# What are Babyfurs?



## *Seamonkey*~wren (Mar 26, 2016)

I recently came upon a subset part of the fandom called babyfurs.... what is it? I don't want to jump to conclusions about things so i guess i'd like to hear from people, but i must admit it seems to be heading towards the offensive sex kind of area...


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Mar 27, 2016)

Where's Astus?
'Soon as he gets here, you'll get your answers from him. -That adorable sonofabitch.


----------



## Notkastar (Mar 27, 2016)

*Clear throat*

"A *babyfur* is a member of the furry fandom who enjoys roleplaying younger characters. They may also be an Adult Baby and/or Diaper Lover (collectively known as AB/DLs), or is otherwise involved in Infantilism. There are many different types of furs in the *babyfur*community, each focusing on different aspects and roles."

Yup that's pretty much it in a nutshell (￣▽￣)っ
I'm sure another person will be here in a sec to give you a more color answer lol

Anyway, Later!
"Dimension W" just started!
(Love that anime (๑•͈ᴗ•͈)


----------



## scet (Mar 27, 2016)

omg cubs are the cutest and want to hug them all and i wish i was a cub too!


----------



## *Seamonkey*~wren (Mar 27, 2016)

Ok makes sense, the fandom is already so varied its funny that even subset parts are varied! I will admit, the non "+18" pictures are cute Haha just not my thing though i guess!


----------



## Astus (Mar 28, 2016)

Hi, yes as Notkastar described above, a babyfur is essentially a member of the furry fandom who is an abdl or something similar (Adult Baby/Diaper Lover) 

Usually... or so I think usually... the people who are just adult babies find a secure attachment from their childhood and act like the child they once were to get a sense of security and wellbeing. Where as just diaper lovers are usually sexually attracted to wearing/using diapers. Most of the time people are somewhere in between but there are people on the extremes.

As for other aspects of the babyfur subculture, there are are mixture of different levels of intelligence and functionality among babyfurs, most high functioning individuals tend to stay in their little clicks they have found over the years, because honestly the not so high functioning individuals can get pretty weird. And that's where we merge into cub porn, one of the most disgusting parts of the subculture. It essentially has children in adult situations and while there are those who argue that it's not all about pedophilia, having children in adult situations is a big no no and is generally shunned among babyfurs; especially the AB because it ruins the idea of security through innocence.

If you have any questions just ask, I'll be around here and there to answer questions if you have any


----------



## Somnium (Mar 28, 2016)

*googles cub porn* oh yea, perfect


----------



## scet (Mar 28, 2016)

i personally am part of the AB group and not the later, but you described it perfectly astusthefox


----------



## Astus (Mar 28, 2016)

Somnium said:


> *googles cub porn* oh yea, perfect


Don't you just love people?



scet said:


> i personally am part of the AB group and not the later, but you described it perfectly astusthefox


Thanks ^-^


----------



## Somnium (Mar 28, 2016)

I love everyone and everything


----------



## *Seamonkey*~wren (Mar 29, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> Hi, yes as Notkastar described above, a babyfur is essentially a member of the furry fandom who is an abdl or something similar (Adult Baby/Diaper Lover)
> 
> Usually... or so I think usually... the people who are just adult babies find a secure attachment from their childhood and act like the child they once were to get a sense of security and wellbeing. Where as just diaper lovers are usually sexually attracted to wearing/using diapers. Most of the time people are somewhere in between but there are people on the extremes.
> 
> ...


Wonderful explanation! Actually answered all my questions about it! Thank you!


----------



## Astus (Mar 29, 2016)

*Seamonkey*~wren said:


> Wonderful explanation! Actually answered all my questions about it! Thank you!


No problem ^-^


----------



## Lasvicus (Mar 29, 2016)

A blight.


----------



## Astus (Mar 29, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> A blight.


So.... babyfurs are a plant disease?


----------



## Lasvicus (Mar 29, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> So.... babyfurs are a plant disease?


They are the anal fungus of the furry community.


----------



## Somnium (Mar 29, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> They are the anal fungus of the furry community.



meany!


----------



## Astus (Mar 29, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> They are the anal fungus of the furry community.


Hahah, whatever you say


----------



## Lasvicus (Mar 29, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> Hahah, whatever you say


Though, bear in mind that what I know about baby furs is limited to what has been said of them during/ after a certain...  Event.


----------



## *Seamonkey*~wren (Mar 29, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> They are the anal fungus of the furry community.


Oh boy that's a little harsh....


----------



## Lasvicus (Mar 29, 2016)

Somnium said:


> meany!


Have I ever given the impression that I am anything else?  ;D


----------



## Astus (Mar 29, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> Though, bear in mind that what I know about baby furs is limited to what has been said of them during/ after a certain...  Event.


I can understand that completely; there are those who are very... disgusting... and the majority of what people think about them is linked to those actions, so they have all the right in the world to believe that about babyfurs; you can't judge a group by the actions of a few, because that logic will not always hold up to every individual


----------



## scet (Mar 29, 2016)

Lord people have just gross pointlessly vivid passionate hate


----------



## Lasvicus (Mar 29, 2016)

scet said:


> Lord people have just gross pointlessly vivid passionate hate


Wanna add some commas, sweet cheeks?


----------



## scet (Mar 29, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> Wanna add some commas, sweet cheeks?


Want to add some apologies? You were being super awful to a lot of people for no reason


----------



## Somnium (Mar 29, 2016)

grow up @Lasvicus


----------



## Lasvicus (Mar 29, 2016)

Somnium said:


> grow up @Lasvicus


I might advise you do the same.  But I digress.


----------



## Astus (Mar 29, 2016)

Name calling doesn't solve anything.


----------



## ProxFox (Apr 1, 2016)

Lasvicus said:


> Though, bear in mind that what I know about baby furs is limited to what has been said of them during/ after a certain...  Event.



Unfortunately that's a very visible minority of babyfurs. Most of the babyfurs you've met you probably didn't know they were babyfurs. Cause they keep that shit to themselves.


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2016)

Nasty


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

Babies are so cute, furries are super cute too, so babyfurs are the cutest


----------



## BRN (Apr 1, 2016)

Being into the porny side of the fandom, kinks pollute from circle to circle. Some babyfur stuff makes its way to the Pokemon fandom from time to time.

It just seems like an enabling label for the diaper and kiddy-diddling crowd. Can't say I've really ever felt comfortable around the crew; I've ended up with this belief that a babyfur who say's they're not peadophilic is like a pokefur who says they're not zoophilic. It's weird and disorienting to meet _whichever_ answer they choose.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

scet said:


> omg cubs are the cutest and want to hug them all and i wish i was a cub too!



I don't *think* there is an initiation >.>

Well, saying you are a babyfur *probably is* the initiation 



Lasvicus said:


> Though, bear in mind that what I know about baby furs is limited to what has been said of them during/ after a certain...  Event.





ProxFox said:


> Unfortunately that's a very visible minority of babyfurs. Most of the babyfurs you've met you probably didn't know they were babyfurs. Cause they keep that shit to themselves.



... Literally? :V

Lol I joke, but remember: there's a bit of truth to every joke. I know a ton of babyfurs. I've been around the tactful ones, I've been around the tactless ones and I've been to their "daddy's" place and had pictures taken with me in order to post them here as flame-bate *cough... Pamperchu*. But, I digress.

First off, there's a lot of truth in those two comments. You generally hear what is obscure or unusual. Cutesy, innocent, babyfur role-play doesn't make good drama. As Prox said, it's a *visible minority* but I'd be hesitant to say it's a minority in general. Most babyfurs are into it because of a fetish but you also have people such as myself. By virtue of a love for all things cute and cuddly, and an almost debilitating sense of morbid curiosity, I wandered into this fetish-dominated minority of a subculture that was repressed by an already-repressed (*or so proclaimed*) parent subculture.

I'm not sure if anyone here has noticed this, but most subcultures come about exclusively due to repression. The official definition is "a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture." The "gay subculture" is a perfect example; because of repression, homosexuals came together and formed their own group, complete with their own clothes, lingo, music, mannerisms and probably every other identifying trait of a subculture. This forms what the members perceive as a "safety-net" away from the "persecution" of the outside world.

You could see how babyfurs, a small group within an already persecuted (*or, so proclaimed*) subculture as it was, would easily fall into this mentality. This is the reason you will see such nonsense rival that of even _the furries_, who have been featured on shows such as _CSI, Las Vegas_ for certain *cough* events that took place at cons. When they find out there are others like them and get all excited, lowering inhibitions in the group mentality present at cons, this gets amplified several-fold. Compound that with a average autistic-esque personality and you get downright INSANITY 

Okay, so that was hyperbole but you get the point. You see this more at cons (where more rumors and drama are spread) and less in the general public where most of these characters have more reserve.



Astusthefox said:


> And that's where we merge into cub porn, one of the most disgusting parts of the subculture. It essentially has children in adult situations and while there are those who argue that it's not all about pedophilia, having children in adult situations is a big no no and is generally shunned among babyfurs; especially the AB because it ruins the idea of security through innocence.



Be that as it may, it is still an opinion. A lot of the "cub porn" I've known people commissioned was of their own characters in situations that weren't really sexual (albeit, *they *might have seen it that way). For example, two naked cubs side-by-side in some innocent picture isn't necessarily the same thing as violent cub rape (yes, I have seen plenty of that, too). This is a slippery slope and since I'd rather remain objective I'm not going to opine on the matter. There is one more harsh reality of this subculture, though: _the daddies_.

As you say, cubs might be innocent and even though I've never cared one way or the other with them, one thing that didn't sit well with me has always been "the daddies", or much older adult men who "caretake" for the cubs. This generally involves changing diapers but very often involves sexual intercourse across the largely-divided age gap. Many of the more... "questionable" types of this older demographic claim that they are also cubs. Are they? Or are they just there to fiddle with little boys? You decide :V



Astusthefox said:


> So.... babyfurs are a plant disease?



Haha. I like you


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

Ok so now it's weird to be interested in a sub group and be separate from the sexual related veriations of the sub group? 

I mean ok pokemon are cool, and I'll rp play as a pokemon but they aren't that sexy, where as I'm super turned on by normal furries. Like even if the pokemon is the same animal the poké part is a turn off to me tbh.

And yeah anthro is my preferred furry NSFW subject but feral animals are crossing a line into zoophilia. If the furry is still mentally on a human level, like can talk and give  concent, I'll let it slide.

But when ou get to a point where the animal is not able to understand what sexual consent is that is where it becomes wrong. I feel like the same applies to age play. If people want to get into the sexual areas shouldn't it be ok as long as all parties are actively concenting and mentally understand what sexual concent is.

That'd why in the real world we have laws aginst sexual relations with people of those ages, because mentally they can't understand adult activities like that.

But in a world where everyone is playing pretend and we are all adults we dont have to make everything about sex. Though when it start making its way into sexual related enjoyment shouldn't it be ok for people to concent to sex in any way they feel comfortable in when all parties understand what's going on


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

I was about to say sorry for the long post but I see others posted long replies too lol


----------



## Lasvicus (Apr 1, 2016)

scet said:


> Ok so now it's weird to be interested in a sub group and be separate from the sexual related veriations of the sub group?
> 
> I mean ok pokemon are cool, and I'll rp play as a pokemon but they aren't that sexy, where as I'm super turned on by normal furries. Like even if the pokemon is the same animal the poké part is a turn off to me tbh.
> 
> ...


I vote no on this.
People get off to what they get off to.  And if sitting in their parents' basement, rubbing their tent to this crap gets them off and keeps them from seeking a more...  Physical stimulus, who cares.  Because no one is actually getting hurt. And I would personally consider any sexual attraction to a furry or an anthro-nimal to be zoophilia.  Because no matter how human-like, they are (by default) based on the likeness of an animal.


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

My point being simply,  no most people into furries won't fuck an animal. Just like most people into AB/DL-babyfurs will not have sex with an underage person.

But these people might want to go out and physically do something with other adult-human people in there subcultures. And that is perfectly fine and there no reason for anyone to feel bad about liking that. If it warring a fur suit or a diaper were all adults and so everything is ok with it


----------



## Victor-933 (Apr 1, 2016)

ProxFox said:


> Unfortunately that's a very visible minority of babyfurs. Most of the babyfurs you've met you probably didn't know they were babyfurs. Cause they keep that shit to themselves.



As they say, perception is nine-tenths of the law.

The disgusting motherfuckers who shit everywhere and throw dirty diapers in with the hotel's clean laundry and get a well-known fur con banned from the premises are a very visible and easily perceptible faction. As you said the more moderate silent majority are swept up in the fecal tide of judgement with the rest because they're less visible and don't or can't publicly distance themselves from the problematic faction well enough to detach themselves from the stigma.

It's like how all republicans are minority-hating racist sexist warmongering corporate shills that use the bolt carriers off their fully murdermatic AR-15s as prostate massagers.


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

Victor-933 said:


> As they say, perception is nine-tenths of the law.
> 
> The disgusting motherfuckers who shit everywhere and throw dirty diapers in with the hotel's clean laundry and get a well-known fur con banned from the premises are a very visible and easily perceptible faction. As you said the more moderate silent majority are swept up in the fecal tide of judgement with the rest because they're less visible and don't or can't publicly distance themselves from the problematic faction well enough to detach themselves from the stigma.
> 
> It's like how all republicans are minority-hating racist sexist warmongering corporate shills that use the bolt carriers off their fully murdermatic AR-15s as prostate massagers.



OMFG ARE YOUR SERIOUS?

WTF, is this the "event" people talking about??

When did this happen? Where? Holy crap who was in charge of those people? What the hell ....


----------



## Victor-933 (Apr 1, 2016)

scet said:


> OMFG ARE YOUR SERIOUS?
> 
> WTF, is this the "event" people talking about??
> 
> When did this happen? Where? Holy crap who was in charge of those people? What the hell ....




I'm probably wrong on several details but I distinctly remember a con getting banned from a venue and it involving shitty diapers in the laundry hampers. I want to say it was one of the Rainfurrest cons.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

scet said:


> Ok so now it's weird to be interested in a sub group and be separate from the sexual related [variations] of the sub group?



It is a stigma I have seen, but there is also a similar stigma in _society in general_ associated with sexual content.

As most males people are sexual in nature, no this does not seem weird. If anything is beside the norm it would be lack of sexual interest (I believe Freud agreed on this as well).

You could say the specific content in question is outside the norm but trust me, _most _people are into some kind of weird shit whatever it may be (though my own encounters might be biased).



scet said:


> And yeah anthro is my preferred furry NSFW subject but feral animals are crossing a line into zoophilia.



Lol, and the people into this stuff deny it, then log onto FA or Inkbunny and complain to artists about characters lacking animal-specific genetaila :V



scet said:


> If the furry is still mentally on a human level, like can talk and give consent, I'll let it slide. But when you get to a point where the animal is not able to understand what sexual consent is that is where it becomes wrong. I feel like the same applies to age play. If people want to get into the sexual areas shouldn't it be ok as long as all parties are actively [consenting] and mentally understand what sexual consent is. [sic]



I've had some very long debates over this, mostly out of psychological curiosity. One of the points the pro-zoophilia community, that staunchly reinforces their claimed segregation from those practicing bestiality, is that the animal (generally a dog but also often a horse), not only can make it apparent that something is not wanted but also that they practice sex in a way that does not harm the animal physically or psychologically (a statement only Doctor Doolittle can confirm). I think it is impossible to be able to tell what an animal that is unable to communicate thoughts or feelings actually means by "arf!". I never got an answer whether it is one bark or two that means "yes" :V



scet said:


> That'd why in the real world we have laws aginst sexual relations with people of those ages, because mentally they can't understand adult activities like that.



Yeah, and when it comes to children that age it should be obvious. The topic most debated is whether art or role-play could be considered obscene forms of expression when they involve this taboo subject. I personally hold a firm believe in the freedom of expression, so I do not think art should fall into the definition of "obscene" as long as it is used in a way that does not make it such. I also think that consenting adults should be free to do whatever the hell they want to in bed.



Victor-933 said:


> I'm probably wrong on several details but I distinctly remember a con getting banned from a venue and it involving shitty diapers in the laundry hampers. I want to say it was one of the Rainfurrest cons.



Did an RF get banned or thrown out? I'd almost hesitate to believe this, but AlohaWolf, the con chair, is a cub himself. I'm aware that con in upstate New York (Foxmas) was drama-blocked by the Furs Who Care Way Too Much, aka Burned Furs Wannabe Group #456 :V


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

Victor-933 said:


> I'm probably wrong on several details but I distinctly remember a con getting banned from a venue and it involving shitty diapers in the laundry hampers. I want to say it was one of the Rainfurrest cons.



What's wrong with those people ...


----------



## Glider (Apr 1, 2016)

Screw you people


----------



## BRN (Apr 1, 2016)

I don't get why this topic ever had to go into the ethics of consent.

I mean, are we trying to achieve a defense of babyfurs by saying that pretending to diddle is okay as a roleplay thing? Of course it is; I just don't see the link between the premise and the conclusion.

Besides, the problem with ABDL isn't ethics, it's creepiness. Sorry guys. It's really hard to see diapers as cute, and a desire to be an infant comes off pretty strange. I feel like it's seeking a license to be the kind of asshole a kid can be while avoiding the responsibility you gotta take as an adult.

RIP Rainfurrest because of exactly that.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 1, 2016)

Victor-933 said:


> shitty diapers in the laundry hampers



what the actual fuck!?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

Oh, I think this is referring to the LiveJournal that Two The Ranting Gryphon posted. I think he saw a diaper (that was very likely the result of a prank) and flipped out about it. I could sear this is the only time he was funny to me, having read the huge shitstorm that ensued.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 1, 2016)

Ricky said:


> Oh, I think this is referring to the LiveJournal that Two The Ranting Gryphon posted. I think he saw a diaper (that was very likely the result of a prank) and flipped out about it. I could sear this is the only time he was funny to me, having read the huge shitstorm that ensued.



why would anyone do it? it's nasty and disrespectful


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

BRN said:


> I don't get why this topic ever had to go into the ethics of consent.
> 
> I mean, are we trying to achieve a defense of babyfurs by saying that pretending to diddle is okay as a roleplay thing? Of course it is; I just don't see the link between the premise and the conclusion.
> 
> ...



Creepy is as relative as sexual intrest. Bugs are creepy but they are still a part of our furry fandom, plus adults dressing up as animals, drawing furries and roll playing as anthro chracters is creepy in the first place. 

*puts my hand on my hips and raises an eyebrow* 

Like are you really bringing that into the conversation?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

Somnium said:


> why would anyone do it? it's nasty and disrespectful



Well, yeah. It certainly is. People do fucked-up things sometimes.

My main thought here is whatever person does such a thing has some very repressed feelings they are too scared to express to others verbally.

They therefore turn to extreme means such as this to try an pacify their desire to communicate.

Then again, it might have been a prank by either a cub or the larger furry community in general.

Furs have also been known to smear mayonnaise all over the elevator walls in the hotel, so I wouldn't think it is beside them.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

scet said:


> Creepy is as relative as sexual intrest. Bugs are creepy but they are still a part of our furry fandom, plus adults dressing up as animals, drawing furries and roll playing as anthro chracters is creepy in the first place.



There's a saying, "Once you are perfect then you can judge me."

Creepy doesn't equate to a wrong in my opinion, unless it is intentionally brought into an unwanted situation with others.


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

Ricky said:


> There's a saying, "Once you are perfect then you can judge me."
> 
> Creepy doesn't equate to a wrong in my opinion, unless it is intentionally brought into an unwanted situation with others.



Oh yeah, creepy isn't a bad thing or wrong. Doing somthing like forcing it on others is just being a jerk, but this conversation was started with a question about this actual topic so this is a perfectly appropriate place to talk about it. I'm just saying BRN is seeming to say it's creepy and inappropriate to talk about period in this thread or in general.

Ok the sassy part might have been unneeded and I know I'm just assuming that what BRN meant I might have jumped the gun but idk

But yeah I agree with everything you've said so far ricky, sorry I didn't reply to your parts of the conversation yet I'm at work and just now got on my lunch and need more than just a few seconds to read all your posts


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

scet said:


> Oh yeah, creepy isn't a bad thing or wrong. Doing somthing like forcing it on others is just being a jerk, but this conversation was started with a question about this actual topic so this is a perfectly appropriate place to talk about it. I'm just saying BRN is seeming to say it's creepy and inappropriate to talk about period in this thread or in general.



Yeah, I'm all for conversations where we point out things absurd, for the lulz if nothing else 

I was pointing out a general trend in opinions I have seen on the interwebs that are spoken very adamantly by the few who apparently don't afford the same during panels at cons.

I went to this one panel at RF on cub porn and obscenity laws hoping for a fight, or at least some good heated debates.

To my surprise, everyone agreed art should fall under the constitutional right of freedom of the specific lawful definition of expression.



scet said:


> Ok the sassy part might have been unneeded and I know I'm just assuming that what BRN meant I might have jumped the gun but idk



Again, I was referring to a general mentality I have seen, but words such as "allow" imply the threat of persecution, or at the very least, ostracization. Phrases such as "should we defend" also imply the us-or-them mentality seen in a group when mob thinking prevails. Most people tend to form opinions based on the others around them for some reason, and not by objective rational thought, resulting in this decline in self-perception and thought.

Social selection is an evolutionary force that helps societies and populations evolve.

This could serve as an example of such pressure:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Friends Like Me: Associations in Overweight/Obese Status among Adolescent Friends by Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Friendship Type. - PubMed - NCBI



scet said:


> But yeah I agree with everything you've said so far ricky, sorry I didn't reply to your parts of the conversation yet I'm at work and just now got on my lunch and need more than just a few seconds to read all your posts



Lol, it's a forum xD

You don't need to reply to everything, and trust me, you can't offend me :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 1, 2016)

BRN said:


> I don't get why this topic ever had to go into the ethics of consent.
> 
> I mean, are we trying to achieve a defense of babyfurs by saying that pretending to diddle is okay as a roleplay thing? Of course it is; I just don't see the link between the premise and the conclusion.
> 
> ...



Well, as pretty much everybody here knows, I'm into spanking, but it doesn't mean I actually want to shun my adult responsibilities in real life; I imagine the same is true for _most_ people unlucky enough to have an awkward ABDL fetish.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Well, as pretty much everybody here knows, I'm into spanking, but it doesn't mean I actually want to shun my adult responsibilities in real life; I imagine the same is true for _most_ people unlucky enough to have an awkward ABDL fetish.



I think that's pretty common.

I'm not sure if it's related in any way; it may be more of a BDSM thing 

IME, babyfurs have a high percentage of manchildren but you probably see the same thing in furry and other subcultures.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 1, 2016)

Ricky said:


> I think that's pretty common.
> 
> *I'm not sure if it's related in any way; it may be more of a BDSM thing*
> 
> IME, babyfurs have a high percentage of manchildren but you probably see the same thing in furry and other subcultures.



The area of intersection of the venn diagram is non-negligible, let's put it that way.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

LOL, I remember that thing. From Deviant Desires.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 1, 2016)

Ricky said:


> LOL, I remember that thing. From Deviant Desires.



I wasn't referring to that; I've never heard of deviant desires. What was it?


----------



## scet (Apr 1, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Well, as pretty much everybody here knows, I'm into spanking, but it doesn't mean I actually want to shun my adult responsibilities in real life; I imagine the same is true for _most_ people unlucky enough to have an awkward ABDL fetish.



I actually found self care tips I like to use, using stickers and a chore chart reward system I can actually prepare an adult system and set mature tasks I know have to be done but I can enjoy it as a little activity and actually be a better grown up by knowing how to help guide myself when I'm having fun


----------



## Inzoreno (Apr 1, 2016)

BRN said:


> I don't get why this topic ever had to go into the ethics of consent.
> 
> I mean, are we trying to achieve a defense of babyfurs by saying that pretending to diddle is okay as a roleplay thing? Of course it is; I just don't see the link between the premise and the conclusion.
> 
> ...


I heard that it was due to property damage that caused the con to be evicted from it's previous hotel. One of the chairs of 2015 said as such: 

"For the last few years, the Hilton sustained more damage during RainFurrest than it did from every other event at the Hilton the entire rest of the year. This doesn’t even include damage to guest rooms or other incidental wear and tear like the elevators.
This year’s incidents include two plumber calls, a flooded bathroom that soaked the offices underneath, towels stuffed into a hot tub pump, and multiple petty vandalisms and thefts. A final damage report is still being compiled.
We had to send three people to the hospital and call the police twice.
By Sunday morning of con this year, the hotel was so exasperated that they were threatening to evict attendees for single noise complaints."


----------



## Ricky (Apr 1, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I wasn't referring to that; I've never heard of deviant desires. What was it?



Deviant Desires - WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia



Inzoreno said:


> This doesn’t even include damage to guest rooms or other incidental wear and tear like the elevators



Yeah, I think it's pretty common the elevators break, likely having surpassed their weight limit.


----------



## Astus (Apr 1, 2016)

i would love to quote everything and stuff like that but I'll just reply; the people are rainfurrest or whatever the name is were disgusting, leaving dirty diapers like that is a hazard to other peoples health/property (the hotel's) and is unacceptable. As for the ABDL community being creepy... yes I can see that it; the idea of a grown man/woman trying to be cute in diapers or regress using them is odd for sure; as well there may be a link into BDSM because of the nature of diapers, but not for all people that are into them. As I've said before some people use them as comfort items and have no real link to that; while some do use them for BDSM related situations. The cub porn is just a plain no, seriously depicting children, even if they are non human, in those obviously adult sexual situations is just gross and pisses me off.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> The cub porn is just a plain no, seriously depicting children, even if they are non human, in those obviously adult sexual situations is just gross and pisses me off.



Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I think the most common complaint I've heard on FA and every other site is "______ porn is gross!"


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Ricky said:


> Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
> 
> I think the most common complaint I've heard on FA and every other site is "______ porn is gross!"



The most considerable concern is that it could encourage potential child abusers.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> The most considerable concern is that it could encourage potential child abusers.



or give them a relief


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> The most considerable concern is that it could encourage potential child abusers.



Don't you mean the most unfounded concern that has repeatedly been turned down by study after study? :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> or give them a relief



Or possibly be a 'release valve' for some, but an encouragement to others.

I'm unaware of any research into the subject, probably because of potential ethical concerns and the difficulty of disentangling a very convoluted picture.



Ricky said:


> Don't you mean the most unfounded concern that has repeatedly been turned down by study after study? :V



Citations please.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Or possibly be a 'release valve' for some, but an encouragement to others.
> 
> I'm unaware of any research into the subject, probably because of potential ethical concerns and the difficulty of disentangling a very convoluted picture.



should we ban all movies, games, books which do depict violence because it might encourage real life aggression in some individuals?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> should we ban all movies, games, books which do depict violence because it might encourage real life aggression in some individuals?



Certain forms of violent pornography *are* banned. 

But I digress, this is a convoluted issue.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Citations please.



www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Are Sex Drive and Hypersexuality Associated with Pedophilic Interest and Child Sexual Abuse in a Male Community Sample?

There are more, but you could really just search Pubmed if you are so inclined.



Somnium said:


> should we ban all movies, games, books which do depict violence because it might encourage real life aggression in some individuals?





Fallowfox said:


> Certain forms of violent pornography *are* banned.



If they contain actual children. I'm assuming we are still in the context of The Land Of Make-Believe :V


----------



## BRN (Apr 2, 2016)

Are we now trying to achieve a defense of babyfurs with a defense of child pornography? 

I mean, I'd just rather believe they're different topics. They might not be, I'm pretty clueless on ABDL's deeper, darker side.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

That are two totally different topics, I think the confusion comes from how simular they look to people who are not actually interested in AB DL stuff


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

aren't ABDL suppose to... wait, why there's is a word diaper? oh no.. so this has to be a fetish.. I thought people just wanted to escape this cruel and cold adult world


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> aren't ABDL suppose to... wait, why there's is a word diaper? oh no.. so this has to be a fetish.. I though people just wanted to escape this cruel and cold adult world



*is very bad at understanding sarcasm*

It's a huge group with people doing it for all reasons, some find the diaper kinky, some find age play kinky, some find incest dynamics like parent and child kinky, some live cute things like super cute and super love it and what's cuter than a baby or toddler and so they want to be that cute, some really like there childhood and find the world to be a cappy place so in there spear time they want to relive what made them happy.

Personally my childhood sucked, my parents spit, my mom didn't let us watch cartoons or play like most kids. Tbh when I got out of high school I was send to a Strang place, kicked out of my dad's home, came home to be kicked out of my mom's house, pushed into a relationship I wasn't ready for, had to get a job to support this relationship, and all that was to much. Well my childhood sucked too, when my friends would talk about stuff they did as kids or shows they watched I started looking into. To me all this things are brand new to me, and it's just so relaxing. I can play and express myself in a way that makes me feel like it dosnt matter if everything sucks, cause there always something new and fun to find or do. And tbh this is soooo much beer than drinking or using drugs to relax


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

BRN said:


> Are we now trying to achieve a defense of babyfurs with a defense of child pornography?



Stop that =P



scet said:


> That are two totally different topics, I think the confusion comes from how simular they look to people who are not actually interested in AB DL stuff



I think it started with the discussion about cub porn, which isn't child pornography.

The "porn" I've seen *commissioned by cubs* was usually just cutesy stuff where they happened to be naked.

There is cub RAPE over on Inkbunny :V

All the people I've known into the more sexual side of cub porn aren't even cubs.

Many are staunchly opposed to bringing anything sexual into it, in the first place.



Somnium said:


> so this has to be a fetish.. I though people just wanted to escape this cruel and cold adult world



IME, the majority of cubs have a related fetish, but this certainly isn't all of them.



scet said:


> Personally my childhood sucked, my parents spit,* my mom didn't let us watch cartoons* or play like most kids.



THAT IS SO SAD! >:c

Well all of it is sad, but especially the cartoon part :V


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

i gotta admit i was kinda into diapers at one point of my life..


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Ricky said:


> Stop that =P
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was grounded for a long time we I was cought watching pokemon on the family laptop


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Overall I don't care at all if someone has a fetish for wearing diapers, because that's not hurting anybody.

The other discussions which are going on are a bit of a tangled mess.



Ricky said:


> www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Are Sex Drive and Hypersexuality Associated with Pedophilic Interest and Child Sexual Abuse in a Male Community Sample?



The study you chose is based on self-reported data from users on the internet, so interpretation of the results has to be tentative because the data gathering process may not have excluded trolls. 

I think the important part of your study is that 'aggregate sex drive' is said to have no predictive link with abusive behaviour? 

The paper's discussion is a bit more nuanced than this though, because they say that aggregate sex drive is predictive of the probability of viewing abusive pornography and that, in turn, this is predictive of actually undertaking abuse. 

They say that it is unclear whether sex drive motivates this pornography use, or if it is the other way around, so you should bare in mind that 'aggregate sex drive' is *not* the same variable as 'viewing abusive pornography' and that this paper doesn't determine whether the relationship between pornography consumption and real life abuse is causal. 

Are you sure this paper shows what you think it does?


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

So far no one has hurt any one with any of the intrests under discussion

If some one takes it to far and dose hurt some one less, than that's clearly a bad thing and should be stoped or prevented

But you can't really make a sound argument that anything in this discussion is pure evil and should never be enjoyed be anyone for any reason


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

scet said:


> So far no one has hurt any one with any of the intrests under discussion
> 
> If some one takes it to far and dose hurt some one less, than that's clearly a bad thing and should be stoped or prevented
> 
> But you can't really make a sound argument that anything in this discussion is pure evil and should never be enjoyed be anyone for any reason



Sexual drawings of minors may sometimes be derived from photographs of abuse, and they may well also motivate real abuse in some individuals, so those really could hurt people. 

I think it is important to differentiate between people who have a fetish for adults wearing diapers, and people who are sexually interested in children.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> The other discussions which are going on are a bit of a tangled mess.



Questions with definitive answers usually don't make good discussions.



scet said:


> But you can't really make a sound argument that anything in this discussion is pure evil and should never be enjoyed be anyone for any reason



Tell that to The Fundies :V


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Sexual drawings of minors may sometimes be derived from photographs of abuse, and they may well also motivate real abuse in some individuals, so those really could hurt people.



[citation needed]



Fallowfox said:


> I think it is important to differentiate between people who have a fetish for adults wearing diapers, and people who are sexually interested in children.



I think there are more important things to worry about than what some person you don't know might be thinking :V

(or what they do to get off, and why)


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I'm still getting that "video games make people murders" vibe like hollow arguments based of assumptions


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

can i ask one very inappropriate question?



Spoiler



what do you think about real pedophilia? i better keep my opinion to myself


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Ricky said:


> [citation needed]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first claim, that sexual drawings may be derived from photos, doesn't need substantiation.
The second claim, that consumption of abusive pornography could motive abuse, is exploded in the paper that *you *sited, in its discussion section. They fail to conclude either way, and state that while there's definitely an association, they can't be sure whether a liability to abuse children motivates the consumption of abusive pornography, or if the consumption of abusive pornography increases the liability to abuse children in susceptible individuals.



scet said:


> I'm still getting that "video games make people murders" vibe like hollow arguments based of assumptions



It's already apparent that violent video games don't motivate an increase in violent behaviour, but maybe this knowledge can't be applied to the general case. 

For instance, it is possible that the consumption of sexual media is different. 

My suspicion is that abusers would be abusive _whether or not_ they were able to consume abusive pornography, but that's just my pet theory- so I have to say I don't know.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I personally made my opinion clear a few pages back about that and I was shut down pretty fast ... so Oh well


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> The first claim, that sexual drawings may be derived from photos, doesn't need substantiation.
> The second claim, that consumption of abusive pornography could motive abuse, is exploded in the paper that *you *sited, in its discussion section. They fail to conclude either way, and state that while there's definitely an association, they can't be sure whether a liability to abuse children motivates the consumption of abusive pornography, or if the consumption of abusive pornography increases the liability to abuse children in susceptible individuals.



You Kinda just said "1 I don't need prof cause everything can be anything, 2 I found my prof in your prof that said there no prof to prove abyhting "

That's how I read that just saying, sorry


----------



## BRN (Apr 2, 2016)

I've lost track of the ultimate goal of this conversation
what's trying to be proven again? :?

Because I've lost track, I'mma step back a few stages and go back to what I meant to say; babyfurs seem to come in one a select few categories: those who infantilise themselves, and those who want to wear diapers.

The first don't seem to seperate truth from fiction, and the second aren't any different to wearing a gimp suit or any other fetish material in public. If it's not a fetish thang, then it's a mockery of the people who really need 'em, making it kinda like using a wheelchair while you've got working legs.

Sure, my personal fandom of sexualising Pokemon is weird but that weirdness doesn't seem to extend into reality in the same way as the ABDL stuff.



scet said:


> You Kinda just said "1 I don't need prof cause everything can be anything, 2 I found my prof in your prof that said there no prof to prove abyhting "
> 
> That's how I read that just saying, sorry



Fallow's quite a self-sure fellow simply because in this case, he's right: he was asked to explain his reasoning, and he's provided his evidence. It's a debate thing rather than a conversation thing.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Apparently I wrote 'exploded' instead of 'explained', though @BRN


----------



## BRN (Apr 2, 2016)

please don't explode when explaining, fallow

for me :c


----------



## Spazzlez (Apr 2, 2016)

BRN said:


> please don't explode when explaining, fallow
> 
> for me :c


Damnit, did he eat the pie that was actually a bomb?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

scet said:


> You Kinda just said "1 I don't need prof cause everything can be anything, 2 *I found my prof in your prof that said there no prof to prove abyhting* "
> 
> That's how I read that just saying, sorry



I genuinely do get confused by the large number of people who post papers to prove their perspectives, only to discover that the paper they chose is either irrelevant to their argument or actually states the opposite. 

It makes me wonder how many people actually bother to read the content they cite.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> The study you chose is based on self-reported data from users on the internet, so interpretation of the results has to be tentative because the data gathering process may not have excluded trolls.



Yeah, and the same could go for any study that might have excluded xyz factor.

Like I said, there are plenty more related studies and you can go to www.pubmed.org if you want to look them up.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

This conversation has no direction and is a debate about opinions


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

Ricky said:


> Yeah, and the same could go for any study that might have excluded xyz factor.
> 
> Like I said, there are plenty more related studies and you can go to www.pubmed.org if you want to look them up.



The study you cited actually refers to other studies which *do* find that child pornography consumption correlates with actual abusive convictions. The study also admits that it can't determine whether this is causal.

To my knowledge, nobody has answered that particular question.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> The first claim, that sexual drawings may be derived from photos, doesn't need substantiation.



Yeah it does. One could ASSUME it has happened at least once and *maybe* not make an ass out of U and ME :V

To show any significance you need NUMBERS.



Fallowfox said:


> They fail to conclude either way, and state that while there's definitely an association, they can't be sure whether a liability to abuse children motivates the consumption of abusive pornography, or if the consumption of abusive pornography increases the liability to abuse children in susceptible individuals.



Um... Nobody said that there won't be a correlation between child molestors and child porn. That should fall into the "no shit" category which is why it's simply assumed in the paper. People who abuse children are obviously into children. What preference of porn do you THINK they should have? :V

The paper investigated if viewing the content led to an increased probability of those acts taking place. *Of course* they didn't assert any conclusion could be made for certain. They are scientists. This parallels the quote in my previous response; you could really say that *any* such study excludes some factor, since every factor in a stochastic system such as this will *never* be accounted for. The study would never end!

This is why there are multiple studies done on the same subject (which you are free to look up by the way, if you would like to provide any substance to go along with the arguments you try to make).



Fallowfox said:


> It's already apparent that violent video games don't motivate an increase in violent behaviour, but maybe this knowledge can't be applied to the general case.



It is as good as any evidence. As you claim, someone could say "maybe it's different in some way."

That isn't a substantial comment unless you either show or provide evidence to back it up.



scet said:


> I personally made my opinion clear a few pages back about that and I was shut down pretty fast ... so Oh well



Personally, I agreed with you and so I didn't have anything else to add.

The Fundies part was a joke though. I'm sure they *would* try to argue it's wrong, but nobody believes them in the first place 



Somnium said:


> can i ask one very inappropriate question?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not think it is an inappropriate comment.

I think *the act* of molestation is wrong and should be illegal along with child pornography.

Technically, paedophilia describes the paraphilia and not an act.

It is *an act* that is "wrong" and should be punished, not a thought.



BRN said:


> I've lost track of the ultimate goal of this conversation
> what's trying to be proven again? :?



Yes, it is moving pretty fast.

There isn't a single "goal" however. It's a conversation and changes all the time.

You will only find a common theme.



BRN said:


> Fallow's quite a self-sure fellow simply because in this case, he's right: he was asked to explain his reasoning, and he's provided his evidence. It's a debate thing rather than a conversation thing.



No, but it seems you support the argument so it's not a surprise you gave an ad hominem comment.

I provided evidence in the form of scientific studies. He didn't provide anything aside from opinions and anecdotal assertions about what he read.

That isn't evidence.



Fallowfox said:


> I genuinely do get confused by the large number of people who post papers to prove their perspectives, only to discover that the paper they chose is either irrelevant to their argument or actually states the opposite.



The problem is that you don't understand how science works.

Scientists don't claim to know anything for sure unless it has been proven without any doubt.

Hell, EVOLUTION is still considered a theory. Maybe that outta tell you something 



Fallowfox said:


> The study you cited actually refers to other studies which *do* find that child pornography consumption correlates with actual abusive convictions.



I already explained this. Hopefully you can see where without me pointing out the obvious.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> can i ask one very inappropriate question?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think sexual activities should only be shared with other consenting adults. A being of a human adult mature mental state who understands the meaning of sexual consent.

So children, real world animals, and some disabled people should just be left out of anything about sex. If they can't say yes, or don't understand what yes means, than that means no

This is just my toughts but seem logical. So as far as physical bodies envoled, if one day other animals reach our level of awareness or people can use a computer to turn there bodies back to a younger stage of there life and they remain as mentally aware and mature as their adult sleves. At that point yes some cases of bestiality and pedo will be perfectly ok. Right now though we can only play pretend.

I was shut down because I felt the only spereation was consent and so people get into a fuss


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

>>accused me of making assumption
>>very next comment is about how an assumption is warranted

The paper you chose to cite did not address the question you wanted to answer @Ricky . Maybe some other paper does, but I am as yet unaware of it. This isn't about there being 'uncontrolled variables' and a request for 'unending research'; the problem was simply that you chose to cite an irrelevant paper. :s

Unfortunately...I get the feeling that you didn't actually read the paper any further than the abstract; you should read its discussion.



Somnium said:


> idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing



Jesus fucking Christ...


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing



You see people are complicated,  and tiny people are more complicated cause of lack of understand and difficulty with comunication among the big one and the little ones.

All people are different and some have personalities that come with triggers and that are all unique, children can't tell adult what we'll traumatize them. And adults are kinda stupid too not understanding kids are all different just like adults. 

One thing might be to much for kid A but kid B would benefit from it. Tbh no child should be forced into an adult situation cause any kid could have an undiscovered trigger to anything. This rages from, no child should be put into a sexual invorment, all the way to, no child should be force to face the complicity loneliness with no one close or loving to comfort them.

These are really horrible places to put kids into 



(Side note)
After a lot of self discovery and thought about my personality I think as a kid I would have been really hurt if I lost a family member to early death. My first experience with death at 19 was nearly tramatizing even thought it was an elderly relative out of state. If I had to face that we'll I was younger I'd be pretty unstable and have more trust issues and maybe like abandonedment problems. But I was more mature when I first faced it.

Buuuuut upon self ivestigations of my triggers and sensitivities I could probably have handled a sexual interaction very early. I was a late bloomer but if some one close like my father had done anything with me I would have probably gotten into it and sexual matured faster and develop and understanding of love and it's expressions with an open mind to how I see relationships that it has taken me years to make sence of on my own 

Um ...

I'm just saying you can't tell what kids can handle so technically everything is wrong and inappropriate before you know what they can understand


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> >>accused me of making assumption
> >>very next comment is about how an assumption is warranted



>>doesn't provide any context or substance, as usual



Fallowfox said:


> The paper you chose to cite did not address the question you wanted to answer @Ricky . Maybe some other paper does, but I am as yet unaware of it. This isn't about there being 'uncontrolled variables' and a request for 'unending research'; the problem was simply that you chose to cite an irrelevant paper. :s



Stop repeating yourself. I already addressed this.

If there is a point of contention, address it directly and feel free to provide evidence.

The only things you have brought to the table are nebulous and undirected anecdotes and ad hominem attack.

(see the Latin etimology of anecdote if you don't get it, it comes from _not published_)



Fallowfox said:


> Unfortunately...I get the feeling that you didn't actually read the paper any further than the abstract; you should read its discussion.



Unfortunately...I get the feeling  you didn't read *anything* aside from the paper *I provided* that you skimmed through and didn't understand :V



scet said:


> I was shut down because I felt the only spereation was consent and so people get into a fuss



In that case, I'd say consent only applies to acts of abuse.

I agree that consenting adults should be free to do what they want together.



Somnium said:


> idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing



There are studies that back that up, as well. Inb4 fallowfox



scet said:


> I'm just saying you can't tell what kids can handle so technically everything is wrong and inappropriate before you know what they can understand



Yeah, and this is why it's important to define some boundaries. What degree of trauma isn't necessarily the determining question, but rather is the child being taken advantage of. There are blurry parts like two people who are 17 and 18 doing things in a state where it's illegal. Romeo and Juliet laws in some states mitigate this, but IMO it also matters how mature the younger person is. Some 16 year olds are quite mature and would speak up or do something about it if they need. On the other hand, I've met people in their 20's who weren't even mature enough yet to feel like you aren't taking advantage of them if you were ever in such a position.

That's where I stand from an ethical perspective, but because of these gray areas in defining boundaries, the debate will likely never end. It's hard to show something like maturity, so the laws use age instead.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Yeah that's what I mean if they don't concent it's aduse, if they do than you can do anything you want


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

My point of contention is that you wanted to prove that consumption of child pornography didn't make paedophiles more likely to abuse children, but that the paper you cited addresses a different question.

The paper established that it is widely known that consumption of child pornography is a good proxy of liability to abuse children, but that it isn't known whether this relationship is causal. Hence it doesn't address your question. 

Instead, the paper investigates the predictive power of factors such as antisocial behaviour and a factor called 'aggregated sex drive', which is the authors' attempt at creating a proxy for sex drive. 

Can you cite any research which actually addresses the question which you set yourself?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

This thread is deeply troubling. ._.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> This thread is deeply troubling. ._.


 
So is life


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> My point of contention is that you wanted to prove that consumption of child pornography didn't make paedophiles more likely to abuse children, but that the paper you cited addresses a different question.



>>more repeating yourself, still no substance at all

What question? It's _*completely relevant*_ and you can't be much more specific until you find _Why Fallowfox Is Wrong,_ instead.

For the third time (or fourth, I'm losing count) it was *relevant* evidence to support what I said.

Evidence, as in "something you have failed, and are still failing to provide" and cherry-picking it with fuzzy anecdotes doesn't impress me.



Fallowfox said:


> The paper established that it is widely known that consumption of child pornography...



Oh, so IT IS relevant :V

Carry on.



Fallowfox said:


> ... is a good proxy of liability to abuse children



Wait, stop right there. "Proxy of liability?"

First of all, I think you mean *culpability,* not *liability*, but that's semantics and unimportant.

What is important... What the hell is that supposed to mean? :V



Fallowfox said:


> but that it isn't known whether this relationship is causal. Hence it doesn't address your question.



I asked a lot of questions, mr. blurry and never-to-the-point :V

Are you still harping on no certain conclusions being made, which I already explained was simply the way Science works?

It doesn't address anything. Again, as I already stated for the [hell, I forget] time, it is evidence which you- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.



Fallowfox said:


> Instead, the paper investigates the predictive power of factors such as antisocial behaviour and a factor called 'aggregated sex drive', which is the authors' attempt at creating a proxy for sex drive.



There's no "proxy" _for anything_ here. It is explained in like.. the first sentence :\

Come on, really?



			
				The part you must have missed said:
			
		

> Although much is currently known about hypersexuality (in the form of excessive sexual behavior) among sexual offenders, the degree to which hypersexual behavior is linked to paraphilic and especially pedophilic interests in non-forensic populations has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to elucidate the associations between total sexual outlets (TSO) and other sex drive indicators, antisocial behavior, pedophilic interests, and sexual offending behavior in a [..._blah, blah, blah_]





Fallowfox said:


> Can you cite any research which actually addresses the question which you set yourself?



Lol. Lame...


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

If it is relevant, can you explain how it demonstrates that consuming child pornography does not make paedophiles more liable to abuse children? 
[this is the correct use of the word 'liable', as in 'more likely to be or do something', by the way. IE 'smokers are liable to develop lung cancers,']

I'm beginning to think that you really _did_ only read the first sentence of the paper you cited, if you think that's the only important bit.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I feel like most of the other parts of this conversation are just repeating a lot in a "prove it" "prove it isnt" kind of way

I'm not going to read research links tbh cause it's near impossible to undersand why people do the things they do


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

scet said:


> I feel like most of the other parts of this conversation are just repeating a lot in a "prove it" "prove it isnt" kind of way
> 
> I'm not going to read research links tbh cause it's near impossible to undersand why people do the things they do



Read the paper and see whether you think it support's ricky's argument. I don't think psychiatry is simply all futile (some of it has definitely been very useful), but even if you _do_ come to the conclusion that there 'isn't the right kind of information in this paper to decide what it shows', then you've found something useful about the paper, haven't you?


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Read the paper and see whether you think it support's ricky's argument. I don't think psychiatry is simply all futile (some of it has definitely been very useful), but even if you _do_ come to the conclusion that there 'isn't the right kind of information in this paper to decide what it shows', then you've found something useful about the paper, haven't you?



... 

*literally said I'm not going to do that*

I mean yeah it's useful to notice patterns but it is mostly pointless if you can't understand the pattern if your trying to change it


----------



## BRN (Apr 2, 2016)

Sorry guys, but even if you agree on a hypothetical moral stance about kiddy diddlin', it's still illegal and you'll still get in trouble for it. Please keep it to the adults.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

BRN said:


> Sorry guys, but even if you agree on a hypothetical moral stance about kiddy diddlin', it's still illegal and you'll still get in trouble for it. Please keep it to the adults.



That's what this hole conversation is about and no one is saying it's ok, I think we all agree it's pretty bad


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I think people are saying, it bad to diddlin children so it's bad to diddlin while playing as childern, I think that's what the conflict is


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> @scetI fully agree, every child is unique and should be treated as such. The guardians know him best and should be able to decide if a certain experience at very young age, i'm talking about prepubescent children, won't be detrimental for this particular child. I'm not saying every parent is a good one though. And after hitting puberty I think he can have all the fun he wants. Oh God, I'm nasty.



That would be far too predjudicial to hold weight in a court of law.

There is also the question: when can the child consent in an _informed and unpressured_ way.



Fallowfox said:


> This thread is deeply troubling. ._.



For you, perhaps :V



scet said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I would have been ready at about 5, but that just is getting into my personal look on physical love and how long iv had that out look. I just meant if I had a male role model in my home that was close to me and wanted to do stuff to me. I would have jumped at the chance and it would have be so nice .... at least to me.



Apparently, the average age of sex in Jamaica is five.

*Source: Random Jamaican Dude :V*



scet said:


> I feel like most of the other parts of this conversation are just repeating a lot in a "prove it" "prove it isnt" kind of way



Yeah, this is because nobody supporting the contrary brought any more evidence to the table.

@Fallowfox As for the use of the word *liable, *the entire paper was about it (and proxy makes even less sense):



> The results of the present study suggest that the association between hypersexual behaviour as measured by the TSO, sex drive, and contact sexual abusive behaviour in our community sample of men was lower than expected.



If you look at the table, "time spent with pornography consumption (yeah, totally irrelevant) and past convictions involving child sexual abuse had a p-value of .03 where the aggravated antisociality index *was .2!* 



> As sexual preconvictions could overlap with self-reported sexual victimization of children we also calculated an aggregated antisociality index leaving out sexual preconvictions.



_Moving on..._



scet said:


> That's what this hole conversation is about and no one is saying it's ok, I think we all agree it's pretty bad



I'll admit, if that is the case, I was confused by the first quote above.

I interpreted that as saying it is okay, but only if the child consents to someone who understands what they really mean.

Taking the latter part for granted, testimony would still be far too prejudicial.

The person claiming this was the case would have a strong reason to influence the evidence.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

scet said:


> Yeah
> 
> Also don't read this ether
> 
> ...



well, nice to see someone who isn't so against it. I wish more people were like you. Now everyone seems to go ape shit if they just hear a word starting with a p. The mentioned people might choose to express their deep love for children in this rather unconventional way as for example zoophiles do. Why nobody thinks about that? Why is it *has* to be a child molestation where child gets hurt and is not cared about?


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I mean at that age I didn't know what it was or how you could but that's my point, kids don't know and that's why you should just not do it

Um like it's like you can open the box if there is a note saying yes in the box, if the note inside the box says no than you can't open the box. You can't see the note before you open the box, so are you going to open that box?

Like just to be safe ... dont, just dont


----------



## Somnium (Apr 2, 2016)

scet said:


> I mean at that age I didn't know what it was or how you could but that's my point, kids don't know and that's why you should just not do it
> 
> Um like it's like you can open the box if there is a note saying yes in the box, if the note inside the box says no than you can't open the box. You can't see the note before you open the box, so are you going to open that box?
> 
> Like just to be safe ... dont, just dont



oh sorry i got you wrong.. don't worry i won't, it does not interest me


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

Somnium said:


> oh sorry i got you wrong.. don't worry i won't, it does not interest me



Now you confused me


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

@Ricky 
The word proxy means 'an indirect metric for another variable'

The aggregated sex drive is a proxy for libido, rather than a measure of how much child pornography they consume.
Consumption of child pornography is an effective proxy for liability to abuse children, a fact that is acknowledged in the paper's conclusion.

The paper argues, among other things, that sex drive isn't an effective proxy of liability to commit abuse.

So the paper you cited doesn't determine whether consumption of child pornography causally increases a paedophile's liability to abuse real children. This fact is acknowledged in the paper's discussion.



Somnium said:


> well, nice to see someone who isn't so against it. I wish more people were like you. Now everyone seems to go ape shit if they just hear a word starting with a p. The mentioned people might choose to express their deep love for children in this rather unconventional way as for example zoophiles do. Why nobody thinks about that? Why is it *has* to be a child molestation where child gets hurt and is not cared about?



Prepubescent children are not equipped with sufficient mental faculty to make informed decisions about consent to sexual activities.

Hence any adult performing sexual activities with a child is taking advantage of them and abusing their position of trust as an adult.


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I still don't understand the point, so are you arguing something along the lines of, if you let adults do anything sexual with ABDL and generate porn of such it will lead to more child molesters?


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> @Ricky
> The word proxy means 'an indirect metric for another variable'



I never heard it used this way before.



Fallowfox said:


> The aggregated sex drive is a proxy for libido, rather than a measure of how much child pornography they consume.



Dude, first sentence:



> In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature providing empirical evidence for a link between hypersexuality and paraphilic interests in sexual offenders





Fallowfox said:


> The paper established that it is widely known that consumption of child pornography is a good proxy of liability to abuse children



No it didn't. I already addressed this, CTRL+F for "no shit".



Fallowfox said:


> The aggregated sex drive is a proxy for libido, rather than a measure of how much child pornography they consume.
> Consumption of child pornography is an effective proxy for liability to abuse children, a fact that is acknowledged in the paper's conclusion.



Is there an echo in here? No, it's just the sound of Fallowfox repeating himself once again :V



Fallowfox said:


> The paper argues, among other things, that sex drive isn't an effective proxy of liability to commit abuse.



Echo, echo, echo...



Fallowfox said:


> So the paper you cited doesn't determine whether consumption of child pornography causally increases a paedophile's liability to abuse real children. This fact is acknowledged in the paper's discussion.



Casually? They don't do it with a jacket and tie?

Exactly what percentage is "casually"?

I already addressed this as well, CTRL+F for "read the fucking chart".



scet said:


> I still don't understand the point, so are you arguing something along the lines of, if you let adults do anything sexual with ABDL and generate porn of such it will lead to more child molesters?



I think he might have been replying to the post claiming it was okay if the child "consents."


----------



## scet (Apr 2, 2016)

I mean that was about me, and yeah it would have been ok tbh


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

I'm surprised you've not heard of the word 'proxy' before; it's commonly used in the sciences. The most common proxy people come across in their daily life is 'Body Mass Index' or BMI, which is a proxy for how fat you are. 
Here is a simple article detailing some more examples: Proxy (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that you don't know what these common place scientific words mean, do you think this might impair your understanding of what papers from the literature are actually saying? 

(also it is causally, not casually, as in 'the removal of the block caused the tower to topple,')


----------



## Astus (Apr 2, 2016)

I think after reading this thread I'm pretty much done with people for a while... children aren't physiologically or mentally able to process what sex is or let alone have any of those actions preformed on them. Those who are supporting this type of abuse onto children are disgusting whatver their intentions are; they are physically and most likely emotionally scarring children in the process. The issue with the pornography is that it's never enough, there comes a point where the body adjusts to the stimulation recieved and it requires more for them to receive the same feeling they had before, the feelings they want. That's when bad things happen, when they lose control of themselves; it'd be better if they just checked themselves into a facility that can help them advert their sexual drive or castrate them so they can't harm any children at least. As someone who is a part of the ABDL community, I wouldn't want to hear about any child who had their innocence taken away, selfishly because most of the ABDLs are trying to replicate that feeling of innocence, as well from the extrinsic standpoint that you are physically and mentally going to harm that child for the rest of your life just to furfil a sexual pleasure for yourself


----------



## Eirrinn (Apr 2, 2016)

I don't mind baby furs, as long as its not sexual and they simply like how cute cubs are that's fine with me, heck I even have a baby version of my fursona Amara.
But it crosses the line when it gets sexual and downright gross. I went to Rainfurrest last year and it was practically ruined for me because of what happened there, and now there is no 2016 con mostly because of it :/


----------



## Ricky (Apr 2, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> _blah, blah, more ad hominem bs_...



*yawn...*



Astusthefox said:


> I think after reading this thread I'm pretty much done with people for a while... children aren't physiologically or mentally able to process what sex is or let alone have any of those actions preformed on them. Those who are supporting this type of abuse onto children are disgusting whatver their intentions are; they are physically and most likely emotionally scarring children in the process.



You read one comment you disagree with and you're done with people? :V



Astusthefox said:


> The issue with the pornography is that it's never enough, there comes a point where the body adjusts to the stimulation recieved and it requires more for them to receive the same feeling they had before, the feelings they want. That's when bad things happen, when they lose control of themselves; it'd be better if they just checked themselves into a facility that can help them advert their sexual drive or castrate them so they can't harm any children at least.



Again, they haven't actually done anything wrong until they act on it.

Also, paedophiles have asked for castration and were actually refused in many cases.

I think *that* is rather silly, but the point I'm trying to make is you can't punish people for thoughts or feelings and they don't necessarily translate to action.



Astusthefox said:


> As someone who is a part of the ABDL community, I wouldn't want to hear about any child who had their innocence taken away, selfishly because most of the ABDLs are trying to replicate that feeling of innocence, as well from the extrinsic standpoint that you are physically and mentally going to harm that child for the rest of your life just to furfil a sexual pleasure for yourself



I would hope someone from *any* community would feel the same way >.>


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 2, 2016)

@Ricky  No really, if you aren't familiar with basic terms in the literature then this probably explains why you got the wrong end of the stick when you read that citation. 

I see this a lot (for example, people routinely confusing 'genetic' as in 'was generated' with 'related to the genes'); perhaps papers should use more accessible language or have glossaries of terms in them.


----------



## Astus (Apr 2, 2016)

Ricky said:


> You read one comment you disagree with and you're done with people? :V
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All of the comments since I last posted 


Every time they whack off to child porn they act on it, they're sexually stimulating themselves to that idea or thought. I can imagine that they've been rejected as there are more civilized manners to change sexual deviance if they do work. And sure you can punish people for thoughts or feelings they haven't manifested into action, if I post online that I'm going to go into times square and bomb a bunch of people the FBI is going to be at my door to arrest me, and probably put me in jail for making a bomb threat even if they don't find any bomb making materials.



That I can agree with


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Prepubescent children are not equipped with sufficient mental faculty to make informed decisions about consent to sexual activities.
> 
> Hence any adult performing sexual activities with a child is taking advantage of them and abusing their position of trust as an adult.



of course children can't consent so parents have to consent on their behalf


----------



## BRN (Apr 3, 2016)

If a parent consents to allowing their prepubescent child to be fucked, then that parent is being negligent in their care

The child lacks the faculties to make a decision about sex, and the adult lacks the right to make a choice for the child. There's so many things deeply wrong with the idea of consent-by-proxy that I don't think you thought that through @Somnium


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

i hate the government for telling parents how they should raise their children. The parent naturally loves their child and only wishes good for them.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 3, 2016)

Oh look, another topic about something outside of the "norm" devolving into shit; go fig.

Stay classy.


----------



## Astus (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> i hate the government for telling parents how they should raise their children. The parents naturally loves his child and only wishes good for him.


The only thing is a parent who is wiling to let their child be scarred by someone physically and mentally isn't doing something in the best interest of their child. The government gives guidelines for how to raise children off of a few decades of psychological studies and experiments. 

I find it slightly odd that you said "him" at the end there; I thought you were being general, not talking about just males


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> The only thing is a parent who is wiling to let their child be scarred by someone physically and mentally isn't doing something in the best interest of their child.



How can you be sure if the child will be scarred? Maybe they will be more than happy to please their uncle.


Astusthefox said:


> I find it slightly odd that you said "him" at the end there; I thought you were being general, not talking about just males



fixed. I ought to start using _they_ instead of _he_, though it sound and looks weird to me. Also no one thought that in school.

And I should stop playing the devil's advocate


----------



## Astus (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> How can you be sure if the child will be scarred? Maybe they will be more than happy to please their uncle.


I'll leave this here https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somatic-psychology/201303/trauma-childhood-sexual-abuse


----------



## Endless/Nameless (Apr 3, 2016)

Geez, there's a lot of perverts in this forum...

Can we please go back to ogling hot foxes? pls thnk u.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> i hate the government for telling parents how they should raise their children. The parent naturally loves their child and only wishes good for them.



Many parents raise their children poorly in spite of having good intentions, which is why advice from childcare experts is useful. A good example is that many parents over feed their children. 

Some parents do not have their children's best interests in mind; instances of violent or sexual abuse of children by their parents are routine. 

No well meaning and upstanding parent would* ever *give *anybody* permission to sodomise their child. I cannot believe that this is even up for discussion; you are literally recommending the system they have in Yemen, where parents sell their young girls off as brides ._.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

okay okay i get it, your child does not belong to you


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> @Ricky  No really, if you aren't familiar with basic terms in the literature then this probably explains why you got the wrong end of the stick when you read that citation.
> 
> I see this a lot (for example, people routinely confusing 'genetic' as in 'was generated' with 'related to the genes'); perhaps papers should use more accessible language or have glossaries of terms in them.



@Fallowfox No, really, if you can't think of anything intelligent to say then this probably explains why you would resort to asinine ad hominem tactics like the above.

I see this a lot (for example, people routinely attack the members character over some trivial bullshit semantics when they can't think of a way to address the actual topic); maybe these people should just give up instead of routinely bending over to grab their ankles :V

I'm going to address the other (more intelligent) comments, but I'm only on my second cup of coffee and I want to dig up the research I'm thinking of which came from a class at UC Berkeley.


----------



## scet (Apr 3, 2016)

.... wait what

*stars on sleepily*

Childern are human people, no one belongs to anyone. Thats slavery and wrong

*looks at me text from my slaves*

Ok well it's definitely not that bad but M/s dynamics is an consenting adult activities that kids can't understand  . . .

Ok well just don't make your children your slaves, and um not normal people too, slavery is bad but ok if the slave wants it but it's not ok to push people into things like that


----------



## BRN (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> okay okay i get it, your child does not belong to you


Christ, no, of course it bloody doesn't. x3

Your child belongs to itself. Because it can't take care of itself, it's the parents' responsibility to look after it and take care of it.

That doesn't given you, or anyone, total ownership of another person's body, no matter how old they are.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

Ricky said:


> I'm going to address the other (more intelligent) comments, but I'm only on my second cup of coffee and I want to dig up the research I'm thinking of which came from a class at UC Berkeley.



Are you going to find a paper which attempts to answer whether consumption of abusive pornography causes an increase in the likelihood of committing abuses?
I would be interested if you found one. I haven't been able to find any myself.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

BRN said:


> Christ, no, of course it bloody doesn't. x3
> 
> Your child belongs to itself. Because it can't take care of itself, it's the parents' responsibility to look after it and take care of it.
> 
> That doesn't given you, or anyone, total ownership of another person's body, no matter how old they are.



then why I can't kill myself, but a sergeant can decide when my life ends?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> then why I can't kill myself, but a sergeant can decide when my life ends?



???


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

Don't you get it @Fallowfox if we are too stupid to own ourselves how can we own someone else?


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Don't you get it @Fallowfox if we are too stupid to own ourselves how can we own someone else?



I think you need to clarify your argument. 

Nobody owns you, it's not illegal to commit suicide and soldiers enter into a contract to perform dangerous service; their sergeants do not 'own' them.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> Every time they whack off to child porn they act on it, they're sexually stimulating themselves to that idea or thought.



Yeah, and just to recall from your last post:



Astusthefox said:


> The issue with the pornography is that it's never enough, there comes a point where the body adjusts to the stimulation recieved and it requires more for them to receive the same feeling they had before, the feelings they want.



So, to back up a bit, I guess it's possible pornography could be used as an outlet to help mitigate these deviant feelings, if they become desensitized to them and have to turn to something else. In all honesty, as can be seen from the research, there isn't much compelling evidence one way or the other, so the only logical conclusion one can draw is it neither helps nor exacerbates the situation to any great extent. That's why I think any argument trying to claim pornography either encourages or discourages sexual predation will degenerate into what we saw yesterday.



Astusthefox said:


> I can imagine that they've been rejected as there are more civilized manners to change sexual deviance if they do work.



Like what? I mean, there is chemical castration, but one would hope will power would be enough. Obviously the people in question don't have the ability to overcome these desires through will power alone or they wouldn't be asking to take such drastic measures.



Astusthefox said:


> And sure you can punish people for thoughts or feelings they haven't manifested into action, if I post online that I'm going to go into times square and bomb a bunch of people the FBI is going to be at my door to arrest me, and probably put me in jail for making a bomb threat even if they don't find any bomb making materials.



That's not a thought, though. The action you took by posting it online is enough to make it a threat.



BRN said:


> The child lacks the faculties to make a decision about sex, and the adult lacks the right to make a choice for the child. There's so many things deeply wrong with the idea of consent-by-proxy that I don't think you thought that through



The parent can, and must, consent on certain things like medical decisions. They can be tried as negligent when making bad decisions for the child. For example, if your child is dying of meningitis and you take him to an "alternative medical practitioner" as opposed to a real doctor you are held liable for the child's death. When it comes to sex, the parent has no way to know how the child will react, but I don't see why this is even a topic of discussion in the first place. The only reason I see a parent making this decision is when some adult wants to take advantage of the child which is both sick and wrong.



Somnium said:


> *The parent naturally loves their child* and only wishes good for them.



Not literally :V

Children at a very young age, as far as I'm aware, are not usually interested in sex. As you say later on, the child might want to please a family member like a parent or an uncle and this is the _*very definition*_ of being taken advantage of.



Astusthefox said:


> I'll leave this here www.psychologytoday.com: Trauma: Childhood Sexual Abuse



I'd be wary of sites that get their information from other sites that all have a financial bias. I'm not going to argue that children are not traumatized by such acts, but I've read plenty of information from both sides to know it's somewhere along the lines of the pornography debate. It probably causes some degree of trauma and this is probably much less than people make it out to be. In fact, things like this (quoted from the site you linked to) might be even more detrimental than the original trauma, itself:



> Sexual abuse is a particularly sinister type of trauma because of the shame it instills in the victim. With childhood sexual abuse, victims are often too young to know how to express what is happening and seek out help. When not properly treated, this can result in a lifetime of PTSD, depression and anxiety.... Often, victims of sexual abuse will try to downplay their experience by saying that it “wasn’t that bad.” It’s vital to recognize that abuse comes in many shapes, colors and sizes and that all abuse is bad.



You can easily see, by things like Munchausen By Proxy Syndrome, what severe psychological impact parental behavior can have on children. If the parent is so convinced the child will be traumatized then it's just as likely in this case the child would end up believing it (and therefore manifesting it) as well.



Endless/Nameless said:


> Geez, there's a lot of perverts in this forum...
> 
> Can we please go back to ogling hot foxes? pls thnk u.



Perverts? In a furry forum? NO WAY

Haha, honestly I'd prefer intellectual discussion over a circle-jerk of fox porn any day :V



Fallowfox said:


> Are you going to find a paper which attempts to answer whether consumption of abusive pornography causes an increase in the likelihood of committing abuses?
> I would be interested if you found one. I haven't been able to find any myself.



Aww, how cute. He wants some more :3

I was just having some fun with you. Put your pants back on and we'll continue this in another thread.


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you need to clarify your argument.
> 
> Nobody owns you, it's not illegal to commit suicide and soldiers enter into a contract to perform dangerous service; their sergeants do not 'own' them.



suicide is legal!? well yea in some places you don't go to jail after attempted suicide, but in others, aren't you stopped by force against your will before committing it and then locked up in a psych ward until you become "stable" enough? I'm talking about conscription especially during war time. And what about seat belts or illegal drugs? My point was, owning a life, even your own, is too big of a responsibility, so the government has to intervene and tell us what we can do and what we can't.
Okay this is going off topic too much.



Ricky said:


> Children at a very young age, as far as I'm aware, are not usually interested in sex. As you say later on, the child might want to please a family member like a parent or an uncle and this is the _*very definition*_ of being taken advantage of.



so what, the lady might want to please her boss by giving him head, so that she could get a promotion. Taking advantage of someone is just a part of life.


----------



## Notkastar (Apr 3, 2016)

I have no idea what this thread has become while I was gone 
¯\_(￣ ￣ )_/¯

The "Internet" 
Ladies and Gentleman 
°˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> suicide is legal!? well yea in some places you don't go to jail after attempted suicide, but in others, aren't you stopped by force against your will before committing it and then locked up in a psych ward until you become "stable" enough? I'm talking about conscription especially during war time. And what about seat belts or illegal drugs? My point was, owning a life, even your own, is too big of a responsibility, so the government has to intervene and tell us what we can do and what we can't.
> Okay this is going off topic too much.



So you can't be charged with a crime for attempting suicide, and few nations have mandatory conscription, but I digress; parents are responsible for the wellbeing of their children. They do not own their children and if they are assessed to have failed to provide for their children's wellbeing, then childcare services are entitled to rehome the children.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Okay this is going off topic too much.



Why do people always freak out about this?

Conversations evolve.



Somnium said:


> so what, the lady might want to please her boss by giving him a head, so that she could get a promotion. Taking advantage of someone is just a part of life.



Lol. Getting a head by giving it :V

Yes, but this is why it's considered sexual harassment.


----------



## Mega066 (Apr 3, 2016)

Ok, I'm caught up. 

It's good to see that I signed up for the right forum. This is exactly the kinda discussion and debate I want to see and explore around here. 

This thread gets a 10/10. Quality.


----------



## Astus (Apr 3, 2016)

Ricky said:


> Yeah, and just to recall from your last post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You didn't understand what I meant by, seeking stronger stimulation, I meant they would actually want to go after a child rather then just think about it in their head. I'll just use this as an example: someone has a sexual attraction to shoving a dildo up their butt, whatever the reason is it really turns them on. They look up porn of people doing it and they keep mastrubating to it over and over again. Eventually thay stimulus doesn't become enough for them, so they go out and buy a real dildo to to it in reality for themselves to achieve that amazing feeling they've been looking for. That's what I meant.

Other things as in psychoanalysis and giving them an effective treatment based on that analysis, be it medication or somthing else, you don't always need to castrate someone to make them stop having certain sexual tendencies.

I picked thay article firstly because it was pretty much the first link on google, as well it had a lot of the information my psych teacher, here at my university, went over in class when we talked about this. She was an adolescent councilor in a large case study of mistreated children in various cities. There were those that didn't show a lot of change after sexual abuse, and there were those that developed a bunch of issues; some of her research went into the large research papers done on the subject. 


On the subject of actually doing something, they are doing something; they're pleasuring themselves to picutres of children. And as I said before with the dildo analogy, there is always a chance that they will do something. Go on inkbunny and look at the comments some people leave on the sexual babyfur picutres and tell me things like 'so sexy' and 'I wish I could have them' type of comments aren't inductive of someone who is willing to perform those actions on real children if they had the chance.


As for the proxy syndrome, sure that may be a case, but do you really think that doing something like vaginal sex with a sexually premature female wouldn't cause physical pain and scarring? I remember one particularly bad story where there was a man who had anal sex with a newborn and literally tore the baby open. Seriosuly you think something like that wouldn't cause psychological harm as an adult? Children sometimes develop anxiety and depression as adults from things like being punched one time, or being hit whenever they do something wrong, so what part of you would say that sexual abuse wouldn't cause the same problems?


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

tbh i was touched inappropriately when i was about 6 or 7 years old, nothing to excessive though, and i didn't like it, felt kinda violated. I think trauma comes from many many occurrences or single very traumatizing one like rape.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

This thread is like a roller coaster that only goes down.


----------



## scet (Apr 3, 2016)

*shurg*

Well that to much stuff for me to read right now I'm just here to chat


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2016)

Astusthefox said:


> You didn't understand what I meant by, seeking stronger stimulation, I meant they would actually want to go after a child rather then just think about it in their head. I'll just use this as an example: someone has a sexual attraction to shoving a dildo up their butt, whatever the reason is it really turns them on. They look up porn of people doing it and they keep mastrubating to it over and over again. Eventually thay stimulus doesn't become enough for them, so they go out and buy a real dildo to to it in reality for themselves to achieve that amazing feeling they've been looking for. That's what I meant.



No, no... I understood what you meant. I was offering an alternative, in that they might get bored of that paraphilia and move onto something else. Truth be told, I have no idea one way or the other and Sci-Hub doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but this one seems interesting so I'll just leave it here for when I'm in a library that has access:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Digital and divergent: sexual behaviors on the Internet. - PubMed - NCBI



Astusthefox said:


> Other things as in psychoanalysis and giving them an effective treatment based on that analysis, be it medication or somthing else, you don't always need to castrate someone to make them stop having certain sexual tendencies.



What medication? 



Astusthefox said:


> I picked thay article firstly because it was pretty much the first link on google, as well it had a lot of the information my psych teacher, here at my university, went over in class when we talked about this. She was an adolescent councilor in a large case study of mistreated children in various cities. There were those that didn't show a lot of change after sexual abuse, and there were those that developed a bunch of issues; some of her research went into the large research papers done on the subject.



It would be interesting to see a study showing how the impact of the trauma correlates to parental views on how to council the child. For example, does the parent think the child underestimates, overestimates or is accurately judging the impact the event had? It is a leading question for a specific reason.



Astusthefox said:


> On the subject of actually doing something, they are doing something; they're pleasuring themselves to picutres of children. And as I said before with the dildo analogy, there is always a chance that they will do something. Go on inkbunny and look at the comments some people leave on the sexual babyfur picutres and tell me things like 'so sexy' and 'I wish I could have them' type of comments aren't inductive of someone who is willing to perform those actions on real children if they had the chance.



I don't think anyone should dictate what people do to "get off".

Trust me, I'm well aware of what goes on at Inkbunny 



Astusthefox said:


> As for the proxy syndrome, sure that may be a case, but do you really think that doing something like vaginal sex with a sexually premature female wouldn't cause physical pain and scarring?



I never said that, and I never said it won't cause psychological trauma. That's one reason I agreed it's wrong. My point was, the parent could be exacerbating the issue by continuously reminding the child of the trauma and the extent they think it should have. In line with prior research I've read, it's very possible people overestimate this as well.



Fallowfox said:


> This thread is like a roller coaster that only goes down.



THE BEST KIND!


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

@Ricky  I don't think people get bored of one paraphilia and move onto another, unfortunately. :\ Fixations tend to be, well, fixed. 

Regards medication used to treat sex offenders, one option is temporary suppression of libido, followed by careful attempts to 'rebuild' the libido with a preference for adults. A smattering of researchers claim they can do this, but there is no consensus that it works.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2016)

@Fallowfox Well, I'm glad you know what goes on in other people's heads.

Also, that's chemical castration. Isn't that included in 'castration' in general?

I don't remember if what I read included that, it was a long time ago.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 3, 2016)

Ricky said:


> @Fallowfox Well, I'm glad you know what goes on in other people's heads.
> 
> Also, that's chemical castration. Isn't that included in 'castration' in general?
> 
> I don't remember if what I read included that, it was a long time ago.



Well it's not permanent. I'm not sure whether chemical castration is, or what variations exist upon it. 

I don't like the idea of chemically neutering people very much to be honest; imagine if someone was wrongly convicted and told they either had to go to prison or be neutered.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 3, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Well it's not permanent. I'm not sure whether chemical castration is, or what variations exist upon it.



It's not permanent, which is why court-mandated chemical castration is carefully monitored.

In the US at least, the laws regarding it vary widely state-to-state.



Fallowfox said:


> I don't like the idea of chemically neutering people very much to be honest; imagine if someone was wrongly convicted and told they either had to go to prison or be neutered.



Hah! "Neutering" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I know several furries who'd actually be turned on by the thought :V


----------



## Somnium (Apr 3, 2016)

thanks god we do not castrate gays anymore


----------



## scet (Apr 3, 2016)

Oh gosh this all kinds of directions in crazy places 

Peoe are just born liking what they like, let's try not to rip off people's body parts cause that like something most people don't like


----------



## Moderator-Gazelle (Apr 3, 2016)

This thread has deviated from the original topic and will be closed. As for this thread's contents, please read our Terms and Rules regarding U.S. Laws and Illegal Content if this conversation is continued in a new thread.


----------

