# Regarding the furry fandom and sexuality



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

I kinda sorta feel the need to further express my opinion on some strange stuff Iâ€™ve seen on this website. 

I while I certainly respect the moderatorsâ€™ decision to try to keep this forum SFW, _though  I find it slightly ironic seeing as the actual furaffinity website is about as SFW as the two disc edition of â€œTwo Girls One Cupâ€ (I came up with that one myself!)_,  Iâ€™m absolutely sure that we can have this thread discussion in a mature and constructive manner.  

There seems to be a general consensus on this website, that the furry fandom is nothing more of a hobby or some small, completely harmless interest. The recent thread â€œFOR THE SAKE OF OUR SANITY, YOU DONâ€™T HAVE TO â€œCOME OUTâ€ AS A FURRYâ€œ marks a perfect example of this attitude. There is definitely a common sentiment on this website to neglect or straight out deny the life-style, sexual nature of the fandom. 

-  And that furries sick enough to find any sexual interest in these anthropomorphic animal characters, or enjoy dressing up in fursuits or anything of the like, are just strange, deviating individuals who has nothing to do with the fandom itself. 

Honestly, youâ€™d think that any furry with at least the slightest experience with the furry fandom should see the huge, gaping logical holes in this notion. Just a quick look at furaffinity.net or any other big furry community reveals that the community is ridden with â€œyiffâ€. A majority of the approximately 48 000 submissions that are uploaded to FurAffinity is in fact sexual in nature.  

Arguably, the furries who still insistently claims that there is nothing sexual about the fandom whatsoever only prove how absolutely out of the touch with the actual community they have become. And therefore, given that so many furries see their furry identity as a part of their sexuality and/or their lifestyle, the term hobby just doesnâ€™t do the fandom justice. Itâ€™s a paraphilia, or perhaps even something bordering to a sexual orientation. 

*It should be noted however(!)*, that I have nothing against the sexual aspects of the fandom. Absolutely not, I have nothing against yiff or anything like that. No, itâ€™s the fact that some users on this website consider themselves to be in position to say what the fandom is and isnâ€™t, without any logical or factual arguments to back it up with, that annoys me. The entire mentality reeks of self-denial. Itâ€™s week and cowardly to deny your own nature, or condemn your fellow furries for being different despite the fact that you all belong to the same community.   

There! Now that we have established the truth, we can go on like normal and leave this whole furry-hobby-debate behind. Thanks. 







"Bolt" probably the most lovable character of the last decade. Picture unrelated.


----------



## Cain (Apr 18, 2011)

I skipped the entire post and just D'Awwww-ed at the picture.
D'Awwwwwww he's sooooo cute! <3


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

I know right! He is hypnotizing. I don't even blame you for not reading my post.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

*cough* Actually, statistically speaking, the majority of submissions on FA are general audience.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

sorry general works are posted FAR FAR more than adult/mature works, its just that mature/adult works get more faves and views.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> sorry general works are posted FAR FAR more than adult/mature works, its just that mature/adult works get more faves and views.


 
Yeah, I think Net-cat posted the stats but I can't find them because search is fucking terrible.

I'm not disagreeing with your stance OP, just pointing out the statistics.


----------



## BRN (Apr 18, 2011)

Well, for one thing, that particular thread is far from 'recent'. And, in fact, a larrrrge majority of the uploaded works to FA are nonsexual. But the fandom is not 'nonsexual' or 'sexual' in nature; it's more like a Venn diagram of the two, and any individual finds themselves placed by their own nature and interests into a suitable spot in that equilibrium, and will, observing the fandom around them, begin to believe the whole fandom is representative of their niche.

I'm heavily into the sexual side of the fandom and my fursona's practically a porn star. It's true. But because I make a point of things to check out all the sides of the fandom, I like to think I'm somewhere in the middle of that balance; I guess I'm here more for the networking than any particular style of furry art.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

It's been brought up before that the general works could still be considered erotic to some extent. The characters and poses are designed to look attractive. It's like flipping through a playboy magazine and saying "well there's no actual *porn* here. Clearly there's nothing sexual about it."


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

SIX said:


> Well, for one thing, that particular thread is far from 'recent'. And, in fact, a larrrrge majority of the uploaded works to FA are nonsexual. But the fandom is not 'nonsexual' or 'sexual' in nature; it's more like a Venn diagram of the two, and any individual finds themselves placed by their own nature and interests into a suitable spot in that equilibrium, and will, observing the fandom around them, begin to believe the whole fandom is representative of their niche.
> 
> I'm heavily into the sexual side of the fandom and my fursona's practically a porn star. It's true. But because I make a point of things to check out all the sides of the fandom, I like to think I'm somewhere in the middle of that balance; I guess I'm here more for the networking than any particular style of furry art.


 
Yeah yeah, and see that's perfectly reasonable. But what bothers me is people claiming that the sexual aspects are irrelevant. The fandom should been seen for what it is. Anything else will hurt the community. I mean, I've seen furries actually attacking other "sexual furries". Maybe the amount of criticism the fandom has been subject to has created some kind of internal witch hunt. (kinda)



Skift said:


> Yeah, I think Net-cat posted the stats but I can't find them because search is fucking terrible.
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with your stance OP, just pointing out the statistics.



Well, it's certainly the impression I got. Nonetheless, I think one could be forgiven for saying that most popular artists on FA are indeed posting yiff. Again, I'm not trying to slander the fandom. But yeah, you're right. I'll be sure to check my stats next time. But I was pretty sure that at least most professional artwork is uploaded under either the mature or adult category.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

Well what is the fandom? Is it defined by that sexual side, or is that just the extra step? Judging by the common explanations used, it would be an extra step. And why wouldn't it be defined by the majority?

I agree that the gross sexuality is over-present in the fandom, but is that the linking factor? Anthropomorphic *sex*? Or is it more simply just anthropomorphics, and they just happen to be huge perverts at the same time?


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The characters and poses are designed to look attractive.


 Fucking duh? This is about pretending to be something you like. Lots of people jack off to general art, but we're not counting those people when it comes down to statistics. 

Anyways...
ALL art sites, unless specifically non-adult or specifically erotic, will have some crossover. Let's take something ambiguous that can be general or adult like "vore".


> found 50413 times in 36060 documents


Now let's take something in which I only look up general art, say...all general art tagged "cute".


> : found 233906 times in 199390 documents



There's porn, yeah. But it's not the end of everything. I know plenty of people who use sfw.furaffinity.net to browse. I know plenty of people who don't. FA is a general art site, not a porn site, not a completely innocent site either.
There can be, and there is, a happy medium.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> Fucking duh? This is about pretending to be something you like. Lots of people jack off to general art, but we're not counting those people when it comes down to statistics.


 
Then the statistics are meaningless.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Then the statistics are meaningless.


 
Well if you wanna go that way, then any site featuring pictures or art could be a porn site. :1


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

*I think we are all moving away from the subject here. *

We don't have to discuss the definition of sexual artwork or the statistics (- I don't think anyone would deny that there is a great deal of yiff out there.)

The problem is that some furries, probably motivated by all the criticism the fandom has been met with, takes the liberty to attack other sexual furries. Either because of their personal denial about their own sexuality, or because they feel the need to distinguish themselves from the rest of the fandom. It's just cowardly and it hurts the community. And I've seen a lot of it on this website.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> Well if you wanna go that way, then any site featuring pictures or art could be a porn site. :1


 If you're implying anime, then yes. The anime clause is not a get out of jail free card for furries. Anime fans are just as perverted.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Anime fans are just as perverted.


 
And yet, animÃ© fans don't have to deal with the same amount of criticism. Why is that? That's a very good question.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> And yet, animÃ© fans don't have to deal with the same amount of criticism. Why is that? That's a very good question.


Because the characters are mostly human in anime, and furries are not.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

I wasn't referring to anime. I literally meant anything with art or pictures. Because as we all know, everything is someone's fetish.

Also, anime doesn't get that treatment because they don't make an attempt at PR. They're basically like "Yeah, I like it, so?" Instead of the flailing that furries do. Also; anime has been around a lot longer than furry, with many more highlights (and if you're an anime fan, it's already decided that you're just that - a fan, unless you go out of your way to be a massive pain about it).

Another point is that the anime fandom doesn't blow up at "trolling". They've learned to ignore it and continue enjoying. I kinda wish furries could do that.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Arguably, the furries who still *insistently claims that there is nothing sexual about the fandom* whatsoever only prove how absolutely out of the touch with the actual community they have become.


Wait, what? I don't recall anyone every denying there's a sexual aspect to the fandom. I recall lots of people avoiding that aspect, however, by keeping on the mature filter or avoiding the Browse option on the mainsite gallery.

I, personally, do this. I avoid almost all sexual aspects to the fandom because it is unpleasant for me to look at it. Yes, I look at porn. It's not all furry porn, however, because I'm not into scat or vore or fatfurs. I have _nothing against_ these fetishes, however, because as I say: To each their own.

But I don't think people actually try to deny that there's the sexual part to the furry fandom. That's just my opinion, however.



CarlMinez said:


> And yet, animÃ© fans don't have to deal with the same amount of criticism. Why is that? That's a very good question.


In my years of weeaboo-ness, I still got a _lot_ of flak for being into the anime fandom. A lot of people figured I fap to underaged girls in miniskirts and that I liked tentacle porn or whatever. No fandom is safe, really. Every fandom, at one point, has sexual aspects.

Fanfiction is a great example of this.


----------



## WingDog (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> Another point is that the anime fandom doesn't blow up at "trolling". They've learned to ignore it and continue enjoying. I kinda wish furries could do that.



From what I have seen, I would not call it blowing up at trolling. A lot of people like to just fuck with the trolls. It can be entertaining


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> *I think we are all moving away from the subject here. *
> 
> We don't have to discuss the definition of sexual artwork or the statistics (- I don't think anyone would deny that there is a great deal of yiff out there.)
> 
> The problem is that some furries, probably motivated by all the criticism the fandom has been met with, takes the liberty to attack other sexual furries. Either because of their personal denial about their own sexuality, or because they feel the need to distinguish themselves from the rest of the fandom. It's just cowardly and it hurts the community. And I've seen a lot of it on this website.


 
This is why I don't consider myself a furry. There's always people who come in saying, "_YOUR ALL IN DENIAL! FURRY IS ALL BOOBIES VAGINAS AND DICKS!_" Somehow anthropomorphics is not regarded as being what it's actually about anymore.


----------



## Geek (Apr 18, 2011)

> *It should be noted however(!)*, that I have nothing against the sexual aspects of the fandom. Absolutely not, I have nothing against yiff or anything like that. No, itâ€™s the fact that some users on this website consider themselves to be in position to say what the fandom is and isnâ€™t, without any logical or factual arguments to back it up with, that annoys me. The entire mentality reeks of self-denial. Itâ€™s week and cowardly to deny your own nature, or condemn your fellow furries for being different despite the fact that you all belong to the same community.



Everyone is so careful not to offend the furries!

My thing about this thread, and furries going around in suits, is that I wonder about the motivation. It strikes me as a kind of "look at me, look at how different I am" rather than "true individualism" (whatever that is). I don't understand the need to loudly advertise one's interests or individuality. Perhaps I'm simply put off by what I see to be attention seeking behavior.

The whole thing reminds me of the punk kids when I was in high school. I dated this girl who had jet black hair, and decided to dye her bangs FIRE ENGINE RED, and then proceeded to mouth off at anyone who cast a glace in her direction (god help you if you stared). To me, it was like she dyed her hair just so that she'd get a reaction out of people. The furry thing... again, like everyone else, I'm trying to be careful not to offend, but it's like the fire engine red bangs to me... it's like someone looking for a confrontation or a reaction.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> From what I have seen, I would not call it blowing up at trolling. A lot of people like to just fuck with the trolls. It can be entertaining


 
I've seen more than enough examples of furries getting defensive and emotional about being "persecuted". And since those people are very loud and obnoxious, it's sometimes all the outside world sees.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> I wasn't referring to anime. I literally meant anything with art or pictures. Because as we all know, everything is someone's fetish.
> 
> Also, anime doesn't get that treatment because they don't make an attempt at PR. They're basically like "Yeah, I like it, so?" Instead of the flailing that furries do. Also; anime has been around a lot longer than furry, with many more highlights (and if you're an anime fan, it's already decided that you're just that - a fan, unless you go out of your way to be a massive pain about it).
> 
> Another point is that the anime fandom doesn't blow up at "trolling". They've learned to ignore it and continue enjoying. I kinda wish furries could do that.


 
It's because the animÃ© community is bigger and their attraction, being girls, is more mainstream. The criticism aimed at the furry fandom originates from the link between anthropomorphic animal characters and real non-human animals.



Heimdal said:


> This is why I don't consider myself a furry. There's always people who come in saying, "_YOUR ALL IN DENIAL! FURRY IS ALL BOOBIES VAGINAS AND DICKS!_" Somehow anthropomorphics is not regarded as being what it's actually about anymore.


 
What are you talking about? Obviously, given your avatar and your activity on this forum, you are a furry. Secondly, I make a clear distinction between being a sexual furry and a non-sexual furry. What you choose to be is up to you. I'm just saying that it's not reason enough to criticize other furries for liking yiff.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

double post


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> It's because the animÃ© community is bigger and their attraction, being girls, is more mainstream. The criticism aimed at the furry fandom originates from the link between anthropomorphic animal characters and real non-human animals.


Well, there is an undeniable link there, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## WingDog (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> I've seen more than enough examples of furries getting defensive and emotional about being "persecuted". And since those people are very loud and obnoxious, it's sometimes all the outside world sees.



I think those are the attention whores that Geek was talking about.


----------



## WingDog (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> What are you talking about? Obviously, given your avatar and your activity on this forum, you are a furry. Secondly, I make a clear distinction between being a sexual furry and a non-sexual furry. What you choose to be is up to you. I'm just saying that it's not reason enough to criticize other furries for liking yiff.



Actually, I think you can be apart of this site and FA and not be a furry.

Sorry about the double post : p


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> I think those are the attention whores that Geek was talking about.



I just wish people would stop doing that. Trolls are to be ignored. But while i really agree with you, i can also see why some furries would try defend themselves. 



Skift said:


> Well, there is an undeniable link there, wouldn't you agree?


 
Absolutely. But I don't think fapping to some human-like fox means that you will one day try to rape your neighbor's dog. Besides, even zoophilia is a sexual orientation, and if there really is a link, i'd rather have people fapping to furry art than trying to get sexual with their pets.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

WingDog said:


> I think those are the attention whores that Geek was talking about.


 
Geek ninja'd me >:c



CarlMinez said:


> Absolutely. But I don't think fapping to some human-like fox means that you will one day try to rape your neighbor's dog. Besides, even zoophilia is a sexual orientation, and if there really is a link, i'd rather have people fapping to furry art than trying to get sexual with their pets.


 In the interest of not turning this into a bestiality argument, I'm just gonna say that when you look at it from the outside, it's creepy and zoophlic looking.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> And yet, animÃ© fans don't have to deal with the same amount of criticism. Why is that? That's a very good question.


 cause we dont care
being in anime (I failed my test to be listed as a furry so I'm back to being a Animefan) we have happily grown to not care.
We would point out "Yes there is porn, and yes a lot of it is fucked up" unlike furries seem to go "no no no no no"
Maybe, just gawd damn maybe if furries STOP GIVING A DAMN you would end up with minor PR like anime. Now excuse me while we try to add another lock to that back closet anime have


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> In my years of weeaboo-ness, I still got a _lot_ of flak for being into the anime fandom. A lot of people figured I fap to underaged girls in miniskirts and that I liked tentacle porn or whatever. No fandom is safe, really. Every fandom, at one point, has sexual aspects.


 Furries definitely get more flak than any other fandom, to the point where it does sort of border on prejudice. Saying you like anime has absolutely zero social ramifications. Saying you're a furry is a great way to lose friends though.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> cause we dont care
> being in anime (I failed my test to be listed as a furry so I'm back to being a Animefan) we have happily grown to not care.
> We would point out "Yes there is porn, and yes a lot of it is fucked up" unlike furries seem to go "no no no no no"
> Maybe, just gawd damn maybe if furries STOP GIVING A DAMN you would end up with minor PR like anime. Now excuse me while we try to add another lock to that back closet anime have


 
Yeah, but that's kinda what i meant with my original post. The furry fandom is pretty sexual in nature. Live with it. And don't resort into blaming each other because that's pathetic.



Spatel said:


> Furries definitely get more flak than any other fandom, to the point where it does sort of border on prejudice. Saying you like anime has absolutely zero social ramifications. Saying you're a furry is a great way to lose friends though.


 
This confuzzles me. My friends must be the best in the world or something because I always read that furries get crap from their friends when they come out of the "furry closet". Personally, I basically told my friends that I was in love with a fictional dog a while back and the only thing i found is that most people couldn't care less. ^^


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Furries definitely get more flak than any other fandom, to the point where it does sort of border on prejudice. Saying you like anime has absolutely zero social ramifications. Saying you're a furry is a great way to lose friends though.


 now that is BOLLOCKS
When you think of anime you think of some geek often who be white or asian, who does nothing but just watch anime alone, in the dark and never goes outside and be on the computer all day, but being in an anime club in highschool we had folks who was on the damn football team and basketball team watching anime with us. While anime doesnt give a damn we are also tied to Lolicon which omg got a man sent to jail for having that.

all fandoms have social ramifications just that both anime and Furries are sitting on the same grade but you guys rather go "but we're worst" when we go "Bich, you have the same fucked up shit like us"


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Furries definitely get more flak than any other fandom, to the point where it does sort of border on prejudice. Saying you like anime has absolutely zero social ramifications. Saying you're a furry is a great way to lose friends though.


 
...I'm done here.


----------



## WingDog (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> Geek ninja'd me >:c
> 
> In the interest of not turning this into a bestiality argument, I'm just gonna say that when you look at it from the outside, it's creepy and zoophlic looking.



Very true, I did one day mention something around a friend, I got the reply back of "I didn't know you were into that?"

So that does go to show what others think who are on the outside, Mainly due to the lack of education they have about the fandom.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Yeah, but that's kinda what i meant with my original post. The furry fandom is pretty sexual in nature. Live with it. And don't resort into blaming each other because that's pathetic.


 to say what I said a very very long time ago
There is sexual aspects...but its not the main dish, thats dish is on Anthropomorphic characters. Without that main dish you cant have all the side dishes


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> to say what I said a very very long time ago
> There is sexual aspects...but its not the main dish, thats dish is on Anthropomorphic characters. Without that main dish you cant have all the side dishes


 
You strike me as a very intelligent person.


----------



## WingDog (Apr 18, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> to say what I said a very very long time ago
> There is sexual aspects...but its not the main dish, thats dish is on Anthropomorphic characters. Without that main dish you cant have all the side dishes


 
I'm hungry now...

Plus I have to go to work.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> You strike me as a very intelligent person.


 sadly I'm not
I just like using gawd damn common sense


----------



## K.A.I.S.E.R- X (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> And therefore, given that so many furries see their furry identity as a part of their sexuality and/or their lifestyle, the term hobby just doesnâ€™t do the fandom justice. Itâ€™s a paraphilia, or perhaps even something bordering to a sexual orientation.



As I have stated on this forum many times the fandom is nothing more  than a hobby or at lease for me since I cannot speak for others. I may  have a character by the name of K.A.I.S.E.R.-X but by no means do I  associate myself with him whatsoever other than the fact that he is my creation. When you state it in this fashion it looks like you are referring to every individual who is furry which in itself is wrong. On this site my account is a life of its own and I do not associate this with my lifestyle outside the internet. I take joy in antro art but not in living out a "fursona". I may be going out in left field with this but its something you should consider next time you cluster ever single individual within a group. Just saying.


----------



## Dreaming (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Iâ€™m absolutely sure that we can have this thread discussion in a mature and constructive manner.


But.....in The Den, this is not The Den I was warned of!

I honestly don't mind yiff, aslong as I am not looking at it. 



CarlMinez said:


> Itâ€™s a paraphilia, or perhaps even something bordering to a sexual orientation.


 I have seen being referred to as a branch of Zoophilia before, on other forum.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 18, 2011)

Geek said:


> Everyone is so careful not to offend the furries!
> 
> My thing about this thread, and furries going around in suits, is that I wonder about the motivation. It strikes me as a kind of "look at me, look at how different I am" rather than "true individualism" (whatever that is). I don't understand the need to loudly advertise one's interests or individuality. Perhaps I'm simply put off by what I see to be attention seeking behavior.
> .


 
Suits are a different beast entirely. There are furries that use it for attention, people that show up to school in tails and ears. Usually they are teenagers. I won't deny that there are suiters that do it purely for attention, but there are also those that honestly love it for the happiness it brings to others. 
When you suit, people have a different psychological reaction. It's not just a person dressed up in bright colors. For instance I almost purely work with kids now when I suit. When out of suit I am not the best with kids, and they don't have that much interest in me. I'm another adult. In suit they couldn't be happier. They crowd around and keep trying to give me presents or get me to play with them. The suit is something innocent and trustworthy and with it I've helped some kids that have crippling shyness issues. 
Just wanted to get that out there that not all suiters are attention whores. There are those that know what they are doing, and suit in order to make others happy. 

Now on to the topic as a whole. I wouldn't say that people on this site reject the idea of sexuality all together. It's the idea that it is the only thing that makes up the fandom at all that is rejected. No offense to Spatel, but even pushing that the general stuff would be slightly pornographic is a bit insane. There's too big a range for absolutely everything in the fandom to be about sex. For instance take a look at my gallery. 
tell me how this, this, this, this, or this are sexy. Of course there's sex in the fandom, and there's nothing wrong with sex, i've draw mature and adult works too, but as you can see, that's not all there is. 

If we start treating the fandom purely as a fetish, rather than a hobby with some interesting extras, I think we will push out those that simply want to be part for innocent reasons. Also I think people overreact at times on both sides. For instance if someone comes here and says "hi I'm new. My name is joe and I like vore" they will not be met well. That is not an appropriate way to introduce yourself. Just because there is sexuality in the fandom doesn't mean that we want to hear about the fetishes of strangers.

Edit: 





Spatel said:


> Furries definitely get more flak than any other  fandom, to the point where it does sort of border on prejudice. Saying  you like anime has absolutely zero social ramifications. Saying you're a  furry is a great way to lose friends though.



I saw this and laughed. You know maybe the problem is with you and not the fandom. I've shown up to a class in suit and got more positive attention than when I mentioned I like star trek (before the newest movie was out). I've been teased more about anime, DnD, and pokemon more than I have being furry. People see anthro art and say "wow did you draw that? it's like fantastic mr. fox" people see manga style and say "what are you a weeaboo? You'll never get good at art drawing like that. what is wrong with you?" 
It's all in how you handle yourself. calling prejudice is asinine when most people don't even know of the furry fandom.


----------



## Geek (Apr 18, 2011)

I know that the majority of the furry thing is not perverse, but that's the public perception, for better or for worse just like the animes back in the 80's.

*Public perception of Anime in 1988:*

- "Anime? Isn't that all about sex, rape, and tenticles?"
- "Anime? That's a bunch of cartoons for kids. You need to grow up!"
- "Anime is for people who have no life and stay with their parents after college. It's for geeks and nerds!"
- "You're a darn Otaku!? Like that guy who stalked and murdered those people in Japan"
- "You dress up as characters from shows?!"

*Public perception of Anime in 2011:*

- "Anime? You mean Japanese Animation?"
- "Anime? You like Naruto... DragonBall... Finalfantasy...?"
- "Anime? I love Japanese school girl outfits!"
- "Otaku? I would love to go to an anime convention to buy japanese video games, japanese foods, japanese posters ...ect"
- "Otaku? You understand japanese? I love japanese culture!"

So how does all the above fit into being a furry? The same persecutions, attacks, and assumtions.

*Public perception of Furries in 1988:*

- "Furry? What the hell is that ?
- "Furry? Hair ?
- "Furry? You mean baseball mascots ?

*Public perception of Furries in 2011:*

- "Furry? Isn't that about having sex with animals?"
- "Furry? Aren't they immature, stupid, and loud mouthed?"
- "Furry? Why the heck would you dress up?!"


----------



## Shouden (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> *Iâ€™m absolutely sure that we can have this thread discussion in a mature and constructive manner.*.


 
Anyone who's been around fandom for long enough should know that this is not possible. We are furries. The whole idea of being a furry is give into your immaturity, isn't it? And...it doesn't matter what you post here, you're gonna get some destructive comments. Again...these are furries we're talking about. Let's be realistic, here.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Furries definitely get more flak than any other fandom, to the point where it does sort of border on prejudice. Saying you like anime has absolutely zero social ramifications. Saying you're a furry is a great way to lose friends though.


Nonsense. Every fandom has fans and haters. Furries don't get anymore flak than weeaboos. It's the same fucking thing. There's fetishes, sex, cutesy things, and not-so-cutesy things. That's like saying "BASEBALL GETS MORE FANS/HATERS THAN FOOTBALL".  I have worn Naruto headbands and Gaia hats in public, I got praise just as much as I got rude insults. I've worn a tail and ears in public, and got the same reaction. There is no difference.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 18, 2011)

Shouden said:


> Anyone who's been around fandom for long enough should know that this is not possible. We are furries. The whole idea of being a furry is give into your immaturity, isn't it? And...it doesn't matter what you post here, you're gonna get some destructive comments. Again...these are furries we're talking about. Let's be realistic, here.


 this might be more meaningful if you took part in the actual discussion, which has been fairly mature, rather than just snark that he wanted things to be mature.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

Shouden said:


> Anyone who's been around fandom for long enough should know that this is not possible. We are furries. The whole idea of being a furry is give into your immaturity, isn't it? And...it doesn't matter what you post here, you're gonna get some destructive comments. Again...these are furries we're talking about. Let's be realistic, here.


 I'm sorry, what section of the fandom you been...I think you should move from that section and move to the one that CAN do such thing...unless you talking about SoFurry then no thats never possible there.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Suits are a different beast entirely. There are furries that use it for attention, people that show up to school in tails and ears. Usually they are teenagers. I won't deny that there are suiters that do it purely for attention, but there are also those that honestly love it for the happiness it brings to others. .


 
And some people do it because they thing it brings them in touch with their animal side. Or something of the like. I will never understand why anyone would want to dress up in such suits (I think they are kinda scary), but I respect that many furries like to do it. But they don't represent a big part of the community. 



Gaz said:


> Nonsense. Every fandom has fans and haters. Furries don't get anymore flak than weeaboos. It's the same fucking thing. There's fetishes, sex, cutesy things, and not-so-cutesy things. That's like saying "BASEBALL GETS MORE FANS/HATERS THAN FOOTBALL".  I have worn Naruto headbands and Gaia hats in public, I got praise just as much as I got rude insults. I've worn a tail and ears in public, and got the same reaction. There is no difference.



I don't know if I would call it nonsense. And I certainly think that furries get more criticism than "weeaboos". Just search furries on youtube. Or read the article about furries on Encyclopedia dramatica. That has at least been my impression.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> I don't know if I would call it nonsense. And I certainly think that furries get more criticism than "weeaboos". Just search furries on youtube. Or read the article about furries on Encyclopedia dramatica. That has at least been my impression.


I have to disagree. I've yet to see furries get more flak than animetards and vise versa. But that's my experience, and everyone has different experiences.

However, I can see it coming across that way because furries who are into the hardcore fetishes react a whole lot more than anime fans do. The more reaction, the more likely someone is going to pick on that fandom. However, as I said, I have yet to see either fandom receive more shit than the other.


----------



## Unsilenced (Apr 18, 2011)

Yeah the majority of submissions are "general audience." 

Majority of submissions that people bother to look at on the other hand... :v


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I saw this and laughed. You know maybe the problem is with you and not the fandom. I've shown up to a class in suit and got more positive attention than when I mentioned I like star trek (before the newest movie was out). I've been teased more about anime, DnD, and pokemon more than I have being furry. People see anthro art and say "wow did you draw that? it's like fantastic mr. fox" people see manga style and say "what are you a weeaboo? You'll never get good at art drawing like that. what is wrong with you?"
> It's all in how you handle yourself. calling prejudice is asinine when most people don't even know of the furry fandom.


 
Why is it that whenever someone mentions they got a negative reaction for mentioning they're a furry, the first assumption is always "it was something you did"?

If you're worried about your perception as an anime fan, maybe that's something you're doing. Anime is much more mainstream. It's not perceived by the nature of its sexual back-alleys like the furry fandom is. It's actually pretty hard to find people that don't like anime in these parts... 

And Star Trek has been cool ever since Lucas ruined Star Wars with the prequels.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Why is it that whenever someone mentions they got a negative reaction for mentioning they're a furry, the first assumption is always "it was something you did"?


Because that's usually the case. The furries in SF tend to get a lot of flak because they're running around, acting stupid, and wonder why people react negatively. The kids get scared shitless, the parents get defensive, and eventually police are called in to ask the suiters to either leave the area or take off the suit and apologize for interrupting the public.

Fay suits and volunteers to work with children. That sort of stuff gets good reactions, especially from children because they enjoy seeing big, silly-looking suits of their favorite animals. But running around like idiots is, of course, going to get negative reactions. That's why the first assumption is "It was something you did".


----------



## Fay V (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Why is it that whenever someone mentions they got a negative reaction for mentioning they're a furry, the first assumption is always "it was something you did"?
> 
> If you're worried about your perception as an anime fan, maybe that's something you're doing. Anime is much more mainstream. It's not perceived by the nature of its sexual back-alleys like the furry fandom is. It's actually pretty hard to find people that don't like anime in these parts...
> 
> And Star Trek has been cool ever since Lucas ruined Star Wars with the prequels.


 No actually it's whenever someone makes a stupid comment that people are prejudiced and furry gets more flak than any other fandom. That simply isn't true. So if I get flak for liking anime it's my fault, but if you get flak for liking furry it's because the furry fandom itself and not what you are doing. riiight. 

Honestly every fandom gets flak. It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is how people handle it. Trekkies really don't give a shit, neither do people in anime, but furries cry "fursecution" when really it's hardly known at all and that is why they get more perceived flak for it. If you bitch about how people hate you, they'll mess with you more.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> And some people do it because they thing it brings them in touch with their animal side. Or something of the like. I will never understand why anyone would want to dress up in such suits (I think they are kinda scary), but I respect that many furries like to do it. But they don't represent a big part of the community.



I wasn't saying they were. I was just pointing out that it isn't always purely for mindless attention. I don't like that particular stereotype. 

Also the suits make a good analogy. It's a very visible part of the fandom, but if someone said the fandom was all about suits you would disagree. You're not denying that suits exist in the fandom, or that people take part for different reasons, you're just saying it's not the entire fandom. It's the same with sex. Sex is part of the fandom, people explore it differently in the fandom, but you can't say it is the entirety of the fandom. 

So in the end you call it a hobby. People can take part in extras like the sexual stuff or suiting and those things may be more visible to someone that is observing from an outside perspective, but that doesn't make it all about sex or suits.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Because that's usually the case.


No. It's usually the case that furries don't tell anyone else. Well... if you're a reasonable person, what do you have to worry about? Why wouldn't you want to tell anyone else? Precisely because you wouldn't want to be lumped in with the ones running around like idiots, which is often what happens.

You don't hear about anime fans keeping their interest a secret like that.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> No. It's usually the case that furries don't tell anyone else. Well... if you're a reasonable person, what do you have to worry about? Why wouldn't you want to tell anyone else? Precisely because you wouldn't want to be lumped in with the ones running around like idiots, which is often what happens.
> 
> You don't hear about anime fans keeping their interest a secret like that.


Hobbyists and lifestylists definitely get lumped in together. However, I think anime fans are less likely to "keep it a secret" mainly because people assume the entire furry fandom is full of animal-fuckers who dress as animals to fuck each other and have fetishes for poop and feet.

Personally, though, I don't care who knows I'm part of the fandom. Seriously, I don't. The most common reaction is "Really? But you don't suit" because they assume the whole fandom takes part in that side.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> No. It's usually the case that furries don't tell anyone else. Well... if you're a reasonable person, what do you have to worry about? Why wouldn't you want to tell anyone else? Precisely because you wouldn't want to be lumped in with the ones running around like idiots, which is often what happens.
> 
> You don't hear about anime fans keeping their interest a secret like that.


 actually just like the furry fandom some anime fans do keep what they are into a secret just cause they dont want to instantly get lumped in with the hentai fans.
it comes down to if the person cares or dont care, me I dont care so some folks who know me know I'm into anime, only difference some of you furries think being in this fandom is equal to being in the closet.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Why is it that whenever someone mentions they got a negative reaction for mentioning they're a furry, the first assumption is always "it was something you did"?
> 
> If you're worried about your perception as an anime fan, maybe that's something you're doing. Anime is much more mainstream. It's not perceived by the nature of its sexual back-alleys like the furry fandom is. It's actually pretty hard to find people that don't like anime in these parts...
> 
> And Star Trek has been cool ever since Lucas ruined Star Wars with the prequels.


 


Crysix Fousen said:


> actually just like the furry fandom some anime fans do keep what they are into a secret just cause they dont want to instantly get lumped in with the hentai fans.
> it comes down to if the person cares or dont care, me I dont care so some folks who know me know I'm into anime, only difference some of you furries think being in this fandom is equal to being in the closet.


 
Really? That's certainly not the impression I have. 

I actually think that *Spatel* has a point here. What is hentai? Well, human girls. What is the main attraction of the furry fandom? An animal. An cartoony animal with human mimics that might be biped - but an animal nonetheless. 
And considering how extremely taboo bestiality and animal sexuality is in our society - furries getting more shit than hentai fans is pretty natural.

Besides, there are only like a few million furries in the world. The number of people that are into hentai is much higher. It's way more popular, therefore, not subject to as much slander and easier to defend. 

And my personal experience rather supports this thesis as well. Most websites I've been to which allows sexual artwork are very open and accepting about hentai and animÃ© in general - while "yiff" is generally forbidden, either by angry moderators or via rules of conduct. Really, the fact that 4chan allows all sorts of artwork - but that furry artwork is actually forbidden on the website - speaks for itself.


----------



## Blutide (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> *cough* Actually, statistically speaking, the majority of submissions on FA are general audience.


 
People see the negative more than the positive, and until people can understand it really has nothing to do with sex at all....we will never have an understanding. But then again....


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Really? That's certainly not the impression I have.
> 
> I actually think that *Spatel* has a point here. What is hentai? Well, human girls. What is the main attraction of the furry fandom? An animal. An cartoony animal with human mimics that might be biped - but an animal nonetheless.
> And considering how extremely taboo bestiality and animal sexuality is in our society - furries getting more shit than hentai fans is pretty natural.
> ...


 yet on 4chan Furry works WERE allowed on the site due to some 4channers being furries hence the term furry fridays came from.
Again it all depends on the enviroment, as I was once allowed on a site that split itself due to constant arguments about folks posting hentai over posting anime stuff, thus to stop the bitching they owner split the site but this caused the site to die off and thus no longer around. That does show that some anime folks greatly dislike the hentai part while there are folks fine with it...just like the Furry fandom. Also it probably true that the Kemono fandom is more welcomed due to it having ties with anime unlike the western furry fandom which has ties to cartoons and sci fi which I find weird


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> There seems to be a general consensus on this website, that the furry fandom is nothing more of a hobby or some small, completely harmless interest. The recent thread* â€œFOR THE SAKE OF OUR SANITY, YOU DONâ€™T HAVE TO â€œCOME OUTâ€ AS A FURRYâ€œ* marks a perfect example of this attitude. There is definitely a common sentiment on this website to neglect or straight out deny the life-style, sexual nature of the fandom.



Here, I'd like to point out your lack of observation skills. I mean, recent thread? It's over a YEAR old.

I'd also like to point out that just because the fandom indeed has a large sexual aspect about it, does not mean some people don't treat it as a hobby. All I do on when I get online and come to FA/FAF is, look through my subs list, look through the journals and notes or anything else left on my page, then I go away for an hour, maybe two hours and check back again. I don't even use the search function.


----------



## LafTur (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Most websites I've been to which allows sexual artwork are very open and accepting about hentai and animÃ© in general - while "yiff" is generally forbidden, either by angry moderators or via rules of conduct. Really, the fact that *4chan allows all sorts of artwork - but that furry artwork is actually forbidden on the website* - speaks for itself.


 
This is something I have yet to understand.

No, I take that back.  The mods of 4chan need something to chase after.  Porn is generally looked down upon (as far as I know?), especially among people who don't frequent the WWW and its raunchy areas.  People who appreciate, create, and support porn can probably see the moral gap between themselves and the general populace.  Call me crazy, but I think chasing down furries is their way of coping with it.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Here, I'd like to point out your lack of observation skills. I mean, recent thread? It's over a YEAR old.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that just because the fandom indeed has a large sexual aspect about it, does not mean some people don't treat it as a hobby. All I do on when I get online and come to FA/FAF is, look through my subs list, look through the journals and notes or anything else left on my page, then I go away for an hour, maybe two hours and check back again. I don't even use the search function.



I don't think OP is saying that there aren't any people who treat it as "just a hobby," just that, for many, staying "in the closet" is a better idea because of the social ramifications.  It doesn't matter what being furry *really is*.  It matters more what others think of it (with regard to "coming out"), considering our very lives are rooted in what we call a _society_.


----------



## lobosabio (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Hobbyists and lifestylists definitely get lumped in together. However, I think anime fans are less likely to "keep it a secret" mainly because people assume the entire furry fandom is full of animal-fuckers who dress as animals to fuck each other and have fetishes for poop and feet.



I think that also has to do with the fact that anime is much more mainstream, meaning people will know more about it and therefore are more likely to react positively to it.  Furry, on the other hand, is much less mainstream and whatever does make it into the mainstream tends to be sensationalized.  Thus people tend to know those sensationalized elements and are more likely to react negatively to it, thus creating an impetus for furries to keep quiet about it.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

First this:


CarlMinez said:


> There is definitely a common sentiment  on this website to neglect or straight out deny the life-style, sexual  nature of the fandom.



Then this:


Gaz said:


> Wait, what? I don't recall anyone every denying there's a sexual aspect to the fandom. I recall lots of people avoiding that aspect, however, by keeping on the mature filter or avoiding the Browse option on the mainsite gallery.



And then this:


Blutide said:


> People see the negative more than the positive,  and until people can understand it really has nothing to do with sex  at all....we will never have an understanding. But then  again....



Nothing to do with sex at all. It would seem, Gaz, that some people do deny there is a sexual aspect to the fandom. Any further thoughts?


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Nothing to do with sex at all. It would seem, Gaz, that some people do deny there is a sexual aspect to the fandom. Any further thoughts?


Blutide's quote implies, to me, that he/she (I'm sorry, I don't know their gender) knows that there is sex but people _only see_ the sexual nature of the furry fandom. I don't read that as denial that sex in the fandom exists. Blutide said people are going to see the negative above the positive.

In any case, I said _I don't recall anyone ever denying there's a sexual aspect_. I still don't recall seeing so. Maybe it's the way I'm reading it, but that's just me. Carl's quote says it's a _common sentiment on this website to neglect or straight out deny the life-style_. I haven't seen this common sentiment, so I still can't agree.



lobosabio said:


> I think that also has to do with the fact that anime is much more mainstream, meaning people will know more about it and therefore are more likely to react positively to it.  Furry, on the other hand, is much less mainstream and whatever does make it into the mainstream tends to be sensationalized.  Thus people tend to know those sensationalized elements and are more likely to react negatively to it, thus creating an impetus for furries to keep quiet about it.


Well said.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Here, I'd like to point out your lack of observation skills. I mean, recent thread? It's over a YEAR old.
> 
> I'd also like to point out that just because the fandom indeed has a large sexual aspect about it, does not mean some people don't treat it as a hobby. All I do on when I get online and come to FA/FAF is, look through my subs list, look through the journals and notes or anything else left on my page, then I go away for an hour, maybe two hours and check back again. I don't even use the search function.


 
I can hardly be blamed for not checking the date of a thread. Nor do I spent my life on this forum. Besides, you've rather missed my point. See LafTur's reply. 



lobosabio said:


> I think that also has to do with the fact that anime is much more mainstream, meaning people will know more about it and therefore are more likely to react positively to it.  Furry, on the other hand, is much less mainstream and whatever does make it into the mainstream tends to be sensationalized.  Thus people tend to know those sensationalized elements and are more likely to react negatively to it, thus creating an impetus for furries to keep quiet about it.


 
Absolutely. What is common is accepted by society, whereas what is weird is inevitably criticized. Its more rare to be attracted to a human-like wolf than a cartooned girl. (I almost find this strange when I think about it)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> I can hardly be blamed for not checking the date of a thread. Nor do I spent my life on this forum. Besides, you've rather missed my point. See LafTur's reply.



Wut? than who can be blamed? the cats aunt? Uncle bob? You're the one who called it a recent thread without thinking to check the date so who else is to blame?

As far as I could see, there was no good point to be made in the OP. You failed to see my counter point.



Gaz said:


> In any case, I said _I don't recall anyone ever  denying there's a sexual aspect_. I still don't recall seeing so.  Maybe it's the way I'm reading it, but that's just me. Carl's quote says  it's a _common sentiment on this website to neglect or straight out  deny the life-style_. I haven't seen this common sentiment, so I  still can't agree.
> 
> Well said.



Some people do treat furry as a lifestyle.

Still, in my opinion the sexual aspect of the fandom does not make the fandom instantly more than a hobby to every member of the fandom. What we are all forgetting here is, everyone is different. Not every member is even interested in the sexual aspect. I know a furry who despises the sexual side of it. As a friend of mine just said via YIM, To each their own.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Some people do treat furry as a lifestyle.
> 
> Still, in my opinion the sexual aspect of the fandom does not make the fandom instantly more than a hobby to every member of the fandom. What we are all forgetting here is, everyone is different. Not every member is even interested in the sexual aspect. I know a furry who despises the sexual side of it. As a friend of mine just said via YIM, To each their own.


I completely agree.

Please note, Spatel, that when I said "I don't recall ever seeing someone deny there is a sexual aspect", I was and still am speaking from _my experience_. _I_ have not seen denial of sex. I have seen avoidance, however, as I am guilty of keeping up the mature filter to save my own eyes from viewing things I do not find to be tasteful.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Fay V said:
			
		

> Now on to the topic as a whole. I wouldn't say that people on this site  reject the idea of sexuality all together. It's the idea that it is the  only thing that makes up the fandom at all that is rejected. No offense  to Spatel, but even pushing that the general stuff would be slightly  pornographic is a bit insane. There's too big a range for absolutely  everything in the fandom to be about sex. For instance take a look at my  gallery.
> tell me how this, this, this, this, or this  are sexy. Of course there's sex in the fandom, and there's nothing  wrong with sex, i've draw mature and adult works too, but as you can  see, that's not all there is.


Not saying everything in the fandom is about sex. I think a lot more than just the pornographic stuff is though. Do you understand how a transformation fetish works? 5 is hot. I have a thing for dragons. 



			
				Randy-Darkshade said:
			
		

> Some people do treat furry as a lifestyle.
> 
> Still, in my opinion the sexual aspect of the fandom does not make the  fandom instantly more than a hobby to every member of the fandom. What  we are all forgetting here is, everyone is different. Not every member  is even interested in the sexual aspect. I know a furry who despises the  sexual side of it. As a friend of mine just said via YIM, To each their  own.


You're forgetting the flip side of the coin. Calling the fandom a hobby reduces it to a hobby for everyone else, when it isn't for a lot of furries. It's an important part of their lives. I think 'subculture' seems to be the most agreeable term for everyone. It IS a subculture. It's a community with hobbies, fetishes, social gatherings, lifestyles, and regardless of where you fit in it's all a bit weird and different from an outsider's perspective.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You're forgetting the flip side of the coin. Calling the fandom a hobby reduces it to a hobby for everyone else, when it isn't for a lot of furries. It's an important part of their lives. I think 'subculture' seems to be the most agreeable term for everyone. It IS a subculture. It's a community with hobbies, fetishes, social gatherings, lifestyles, and regardless of where you fit in it's all a bit weird and different from an outsider's perspective.


I agree with the calling-it-a-subculture part, but I don't think calling it a fandom is reducing it to anything. To some, it's a hobby. To others, it's a lifestyle. To even more others, it's a fetish. It's all personal preference, I think, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## LafTur (Apr 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Still, in my opinion *the sexual aspect of the fandom does not make the fandom instantly more than a hobby to every member of the fandom*. What we are all forgetting here is, everyone is different. Not every member is even interested in the sexual aspect. I know a furry who despises the sexual side of it. As a friend of mine just said via YIM, To each their own.


 
Daaaaaayum.

You ,sir, are a little dense today.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You're forgetting the flip side of the coin. Calling the fandom a hobby reduces it to a hobby for everyone else, when it isn't for a lot of furries. It's an important part of their lives. I think 'subculture' seems to be the most agreeable term for everyone. It IS a subculture. It's a community with hobbies, fetishes, social gatherings, lifestyles, and regardless of where you fit in it's all a bit weird and different from an outsider's perspective.



I stopped calling the "fandom is a hobby", I now say that "I treat it as a hobby". The reason I changed was because I, well, grew up and accepted the fact that everyone treats being furry differently.



LafTur said:


> Daaaaaayum.
> 
> You ,sir, are a little dense today.



Elaborate.



Gaz said:


> I agree with the calling-it-a-subculture part, but I  don't think calling it a fandom is reducing it to anything. To some,  it's a hobby. To others, it's a lifestyle. To even more others, it's a  fetish. It's all personal preference, I think, but that's just my  opinion.



If anything in my life is to be considered a lifestyle, I'd say bicycles are more of a lifestyle to me than furry is. I don't see anything that I do that would class furry as a lifestyle to me.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Still, *in my opinion* the sexual aspect of the fandom does not make the fandom instantly more than a hobby to every member of the fandom. What we are all forgetting here is, everyone is different. Not every member is even interested in the sexual aspect. I know a furry who despises the sexual side of it. As a friend of mine just said via YIM, To each their own.


 


LafTur said:


> Daaaaaayum.
> 
> You ,sir, are a little dense today.


It's his opinion, he can be dense all he wants. Maybe for you, it's purely a fetish. But to others, like myself, Randy, Fay, etc., it's a hobby.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> If anything in my life is to be considered a lifestyle, I'd say bicycles are more of a lifestyle to me than furry is. I don't see anything that I do that would class furry as a lifestyle to me.


And that is your own personal preference. Just because I draw furries, enjoy looking at art of furries, and am even considering fursuiting, that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically say "It's a lifestyle!". It's just a hobby, imo. Like collecting cards or stamp-collecting. Some people are serious about it, others just do it on the side.


----------



## Fay V (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Not saying everything in the fandom is about sex. I think a lot more than just the pornographic stuff is though. Do you understand how a transformation fetish works? 5 is hot. I have a thing for dragons.


 I can't see it, but it doesn't matter. People find cars sexy. Not in the "man I wanna have sex with that guy in that car" way but "man I want to have sex with that car" way. Subculture is a good way to put it. It's not entirely a lifestyle, fetish, or hobby.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 18, 2011)

There is nothing sexual about the furry fandom.

     To be a furry means that you are a fan of anthropomorphics. A concept on its own is not sexual until applied in that context.

     The reason why this fandom is perceived in a sexual light is because there are a large amount of _fans_ who are also into the _fetish_. The perception that because two demographics overlap (as similar as they may be) then they must be the same demographic is a false one. Because every fandom can be linked to a concept, there's going to be varying degrees of association with sexualization. If someone said they were a fan of inflation, your first assumption would be that they were into it as a kink, whereas if someone said to you that they were a fan of children, you probably wouldn't jump on the assumption that they were a paedophile. The furry fandom is somewhere on the scale of sexuality between those two fandoms (probably closer to the previous), with a healthy amount of fetishists and normal fans.

     That said I am a part of the venn diagram that partakes and enjoys the sexual aspects of this concept. It's still possible for me to deny the sexual aspects of the fandom, however. Just because I sexualize a concept doesn't mean the actual concept is sexual by its self.

     To summarize: The furry fandom isn't sexual. It just has more overlap with the fetish side of the concept than most other fandoms do because of how easy it is to sexualize the idea.

     Fay would be the best contrast, I think, or at least the best example within this thread of a furry fan who doesn't overlap into fetishism.



my god what did I just type


----------



## Fay V (Apr 18, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> There is nothing sexual about the furry fandom.
> 
> To be a furry means that you are a fan of anthropomorphics. A concept on its own is not sexual until applied in that context.
> 
> ...


 

I feel Like I belong in some sort of zoo...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> It's his opinion, he can be dense all he wants. Maybe for you, it's purely a fetish. But to others, like myself, Randy, Fay, etc., it's a hobby.



Well it seems I am dense for having my own opinion, either that or he/she just can't get reading comprehension right. 



Fay V said:


> I can't see it, but it doesn't matter. People find cars sexy. Not in the "man I wanna have sex with that guy in that car" way but "man I want to have sex with that car" way. Subculture is a good way to put it. It's not entirely a lifestyle, fetish, or hobby.



I think calling it a subculture is the best thing to call it. Furry is different for everyone, which is why my friend said "To each their own" meaning some people use it as a lifestyle, some as a hobby, some people use it as a fetish, some people don't give a poop what they look it, some can't stand the porn, some like fursuits, some hate fursuits (I know someone who is furry and finds fursuits creepy). We are all different, we all like different aspects of the fandom, we all do different things in the fandom, some of us are here more than others.

tl;dr basically there are to many variations to just call it just a hobby or just a lifestyle, calling it sub culture is. imo, the best option. It would probably be the best thing to call it for when those who wish to "come out" want to "come out".


----------



## LafTur (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> It's his opinion, he can be dense all he wants. Maybe for you, it's purely a fetish. But to others, like myself, Randy, Fay, etc., it's a hobby.


 
Sticking "imo" in front of a statement doesn't negate the notion that his stating-of-the-obvious suggests the OP is trying to say something along the lines of: "OHhhh hurr durr all furries are the same!!"

On another note, I'm going to apologize for my "daaayum" post.  It was a little pointless.
On yet _another_ note:

:O    How did you know it was my fetish!?!  :V


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well it seems I am dense for having my own opinion, either that or he/she just can't get reading comprehension right.


STOP POSTING YOUR OPINIONS! YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE! >:V

Seriously, though, _Subculture_ is the perfect word.



LafTur said:


> Sticking "imo" in front of a statement doesn't negate the notion that his stating-of-the-obvious suggests the OP is trying to say something along the lines of: "OHhhh hurr durr all furries are the same!!"


Still, it's his opinion. He could say "Butterflies are not insects in my opinion" and it's valid because it's _his_ opinions.



> On another note, I'm going to apologize for my "daaayum" post.  It was a little pointless.


It's okay, my analogy in this post was awful.



> On yet _another_ note:
> 
> :O    How did you know it was my fetish!?!  :V


Shhhh, I'm psychic.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 18, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> There is nothing sexual about the furry fandom.
> 
> To be a furry means that you are a fan of anthropomorphics. A concept on its own is not sexual until applied in that context.
> 
> The reason why this fandom is perceived in a sexual light is because there are a large amount of _fans_ who are also into the _fetish_. e


 
What do you mean by fetish? Sexual interest? Because I'm not sure you are using the word in the right context. (No offense, i think you have a pretty good point. I just wanna understand what you mean)

A "fetich" is, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, is either an extreme interest or obsession. Like an interest in apple products. Or a sexual attraction to a non-sexual object. Like people who are attracted to feet.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 18, 2011)

There is just enough sexual content in the furry community just like there is enough sexual content in the Anime community.
The difference is that the Anime community knows how to bury it under stacks and stacks of cute characters meant for general audiences that speak more jibberish than a Penecostal speaking in tounges. The furry fandom, however doesn't have a canon to hide behind like Anime.



Gaz said:


> Seriously, though, _Subculture_ is the perfect word.


 
Well it is, but there are different levels of the subculture. From "Hobbyists" to "lifestylers", to people who come here for the poon called "Fetishists" or "Furverts".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> It's his opinion, he can be dense all he wants. Maybe for you, it's purely a fetish. But to others, like myself, Randy, Fay, etc., it's a hobby.
> 
> And that is your own personal preference. Just because I draw furries, enjoy looking at art of furries, and am even considering fursuiting, that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically say "It's a lifestyle!". It's just a hobby, imo. Like collecting cards or stamp-collecting. Some people are serious about it, others just do it on the side.


 


LafTur said:


> Sticking "imo" in front of a statement doesn't negate the notion that his stating-of-the-obvious suggests the OP is trying to say something along the lines of: "OHhhh hurr durr all furries are the same!!"
> 
> On another note, I'm going to apologize for my "daaayum" post.  It was a little pointless.
> On yet _another_ note:
> ...



They way I interpreted the OP he was calling furry a lifestyle, which to me is saying that _everyone_ is treating it as a lifestyle, which is false.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Well it is, but there are different levels of the subcultire. From "Hobbyists" to "lifestylers", to people who come here for the poon called "Fetishists" or "Furverts".


Indeed, but as a whole, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to call it a subculture rather than a fandom.



Randy-Darkshade said:


> They way I interpreted the OP he was calling furry a lifestyle, which to me is saying that _everyone_ is treating it as a lifestyle, which is false.


Well, poo-poo on you, sir. >:c


----------



## LafTur (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Still, it's his opinion. He could say "Butterflies are not insects in my opinion" and it's valid because it's _his_ opinions.


 
Opinions can be wrong...  For instance, "butterflies are not insects" is *very* wrong.
Classifications are only subjective when the qualifications are not clear.

Also, sorry for helping to bring the thread off-topic.  I promise I'll let someone else have the last word.  



CarlMinez said:


> What do you mean by fetish? Sexual interest? Because I'm not sure you are using the word in the right context. (No offense, i think you have a pretty good point. I just wanna understand what you mean)
> 
> A "fetich" is, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, is either an extreme interest or obsession. Like an interest in apple products. Or a sexual attraction to a non-sexual object. Like people who are attracted to feet.


 
Hmmm... This is a tough one.  Feet are non-sexual objects, although someone with a foot-fetish might argue otherwise.
Animals?  Well I guess I'm disqualified from giving my _opinion_ on whether an animal can be associated with sex... although I'm tempted to say that giving animals human characteristics (characteristics considered to be sexual in some cases?) inherently makes them associated with sex.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

LafTur said:


> Opinions can be wrong...  For instance, "butterflies are not insects" is [v]very[/b] wrong.
> Classifications are only subjective when the qualifications are not clear.


I don't believe opinions can be "wrong". They can be shallow, stupid, and made on a decision given by wrong or very little true information, but I don't think an opinion can be "wrong". That's _my_ opinion, however.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

LafTur said:


> Opinions can be wrong...  For instance, "butterflies are not insects" is [v]very[/b] wrong.
> Classifications are only subjective when the qualifications are not clear.
> 
> Also, sorry for helping to bring the thread off-topic.  I promise I'll let someone else have the else word.
> ...



A fetish doesn't instantly mean it has to be sexual. For example, my friend once said I had a "squirrel fetish", he was using it in a non sexual context because I have so many squirrel soft toys and ornaments. Because I admit I adore squirrels and love buying soft toys and ornaments of them. There is nothing sexual about it, squirrels are just my favorite animal.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 18, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> What do you mean by fetish? Sexual interest? Because I'm not sure you are using the word in the right context. (No offense, i think you have a pretty good point. I just wanna understand what you mean)
> 
> A "fetich" is, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary, is either an extreme interest or obsession. Like an interest in apple products. Or a sexual attraction to a non-sexual object. Like people who are attracted to feet.


 
Fetish is usually used to denote a sexual interest in a particular concept. I considered clarifying, but I guess I didn't feel properly motivated.

In this case, I did deviate from the proper definition, and I suppose I should clarify that I mean a sexual interest.

Feet is another good example, actually. It's kind of right up on the scale near furries (Those who say they are a fan of feet will probably be assumed sexual fetishists, even though there is a notable community of feet fans [barefoot community, etc.])


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Fetish is usually used to denote a sexual interest in a particular concept. I considered clarifying, but I guess I didn't feel properly motivated.
> 
> In this case, I did deviate from the proper definition, and I suppose I should clarify that I mean a sexual interest.
> 
> Feet is another good example, actually. It's kind of right up on the scale near furries (Those who say they are a fan of feet will probably be assumed sexual fetishists, even though there is a notable community of feet fans [barefoot community, etc.])



I don't like feet, they are uuuuuuuugly! :v

And stinky and.....bleh I just don't like feet.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 18, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't like feet, they are uuuuuuuugly! :v
> 
> And stinky and.....bleh I just don't like feet.



Agreed. That's just one fetish I'll never understand.

That and women :V


----------



## Maisuki (Apr 18, 2011)

The fandom is only as sexual as one makes it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 18, 2011)

Maisuki said:


> The fandom is only as sexual as one makes it.



I couldn't "this" this post enough, good point made!

Furry is what ever one makes it. There is nothing set in stone.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Fay V said:
			
		

> I feel Like I belong in some sort of zoo...



You're actually the only one that doesn't.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Agreed. That's just one fetish I'll never understand.
> 
> That and women :V


 
I don't think there's such a thing as an "understandable" fetish. It's just either "weird" or "less weird".


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 18, 2011)

Skift said:


> I don't think there's such a thing as an "understandable" fetish. It's just either "weird" or "less weird".



Does that include women


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 18, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Does that include women


 
"Less weird"


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> I don't believe opinions can be "wrong". They can be shallow, stupid, and made on a decision given by wrong or very little true information, but I don't think an opinion can be "wrong". That's _my_ opinion, however.


 
Opinions can't be wrong. I could say, "butterflies aren't an insect, they're little turds with wings!" Its factually wrong, but the opinion is valid to have. I don't even need the last half, it'd just be really vague.

I agree with Tybalt, it's not sexual. If you think of all the sexual fetishes around, they exist outside Furry as well. The only thing linking them into Furry is when they are depicted anthropomorphic. That's why I've said that Furry isn't sexual, it just has a lot of perverts in it.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Opinions can't be wrong. I could say, "butterflies aren't an insect, they're little turds with wings!" Its factually wrong, but the opinion is valid to have. I don't even need the last half, it'd just be really vague.


Ah, yes! That's how I was trying to word it but it just wasn't coming to me. Thank you for that, Heim. :3c


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Ah, yes! That's how I was trying to word it but it just wasn't coming to me. Thank you for that, Heim. :3c


 
I am at my best when I am arguing in support of nonsense. You're welcome, gaz.


----------



## LafTur (Apr 18, 2011)

LafTur said:


> *Classifications are only subjective when the qualifications are not clear.*
> 
> Also, sorry for helping to bring the thread off-topic.  I promise I'll let someone else have the last word.


 
Oh looky thar, I've quoted myself, boldfacing the important part.
Check this out:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect

Fun fact: This isn't subjective in the least, because the qualifications to be an insect are very clear.

Also, I broke my promise.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

How is "little turd with wings" not clear?


----------



## LafTur (Apr 18, 2011)

First of all, "little turd with wings" isn't a classification.
Second, I was referring to the qualifications for something to be classified as an insect, which are very clear.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 18, 2011)

"factually it's wrong, but the opinion is still valid to have"

I have no idea where I read that but it seems like something a third party should jump in and quote no matter how nonsequiter it is


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

I've lost all track of what's being argued, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter. And "turd with wings" is absolutely a classification. I classify many things as such.


----------



## Blutide (Apr 18, 2011)

Gaz said:


> Blutide's quote implies, to me, that he/she (I'm sorry, I don't know their gender) knows that there is sex but people _only see_ the sexual nature of the furry fandom. I don't read that as denial that sex in the fandom exists. Blutide said people are going to see the negative above the positive.


 This is what I meant.


----------



## Monster. (Apr 18, 2011)

Blutide said:


> This is what I meant.


Yes, I thought so.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 18, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I agree with Tybalt, it's not sexual. If you think of all the sexual fetishes around, they exist outside Furry as well. The only thing linking them into Furry is when they are depicted anthropomorphic. That's why I've said that Furry isn't sexual, it just has a lot of perverts in it.


 
Being attracted to anthropomorphics itself is a fetish, and it doesn't exist outside the fandom. That's the main fetish that the fandom cultivates. The other stuff you were thinking of... bondage/crossdressing/macro or whatever... people aren't talking about that when they refer to the "furry fetish".


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 18, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Being attracted to anthropomorphics itself is a fetish, and it doesn't exist outside the fandom.


 
If it exists, there are people who can get off on it, so that side of it is irrelevant. It isn't in and of itself a sexual fetish. It's just a characteristic. You have to present it in some way that is sexual, and those ways exist outside Furry.

It is a fetish in the other definitions of the word, but not sexual on it's own. Multi-dick Herm Foxtaurs maybe... they probably have their root in Furry, but it's kinda a rare irregular one, so I don't know.


----------



## Dr. Durr (Apr 18, 2011)

LafTur said:


> First of all, "little turd with wings" isn't a classification.


 


Dictonary Definition said:


> clasÂ·siÂ·fiÂ·caÂ·tion/ËŒklasÉ™fÉ™ËˆkÄSHÉ™n/Noun
> 1. The action or process of classifying something according to shared qualities or characteristics.
> 2. The arrangement of animals and plants in taxonomic groups according to their observed similarities.


Yeah it is.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 19, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> If it exists, there are people who can get off on it, so that side of it is irrelevant. It isn't in and of itself a sexual fetish. It's just a characteristic. You have to present it in some way that is sexual, and those ways exist outside Furry.


 
It's a well documented fetish. It's a lot like crossdressing, except instead of getting off on being a different gender, you're getting off on being a different species. Some types of TFs aren't furries, but all ATFs are, and that's by far the most common kind of TF.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> [, except instead of getting off on being a different gender, you're getting off on being a different species..


 
What you just described is Zoophilia.


----------



## Cain (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What you just described is Zoophilia.


 
Lovely. o_o


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What you just described is Zoophilia.


 
Zoophilia and (let's call it) the furry orientation are pretty close. Could it be possible that sexual furries are born with some kind of hybrid sexuality, a mix between normal human attraction or pansexuality and zoophilia. There is another more Freudian explanation, that something happens to a child that somehow prevents it from growing out of the normal love of anthromorphic animal phase and instead develop it into a sexuality - thus becoming a furry. But I think the biological perspective makes more sense. 

Heck this is interesting!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 19, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Zoophilia and (let's call it) the furry orientation are pretty close. Could it be possible that sexual furries are born with some kind of hybrid sexuality, a mix between normal human attraction or pansexuality and zoophilia. There is another more Freudian explanation, that something happens to a child that somehow prevents it from growing out of the normal love of anthromorphic animal phase and instead develop it into a sexuality - thus becoming a furry. But I think the biological perspective makes more sense.
> 
> Heck this is interesting!



Umm no, they are not THAT close.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Zoophilia and (let's call it) the furry orientation are pretty close. Could it be possible that sexual furries are born with some kind of hybrid sexuality, a mix between normal human attraction or pansexuality and zoophilia. There is another more Freudian explanation, that something happens to a child that somehow prevents it from growing out of the normal love of anthromorphic animal phase and instead develop it into a sexuality - thus becoming a furry. But I think the biological perspective makes more sense.
> 
> Heck this is interesting!



When comparing the two being close, you are trying to compare the distance of Pluto and Earth to be pretty close, which in all essence it is not. 
In fantasy, anything given human characteristics classifies as being a humanoid until you take away the features of it being human (Making it a non-humanoid animal). By that logic, a Blood Elf and a human having intercourse...or a Twi'lek and a human having intercourse counts as Zoophilia. 

With sex and the furry fandom it's simple. Unlike anime, Furry doesn't have a canon and iy does not have the stereotype that it is for children, so of course it is going to be percieved as a sexual fandom. Anime can stack a bunch of kid friendly crap onto it to cover up some of the more raunchy stuff for adults, as well as the dramatic stuff in the fandom whereas furry cannot.


By default, when involved with any fantasy based fandom, its one of those things that adults would like to cling onto as they get older because they fell in love with it as a child. Same goes for cartoons and books that you've read as a child and grew up with. 

When comparing the sexuallity side, that's just adult nature and that's nothing new when you have fandoms composed of more adult members than young adults in highschool. When you are crossing into fandoms, sex follows like a plague because it is inherent in our biology. 

Thanks for evaluating something that's already known.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> When comparing the two being close, you are trying to compare the distance of Pluto and Earth to be pretty close, which in all essence it is not.
> In fantasy, anything given human characteristics classifies as being a humanoid until you take away the features of it being human (Making it a non-humanoid animal). By that logic, a Blood Elf and a human having intercourse...or a Twi'lek and a human having intercourse counts as Zoophilia.
> 
> With sex and the furry fandom it's simple. Unlike anime, Furry doesn't have a canon and iy does not have the stereotype that it is for children, so of course it is going to be percieved as a sexual fandom. Anime can stack a bunch of kid friendly crap onto it to cover up some of the more raunchy stuff for adults, as well as the dramatic stuff in the fandom whereas furry cannot.
> ...



What is already known? What are you talking about? 

This is whatâ€™s already known: 

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Altman, Eric_2010_Thesis.pdf

According to what little research that has been done on the furry fandom, the sexual interest in these animal character arises when a individual feels alienated from society. Itâ€™s a psychodynamic perspective basically. 

I, on the other hand, think that the furry orientation is more of a paraphilia. Two entirely different opinions.  Nothing is understood if thatâ€™s what you are suggesting.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> What is already known? What are you talking about?
> 
> This is whatâ€™s already known:
> 
> http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Altman, Eric_2010_Thesis.pdf



Many doctors and graduate students have done polls, thesis papers, documentaries,reports and things over the years when the fandom. 
It's old news, and such things have been repeated of why some are in the fandom. 



> According to what little research that has been done on the furry fandom, the sexual interest in these animal character arises when a individual feels alienated from society. Itâ€™s a psychodynamic perspective basically.



But then again, it is irrelevant because anyone investing an unhealthy amount of time into anything (Sexual or non) is due to the fact that an individual feels alienated from society. Once you get into any subculture, not just furry, there will be sexual intrest in a character, or characters. I can bring up numerous examples of this, but then again, you seem to have a fixation of furry and it's sexuallity and why FAF isn't like the rest of the fandom's fursites. 





> I, on the other hand, think that the furry orientation is more of a paraphilia.


Then that's your opinion that the fandom is sexually deviant. Don't toss that meaning onto everyone just because you google searched "Furry" and had your retinas detatch.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Many doctors and graduate students have done polls, thesis papers, documentaries, reports and things over the years when the fandom. It's old news, and such things have been repeated of why some are in the fandom.


Old news? How is it old news? Because itâ€™s been discussed in the fandom before? Besides, the research I linked to is dated May 2010. Not old by any standard. Why are you being so trivializing about this? 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But then again, it is irrelevant because anyone investing an unhealthy amount of time into anything (Sexual or non) is due to the fact that an individual feels alienated from society. Once you get into any subculture, not just furry, there will be sexual intrest in a character, or characters.



I disagree. And I believe I have good reason to do so. Virtually all sexual attractions, whether it be humans, animals or furries, originates from our biological tendencies. All human sexual behavior is the result of the sexuality we are born with. The notion that your sexual interest (you wrote sexual â€œintrestâ€ but I assume you mean interest â€“ correct me if Iâ€™m wrong) is the result of social factors is extremely old and not founded by any scientific evidence. 

In laymanâ€™s terms: people arenâ€™t furries because they have some unhealthy obsession with anthro animals. They are furries because they were born with a certain sexuali tendency. A paraphilia if you will. The fact that not all furries are sexual in nature doesnâ€™t prove anything. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I can bring up numerous examples of this.



Please do. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Then that's your opinion that the fandom is sexually deviant. Don't toss that meaning onto everyone just because you google searched "Furry" and had your retinas detatch.


Question is if you can even call it an opinion. It should be understood. But sure, what is your hypothesis?


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Old news? How is it old news? Because itâ€™s been discussed in the fandom before? Besides, the research I linked to is dated May 2010. Not old by any standard. Why are you being so trivializing about this?



Even though it is dated May 2010, the last research project on the same thing was in 2004-2006. Every person who has researched the sexuality of the fandom came to the same conclusion because of what a few people said that they based their research on. 
Wikipedia's source links for the furry article would also be one of the earliest example.




> I disagree.* And I believe I have good reason to do so. Virtually all sexual attractions, whether it be humans, animals or furries, originates from our biological tendencies. All human sexual behavior is the result of the sexuality we are born with.*



Duh.





> The notion that your sexual interest (you wrote sexual â€œintrestâ€ but I assume you mean interest â€“ correct me if Iâ€™m wrong) is the result of social factors is extremely old and not founded by any scientific evidence.




Also, are you attempting to lump me in even though I find the porn in the fandom not to my liking? oh dear. :V



> In laymanâ€™s terms: people arenâ€™t furries because they have some unhealthy obsession with anthro animals. They are furries because they were born with a certain sexuali tendency. A paraphilia if you will. The fact that not all furries are sexual in nature doesnâ€™t prove anything.


That's a BROAD assumption there, I hope you aren't stating it as a fact. If it is a "Fact", what are you basing this on?





> Please do.


I can name one: Anime. 
Ever been to an anime con?
Media.




> Question is if you can even call it an opinion. It should be understood. But sure, what is your hypothesis?



That you have an unhealthy fixation on  furry sex and the fandom, which makes me wonder.


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 19, 2011)

ITT: People don't understand that sexuality, like all aspects of personality, develops and isn't hard coded into our genetics at birth.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 19, 2011)

I feel stupid for even replying to this. You are obviously just interested in being witty on my expense. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Even though it is dated May 2010, the last research project on the same thing was in 2004-2006. Every person who has researched the sexuality of the fandom came to the same conclusion because of what a few people said that they based their research on.
> 
> Wikipedia's source links for the furry article would also be one of the earliest example.



I donâ€™t understand. Are you trying to discredit the research now?



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Umm...Duh.
> 
> Also, are you attemtping to lump me in even though I find the porn in the fandom not to my liking? oh dear. :V



What do you mean â€œduhâ€? I disagree with you. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That's a BROAD assumption there, I hope you aren't stating it as a fact. If it is a "Fact", what are you basing this on?



And now youâ€™re saying that I come with assumptions. But you just wrote â€œduhâ€ above. Doesnâ€™t that imply that you think itâ€™s presumed? 
And Iâ€™m basing it on what I wrote above. Human sexual behavior can be linked back to our biological tendencies. What we are born with. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I can name one: Anime.
> Ever been to an anime con?



No, thanks God. Anyway, people that are into hentai are into hentai because of their sexuality as well. Furries that are into yiff are into yiff because if their paraphilia. Itâ€™s quite simple, isnâ€™t it? 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That you have an unhealthy fixation on  furry sex and the fandom, which makes me wonder.



Are you trying to insult me? You canâ€™t even spell, let alone compose anything comparable to a logical argument. And you rather failed to answer my question.


You know what - whatever. This conversation brings out the worst in me. I don't care anymore.


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 19, 2011)

Sexualities develop, they aren't genetically hardcoded. There are possible predispositions, but there's NO evidence of being born with a certain sexuality.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> ITT: People don't understand that sexuality, like all aspects of personality, develops and isn't hard coded into our genetics at birth.



I derped.
Brb, killing self.




CarlMinez said:


> I feel stupid for even replying to this. You are obviously just interested in being witty on my expense.


Among other things, but hey, whatever makes me happy I guess. :V





> I donâ€™t understand. Are you trying to discredit the research now?


Unless you wrote it, then yes.
But All research based on the fandom is the same when it comes to sex. Hell, I even read halfway through it. 





> What do you mean â€œduhâ€? I disagree with you.


Stating the obvious partially, but like Jash said, Sexuality takes time to develop and many environmental factors play a part in developing..or not developing at all creating asexuality.

I still stand by my "duh".





> And now youâ€™re saying that I come with assumptions. But you just wrote â€œduhâ€ above. Doesnâ€™t that imply that you think itâ€™s presumed?
> And Iâ€™m basing it on what I wrote above. Human sexual behavior can be linked back to our biological tendencies. What we are born with.


Hahahaha! Get out. :V
Human sexuality may be biological, but such things develop like a wine in a casket. 





> No, thanks God. Anyway, people that are into hentai are into hentai because of their sexuality as well. Furries that are into yiff are into yiff because if their paraphilia. Itâ€™s quite simple, isnâ€™t it?


For porn, it's more of a preference than a just an interest as a whole. 
It's not as simple as you seem to want to make it.






> Are you trying to insult me? You canâ€™t even spell, let alone compose anything comparable to a logical argument.



OH NOES! QQ
MY HONOR! I MUST KILL MYSELF TO CLEANSE THE TAINT OF MY SINS :V




> And you rather failed to answer my question.



I did. It does seem like you have an unhealthy fixation on trying to prove that the fandom is a sexuality. It's a pretty redonkulous argument. Absolutely, positively redonkulous.
Why are you?





> You know what - whatever. This conversation brings out the worst in me. I don't care anymore.


Can I lock it? :V
Or burn it?
Besides, you brought it up, not just once but several times to the point that makes me thing that you are either trying to illicit aggressive behavior or you are plum serious.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 19, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> I, on the other hand, think that the furry orientation is more of a paraphilia. Two entirely different opinions.  Nothing is understood if thatâ€™s what you are suggesting.



Since when the fuck did furry become a sexual orientation? (I am assuming you mean sexual orientation)



CarlMinez said:


> In laymanâ€™s terms: people arenâ€™t furries because they have some unhealthy obsession with anthro animals. They are furries because they were born with a certain sexuali tendency. A paraphilia if you will. The fact that not all furries are sexual in nature doesnâ€™t prove anything.



I have to disagree. The only reason I became a furry was because I had an interest in anthropomorphic animals since I can remember, stemming from the cartoons I watched as a child. The only time I became interested in the porn side was when a friend was showing me an anime torrent he downloaded that had some stuff from Sexyfur.com in it. I started looking at it because I started wondering what an anthro would look like naked, I'm just a curious person.

Stop calling furry a sexual orientation, it isn't. If I started watching gay pornography then that must instantly mean that I'm gay and not just curious.


Everything I am reading from the OP just spells out troll to me.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What you just described is Zoophilia.


 
The physiological differences between anthropomorphic cartoon characters and actual real life animals is pretty large. That is to say, they're completely different. It's not an attraction to real things that exist, but to abstract idealizations of the human figure.

I'm going to go take a shower now. I have to wash the stupidity of that post off.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The physiological differences between anthropomorphic cartoon characters and actual real life animals is pretty large. That is to say, they're completely different. It's not an attraction to real things that exist, but to abstract idealizations of the human figure.
> 
> I'm going to go take a shower now. I have to wash the stupidity of that post off.



I said that earlier prior. 
Thanks for stating the obvious.
Make sure you scrub with a brilo pad.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Being attracted to anthropomorphics itself is a fetish, *and it doesn't exist outside the fandom*. That's the main fetish that the fandom cultivates. The other stuff you were thinking of... bondage/crossdressing/macro or whatever... people aren't talking about that when they refer to the "furry fetish".



Yes it does

I know plenty of people who find furries hot but aren't furries themselves


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 19, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Yes it does
> 
> I know plenty of people who find furries hot but aren't furries themselves


 did someone call for me to be evidence?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 19, 2011)

Ja sure hi how are you


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 19, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Ja sure hi how are you


 Just wondering why this topic is still living after I left it :V
is OP still trying to say Furry is a fetish and sexualized still?


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Just wondering why this topic is still living after I left it :V
> is OP still trying to say Furry is a fetish and sexualized still?


 
He rage-quit.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 19, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Yes it does
> 
> I know plenty of people who find furries hot but aren't furries themselves


 
As in, they aren't active in the community or they don't personally consider themselves furries when asked?



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I said that earlier prior.
> Thanks for stating the obvious.


 So why do you still think it's zoophilia?


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> So why do you still think it's zoophilia?



-facepalm-
I didn't say it was Zoophilia, the way it was described fit the definition.
Are you that dense?
IFor the short time I've been in the fandom, I know that anthro characters are considered to be humanoid; the same that elves, orcs, and dwarves are.


Tybalt Maxwell said:


> Yes it does
> 
> I know plenty of people who find furries hot but aren't furries themselves


 
Half of the artists I watch aren't furries but they put in a small percentage into the fandom.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> -facepalm-
> I didn't say it was Zoophilia, the way it was described fit the definition.
> Are you that dense?
> For the short time I've been in the fandom, I know that anthro characters are considered to be humanoid; the same that elves, orcs, and dwarves are.





Spatel said:


> It's a well documented fetish.  It's a lot like crossdressing, except instead of getting off on being a  different gender, you're getting off on being a different species. Some  types of TFs aren't furries, but all ATFs are, and that's by far the  most common kind of TF.


 
Nothing in there says zoophilia. You, Zeke, are the one who took "different species" to mean real animal species and not imaginary humanoid ones. Now that I've clarified that, can we move on?


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Nothing in there says zoophilia. You, Zeke, are the one who took "different species" to mean real animal species and not imaginary humanoid ones. Now that I've clarified that, can we move on?



Maybe.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Maybe.


I apologize for the outburst. For the record, I agree with your other posts in this thread.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I apologize for the outburst. For the record, I agree with your other posts in this thread.


 
And I am sorry I took it out of context.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 19, 2011)

if op rage quit...can I request a lock or carrying this poor topic out to a field far far away and putting it out of its misery via deletion?


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Nothing in there says zoophilia. You, Zeke, are the one who took "different species" to mean real animal species and not imaginary humanoid ones. Now that I've clarified that, can we move on?


 
But 'anthropomorphic' is a characteristic, not an 'imaginary humanoid species' of it's own. "Different species" does mean real animal species. Otherwise it's just an attraction to fantasy.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 19, 2011)

Spatel said:


> As in, they aren't active in the community or they don't personally consider themselves furries when asked?


 
As in, they're not "fans" in the sense that they favour anthropomorphics over regular stuff. Furry fans are in the fandom because they enjoy anthropomorphics in art and literature to a degree that they would associate themselves with a fandom (Like say, I don't like my tablet enough to say I'm a fan of it, even though it's a useful tool, but I DO like Yume Nikki enough to be a part of that fandom).

The persons I am referring to just aren't fans. They find anthros sexy, but they wouldn't say "Hey I'd like to read a nice [not porn] anthro story today"


----------



## K.A.I.S.E.R- X (Apr 19, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> He rage-quit.



Thank goodness.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Tybalt Maxwell said:


> As in, they're not "fans" in the sense that they favour anthropomorphics over regular stuff. Furry fans are in the fandom because they enjoy anthropomorphics in art and literature to a degree that they would associate themselves with a fandom (Like say, I don't like my tablet enough to say I'm a fan of it, even though it's a useful tool, but I DO like Yume Nikki enough to be a part of that fandom).
> 
> The persons I am referring to just aren't fans. They find anthros sexy, but they wouldn't say "Hey I'd like to read a nice [not porn] anthro story today"



Furries are people with an interest in anthropomorphics. Nobody gets to define how they approach that interest. These people you're referring to have an interest. They're clearly furries. You don't have to associate with every niche aspect of the fandom to be a furry.



			
				Heimdal said:
			
		

> But 'anthropomorphic' is a characteristic, not an 'imaginary humanoid  species' of it's own. "Different species" does mean real animal species.  Otherwise it's just an attraction to fantasy.


An imaginary species is still a species. Dragons, unicorns, etc. The term was appropriate.


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 20, 2011)

Geek said:


> The furry thing... again, like everyone else, I'm trying to be careful not to offend, but it's like the fire engine red bangs to me... it's like someone looking for a confrontation or a reaction.


 
I completely disagree with this statement. 
I started working for a promotional marketing company years back and 95% of the jobs I was sent on put me into a costume. I quickly learned that when in a Pilsbury the Dough Boy, Tony the Tiger, Keebler Elf, Chester the Cheetah costume (or any of the many costumes I wore) you can do anything and become some form of exception to many rules that bind us in social atmospheres. In costume you could dance, hug a random person, or just start petting a strangers head out of nowhere and they'd always just laugh. I've always had close friends and there is no need for me to "look for a confrontation or a reaction". It's just that I discovered that when in a costume it's easy to make others happy and also enjoy life yourself. You could act like an idiot and people just laugh, it's great. That's how I was introduced into the state of mind.

On the sexual side of the hobby/way-of-life/what-have-you it comes as an understandable progression for some to take that path. If there is something that makes a person feel unrestrained happiness and freedom then why not share that freedom with your spouse/love-interest?

Many wear a form of socially restraining mask, metaphorically. For some there's a literal mask that can remove the inhibitions and make them truly smile. In public it's dancing and having fun in a fursuit. For some privately it's something comparable to a couple having a food fight at dinner then continuing it in the bedroom while still covered in cake as they laugh. It breaks down the severity of any situation, it removes restraints, and it makes them smile. If you don't wish to "throw cake" in this manner then fine, but you shouldn't criticize for only the purpose that you don't do it.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 20, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Since when the fuck did furry become a sexual orientation? (I am assuming you mean sexual orientation)


I wrote furry orientation. Itâ€™s not a sexual orientation. Itâ€™s comparable to a paraphilia. Donâ€™t get the definitions mixed up. 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I have to disagree. The only reason I became a furry was because I had an interest in anthropomorphic animals since I can remember, stemming from the cartoons I watched as a child.


And what do you think that interest originates from?


Randy-Darkshade said:


> The only time I became interested in the porn side was when a friend was showing me an anime torrent he downloaded that had some stuff from Sexyfur.com in it. I started looking at it because I started wondering what an anthro would look like naked, I'm just a curious person.


What I hear from you is â€œsince when the fuck did furry become a sexual orientation?â€, â€œI like naked anthros, so what? Iâ€™m just curious!â€ 

A sexual identity is something you are born with. However, what you find attractive may change during your life. It depends on what you have been influenced by, and what happens to you .When you discovered yiff for the first time, you probably just discovered something that is closer to your main sexual attraction. 

Now the reason you became a furry is probably because you were born with a liking of anthromorphic animal characters. All children are born with this tendency. Thatâ€™s why childrenâ€™s movies always feature cute talking animals. You just never grew out of it. Neither did I. Thus, we became furries. Itâ€™s a process of development. 

Your sexual attraction towards human-like, cartooned animal characters, on the other hand, might very well be the result of your biological sexual identity. You are probably pansexual or heterosexual or homosexual with a certain zoophilian tendency â€“ thus resulting in you developing an interest in human-like animal characters. Not humans. Not animals. Something in between. But donâ€™t be confused. You can still be sexually attracted to humans as well. One thing doesnâ€™t exclude the other. And humans are real which is why you will always be more influenced by humans than furries. 

So no, the furry fandom is no sexual orientation. But to many furries, it is something bordering to a paraphilia. How strong this interest is (it doesnâ€™t have to be sexual â€“ a sexual identity is not just what you find hot or not. Itâ€™s a part of your identity, who you relate to, what you find beautiful and cute and so forth) may vary depending on the furries. It differs. 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Stop calling furry a sexual orientation, it isn't. If I started watching gay pornography then that must instantly mean that I'm gay and not just curious.


If you start watching gay porn and like it then you might very well be gay! 

Am I troll for having a different opinion? I think you simply donâ€™t like the idea because it suggests that your furry interest is a result of uncontrollable forces rather than your conscious choice. 



Heimdal said:


> But 'anthropomorphic' is a characteristic, not an 'imaginary humanoid species' of it's own. "Different species" does mean real animal species. Otherwise it's just an attraction to fantasy.


 
It doesn't matter if it exists or not. The human brain doesn't let such details affect what we find interest in. 



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> He rage-quit.



Rage-quit is really the wrong word. I will still be active in this thread.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 20, 2011)

Did I read that right? Children are born with a liking for anthro animals?

Dude, did you seriously just make that statement? No one is born with a liking for anything beyond very basic instincts. Children in middle income or high income nations tend to however be exposed to anthro-animals because adults tend to expose them to it by default. So it's a given most children will like what is pushed upon them as soon as they are old enough to find television to be a source of entertainment. The whole anthro-animal thing is driven upon children by culture but that does not mean they are "Born with a liking for it".


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

I think that's what he means. Kids grow up exposed to it heavily, so some of them naturally gravitate to it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> I wrote furry orientation. Itâ€™s not a sexual orientation. Itâ€™s comparable to a paraphilia. Donâ€™t get the definitions mixed up.






> And what do you think that interest originates from?



I was subjected to a lot of cartoons when I was very young. I can remember being three or four years old and mom setting me on the sofa in front of the TV to watch cartoons like Tom and Jerry and the looney toons. As I got older I watched more shows such as The ChuckleWood Critters, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Swat Cats and many many more. the only cartoons with humans as characters I ever liked was anime.



> What I hear from you is â€œsince when the fuck did furry become a sexual orientation?â€, â€œI like naked anthros, so what? Iâ€™m just curious!â€



And? Have at any point said I wanted to fuck an anthro silly with my ten foot willy? No, I haven't. Just because I like seeing anthro's in their birthday suites doesn't instantly mean I want to fuck them sideways until the cows come home.



> A sexual identity is something you are born with. However, what you find attractive may change during your life. It depends on what you have been influenced by, and what happens to you .When you discovered yiff for the first time, you probably just discovered something that is closer to your main sexual attraction.



Actually no. I have always had a sexual attraction to humans. I have never jerked myself off while looking at furry porn, and I swear down on my nieces life about that. The only thing I have jerked off too is human porn. I used to have porn videos/DVDs, threw them out when I got the internet. One of the first things I did when I got internet was search for human porn. 




> Your sexual attraction towards human-like, cartooned animal characters, on the other hand, might very well be the result of your biological sexual identity. You are probably pansexual or heterosexual or homosexual with a certain zoophilian tendency â€“ thus resulting in you developing an interest in human-like animal characters. Not humans. Not animals. Something in between. But donâ€™t be confused. You can still be sexually attracted to humans as well. One thing doesnâ€™t exclude the other. And humans are real which is why you will always be more influenced by humans than furries.



Excuse-fucking-me? Assumption fucking much? I was going to remain civil but I wont sit here and be called a fucking zoophile. I have not once said I have a sexual attraction to anthro animals. You are making an assumption that just because I once got curious to know what anthros looked like under all those clothes that I have a sexual attraction to them.




> If you start watching gay porn and like it then you might very well be gay!



I never said I liked gay porn. I admit I have looked up stuff like herms, transvestites etc, but again I was young at the time and curious. All I search for these days is straight human porn to wank too. I should have said earlier when I first en-counted furry porn I was a lot younger than I am now.



> Am I troll for having a different opinion? I think you simply donâ€™t like the idea because it suggests that your furry interest is a result of uncontrollable forces rather than your conscious choice.



It's the way you assume things, miss interpret what is said (maybe intentionally or unintentionally) and paint every furry with the same brush even though you can not possibly know the back ground story to every fur in the fandom as to why they became a furry. I wouldn't actually be in this fandom if it were not for the friends I have made.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> stuff


 

What I can sum up is:

Outside perception= Definition.
Therefore Cognitive Bias sets what it is as a whole. 

I used to think that Goths were a bunch masochists that were angry white suburbanite teenagers outside of the subculture before I had gotten involved myself.




> I never said I liked gay porn. I admit I have looked up stuff like herms, transvestites etc, but again I was young at the time and curious. All I search for these days is straight human porn to wank too. I should have said earlier when I first en-counted furry porn I was a lot younger than I am now.



A lot of young people have done that either out of curiosity or just because it is funny.
Humans are curious beings...like cats. 
All's innocent until you either burn your retinas or shrug it off.

If someone got curious and looked at gay porn once doesn't make them gay. That's like saying anyone who looked up or was forced to look at a forum picture(s) or 2girls1cup or "Tubgirl" once is into scat porn by default.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What I can sum up is:
> 
> Outside perception= Definition.
> Therefore Cognitive Bias sets what it is as a whole.
> ...



I have seen 2girls1cup, and that was thanks to a TV show called "RudeTube" which shows the most watched video's online. All they showed was the reactions to 2girls1cup, so me being curious me decided to look it up. MY FUCKING GOD I SO WISH I DIDN'T!

I am going to ignore my curiosity and NOT search "tubgirl". I have a feeling it is something similar to 2girls1cup.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I have seen 2girls1cup, and that was thanks to a TV show called "RudeTube" which shows the most watched video's online. All they showed was the reactions to 2girls1cup, so me being curious me decided to look it up. MY FUCKING GOD I SO WISH I DIDN'T!
> 
> I am going to ignore my curiosity and NOT search "tubgirl". I have a feeling it is something similar to 2girls1cup.



On Gaia, trolls would post a wall of Tubgirl pictures on Wednesday (or humpday) in the General discussion forums. It was something you couldn't avoid. 
Same with Neopets when they had allowed link embedding. Trolls would come in, make a board saying "Check out this new Avril song", and it would link them to Tubgirl or Lemonparty. 

EDIT: Also a patron was repeatedly printing out those pictures to leave on the printer docks when I worked at the Downtown library. 

And don't look it up. Please.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> On Gaia, trolls would post a wall of Tubgirl pictures on Wednesday (or humpday) in the General discussion forums. It was something you couldn't avoid.
> Same with Neopets when they had allowed link embedding. Trolls would come in, make a board saying "Check out this new Avril song", and it would link them to Tubgirl or Lemonparty.
> 
> And don't look it up. Please.



I don't intend too, despite my curiosity.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I don't intend too, despite my curiosity.


 
Good.


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 20, 2011)

do it randy


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> do it randy



No sir.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 20, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> It doesn't matter if it exists or not. The human brain doesn't let such details affect what we find interest in.



So if I got pissed off by the wind blowing dirt into my face, and called it "_stupid asshole wind,_" that would turn furries on? And not just a rare particular furry -- all furries. They would be born with that interest, by your reasoning, so they would all feel this pull. It is anthropomorphism to as much degree as any other form.

As well, anything would be a sex toy. All you have to do is name it, and it would be endowed with anthropomorphic sexual powers.



			
				Spatel said:
			
		

> Furries are people with an interest in anthropomorphics. Nobody gets to  define how they approach that interest. These people you're referring to  have an interest. They're clearly furries. You don't have to associate  with every niche aspect of the fandom to be a furry.



I've never heard of people being forced into a fandom. Nor have I ever heard of people being forced into a subculture. I don't think you can just _decide_ what they are against their will. Well, you can, but it's nothing more than your own opinion vs. theirs. It's entirely a misconception until they clarify, "Why yes, I am."


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 20, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> As well, anything would be a sex toy. All you have to do is name it, and it would be endowed with anthropomorphic sexual powers.


 I wish this was real :C


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> As well, anything would be a sex toy. All you have to do is name it, and it would be endowed with anthropomorphic sexual powers.



*[Sword of Holy "bliss"]*

341 Str
450 Stam

On hit: player recieves "Holy Bliss", immobilizing them for 1 hour. 
During this duration the player may Orgasm, casuing over 9000 damge over 40 seconds.



Jashwa said:


> do it randy


 

UNLIKE OTHER USERS, he listens to a Mod's warning. :V


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I've never heard of people being forced into a fandom. Nor have I ever heard of people being forced into a subculture. I don't think you can just _decide_ what they are against their will. Well, you can, but it's nothing more than your own opinion vs. theirs. It's entirely a misconception until they clarify, "Why yes, I am."


Someone that likes bondage porn isn't a leatherhead unless they admit it?

Having a sexual attraction to anthropomorphic characters is a fetish. There isn't anything else it could possibly be. You're arguing against decades of psychological research and general attitudes regarding this. Many furries have no sexual interest in the characters and are not fetishists. The ones that are... are.

Besides they're only going to get that porn from furry sites. 

I don't know what your angle is, but trying to push the sexual furries into another category outside the fandom is a bit mean-spirited. Do they bother you that much?


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 20, 2011)

umm, not to be a buzzkill, Spatel, but you can't force people to be part of the fandom. You could argue that they'd fit in with it, but you can't say they're part of it. 

For example, you could touch yourself to furry porn every night, but not interact with furries. You'd be "into furries", but that wouldn't make you part of the fandom because you don't interact with the fandom even.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Conversely, you can't force people out of a fandom simply because they don't contribute to it. Most fanbases have a majority of members that don't contribute to their respective communities. If they have an interest in anthropomorphic characters, they're furries.

That's the definition people have used on this site. By that definition, furry fetishists are furries. They are a subset of the furry subculture that is exclusive to the subculture. There is no organized community outside the furry fandom for them.


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Conversely, you can't force people out of a fandom simply because they don't contribute to it. Most fanbases have a majority of members that don't contribute to their respective communities. If they have an interest in anthropomorphic characters, they're furries.


 No one has tried to argue that or force anyone out of the fandom for not contributing?


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I don't know what your angle is, but trying to push the sexual furries into another category outside the fandom is a bit mean-spirited. Do they bother you that much?


 
It's actually the other side of that coin.

Furries into all the weird porn, and furries not into any of it, are both lumped together as the same. The problem is the idea I'm getting from this: that if someone disassociates themselves from the fandom because they don't like the porn, but still likes anthropomorphic stuff, they are still furries no matter what they do. And thus they are directly associated to weird porn they don't like.

This strict adherence to defining factors of "Furry" is crap, is what I'm saying. It's too vague and fluid to serve any real purpose or meaning. You can find ways that would fit almost everyone in the world as a furry, like using anthropomorphism in speech for example (everyone does it often.)


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> No one has tried to argue that or force anyone out of the fandom for not contributing?


 You just did.


			
				Jashwa said:
			
		

> For example, you could touch yourself to furry porn every night, but not  interact with furries. You'd be "into furries", but that wouldn't make  you part of the fandom because you don't interact with the fandom even.


By this definition, a large number of people that consider themselves furries are no longer furries, because their only contribution to the fandom is pageviews.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

No one is automatically a furry because they have an interest in anthropomorphic animals. I am a furry because I conciously CHOSE to be part of the fandom.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You just did.
> 
> By this definition, a large number of people that consider themselves furries are no longer furries, because their only contribution to the fandom is pageviews.



A large number of people probably don't just touch themselves to furry porn. A large number of those people mostr likely do other furry things, like talk to other furries.


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You just did.
> 
> By this definition, a large number of people that consider themselves furries are no longer furries, because their only contribution to the fandom is pageviews.


 No, I didn't. I was using one example to refute your claim that people into porn have to be part of the fandom.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> No, I didn't. I was using one example to refute your claim that people into porn have to be part of the fandom.


 
The porn they're into comes from the fandom. What else could they possibly be?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The porn they're into comes from the fandom. What else could they possibly be?



So just being interested in the porn is not a possibility to you? You must love to slap a label on anything you come across. Just because it fits, doesn't mean it is.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The porn they're into comes from the fandom. What else could they possibly be?


 
Well, because it is free porn.
You cannot say no to free porn when you come across it. :V

Looking at furry porn does not make you a furry, just like looking at bondage porn does not automatically make you part of the BDSM subculture.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The porn they're into comes from the fandom. What else could they possibly be?


 
They could be Goth, or Punk, or something far more relevant to their life. Furry is an incredibly vague and worthless definition to give someone, unless they're interest borders on obsession.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> So just being interested in the porn is not a possibility to you? You must love to slap a label on anything you come across. Just because it fits, doesn't mean it is.



People that just watch furry porn generally label themselves furries. You're the one taking that label off.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> People that just watch furry porn generally label themselves furries. You're the one taking that label off.


 

People who have an unhealthy fixation on one type of porn makes it a fetish or Paraphillia to that person.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> People that just watch furry porn generally label themselves furries. You're the one taking that label off.



Not all do. If someone made it clear they class themselves as furry, then fine, I'd see them as a furry. But if someone told me they just have an interest in say, the art, or the stories, but don't consider themselves furry,then I wont see them as furry.

I like some anime cartoons, but I'm not a weeaboo.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> People who have an unhealthy fixation on one type of porn makes it a fetish or Paraphillia to that person.


 
Unhealthy is a pretty dick choice of words, especially if the porn we're talking about is harmless. It's not like people choose the fetishes they have, although they can choose to ignore or follow them.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Unhealthy is a pretty dick choice of words, especially if the porn we're talking about is harmless. It's not like people choose the fetishes they have, although they can choose to ignore or follow them.



I disagree.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Unhealthy is a pretty dick choice of words, especially if the porn we're talking about is harmless. It's not like people choose the fetishes they have, although they can choose to ignore or follow them.


 
Actually it's an extremely apt choice of words. Consider that an alcoholic doesn't stop being an alcoholic when they quit drinking; the problem doesn't disappear, it's just consciously avoided. It sounds like it's the same thing, and that's unhealthy.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Unhealthy is a pretty dick choice of words, especially if the porn we're talking about is harmless. It's not like people choose the fetishes they have, although they can choose to ignore or follow them.


 
It's a pretty apt term.


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> You're the one taking that label off.


 If they choose to identify as a furry despite not interacting with the fandom in any other way other than looking at the porn, then fine. No one here is against that. We're saying that they're not a furry just because they look at the porn.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> Actually it's an extremely apt choice of words. Consider that an alcoholic doesn't stop being an alcoholic when they quit drinking; the problem doesn't disappear, it's just consciously avoided. It sounds like it's the same thing, and that's unhealthy.


 
What's the problem you're referring to in this case?


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 20, 2011)

its like saying just cause you hang around anime folks makes you an anime fan. It doesnt as a person can have ONE thing of interest with that anime group say fighting games that group often play.


but by your defnition I have to be asian as in highschool even though I'm black I rather hang out with asian folks than with other black people :V


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

It's nothing like that. 

Now if someone only masturbated to hentai... then  yes they're an anime fan. That seems very analogous. They don't have to  go to conventions or cosplay or read manga or watch shows. They still  have a vested interest in that community, albeit a narrow one.


----------



## K.A.I.S.E.R- X (Apr 20, 2011)

This has turned into a interesting discussion.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> It's nothing like that.
> 
> Now if someone only masturbated to hentai... then  yes they're an anime fan. That seems very analogous. They don't have to  go to conventions or cosplay or read manga or watch shows. They still  have a vested interest in that community, albeit a narrow one.


 doesnt ultimately make them an anime fan, it makes them having an interest in anime's hentai
This is something us anime fans have fixed, unlike furries who all go "Well you have anthro characters, you must be a furry"


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Now if someone only masturbated to hentai... then  yes they're an anime fan. That seems very analogous. They don't have to  go to conventions or cosplay or read manga or watch shows. They still  have a vested interest in that community, albeit a narrow one.


 
Isn't it kind of irrelevant to call them an 'anime fan' then? I mean, they wouldn't be active in the fandom at all, and unless they said that they are an anime fan themselves, you would be the only one saying they are. It's more of a purposeless opinion than a descriptive classification.



> What's the problem you're referring to in this case?



Unhealthy fixation would imply that it is negatively impacting their lives in some way.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> doesnt ultimately make them an anime fan, it makes them having an interest in anime's hentai
> This is something us anime fans have fixed, unlike furries who all go "Well you have anthro characters, you must be a furry"


 Hentai is anime. If they're fans of hentai they're fans of anime. Hentai is just a much smaller component of that fandom, so outsiders don't base their opinions of the fandom on it nearly as much.



Heimdal said:


> Unhealthy fixation would imply that it is negatively impacting their lives in some way.


 
How does looking at furry porn ruin someone's life? If that's the kind of porn someone likes, big deal. There are far worse fetishes someone could have; it's harmless in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Furries are people with an interest in anthropomorphics. Nobody gets to define how they approach that interest. These people you're referring to have an interest. They're clearly furries. You don't have to associate with every niche aspect of the fandom to be a furry.


 
Read what I wrote again. Actually being a part of the fandom isn't a "niche" part of being a furry. It's a requisite

Remember that it's called the "Furry fandom", when you try to explain to me that these people who aren't fans of furries are members of it

neigh neigh neigh neighneigh neigh nnneigh neigh neneigh neigh


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

I think we've lost track of the important argument. Remember the original reason we started arguing about this? This post:


			
				Heimdal said:
			
		

> I agree with Tybalt, it's not sexual. If you think of all the sexual  fetishes around, they exist outside Furry as well. The only thing  linking them into Furry is when they are depicted anthropomorphic.  That's why I've said that Furry isn't sexual, it just has a lot of  perverts in it.


To which I mentioned that the "furry fetish" itself was unique to the furry fandom. I said it was a subset of the fandom, found nowhere else. 

And then Heimdal got all weinerey saying that "well people that just masturbate to the stuff aren't really FANS... they're not really in the COMMUNITY" but that's irrelevant. That's completely not the point. The point is that the furry community is the de facto community for furry fetishists that are looking for a community. There isn't a separate, organized "ATF" community. At most maybe 1% of ATFs don't consider themselves furries. There are separate communities for bondage and crossdressing, absolutely. There's even a separate community for zoophiles, because we kicked them out. Furry Fetishists are stuck under the same label though. There's nowhere else to go if you're one of those.

This is not to say the fandom is all about sex; it isn't. All Furry Fetishists are furries. All furries are not fetishists. My point was merely that there IS a fetish that is centralized specifically in this fandom, and that's part of the reason people confuse the fandom with that fetish.

Fair?


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 20, 2011)

Look back to my post comparing fandoms to ven diagrams. The more easily sexualized the subject, the more fetishists are going to be involved with the fandom. They're 2 seperate classifications that have varrying levels of co-existence depending on the fandom

What I've been saying this entire time is that being a "fan" and being "sexually interested" are two separate values, which is what Heimdal was agreeing with. Your response was that even if they're not fans they're still part of the fandom

Or at least that's how you came off


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Hentai is anime. If they're fans of hentai they're fans of anime. Hentai is just a much smaller component of that fandom, so outsiders don't base their opinions of the fandom on it nearly as much.


 but again it doesnt make them apart of the ANIME fandom, it doesnt. Its why so many damn artist in who get money from you guys...have to say "I happen to draw anthromorphic characters, I am not part of the furry fandom"
There IS a difference of having a liking/interest to one section and being part of it.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 20, 2011)

sure is caring too much what others think in here


----------



## Spatel (Apr 20, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> but again it doesnt make them apart of the ANIME fandom, it doesnt. Its why so many damn artist in who get money from you guys...have to say "I happen to draw anthromorphic characters, I am not part of the furry fandom"
> There IS a difference of having a liking/interest to one section and being part of it.


 
I really don't care to continue debating this. It's trivial. The point is that the community for furry fetishists is a subset of the furry fandom. There's no escaping that. Some fetishists do and don't participate in the community. However, the ones that do are all furries.

It is this arrangement that causes outsiders to associate the entire fandom with the fetish aspect. The non-yiff furries have nowhere else to go either. There isn't a community for anthro-fans outside the furry fandom, so while they don't enjoy sharing a tent with the fetishists, they have to. When the fandom gets large enough, the fetishists will probably have to come up with a more specific name, and probably a more organized sub-community that may or may not splinter off, depending how things develop. That would be a good thing for everyone, I think.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I really don't care to continue debating this. It's trivial. The point is that the community for furry fetishists is a subset of the furry fandom. There's no escaping that. Some fetishists do and don't participate in the community. However, the ones that do are all furries.
> 
> It is this arrangement that causes outsiders to associate the entire fandom with the fetish aspect. The non-yiff furries have nowhere else to go either. There isn't a community for anthro-fans outside the furry fandom, so while they don't enjoy sharing a tent with the fetishists, they have to. When the fandom gets large enough, the fetishists will probably have to come up with a more specific name, and probably a more organized sub-community that may or may not splinter off, depending how things develop. That would be a good thing for everyone, I think.


but it is possible for someone outside to interact with those on the inside , after all i'm gawd damn evidence of that.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 21, 2011)

Ricky said:


> sure is caring too much what others think in here


 
just wanted to say... love your avatar! Fritz the cat ftw! Blue's one of my favourite characters.


----------



## BlackDragon007 (Apr 21, 2011)

Interpretation is the key. What you see and what I see are different, but neither is wrong. There is not enough time or space in the universe to define what a "furry" is or isn't.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 21, 2011)

okay here's something...

1) the furry fandom was not started by the use of pornographic anthros, but that's what fueled it.
2) furry is associated with porn. DEAL WITH IT.
3) most furries enjoy the porn albeit most furries dont draw it.
4) whether you like anthro porn or not, you're still furry.
5) you are NOT furry if you do not participate in the furry fandom, the fandom mostly revolves around porn.
6) if you separate yourself from the furry fandom and think the fandom is "disgusting" because of the porn you are a
ANTHRO SPARKLEDOG


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2011)

Spatel said:


> It's nothing like that.
> 
> Now if someone only masturbated to hentai... then  yes they're an anime fan. That seems very analogous. They don't have to  go to conventions or cosplay or read manga or watch shows. They still  have a vested interest in that community, albeit a narrow one.



Doesn't make them an anime fan.



Spatel said:


> I really don't care to continue debating this. It's trivial. The point is that the community for furry fetishists is a subset of the furry fandom. There's no escaping that. Some fetishists do and don't participate in the community. However, the ones that do are all furries.



BS. I know people who draw Anthro's and have a page on FA but are not furry. The only have an account on a furry site to post relevant artwork, it does not mean they are fucking furries. By your definition trolls who participate on furry sites are also  furries. Face it, what you are saying is BS. I know someone personally who talks on the forums sometimes, and has an FA page but is not a furry. Just because someone is being active in a community does not suddenly mean they are a furry or an anime fan or what ever, that's just stupid man.



Zrcalo said:


> okay here's something...
> 5) you are NOT furry if you do not participate in the furry fandom, the fandom mostly revolves around porn.



Again, the way you word this makes it seem like anyone who is on a furry website is automatically a furry. By this even trolls who are here just to annoy us are furries because they are participating on furry forums and sites. People can join furry or anime websites and not be fan, but maybe to do research on a community, to look for friends, could many reasons. You can't just assume everyone in a community is a fan of what ever the3 community is about just because they are there.


----------



## keretceres (Apr 21, 2011)

To some I think it can be linked to a kind of complex, like gender disphoria, but in this case more species disphoria... the concept of anthropomorphism in the furry-fandom if more about escape from self in that sense. Wearing a mask, physical or other wise is a great way to achieve this specifically. Getting to the sexual aspects, I can comment on my own animalistic nature, I cannot speak for others; there is a definite sexual aspect for me in the affinity I have with my particular animal however at the same time I don't suit-up etc. I.e. I don't make it public but if you were to have sex with me, you would probably find out... The issue with the entire concept though is that people DO want attention, and any attention is still attention good or bad... Coaxing response from people is something that does lessen with age though (usually, I can think of exceptions) and it can be seen as like a furry teenage phase...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2011)

keretceres said:


> The issue with the entire concept though is that people DO want attention,



Another one making assumptions. I can tell you I am not here for attention.


----------



## K.A.I.S.E.R- X (Apr 21, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Another one making assumptions. I can tell you I am not here for attention.



I totally agree with Randy on this.

If someone was on here or any website for that then they need to get off the internet and make IRL friends. Sure talking with others on the internet is fun but when it takes over ever other aspect of a normal life it becomes a problem. It becomes a obsession.


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 21, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Again, the way you word this makes it seem like anyone who is on a furry website is automatically a furry. By this even trolls who are here just to annoy us are furries because they are participating on furry forums and sites. People can join furry or anime websites and not be fan, but maybe to do research on a community, to look for friends, could many reasons. You can't just assume everyone in a community is a fan of what ever the3 community is about just because they are there.



I said PARTICIPATE in the furry fandom. not "post on some furry boards" 
there's more to participation than nonchalant happenstance.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 21, 2011)

Zrcalo said:


> I said PARTICIPATE in the furry fandom. not "post on some furry boards"
> there's more to participation than nonchalant happenstance.


 ....um...then what he said is still in the right then


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2011)

Zrcalo said:


> I said PARTICIPATE in the furry fandom. not "post on some furry boards"
> there's more to participation than nonchalant happenstance.



They are STILL doing something to participate in the fandom, my point still stands.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 21, 2011)

keretceres said:


> To some I think it can be linked to a kind of complex, like gender disphoria, but in this case more species disphoria... the concept of anthropomorphism in the furry-fandom if more about escape from self in that sense. Wearing a mask, physical or other wise is a great way to achieve this specifically. Getting to the sexual aspects, I can comment on my own animalistic nature, I cannot speak for others; there is a definite sexual aspect for me in the affinity I have with my particular animal however at the same time I don't suit-up etc. I.e. I don't make it public but if you were to have sex with me, you would probably find out... The issue with the entire concept though is that people DO want attention, and any attention is still attention good or bad... Coaxing response from people is something that does lessen with age though (usually, I can think of exceptions) and it can be seen as like a furry teenage phase...



En el nombre de Buda, QuÃ© es esta basura?!

I have a red dot on my forehead now from too many facepalms.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 21, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> En el nombre de Buda, QuÃ© es esta basura?!
> 
> I have a red dot on my forehead now from too many facepalms.



Lol, don't facepalm so much then!


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 21, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Lol, don't facepalm so much then!



I would, but...


----------



## Spatel (Apr 21, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> but it is possible for someone outside to interact with those on the inside , after all i'm gawd damn evidence of that.


 Sure, there are non-furs that go to cons all the time. It's a party. Parties are fun. Sometimes people just tag along for the party.



BlackDragon007 said:


> Interpretation is the key. What you see  and what I see are different, but neither is wrong. There is not enough  time or space in the universe to define what a "furry" is or  isn't.


That's a problem that some furries are deliberately responsible for inventing. If we could get the fandom in lockstep and just fucking agree what the word means that'd be better for everyone.



			
				Randy Darkshade said:
			
		

> BS. I know people who draw Anthro's and have a page on FA but are not  furry. The only have an account on a furry site to post relevant  artwork, it does not mean they are fucking furries. By your definition  trolls who participate on furry sites are also  furries. Face it, what  you are saying is BS. I know someone personally who talks on the forums  sometimes, and has an FA page but is not a furry. Just because someone  is being active in a community does not suddenly mean they are a furry  or an anime fan or what ever, that's just stupid man.


I'm not really sure what your argument is anymore. I've conveyed my position that "furry fetishists" are centered in the furry community. That community is a subset of this one. General interest Furries, whatever the hell those are, are also centered in the furry community. Why does it matter that some anthro artists don't consider themselves furries? Everybody knows that; is there a point you're trying to make with that?


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Apr 21, 2011)

What is this i don't even.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 21, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Sure, there are non-furs that go to cons all the time. It's a party. Parties are fun. Sometimes people just tag along for the party.


 just like porn, :V
congrats on breaking your own logic


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 21, 2011)

DingoWolfAU said:


> What is this i don't even.


 
My this button is broken.


----------



## Deathlightdb (Apr 21, 2011)

I agree with you, Carl.  People who deny that there is anything sexual about the furry fandom, would be like a Star Wars fan, who only reads comics about the goings on of Tattoine, saying that Star Wars isn't all about the movies, and that there are _definitely no Darth Vaders at the convention_.  (Okay, maybe one or two.  But not many!  They're a fringe group and most of us think they're super weird!)


----------



## Zrcalo (Apr 21, 2011)

Darth Vaders....
they are a fringe group.
and they're super weird.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 21, 2011)

Deathlightdb said:


> I agree with you, Carl.  People who deny that there is anything sexual about the furry fandom, would be like a Star Wars fan, who only reads comics about the goings on of Tattoine, saying that Star Wars isn't all about the movies, and that there are _definitely no Darth Vaders at the convention_.  (Okay, maybe one or two.  But not many!  They're a fringe group and most of us think they're super weird!)


 
Tattoine on the Star wars MMO was LITERALLY a gold seller's planet. :V
No one's denying it, just saying that it isn't entirely sexual.


----------



## â™¥Mirandaâ™¥ (Apr 21, 2011)

Deathlightdb said:


> I agree with you, Carl.  People who deny that there is anything sexual about the furry fandom, would be like a Star Wars fan, who only reads comics about the goings on of Tattoine, saying that Star Wars isn't all about the movies, and that there are _definitely no Darth Vaders at the convention_.  (Okay, maybe one or two.  But not many!  They're a fringe group and most of us think they're super weird!)



Read my post again and then realize why this comparison is flawed

a lot


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 21, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Tattoine on the Star wars MMO was LITERALLY a gold seller's planet. :V
> No one's denying it, just saying that it isn't entirely sexual.


 
Too bad they didn't blow it up like they did to the last gold seller planet. Much lulz would have been had.

Also does this thread have a point? I don't think anyone here is denying there is a sexual aspect in the community. All communities have a sexual aspect. Even the Roman Catholic Church. Yes that's a terrible joke. Point stands though. So what is the argument here? That all furries are somehow automatically fetishists or something? Well then what am I? Guess I'm not a real furry because the only time I look at porn is when I have to handle trouble tickets. ;v

Porn exists in every hobby group out there it seems. Go to a Science Fiction community and there will be porn of Darth Vader banging his daughter. Look online and you'll find role play sexual communities where someone claims to own Darth Vader and spank him for being bad. The internet is a strange place. I can't make sense of it sometimes. But if a group has porn it just means humans are involved. Putting any special meaning in over-analyzing things.

Ever go to a anime convention? Go the alley. Look, BOOBS EVERYWHERE GIANT MASSIVE BOOBS on t-shirts, on keychains, on massive blow up posters...they are everywhere. Does it mean something special? Not really. Go to a anime fan-fiction site and you'll see fan-fiction of Sephiroth screwing Tinkerbell using magic. Don't ask, fan peoples are retards. (for those going wtf, someone linked that on Gaia once, and spammed a thread with exerts)

Now could I borrow someone's eye bleach? I ran out of stock last night.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Apr 21, 2011)

After spending the last hour and a half reading this thread from start to... now, I've only come to the conclusion that people on here have very clear definitions of what the word "furry" implies, and that they _really_ don't like to change their minds on the matter.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 22, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> After spending the last hour and a half reading this thread from start to... now, I've only come to the conclusion that people on here have very clear definitions of what the word "furry" implies, and that they _really_ don't like to change their minds on the matter.


 
Yeah, and It's practically tragic. Some of the posts on this thread are equivalent to the practice of sitting down with your hands over your ears going â€œI wonâ€™t listen! I canâ€™t hear you!  Youâ€™re wrong! Nah nah nah!â€ 

Anyway, Iâ€™m not sure what we are discussing anymore. So to get this back on track, here are some statements one can either agree or disagree with. 

A: *Furries that find sexual interest in anthromorphic animal characters have developed this interest due to a complex sexual identity they are born with rather than different social factors *

B: *There is a certain similarity between the furry sexual identity (furries who like yiff) and what is commonly referred to as â€œzoophiliaâ€. *

C: *Furries that are into yiff represents a considerable portion of all furries, if not the majority. Research only reveals that many furries sees the fandom as a part of their lifestyle. Therefore, the notion that furry is a hobby doesnâ€™t quite do this community justice. *

----

Woah! The only conclusion I can draw from this post is that this subject is extremely sensitive. But fine, It was just my thesis. My opinion. You have every right to disagree but I can't help but feel you are overreacting a bit. To answer some of your questions: 




Randy-Darkshade said:


> I was subjected to a lot of cartoons when I was very young. I can remember being three or four years old and mom setting me on the sofa in front of the TV to watch cartoons like Tom and Jerry and the looney toons. As I got older I watched more shows such as The ChuckleWood Critters, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Swat Cats and many many more. the only cartoons with humans as characters I ever liked was anime.



Subjected? You developed an early interest to all cartoons like most children. As mentioned, children have a tendency to like anthropomorphism and zoomorphism. How many cartoons you have watched is irrelevant. The cartoons didn't develop your interest, you developed it yourself. 





Randy-Darkshade said:


> And? Have at any point said I wanted to fuck an anthro silly with my ten foot willy? No, I haven't. Just because I like seeing anthro's in their birthday suites doesn't instantly mean I want to fuck them sideways until the cows come home.



Easy mate. I wasn't suggesting you want to fuck "anthros" in birthday suits. Actually, I have no idea what anthros in birthday suits have to do anything we have discussed this far. I must have missed something. 




Randy-Darkshade said:


> Actually no. I have always had a sexual attraction to humans. I have never jerked myself off while looking at furry porn, and I swear down on my nieces life about that. The only thing I have jerked off too is human porn. I used to have porn videos/DVDs, threw them out when I got the internet. One of the first things I did when I got internet was search for human porn.



Easy there. Calm down. Take a deep breath. I'm not trying to judge you here mate, and if you find it offensive that I suggest that the furry paraphilia is result of biological tendencies, surely doesn't that say more about you than about me. Why on earth should I care what you fap to? Why do you even care to deny it? 

Anyway, what I wrote was "A sexual identity is something you are born with.". This is nothing you can deny. It's a scientific. Now, if you have no sexual interest in furries anthromorphic animal characters then you probably donâ€™t have that particular paraphilia. Itâ€™s as simple as that. It could also be that your love for furries is strictly platonic. 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Excuse-fucking-me? Assumption fucking much? I was going to remain civil but I wont sit here and be called a fucking zoophile. I have not once said I have a sexual attraction to anthro animals. You are making an assumption that just because I once got curious to know what anthros looked like under all those clothes that I have a sexual attraction to them.


Firstly, when you wrote in your first post that you were curious as to what anthros looked like naked, I simply assumed you were one of the yiffers. If thatâ€™s not the case, sorry, but itâ€™s nothing to worry about. Nonetheless, I never called you â€œa fucking zoophileâ€. But I did say that the yiffers in question might have a sexual identity that has something in common with zoophile. And most non-furries Iâ€™ve discussed this subject with seem to agree. Many furries as well, for that matter. And then we have furries that, without much arguments, would die before admitting being attracted to a cartoon animal has anything to do with attraction towards real animals. I respect their opinion as well. 

But the original meaning of the world zoophile â€œzoo â€“ animal, love â€“ philiaâ€ â€“ itâ€™s greek, means a love for animal. Which can be platonic in nature. If you think that animal characters are cute, if you think that noses, ears, paws or the just the way animal looks attracts you â€“ there might be a zoophilian tendency in there somewhere. 
That doesnâ€™t mean that you are zoosexual, or have any sexual attraction towards animals or furries. 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I never said I liked gay porn. I admit I have looked up stuff like herms, transvestites etc, but again I was young at the time and curious. All I search for these days is straight human porn to wank too. I should have said earlier when I first en-counted furry porn I was a lot younger than I am now.


What? Are you even reading what youâ€™re writing? You never said you liked gay porn BUT you looked up herms, transvestites etc? Sounds like an HUGE oversimplification to me. But sure, if you feel more confident convincing yourself that you are a fully normal heterosexual, thatâ€™s fine. I donâ€™t disagree, in fact I couldnâ€™t care less. My main thesis is the same. Humans that find sexual interest in â€œfurriesâ€ anthromorphic animal characters, have this interest as a result of their sexual identity. Not social factors. 

Are you even disagreeing with this or are you too busy trying to convince me youâ€™re not gay or into yiff, despite your tendency to â€œlook upâ€ herms and naked anthros and what not, simply because you are curious? Really isnâ€™t the old â€œcurious â€“argumentâ€ a bit old by now? Well, again. I donâ€™t judge you and Iâ€™m not in position to say what you are and not. 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> It's the way you assume things, miss interpret what is said (maybe intentionally or unintentionally) and paint every furry with the same brush even though you can not possibly know the back ground story to every fur in the fandom as to why they became a furry. I wouldn't actually be in this fandom if it were not for the friends I have made.


Thatâ€™s cute. Iâ€™m sure that if you asked one hundred different furries why they are in the fandom, you would get one hundred different stories. That doesnâ€™t in any way exclude the possibility of the furry attraction being the result of something bordering to a paraphilia, or a sexual identity they are born with. (At least not when it comes to the yiffers)
Again, all research that has been done to the furry fandom, and this is scientific research by the way, states that furries are people who basically never grew out of a certain phase which is indicated by a love for anthromorphic animal characters. If you want something to disagree with, disagree with that. 



Heimdal said:


> So if I got pissed off by the wind blowing dirt into my face, and called it "_stupid asshole wind,_" that would turn furries on? And not just a rare particular furry -- all furries. They would be born with that interest, by your reasoning, so they would all feel this pull. It is anthropomorphism to as much degree as any other form.
> 
> As well, anything would be a sex toy. All you have to do is name it, and it would be endowed with anthropomorphic sexual powers.


 
I meant anthromorphic animal characters. Or zoomorphic characters. Let's focus on the yiffers. Let's not forget that there's a huge, gigantic community of millions of furries that fap to yiff. Why are they doing that? How can that not be the result of some sort of sexual deviation that they are born with? Are you saying that this is the result of social factors?


----------



## Jashwa (Apr 22, 2011)

People are not born with sexual identity. It develops.

This isn't something you can argue. This is fact.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 22, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> People are not born with sexual identity. It develops.
> 
> This isn't something you can argue. This is fact.


 
You confuse the terms. People are born with sexual orientations, and given their sexual orientations, they develop their sexual identity. 

Would you say that homosexuals are homosexuals because of social factors? Of course, you wouldn't.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Apr 22, 2011)

Jashwa said:


> People are not born with sexual identity. It develops.
> 
> This isn't something you can argue. This is fact.


 
I think the point being made is that a sexual identity is not completely biologically hard-coded, nor is it completely social. Some people being born with a biological sexual identity that makes them more susceptible to paraphilias and sexual fetishisms of varying nature, that are introduced to them, forming their social sexual identity.

That's just how I understood it, and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject.


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 22, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> You confuse the terms. People are born with sexual orientations, and given their sexual orientations, they develop their sexual identity.
> 
> Would you say that homosexuals are homosexuals because of social factors? Of course, you wouldn't.


 

The link below is in reference to homosexuality, but the same concept applies. People are born with a lean towards certain sexual orientations, but without the social factors/atmosphere such an orientation may not be realized. This counts for all species. The most common factor that plays a roll in this is species population. It's shown in studies within laboratories as well as in observation of species in the wild that if the species becomes overcrowded that individuals within that populace will begin to emerge with alternate sexual orientations. This is seen in apes, canines, fowl, rodents and pretty much any species that has been studied on this premise, intentionally or inadvertently. This has been assumed to be a form of population regulation to ensure survival of a species.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5CbRGV8AAIQC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=homosexuality+in+lab+animals&source=bl&ots=x_hPQA4QNd&sig=7ahaIYOqm0nAB1LcSOaBk1ZoHn8&hl=en&ei=D5SxTZmrNIyctwfw_9jxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I could site hundreds of books and articles proving this. So in a way, you're both wrong (and both right)... I'm just saying this because I don't like the word "fact" just being thrown around.

For me, I think it would be fun to have sex in a costume with my girlfriend just because it would be fun/funny but I'm not going to go fap to a picture of someone in a costume. Conversely, it is still natural and neither I nor anyone else holds a right to criticize those who do hold it as a true sexual interest. When it comes down to it, you can't be brainwashed into a sexual orientation or identity by watching cartoons. It is merely a *NATURAL* predisposition realized.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 22, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Yeah, and It's practically tragic. Some of the posts on this thread are equivalent to the practice of sitting down with your hands over your ears going â€œI wonâ€™t listen! I canâ€™t hear you!  Youâ€™re wrong! Nah nah nah!â€
> 
> Anyway, Iâ€™m not sure what we are discussing anymore. So to get this back on track, here are some statements one can either agree or disagree with.



Well, despite what I have just been through today, I will look at those quotes below and reply in a more...civil? way.



> A: *Furries that find sexual interest in anthromorphic animal characters have developed this interest due to a complex sexual identity they are born with rather than different social factors *



After giving it some thought, I guess this could be true for some furries, but It would be wrong to assume it is true for all furries. I myself feel I developed the furry porn interest due to being, I guess accidentally shown some when I was being shown my friends hentai collection he downloaded. I hadn't thought about anthro's in a sexual way until I was shown some.



> B: *There is a certain similarity between the furry sexual identity (furries who like yiff) and what is commonly referred to as â€œzoophiliaâ€. *



I admit, I always wanted to deny this. However I do see some similarities there, however I don't consider liking anthros in a sexual way to be anything like zoophillia. My reasons for this is because I personally prefer anthros with human genitals over animal like genitals. If it were not for human like breasts, vaginas and penis, I wouldn't like anthros in such a way. The only relation to zoophillia I see is the fact that anthros are part animal.



> C: *Furries that are into yiff represents a considerable portion of all furries, if not the majority. Research only reveals that many furries sees the fandom as a part of their lifestyle. Therefore, the notion that furry is a hobby doesnâ€™t quite do this community justice. *



One thing we need to take into account here is, that just because an artist draws porn, doesn't mean they are into it. In this time where most of us need money, some artists would probably draw most things they are not into just to earn that extra cash. My tastes in furry porn are quite boring. I suppose to me I treat furry as a hobby. I online mostly in the evenings and the length time in the evenings I am on varies, could be one hour, could be six. It just depends on how tired I am, when I get home, and what sort of day I have had. First thing I do is check e-mails and apart from visiting my e-mails, the first site I usually go to are the forums to reply to some posts like this one. Then I check webcomics, ebay, and then I'll check FA to see what messages/subs I have in my inbox. I don't actually use FA's search feature, I just look at what's left in my inbox. I visit fchan once every other day and e621 once a day to see whats been uploaded under my fave species.

----



> Woah! The only conclusion I can draw from this post is that this subject is extremely sensitive. But fine, It was just my thesis. My opinion. You have every right to disagree but I can't help but feel you are overreacting a bit. To answer some of your questions:



I admit, I did probably overreact. Sorry.




> Subjected? You developed an early interest to all cartoons like most children. As mentioned, children have a tendency to like anthropomorphism and zoomorphism. How many cartoons you have watched is irrelevant. The cartoons didn't develop your interest, you developed it yourself.



All I can say is....true.




> Easy mate. I wasn't suggesting you want to fuck "anthros" in birthday suits. Actually, I have no idea what anthros in birthday suits have to do anything we have discussed this far. I must have missed something.



Sorry, it was the way I read your post.




> Easy there. Calm down. Take a deep breath. I'm not trying to judge you here mate, and if you find it offensive that I suggest that the furry paraphilia is result of biological tendencies, surely doesn't that say more about you than about me. Why on earth should I care what you fap to? Why do you even care to deny it?



Umm....point taken. I guess I was just pointing out not all furries are the same. I mean yes, I have an interest in some pornographic furry material, but I don't sit here and fap to it. Put some hidden cams in my room if you want and I'll prove it to those who think I am telling fibs.



> Anyway, what I wrote was "A sexual identity is something you are born with.". This is nothing you can deny. It's a scientific. Now, if you have no sexual interest in furries anthromorphic animal characters then you probably donâ€™t have that particular paraphilia. Itâ€™s as simple as that. It could also be that your love for furries is strictly platonic.



Well, as I already admitted I do have a sexual interest in anthros, however I would class it as a fetish and not a sexual identity. 



> Firstly, when you wrote in your first post that you were curious as to what anthros looked like naked, I simply assumed you were one of the yiffers. If thatâ€™s not the case, sorry, but itâ€™s nothing to worry about. Nonetheless, I never called you â€œa fucking zoophileâ€. But I did say that the yiffers in question might have a sexual identity that has something in common with zoophile. And most non-furries Iâ€™ve discussed this subject with seem to agree. Many furries as well, for that matter. And then we have furries that, without much arguments, would die before admitting being attracted to a cartoon animal has anything to do with attraction towards real animals. I respect their opinion as well.



I used to take part in yiff RP's many years ago, before I even got into the fandom, before I even joined these forums. I dunno, I just kinda lost interest in it. I pretty much only look at single nude anthro females, sometimes males. I'm not really interested in anything else. I think I denied a lot of things through fear I'd be judged by others on here.



> But the original meaning of the world zoophile â€œzoo â€“ animal, love â€“ philiaâ€ â€“ itâ€™s greek, means a love for animal. Which can be platonic in nature. If you think that animal characters are cute, if you think that noses, ears, paws or the just the way animal looks attracts you â€“ there might be a zoophilian tendency in there somewhere.
> That doesnâ€™t mean that you are zoosexual, or have any sexual attraction towards animals or furries.



This is a meaning of the word that many of us forget about.




> What? Are you even reading what youâ€™re writing? You never said you liked gay porn BUT you looked up herms, transvestites etc? Sounds like an HUGE oversimplification to me. But sure, if you feel more confident convincing yourself that you are a fully normal heterosexual, thatâ€™s fine. I donâ€™t disagree, in fact I couldnâ€™t care less. My main thesis is the same. Humans that find sexual interest in â€œfurriesâ€ anthromorphic animal characters, have this interest as a result of their sexual identity. Not social factors.



Well, I am still a virgin, at 28. Doesn't bother me though, sex irl has never really interested me. But I will admit, I could be bisexual, I mean I was walking behind a guy I know is gay and found myself eyeing him up.  I think part of me wants to deny that I may be bisexual. However I have not looked a gay porn in years. I could just be curious and still searching for a sexual identity. I do however have a stronger preference for girls. The stupid thing is I seem to attract more guys, online.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 22, 2011)

CarlMinez said:
			
		

> "A sexual identity is something you are born with.". This is nothing you can deny. It's a scientific.





> People are born with sexual orientations, and given their sexual orientations, they develop their sexual identity.



I think stating this as fact first requires it to be established as fact. It's kind of been a point of controversy for a long while. There's different theories on it, but I'm quite certain they aren't "scientific theories", just a bunch of sociological/psychological ideas nobody has been able to verify in the same kind of complete way.


----------



## Human (Apr 22, 2011)

As a non-fur, in sort of an outside looking in kindda thing, it is  pretty obvious that as a fandom, "Furry" maybe not be specifically gear  for the very PURPOSE of fetishism, but it IS structured so that  fetishists can get what they want out of it with little modification.

People who would otherwise have fetishes that relate to transformation  or what-have-you can easily slide on in and set up shop without  infringing on some sort of canon.  That's why it's not as weird to dress  as a Klingon or a Jedi yet people are kind of creeped out by a  fursuit.  Being attracted to Klingons can't really be compared to being  attracted to a wolf-fur because, well, Klingons just look like messed up  humans, and aren't real. 
Wolves ARE real, so the perseption there is "This person likes animals".


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 22, 2011)

Human said:


> As a non-fur, in sort of an outside looking in kindda thing, it is  pretty obvious that as a fandom, "Furry" maybe not be specifically gear  for the very PURPOSE of fetishism, but it IS structured so that  fetishists can get what they want out of it with little modification.
> 
> People who would otherwise have fetishes that relate to transformation  or what-have-you can easily slide on in and set up shop without  infringing on some sort of canon.  That's why it's not as weird to dress  as a Klingon or a Jedi yet people are kind of creeped out by a  fursuit.  Being attracted to Klingons can't really be compared to being  attracted to a wolf-fur because, well, Klingons just look like messed up  humans, and aren't real.
> Wolves ARE real, so the perseption there is "This person likes animals".



I can't really disagree with you. It all boils down to an outsiders perception of the fandom.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 22, 2011)

Human said:


> As a non-fur, in sort of an outside looking in kindda thing, it is  pretty obvious that as a fandom, "Furry" maybe not be specifically gear  for the very PURPOSE of fetishism, but it IS structured so that  fetishists can get what they want out of it with little modification.
> 
> People who would otherwise have fetishes that relate to transformation  or what-have-you can easily slide on in and set up shop without  infringing on some sort of canon.  That's why it's not as weird to dress  as a Klingon or a Jedi yet people are kind of creeped out by a  fursuit.  Being attracted to Klingons can't really be compared to being  attracted to a wolf-fur because, well, Klingons just look like messed up  humans, and aren't real.
> Wolves ARE real, so the perseption there is "This person likes animals".


 
I was wondering when you'd post.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 22, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I can't really disagree with you. It all boils down to an outsiders perception of the fandom.


 
It's a solid point. That said there are quite a few furs within the fandom who want to reinforce the idea of the fandom being just for fetishism so they can take even greater and more freer liberties when it comes to sex and smut as well as social standards...and it's out of selfishness. It's something the chew on when it comes down to furs arguing that the entire thing is "All for sex and fetish's". They don't say that for any other reason that it benefits them and on.


----------



## Human (Apr 22, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I was wondering when you'd post.


 Lol, are you serious?


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 22, 2011)

Human said:


> Lol, are you serious?


 
Nope. :V

But I agree with your point.


----------



## Ricky (Apr 23, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's a solid point. That said there are quite a few furs within the fandom who want to reinforce the idea of the fandom being just for fetishism so they can take even greater and more freer liberties when it comes to sex and smut as well as social standards...and it's out of selfishness. It's something the chew on when it comes down to furs arguing that the entire thing is "All for sex and fetish's". They don't say that for any other reason that it benefits them and on.


 
I doubt there is a conspiracy here where people go to great lengths to try and tarnish the reputation of the furry fandom.

I also don't hear _anyone_ claim it's just for sex (not in any serious light).

As far as "social standards" let's be honest, the REAL stereotype for furries is your dorky aspie fat fur, and I'd rather be a sexual deviant than a total fucking loser _any day _


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 23, 2011)

Ricky said:


> I doubt there is a conspiracy here where people go to great lengths to try and tarnish the reputation of the furry fandom.
> 
> I also don't hear _anyone_ claim it's just for sex (not in any serious light).
> 
> As far as "social standards" let's be honest, the REAL stereotype for furries is your dorky aspie fat fur, and I'd rather be a sexual deviant than a total fucking loser _any day _



After so many discussions dealing with retards who are so hell bent on going "NO GAIZ THIS FANDOM IS TOTALLY FOR SEX AND FETISH'S ONLY" I beg to differ. Of course one can easily assume the people who want the fandom to be an all accepting cumdumpster so they can shove it all in every's faces and never get a "No stop that" are probably dorky aspie fat furs. Or socially backwards sub-humans that can't seem to figure that soap is to bathe with not use as a lube when shoving a BD toy up their rectum.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 24, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well, despite what I have just been through today, I will look at those quotes below and reply in a more...civil? way.
> 
> 
> 
> After giving it some thought, I guess this could be true for some furries, but It would be wrong to assume it is true for all furries. I myself feel I developed the furry porn interest due to being, I guess accidentally shown some when I was being shown my friends hentai collection he downloaded. I hadn't thought about anthro's in a sexual way until I was shown some.



Thatâ€™s true. My theories are probably not true to all furries. And if I give the impression of being arrogant or anything of the like, Iâ€™m sorry. It wasnâ€™t my intention to give the impression that I think â€˜m in the position to say what you are and not. 



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I admit, I always wanted to deny this. However I do see some similarities there, however I don't consider liking anthros in a sexual way to be anything like zoophillia. My reasons for this is because I personally prefer anthros with human genitals over animal like genitals. If it were not for human like breasts, vaginas and penis, I wouldn't like anthros in such a way. The only relation to zoophillia I see is the fact that anthros are part animal.


Yeah, true. Then my theory might not apply very well on you or not at all. Anyway, Iâ€™m more into animal anatomy. I prefer sheaths for example. That might mean that there is more zoophilia in me than it is in you. If you can measure it like that. ^^ 


Randy-Darkshade said:


> One thing we need to take into account here is, that just because an artist draws porn, doesn't mean they are into it. In this time where most of us need money, some artists would probably draw most things they are not into just to earn that extra cash. My tastes in furry porn are quite boring. I suppose to me I treat furry as a hobby. I online mostly in the evenings and the length time in the evenings I am on varies, could be one hour, could be six. It just depends on how tired I am, when I get home, and what sort of day I have had. First thing I do is check e-mails and apart from visiting my e-mails, the first site I usually go to are the forums to reply to some posts like this one. Then I check
> webcomics, ebay, and then I'll check FA to see what messages/subs I have in my inbox. I don't actually use FA's search feature, I just look at what's left in my inbox. I visit fchan once every other day and e621 once a day to see whats been uploaded under my fave species.



Pretty similar to me I guess. Actually, this forum is really the first furry forum Iâ€™ve become involved in. I know furries from several other websites though. There are many things I like about the fandom. And there are things I donâ€™t like about it as well. (They way some treat certain fictional characters for example)



Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well, as I already admitted I do have a sexual interest in anthros, however I would class it as a fetish and not a sexual identity.



Could it be that itâ€™s a part of you sexual identity? I mean, a sexual identity is dynamic and can change and include many things. Iâ€™ve had several girlfriends but I still wouldnâ€™t call myself straight, for example.  



Randy-Darkshade said:


> I used to take part in yiff RP's many years ago, before I even got into the fandom, before I even joined these forums. I dunno, I just kinda lost interest in it. I pretty much only look at single nude anthro females, sometimes males. I'm not really interested in anything else. I think I denied a lot of things through fear I'd be judged by others on here.


Thatâ€™s terrible. What good is this forum for furries if users here are judgmental against other furries because of their preferences? The last thing our community needs is internal conflicts. 




Randy-Darkshade said:


> Well, I am still a virgin, at 28. Doesn't bother me though, sex irl has never really interested me. But I will admit, I could be bisexual, I mean I was walking behind a guy I know is gay and found myself eyeing him up.  I think part of me wants to deny that I may be bisexual. However I have not looked a gay porn in years. I could just be curious and still searching for a sexual identity. I do however have a stronger preference for girls. The stupid thing is I seem to attract more guys, online.



 My suggestion to you would be to just fuck around a bit. Youâ€™ll realize pretty fast what you are interested in and not. If you want to of course. It sounds to be that you could be pansexual. Anyway, you must be a very brave person given that you can open yourself up on this forum to the extent that you have. I admire that 



Heimdal said:


> I think stating this as fact first requires it to be established as fact. It's kind of been a point of controversy for a long while. There's different theories on it, but I'm quite certain they aren't "scientific theories", just a bunch of sociological/psychological ideas nobody has been able to verify in the same kind of complete way.



To the best of my knowledge, it has pretty much been proven that homosexuality is genetic. (Chromosome linkage, twin studies and so forth) Though the way we express our sexuality might change given environmental influences. 


It is important to understand that virtually all sexualities and paraphilias are a result of fundamental human tendencies that are biological in nature. Biologically, most humans are into the opposite sex of evolutionary purposes. Pedophilia could be seen as an amplification of a certain biological tendency which leads to a sexual development of that tendency. And in the case pedophilia, it is our instinct, our biological tendency to love children. This love is of course supposed to be only platonic but certain individuals develop this tendency a bit too far. Zoophilia could be explained in the same way. Humans that develop a sexual interest in animal that is more developed than the natural affection for animals that most humans are born with. This is also an amplification of a tendency.  

Perhaps furriesâ€™ interest in animals could be explained in a similar way. Perhaps we have a further developed loved for animals that is biological in nature, but leads us to the furry community and evolves into an interest in anthropromphic animals.  Because, in a way, they are a mix between animals and humans. 

This is my theory. 



Trpdwarf said:


> After so many discussions dealing with retards who are so hell bent on going "NO GAIZ THIS FANDOM IS TOTALLY FOR SEX AND FETISH'S ONLY" I beg to differ. Of course one can easily assume the people who want the fandom to be an all accepting cumdumpster so they can shove it all in every's faces and never get a "No stop that" are probably dorky aspie fat furs. Or socially backwards sub-humans that can't seem to figure that soap is to bathe with not use as a lube when shoving a BD toy up their rectum.



Of course that is just as stupid as denying that many furries are into yiff. And the assumption that furries are fat, socially alienated restarts who fuck plushies is just a way to discredit the fandom. 
Those trolls who probably spend 24/7 writing encyclopedia dramatic articles and spamming furry webistes probably have less of a social life than most furries.

Besides, why on earth would an interest in anthro animals lead to people being fat?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 25, 2011)

I respond to this to bring up one point. CarlMinez it would appear that you are not aware of the existence of a group called gainer-furs. There are quite a few people who classify themselves as "fat furs" meaning they are into fat art who are also into the gainer community. The mentality of this gainer community is exactly how it sounds. It exists simply to support weight gain. Now if there were some group looking to help people who are anorexic or something that would be fine...but it's not like this. These people are literally supporting an unhealthy amount of weight gain. I'm talking people who set goals to be 300,400, sometimes all the way up to 700 pounds in weight. Which means on average they are seeking to tack on at least 100 plus excess pounds a choice. These people are willingly killing themselves and shortening their own life for what reason I do not know.

I remember a few years ago coming across a group that was going to AC and they were very concerned that they might loose weight and were collaborating to ensure that they continue to gain weight, or at least stay the same. So that's a bit of interesting information for you there that there are some people who go from liking fatty art to try to emulate the idea and get looped into a gainer group.

EDIT: You know though way to go to miss the humor part of that post. I should point out though that there is something you might think about. While surely no one here is going to be asinine enough to deny that the furry fandom has a sexual aspect because after all, the fandom is full of human people who are sexual things...one cannot also deny that there is a certain allure to people who otherwise are bland, ordinary, or even..heavily overweight people.

Go to a convention some time of the furry nature. Look at people's badges. Often they have representations of the self they created as their online facade. Sometimes that alter self reflects the real self, but also sometimes the alter self reflects what the real self wishes to be! This is why you get people who are thin and scrawny having these muscle/body builder type fursonas. This is why you get very very heavy people with characters that are thin and idealized. This is why you get people who otherwise are bland, and perhaps to many people in society sexually unappealing ending up with characters that are eye catching and given human sex appeal mixed in.

Part of the whole sexual thing in the fandom reflects desperation of people who otherwise are considered in society to be sexually unappealing. It's something to think about that perhaps the sexual undertones represent more of a desperation for being that sexual diva that people wish they were, instead of the socially backwards undesirable that they feel they are in society. So think about that. If you are heavy, and feel shunned by society it's very easy to be something completely different when you enter the furry fandom. Just make a "Sexy avatar" and you can have people flocking to type fuck with you. ;/

I digress though any group that has a lot of online using people will run into that part of humanity that is sedentary lifestyles. If you do all of your interaction with people online because you can hide behind a persona it very well can lead to things like weight gain as you feel it unnecessary to pay attention to how you look in real life.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 25, 2011)

Since we're spilling life stories for research purposes, analyze this shit:

I will say that I've been much more attracted to anthro characters than humans since I developed an interest in sex, around the age of 11-12. It's particularly strong with reptilian characters. Even after having relationships, short as they may have been, this has not changed. Some people think it's caused by an exposure to cartoons with lots of anthro characters as a child, but why lizards then? There weren't any in the cartoons I watched or the games I played.

I think these characters represent abstractions and exaggerations of subtle human characteristics I like, and they happen to convey them better than any real human beings can. My preferences with furry characters has changed, along with my preference for real-life humans. I would've considered myself straight back in highschool/middle school. Even back at the beginning of my sexual development though, I was clearly genderqueer. I had resignations about being male. I wanted to be female, but I was dissatisfied with the options available to transexuals. This has always been present in my mind, but I tacitly acknowledged it and tucked it away due to family pressure, and personal anxieties.

In college... I was more curious, but I figured I was just open-minded, full of wild fantasies, and endowed with a particularly high sex drive. After I graduated, and the pressure from my decades-old social circle disappeared, it became pretty clear I was bisexual. Thinking back, scalies are pretty androgynous to begin with and I always liked that androgyny... that could have been a sign early on. There are non-human aspects I appreciate as well, more than any of the human aspects, and that's why I gravitated to furries instead of just comic book characters or anime. 

I feel like it's an important component of my sexuality. Interestingly, I have no other fetishes that I know of. 

I think in my case, being a furry is like being genderqueer, but with more than just gender. It's "Speciesqueer". I'm fully aware that I'm human, and there's no way my brain is part "dragon" or something ridiculous like that. I just don't like being human. I find the human body very bland and limiting.

I should mention: I'm very attractive in real life. I have a damn good body; I'm in great shape, and I know it. I'm on the thinner side, and so is my 'sona, and all the characters I draw for that matter. It's nothing to do with opposites.


----------



## Destiny (Apr 25, 2011)

furries are just anthro characters

is up to the person to put them in a sexual situation or not.

there is no set sexuality for furries.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 25, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I respond to this to bring up one point. CarlMinez it would appear that you are not aware of the existence of a group called gainer-furs. There are quite a few people who classify themselves as "fat furs" meaning they are into fat art who are also into the gainer community. The mentality of this gainer community is exactly how it sounds. It exists simply to support weight gain. Now if there were some group looking to help people who are anorexic or something that would be fine...but it's not like this. These people are literally supporting an unhealthy amount of weight gain. I'm talking people who set goals to be 300,400, sometimes all the way up to 700 pounds in weight. Which means on average they are seeking to tack on at least 100 plus excess pounds a choice. These people are willingly killing themselves and shortening their own life for what reason I do not know.


I'm sure it's just a hobby of theirs, and there's nothing sexual going on. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 25, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I'm sure it's just a hobby of theirs, and there's nothing sexual going on. :V


 
Of course it's _just_ a hobby of courting death. Nothing wrong at all because at least it's not sexual. :3 
Then again at 700 pounds I'm not sure if a person can even reach their tiddly bits to do anything sexual. ;v


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 25, 2011)

Spatel said:


> ... but why lizards then? There weren't any in the cartoons I watched or the games I played.
> 
> I think these characters represent abstractions and exaggerations of subtle human characteristics I like, and they happen to convey them better than any real human beings can...
> 
> ...I think in my case, being a furry is like being genderqueer, but with more than just gender. It's "Speciesqueer". I'm fully aware that I'm human, and there's no way my brain is part "dragon" or something ridiculous like that. I just don't like being human. I find the human body very bland and limiting...



 Well it's the "subtle human characteristics" that make them anthropomorphic in the first place so it's normal to hold attractions to those features fetish or no fetish. Ofc, being a form of art the artist is going to convey the more desirable human features more prominently. 

When a child's first developing sexual interest (especially in a particularly isolated household but applies either way) the sexual curiosity could form in many ways. Not having access to porn (like most kids) they'll explore the new found feelings in any way they can. There are the average ways; for some being a catalog they find, a channel riddled with static, or anything that triggers the natural instincts. Even an anthropomorphic creature would display the characteristics that would satisfy the child's urge. Heck, it's common for kids to hump the crap out of their stuffed animals. When I say any way, I mean *any way.* 
Most will eventually move out of this stage and move to chasing girls, but if a strong bond is formed with whatever they divulged in it could turn into a fetish. Like a form of love affair that they know they shouldn't be in. 
It may be a combination of zoophilia and your experiences of while you hit sexual maturity. It may just be one of the two. I'd say purely developmental though. As you delved more into the bond/fetish new features spark as sexual attractions purely out of association from past sexual encounters. It turns into the Seinfeld episode where George keeps eating sandwiches while having sex. Eventually he starts getting turned on whenever he eats a sandwich. That actually can happen. Would you say that he was born with a sexual orientation to wanting to have sex with sandwiches? No.
So,
Innocence>curiosity>association>satisfaction>fetish>association
if that makes sense to you. 
If you've formed this bond/fetish/love-affair then a normal human girl would seem sub-par/boring/bland in comparison, because she doesn't hold the features that you have come to associate with sexual experiences for so long.
As for you being attractive or not, self sex appeal pays no strong roll in if you develop a fetish or not while in development. You'll see attractive and unattractive people in every niche imaginable (unless your niche is somehow formed with the sole goal being to worship unattractiveness, like a fat fetish).

I could understand having the high sex drive. My girlfriend and I have at least 2 encounters on most days. She's bisexual and I'm straight. We're both into many different things that people would classify as "fetishes" but I just look at it as having fun. We've had threesomes and so on. I think the tension and _hush hush_ stance that many people hold on these things is more of something from past generations and is somewhat sputtering out. I don't really view myself as a fetish person though. I don't hold any strong bond to any one fetish group. It's all just for fun. You should be open to exploring new things as well as your current interests deeper and in person, not online. Heck, get body paints and have fun with someone painting each other as lizards. I think if you are more open with it with trusted partners then your sexual interests will broaden, mature, and as they mature they actually begin to take on an even stronger passion.

Before anyone says anything stupid. Both my girlfriend and I have done modeling for various companies. I've done marketing modeling and she ran her own alternative modeling website for a long while. We're not fat or looking to portray our features differently through costume. I think that theory holds true to a few people that fursuit, but not even close to the majority. We do it simply because it's fun.



Trpdwarf said:


> Of course it's _just_ a hobby of courting death. Nothing wrong at all because at least it's not sexual. :3
> Then again at 700 pounds I'm not sure if a person can even reach their tiddly bits to do anything sexual. ;v


 
I'm sure at that point they just %#^@ their own sweaty rolls or grind there tree stump thighs together until they achieve _satisfaction._ 
Either that or they tell the caretaker nurse that they lost a nacho under their roll and trick her into diving in there. 
[shudders]
Sorry, I'm a very understanding and accepting person, generally. Morbidly obese fat people freak me out though. If you have some extra pounds, fine. The human body was not meant to have built in sandwich storage compartments called rolls though.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 25, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I respond to this to bring up one point. CarlMinez it would appear that you are not aware of the existence of a group called gainer-furs. There are quite a few people who classify themselves as "fat furs" meaning they are into fat art who are also into the gainer community. The mentality of this gainer community is exactly how it sounds. It exists simply to support weight gain. Now if there were some group looking to help people who are anorexic or something that would be fine...but it's not like this. These people are literally supporting an unhealthy amount of weight gain. I'm talking people who set goals to be 300,400, sometimes all the way up to 700 pounds in weight. Which means on average they are seeking to tack on at least 100 plus excess pounds a choice. These people are willingly killing themselves and shortening their own life for what reason I do not know.
> 
> I remember a few years ago coming across a group that was going to AC and they were very concerned that they might loose weight and were collaborating to ensure that they continue to gain weight, or at least stay the same. So that's a bit of interesting information for you there that there are some people who go from liking fatty art to try to emulate the idea and get looped into a gainer group.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure which of my points you are disagree with here. Actually, I'm not even sure what to make out of your post. You spoke of fat furs and people who wanted to gain weight and then went on saying that the reason furries are attracted to slender, attractive characters is because they are fat personally? 

Okay, let me get this from the top. Social factors arent relevant. Furries aren't into yiff because they are fat. The explanation is by far more complex and is deeply rooted in their sexual identity. But even if such a connection could be established, it's certainly nothing exclusive to the furry fandom. Fat people will use misleading avatars to disguise themselves whether they are straight, gay, into anime or into yiff. The indicator here is the sexual orientation, not the weight of ones body.



ShepherdPaw said:


> Well it's the "subtle human characteristics" that make them anthropomorphic in the first place so it's normal to hold attractions to those features fetish or no fetish. Ofc, being a form of art the artist is going to convey the more desirable human features more prominently.
> 
> When a child's first developing sexual interest (especially in a particularly isolated household but applies either way) the sexual curiosity could form in many ways. Not having access to porn (like most kids) they'll explore the new found feelings in any way they can. There are the average ways; for some being a catalog they find, a channel riddled with static, or anything that triggers the natural instincts. Even an anthropomorphic creature would display the characteristics that would satisfy the child's urge. Heck, it's common for kids to hump the crap out of their stuffed animals. When I say any way, I mean *any way.*
> Most will eventually move out of this stage and move to chasing girls, but if a strong bond is formed with whatever they divulged in it could turn into a fetish. Like a form of love affair that they know they shouldn't be in.
> ...


 

That's an interesting theory you got there, Freud. 

But it sound more like personal speculations than something you'd read about in a biological thesis. Besides, if it was true that the furry attraction towards anthro characters is a result of that child's exposure to anthro character, then many more would be furries. And many would be into phonebooks. No, its not about whatever object you come to contact with sexually as a kid, it's about your genetics. The biological sexual orientation you are born with. The interest in animals originates from this, not childhood experiences. 

Now, why do people on this thread feel the need to speak of their life stories all the time?


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 25, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> That's an interesting theory you got there, Freud.
> 
> But it sound more like personal speculations than something you'd read about in a biological thesis. Besides, if it was true that the furry attraction towards anthro characters is a result of that child's exposure to anthro character, then many more would be furries. And many would be into phonebooks. No, its not about whatever object you come to contact with sexually as a kid, it's about your genetics. The biological sexual orientation you are born with. The interest in animals originates from this, not childhood experiences.
> 
> Now, why do people on this thread feel the need to speak of their life stories all the time?


 
You wouldn't see it in a biological thesis because it's a statement on child psychology not biology, genius. It's not so much an exposure to anthro characters from childhood as it is an absence of a regular sexual exposure beginning a search to satisfy those instincts in other outlets. The majority mature out of whatever they have chosen to hold as the object(s) of their sexual admirations as they begin to experience/notice the sexual aspects of those around them. This being a natural course as most grow discontent with what they are venting their sexual curiosity through, but some grow more attached to those outlets due to surrounding social factors.
As for having sex with phone books... I have no idea what the hell your talking about there. I get the feeling you're trying to make some form of an insult? It makes no sense either way. I'm not going to argue with an idiotic statement. Try to think before you speak.
To say that all people that are sexually attracted to anthro animals are born with that as an orientation is a gross (incorrect) simplification of human sexuality as a whole. You're going to try and say that a child's experiences as they hit sexual maturation has no contributing factors to their sexual interests? You're riddled with ignorance and idiocy then.

You brought up the topic of peoples sexual orientations. You're actually surprised when people take it as a personal topic and share their stories/experiences/opinions?
You really are the epitome of a trolling retard.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 25, 2011)

ShepherdPaw said:


> You wouldn't see it in a biological thesis because it's a statement on child psychology not biology, genius. It's not so much an exposure to anthro characters from childhood as it is an absence of a regular sexual exposure beginning a search to satisfy those instincts in other outlets. The majority mature out of whatever they have chosen to hold as the object(s) of their sexual admirations as they begin to experience/notice the sexual aspects of those around them. This being a natural course as most grow discontent with what they are venting their sexual curiosity through, but some grow more attached to those outlets due to surround social factors.
> As for having sex with phone books... I have no idea what the hell your talking about there. I get the feeling you're trying to make some form of an insult? It makes no sense either way. I'm not going to argue with an idiotic statement. Try to think before you speak.
> To say that all people that are sexually attracted to anthro animals are born with that as an orientation is a gross (incorrect) simplification of human sexuality as a whole. You're going to try and say that a child's experiences as they hit sexual maturation has no contributing factors to their sexual interests? You're riddled with ignorance and idiocy then.
> 
> ...


 

I like you.


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 25, 2011)

This shit is still going on? And it's still a nature vs. nurture debate?



			
				CarlMinez said:
			
		

> To the best of my knowledge, it has pretty much been proven that  homosexuality is genetic. (Chromosome linkage, twin studies and so  forth) Though the way we express our sexuality might change given  environmental influences.



Your knowledge sucks. Do research before claiming things like that. Everything I've found in regards to these studies has noted plenty of criticisms, including weaker results from the same types of studies repeated again. It has not been conclusive in the least bit.

People have felt the need to speak their life stories on this thread because it's exactly as relevant as your shit ass 'scientific evidence'.

I can't possibly have made myself say it nicer than this. Don't claim facts unless you're sure they're goddamn facts.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Apr 25, 2011)

If I were to draw the conclusion, that the reasons for becoming a "furry" are dependent on social factors _and_ biological factors, as well as the conclusion of the term "furry" not necessarily referring to a sexuality or fetish, neither only a hobby, but rather the whole spectrum of people who "like" anthropomorphic characters to varying degrees, why would I be wrong?

(I am very tired at the time of typing this, so I reserve the right to clarify this point tomorrow.)


----------



## Spatel (Apr 25, 2011)

As I recall, sexual preference was estimated around 30% correlated with genetic factors. Monozygotic identical twins don't always share the same sexuality. They're more likely to, but they still don't, and not in a "well one's bi 50/50 and the other's bi leaning gay". They can be complete opposites.

That rules out a 100% genetic input by necessity.


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 25, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I can't possibly have made myself say it nicer than this. Don't claim facts unless you're sure they're goddamn facts.


 
[Achievement unlocked: 1,000 Internets awarded on one post]



Spatel said:


> As I recall, sexual preference was estimated around 30% correlated with genetic factors. Monozygotic identical twins don't always share the same sexuality. They're more likely to, but they still don't, and not in a "well one's bi 50/50 and the other's bi leaning gay". They can be complete opposites.
> 
> That rules out a 100% genetic input by necessity.


 
I like how this thread actually has some intelligent people on it. Most online forums are filled with screaming 10 yro's... It's refreshing.


----------



## Human (Apr 26, 2011)

How is not as simple as "I like anthros. I like sex...how 'bout I indulge both at once?"  How does it become "so-and-so wasn't exposed to normal sex as a kid so now they developed a furry fetish as an adult?"  Over thinking it a bit, huh?


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 26, 2011)

Human said:


> How is not as simple as "I like anthros. I like sex...how 'bout I indulge both at once?"  How does it become "so-and-so wasn't exposed to normal sex as a kid so now they developed a furry fetish as an adult?"  Over thinking it a bit, huh?


 
did you bother reading the full post that I was responding to?
just because you don't care about psychology or bother questioning the cause and effect of things doesn't mean that others don't.






Bored with Photoshop. I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 26, 2011)

Human said:


> How is not as simple as "I like anthros. I like sex...how 'bout I indulge both at once?"  How does it become "so-and-so wasn't exposed to normal sex as a kid so now they developed a furry fetish as an adult?"  Over thinking it a bit, huh?


 It's not about liking furry porn. It's about preferring it to regular porn.


----------



## CarlMinez (Apr 26, 2011)

ShepherdPaw said:


> I have no idea what the hell your talking about there. I get the feeling you're trying to make some form of an insult?



You just managed to squeeze in at least five entirely unprovoked insults into one post. You should work on that nasty hypocrisy (Assuming of course that you meant â€œyouâ€™reâ€ and not â€œyourâ€). Might wanna work on that, too.



ShepherdPaw said:


> To say that all people that are sexually attracted to anthro animals are born with that as an orientation is a gross (incorrect) simplification of human sexuality as a whole.



Gross? Why donâ€™t you explain to me why this subject is to very sensitive to you to begin with?

Even so, youâ€™re just misunderstanding the point Iâ€™m trying to make here. Iâ€™m saying that sexual orientations might very well derive from biological tendencies rather than just environmental and social factors. And therefore, it is possible that also the sexual behavior displayed by â€œyiffersâ€ might be the result of â€œbiological tendenciesâ€.  I mean, we already have good reason to believe that also zoosexuality is genetic.  



ShepherdPaw said:


> You really are the epitome of a trolling retard.



Iâ€™m not the one resorting to name-calling. Just saying. 



Heimdal said:


> Your knowledge sucks. Do research before claiming things like that. Everything I've found in regards to these studies has noted plenty of criticisms, including weaker results from the same types of studies repeated again. It has not been conclusive in the least bit.


Oh really now, Heimdal. I know you can behave better than that if you want to. 
Anyway, not that I wish to question your google-searching abilities, the criticism you found probably comes from confused conservatives or the Christian Right. These groups couldnâ€™t be more out of touch with the scientific community.  

Read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa 


Heimdal said:


> People have felt the need to speak their life stories on this thread because it's exactly as relevant as your shit ass 'scientific evidence'.



My shit ass scientific evidence? That sentence alone makes me chuckle. Nonetheless, this is not my evidence. That biological influence plays a part in homosexuality has more or less been scientific consensus since the 90s. (Then again, there is also scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming and people are still debating that - only proving how terribly stupid "people" are)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.o...=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT#BIBL

Interesting quote: 

_â€œIn recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. The high concordance of homosexuality among monozygotic twins and the clustering of homosexuality in family pedigrees support biological models. There is some evidence that prenatal androgen exposure influences development of sexual orientation, but postnatal sex steroid concentrations do not vary with sexual orientation. The reported association in males between homosexual orientation and loci on the X chromosome remains to be replicated. Some research has shown neuroanatomic differences between homosexual and heterosexual persons in sexually dimorphic regions of the brain.5 Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.4,5 â€â€_



Heimdal said:


> I can't possibly have made myself say it nicer than this. Don't claim facts unless you're sure they're goddamn facts.



If you can express yourself more courteously than you just did, doesnâ€™t that say more about you than it does about me?

Regarding my "claimed facts". In the text you quoted from me, i did write "to the best of my knowledge". Not only are you overreacting, you don't have a proper reason to react in the first place. 

--

I mean seriously, whatâ€™s wrong with you people? Research and debates aside, some of your posts are just nasty. Youâ€™re like an angry, defensive mob! The worst thing is that you are confirming the negative furry stereotype in that you are all reactionary, stubborn and easily aggravated, instantly accusing people of being trolls whenever they have a conflicting opinion.

So, in order to dial things down a few notches, here are some pictures of puppies:


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 26, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Junk


 

Congrats. :V
You have proven that furries are the only people get more sex than any nerddom subculture. :V
Phew! I feel special now. :V



> The worst thing is that you are confirming the negative furry stereotype in that you are all reactionary, stubborn and easily aggravated, instantly accusing people of being trolls whenever they have a conflicting opinion.



It is human nature to show aggresiveness , especially towards certain topics that people have already a strong set schema hammered in place. The most of what you are doing is putting gas into a small fire before urinating on it. What you are trying to do is force people to accept a stereotype and justify it psuedo-logic and broken psychology, which in it is turning this topic into a game of ring-around-the-rosie. 

Also, we could just call you "idiot" if you would like instead of "troll", but it isn't nice to call people names. :V


----------



## Heimdal (Apr 26, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Oh really now, Heimdal. I know you can behave better than that if you want to.
> Anyway, not that I wish to question your google-searching abilities, the criticism you found probably comes from confused conservatives or the Christian Right. These groups couldnâ€™t be more out of touch with the scientific community.
> 
> Read this:
> ...



Did you know that scientific studies can be biased? It usually happens in a lot of studies that require groups of people. Each study is only 100% true in the exact conditions they were taken in. (Well, it seems like they weren't even 100% true there either, so that compounds the problem.) Extremely little was actually proven, however, the media often takes data and makes exaggerated assumptions about it. Science doesn't work by scraping together every supporting bit of data it can just to argue it proved something. I'm not sure what "confused conservatives or the Christian Right" has to do with criticism, particularly when the criticism against these studies are age-old issues, and the only people I've seen deny them are maybe the media and clearly people like you. The criticism seems to stand regardless of you thinking it doesn't.

If you read that first article closely, you would notice that all the people running the studies ever said was that genetics 'had something to do with it.' What that means in sciencey talk, is that they found a starting point for future studies, and maybe they'll have findings that means something in another 20 years. Starting point =/= proven consensus.

I agree that genetics do play a role, but there is no consensus on the degree of that role. Nor is there consensus on it being the primary factor at all. (Your theories seem to assume that there is.)

Of course, then there is the massive issue of *environmental effects upon genetics.* Those studies weren't even trying to prove any part of this. There's plenty of reason to believe that shit doesn't stay exactly the same from birth onward. Of course, I'm not going to say there's a full scientific consensus on this, because that would be incredibly stupid and wrong at this point in time.

My problem wasn't that you brought up this stuff, but that you claimed it as immutable truth. And not even that, but you've derided other people's ideas using this stuff. You are far overstepping the scope of these studies.



> If you can express yourself more courteously than you just did, doesnâ€™t that say more about you than it does about me?
> 
> Regarding my "claimed facts". In the text you quoted from me, i did  write "to the best of my knowledge". Not only are you overreacting, you  don't have a proper reason to react in the first place.



It certainly does. It says that I don't like stupid. I don't know if you're stupid or not, but your 'theories' were certainly disappointing to read.
For the record, I did say, "_Your knowledge sucks!_" which covers the 'to the best of your knowledge' claim. I think I still stand by it.


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 26, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Gross?



"grossâ€‚ â€‚
[grohs]
adjective, -er, -est, noun, plural gross for 11, grossÂ·es for 12, 13; verb
â€“adjective
1.
without deductions; total, as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc., before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like ( opposed to net): gross earnings; gross sales.
2.
unqualified; complete; rank: a gross scoundrel.
3.
*flagrant and extreme: gross injustice.*"
There's more meanings to the word dependent on how it's used (just like any word), but we'll just focus on #3.



CarlMinez said:


> That's an interesting theory you got there, Freud.
> 
> But it sound more like personal speculations than something you'd read about in a biological thesis. Besides, if it was true that the furry attraction towards anthro characters is a result of that child's exposure to anthro character, then many more would be furries. And many would be into phonebooks. No, its not about whatever object you come to contact with sexually as a kid, it's about your genetics. The biological sexual orientation you are born with. The interest in animals originates from this, not childhood experiences.
> 
> Now, why do people on this thread feel the need to speak of their life stories all the time?





CarlMinez said:


> Even so, youâ€™re just misunderstanding the point Iâ€™m trying to make here. Iâ€™m saying that sexual orientations might very well derive from biological tendencies rather than just environmental and social factors. And therefore, it is possible that also the sexual behavior displayed by â€œyiffersâ€ might be the result of â€œbiological tendenciesâ€. I mean, we already have good reason to believe that also zoosexuality is genetic.



You flat out said "its not about whatever object you come to contact with sexually as a kid, it's about your genetics" and now are attempting to back track. I never said that they *just* derive from one or the other. In fact, I'm fairly certain that I voiced that people too often diverge sexual orientation and sexual identity too great of an extent, in an early post of this thread. They are both contributing factors. To what extent each contributes to this is debatable, but my opinion is that the majority is from sexual development at childhood. It just makes more sense. If it was something genetic then you'd see furies commonly throughout history, but you don't. Meaning that it has to be more on the side of development. I was simply explaining the reasoning behind that. If you want to see *how* I *still* believe genetics still contributes a *small* amount towards being into yiff, then look up my previous posts (if you want). Basically, I argued both sides just for the fact of understanding both sides. Both have their reasonable stance in each sexual niche. Between identity and orientation, one will play as a stronger contributing factor dependent on the niche. Homosexuality has been around since history has been recorded and occurs no matter what the atmosphere of the individual is. So, it's obviously sexual orientation. You can't say the same for furries and yiff. So it has a strong lean towards sexual identity from a child's development. I wouldn't say "blame Barney and Cartoons!" because it's more complicated than that. It's the overall social conditioning that people are growing up with these days. 
Either way, In all of my posts I had said the same thing; It's a natural process (even if it's a new process) that some people are into yiff and it shouldn't be criticized by others (including other furries). Now of course that sentence is debatable depending on your take on the word "natural". Let me clarify, with the social construct that our society exists in today it is natural. The sexual identity (and fetishes) being from a child's sexual development resulting from environmental factors it was in a way birthed from society, because society as the environment played the key roll in it's (yiff's) creation. So socially, it is indeed natural... Even if many in society doesn't want to recognize it as such. That's my reasoning at least. I'm pretty sure that's a sound argument for that part. I don't want to read it repeatedly. If it it isn't then point it out and I'll throw another one at you, I like debating shit.

On another side of things, I've noticed that at many points you make a statement and then meet the contradiction to your statement with redirection. You focus on a few words of the contradicting argument and ignore the rest. I don't doubt that you are capable of proper reasoning, but you're not defending the majority of your statements properly. You keep playing a passive aggressive card and then try to act bigger then people when they insult you back... It's like... like the logic of a preteen girl. I know this comment itself is fairly insulting, but you do have your scattered moments of clarity when you speak logically. This is actually intended to be more of a constructive criticism. If you spoke with flat logic then you may still be wrong at times, but at least people would meet you better in discussion... Just a thought. Of course, I am still typing on a forum sooooo I never really expect people to really *read* my words on these things. Merely graze the context and then scream some gibberish back at me. It's nice when people do read it though. Overall people seem to be more intelligent on furaffinity forums then most website forums, so that's nice. /sighs


----------



## Human (Apr 26, 2011)

ShepherdPaw said:


> did you bother reading the full post that I was responding to?
> just  because you don't care about psychology or bother questioning the cause  and effect of things doesn't mean that others don't.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not saying I don't like psychology or anything. I'm just saying people tend to read too damn much into things.  
Also...what is that you posted onto the V-Man's head?


----------



## ShepherdPaw (Apr 26, 2011)

Human said:


> I'm not saying I don't psychology or anything. I'm just saying people tend to read too damn much into things.
> Also...what is that you posted onto the V-Man's head?


 
ah, agreed. sometimes they do. I generally don't take things too seriously but I was trying to meet a serious inquiry with a serious answer.
It's a raccoon furry wearing a feathered hat. The sketch filter sort of muddles it though. I did it in like 4-5 min. lol


----------



## Icky (Apr 26, 2011)

I think this thread has more TL;DR text walls than any other recent thread here.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 27, 2011)

I like how I offer up a whole different point of seeing things as OP ignores it. Good one dude. Either it went over your head of you can't be bothered to touch a side of things that doesn't fit in with your garbled, ill-mashed together excuse for logic.

Let me restate things for you.

1: Nobody that I know of that is a regular serious member and poster on Fur Affinity Forums denies the existence of sexual content within the furry fandom. So there was no point to even bringing that up in your first point. We don't deny the smut, but we deny the stupid ideas around it.
2: Find some legit study that shows there is a furry porn gene in genetics and people might take you a little more seriously.
3: You seem to have this idea that I am saying that fat = furry, or furry = fat. It does appear you are kind of missing the entire point that I am making. Please remember that when you stated this: "And the assumption that furries are fat, socially alienated restarts who fuck plushies is just a way to discredit the fandom."that you were RESPONDING TO HUMOR with SERIOUS DISCUSSION.

However there is a point to be made about those gainer furs. These people engage in a behavior that makes them unappealing to the majority of society. I know it's not nice but that's how things are. In many places like America being 500, 600, 700 plus pounds makes you sexually unappealing to other people and it socially ostracizes you. So it's no big surprise that a community online that allows you to hide your real identity behind pure fantasy and escapism so that no one has to know what you look like in real life...attracts these kind of people.

It attracts more than massively overweight people. It attracts any group or person that is ostracized from society either for physical reasons or personal ones (being too socially awkward, rebelling against reasonable social norms etc). Once they get in here and the join up with the furry fandom they get to make these characters to represent their self that needs to have no actual basis on who they are. Then they can have this big smutty orgy spending their money on commissioning porn, porn, and MORE PORN.

The entire point that I am making here is that if you want to put any special meaning behind the smut or people being drawn to it within the fandom here is something to think about it. For anyone who thinking that being a furry, or being attracted to the smut could be tied to growing up exposed to the concept of anthro-animals via media...well the idea I am proposing here fully plays into that.

If you grew up with anthro-animals as something you were regularly exposed to out of choice or because that's what your parents made you watch or read, you probably are going to be slightly inclined to be a furry later on. However if you end up growing up being that social outcast, that person who didn't see a point to a lot of the pointless stuff your peers paid attention to ....if you grew up into a person who was made to feel unwanted, and undesired than a community that you are already somewhat inclined to lean towards because of what you were exposed to is going to wholly appeal to you for the ability to engage in pure fantasy. To be what ever you wanted to be. If you want to belong to a majority all you have to do is make your fursona a fox or a dog or a wolf. Then automatically you have a group. Then you can find people to type fuck if you so desire, and even comission oodles of porn. You can get so much and it doesn't matter what you look like.

TO OP: try to understand that except for the very beginning of this post I am not making points against what you have said. I am offering up a different way of viewing the furry fandom and it's sexual side.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 27, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> I like how I offer up a whole different point of seeing things as OP ignores it. Good one dude. Either it went over your head of you can't be bothered to touch a side of things that doesn't fit in with your garbled, ill-mashed together excuse for logic.



This is why I stopped posting in here ages ago.


----------



## lobosabio (Apr 27, 2011)

Why is this thread still going?


----------



## anero (Apr 27, 2011)

This thread delivers. I love you FAF.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 27, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> This is why I stopped posting in here ages ago.


 
Understandable. Can't hurt though to throw out something that's tantalizing to think about even if the OP is going to ignore it or respond with gibberish. Maybe other people could respond with some intelligent discussion.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 27, 2011)

ShephardPaw said:
			
		

> Homosexuality has been around since history has been recorded and occurs no matter what the atmosphere of the individual is. So, it's obviously sexual orientation. You can't say the same for furries and yiff. So it has a strong lean towards sexual identity from a child's development. I wouldn't say "blame Barney and Cartoons!" because it's more complicated than that. It's the overall social conditioning that people are growing up with these days.



Zoophilia has been around just as long, and it's present in all cultures. Related fetishes like furries probably have as well. New technology reveals facets of humanity that were previously more concealed. I highly doubt this is a new, aberrant phenomenon. This is just one of those aspects that hasn't been researched yet, and hasn't been looked for. 




			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> 2: Find some legit study that shows there is a furry porn gene in genetics and people might take you a little more seriously.


This is complicated. Sexual preference has genetic influences, not direct causes. There are probably genes that make someone more amenable to the idea of yiff porn, and we could find them if we looked, but just like they gay genes they could be completely boring autosomal genes that merely happen to push someone in that direction if the environment plays along.



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> It attracts more than massively overweight people. It attracts any group  or person that is ostracized from society either for physical reasons  or personal ones (being too socially awkward, rebelling against  reasonable social norms etc). Once they get in here and the join up with  the furry fandom they get to make these characters to represent their  self that needs to have no actual basis on who they are. Then they can  have this big smutty orgy spending their money on commissioning porn,  porn, and MORE PORN.


I don't like this mentality. While it carries some truth, like all stereotypes, there are socially well-adjusted, incredibly attractive furries out there, that just want to get yiffed hard. Implying that all furry fetishists have problems reminds me of the old derogatory saying that "Lesbians are just bitter ugly women that can't get dates". Fetish or sexuality, it's the same kind of slur.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 27, 2011)

Spatel said:


> This is complicated. Sexual preference has genetic influences, not direct causes. There are probably genes that make someone more amenable to the idea of yiff porn, and we could find them if we looked, but just like they gay genes they could be completely boring autosomal genes that merely happen to push someone in that direction if the environment plays along.



You are talking as if a "gay gene" is fact. It isn't, so stop it. There is no evidence to suggest there is a gay gene.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 27, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You are talking as if a "gay gene" is fact. It isn't, so stop it. There is no evidence to suggest there is a gay gene.


 If you read the post you quoted and read my previous posts in the thread you'd notice that I think the genetic influences for sexuality are minimal compared to environmental factors and emotional states. I don't agree with CarlMinez in that regard, and I think the research on sexuality has been mostly looked at the wrong things.

For instance, most of the difference in brain structures between gay and straight men could be explained by a difference in handedness. Most gay male brain structures fit within the normal range for straight male brains.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 27, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Zoophilia has been around just as long, and it's present in all cultures. Related fetishes like furries probably have as well. New technology reveals facets of humanity that were previously more concealed. I highly doubt this is a new, aberrant phenomenon. This is just one of those aspects that hasn't been researched yet, and hasn't been looked for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter if you like the mentality or not. Are you going to argue that we do not get people making use of the whole ability to hide behind an ideal self(fursona), and using the fandom to hide and get acceptance instead of to just appreciate anthro animal media?


----------



## Spatel (Apr 27, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> It doesn't matter if you like the mentality or not. Are you going to argue that we do not get people making use of the whole ability to hide behind an ideal self(fursona), and using the fandom to hide and get acceptance instead of to just appreciate anthro animal media?


 
I'm not arguing we don't get that but honestly if someone's 300lbs IRL there's only so much a fursuit can do at that point. It's like when fat cartoon characters tiptoe behind a skinny tree to hide. It just doesn't work.

Otherwise I've seen furries at meets and conventions. They're more attractive than most groups of nerds--not that that's saying much, but it's a minor achievement we can be proud of.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 27, 2011)

Spatel said:


> I'm not arguing we don't get that but honestly if someone's 300lbs IRL there's only so much a fursuit can do at that point. It's like when fat cartoon characters tiptoe behind a skinny tree to hide. It just doesn't work.
> 
> Otherwise I've seen furries at meets and conventions. They're more attractive than most groups of nerds--not that that's saying much, but it's a minor achievement we can be proud of.



I'm not talking about real life interactions here. Lets not derail this. I'm talking about the draw of what is arguably the biggest mover and shaker of this fandom: The internet. On the internet you get pure anonymity. The amount of anonymity you get in the furry fandom is damn near legendary. No matter what you look like, no matter what you sound like, no matter what turns you on...you can fit in. Weight, race, religion, nothing matters if you choose to hide as many do behind avatars, and user-names. When you fuck up? Find some other group that has not heard of you yet. Change user-name, be smart enough and you find acceptance all over again.

This kind of mentality is going to drive part of the porn industry within the fandom. It's where people can jack of, type fuck, do what every they want and who they are in real life and what they look like DOES NOT MATTER. I don't care it it makes people uncomfortable but that's the reality here in this fandom. The people you meet in real life at fur-meets and furcons are going to be much more decent folk...or at least you hope because the consequences of being an extreme fuck up are going to be more severe and social niceties start to matter.


----------



## Spatel (Apr 28, 2011)

The people at conventions are the same people online. *I* go to conventions. Also there are porn stands at conventions, and unlike the internet, you can't filter them out anymore.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 28, 2011)

Spatel said:


> The people at conventions are the same people online. *I* go to conventions. Also there are porn stands at conventions, and unlike the internet, you can't filter them out anymore.


 
So you are not getting the point. That's fine too. But remember the people you see at conventions do not represent all of the furry fandom.


----------



## Oopslol (Apr 29, 2011)

People take fursuiting/furry/furry sexual lifestyles/ect. too seriously.  I got into the fursuiting/furry culture by watching previous conventions via Youtube as well as reading numerous forums and talking to countless individuals/groups.  

I don't partake in the "yiffing" portion of things (yiffing is to furry as hentai is to anime), and would rather go to a convention in suit for the sheer fun/silliness/immersion of it (as well as to meet some friendly/fun looking individuals) not because I consider myself to be sexually attracted to these anthropogenic creatures.  Again as mentioned countless times in this thread, furry and any "side dish" of furry is expressed in ones own way/style.  Arguing about it serves no purpose but to cause more tension and stress.


----------



## Ziggywolf (Apr 29, 2011)

"raises his walking stick" I remember back in my day when people were more in to "funny animals" cartoons and the like and the yiffy stuff wasn't that apperent and you were considdered dirty if you were in to bdsm. I see a lot of youngins coming in to the fandom mostly interested in cartoons, sparkle dogs and drawing.  
That being said I do like my dose of sex and violence, but it's not the main focous.


----------



## Calemeyr (Apr 29, 2011)

How about we start cleansing the fandom? We need to segregate those "special" furries into their own "special" place. Because they are "special"ed up in the head.


----------



## Oopslol (Apr 29, 2011)

The great furry purging?


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 30, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> How about we start cleansing the fandom? We need to segregate those "special" furries into their own "special" place. Because they are "special"ed up in the head.


 Wont work, anime tried that, instead anime came to terms with their hentai and fuck up shit as "Yes we have a creepy uncle...so?"
Some of Furry is still going "NO, we dont have a creepy uncle, that person isnt part of our family"


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 30, 2011)

1dynamofox1 said:


> How about we start cleansing the fandom? We need to segregate those "special" furries into their own "special" place. Because they are "special"ed up in the head.



Let's start with you then. :v


----------



## Myrkrvaldyr (Apr 30, 2011)

I really dont mind furry pr0n, i will admit that there are a few pictures i actually do 'like' (if you get my drift). 

In my eyes, you are free to like whatever you want. Whether it be normal porn, furry porn, or even zoophilia, look at whatever the hell you like, just keep it away from me 
(especially zoophilia. i sometimes wonder who woke up in the morning and decided it would be fun to try sex with a dog :/, but hey, whatever floats your boat)


----------



## blessthebeast (Apr 30, 2011)

> the term hobby just doesnâ€™t do the fandom justice. Itâ€™s a paraphilia, or  perhaps even something bordering to a sexual orientation.


 you state the "fandom" should be labeled as a "paraphilia". last time I checked we the "fandom" are a collection of individual minds and opinions. to say something so blunt as "this is not a hobby, its a paraphilia. we all yiff" (maybe you didnt say that but thats how it came off to me) 

how would this effect the other non yiffing community, if this was labeled as a paraphilia? possible alienation and disownment of other communities. perhaps saying this is a hobby is a way to keep everyone safe?

thinking of this as a orientation is a joke. sorry to put that bluntly but it is. the only way to fathom it as a orientation is if furries from a  space ship land on earth and breed with us. other than that its just a "paraphilia" 

now I personally have no problem with yiff, my first experience with furries was actually coming across a very sexy picture of a bunny girl. (made by a renown website) so I of all people do not find the acts wrong in anyway.

look at it from this point though. if we decided as a majority to accept the fandom as a sexual preference. then many of those who just like to have fun and meet people will in a instant abandon ship. (man will the trolls have a field day with that one) I think this argument is irrelevant anyways. just have fun, meet people and above all play nice.


----------



## Machine (Apr 30, 2011)

blessthebeast said:


> you state the "fandom" should be labeled as a "paraphilia". last time I checked we the "fandom" are a collection of individual minds and opinions. to say something so blunt as "this is not a hobby, its a paraphilia. we all yiff" (maybe you didnt say that but thats how it came off to me)
> 
> how would this effect the other non yiffing community, if this was labeled as a paraphilia? possible alienation and disownment of other communities. perhaps saying this is a hobby is a way to keep everyone safe?
> 
> ...


...Lol.

You put a little bit too much thought in that.


----------



## blessthebeast (Apr 30, 2011)

sorry. Its kinda a weakness of mine. I use to be in a debate team so I kinda get lost in the moment...rofl if only their was a off button *looks to monitor* oh wait *click*


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Apr 30, 2011)

What the fuck no not reading all that


----------



## Evelon (Apr 30, 2011)

blessthebeast said:


> you state the "fandom" should be labeled as a "paraphilia". last time I checked we the "fandom" are a collection of individual minds and opinions. to say something so blunt as "this is not a hobby, its a paraphilia. we all yiff" (maybe you didnt say that but thats how it came off to me)
> 
> how would this effect the other non yiffing community, if this was labeled as a paraphilia? possible alienation and disownment of other communities. perhaps saying this is a hobby is a way to keep everyone safe?
> 
> ...



Well, I read it all.

I agree fully. If we map it off as a "sexual orientation" then we forcefully ostracize those who don't yiff. They won't be considered "normal" by the masses, who will assume they do yiff because it will be considered "common knowledge" that furry is an orientation. However, they'll be chased from furry community for wanting to avoid the more adult content. That just doesn't seem fair.

Besides, anything on the planet can be a "sexual orientation" with just the right mindset. Shit, we've got people who love strip poker and what not. How about nudist colonies? Most of them don't consider it a "sexual" kind of thing, but what feels natural to them, just like a lot of furries. Anything can be sexual, especially objects and styles. Location-location-location.


----------



## Machine (Apr 30, 2011)

blessthebeast said:


> sorry. Its kinda a weakness of mine. I use to be in a debate team so I kinda get lost in the moment...rofl if only their was a off button *looks to monitor* oh wait *click*


I've got a younger sibling on a debate team and I'm naturally debative. From what I know, in an actual debate, you don't go "looking for an off button," you stay in there and make sure to fuck your opponent over the debate, given that you have evidence to support your side of the argument.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Apr 30, 2011)

Evelon said:


> Well, I read it all.
> 
> I agree fully. If we map it off as a "sexual orientation" then we forcefully ostracize those who don't yiff. They won't be considered "normal" by the masses, who will assume they do yiff because it will be considered "common knowledge" that furry is an orientation. However, they'll be chased from furry community for wanting to avoid the more adult content. That just doesn't seem fair.
> 
> Besides, anything on the planet can be a "sexual orientation" with just the right mindset. Shit, we've got people who love strip poker and what not. How about nudist colonies? Most of them don't consider it a "sexual" kind of thing, but what feels natural to them, just like a lot of furries. Anything can be sexual, especially objects and styles. Location-location-location.


 
My interpretation of the whole terminological problem is that the "furry fandom" should be used as an umbrella term that includes both the non-yiff people, the fetishists, and the people who take it as far as to consider it a sexuality.

I don't see why there is a need to throw everybody in the same pot. The furry fandom (as per the above definition) is too diverse for that.


----------



## Evelon (May 1, 2011)

Well look at it like this. Lots of people love Star Wars and Star Trek, but God knows some people take it too far. As a result, the ones who don't take it as far still want to be called Trekies or whatever, but without the negative feedback or assumptions. I still like being called a furry; quite proud. Just...not put on a parade or act like it's the center of my world kind of proud.


----------



## blessthebeast (May 1, 2011)

Moth said:


> I've got a younger sibling on a debate team and I'm naturally debative. From what I know, in an actual debate, you don't go "looking for an off button," you stay in there and make sure to fuck your opponent over the debate, given that you have evidence to support your side of the argument.


I agree, but most people dont conduct themselves as people of debate do. they turn to swears and off logic to get their way. or just completely turn off and deny everything being said. its not fun debating with a wall, but if I am called on then I will. they also take it as a personal attack against there character, in debate you act professional.

lol you understand right?


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (May 1, 2011)

Evelon said:


> Well look at it like this. Lots of people love Star Wars and Star Trek, but God knows some people take it too far. As a result, the ones who don't take it as far still want to be called Trekies or whatever, but without the negative feedback or assumptions. I still like being called a furry; quite proud. Just...not put on a parade or act like it's the center of my world kind of proud.


 
The thing about that is that it has more to do with the public view on things, negative stereotypes in particular. Once a group gains a stereotype, it usually sticks around. Anything related to the furry fandom already has a very bad stereotype associated with it, and that's not going to change no matter how much we debate the matter. 

Even if one doesn't engage in the naughtier sides of the fandom, they're still there as a different part of it. I have a hard time imagining many of the "sexual furries" not considering themselves to be "clean furries" as well, as in, enjoying the thought of furries beyond porn. It's just a matter of how far one takes it.


----------



## Myrkrvaldyr (May 1, 2011)

Wolf-Bone said:


> What the fuck no not reading all that


 
TLDNR


----------



## CarlMinez (May 16, 2011)

Oh, geez. I almost started hoping this thread had been closed. It seems the puppy didn't help much. 




Heimdal said:


> Did you know that scientific studies can be biased? It usually happens in a lot of studies that require groups of people. Each study is only 100% true in the exact conditions they were taken in. (Well, it seems like they weren't even 100% true there either, so that compounds the problem.) Extremely little was actually proven, however, the media often takes data and makes exaggerated assumptions about it. Science doesn't work by scraping together every supporting bit of data it can just to argue it proved something. I'm not sure what "confused conservatives or the Christian Right" has to do with criticism, particularly when the criticism against these studies are age-old issues, and the only people I've seen deny them are maybe the media and clearly people like you. The criticism seems to stand regardless of you thinking it doesn't.
> 
> 
> If you read that first article closely, you would notice that all the people running the studies ever said was that genetics 'had something to do with it.' What that means in sciencey talk, is that they found a starting point for future studies, and maybe they'll have findings that means something in another 20 years. Starting point =/= proven consensus.
> ...




That genetics play a role when it comes to sexual orientations is a matter of scientific consensus. No, of course there is no consensus on to which point it is biological but I thought that was understood. Anyway, that biology plays a role when it comes to sexual orientations is a matter of scientific consensus is all I wanted to prove with that previous post. Now, my personal theory that I expressed before, that genetics is the only thing that affects which sexuality we develop and that social factors can only affect how we choose to express our sexuality, is nothing I tried to prove with those sources. - Because, again it is my theory. It's a common theory but it's nothing I will be able to prove at this point. But what I wrote in the post back to you is that homosexuality and genetics have been linked, in response to your "Do research before claiming things like that." 


Heimdal said:


> It certainly does. It says that I don't like stupid. I don't know if you're stupid or not, but your 'theories' were certainly disappointing to read.
> For the record, I did say, "_Your knowledge sucks!_" which covers the 'to the best of your knowledge' claim. I think I still stand by it.


No, you accused me of wrongly claimed that homosexuality is genetic. What I did write was â€œto the best of my knowledgeâ€ so I never even claimed it to be facts. So basically, you had no reason to react the way you did.  Just so happens that genetics and biology has been linked to homosexuality a long time ago. There is no consensus that it is exclusively genetic  (Iâ€™d say itâ€™s only a matter of time though) but itâ€™s certainly genetic.  
Anyway, you have every right to disagree and come with your own opinion. But I say it again, expressing an opinion is one thing. Coming with insults is another. And it's nothing you can justify by saying "well I think you're wrong therefore I insulted youâ€. 


ShepherdPaw said:


> You flat out said "its not about whatever object you come to contact with sexually as a kid, it's about your genetics" and now are attempting to back track. I never said that they *just* derive from one or the other. In fact, I'm fairly certain that I voiced that people too often diverge sexual orientation and sexual identity too great of an extent, in an early post of this thread. They are both contributing factors.



I think that social factors have no effect on your sexuality. But what Iâ€™ve been trying to prove with sources and scientific references is not that social factors are proven irrelevant â€“ which you and Heimdal seem to think I do â€“ but that it is proven that genetics play an important role.

Now given that, my personal hypothesis is 1. If all sexual orientations have genetic explanations there might be something genetic about the process of becoming a furry as well, and 2. That social factors are irrelevant when it comes to major sexual orientations like, for example, homosexuality. 

And while weâ€™re discussing homosexuality, do you seriously think that your childhood can make you a homosexual? Do you think that gender non-conformity can make you attracted to the scent of another male? Do you think that family influences can change your brain structure, hormone system and everything else? And while youâ€™re at it, why do you think that there is such a huge interest to prove that homosexuality is the result of environmental influences?  

What I think is that your childhood, depending on where you grow up and who you have contact with, might convince you that there is no such a thing as homosexuality or that the definition doesnâ€™t apply to you of various reasons. It might also make you confused about your sexual identity. But those things can only affect our behavior. But your sexuality itself is deeply rooted from birth. However, it can take a person quite some time to find just what sexuality he or she has. Just look at the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is common amongst thousands of species. They donâ€™t grow up in families. They are not subject to any cultural influences. Nature creates homosexuality from birth because it has a function in evolution. A purpose in nature.  (We have good reasons to think so http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution )



ShepherdPaw said:


> â€ƒ
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Aegis (May 16, 2011)

I read it all while taking a shit and must say it was unnecessary.


----------



## CarlMinez (May 16, 2011)

Then why did you read it?


----------



## Maisuki (May 16, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> Then why did you read it?


 
How would he know what it says without reading it?

Also, what I found interesting, you said that you were suprised that it wasn't dead, but replied to it while it was dying.


----------



## CarlMinez (May 16, 2011)

Maisuki said:


> How would he know what it says without reading it?
> 
> Also, what I found interesting, you said that you were suprised that it wasn't dead, but replied to it while it was dying.



Aren't we being a bit snappish? 

Anyway, it was quite a post. So you'd think he would realize it didn't interest him about halfway into it. Besides, I don't see the point of sharing that information with the thread in the first place. It was obviously an answer to several people who had commented on things I wrote before so the post wasn't unprompted. 

And I can't tell whether the thread is dying or not. I've been questioned while gone so here's my response.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (May 16, 2011)

back when I was 11 or 12, I joined a furry art forum. At the time, I had NO idea what a furry even was. But I loved animals, and almost all of my art was anthropomorphic. And seeing these incredible artists draw anthros only inspired me more. I loved everything and everyone on the forum.

but then my parents read a thread on it. It was about what people will think of furries who reveal the nature of their...interests? (sorry, can't think of a better word, feel free to correct me). the poster made a connection with the CSI episode about furries. They immediately assumed the site was full of sexual furries and that it was a dangerous place to be. I personally never read anything sexual on the forum, otherwise I would have freaked out and never visited the site again.

So this post is about how the CSI episode portrays furries. Almost everyone in my family and most of my friends have seen the CSI episode. When someone says furry, they assume they are talking about people that have sex in fursuits. And while it is true, some furries have sex in fursuits, it's not the whole fandom. People see bits and pieces of the fandom and try and define it that way. Most people have not done much looking into the fandom, so they're really not aware of the different types/levels of furries.

I'd say this is largely a matter of ignorance. People who assume all furries are sexually attracted to anthro animals are not wrong because of their despise for furries, but because they simply lack the knowledge to know that furry is not all about sex.


----------



## CarlMinez (May 17, 2011)

That CSI episode portrayed fursuiting as the main core of the fandom. Of course many people like it but it's really not *that* common. Not that I find anything wrong with it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 17, 2011)

CarlMinez said:


> That CSI episode portrayed fursuiting as the main core of the fandom. Of course many people like it but it's really not *that* common. Not that I find anything wrong with it.



Actually, I'd say it was the opposite, many furries don't like it.


----------



## Ozriel (May 17, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Actually, I'd say it was the opposite, many furries don't like it.


 
And not many know that PAFcon was an actual real convention before it was shut down after the release of the CSI episode.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 17, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> And not many know that PAFcon was an actual real convention before it was shut down after the release of the CSI episode.



You mean the con featured in CSI was actually a real convention?


----------



## Ozriel (May 17, 2011)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> You mean the con featured in CSI was actually a real convention?


 
Yerp. 
From what I know, the producer worked with a few of the furries and did the script. The furries weren't happy with the script, but went a long with it anyway.
Trp could tell you more about it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (May 17, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Yerp.
> From what I know, the producer worked with a few of the furries and did the script. The furries weren't happy with the script, but went a long with it anyway.
> Trp could tell you more about it.



Well, I learned something new.


----------



## Trpdwarf (May 17, 2011)

This thread is now closed. It has been necro'd, and the stench of this dead horse is goddamn awful.


----------

