineate it, and dont forget your control groups. because the only cowardly thing here, is baseless assumption for the sake of appearing clever. you are hardly unique, i say we get about a dozen just like you a week. very very boring.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 25, 2013)

Hey asshole, not everyone wants to fuck their pet.

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto ones you've never met.

There are plenty of furs who don't want Fido in the butt

You should go away and let them read their furry smut.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> i dont really take things hard, which is a given testament both to your newness here and your failure to read character in general. upon what do you base your claims about the "general tenor of interest here"? in fact id challenge you to come up with a convincing statistic that can relate such a thing. remember, methodology is important in such a study, so be sure to clearly delineate it, and dont forget your control groups. because the only cowardly thing here, is baseless assumption for the sake of appearing clever. you are hardly unique, i say we get about a dozen just like you a week. very very boring.



Now you're just being silly. The highest rated posts are porn and you know that - see, that's an example of denial. But since the subject is too emotional for you, then leave off, or come back when you've cooled down. No doubt you could give more thoughtful responses than the above. This is a worthy subject and, on a whim I decided to bump it up. Aside from playing a little too rough for a couple of you, I don't think I've said anything unreasonable. I will watch a little longer for genuine contributions.

peace


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Now you're just being silly. The highest rated posts are porn and you know that - see, that's an example of denial. But since the subject is too emotional for you, then leave off, or come back when you've cooled down. No doubt you could give more thoughtful responses than the above. This is a worthy subject and, on a whim I decided to bump it up. Aside from playing a little too rough for a couple of you, I don't think I've said anything unreasonable. I will watch a little longer for genuine contributions.
> 
> peace


considering we cant even rate "posts" on the mainsite, this is patent falsehood. also, somebody ought to dig up that thread where yak or somebody actually complied all submissions on FA mainsite and a huge majority turned out to be general themed tame art. i wont bother, but i know it exists somewhere. its been fun, internet stranger.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Now you're just being silly. The highest rated posts are porn and you know that - see, that's an example of denial. But since the subject is too emotional for you, then leave off, or come back when you've cooled down. No doubt you could give more thoughtful responses than the above. This is a worthy subject and, on a whim I decided to bump it up. Aside from playing a little too rough for a couple of you, I don't think I've said anything unreasonable. I will watch a little longer for genuine contributions.
> 
> peace


You sound oddly familiar to someone who got banned only recently. Just putting that out there.

When you come into these forums (or any for that matter) with that kind of attitude then you're inevitably going to get some kind of backlash. Your "holier than thou" attitude is incredably irritating.

Anyway may I also point you towards that fact that clean (non-explicit) art gets uploaded to FA more than adult art does. It's not going to change the fact that "mature art gets more views/favs", but another perspective to look at things from. Your opinion that we're all denying we're zoophiles is completely unfounded for the most part. You don't know what goes on in people's heads, and acting like you do just makes you sound like an idiot.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> considering we cant even rate "posts" on the mainsite, this is patent falsehood. also, somebody ought to dig up that thread where yak or somebody actually complied all submissions on FA mainsite and a huge majority turned out to be general themed tame art. i wont bother, but i know it exists somewhere. its been fun, internet stranger.



Yeah, you are right i forgot this was FA for a moment. But just look anywhere you can see ratings. ...but of course you have. You are still dodging. But maybe that's unfair; are you one of those who only look at the "clean" art?  But if that were so, that would disqualify you from this discussion, wouldn't it? Care to clarify? Can you? I may have it all wrong and would say "sorry" if that were the case


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> i forgot this was FA for a moment.


Implying you've been around here for a while then, hm?

On that note, don't bother making claims without any substantiated quantifiable evidence. Nobody here can take you seriously.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Raptros said:


> You sound oddly familiar to someone who got banned only recently. Just putting that out there.
> 
> When you come into these forums (or any for that matter) with that kind of attitude then you're inevitably going to get some kind of backlash. Your "holier than thou" attitude is incredably irritating.
> 
> Anyway may I also point you towards that fact that clean (non-explicit) art gets uploaded to FA more than adult art does. It's not going to change the fact that "mature art gets more views/favs", but another perspective to look at things from. Your opinion that we're all denying we're zoophiles is completely unfounded for the most part. You don't know what goes on in people's heads, and acting like you do just makes you sound like an idiot.



That's all very interesting but you've said nothing to the point. I made a pretty good case for general denial as inferred from masturbation and homosexuality but no one yet has a thoughtful reply - just sniping. It's not "Holy" to point that out, just factual.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

With regards to the thread topic, most porn produced _by_ furries isn't zoophilia, although some of it is. 

Animal based fetishism doesn't equate to zoophilia; that statement is extreme. Similarly people with a fetish for bondage are usually not interested in real life hostage scenarios and sadomasochists usually don't enjoy pain out of a sexual setting. 

Having a kink for furries and thinking sex with animals is disgusting are not mutually exclusive.



lildog said:


> That's all very interesting but you've said  nothing to the point. I made a pretty good case for general denial as  inferred from masturbation and homosexuality but no one yet has a  thoughtful reply - just sniping. It's not "Holy" to point that out, just  factual.



By this measure we could assert any number of false hypotheses about peple denying things. We could say people into AB are secretly paedophiles, for instance, and be entirely incorrect. 

However you have a point worth consideration because furries interviewed at conventions only admit zoophilia 2% of the time, whilst those asked anonymously admit it about 1/6 times [the same as the general population] so some people definitely are trying to hide their true colours, but this doesn't extend to 'everyone must be like them', because that's a slipperly slope fallacy.


----------



## Rilvor (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> That's all very interesting but you've said nothing to the point. I made a pretty good case for general denial as inferred from masturbation and homosexuality but no one yet has a thoughtful reply - just sniping. It's not "Holy" to point that out, just factual.



10/10 perfect assured to generate infinite replies.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Rilvor said:


> Implying you've been around here for a while then, hm?
> 
> On that note, don't bother making claims without any substantiated quantifiable evidence. Nobody here can take you seriously.



But I did. I cited the three most extensively sampled questionnaires on human sexuality ever made. Aside from the moderate satisfaction of spanking a couple of callow youngsters here with the scourge of their own lazy-brained re-activeness,  I remain hopeful of the greater pleasure of thoughtful discussion if someone with some self confidence will step up. These posts are public - I'm not just talking to you


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> But I did. I cited the three most extensively sampled questionnaires on human sexuality ever made. Aside from the moderate satisfaction of spanking a couple of callow youngsters here with the scourge of their own lazy-brained re-activeness,  I remain hopeful of the greater pleasure of thoughtful discussion if someone with some self confidence will step up. These posts are public - I'm not just talking to you



Quoting the kinsey scale has little to do with the question of whether furry porn is innately zoophillic or whether most furries are secretly zoophiles. 

The questions and data collected concern a seperate matter, so why should we expect the same to hold true when all the variables are exchanged?


----------



## Sithon (Apr 25, 2013)

Zoophilia is humans having sex with permitting animals (e.g. that show mating signals, as opposed to bestiality, which is forced upon the animal).
Furry porn is anthropomorphised animals having sex with other anthropomorphised animals.

Two very different things.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Yeah, you are right i forgot this was FA for a moment. But just look anywhere you can see ratings. ...but of course you have. You are still dodging. But maybe that's unfair; are you one of those who only look at the "clean" art?  But if that were so, that would disqualify you from this discussion, wouldn't it? Care to clarify? Can you? I may have it all wrong and would say "sorry" if that were the case


i dont think any one thing can disqualify anybody from "discussing" anything. and how did you forget this is FA? been around have you? this further cements the idea that you are probably banned previously, and that you probably shortly will be again. in which case, there really is little point in "discussing" anything with you, both on the grounds that you probably wont be here to continue it, and that you brought nothing of academic value to to table in the first place. also, one should never say sorry on the internet, it is a thoroughly pointless endeavour, wasted on anonymity.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

What the fuck!? This thread blew the Hell up!!


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Quoting the kinsey scale has little to do with the question of whether furry porn is innately zoophillic or whether most furries are secretly zoophiles.
> 
> The questions and data collected concern a seperate matter, so why should we expect the same to hold true when all the variables are exchanged?



Furry porn _is _ innately zoophilic. i hope you are not hair-splitting the term here. I mean sexualization of animal images - that's what furry porn is. What I don't have a handle on is this: given the freedom and anonymity of the 'net, why is there so much up-tightness about this taboo on a forum largely devoted to this taboo? I'm looking for some insight here. Can you help me out?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

Sithon said:


> Zoophilia is humans having sex with permitting animals (e.g. that show mating signals, as opposed to bestiality, which is forced upon the animal).
> Furry porn is anthropomorphised animals having sex with other anthropomorphised animals.
> 
> Two very different things.



Zoophilia, coming from...the greek I believe...for 'animal' and 'attraction' means exactly what it says. Sexual attraction to [non human] animals. 

I don't think it has anything to do with permission or actual sex.



lildog said:


> Furry porn _is _ innately zoophilic. i hope  you are not hair-splitting the term here. I mean sexualization of  animal images - that's what furry porn is. What I don't have a handle on  is this: given the freedom and anonymity of the 'net, why is there so  much up-tightness about this taboo on a forum largely devoted to this  taboo? I'm looking for some insight here. Can you help me out?



Yeah, and spanking is innately a fetish for grevious bodily harm. 

You might try to insist that the semantics overlap zoophilia with fetishism for furry porn, but you won't get any close to the actual reality of the matter, which is that many furries who are insterested in furry porn are simply not attracted to real animals. 

Furthermore kinky cartoon characters or sexual costumes aren't taboos and this forum isn't devoted to furry fetishism, even if a signficiant portion of users admitted to having it it's actually a PG13 forum.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> i dont think any one thing can disqualify anybody from "discussing" anything. and how did you forget this is FA? been around have you? this further cements the idea that you are probably banned previously, and that you probably shortly will be again. in which case, there really is little point in "discussing" anything with you, both on the grounds that you probably wont be here to continue it, and that you brought nothing of academic value to to table in the first place. also, one should never say sorry on the internet, it is a thoroughly pointless endeavour, wasted on anonymity.



Preach preach, whine, whine. You've got nothing to say on the topic, just irrelevant bile. _You_ are a troll


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

TeenageAngst? How are ya!?!?


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Preach preach, whine, whine. You've got nothing to say on the topic, just irrelevant bile. _You_ are a troll


nah, im just your mirror image. and i can already tell that NOBODY READ THE LINK I PROVIDED. because what people are talking about here ISNT ZOOPHILIA



			
				motherfucking wikipedia article i just referenced said:
			
		

> The term "zoophilia" was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in _Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) by Krafft-Ebing, who described a number of cases of "violation of animals (bestiality)",[SUP][4][/SUP] as well as "zoophilia erotica",[SUP][5][/SUP] which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur. In general contemporary usage, the term "zoophilia" may refer to sexual activity between human and non-human animals, the desire to engage in such, or to the specific paraphilia (i.e., the atypical arousal) which indicates a definite preference for non-human animals over humans as sexual partners. Although Krafft-Ebing also coined the term "zooerasty" for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals,[SUP][6][/SUP] that term has fallen out of general use._



to make it SHORT, it is sexual attraction to REAL ANIMALS, as a slang term SEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN HUMANS AND NON HUMAN ANIMALZ, OR AN AROUSAL OR PREFERENCE FOR NON HUMAN ANIMALS AS A SEXUAL PARTNER.

not cartoon, big titties foxes with poorly drawn vaginas. read a book motherfucker.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> nah, im just your mirror image. and i can already tell that NOBODY READ THE LINK I PROVIDED. because what people are talking about here ISNT ZOOPHILIA



I thought you were a pooch with a cigarette...


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> I thought you were a pooch with a cigarette...


actually, im the worst the furry fandom has to offer :v


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> nah, im just your mirror image


If that's really what you think, then I'm a little sad. And since you think it's bad why do it too? Are you really damaged goods? Maybe that is not really true, just an idea. Leave the 'hood why donchya take a walk on Love St. instead? Really. Right now I am invoking the ever friendly Over-Paw of Woof in a big face-sliming slurp!


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

wat


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

Animals can't consent rofl.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

This thread sucks donkey dick.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Preach preach, whine, whine. You've got nothing to say on the topic, just irrelevant bile. _You_ are a troll



Azure is certainly not a troll. If he was, then I doubt he would have been around on FAF for five-and-a-half years.





lildog said:


> If that's really what you think, then I'm a little sad. And since you think it's bad why do it too? Are you really damaged goods? Maybe that is not really true, just an idea. Leave the 'hood why donchya take a walk on Love St. instead? Really. Right now I am invoking the ever friendly Over-Paw of Woof in a big face-sliming slurp!



Well, that just speaks for itself, doesn't it?


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> This thread sucks donkey dick.


EXCUSE ME!!!
That is MY fucking line!!!


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> If that's really what you think, then I'm a little sad. And since you think it's bad why do it too? Are you really damaged goods? Maybe that is not really true, just an idea. Leave the 'hood why donchya take a walk on Love St. instead? Really. Right now I am invoking the ever friendly Over-Paw of Woof in a big face-sliming slurp!


alrighty



Eyal Flurry said:


> This thread sucks donkey dick.


zoophile


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> EXCUSE ME!!!
> That is MY fucking line!!!



*EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME, THEN!*


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

we've missed the point, guys.

This thread doesn't suck donkey dick.

*I* suck donkey dick.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> we've missed the point, guys.
> 
> This thread doesn't suck donkey dick.
> 
> *I* suck donkey dick.


youknowwhatyoudoing


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> we've missed the point, guys.
> 
> This thread doesn't suck donkey dick.
> 
> *I* suck donkey dick.


Are you fond of Tijuana donkey shows?


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Oh...
OH...
My FUCK!
I. Will....WWWWRRRROOOOOMMMMFFFF!!!
I...will kill people.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

JoeStrike said:


> If an anthro 'animal' has human intelligence & a semi-human appearance, it's *not* a real-world animal and therefore it's not bestiality (real-world sexual contact with a real-world animal) or zoophilia ((real-world sexual desire for real-world animals).



I go that way too.

See if there were being of equal intelligence to humans with exactly the same emotions and concepts of right and wrong , I don't think people would have that much trouble with the concept (if it were a real life thing). 

Heck , the sole fact a ton of people want to bone Garrus from Mass Effect (who basically looks like a big huge anthro bug) is a good example of that. (And a lot of people who get boners from M.E. aliens are not furries)

What makes bestiality disgusting in several senses of the word is that animals CANNOT CONSENT. Thus bestiality is ALWAYS rape.
And don't give me "consenting animal examples" bullshit . This is more often than not an animal being SUBMISSIVE.

Now I personally have my limits when it comes to furry porn and tend to keep things on the more human-like side.

To me , someone who INSISTS to have anatomically correct dog dick on their characters and art tend to get stink eye from me.


PS: I would like to specify I personally don't have any hardons from looking at feral furries or real animals , thank you very much


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> youknowwhatyoudoing



Okay, this is officially the best post ever. MY SIDES!!!


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Okay, this is officially the best post ever. MY SIDES!!!


anthropomorphic monkey person has something to say


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> I go that way too.
> 
> See if there were being of equal intelligence to humans with exactly the same emotions and concepts of right and wrong , I don't think people would have that much trouble with the concept (if it were a real life thing).
> 
> ...



There are beings of equal intelligence to humans that people have a problem with. Relatives. Whilst the mechanism for avoiding sex with relatives is 'lethal genes', we could also suppose that if another species distinct from humans existed but equally intelligent that there would be an insentive to develop a problem with interspecies sex, because the mutual exchange of diseases between radically different immune systems is dangerous. 

So I think people, even if there were no 'moral' objection, would still feel grossed out by the idea if it were a reality.


----------



## Riho (Apr 25, 2013)

No.


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> I go that way too.



Oh baby. Let's go to Tijuana.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> anthropomorphic monkey person has something to say



dubya


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Hey, I never said "everyone". It's a really sizable minority that are into this actively or inactively. Those same extant questionaires indicated about half (!) among rural adolescents. This tells us that access and privacy greatly skew the "active" proportion of that statistic. I am just fascinated by taboos and their hold on the minds of otherwise rational people. They are insidious because, under their spell, we don't recognize them as taboos at all with out some rather ego-damaging examination and admission of the plain craziness of some of our thought processes. Currently, the only significant minority violators of taboo on the American landscape are atheists. I would like to see the same happen for sexual liberation through the zoos as for intellectual liberation through the atheists. We are talking about many millions of affected people here and no less a principal than freedom itself. What could be more important than that? 

It is the nature of taboos that they invoke a great deal of negativity and resistance when a light is shined on them. Some kind of 'fight-or-flight' apt to bring out the worst in us. We just gotta keep trying and hit the reset button when the dialogue breaks down. Most of the people around here should realize - like it or not - that they are in the mix. Furry porn is definitely taboo to mainstream society. The fact that most people here are comfortable about means that, personally  they have broken through that particular taboo. I say keep on pushin'


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

...


----------



## Hewge (Apr 25, 2013)

What monster revived this thread?

Also; *Get your dog dicks outta my face. >:[*â€‹


----------



## Ryoute (Apr 25, 2013)

I like furry porn in the exact same way as I like human porn. I don't even really see the difference. They're just fuzzy and cute, nothing wrong with that.

Iow, no.


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

I like my porn without dog cock in it.


----------



## Ryoute (Apr 25, 2013)

Machine said:


> I like my porn without dog cock in it.


Liar. Cock is always good. No exceptions.


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

Ryoute said:


> Liar. Cock is always good. No exceptions.


Correction: human cock is good.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

Machine said:


> I like my porn without dog cock in it.



I'MMA COMMISHUN A PIC OF MY MURRSONA GETTING DONE IN THE ASS BY A SIX-BREASTED HERMAPHRODITE RED FOX WITH CANINE GENITALIA. NO CRITIQUES.


----------



## HaewooTheCat (Apr 25, 2013)

i don't think furry porn is zoophilia because those who like furry porn are attracted to the human part of the anthro, not the animal part. I am into furry yaoi, does that mean I wanna hump gay cats? No, I  am attracted to the human part of the furry boys who just happen to be part cat. I do like cats, though, but not sexually...


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> I'MMA COMMISHUN A PIC OF MY MURRSONA GETTING DONE IN THE ASS BY A SIX-BREASTED HERMAPHRODITE RED FOX WITH CANINE GENITALIA. NO CRITIQUES.


Why do you hate me.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Honestly, I just the random cat features or whatever the fuck are adorable. So adorable plus big sexy hips=happy Pachi.


----------



## Riho (Apr 25, 2013)

Hewge said:


> What monster revived this thread?
> 
> Also; *Get your dog dicks outta my face. >:[*â€‹


What about hyena dick and/or ass?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2013)

Sithon said:


> *Zoophilia is humans having sex with permitting animals* (e.g. that show mating signals, as opposed to bestiality, which is forced upon the animal).
> Furry porn is anthropomorphised animals having sex with other anthropomorphised animals.
> 
> Two very different things.



I was reading through the two pages since I left but got this far and I have to say this is the stupidest fucking thing posted here so far. Really? That is what you think Zoopjhillia is? You seriously need to go look up the definition dude cause you clearly know nothing about this topic.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

Machine said:


> Why do you hate me.



Cheer up, I'll get you one too!


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

HaewooTheCat said:


> i don't think furry porn is zoophilia because those who like furry porn are attracted to the human part of the anthro, not the animal part. I am into furry yaoi, does that mean I wanna hump gay cats? No, I  am attracted to the human part of the furry boys who just happen to be part cat. I do like cats, though, but not sexually...



You said it better than I could. I feel the same. I relate and CAN be turned on by the human attributes of these characters. Not the fact they look like the neighbour's dog.


----------



## Ryoute (Apr 25, 2013)

HaewooTheCat said:


> I wanna hump gay cats


I'm sorry, what were you saying? That's all I heard.


----------



## Car Fox (Apr 25, 2013)

Why... just why... this is why I give up on FAF sometimes.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Torsion Beam said:


> Why... just why... this is why I give up on FAF sometimes.



Tell us about your feelings .. Oprah style.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

Sithon said:


> Zoophilia is humans having sex with permitting animals (e.g. that show mating signals, as opposed to bestiality, which is forced upon the animal).
> Furry porn is anthropomorphised animals having sex with other anthropomorphised animals.
> 
> Two very different things.


What special dictionary are you reading from, anyway?


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Romper stomper bomper room ... magic mirror tell me today, did all my friends have fun at play?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Hey, I never said "everyone". It's a really sizable minority that are into this actively or inactively. Those same extant questionaires indicated about half (!) among rural adolescents. This tells us that access and privacy greatly skew the "active" proportion of that statistic. I am just fascinated by taboos and their hold on the minds of otherwise rational people. They are insidious because, under their spell, we don't recognize them as taboos at all with out some rather ego-damaging examination and admission of the plain craziness of some of our thought processes. Currently, the only significant minority violators of taboo on the American landscape are atheists. I would like to see the same happen for sexual liberation through the zoos as for intellectual liberation through the atheists. We are talking about many millions of affected people here and no less a principal than freedom itself. What could be more important than that?
> 
> It is the nature of taboos that they invoke a great deal of negativity and resistance when a light is shined on them. Some kind of 'fight-or-flight' apt to bring out the worst in us. We just gotta keep trying and hit the reset button when the dialogue breaks down. Most of the people around here should realize - like it or not - that they are in the mix. Furry porn is definitely taboo to mainstream society. The fact that most people here are comfortable about means that, personally  they have broken through that particular taboo. I say keep on pushin'



Most people haven't even heard of furries; furry porn is not a taboo. The actual taboo is sharing the porn you like with people.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Romper stomper bomper room ... magic mirror tell me today, did all my friends have fun at play?



You what?


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Sithon said:
			
		

> Zoophilia is humans having sex with permitting animals (e.g. that show mating signals, as opposed to bestiality, which is forced upon the animal).
> Furry porn is anthropomorphised animals having sex with other anthropomorphised animals.
> 
> Two very different things.



Jesus Christ , what did I read?!

ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT. What is hard about that to understand you sicko?

Because an animal has been trained to raise their butt in a "fuck me" manner doesn't mean they WANT YOU to. God....

Best example of that is that really creepy story about that chimpanzee in South America they used as a sex slave in a brothel. She had been trained to act "suggestively" and would open her legs on demand. That in no way means she was consenting.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Romper stomper bomper room ... magic mirror tell me today, did all my friends have fun at play?



Yeah, you're not Toshabi.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Jesus Christ , what did I read?!
> 
> ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT. What is hard about that to understand you sicko?
> 
> Because an animal has been trained to raised their butt in a "fuck me" manner doesn't mean they WANT YOU to. God....



And if the animal in question plays the domineering role instead of submission? Women have previously been raped by Orangutans. 

The reason animals can't express consent, as it is known in our law, is that consent only applies to humans over a certain age and free from intoxication.

This tangent isn't strictly relevant.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Yeah, you're not Toshabi.



Like we even need one.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Like we even need one.



We don't need anyone here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> We don't need anyone here.



I need you. :c


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 25, 2013)

I need you all

help me please


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I need you. :c



It's implied that I'm needed, so I can just say no one.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> And if the animal in question plays the domineering role instead of submission? Women have previously been raped by Orangutans.
> 
> The reason animals can't express consent, as it is known in our law, is that consent only applies to humans over a certain age and free from intoxication.
> 
> This tangent isn't strictly relevant.



Nothing in this made sense.

The reason animals cannot consent is because THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND OR PROCESS the IMPLICATIONS of having sex with you. It's the same reason sex with children . In both cases they don't have the mental capacities to analyse everything that comes into play thus cannot make an intelligent decision when it comes to sexual activity with an adult human.

Thus , rape.

Even if the dog starts humping the heck out of a woman , a normal mentally sane person would stop it , not take advantage of the situation!


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Hey, I never said "everyone". It's a really sizable minority that are into this actively or inactively. Those same extant questionaires indicated about half (!) among rural adolescents. This tells us that access and privacy greatly skew the "active" proportion of that statistic. I am just fascinated by taboos and their hold on the minds of otherwise rational people. They are insidious because, under their spell, we don't recognize them as taboos at all with out some rather ego-damaging examination and admission of the plain craziness of some of our thought processes. Currently, the only significant minority violators of taboo on the American landscape are atheists. I would like to see the same happen for sexual liberation through the zoos as for intellectual liberation through the atheists. We are talking about many millions of affected people here and no less a principal than freedom itself. What could be more important than that?
> 
> It is the nature of taboos that they invoke a great deal of negativity and resistance when a light is shined on them. Some kind of 'fight-or-flight' apt to bring out the worst in us. We just gotta keep trying and hit the reset button when the dialogue breaks down. Most of the people around here should realize - like it or not - that they are in the mix. Furry porn is definitely taboo to mainstream society. The fact that most people here are comfortable about means that, personally  they have broken through that particular taboo. I say keep on pushin'


so when you fail at trolling, you make this "genuinely curious" post. with overtone of sexual liberation, and principles of freedom no less. weak sauce bro, 0/10, its been fun, but at your expense mostly. kthx


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

Y'all are weird, exotic cocks look great on any creature. And hindquarters are the best part of a furry.


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> We don't need anyone here.



I need all of you! Unless you're a total douchepickle. Then I don't need you.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

www.bad-dragon.com


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> Y'all are weird, exotic cocks look great on any creature.



I want a barbed hemidragonpenis


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Honestly...I'm grossed out 100% by any cock with some sort of point or those odd bulge things. As well as multi boobs.
...and digitigrade legs.


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Nothing in this made sense.
> 
> The reason animals cannot consent is because THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND OR PROCESS the IMPLICATIONS of having sex with you. It's the same reason sex with children . In both cases they don't have the mental capacities to analyse everything that comes into play thus cannot make an intelligent decision when it comes to sexual activity with an adult human.
> 
> ...



this is such a weird post

   why are you anthropomorphising real animals? You can't say animals are lacking human concepts and base any conclusions off that. "Animals don't have human concepts" is just a truism.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Honestly...I'm grossed out 100% by any cock with some sort of point or those odd bulge things. As well as multi boobs.
> ..._*and digitigrade legs*_.


Your avi has them..... . Yeah, this thread is just about done IMO.


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

in after lock


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> in after lock


I can't lock threads here, only in the art forums.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> in after lock



thread is kill


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I can't lock threads here, only in the art forums.


Bugger, I thought I was going to pull that one off. :c

Seriously, though. There are some really weird arguments on both sides of the debate going on, here.

There's massive generalisations and weird anthropomorphisation everywhere. "Animals can't consent" is an archaic trope, debunked everywhere; it's not even the relevant argument. But the insistence that everyone is a closet zoophile is just as ridiculous - talk about 'denial'.


----------



## Ryoute (Apr 25, 2013)

14 users browsing thread. Smashing success. Don't lock.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 25, 2013)

Ryoute said:


> 14 users browsing thread. Smashing success. Don't lock.



It's always the most active threads that get locked, really.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 25, 2013)

You know, I don't even know what this thread is supposed to be about. To me, "Is furry porn zoophilia?" is a non-sensical statement. It's just art, albeit realllly stretching the definition sometimes. Sometimes disgusting, or perverted, or obscene, but just pictures all the same.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

in b4 lock


----------



## Ryoute (Apr 25, 2013)

LizardKing said:


> It's just art, albeit realllly stretching the definition sometimes.


Well, that depends on your definition of art. Is it simply the skill required to make the drawing, or the meaning of the drawing?


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

I mean, you can't argue in terms of whats "legal or illegal", because the law changes from place to place, because it's based on cultural values - and can't prove anything about what's wrong or right.

And you can't talk about what's morally wrong or right, because morals are based on cultural values, and say nothing about a scientific backing.

Psychology suggests one in six people are attracted to animals. That's a real fact about (western) society; it can't be denied or mitigated. It's also a significant number, so more psychological research into beastiality would be the scientifically correct thing to do. And hey presto, what do you know. Cultural values indeed are changeable. There's a whole lot of nonsense about wrong and right going on here. We've just got to admit we're naive of the facts because we shut down debate without the scientific backing to pick up the decision we make; plebeian reactionarianism should have died off with the middle ages, really.

Playing the devil's advocate to win, yo'.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 25, 2013)

Ryoute said:


> Well, that depends on your definition of art. Is it simply the skill required to make the drawing, or the meaning of the drawing?



Art is a craft that can come in many mediums used to instigate emotion or to express a thought or illustrate an idea.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

LizardKing said:


> You know, I don't even know what this thread is supposed to be about. To me, "Is furry porn zoophilia?" is a non-sensical statement. *It's just art,* albeit realllly stretching the definition sometimes. Sometimes disgusting, or perverted, or obscene, but just pictures all the same.



Unless it's costumes, which is definitively not zoophilia.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> this is such a weird post
> 
> why are you anthropomorphising real animals? You can't say animals are lacking human concepts and base any conclusions off that. "Animals don't have human concepts" is just a truism.



Ok how about this : Animals are too damn stupid to know what they're doing and you should be better than that as a human? 

Is that better?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Nothing in this made sense.
> 
> The reason animals cannot consent is because THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND OR  PROCESS the IMPLICATIONS of having sex with you. It's the same reason  sex with children . In both cases they don't have the mental capacities  to analyse everything that comes into play thus cannot make an  intelligent decision when it comes to sexual activity with an adult  human.
> 
> ...



Agreed, though I think the concept of consent breaks down outside of  the legal situation it was designed for and in species which have no  concept of it to begin with- I was just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Ok how about this : Animals are too damn stupid to know what they're doing and you should be better than that as a human?
> 
> Is that better?



Not really. Saying that something doesn't know what it's doing because it has a different set of concepts is silly.

Maybe the dog doesn't know how humping translate into human culture, but it damn well knows why it's doing it. :u

I guess I'm saying - again - that anthropomorphising doesn't work here.


----------



## lildog (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> so when you fail at trolling, you make this "genuinely curious" post. with overtone of sexual liberation, and principles of freedom no less. weak sauce bro, 0/10, its been fun, but at your expense mostly. kthx



Cynicism and prejudice. I believe you could say something useful. It would just be better if you tried


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Cynicism and prejudice. I believe you could say something useful. It would just be better if you tried



Hello, Lucy. Whatcha up to?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> Not really. Saying that something doesn't know what it's doing because it has a different set of concepts is silly.
> 
> Maybe the dog doesn't know how humping translate into human culture, but it damn well knows why it's doing it. :u
> 
> I guess I'm saying - again - that anthropomorphising doesn't work here.



I agree. By convention I would state that consent can only exist between humans of a certain age and free of intoxication. The concept breaks down when it is applied to non human species, which is why they are rightfully excluded from ever being sexually involved with humans in law. 

In absense of consent as we know it being possible, it should not be legal, to paraphrase.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Agreed, though I think the concept of consent breaks down outside of  the legal situation it was designed for and in species which have no  concept of it to begin with- I was just playing devil's advocate.



Well yes obviously. 

I just hate when people try to justify animal abuse by inventing some excuse that the naimal CONSENTED when it's simply impossible .


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Well yes obviously.
> 
> I just hate when people try to justify animal abuse by inventing some excuse that the naimal CONSENTED when it's simply impossible .


If peanut butter is involved, it's totally consensual. :V


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I agree. By convention I would state that consent can only exist between humans of a certain age and free of intoxication. The concept breaks down when it is applied to non human species, which is why they are rightfully excluded from ever being sexually involved with humans in law.
> 
> In absense of consent as we know it being possible, it should not be legal, to paraphrase.



Continuing with the devil's advocate position, and talking outside of assumptions of morality - do you believe it's more progressive to assume your conclusion, when the alternative that exists is to seek to understand what 'consent' would mean across species borders?

One benefit of the latter would be to thereaby set rules and limits that punish offenders, rather than a potentially well-meaning one in six people.

One detraction of the former is that we're reduced to throwing the word 'consent' around in arguments such as this, fully aware that we have no understanding of what that word means in the context we're using it in.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Machine said:


> If peanut butter is involved, it's totally consensual. :V



That's kinda of like saying that a junkie likes to hurt themselves after you tell them they can have free heroin if they slam their face in a wall.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

Back to the original topic I think the entire 'furry porn being zoophilia' can be dismissed as a slippery slope fallacy.

 A keener question might be why some people indulge in that fallacy to begin with? Just because they're grossed out?


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> Continuing with the devil's advocate position, and talking outside of assumptions of morality - do you believe it's more progressive to assume your conclusion, when the alternative that exists is to seek to understand what 'consent' would mean across species borders?
> 
> One benefit of the latter would be to thereaby set rules and limits that punish offenders, rather than a potentially well-meaning one in six people.
> 
> One detraction of the former is that we're reduced to throwing the word 'consent' around in arguments such as this, fully aware that we have no understanding of what that word means in the context we're using it in.



Err.. could you explain what you mean by "well-meaning" ? 

In the context all that comes through my mind is "I was well-meaningly sexing up that cat"


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Err.. could you explain what you mean by "well-meaning" ?
> 
> In the context all that comes through my mind is "I was well-meaningly sexing up that cat"



I would have thought that well-meaning would be a very easy word to understand. Here you are. 

    It's pretty easy to assume that every person on the planet who's been involved with animals must be some kind of sycophant who's actively caused harm. That's also a really dangerous generalisation and, honestly, history's kind of proven that to date, every prejudice is unfounded. So yes, I'm working on the assumption that some zoophiles must have some sort of romantic or emotional connection to their partners and don't cause harm (because how the hell your six inches is gonna harm a mare who takes two feet is beyond me). If that's a contradiction of terms, I'll apologise. Or is the devil's advocate position really beyond your comprehension? Does everyone have to be morally reactionary to anything that upsets current standards of behaviour in your eyes?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> Continuing with the devil's advocate position, and   talking outside of assumptions of morality - do you believe it's more   progressive to assume your conclusion, when the alternative that exists   is to seek to understand what 'consent' would mean across species   borders?
> 
> One benefit of the latter would be to thereaby set rules and limits that   punish offenders, rather than a potentially well-meaning one in six   people.
> 
> One detraction of the former is that we're reduced to throwing the word   'consent' around in arguments such as this, fully aware that we have no   understanding of what that word means in the context we're using it   in.



I think consent should be a 'positive' discriminating variable, rather than a negative one. 

Phrased as 'it's only acceptable if you definitely have consent', rather  than 'it's only not acceptable if it can be proven you didn't'. 

Within this frame I think it's entirely justified to exclude any human  involvement with animals on the basis that an animal which _has_ been raped hasn't the grounds to present a legal challenge- people can only do it on the animal's behalf. 

As far as 1 in 6 people go, I could not care less if they are aroused by  photos of animals, footage of mating animals or art of animalxhuman  relations, but real life relations are unacceptable for the  aforementioned reason.




SIX said:


> I would have thought that well-meaning would be a very easy word to understand. Here you are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's very difficult to prove if an animal has suffered from a relationship with a human, because they can't present legal grounds themselves. This is the reason it is fair to dismiss all animalxhuman relationships from consent- consent must be crystal clear, not muddied by anthropomorphic fallacies such as 'but I thought it wanted me' or 'we're in love and it likes it'- even if the animal truly does not object there's little room to prove it.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Back to the original topic I think the entire 'furry porn being zoophilia' can be dismissed as a slippery slope fallacy.
> 
> A keener question might be why some people indulge in that fallacy to begin with? Just because they're grossed out?



I don't know. Some people like to feel like they have a moral superiority or something.

Comparing furry to zoophilia is retarded in that furry characters are NOT real. They're entirely fictional. They don't exist in this reality we live in. 

Also , it might just be the same reason than the people who condemn gay sex. They find it "yucky" but realise it's a retarded reason and try to awkwardly rationalise it.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

SIX said:


> I would have thought that well-meaning would be a very easy word to understand. Here you are.
> 
> It's pretty easy to assume that every person on the planet who's been involved with animals must be some kind of sycophant who's actively caused harm. That's also a really dangerous generalisation and, honestly, history's kind of proven that to date, every prejudice is unfounded. So yes, I'm working on the assumption that some zoophiles must have some sort of romantic or emotional connection to their partners and don't cause harm (because how the hell your six inches is gonna harm a mare who takes two feet is beyond me). If that's a contradiction of terms, I'll apologise. Or is the devil's advocate position really beyond your comprehension? Does everyone have to be morally reactionary to anything that upsets current standards of behaviour in your eyes?



Ok , you leave me speechless there..

And not because you're right , but because this has to be the biggest piece of bullshit I've heard in my whole life.

Any mentally sane person could IMMEDIATLY recognise why sexing up your pets is a terrible idea. Devil's advocate or not , I can't believe you could so casually say this.

Excuse me while I facedesk for a full hour.


Also , Sycophant does not mean what you think it means.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

lildog said:


> Cynicism and prejudice. I believe you could say something useful. It would just be better if you tried


no u


----------



## Hewge (Apr 25, 2013)

I don't normally like threads dying, but I feel like it's best this one did.


----------



## Imperial Impact (Apr 25, 2013)

It's 2013 and RetroCorn hasn't changed his avatar back.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Apr 25, 2013)

@Thread Question:
No, it's not.
Furry Porn is art, be it disgusting or not to the eye.
Labels like these are quite awesome.

Also... reading these last three pages gave me quite the headache due to some stupid comments and Flashbacks I had.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 25, 2013)

Even if it was zoophilia, who the fuck cares? You like what you like anyway right?


----------



## Symlus (Apr 25, 2013)

In response to thread: no.
Furry porn is not Zoophilia. The Wiki article Azure provided had the proper definition.
Also, in regards to lildog: stop being an asshole. Azure is not a troll. However, you are, due to general shitposting and trying to start flame wars.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Even if it was zoophilia, who the fuck cares? You like what you like anyway right?



Not really no...

If you happen to be a pedophile who likes children , a serial killer a-la-Dahmer who likes to sleep with corpses or a dog-fucker , "You like what you like" is not a philosophy you should go by.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 25, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Even if it was zoophilia, who the fuck cares? You like what you like anyway right?


So you're a zoophile sympathiser? If I read this correctly (which I'm not sure of).


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

Raptros said:


> So you're a zoophile sympathiser? If I read this correctly (which I'm not sure of).



Either that or just pragmatic. In the imaginary scenario that every furry also is a zoophile, them viewing furry porn has no legitimate effect on anything.


----------



## BlueStreak98 (Apr 25, 2013)

To answer the thread, no it's not zoophilia. Bringing this thread back, on the other hand, is necrophilia.


----------



## Harbinger (Apr 25, 2013)

I dont think it is, i see animals and furries as completely unrelated things to me. Anything attractive in a furry is the human aspects that carry over to anthro.



Lev1athan said:


> .



Your avatar is awesome :O


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

'Anything attractive in a furry is the human aspect [that is transplanted]'

Erm, what about tails? I find those attractive, but with the condition that only when they are on people. 

This distinction needs to be made because arguing the attractive qualities of furry porn are exclusively human is really silly and effectively just raises questions of why anyone would bother with furry porn in the first place.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 25, 2013)

mapdark said:


> Not really no...
> 
> If you happen to be a pedophile who likes children , a serial killer a-la-Dahmer who likes to sleep with corpses or a dog-fucker , "You like what you like" is not a philosophy you should go by.


 Well it's their life. I can't judge people or control their actions. If it doesn't affect anyone else, why should it matter to you? It's natural to like something sexually, unless it hurts or violates others. If the dog likes getting fucked by the dog fucker, then it shouldn't be a problem. Or if he happens to just like zoophilia, then okay. Certain things creep me out, but I don't believe I have the right to tell people what to do.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 25, 2013)

Raptros said:


> So you're a zoophile sympathiser? If I read this correctly (which I'm not sure of).


 No, I just don't think it matters as long as people control their own actions.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

'You like what you like' isn't the correct philosophy. However 'what is the practical effect?' actually is. Furry porn, regardless of whether someone considers it zoophillic in nature, is [by and large] harmless and, to my knowledge, does not insight people to actual acts of zoophilia in a statistically significant measure.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> 'Anything attractive in a furry is the human aspect [that is transplanted]'
> 
> Erm, what about tails? I find those attractive, but with the condition that only when they are on people.
> 
> This distinction needs to be made because arguing the attractive qualities of furry porn are exclusively human is really silly and effectively just raises questions of why anyone would bother with furry porn in the first place.



But you just said it. 
You find tails attractive only "when they are attached to people".

Thus you anthropomorphise the character. The tails might not be human , but the HUMAN element is still there nonetheless.

From what I understand you wouldn't find it attractive to have a big bushy tail if it was NOT on a HUMANOID being.

Making the human element a very important one , if not necessary .


This is what we meant by being attracted to the human element in furries. Physically speaking the tail is not human ,but when the only condition for liking them IS a human element . it becomes the exception that confirms the rule.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Apr 25, 2013)

I am gonna say it right now. I don't think there is anything wrong with being attracted to real animals if that was the case. Not that I am. It's natural to be sexually attracted to what you like (obviously) as long as you are not violating others or doing shit without permission. I don't see why there is such a concern here. Go to an asylum if you think you are into zoophilia and want to change or think it's wrong.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Your avi has them..... . Yeah, this thread is just about done IMO.


On anthros smartass. Don't make me pinch your nipples.

It just looks...weird.


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 25, 2013)

As for the OT:

Lol, nup.

As for stupid troll:

Lol, nup.


As for bestiality......


This is a very complex topic, obviously for a great deal of reasons, and I really have no right nor moral standing to persuade one way or the other. I feel for those that are zoophiles, for they generally seem to mean no harm to the animal in question, however I guess by moral standings of an outsider it should not be allowed unless the animal can give consent. The main issue is this: how the hell do you ask an animal for consent?

I'm not a zoophile, but I do not see it in it's brightest morals and as being strictly wrong. I just cannot bring myself to make a judgement for something I know nothing about. If an animal gave consent and was cared for in the most loving light, I do believe it to be legitimate, if not for me.

When it comes down to moral values rather than issues of consent, it is similar to holding disgust towards a particular fetish or sexual orientation. Scat fetishes abhor me, they scare and sicken me, but I have no right to dictate them illegal. Zoophilia, it holds various concerns for me, but by and far the largest is the welfare of the animal, as I hold it to be what should be.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Apr 25, 2013)

What I learned with this thread:
- You can't wag your tail near Fallowfox or he'll have a hard time. :V

In b4 someone else comes out as a zoophile and this thread is locked.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

TheMetalVelocity said:


> Well it's their life. I can't judge people or control their actions. If it doesn't affect anyone else, why should it matter to you? It's natural to like something sexually, unless it hurts or violates others. If the dog likes getting fucked by the dog fucker, then it shouldn't be a problem. Or if he happens to just like zoophilia, then okay. Certain things creep me out, but I don't believe I have the right to tell people what to do.



The pooch can't speak out though...


----------



## Hewge (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> On anthros smartass. Don't make me pinch your nipples.
> 
> It just looks...weird.



*looks at your avatar*

Yeah, it is weird...


----------



## Artillery Spam (Apr 25, 2013)

Lol what is this?


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

A thread about to be locked by that Mentova dude.


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 25, 2013)

But Mentova loves 'doggy' dicks! :V


----------



## DrDingo (Apr 25, 2013)

Considering how many pages there are here, it's likely that anything I say would have already been said over 100 times. But I would probably lean towards a 'no' on this one. Firstly, for the obvious reason that they need to have a human likeness. Secondly, I think the animal factor might often just be used as a tool to communicate gender and personality roles in a lot of the situations, for the same reason that lots of people in the fandom choose a fursona animal that suits their appearance or personality. People would actually be able to judge what the characters are like just by seeing which animals they are. The range of animals that would be in all the furry porn on the Internet would be very diverse, I don't think most people would be likely to search for it to see particular features on certain animals.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Apr 25, 2013)

I found the following post on the first page of this thread:




Morroke said:


> This will be a fun thread.



Truer words have never been spoken.


----------



## Car Fox (Apr 25, 2013)

This thread fun??? It's spectacular!!! :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 25, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> What I learned with this thread:
> - You can't wag your tail near Fallowfox or he'll have a hard time. :V
> 
> In b4 *someone else *comes out as a zoophile and this thread is locked.



To make it clear I'm not a zoophile.


----------



## mapdark (Apr 25, 2013)

Mikhal18 said:


> In b4 someone else comes out as a zoophile and this thread is locked.



No ! I keep a list of people I want to avoid!
Zoophiles coming out help me a lot with this task XD


----------



## Ryoute (Apr 25, 2013)

Humans are animals. You are all zoophiles.


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

this thread is bi-winning


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 25, 2013)

If Anthro-Animal porn is Zoophilia, then by logic, looking up Night elf, orc, or Twi'lek porn is Zoophillia. :V

And goddamn it furries...


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 25, 2013)

I swear, whenever I see a mod was the last one on a "strange" thread, I always assume it's been locked as I click the arrow. lol


----------



## chagen (Apr 25, 2013)

god-damm were do people get these thread ideas from.


----------



## Machine (Apr 25, 2013)

Not to mention that dogfucking can harm the shit (kinda literally) out of your dog. Again, rape. Of an animal.

Enjoy your vet bill and subsequent trial, lol.


----------



## Golden (Apr 25, 2013)

The obvious answer as already been given a countless number of times, but no.

Just no.


----------



## Mikhal18 (Apr 25, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> To make it clear I'm not a zoophile.


Oh sorry, I didn't say it was you who "came out" as one ^^" 
(I was reading some "other" posts on people who "don't care" about others' "tastes". That part of the post was actually related to those other people *wink* 
The only part of my post that was addressed to you was the tail-wagging thing ^^



mapdark said:


> No ! I keep a list of people I want to avoid!
> Zoophiles coming out help me a lot with this task XD


Yeah but it's not a really nice thing. (and believe me, you can actually see some "closeted" ones in the older pages. 



XoPachi said:


> I swear, whenever I see a mod was the last one on a "strange" thread, I always assume it's been locked as I click the arrow. lol


^I know that feel. Every single thread.


----------



## Zerig (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> The pooch can't speak out though...



They have other ways of telling you they want the D.

Also, I feel like I've been put on some kind of terrible list for Googling "dogs in pantyhose".


----------



## Azure (Apr 25, 2013)

Zerig said:


> They have other ways of telling you they want the D.
> 
> Also, I feel like I've been put on some kind of terrible list for Googling "dogs in pantyhose".


the one on the left wants it BAD

youve been a naughty puppy


----------



## BRN (Apr 25, 2013)

Azure said:


> the one on the left wants it BAD
> 
> youve been a naughty puppy



"call me a bitch"


----------



## Namba (Apr 25, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> A thread about to be locked by that Mentova dude.



Ol' Minty is into this stuff, you should know.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 25, 2013)

I think this discussion has gone on long enough...


----------

