# being furry is not being into beastialty



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

I am sure this thread will be locked. Anyways, I have seen a good few state that when they tell people they are a furry they are automatically considered to be into beastialty. It's not true of course, but there never seems to be a good explanation for the difference. especially with the yiffing part. Well, I think I have found one. Beastiality is humans doing "you know what"  to animals. Furry is where we are the animals that humans and fello furs do this too. No actual real life animal is involved with furries. so, therefore, it is not beastialty.


----------



## Dass (Nov 6, 2009)

Uh...

IT'S NOT (typically) A FECKING FETISH!

Explanation over.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Dass said:


> Uh...
> 
> IT'S NOT (typically) A FECKING FETISH!
> 
> Explanation over.



It is for some. If it wasn't, the word yiff would not exist in my view.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 6, 2009)

I consider "yiff" as mental bestiality in the same way that fantasizing and drawing porn about that special someone else, that isn't your significant other, is mentally cheating.

People could argue that _"it doesn't count unless you take action,"_
but I am the thought police, and I must insist _"NO, GODDAMNIT! NO!"_


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> I consider "yiff" as mental bestiality in the same way that fantasizing and drawing porn about that special someone else, that isn't your significant other, is mentally cheating.
> 
> People could argue that _"it doesn't count unless you take action,"_
> but I am the thought police, and I must insist _"NO, GODDAMNIT! NO!"_


 
no, it's not beastialty at all.


----------



## Dass (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> It is for some. If it wasn't, the word yiff would not exist in my view.



Hence the word typically.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> no, it's not beastialty at all.


How not?
You're still getting off to _"OH HAWT THEY'RE HALF WOLF!!!"_ instead of the human bits, no?

If the human bits were the attraction, you wouldn't need the furry aspect.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Dass said:


> Hence the word typically.





Vaelarsa said:


> How not?
> You're still getting off to _"OH HAWT THEY'RE HALF WOLF!!!"_ instead of the human bits, no?
> 
> If the human bits were the attraction, you wouldn't need the furry aspect.


 
lol no, i am not discussing that here. i am talking about being into the art and such.


----------



## Jestevez (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> I am sure this thread will be locked. Anyways, I have seen a good few state that when they tell people they are a furry they are automatically considered to be into beastialty. It's not true of course, but there never seems to be a good explanation for the difference. especially with the yiffing part. Well, I think I have found one. Beastiality is humans doing "you know what"  to animals. Furry is where we are the animals that humans and fello furs do this too. No actual real life animal is involved with furries. so, therefore, it is not beastialty.



oh okay


----------



## Fay V (Nov 6, 2009)

It doesn't automatically make you into bestiality because for many sex doesn't come into it.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Fay V said:


> It doesn't automatically make you into bestiality because for many sex doesn't come into it.


that too


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> I am sure this thread will be locked. Anyways, I have seen a good few state that when they tell people they are a furry they are automatically considered to be into beastialty. It's not true of course, but there never seems to be a good explanation for the difference. especially with the yiffing part. Well, I think I have found one. Beastiality is humans doing "you know what"  to animals. Furry is where we are the animals that humans and fello furs do this too. No actual real life animal is involved with furries. so, therefore, it is not beastialty.



Why tell US what WE all ready KNOW? Go tell THOSE that are confusing the fandom with bestiality!


----------



## Beta Link (Nov 6, 2009)

Oh. I seem to be part of the wrong fandom then. :V


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> lol no, i am not discussing that here. i am talking about being into the art and such.


If you're disassociating furry from the fetish aspect, and instead calling it an artistic interest, then why defend the fetish aspect to begin with?


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> If you're disassociating furry from the fetish aspect, and instead calling it an artistic interest, then why defend the fetish aspect to begin with?



why not?



RandyDarkshade said:


> Why tell US what WE all ready KNOW? Go tell THOSE that are confusing the fandom with bestiality!



tried. didn't work as usual



Beta Link said:


> Oh. I seem to be part of the wrong fandom then. :V



lol this doesn't apply to all furries.


----------



## Bacu (Nov 6, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> How not?
> You're still getting off to _"OH HAWT THEY'RE HALF WOLF!!!"_ instead of the human bits, no?
> 
> If the human bits were the attraction, you wouldn't need the furry aspect.


If the animal bits are the only part that matter then why are they generally people-shaped? :\


----------



## Fay V (Nov 6, 2009)

Bacu said:


> If the animal bits are the only part that matter then why are they generally people-shaped? :\


they look at the people bits and go "that's nice, but it needs more beast"


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 6, 2009)

Bacu said:


> If the animal bits are the only part that matter then why are they generally people-shaped? :\





Fay V said:


> they look at the people bits and go "that's nice, but it needs more beast"



This is why I like anthro's to have human "bits" rather than animal "bits". If a random person finds a picture of an anthro, and it has a doggy dick rather than a human dick, naturally they are going to think "Bestiality? "


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This is why I like anthro's to have human "bits" rather than animal "bits". If a random person finds a picture of an anthro, and it has a doggy dick rather than a human dick, naturally they are going to think "Bestiality? "


it's still not the same. reason why is due to the personified facial expressions. animals don't have facial expressions.


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> it's still not the same. reason why is due to the personified facial expressions. animals don't have facial expressions.


 
so if a person was doing a feral character but it can make facial expressions, its not beastiality? D:


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> it's still not the same. reason why is due to the personified facial expressions. animals don't have facial expressions.



Don't get how facial features connects to bestiality...

It just makes them more human like, which is what I like. If I am gonna look at anthro's that have more animal characteristics than human I might as well go watch my moms dog in the yard.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 6, 2009)

another bestiality thread... 

Well, we all know where this is going

"Furry isn't bestiality"
"YES IT IS"
"NO IT IS NOT YOU FUCKING PERVERT!!"
"OH I BET YOU WOULD FUCK ME"
*unzips pants*



.... wait I think I did that wrong XD


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

south syde fox said:


> so if a person was doing a feral character but it can make facial expressions, its not beastiality? D:



lol nope it's not



RandyDarkshade said:


> Don't get how facial features connects to bestiality...
> 
> It just makes them more human like, which is what I like. If I am gonna look at anthro's that have more animal characteristics than human I might as well go watch my moms dog in the yard.



lol if you think that way, then yeah



Aurali said:


> another bestiality thread...
> 
> Well, we all know where this is going
> 
> ...



XD i get it though


----------



## Fay V (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> it's still not the same. reason why is due to the personified facial expressions. animals don't have facial expressions.



Many do actually. retrievers have eyebrows and some dogs learn to bear their teeth mimicing a human smile.


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> lol nope it's not


 
You lost me ._.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> no. reason why is because your character is an animal into an animal. you character is not a human into an animal, if you can understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> lol if you think that way, then yeah



My preferences: A human body with paws as feet, animal head, tail and a fur coat. as the animal parts. 

All though just because people like feral art or anatomically correct does not = they like bestiality.


----------



## Conker (Nov 6, 2009)

OP is just in denial that she now wants to fuck dogs and horses :V

Every fur goes through it, the shame will pass.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Fay V said:


> Many do actually. retrievers have eyebrows and some dogs learn to bear their teeth mimicing a human smile.


but that's all it is is mimicing. doesn't have any meaning behind it.



south syde fox said:


> You lost me ._.



lol no it's not beastialty if your feral character can make facial expressions.



RandyDarkshade said:


> My preferences: A human body with paws as feet, animal head, tail and a fur coat. as the animal parts.
> 
> All though just because people like feral art or anatomically correct does not = they like bestiality.



exactly


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

Conker said:


> OP is just in denial that she now wants to fuck dogs and horses :V
> 
> Every fur goes through it, the shame will pass.


 
I seem to of missed that phase, instead I went to shoot anyone else that tries to do it phase :\

Though I missed that I still carry the shame part ._.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Conker said:


> OP is just in denial that she now wants to fuck dogs and horses :V
> 
> Every fur goes through it, the shame will pass.



you sicken me -_-


----------



## Carenath (Nov 6, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> How not?
> You're still getting off to _"OH HAWT THEY'RE HALF WOLF!!!"_ instead of the human bits, no?
> 
> If the human bits were the attraction, you wouldn't need the furry aspect.


When I first saw furry.. it was precisely this, that lead me to believe that furrys were closet zoophiles that tried to justify their kinks by humanising the animals, you have furries thusly butthurt over this automatic association. I realised when I got to know more furries that this is of course, not true and that only a minority actually consider themselves as such.

Some of these butthurt furries however, mount pointless crusades to drive out beasties from the fandom in the vein hope.. that it will end the association (or just distract people away from some of these crusaders equally questionable interests), but they fail to realise that the furry artwork itself, the visible sexual aspect and the propensity for some to broadcast their fetishes to everyone and whine when people call them out on it.. are just why people make this association and hold a general negative view on the fandom.

If furries want to clean up the fandom's image.. they should focus on those who broadcast their kinks and fetishes to everyone and anyone, and make those actions unacceptable within the community... i.e. promote a level of common sense discretion.


----------



## Whitenoise (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> I am sure this thread will be locked. Anyways, I have seen a good few state that when they tell people they are a furry they are automatically considered to be into beastialty. It's not true of course, but there never seems to be a good explanation for the difference. especially with the yiffing part. Well, I think I have found one. Beastiality is humans doing "you know what"  to animals. Furry is where we are the animals that humans and fello furs do this too. No actual real life animal is involved with furries. so, therefore, it is not beastialty.



The furry fandom is a fetish community, and about 14% of it's members admit to being dog fuckers. As long as you allow rapists to exist openly in your fandom you've got no right to complain about the association :V .


----------



## Conker (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> you sicken me -_-


We are all sickened by it at first. The feelings pass I assure you.

:V


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

Carenath said:


> When I first saw furry.. it was precisely this, that lead me to believe that furrys were closet zoophiles that tried to justify their kinks my humanising the animals, you have furries thusly butthurt over this automatic association. I realised when I got to know more furries that this is of course, not true and that only a minority actually consider themselves as such.
> 
> Some of these butthurt furries however, mount pointless crusades to drive out beasties from the fandom in the vein hope.. that it will end the association (or just distract people away from some of these crusaders equally questionable interests), but they fail to realise that the furry artwork itself, the visible sexual aspect and the propensity for some to broadcast their fetishes to everyone and whine when people call them out on it.. are just why people make this association and hold a general negative view on the fandom.
> 
> If furries want to clean up the fandom's image.. they should focus on those who broadcast their kinks and fetishes to everyone and anyone, and make those actions unacceptable within the community... i.e. promote a level of common sense discretion.


 
One of the few furs that make sense around here...you shall be our new leader


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> The furry fandom is a fetish community, and about 14% of it's members admit to being dog fuckers. As long as you allow rapists to exist openly in your fandom you've got no right to complain about the association :V .


what?



Conker said:


> We are all sickened by it at first. The feelings pass I assure you.
> 
> :V



  w/e -_-'


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

Aww snap, Whitenoise is gonna get you Alienkitty...RUN, FUCKING RUN!!! @.@


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 6, 2009)

Screwing animals is wrong MMKAY... People find it more disturbing then pedophilia in some places and situations.  (and pedophilia is FUCKED UP)


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

south syde fox said:


> Aww snap, Whitenoise is gonna get you Alienkitty...RUN, FUCKING RUN!!! @.@



XD what?


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> XD what?


 
Huh...I have no idea, I'm tired as hell and needs to go to bed D:
Whitenoise is the boogie man though, he's right in your closet waiting for the perfect time to strike ._.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

south syde fox said:


> Huh...I have no idea, I'm tired as hell and needs to go to bed D:
> Whitenoise is the boogie man though, he's right in your closet waiting for the perfect time to strike ._.



XD funny


----------



## ADF (Nov 6, 2009)

Beastiality is having sex with animals, wanking to a drawing of in most cases a none existent species is hardly equivalent to engaging in sexual intercourse with an actual animal.

Yiff is however a form of zoophilia, as it is obvious the sexual attraction comes from the animal traits a character possesses.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

ADF said:


> Beastiality is having sex with animals, wanking to a drawing of in most cases a none existent species is hardly equivalent to engaging in sexual intercourse with an actual animal.
> 
> Yiff is however a form of zoophilia, as it is obvious the sexual attraction comes from the animal traits a character possesses.


 
not entirely.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 6, 2009)

ADF said:


> Beastiality is having sex with animals, wanking to a drawing of in most cases a none existent species is hardly equivalent to engaging in sexual intercourse with an actual animal.
> 
> Yiff is however a form of zoophilia, as it is obvious the sexual attraction comes from the animal traits a character possesses.


 I like tits your argument is invalid.


----------



## Whitenoise (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> what?



The fandom is full of dogfuckers and people who will defend dogfucking. I don't think people associating the fandom with bestiality is unreasonable when furries allow those who engage in it to exist openly and even come to their defense when outsiders call them on their sick fuckery :V .

FA has taken a more aggressive stance on people who openly brag about fucking their pets but I don't think this will look like anything other than the fandom's usual, vein attempts to sweep all the nasty motherfuckers within it under the carpet when the normals are looking :V .


----------



## ADF (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> not entirely.



Yiff specifically is pornography of anthropomorphic animals, people specifically go to yiff to see porn of animal like characters. I'd say it is fair to consider it a form of zoophilia; as zoophilia is by definition a sexual attraction to animals, furries are a type of animal.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> The fandom is full of dogfuckers and people who will defend dogfucking. I don't think people associating the fandom with bestiality is unreasonable when furries allow those who engage in it to exist openly and even come to their defense when outsiders call them on their sick fuckery :V .
> 
> FA has taken a more aggressive stance on people who openly brag about fucking their pets but I don't think this will look like anything other than the fandom's usual, vein attempts to sweep all the nasty motherfuckers within it under the carpet when the normals are looking :V .



But that's beastialty, not furry



ADF said:


> Yiff specifically is pornography of anthropomorphic animals, people specifically go to yiff to see porn of animal like characters. I'd say it is fair to consider it a form of zoophilia; as zoophilia is by definition a sexual attraction to animals, furries are a type of animal.


but it's not being attracted to a percise animal.


----------



## Shadow (Nov 6, 2009)

So since when did a fandom/hobby become a fetish? Sound like the same logic for those who call it a real race. :V

EDIT:


AlienkittyII said:


> but it's not being attracted to a percise animal.



Non-sequitur reply, but you can EDIT quotes into ONE post via copypasta from starting a quote reply, Alien, like I just did. :U

</peeve I made mention of a long time ago in a similar thread with you>


----------



## Conker (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> not entirely.


Flawless argument with no holes in it whatsoever.


----------



## Whitenoise (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> But that's beastialty, not furry



It's the reason people assume furries are a bunch of closet dogfuckers, and I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion based on the situation. 

Also all the dog boners, I can't imagine those are helping :V .


----------



## ADF (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> but it's not being attracted to a percise animal.



Are furries human? No? Then they are animals, people attracted to furries are attracted to an animal like character.

Attraction to animals is zoophilia.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Shadow said:


> So since when did a fandom/hobby become a fetish? Sound like the same logic for those who call it a real race. :V
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...



lol i know. but i am too lazy for that.



ADF said:


> Are furries human? No? Then they are animals, people attracted to furries are attracted to an animal like character.
> 
> Attraction to animals is zoophilia.



It's make believe. not real life.


----------



## Shadow (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> lol i know. but i am too lazy for that.



wut?


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

Shadow said:


> wut?


uhh...nvm


----------



## pheonix (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> I am sure this thread will be locked. Anyways, I have seen a good few state that when they tell people they are a furry they are automatically considered to be into beastialty. It's not true of course, but there never seems to be a good explanation for the difference. especially with the yiffing part. Well, I think I have found one. Beastiality is humans doing "you know what"  to animals. Furry is where we are the animals that humans and fello furs do this too. No actual real life animal is involved with furries. so, therefore, it is not beastialty.



That's the worst explanation ever. Also, learn to spell. :V


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

pheonix said:


> That's the worst explanation ever. Also, learn to spell. :V



make me XD


----------



## ADF (Nov 6, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> It's make believe. not real life.



So? The contents of a drawing don't stop being what they are just because a drawing is not real. When someone is attracted to a feline furry for example they are sexually aroused by feline traits on a character, feline traits are animal traits.

Fur, tail, paws etc. are all physical animal traits that have no place on a human being, if someone is aroused by this they are aroused by animal traits, it just being a drawing doesn't change the sort of response they are getting.


----------



## icecold24 (Nov 6, 2009)

Bestiality is just nasty, just sayin'.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 6, 2009)

i am a doctor. allow me to explain


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 6, 2009)

ADF said:


> So? The contents of a drawing don't stop being what they are just because a drawing is not real. When someone is attracted to a feline furry for example they are sexually aroused by feline traits on a character, feline traits are animal traits.
> 
> Fur, tail, paws etc. are all physical animal traits that have no place on a human being, if someone is aroused by this they are aroused by animal traits, it just being a drawing doesn't change the sort of response they are getting.



well, I don't see it that way.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2009)

The furry porn I like is anthros and I like it cuz they are sexy ladies drawn with some animal bits. With or without the animal bits I like sexy ladies.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> well, I don't see it that way.



Then you are in denial and probably insecure about it, hence you made this thread to convince others of your point of view; and in the process probably make yourself feel more comfortable about it.

It's honestly not that big a deal, just because you're attracted to a furry doesn't mean you are going to go out and screw an animal. It's a far cry between finding a cat women attractive and trying to molest a cat. Furries may share animal traits; but they are different enough in that someone may be attracted to an anthro but feel nothing for the pure species.


----------



## AlienkittyII (Nov 7, 2009)

ADF said:


> Then you are in denial and probably insecure about it, hence you made this thread to convince others of your point of view; and in the process probably make yourself feel more comfortable about it.
> 
> It's honestly not that big a deal, just because you're attracted to a furry doesn't mean you are going to go out and screw an animal. It's a far cry between finding a cat women attractive and trying to molest a cat. Furries may share animal traits; but they are different enough in that someone may be attracted to an anthro but feel nothing for the pure species.



no, i am not in denial. i just don't see things the way you do.


----------



## selkie (Nov 7, 2009)

Who cares?
People make wrong assumptions all the time about things that don't matter.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> no, i am not in denial. i just don't see things the way you do.


Let's keep this simple, do you like yiff?


----------



## RoqsWolf (Nov 7, 2009)

I really don't consider yiff to be bestiality. Most of the yiff I've seen (stupid irc'es wish me to un-see >.<) revolve mostly around human aspects and arn't much animal related


----------



## Fay V (Nov 7, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> but that's all it is is mimicing. doesn't have any meaning behind it.



Actually they do it on their own. My dog specifically does it when he is happy to see someone. Animals can express themselves you can tell when a god is happy, when they look guilty or sad, when they look bored or tired. They aren't exact copies of human facial expressions, but that doesn't mean they don't have facial expressions. 
are you 12 or something, because you need to take a course in logic and come up with some half decent arguments.


----------



## pheonix (Nov 7, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> make me XD



I don't make trash I toss it. I can be immature too see? :V


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2009)

Well they seem to have logged, so much for that.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 7, 2009)

What do you people have against dogfuckers, anyway?

I mean...  A hole is a hole, as long as it's got some heat.

amirite?


----------



## NeroFox1989 (Nov 7, 2009)

*facepalm*


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2009)

Ricky said:


> What do you people have against dogfuckers, anyway?
> 
> I mean...  A hole is a hole, as long as it's got some heat.
> 
> amirite?


If the hole in question is cold because you're fucking a dead person, there is nothing wrong with grabbing a heater and making it warm.

Gotta make sure your "stay" is pleasant afterall.


AlienkittyII said:


> well, I don't see it that way.


That isn't a counter argument, that's you being an idiot who is blind to opposing viewpoints. Become a politician, they are good at that.


----------



## Vatz (Nov 7, 2009)

Fay V said:


> It doesn't automatically make you into bestiality because for many sex doesn't come into it.


 

DING DING DING!!!!!



You are CORRECT!!! Now take your money and leave the stage knowing that you just gave us all the truth instead of arguing pointlessly!!!!


----------



## Kiszka (Nov 7, 2009)

AlienkittyII said:


> it's still not the same. reason why is due to the personified facial expressions. animals don't have facial expressions.


That's not true at all.
Maybe _you_ can't but I can tell when cats and dogs are happy, or frightened or defensive by their facial expressions..


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 7, 2009)

Yes it is if you are into yiff.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 7, 2009)

Vatz said:


> DING DING DING!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> You are CORRECT!!! Now take your money and leave the stage knowing that you just gave us all the truth instead of arguing pointlessly!!!!


 

>.> <.< *takes money and runs* mwahahaha!


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 7, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> The furry porn I like is anthros and I like it cuz they are sexy ladies drawn with some animal bits. With or without the animal bits I like sexy ladies.


 
This^



ADF said:


> Let's keep this simple, do you like yiff?


 
Not really but I like chicken :3


----------



## Mojotaian (Nov 7, 2009)

Are people who are into the Twilight thing and think Edward is hot necessarily necrophiles?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

ADF said:


> Beastiality is having sex with animals, wanking to a drawing of in most cases a none existent species is hardly equivalent to engaging in sexual intercourse with an actual animal.
> 
> Yiff is however a form of zoophilia, as it is obvious the sexual attraction comes from the animal traits a character possesses.





ADF said:


> Yiff specifically is pornography of anthropomorphic animals, people specifically go to yiff to see porn of animal like characters. I'd say it is fair to consider it a form of zoophilia; as zoophilia is by definition a sexual attraction to animals, furries are a type of animal.



Wrong, Zoophilia is having sex with A LIVE ANIMAL! Yiff is the furries form of cybersex. Furries are a cross, CROSS between human and animal, it does not come into the category of zoophilia.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> The fandom is full of dogfuckers and people who will defend dogfucking. I don't think people associating the fandom with bestiality is unreasonable when furries allow those who engage in it to exist openly and even come to their defense when outsiders call them on their sick fuckery :V .
> 
> FA has taken a more aggressive stance on people who openly brag about fucking their pets but I don't think this will look like anything other than the fandom's usual, vein attempts to sweep all the nasty motherfuckers within it under the carpet when the normals are looking :V .


Do you honestly think, that, *if*, every single admitted dogfucker was ejected from the fandom, banned from FA and so on.. and people that defended it/them, were similarly driven away.. that it would change what people think about furries?
Do you really think, that this would stop people, thinking that furries are just closet beasties in denial, trying to make their attraction to animals more acceptable by adding human bits to animals?

FA took an aggressive stance, against people breaking the law, and bestiality and animal abuse is illegal, those who admitted to it, and were open about it, got the banhammer. FA does not and never has, condoned animal abuse of any kind.



ADF said:


> Then you are in denial and probably insecure about it, hence you made this thread to convince others of your point of view; and in the process probably make yourself feel more comfortable about it.
> 
> It's honestly not that big a deal, just because you're attracted to a furry doesn't mean you are going to go out and screw an animal. It's a far cry between finding a cat women attractive and trying to molest a cat. Furries may share animal traits; but they are different enough in that someone may be attracted to an anthro but feel nothing for the pure species.


And hence my earlier post, this is why others automaticaly make the association between 'dogfuckers' and furries.. they see the animal part, and the sex and they make the assumption. I did, and that was before I even joined the community or got to know any others to understand my initial assumption was not true for the majority.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

ADF said:


> Are furries human? No? Then they are animals, people attracted to furries are attracted to an animal like character.
> 
> Attraction to animals is zoophilia.



Furries are NOT full animal either. or have you forgotten that part? stop trying to label furries as purely animal when the fact is, they are not.



ADF said:


> So? The contents of a drawing don't stop being what they are just because a drawing is not real. When someone is attracted to a feline furry for example they are sexually aroused by feline traits on a character, feline traits are animal traits.
> 
> Fur, tail, paws etc. are all physical animal traits that have no place on a human being, if someone is aroused by this they are aroused by animal traits, it just being a drawing doesn't change the sort of response they are getting.



Also, you need to learn the difference between reality and make believe, if you can't, then you are in the wrong fandom.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Wrong, Zoophilia is having sex with A LIVE ANIMAL! Yiff is the furries form of cybersex. Furries are a cross, CROSS between human and animal, it does not come into the category of zoophilia.


Zoophilia is the sexual attraction to animals, which would include anything containing those animal traits, this can be argued to include furries, particularly feral ones. Bestiality (a subset of the above) is the actual illegal act of sex with an animal.
What ADF is trying to point out is that, furries are defensive about even being associated with any 'attraction to animals' because they dont want to be associated with those that commit acts of animal abuse.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

Carenath said:


> FA took an aggressive stance, against people breaking the law, and bestiality and animal abuse is illegal, those who admitted to it, and were open about it, got the banhammer. FA does not and never has, condoned animal abuse of any kind.



If FA took such an aggressive stance why is Rakuen still here? He has admitted openly he likes it.

Also whilst we are on the subject of banning, why is all the disgusting cub art still here on FA? FA is not taking enough of an aggressive stance on the trash in the fandom.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Furries are NOT full animal either. or have you forgotten that part? stop trying to label furries as purely animal when the fact is, they are not.
> 
> Also, you need to learn the difference between reality and make believe, if you can't, then you are in the wrong fandom.


He never said Furries were full animal, he refered to animal-like traits. Your character has a squirrel's head, it has animal aspects. This covers both anthropomorphic characters, and full feral characters.
What do you consider outright feral characters (oddly mostly dragons)?

He knows the difference between the two, he's just saying that the fantasy and the real act, share the same source.



RandyDarkshade said:


> If FA took such an aggressive stance why is Rakuen still here? He has admitted openly he likes it.
> 
> Also whilst we are on the subject of banning, why is all the disgusting cub art still here on FA? FA is not taking enough of an aggressive stance on the trash in the fandom.


The answer to both these.. is the difference between fantasy and reality.


----------



## Mojotaian (Nov 7, 2009)

"head to desk"

Ok, simply it's the old "It doesn't hurt anything physcial therefore it doesn't really matter" thing.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Zoophilia is the sexual attraction to animals, which would include anything containing those animal traits, this can be argued to include furries, particularly feral ones. Bestiality (a subset of the above) is the actual illegal act of sex with an animal.
> What ADF is trying to point out is that, furries are defensive about even being associated with any 'attraction to animals' because they dont want to be associated with those that commit acts of animal abuse.



I like looking at anthro porn, but it does not automatically mean I want to go fuck my neighbours dog. ADF was also saying if you are into "yiff" you are into bestiality, not true. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

The definition of zoophillia. It does not say anywhere that "animal/human hybrids are included in it. 

Also Zoophillia does not have to be a sexual thing, it can be referred to someone who plainly has a love of animals, as the article states further down.

The reason I do not agree that anthro's = zoophillia/bestiality is because:

1: Anthro's are actually hybrids of animals and humans and more often or not have more human characteristics than animal. (Which is my preference, I hate feral and feral yiff, and I hate anatomically correct ie a dog with a dog dick)

2: Anthro's do not exist. The fandom is based on "fantasy" characters. If people can not tell what is just make believe and reality then they need their head checked out.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I like looking at anthro porn, but it does not automatically mean I want to go fuck my neighbours dog. ADF was also saying if you are into "yiff" you are into bestiality, not true.



That wasn't what I was saying at all.



ADF said:


> It's honestly not that big a deal, just because you're attracted to a furry doesn't mean you are going to go out and screw an animal. It's a far cry between finding a cat women attractive and trying to molest a cat. Furries may share animal traits; but they are different enough in that someone may be attracted to an anthro but feel nothing for the pure species.



More like people are rejecting the idea that yiff is a form of zoophilia because they are afraid of being associated with bestiality. It doesn't matter if furries are part human or are fantasy creatures, what people are attracted to is animal traits on a character under sexual themes, attraction to animal traits IS a form of zoophilia.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

ADF said:


> Yiff specifically is pornography of anthropomorphic animals, people specifically go to yiff to see porn of animal like characters. I'd say it is fair to consider it a form of zoophilia; as zoophilia is by definition a sexual attraction to animals, *furries are a type of animal*.





ADF said:


> *Are furries human? No? Then they are animals*, people attracted to furries are attracted to an animal like character.
> 
> Attraction to animals is zoophilia.





Carenath said:


> He never said Furries were full animal, he refered to animal-like traits. Your character has a squirrel's head, it has animal aspects. This covers both anthropomorphic characters, and full feral characters.
> What do you consider outright feral characters (oddly mostly dragons)?
> 
> He knows the difference between the two, he's just saying that the fantasy and the real act, share the same source.
> ...



Look at the bold from ADF's quotes and tell me he did not say "furries are animals" More specifically at the second quote. A full feral in my book is a character that walks on all fours, and has full animal paws (front paws included).

Fantasy and reality? the fandom IS based on fantasy creatures. If zoophiles are not permitted on the site, especially if they openly admit to it, why is Rakuen still here? and why is there cub stuff which can essentially be classed as Pedophilia material? Oh I see it is fine to wank off to cubs but not ok to wank off to anthro's? That doesn't make any sense.

See people if we wank off to anthro's we get classed os zoophile's if people wank off to cub art it is fine because it is just "fantasy".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

ADF said:


> That wasn't what I was saying at all.
> 
> 
> 
> More like people are rejecting the idea that yiff is a form of zoophilia because they are afraid of being associated with bestiality. It doesn't matter if furries are part human or are fantasy creatures, what people are attracted to is animal traits on a character under sexual themes, attraction to animal traits IS a form of zoophilia.



Probably because zoophillia is connected to bestiality. As I said in a previous post, Zoophilia does not always have to refer to the sexual aspect, that wiki page I posted also says about it being just a love for animals. In the sense of someone having a favourite animal.


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 7, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Some of these butthurt furries however, mount pointless crusades to drive out beasties from the fandom in the vein hope.. that it will end the association (or just distract people away from some of these crusaders equally questionable interests), but they fail to realise that the furry artwork itself, the visible sexual aspect and the propensity for some to broadcast their fetishes to everyone and whine when people call them out on it.. are just why people make this association and hold a general negative view on the fandom.



You really expect everyone to be tolerant of dog and dolphin fuckers in the fandom, don't you? It's not gonna happen.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Look at the bold from ADF's quotes and tell me he did not say "furries are animals".


A dog is an animal, a cat is an animal, a bird is an animal, a lizard is an animal. Furries are dogs, cats, birds and lizards with human characteristics; either mentality or physically. They are not human beings and are physically related to animal species, that makes them animal like beings.

Furries are far away from the feral animals roaming the wild and taking up room on your coach. But to argue they are not animals, just so people don't feel guilty when they are attracted to one, is to be in denial.

I asked AlienkittyII earlier if they are into yiff, if they had responded with yes; I would have asked them to explain why they are attracted to yiff 'without' making any mention of animals. It is of course impossible, what makes yiff unique among pornography is the animal like characters. Any sexual attraction to physical animal traits is undeniably a form of zoophilia, the kink and not the "love for" kind. It doesn't matter if furries aren't real and are different from animals, as Carenath said earlier the source of the attraction is animal traits.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 7, 2009)

Cool another bestiality thread


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I like looking at anthro porn, but it does not automatically mean I want to go fuck my neighbours dog. ADF was also saying if you are into "yiff" you are into bestiality, not true.


No one implied otherwise, ADF never said that either.
Zoophilia != Bestiality.



RandyDarkshade said:


> 1: *Anthro's are actually hybrids of animals and humans* and more often or not have more human characteristics than animal. (Which is my preference, I hate feral and feral yiff, and I hate anatomically correct ie a dog with a dog dick)


The bit in bold is relevent here, to ADFs argument, the fact remains, that furry characters contain animal traits, and furries find that artwork arousing, these furries are he says, drawn to the animal aspects *over* the human aspects, and that attraction is zoophilia.

You are equating zoophilia and bestiality to being the same thing when it is not. His argument is that attraction to animals or animal traits, is zoo. He never said furry was bestiality or that furries were into it.

You side-stepped my point.



RandyDarkshade said:


> 2: Anthro's do not exist. The fandom is based on "fantasy" characters. If people can not tell what is just make believe and reality then they need their head checked out.


And nor do the scenes depicted in furry artwork, be it two feral dragons going at it, a drawn piece of loli or a drawn piece of cub. It is purely fantasy and not real. It is *only* when people commit real acts, and take fantasy into reality, that I have a problem.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Look at the bold from ADF's quotes and tell me he did not say "furries are animals" More specifically at the second quote. A full feral in my book is a character that walks on all fours, and has full animal paws (front paws included).


I was referring to his earlier quote, but I stand corrected.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Fantasy and reality? the fandom IS based on fantasy creatures. If zoophiles are not permitted on the site, especially if they openly admit to it, why is Rakuen still here? and why is there cub stuff which can essentially be classed as Pedophilia material? Oh I see it is fine to wank off to cubs but not ok to wank off to anthro's? That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> See people if we wank off to anthro's we get classed os zoophile's if people wank off to cub art it is fine because it is just "fantasy".


That's just the thing. Zoophiles were not banned from the site, for being zoophiles. Zoophiles were banned for *having sex with animals and admitting to it*. They bragged about it, and got banned for breaking the law and violating the terms of service.
Show me, where Rakuen has admitted to doggy diddling, defending zoos is not the same thing as *actually comitting the act*.

This is why the cub porn stays, bestiality artwork is also permitted, because the artwork is fantasy, not reality. Paedophiles have also been banned from FA, regardless of their interest in cub art.
Please practise what you preach here, and understand the difference between the two, it is only when people commit real crimes against animals.



Glaice said:


> You really expect everyone to be tolerant of dog and dolphin fuckers in the fandom, don't you? It's not gonna happen.


I expect you and others to realise the futility of what you are trying to do, especially when you are far from a shining example yourself.
*You wont change the perceptions people have about the furry fandom, even if you drive out every last 'dogfucker'. People will continue to associate furries with zoos and beasties so long as the sexual aspect remains so visbile and unconstrained.*

So long as there are so many, that show no discretion, and who have no problems roleplaying on IRC channels as you do.. you wont change what people think of furry.

And that was the point I had tried (and failed) to make on IRC. I don't agree with banning people left right and center, just because they are interested in a fantasy, that you dislike so vehemently, unless they are taking that fantasy into reality and abusing animals. When there is proof of this.. ban away, becase, as you so succintly put in your signature:
Bestiality is illegal for a reason.

On top of that, as I told you before, furry is an interest group, as such, it will always be open to anyone, including these people and you should just accept that fact, and deal with it, appropriately. That doesnt mean you have to tolerate people who abuse animals *only* that you accept the fact, that like it or not, they *can be furries*.

Also, at the time, I wasn't informed as to the full reasons behind the bans, and having since been made aware of these reasons, I can say, I fully support them.


----------



## FluffMouse (Nov 7, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> How not?
> You're still getting off to _"OH HAWT THEY'RE HALF WOLF!!!"_ instead of the human bits, no?
> 
> If the human bits were the attraction, you wouldn't need the furry aspect.


But you're not getting off to the just animal parts either. :<
Else it would just be feral art..

SOME people sure.. but I do consider people that draw feral porn
to be mental zoophiles. The same way I'd consider people who get off
to cub porn to be mental pedophiles. 

I personally don't like to watch animals humping eachother. oO 

Liking anthro porn would NOT make me a zoophile.. even mentally.
Hell.. if anthros were real I'd probably find them disturbing. :<


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

Carenath said:


> No one implied otherwise, ADF never said that either.
> Zoophilia != Bestiality.
> 
> 
> ...



Not everyone is into yiff though, infact I know more people who don't do yiff to those who do yiff. Another thing, just because someone looks at the "adult" artwork of the fandom does not make them a zoo. 

I used to yiff, but over the past couple years I have slowly quit it, I just lost interest in it. As for the art, I like most art, with exception of a few styles. but I like they art for the art aspect of it, no more, no less. I have had people admit to me they fap to the art and I sit here thinking "Am I the only one who doesn't do that?" I got to have human porn to fap to if I fap to anything.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Not everyone is into yiff though, infact I know more people who don't do yiff to those who do yiff. Another thing, just because someone looks at the "adult" artwork of the fandom does not make them a zoo.
> 
> I used to yiff, but over the past couple years I have slowly quit it, I just lost interest in it. As for the art, I like most art, with exception of a few styles. but I like they art for the art aspect of it, no more, no less. I have had people admit to me they fap to the art and I sit here thinking "Am I the only one who doesn't do that?" I got to have human porn to fap to if I fap to anything.


You and me know this, but the point I had been trying to make, is that Joe Normal doesnt know this.
When I first ran across the fandom in 2005, I thought every furry, was into yiff. I thought every furry was a closet beastie. Why?
Because of the propensity of (some) furries to plaster their yiff exploit and blatent porn pics everywhere they go.
The propensity of these furries to broadcast their kinks and sexual fantasies everywhere they go.
The bawwing and whining they do when people dont accept them or call them out on it because they find it disgusting or sick.
The fact that they make it appear, that all they are interested in is yiff and nothing else... one of the reasons I avoid SecondLife furries like the plague.

It isnt the mature artwork in itself, it is the complete and total lack of discretion displayed by some furries and the way they conduct themselves that makes the whole fandom seem bad.. this is what needs to be changed, if the fandom wants to clean up its image. I dont care if JoeSoapFox faps to pictures of furry animals, I dont care if his whole gallery is full of fox-on-fox furry porn. I do care about the fact that he felt the need to tell me, a complete stranger, that he does. Why cant he just keep it to himself?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 7, 2009)

Carenath said:


> You and me know this, but the point I had been trying to make, is that Joe Normal doesnt know this.
> When I first ran across the fandom in 2005, I thought every furry, was into yiff. I thought every furry was a closet beastie. Why?
> Because of the propensity of (some) furries to plaster their yiff exploit and blatent porn pics everywhere they go.
> The propensity of these furries to broadcast their kinks and sexual fantasies everywhere they go.
> ...



Possibly because some people want to feel "accepted" and think to be accepted they need to tell everyone else in the fandom and beyond about what their kinks are. Truth is, no one wants to know what everyone else kinks are. Some things in life are best kept to ones self.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Possibly because some people want to feel "accepted" and think to be accepted they need to tell everyone else in the fandom and beyond about what their kinks are. *Truth is, no one wants to know what everyone else kinks are. Some things in life are best kept to ones self.*


Agreed


----------



## Whitenoise (Nov 7, 2009)

Carenath said:


> Do you honestly think, that, *if*, every single admitted dogfucker was ejected from the fandom, banned from FA and so on.. and people that defended it/them, were similarly driven away.. that it would change what people think about furries?
> Do you really think, that this would stop people, thinking that furries are just closet beasties in denial, trying to make their attraction to animals more acceptable by adding human bits to animals?
> 
> FA took an aggressive stance, against people breaking the law, and bestiality and animal abuse is illegal, those who admitted to it, and were open about it, got the banhammer. FA does not and never has, condoned animal abuse of any kind.



You seem to think that improving the public's opinion of the fandom is the only reason anyone would want all the sick fucks out. People think furries are a bunch of dogfuckers because a lot of you are and a lot more of you are willing to defend them, the public arrived at a perfectly reasonable conclusion and I think it would be unreasonable for the fandom to expect them to change their minds at this point. I don't care what people think of the furry fandom because even without the sick fucks there's not a lot to like, I want the dogfuckers kicked out because I fucking don't like dogfuckers :V .


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 7, 2009)

You can't kick people out of something just because you don't like them. You would have to have a very good reason why your view deserves to be put above anyone else's, which you can't do. There is nothing wrong with defending bestiality, particualrly since the views against don't have anything to back them up, and those people should be free to express their views as well.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 7, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> You seem to think that improving the public's opinion of the fandom is the only reason anyone would want all the sick fucks out. People think furries are a bunch of dogfuckers because a lot of you are and a lot more of you are willing to defend them, the public arrived at a perfectly reasonable conclusion and I think it would be unreasonable for the fandom to expect them to change their minds at this point. I don't care what people think of the furry fandom because even without the sick fucks there's not a lot to like, I want the dogfuckers kicked out because I fucking don't like dogfuckers :V .



There are actually quite a few projects out there that are anti zoo and anti cub.. I would suggest looking them up.

Also, lol Rakeun found the thread XD


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 7, 2009)

I agree with whitenoise.

It's animal abuse.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 7, 2009)

> I agree with whitenoise.
> 
> It's animal abuse.



But there's no evidence to back that up as a general principle an so whether you think that or not doesn't matter.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> But there's no evidence to back that up as a general principle an so whether you think that or not doesn't matter.



We've had enough of this topic, please DON'T go down it. Stay on furry is/isn't besty >.>


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 7, 2009)

> We've had enough of this topic, please DON'T go down it. Stay on furry is besty >.>



Furry isn't bestiality. That was said ages ago and people accepted it.


----------



## Whitenoise (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> But there's no evidence to back that up as a general principle an so whether you think that or not doesn't matter.



People have shown you piles of evidence supporting the fact that fucking an animal is abuse, you've just chosen to ignore it because you don't want to stop fucking animals and you're too vain to admit that you're a horrible person for doing it :V .


----------



## Gonebatty (Nov 7, 2009)

Aurali said:


> We've had enough of this topic, please DON'T go down it. Stay on furry is/isn't besty >.>



k.

The fetish can be considered zoo, but the hobby, no.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 7, 2009)

> People have shown you piles of evidence supporting the fact that fucking an animal is abuse, you've just chosen to ignore it because you don't want to stop fucking animals and you're too vain to admit that you're a horrible person for doing it :V .



No they haven't. People have just said that they have without ever actually posting anything. Also out of all the sources I have read none have showed that it is in general an abusive practice. Also none of the animal rights organisations I emailed could show me any evidence that it was abusive either, of those that replied anyway.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> But there's no evidence to back that up as a general principle an so whether you think that or not doesn't matter.



Quick translation:

I'm going to keep fucking dogs until you can prove it's harmful with no less than 50 cross-referenced links from recognised institutions.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can't kick people out of something just because you don't like them. You would have to have a very good reason why your view deserves to be put above anyone else's, which you can't do. There is nothing wrong with defending bestiality, *particualrly since the views against don't have anything to back them up, and those people should be free to express their views as well.*


And just when the thread may have died down

INC ANOTHER WAVE OF STUPID SHITSTORM


----------



## Whitenoise (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> No they haven't. People have just said that they have without ever actually posting anything. Also out of all the sources I have read none have showed that it is in general an abusive practice. Also none of the animal rights organisations I emailed could show me any evidence that it was abusive either, of those that replied anyway.



I find it interesting that you turned around and attempted to defend dogfuckers instead of attempting to counter my assertion that you are one. You do fuck animals don't you Rakuen? I can't say I'm surprised :V .


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> No they haven't. People have just said that they have without ever actually posting anything. Also out of all the sources I have read none have showed that it is in general an abusive practice. Also none of the animal rights organisations I emailed could show me any evidence that it was abusive either, of those that replied anyway.



allow me to set up an example, lets say we have a female right here, human. now take a man that is nearly twice here size and they have sex. i can tell you that the woman is going to be in quite a bit of pain after sex.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 7, 2009)

you don't think that taking advantage of something which depends on you and has little understanding of the situation is abuse? 
So if a pedo touched a kid that didn't really understand that it's sexual you'd be okay with it?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 7, 2009)

> I'm going to keep fucking dogs until you can prove it's harmful with no less than 50 cross-referenced links from recognised institutions.



You can't prove it's harmful or even make a particularly convincing case that it's harmful. You wouldn't take someone seriously if they said that wearing yellow clothes was dangerous to your health but they don't provide any evidence to back it up.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 7, 2009)

> I find it interesting that you turned around and attempted to defend dogfuckers instead of attempting to counter my assertion that you are one. You do fuck animals don't you Rakuen? I can't say I'm surprised :V .



I don't but I don't see any reason to defend myself from stupid accusations.



> allow me to set up an example, lets say we have a female right here, human. now take a man that is nearly twice here size and they have sex. i can tell you that the woman is going to be in quite a bit of pain after sex.



Let's say we have a horse. Erm... No pain there.



> you don't think that taking advantage of something which depends on you and has little understanding of the situation is abuse?
> So if a pedo touched a kid that didn't really understand that it's sexual you'd be okay with it?



I don't think they have little understanding of the situation and they are not children. I've gone over that point multiple times already.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 7, 2009)

do you have a disability of some sort that makes you blind to logic? people have already said 
1. sexual abuse doesn't have to 'hurt' it's still wrong and beasty is sexual abuse. 
2. dogs and cats and other small things aren't made to take dog cocks. that is going to hurt. 
3. it spreads fucking diseases literally out the ass. 

If you really want to fuck animals why don't you get a horse to mount you and see how much you enjoy it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can't kick people out of something just because you don't like them. You would have to have a very good reason why your view deserves to be put above anyone else's, which you can't do. There is nothing wrong with defending bestiality, particualrly since the views against don't have anything to back them up, and those people should be free to express their views as well.



You know, if it's your establishment, your organization, your private business, your website, your forum, you don't need a good reason. It would be better if you only kicked people on based on good reasons....but at the end of the day only one person really has say. It's the one who owns the place.

Dude stop it Rakuen. It's so old, it's more stale than Britanny Spear's vagina. You have no business running around saying that people who take a stance against have nothing to back themselves up when many people on FAF alone have shoved evidence into your face, and you simply go "Nu-uh" and prefer to just listen to the hear say of some online practicing zoos.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I don't but I don't see any reason to defend myself from stupid accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr Hands was in a lot of pain. He died from his colon erupting and the subsequent infection that followed. That aside this is a thread about the reality that being a furry does not mean you are a practicing zoophile. Don't dig yourself a new hole by bringing this all up again and derailing the thread in the process. I still think that if not for a certain crash/wipe you'd have your own ED article.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Let's say we have a horse. Erm... No pain there.



really, my god, allow me to spell this out, Y O U  A R E  M I S S I N G  T H E  P O I N T.


----------



## Conker (Nov 7, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Mr Hands was in a lot of pain. He died from his colon erupting and the subsequent infection that followed. That aside this is a thread about the reality that being a furry does not mean you are a practicing zoophile. Don't dig yourself a new hole by bringing this all up again and derailing the thread in the process.* I still think that if not for a certain crash/wipe you'd have your own ED article.*


He had his on ED article? Holy shit did anyone save it? I'm in the mood for some cheap lulz.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 7, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I don't but I don't see any reason to defend myself from stupid accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most animals only have sex to procreate for a reason. Sex isn't a fantastic sensation for them where life is just awesome afterwards, particularly cats. They aren't always thinking of it. They aren't thinking you're sexy. 
Pets are like children, actually the smarter domestic pets get the intelligence of about a 6 year old at best, this is proven with cognitive studies and comparing behavior to human development. A pet is like a child in the fact they are dependent on you for food, shelter and care. To take advantage of that and screw them when they can't tell you no, and they don't have options to get away like a mature adult does is abuse. If you fuck "any" living thing without letting it say no, or giving it an option to leave your ass behind, it is taking advantage of them and it is rape.


----------



## Corto (Nov 7, 2009)

We've discussed this like a thousand times and nothing good comes out of it. I'm locking this thread and please do NOT discuss this any further unless some scientist discovers that dogs can talk or something revolutionary like that. I'm really tired of these threads.


----------

