# Sex and furries; How did this happen?



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

There's something quite peculiar about the furry fandom. Sure, all fandoms have a sexual side to it, but with furries it's somehow become a norm and "mainstream" in the fandom in comparison to other fandoms I know of. Most of the bigger furry community sites are also a much too easy access to porn.

How did this happen? Despite the many times I've tried arguing in favor of porn (god knows why, I was kind of a bitch back in the day) I've always felt that things have grown out of hand in this community and that the porn and sex culture within furry should really be more discreet and behind closed doors instead of being the way it is now.

So, furries (outside of FAF), why do you choose to behave this way? You really have no one to blame but yourselves when no one wants to be near you.


----------



## Tao (Jan 30, 2012)

Well, since perhaps the fandom started as a sexual fetish and their name was "skunk-fucker" that may have contributed to our modern image. And many furries are only here for the porn


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Tao said:


> Well, since perhaps the fandom started as a sexual fetish and their name was "skunk-fucker" that may have contributed to our modern image. And many furries are only here for the porn


While the term "skunkfucker" (which could easily be applied to me, AUGH) did exist back in the day the fandom wasn't really started as a sexual fetish. Believe it or not, there was a time when someone thought "You know what this fandom needs, MOAR SEX" a couple of decades ago. Poor man must've really eaten his own words.


----------



## Tao (Jan 30, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> While the term "skunkfucker" (which could easily be applied to me, AUGH) did exist back in the day the fandom wasn't really started as a sexual fetish. Believe it or not, there was a time when someone thought "You know what this fandom needs, MOAR SEX" a couple of decades ago. Poor man must've really eaten his own words.



IMO it's got something to do with people looking for more exotic sex things and there are always those weird people that have a million fetishes just so they can get cyber-laid. The mainstream idea of us isn't too favorable and people like Chewfox sure didn't help much

skunkfucker =P


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Jan 30, 2012)

I blame furries, they seem to corrupt everything. :v


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jan 30, 2012)

Because the fandom has, at some point, become the "all-accepting" shit hole of the net, I believe that's what convinced all the worst kinds of fucked up people to congregate here. Zoophiles, pedophiles, rapists, con artists... the lot. 
I realize that pretty much any cultures will have this shit, but because of the "accepting" nature (or the reputation of it in this regard) of the fandumb, and furries' need with backing up other furries no matter what for some fucking weird reason, the sick fucks feel emboldened to talk about or even promote their sick bullshit out in the open.
Other furries won't chastise them and "kick them out of furry forever."
They will tell them "OH YOURE SO BRAVE!!!" and feed their ego. And these people _know this_. It happens way too often.


----------



## Vega (Jan 30, 2012)

It's like Peanut Butter & Chocolate, it just went together. :V


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2012)

I have no shame in saying I found FA and the fandom entirely because FA sourced most of the images on an exotic porn site I frequented.

It's like gravity, man. A small mass of sexualised material attracted more sexualised people, so the mass got bigger, and attracted more...


----------



## Commiecomrade (Jan 30, 2012)

I really don't care. I don't project my fetishes, so if people object to what I fap to, that's none of their business anyway.

So my answer is, people who do project their fetishes should really take a second thought as to the ramifications of such actions. Of course, we're dealing with furries, though.


----------



## Dreaming (Jan 30, 2012)

I rarely hang around in the fandom outside of FAF, except for the IRCs...

I dunno, at a vague guess and assumption I would say that it has become such a strong stereotype, that it's reinforced itself within the fandom..........if that makes sense?


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jan 30, 2012)

With so many people wanting sexual oictures of their own cahracter there is bound to be lots of porn.


----------



## Ames (Jan 30, 2012)

Sex and Star Trek; How did this happen?

Inb4 because young William Shatner was a sexy beast


----------



## Tao (Jan 30, 2012)

JamesB said:


> Sex and Star Trek; How did this happen?
> 
> Inb4 because young William Shatner was a sexy beast



You can't honestly look at a klingon and tell me they don't make you just OOZE out of your pants.

Can you?


----------



## Ames (Jan 30, 2012)

Tao said:


> You can't honestly look at a klingon and tell me they don't make you just OOZE out of your pants.
> 
> Can you?



Klingon S&M is so sexeh

vid related

[yt]nxPKNX1oWyw[/yt]


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 30, 2012)

So far as I can tell, the basis of the entire fandom, aside from the obvious animal thing, is just to tell people to feel free doing whatever they enjoy, have fun and not worry about what others think of them. Get a bunch of teenage boys, and some slightly older but no more mature, many of them decent artists and writers, who seem to make up the vast majority of members, and tell them that, and before long they're bored of normal porn and want to draw something more exotic.
And of course, with the reputation that creates, that affects the sorts of new members that get drawn in. (though for myself, I wasnt interested in that side originally, it took nearly a week for me to get corrupted over on the main site.)

The only criterea for being a member is to say you are, indeed, that seems to be the only rule of any sort, so noone can really be officially disowned and removed, and who are the sorts of people out there willing to call themselves members still..?
It's a continual cycle where just these sorts of people are drawn in and do well, and all others avoid any connection to them.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

I have no idea. I've heard about a thousand different stories as to why this is the case. As someone who's involvement in the fandom is mainly for the clean stuff, it annoys me greatly. I don't mind that the porn exists or anything. I just hate how up front the fandom is with it. I don't wanna be part of a kinky sex cult, I wanna be part of a fandom for animal people. :C


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 30, 2012)

When I first saw the title I thought it was a spam bot. When I looked at the OP realized it wasn't.

Well I guess the reason why sex is more integrated into the furry fandom is people looking for a better sexual thrill. Also rule 34.


----------



## Recel (Jan 30, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> When I first saw the title I thought it was a spam bot. When I looked at the OP realized it wasn't.
> 
> Well I guess the reason why sex is more integrated into the furry fandom is people looking for a better sexual thrill. Also rule 34.



I'm kind of tired of "Cuz rule 34!".

Yes, everything has porn made of it, but no, that's not the reason why furrys stick their porn all over the internet without even thinking "I realy shouldn't post my crappy fetish here.".


----------



## Ad Hoc (Jan 30, 2012)

I read an article about it a few years ago, and according to that, the whole thing is basically one guy's fault. I guess back when furry was just getting off the ground, it was a little sexualized like most fandoms but not to the extent it is now, but one dude who was involved with setting up the first major conventions started advertising it really heavily in fetish clubs instead of at sci-fi cons, etc., As a result, that early generation of furries was pretty sketchy and set the scene for hypersexualization, and the fandom just never quite recovered. If it weren't for that one goddamn dude, furry might have turned out a little more . . . hm, respectable I guess. 

As far as I remember, the dude was Jim Groat, but it's been years since I read the article and it might have been bullshit anyway.


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 30, 2012)

Well, what one man can do, another can undo, with enough time and effort.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Jan 30, 2012)

Probably lots of reasons. One might be it goes against various cultural norms and so it is comfortable with doing something against mainstream opinion and one of those things is more openness about sex. Sex is just one of many physical actions two people can perform and it's more a historical and cultural reason why sex is hidden instead of people playing golf than it has anything to do with sex being fundamentally unique.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

SIX said:


> I have no shame in saying I found FA and the fandom entirely because FA sourced most of the images on an exotic porn site I frequented.
> 
> It's like gravity, man. A small mass of sexualised material attracted more sexualised people, so the mass got bigger, and attracted more...


I fucking love physics, man.



JamesB said:


> Sex and Star Trek; How did this happen?
> 
> Inb4 because young William Shatner was a sexy beast


FUCKING TREKFAGS, STOP SHOVING YOUR FETISH DOWN OUR GOD DAMN THROATS BECAUSE NO ONE NEEDS TO KNOW THAT YOU LIKE TO WATCH A TV SHOW ABOUT SPACE



Ad Hoc said:


> I read an article about it a few years ago, and according to that, the whole thing is basically one guy's fault. I guess back when furry was just getting off the ground, it was a little sexualized like most fandoms but not to the extent it is now, but one dude who was involved with setting up the first major conventions started advertising it really heavily in fetish clubs instead of at sci-fi cons, etc., As a result, that early generation of furries was pretty sketchy and set the scene for hypersexualization, and the fandom just never quite recovered. If it weren't for that one goddamn dude, furry might have turned out a little more . . . hm, respectable I guess.
> 
> As far as I remember, the dude was Jim Groat, but it's been years since I read the article and it might have been bullshit anyway.


I think I heard something like that too but I've had some slight difficulties believing that one person could cause such a massive change in the fandom. I'm afraid I might be wrong, though. D:


----------



## Sparko (Jan 30, 2012)

People who look at porn can't get any of it in real life. It's only going to get worse from here.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Tao said:


> IMO it's got something to do with people looking for more exotic sex things and there are always those weird people that have a million fetishes just so they can get cyber-laid. The mainstream idea of us isn't too favorable and people like Chewfox sure didn't help much
> 
> skunkfucker =P


I forgot to address this but I don't really blame Chewfox for anything because she was only ONE furry and if furries were a little more secure about themselves then nobody would've cared. If furries get angry because she came clean about this, then what are people supposed to be think? The whole reaction obviously implied that we're hiding something.



Sparko said:


> People who look at porn can't get any of it in real life. It's only going to get worse from here.


Troll harder, mate.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Jan 30, 2012)

Well maybe we can hope for in a few years less of the sexual stuff to die down and be private.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well maybe we can hope for in a few years less of the sexual stuff to die down and be private.


How's that supposed to happen when the fandom just keeps growing and new communities (most of them being pornographic) are being made quite regularly?

It's kind of a shame FA is the biggest furry community site around, things might've been a little different if a strictly PG or PG-13 site had that kind of status instead. I mean, most of the stuff on FA is clean so it's hardly impossible, is it?


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 30, 2012)

Sparko said:


> People who look at porn can't get any of it in real life. It's only going to get worse from here.



I watch porn with my husband like it was national geographic or something and I fuck like a rabbit. Your point is moot. 


INB4 married people/straight people/females dont exist in the fandom :V


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2012)

Sparko said:


> People who look at porn can't get any of it in real life. It's only going to get worse from here.


Well, that's not true. Last time I got some, it was simply _because_ of his and my 'sonas.


----------



## Greg (Jan 30, 2012)

Artists need money and sex sells. Simple as that. It's purely economics.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 30, 2012)

Because furries. 

I don't have an interest in furry porn, but that's just me.


----------



## Heimdal (Jan 30, 2012)

egregrious said:


> Artists need money and sex sells. Simple as that. It's purely economics.



Furries are cheapskates. Even a lot of the more famous furry artists may as well be working at McDonalds. I'm pretty sure a good artist can make more money doing clean images of ponies than furry art right now.
All I ever see is "struggling furry artist". I don't believe it's a big money business. Maybe there's 1 or 2 out there who found a way, but that's not enough to say much.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Jan 30, 2012)

The story of that dude advertising in shady areas may explain most of it, but I really just blame the nature of the internet. Face it, anonymity is what helped most people explore the weird and/or creepy shit out there that just happens to pop some boners.






Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Sex is just one of many physical actions* two people *can perform



Or in the fandom's case, 5 foxes and a horse


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 30, 2012)

DevistatedDrone said:


> Or in the fandom's case, 5 foxes and a horse




Don't forget a whole team of sled-dogs, too!


----------



## BRN (Jan 30, 2012)

DevistatedDrone said:


> Or in the fandom's case, 5 foxes and a horse



Or, a fox and five horses.


----------



## DevistatedDrone (Jan 30, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Don't forget a whole team of sled-dogs, too!





SIX said:


> Or, a fox and five horses.



Fuckit
They're all Sergals now.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Jan 30, 2012)

DevistatedDrone said:


> Fuckit
> They're all Sergals now.




you rang?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 30, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> you rang?



2sergals1fox


----------



## VoidBat (Jan 30, 2012)

Because of sometimes, extremely vivid and perverted imagination. 

There's also a loose hypothesis about a few furries being nerds/virgins, and has yet to engage in any sexual activities beyond dating Mr. or Mrs. Hand. So thus they worship and glorify the subject. Of course, it's just one of my many loosely based thoughts, since I have no wish to make any investigations on the fandom's sexual history. My sanity might be damaged, but it's not entirely lost.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Jan 30, 2012)

I don't know how it happened but I wish it would go away.

I'm glad my mother doesn't know how to google.


----------



## Haru_Ray (Jan 30, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I have no idea. I've heard about a thousand different stories as to why this is the case. As someone who's involvement in the fandom is mainly for the clean stuff, it annoys me greatly. I don't mind that the porn exists or anything. I just hate how up front the fandom is with it. I don't wanna be part of a kinky sex cult, I wanna be part of a fandom for animal people. :C


My thoughts exactly.
I also am in it for the clean stuff but I knew that getting into it, there would be some "not so clean" stuff out there.
Its something all gotta tolerate I guess.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Because furries.
> 
> I don't have an interest in furry porn, but that's just me.


I'm getting a little bored of the "because furries" explanation to most things here but I guess there isn't much else to say. We're a pretty hopeless bunch!



Heimdal said:


> Furries are cheapskates. Even a lot of the more famous furry artists may as well be working at McDonalds. I'm pretty sure a good artist can make more money doing clean images of ponies than furry art right now.
> All I ever see is "struggling furry artist". I don't believe it's a big money business. Maybe there's 1 or 2 out there who found a way, but that's not enough to say much.


What about the ones that run pay sites like Sexyfur? I hate to bring that up because I think pay sites are quite lame but it does make me interested in what sort of cash they make on that. It must be more than nothing since way too many people on my watch list contribute to these things which is an instant mood-killer for me.



DevistatedDrone said:


> Fuckit
> They're all Sergals now.


You forgot to say they're herms.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> 2sergals1fox



Sign me the fuck up!


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 30, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Sign me the fuck up!



Didn't we do that on SL already?


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Didn't we do that on SL already?


Yes but I want more


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jan 30, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Yes but I want more



Omgnowaymefirst. >:C


----------



## Spatel (Jan 30, 2012)

I think a full-on freaky sex community would be too intense, too weird to be any fun. At the same time if furry were reduced to a nerd hobbyist community it would become boring, lame, and stupid.

So I like where it is; sort of in the middle. Not quite a group of innocent artsy nerds, and not quite a sex cult. It ends up being the best of both worlds: a group of people that express themselves more freely sexually than they could in society at large, but with a creative element and common interest that adds some depth and outsider accessibility to the community.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 30, 2012)

Cause of people and the previous generations not saying anything
Give it a couple more years and it will be normal to say the furry fandom is a fetish and should be treated as one.
Time fixes...and destroy things


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Spatel said:


> I think a full-on freaky sex community would be too intense, too weird to be any fun. At the same time if furry were reduced to a nerd hobbyist community it would become boring, lame, and stupid.
> 
> So I like where it is; sort of in the middle. Not quite a group of innocent artsy nerds, and not quite a sex cult. It ends up being the best of both worlds: a group of people that express themselves more freely sexually than they could in society at large, but with a creative element and common interest that adds some depth and outsider accessibility to the community.


I sorta agree with you but I think there's a problem when it seems like porn has become a norm rather than a fraction of it.

Unfortunately there isn't much else to our fandom. We aren't really known for being that interested in cartoons (oddly enough) and we don't really create a lot of content that's interesting to the outside world except porn.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

Spatel said:


> I think a full-on freaky sex community would be too intense, too weird to be any fun. At the same time if furry were reduced to a nerd hobbyist community it would become boring, lame, and stupid.
> 
> So I like where it is; sort of in the middle. Not quite a group of innocent artsy nerds, and not quite a sex cult. It ends up being the best of both worlds: a group of people that express themselves more freely sexually than they could in society at large, but with a creative element and common interest that adds some depth and outsider accessibility to the community.


Ahhh yes, the fandom's freedom of sexual expression. Truly this level of sexual freedom and creativity is a positive characteristic of the fandom. Just look at the shitting dicknipple foxtaurs eating each other with their asses. It is such a great and remarkable thing!


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Ahhh yes, the fandom's freedom of sexual expression. Truly this level of sexual freedom and creativity is a positive characteristic of the fandom. Just look at the shitting dicknipple foxtaurs eating each other with their asses. It is such a great and remarkable thing!


Well, it's not really negative. Just really gross.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 30, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Well, it's not really negative. Just really gross.


to most folks on the inside on the fandom and to many on the OUTSIDE of the fandom that went "WTF did I just look at?"


yes even anime fans would go WTF to what we have


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Well, it's not really negative. Just really gross.



Most people tend to consider gross things negative.

Again, I'm not against the idea of the fandom having porn and stuff. It's just way too mainstream and in your face.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> to most folks on the inside on the fandom and to many on the OUTSIDE of the fandom that went "WTF did I just look at?"
> 
> 
> yes even anime fans would go WTF to what we have


Anime fans aren't really entitled to do that though because they invented most of the shit we indulge ourselves in.



Mentova said:


> Most people tend to consider gross things negative.
> 
> Again, I'm not against the idea of the fandom having porn and stuff. It's just way too mainstream and in your face.


I don't really like the "in your face argument" because it feels like people can apply that to ANYTHING they don't like but I agree with you to an extent, previous generations have kind of let this go too far.

I would strongly urge FA to drop porn altogether and let other sites like Inkbunny or e621 take care of that but with the current staff members that ain't happening, rofl.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 30, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Anime fans aren't really entitled to do that though because they invented most of the shit we indulge ourselves in.


While they may have put down the foundation, we just take things to a whole new level of creepy.  yes there are some things anime still beat out the furry fandom at but there are things the furry fandom beats out anime at


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> While they may have put down the foundation, we just take things to a whole new level of creepy.  yes there are some things anime still beat out the furry fandom at but there are things the furry fandom beats out anime at


In other words, anime fans and furries are circle jerking each other.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Anime fans aren't really entitled to do that though because they invented most of the shit we indulge ourselves in.
> 
> 
> I don't really like the "in your face argument" because it feels like people can apply that to ANYTHING they don't like but I agree with you to an extent, previous generations have kind of let this go too far.
> ...



It is in your face though. FA may have a mature filter, but how many furries have you talked to that brought up porn? I've had furries I've met for about 5 minutes start asking me to send them porn or typefuck them and it wasn't one-off occurrence. Hell, AC had a giant bad dragon booth proudly displaying it's banner and boxes of dildos in the dealer's room. Even if you try to stay clear of the porn, it _will_ find you. Hence my "in your face" statement.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 30, 2012)

Mentova said:


> It is in your face though. FA may have a mature filter, but how many furries have you talked to that brought up porn? I've had furries I've met for about 5 minutes start asking me to send them porn or typefuck them and it wasn't one-off occurrence. Hell, AC had a giant bad dragon booth proudly displaying it's banner and boxes of dildos in the dealer's room. Even if you try to stay clear of the porn, it _will_ find you. Hence my "in your face" statement.


I suppose. When I think "in your face" I think of occurrences outside of regular furry sites or conventions and I don't see that happening a lot.

I'm used to people just looking at some screen cap of a fetish site and then go "OMG THEY'RE SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS" even though THEY'RE the ones looking at a site that has nothing to do with them.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Jan 30, 2012)

Shit, bad dragon is in the dealers room being obvious at AC?

I'll be busy finding a distraction for my mother now.. she thinks it's a good idea to stalk me at AC... NO.


----------



## knarmahfox (Jan 30, 2012)

I get what you are saying. Sex in the furry fandom is more open unlike other fandoms. But you can ask yourself this question to. Sex and humanity; How did this happen? I guess you have to really look at humanity. Sex sells and is most popular. I know this cause I tested it before. I uploaded a track to FA years ago with a basic photo as a thumbnail, I topped at about 7-10 views. Then a few days later i uploaded it with a semi yiffy picture and the track gotten over 100 views. I cant speak for all but, Sex is natural, and I guess the fandom is the one group that portrays it openly. Its not a bother to me, but I do wish that It would tame out a bit at least, I hate talking to furs that only are interested in yiff. Yes I love the art and its pleasurable, but theres is way more than yiff to being a furry. Its not anyones fault as much as it is humanity's. 

Some just want the attention, but dont understand the repercussions of doing it so, and way to openly. There are enough people out there to bad rap the furries cause of this, but I wouldn't fuel their fire of hate. Besides, theres nothing they can do about it anyway. Its a shame how much they waste their breath on it. Makes you wonder what they would do if they actually did something with their time.



Kellie Gator said:


> There's something quite peculiar about the furry fandom. Sure, all fandoms have a sexual side to it, but with furries it's somehow become a norm and "mainstream" in the fandom in comparison to other fandoms I know of. Most of the bigger furry community sites are also a much too easy access to porn.
> 
> How did this happen? Despite the many times I've tried arguing in favor of porn (god knows why, I was kind of a bitch back in the day) I've always felt that things have grown out of hand in this community and that the porn and sex culture within furry should really be more discreet and behind closed doors instead of being the way it is now.
> 
> So, furries (outside of FAF), why do you choose to behave this way? You really have no one to blame but yourselves when no one wants to be near you.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 30, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> I suppose. When I think "in your face" I think of occurrences outside of regular furry sites or conventions and I don't see that happening a lot.
> 
> I'm used to people just looking at some screen cap of a fetish site and then go "OMG THEY'RE SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS" even though THEY'RE the ones looking at a site that has nothing to do with them.


Yeah, I'm not talking about the people who go looking for it. It's just the sexual side seems to be so mainstream even if you try to stay clean, you'll get bombarded with socially awkward furries talking about their love of dog schlong.


Moonfall The Fox said:


> Shit, bad dragon is in the dealers room being obvious at AC?
> 
> I'll be busy finding a distraction for my mother now.. she thinks it's a good idea to stalk me at AC... NO.


It has a booth yes, but if she doesn't know what it is then she won't really notice it. Basically it has a giant banner that says "BAD DRAGON" and like little cooler-looking things that have dildos in them. It's not like they have a rack of dongs sitting out in the open, but if you know of them then you'll know it's a table of dongs. Surprisingly though, the rest of AC seemed pretty tame.


----------



## thewall (Jan 30, 2012)

Because sex sells.  Especially for fetishes that is hard to find good quality material for.

And yes, bad dragon is the reason I'm not going to let my parents tag along when I go to a con.  Fuck you, bad dragon.


----------



## jcfynx (Jan 30, 2012)

No, no, no. All of this is wrong. At least, the first page. I am too on-the-go to read the rest of the thread.

The furry fandom began as a place to draw innocent, adorable animals like you'd see in television cartoons.  The sexual side was there, but no more than in any other group. Most people did not have a "personal character," rather preferring to enjoy what others have created instead. There was, however, a strong identification with real, actual animals. It was very different than it is now.

The framing of this thread assumes that there is a deciding factor that transformed the fandom into what it is today. I would argue that the primary factor involved is that, with the prevalence of the Internet, the _visual side_ of manimals has attracted people who don't have that animal identification. The Internet is a highly-visual medium, and quite frankly, the idea of turning yourselves into sleek, sexy creatures generates more _enthusiasms_ than thinking you are a part-animal. Image boards like 4chan introduced more of the public to the _visuals_ of furries and, as they _propagated furry material,_ drew in people who did not care at all about making Disney creatures and preferred, rather, to masturbate over them.

Read: _not many people like pretending to be real, actual animals._ But, _lots of people like weird pornography._ Weird pornography has become more _acceptable and accessible._ Pretending to be animals _has not._

That is why you are all disgusting. :'(


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Jan 30, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Yeah, I'm not talking about the people who go looking for it. It's just the sexual side seems to be so mainstream even if you try to stay clean, you'll get bombarded with socially awkward furries talking about their love of dog schlong.
> 
> It has a booth yes, but if she doesn't know what it is then she won't really notice it. Basically it has a giant banner that says "BAD DRAGON" and like little cooler-looking things that have dildos in them. It's not like they have a rack of dongs sitting out in the open, but if you know of them then you'll know it's a table of dongs. Surprisingly though, the rest of AC seemed pretty tame.



I'll just have to make sure she doesn't ask questions, then. I'm glad the rest of it was pretty tame though, that's good.

I don't really have much choice about her tagging along. She'd insist anyway, but since we're going across the country for this shit I have no choice at all.


----------



## Attaman (Jan 30, 2012)

I tend to blame the massive amounts of sex in Furry on the fact that so many people treat the fandom as a Lifestyle / Fetish, as well as the fact that many fandom members prefer almost all their consumed media to be Furry.

Star Trek has a large number of fans, to go back to a joking example earlier in the thread. However, the ratio of "Enjoys TNG" and "Fluently speaks Klingon" is slightly lower than the "Associates with the Fandom" / "Believes it's one of their most defining factors" ratio for Furry. And for someone this drawn into the fandom, it's rather hard to imagine them not eventually doodling smut at some point or another (similar to how it's difficult to not imagine Mr. "I'm a Klingon" eventually writing Pon Farr fictions).

Fetish is rather self-explanitory: Artists who see the fandom as a fetish (or cater to those who do) draw porn. Star Trek (going to milk this analogy for all it's worth), while it is seen as many things, is very rarely seen as a Fetish first and foremost. Porn is a niche market to both fandoms, but whereas the Star Trek fandom has a rather small niche for such, Furry's niche is a great deal larger.

The last point? Many Furries refuse to associate with non-Furry work. "Must listen to Furry music", "Must read Furry stories", etcetera. This inevitably leads to "must fap to Furry porn", which wouldn't be as big a problem if there weren't so damn many fetishes out there. Think of a fetish, they probably have it for Furry (heck, it might be exclusive to Furry). Similarly, there's people who like non-Furry work, but prefer to "Furry-fy" it as an "improvement", which then leads to Star Trek Furry Porn (and thus it draws in other fandom's porn as well).


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

There is not a way I can state this without sounding heavy handed but whatevah.

Life stylers exist because the Fetish aspect does.

Furry is a hobby, whatever. But people who have fetishes that involve furries exist within Furry.

AND thus I say, BLAME TV MEDIA, CARTOONS, AND ANIMATED FILMS INFLUENCING THE SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG.

Furry is all consuming of all things Anthro related. Its bound to coagulate in central areas.

A better question is: WHY do people complain about it? THIS website was created by people who have fetishes involving furries.

What does that say about Furry as a whole?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 31, 2012)

The thing about the furry fandom is that we have a very large group of people with a particular....thing going on. That thing is that these people have been for a while now made to be discreet with what they are. They've had to hide that part of themselves because it was not safe to do otherwise. They struggle with that even now in some areas and situations. They don't want to have to hide what they are  orientation wise. The issue is they often take that "I shouldn't have to hide who I am" and confuse that with sex related things.

They don't want to hide being attracted to the same sex. They don't want to be forced to be discreet when straights don't have to. When it comes to furry porn and sexual fetish's they also don't think they should have to be discreet about that but it falls back upon the idea that they don't want to hide "What the are". That creates a confusion that is perhaps hard for some to differentiate. Being more appropriate about fetish's and porn does not mean hiding a part of your orientation but some people just don't get it.

At least that's my theory.

EDIT: On the other side of the coin we have a lot of young people who face confusing messages where they are taught that sex is beautiful and private...but then it gets flaunted everywhere and demonized at the same turn. The whole pushing into places where otherwise it perhaps shouldn't be can be seen as a form of rebellion. Then again people who are socially inept sometimes turn to blaming society and rejecting social norms. They are so open and out there with their sexual things because they like pushing boundaries as a facade.



Moonfall The Fox said:


> Shit, bad dragon is in the dealers room being obvious at AC?
> 
> I'll be busy finding a distraction for my mother now.. she thinks it's a good idea to stalk me at AC... NO.




Far as I know Bad Dragon will not have a dealers table at AC. This is related to a change in policy dealing with what can be sold in the convention.



FM3THOU said:


> THIS website was created by people who have fetishes involving furries.



All I can say is "Wat"? This bit is a little...uh confusing.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The thing about the furry fandom is that we have a very large group of people with a particular....thing going on. That thing is that these people have been for a while now made to be discreet with what they are. They've had to hide that part of themselves because it was not safe to do otherwise. They struggle with that even now in some area and situations. They don't want to have to hide what they are  orientation wise. The issue is they often take that "I shouldn't have to hide who I am" and confuse that sex related things.
> 
> They don't want to hide being attracted to the same sex. They don't want to be forced to be discreet when straights don't have to. When it comes to furry porn and sexual fetish's they also don't think they should have to be discreet about that but it falls back upon the idea that they don't want to hide "What the are". That creates a confusion that is perhaps hard for some to differentiate. Being more appropriate about fetish's and porn does not mean hiding a part of your orientation but some people just don't get it.
> 
> ...


Wow, you pretty much hit the bullseye with this post. Seriously. 

I attest to it.


----------



## TreacleFox (Jan 31, 2012)

AC is thinking about renting a new room so they can have a mature and clean side of the dealers den.


----------



## ONEintheinfinite (Jan 31, 2012)

Fursonas; kind of obvious even if you're not that into thinking, you create something that's less than human and get to act out things that even the cashiers at HOT TOPIC wince about.

Here's a _the psychiatrist from The MASk_ point of view: in most "traditional" role playing communities the goal of the players is to create a "better" version of themselves especially when you're limited to humans or humans with alt colored skin and funny ears or teeth. I think at the back of everyone's mind (except the truly disturb) find it discomforting to- for lack of a better word "demean" human characters because people are sentient creatures and etc. But the more you dehumanized it is the easier it is to treat them like objects and, what's more dehumanizing than replacing a human with one of "dumb" animal?

Not saying it only happens in the furry fandom it's universal but the furry fandom just takes it to the extreme not that I think it's bad thing, I for one draw the line at reality.

*EDIT*
I confuse fursonas with OC so let me clear that up, fursonas are obvious you can act out uninhibited with out any real life repercussions but that's not any different from any other fandom/community. What I was talking about was the 99% of tailored to your obscure fetish porn that the furry community is infamous for- nay FAMOUS for just think about any sex puppet oc they're personality is mainly consisted of flesh light.


----------



## eversleep (Jan 31, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Artists who see the fandom as a fetish draw porn. Star Trek, while it is seen as many things, is very rarely seen as a Fetish first and foremost. Porn is a niche market to both fandoms, but whereas the Star Trek fandom has a rather small niche for such, Furry's niche is a great deal larger.


This.

Okay, take any other fandom; anime/manga, Star Trek, even MLP. These fandoms are based on popular media like TV shows, books, whatever. If a group of fans got together, they could talk about this TV show and endless things to do with it.

The furry fandom is based off of... well, a concept. There is no TV show, book, movie called "Furry Fandom Definition". Because it is merely based off a concept, and not a popular media item, media needs to be made by fans of this anthromorphisation (sp?) concept. Therefore, the fandom is pretty much solely going off of fan-made artwork. Yes, there are a few well-known cartoons with furry characters and such, but the fandom isn't based off of these. So, because artwork needs to be made, artists will take advantage and draw anything. They need to make up characters and such too. And when you're drawing something human-like and focusing on certain details, yeah it could eventually turn sexual. 

Not sure exactly where I'm going with this, I thought I was getting somewhere though. =\


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 31, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The thing about the furry fandom is that we have a very large group of people with a particular....thing going on. That thing is that these people have been for a while now made to be discreet with what they are. They've had to hide that part of themselves because it was not safe to do otherwise. They struggle with that even now in some areas and situations. They don't want to have to hide what they are orientation wise. The issue is they often take that "I shouldn't have to hide who I am" and confuse that with sex related things.
> 
> They don't want to hide being attracted to the same sex. They don't want to be forced to be discreet when straights don't have to. When it comes to furry porn and sexual fetish's they also don't think they should have to be discreet about that but it falls back upon the idea that they don't want to hide "What the are". That creates a confusion that is perhaps hard for some to differentiate. Being more appropriate about fetish's and porn does not mean hiding a part of your orientation but some people just don't get it.
> 
> At least that's my theory.



I have to agree with this, I have... unusual interests of my own, and it has been nice these last few months to find that I am far from alone in that and to be able to share those with other people that feel the same way, to discuss them and know I am not strange or alone, and if we want to draw, or write, or film something for each other to enjoy, then why not, it isn't as though we are forcing people to see it. Though, on another site I occasionally get messages from people that say it looks interesting and I encourage them to try it out for themselves. I'm tired of hiding what is really a major part of who I am. I wouldn't mind though, if we had to do that side of things on another site to the more innocent work.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> I have to agree with this, I have... unusual interests of my own, and it has been nice these last few months to find that I am far from alone in that and to be able to share those with other people that feel the same way, to discuss them and know I am not strange or alone, and if we want to draw, or write, or film something for each other to enjoy, then why not, it isn't as though we are forcing people to see it. Though, on another site I occasionally get messages from people that say it looks interesting and I encourage them to try it out for themselves. I'm tired of hiding what is really a major part of who I am. I wouldn't mind though, if we had to do that side of things on another site to the more innocent work.


That's great and all, but use fetish communities for that, not an animal people fandom.


----------



## AnalogDawn (Jan 31, 2012)

From The Furry Sociological Survey:

33% "significant sexual interest in furry"
46% "minor sexual interest in furry"
21% "non-sexual interest in furry"

The majority of you seem out numbered.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> AND thus I say, BLAME TV MEDIA, CARTOONS, AND ANIMATED FILMS INFLUENCING THE SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN WHILE THEY ARE YOUNG.


This sounds a little silly but not completely out of the blue. That's probably the case with me but this theory is still pretty looney because I'm sure there's more people who grew up watching cartoons without developing a fetish for them than vice versa.



Trpdwarf said:


> The thing about the furry fandom is that we have a very large group of people with a particular....thing going on. That thing is that these people have been for a while now made to be discreet with what they are. They've had to hide that part of themselves because it was not safe to do otherwise. They struggle with that even now in some areas and situations. They don't want to have to hide what they are  orientation wise. The issue is they often take that "I shouldn't have to hide who I am" and confuse that with sex related things.
> 
> They don't want to hide being attracted to the same sex. They don't want to be forced to be discreet when straights don't have to. When it comes to furry porn and sexual fetish's they also don't think they should have to be discreet about that but it falls back upon the idea that they don't want to hide "What the are". That creates a confusion that is perhaps hard for some to differentiate. Being more appropriate about fetish's and porn does not mean hiding a part of your orientation but some people just don't get it.
> 
> ...


Well said. One reason I was as obnoxious as I was back when I was new-ish was more or less because of this. I try to be a little more reasonable about it nowadays.



ONEintheinfinite said:


> Fursonas; kind of obvious even if you're not that into thinking, you create something that's less than human and get to act out things that even the cashiers at HOT TOPIC wince about.
> 
> Here's a _the psychiatrist from The MASk_ point of view: in most "traditional" role playing communities the goal of the players is to create a "better" version of themselves especially when you're limited to humans or humans with alt colored skin and funny ears or teeth. I think at the back of everyone's mind (except the truly disturb) find it discomforting to- for lack of a better word "demean" human characters because people are sentient creatures and etc. But the more you dehumanized it is the easier it is to treat them like objects and, what's more dehumanizing than replacing a human with one of "dumb" animal?
> 
> ...


I don't like this theory because it implies we hate animals and anthropomorphism is more about the humanizations of animals, not dehumanization of humans.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jan 31, 2012)

When artists are commissioned frequently to draw porn, they invest in a lot of dough in the process.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Jan 31, 2012)

Well, when my furry phase started. My first contact of it was from the likes of /b/'s furfridays & sssatudays and Herpy.net. Leaving /b/ to one side (for obvious reasons) the Herpy community just seemed like a really nice community with a lot of pr0nz (and some nice shockwave animations - but I didnt say that). I don't think that It will die down at all but I really don't see the problem with it unless it gets to the point that the porn outweighs the rest.

-_a brief history of my last couple of months, and im glad im a furry (scaley, too be precise)_


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Jan 31, 2012)

I heard that when people began to enjoy being furry a mystical orb came down and turned them all rampant. After this everything and changed and that is why modern agriculture is the way it is. We can all thank the glass interior silos of Wisconsin.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Jan 31, 2012)

On a more serious note. I like being a bunny, and I like being stuffed. So altogether it was only a matter of time before the two came together.


----------



## PapayaShark (Jan 31, 2012)

Kaibunny94 don't double post please, we have an edit button for a reason.

On topic: The fandom is full of perverts who watch/draw porn, and all of the porn attracts more pervets who does the same.
And the furry fandom, even without all of the porn is freaky. Adults dressing in animal costumes, spending all of their lifesavings on anthro art, obese women pretending that they are slim, busty vixens,
obese men pretending that they are slim, busty vixens, and so on.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> This sounds a little silly but not completely out of the blue. That's probably the case with me but this theory is still pretty looney because I'm sure there's more people who grew up watching cartoons without developing a fetish for them than vice versa.
> 
> 
> Well said. One reason I was as obnoxious as I was back when I was new-ish was more or less because of this. I try to be a little more reasonable about it nowadays.
> ...



Well it could explain why the frequency between fetish and anthro characters is so high. Seriously this stuff is maddening to me because its like trying to explain how autism happens.

Also its not that the Media developed a fetish for them, but rather influenced them to draw associations. Media does have an impact on a child's mind.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

PapayaShark said:


> Kaibunny94 don't double post please, we have an edit button for a reason.
> 
> On topic: The fandom is full of perverts who watch/draw porn, and all of the porn attracts more pervets who does the same.
> And the furry fandom, even without all of the porn is freaky. Adults dressing in animal costumes, spending all of their lifesavings on anthro art, obese women pretending that they are slim, busty vixens,
> obese men pretending that they are slim, busty vixens, and so on.


Critical mass does have a play into it I have no doubt. Similar interests attract similar interests.


----------



## Kaibunny94 (Jan 31, 2012)

PapayaShark said:


> Kaibunny94 don't double post please, we have an edit button for a reason.


 Sorry i'm new I am still a bit inept


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 31, 2012)

far as I can see, it's just like with fursuiting, no really, it is. You dress up as some animal, go out in public, and just say, I don't care what everyone thinks, this is something I enjoy doing. That's partly what I like about this place, such a relaxed attitude to doing what we want and not caring for others' opinions.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> far as I can see, it's just like with fursuiting, no really, it is. You dress up as some animal, go out in public, and just say, I don't care what everyone thinks, this is something I enjoy doing. That's partly what I like about this place, such a relaxed attitude to doing what we want and not caring for others' opinions.



Uhhh fursuiting isn't about putting on a costume and going out in public to say "I don't care what others think of me". Fursuiting is about putting on a goofy costume and making people happy. Also do not compare fursuiting to the fandom's cesspool of fetishes that is an awful analogy.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> far as I can see, it's just like with fursuiting, no really, it is. You dress up as some animal, go out in public, and just say, I don't care what everyone thinks, this is something I enjoy doing. That's partly what I like about this place, such a relaxed attitude to doing what we want and not caring for others' opinions.


Putting on a fursuit has nothing to do with fetishy stuff.
It is indeed about making people happy.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> far as I can see, it's just like with fursuiting, no really, it is. You dress up as some animal, go out in public, and just say, I don't care what everyone thinks, this is something I enjoy doing. That's partly what I like about this place, such a relaxed attitude to doing what we want and not caring for others' opinions.



Going to have to agree with a few others here, don't make a comparison like this, it's really in poor taste. It's not about "not caring what others think"....although sometimes you have to learn to not care as much when some people decide "OH GOD NO THAT"S HORRIBLE IT'S PEOPLE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENCE BAWW". 

We(people in suit, at least good ones) make people smile and laugh...and that is all there is to it. It's good fun.



eversleep said:


> This.
> 
> Okay, take any other fandom; anime/manga, Star Trek, even MLP. These  fandoms are based on popular media like TV shows, books, whatever. If a  group of fans got together, they could talk about this TV show and  endless things to do with it.
> 
> ...



You can build on this as it is why our fandom often appears so strange as apposed to many others. The Anime Community, the Gamer Community, the Science Fiction community...etc the majority of the content is based on canon handed down to them. With furries we have people who like to draw fan stuff of different main-stream media involving anthro animals but nothing mainstream ever truly exists as of yet to target "furries". That creates very big bias and problem when it comes to people looking stuff up about us.

If you go and you look up Anime a ton of shit pops up that is both pornographic and non pornographic. However enough non pornographic mainstream and fan art pops up to overshadow and essentially brush away the sexual side. It's why to this days lots of parents are utterly clueless as to the amount of "Deviant" sex related stuff is loaded into the Anime Community as a whole. If you look up Bleach with the filter off porn not going to be the first thing you find.

Furry though? Completely different because all main stream stuff that furries may like don't have furry tagged on. It's part of what you point out, there is no canon. When new people pop up and see all this porn not being hidden or brushed to the down low like it is in other communities they think "Oh it's a fetish or porn community". If you are a horny teenager, or a person of a persecuted orientation this place seems like paradise. So that is what they join for instead of for why this community ultimately exists, that core concept that more and more new furs know little to nothing.


----------



## Spatel (Jan 31, 2012)

Mentova said:


> That's great and all, but use fetish communities for that, not an animal people fandom.



There isn't a separate community for an 'animal people fetish'. There is this community, and that's it. The transformation fetishist community is merely a subset of the furry fandom. If you were to draw a venn diagram it would be one circle completely swallowing the other.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> There isn't a separate community for an 'animal people fetish'. There is this community, and that's it. The transformation fetishist community is merely a subset of the furry fandom. If you were to draw a venn diagram it would be one circle completely swallowing the other.


Well they need to be a little more subdued then.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> There isn't a separate community for an 'animal people fetish'. There is this community, and that's it. The transformation fetishist community is merely a subset of the furry fandom. If you were to draw a venn diagram it would be one circle completely swallowing the other.



Maybe...just maybe people need to stop combing their fetish's and furryness...and stop making new ones. :C



Kitutal said:


> I have to agree with this, I have... unusual  interests of my own, and it has been nice these last few months to find  that I am far from alone in that and to be able to share those with  other people that feel the same way, to discuss them and know I am not  strange or alone, and if we want to draw, or write, or film something  for each other to enjoy, then why not, it isn't as though we are forcing  people to see it. Though, on another site I occasionally get messages  from people that say it looks interesting and I encourage them to try it  out for themselves. I'm tired of hiding what is really a major part of  who I am. I wouldn't mind though, if we had to do that side of things on  another site to the more innocent work.



It's all fine and dandy that you find yourself able to share your interests with others but...keep in mind there is a place and time for things. That is what gets much of our fandom in trouble. People don't realize that perhaps it's not a good idea to approach every random fur you meet asking what their dick size is, or what fetish's they are into. Perhaps it's a good idea to keep that topic out of public events like conventions and fur-meets. Maybe just maybe we could see a little less of the madness on some other sites where it literally is one big giant cum fest of people engaging in a festival of porn, and smut talk 24-7.

The fandom is about...anthro animals in different mediums. It is about the appreciation of a concept and the exploration of it. Lets remember that and try to moderate just how much we talk about certain things and where.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> Stuff



Did I mention I love you?

You take the goddamn words out of my mouth for this subject.


----------



## Spatel (Jan 31, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Well they need to be a little more subdued then.



That's where the conflict of interest is. This is supposed to be  THEIR safe space. Every other fetish community has a safe, exclusive  space to talk about their fetish, but because the fetish furs and the  hobby furs are sharing the same damn community, neither is completely  comfortable around the other.



Trpdwarf said:


> Maybe...just maybe people need to stop combing  their fetish's and furryness...and stop making new ones. :C


It's not exactly something you can 'turn off'.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> It's not exactly something you can 'turn off'.



You can switch on and off certain behaviors in different social settings. You can turn it off, it's just that some people refuse to turn it off until a group of people tell them to stop it.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> That's where the conflict of interest is. This is supposed to be  THEIR safe space. Every other fetish community has a safe, exclusive  space to talk about their fetish, but because the fetish furs and the  hobby furs are sharing the same damn community, neither is completely  comfortable around the other.
> 
> 
> It's not exactly something you can 'turn off'.


This is not their safe place. If they want a safe place to discuss their love of dogfucking or whatever they can make their own communities or discuss it with close friends. Not everyone wants to hear about it. Like Terpderp said, there is a time and a place for everything. There is nothing wrong with having these fetishes that exist in the furry community, the problem is how in your face it is.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> That's where the conflict of interest is. This is supposed to be  THEIR safe space. Every other fetish community has a safe, exclusive  space to talk about their fetish, but because the fetish furs and the  hobby furs are sharing the same damn community, neither is completely  comfortable around the other.
> 
> 
> It's not exactly something you can 'turn off'.



The thing is it's "Not" their safe place. Or at least it's not their area to decide to make it that. I've seen this kind of behavior happen in the local fur-meet a few times. People want to turn our group into a safe place for discussion and or recruiting for certain sexual activities and or fetish's. Our group doesn't exist for that reason. We are not here for you to have a safe house to talk about your sexual shit. We tolerate gays and trans? Yes....but that is where the buck stops. Don't show up and try to make our group your safe haven for your various sexual arousal.

The fetish community since it began to take shape literally forced their way into our areas and took over. They operated under the mantra that "you must tolerate and accept people" and benefited from the recoil of the falling out of the Burned Furs. They swept in and made the entire community their home and they don't quite like (some of them) being told to stop using our spaces as gigantic cum-dupsters. Course I've kind of gone over the issues behind why they tantrum or just don't get it.

As for "turning it off". No one was aroused by animal head people being melted into rubber until someone decided "Hai I've got an idea for (sort of new) fap material". You don't have to sit there and take every single fetish you pick up in other communities and drag it here. In the long run this may be damaging to people to box themselves in so that they only way they can be turned on is by fantasy animal head people.


----------



## Spatel (Jan 31, 2012)

Mentova said:


> This is not their safe place. If they want a safe place to discuss their love of dogfucking or whatever they can make their own communities or discuss it with close friends. Not everyone wants to hear about it. Like Terpderp said, there is a time and a place for everything. There is nothing wrong with having these fetishes that exist in the furry community, the problem is how in your face it is.



The dogfuckers have mostly been eliminated from the furry community. I've never encountered anyone talking about that at meets or conventions, and if it happens it is certainly rare. You bring up the extremely disgusting stuff, the zoophiles and the shitting dicknipples, as if that's in any way related to what we're talking about, but it comes off as a cheap strawman.



Trpdwarf said:


> The thing is it's "Not" their safe place. Or at least it's not their area to decide to make it that. I've seen this kind of behavior happen in the local fur-meet a few times. People want to turn our group into a safe place for discussion and or recruiting for certain sexual activities and or fetish's. Our group doesn't exist for that reason. We are not here for you to have a safe house to talk about your sexual shit. We tolerate gays and trans? Yes....but that is where the buck stops. Don't show up and try to make our group your safe haven for your various sexual arousal.
> 
> The fetish community since it began to take shape literally forced their way into our areas and took over. They operated under the mantra that "you must tolerate and accept people" and benefited from the recoil of the falling out of the Burned Furs. They swept in and made the entire community their home and they don't quite like (some of them) being told to stop using our spaces as gigantic cum-dupsters. Course I've kind of gone over the issues behind why they tantrum or just don't get it.



Suggesting the Israelis just "leave Palestine" because they bullied their way in is unrealistic at this point. If you were talking about a small minority within the furry fandom, your words might be applicable, but you're talking about a very large percentage of furries. Attempting a two-state solution and separating the hobbyists from the fetishists is probably a good idea, but it's totally impossible at this point. The two communities are too interconnected at this point.

I'm not making excuses for bad behavior at conventions or meets. That's terrible. They're supposed to be pg-13 events usually.

At the same time, I don't think all aspects of the fandom should be pg-13. That would alienate many, if not most furries. And while my opinion may be the vast minority on FaF, it is far more prevalent on other sites.


----------



## Abbi Normal (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> It's not exactly something you can 'turn off'.



Of course it is. It's exactly what people do all the time. If it wasn't possible to "turn off" your sex drive, people would be fucking in parks and groping each other all the damn time. It doesn't matter if you're a furry or not, or what you're into or not into, your sex drive/fetish is not an unstoppable, all-encompassing, irresistible force of nature. We are not a cats in heat or Vulcans in Pon-Farr. We are fully sentient and relatively intelligent human beings capable of assessing the mood of a social situation and deciding that the playground is not the place to whip out your dick--literally or figuratively--and able to realize there are plenty of people out there who most certainly don't want to hear about whose chest you last shit on. Or, you could always go touch yourself on the subway, and tell the cops when they arrest you that "It's not something you can "turn off"."

I'm not trying to be mean, and not directing it at you specifically, that just seemed like kind of a silly thing to say. And also, as someone who really is just here because of a totally platonic enjoyment of cartoon animals, it gets incredibly frustrating how many furries have no idea at all that no still means no on the internet, and no still means no even if I'm also a furry. Asking ten more times does not turn "no" into "yes". Not only is everyone, no exceptions, perfectly capable of "turning it off", but when the object of your attentions/your general audience is making clear they want no part of it, "turning it off" is the only polite thing to do. Not doing it makes the person a total freaking creep-wad.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> The dogfuckers have mostly been eliminated from the furry community. I've never encountered anyone talking about that at meets or conventions, and if it happens it is certainly rare. You bring up the extremely disgusting stuff, the zoophiles and the shitting dicknipples, as if that's in any way related to what we're talking about, but it comes off as a cheap strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with most of your post but I don't see what's so bad if we alienated a bunch of furries. Would it really be so hurtful to us if our fandom grew a couple of sizes smaller?


----------



## Spatel (Jan 31, 2012)

Abbi Normal said:


> Of course it is. It's exactly what people do all the time. If it wasn't possible to "turn off" your sex drive, people would be fucking in parks and groping each other all the damn time. It doesn't matter if you're a furry or not, or what you're into or not into, your sex drive/fetish is not an unstoppable, all-encompassing, irresistible force of nature. We are not a cats in heat or Vulcans in Pon-Farr. We are fully sentient and relatively intelligent human beings capable of assessing the mood of a social situation and deciding that the playground is not the place to whip out your dick--literally or figuratively--and able to realize there are plenty of people out there who most certainly don't want to hear about whose chest you last shit on. Or, you could always go touch yourself on the subway, and tell the cops when they arrest you that "It's not something you can "turn off"."
> 
> I'm not trying to be mean, and not directing it at you specifically, that just seemed like kind of a silly thing to say. And also, as someone who really is just here because of a totally platonic enjoyment of cartoon animals, it gets incredibly frustrating how many furries have no idea at all that no still means no on the internet, and no still means no even if I'm also a furry. Asking ten more times does not turn "no" into "yes". Not only is everyone, no exceptions, perfectly capable of "turning it off", but when the object of your attentions/your general audience is making clear they want no part of it, "turning it off" is the only polite thing to do. Not doing it makes the person a total freaking creep-wad.



Way to completely misinterpret something. 

I was not talking about behavior, I was talking about mental states.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

I am of the opinion that not many actually understand how fetishes work. They are not something that is suddenly acquired or picked up, they are things that people are gradually conditioned into having based on their environment growing up and how their brain is influenced. 

IN MY AWFUL OPINION People who have fetishes and don't know why are generally social outcasts because 
One: They consider themselves to be freaks among normal society because others consider them freaks. Thus have perpetual low self esteem.
Two: Their fetishes can sometimes never be satisfied in real life. Which may add to low self esteem.
Three: When they do discover places they can express themselves, they pretty much spill themselves upon the world as they lack proper social constraint in the first place as they never were socially conditioned since they are social outcasts. Which may raise self esteem to a point of thick headedness.
Four: They grow accustomed to it and thus becomes hard for them to change once they are liberated and they feel justified in what they do.

Imagine feeling like the weirdest person in the world, then discovering that you are not alone. Do you know how mind blowing that can be? Seriously. 

Also Furry as a whole is not tolerant, only among those who share like interest is toleration present. 

AND finally, one last thought on this subject that I can muster: 

CONCERNING FETISH AND FURRY, AND WHY IT IS PUT "IN YO FACE"

Because there is tacit admission by the community that ITS okay. Simple as that. I can browse by fetish on furaffinity. That is basically saying YEAH ITS OKAY WE ARE TOLERANT OF THIS. I can still view fetish artwork even without the mature filter, thats basically saying YES FETISH IS SOMETHING WE DO NOT HIDE. I consider fetish artwork to be pornography by the way, as you know, fetish is sex related tame or explicit. 

Scattered Thoughts:

I have always associated my fetishes with anthro *or* cartoon characters. Realistically drawn things do not satisfy my fetishes, if you find that interesting. Exaggerated features and such do, however.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> I am of the opinion that not many actually understand how fetishes work. They are not something that is suddenly acquire or pick up, they are things that people are gradually conditioned into having based on their environment growing up and how their brain is influenced.
> 
> IN MY AWFUL OPINION People who have fetishes and don't know why are generally social outcasts because
> One: They consider themselves to be freaks among normal society because others consider them freaks. Thus have perpetual low self esteem.
> ...


Dude, fetishes aren't exclusively sexual.

I'm not sure I'd say there's no turning back either. As one of the more perverted furries myself I can safely say that I've been able to act more rationally now than I did a couple of years ago. Most of the other things you said sound pretty correct, though.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> I agree with most of your post but I don't see what's so bad if we alienated a bunch of furries. Would it really be so hurtful to us if our fandom grew a couple of sizes smaller?



-Alienate a bunch of furries
-BAWWWWWWWWWWW! :V

Me? I don't see it as a bad thing. :V


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Dude, fetishes aren't exclusively sexual.


*Whut? 
*
But for reals, can you explain this to me? I have no idea what you mean when you say Sexual Fetishes are not Exclusivily Sexual. 

QOUTHE WIKIKEPED

_*Sexual fetishism*, or *erotic fetishism*, is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation._

Enlighten me please. Oh by the way when it says physical object it is also referring to body parts.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 31, 2012)

its what my friend called the "house" problem
in a house there is many rooms, and the problem is...something that suppose to stay in one room isnt staying in that room, its pretty much trying to invade the other rooms.


FM3THOU said:


> *Whut?
> *
> But for reals, can you explain this to me? I have no idea what you mean  when you say Sexual Fetishes are not Exclusivily Sexual.





			
				WIKIKEPEDIA said:
			
		

> _*Sexual fetishism*, or *erotic fetishism*, is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation._
> 
> Enlighten me please. Oh by the way when it says physical object it is also referring to body parts.



we talking about fetishes in whole you just talked about a subsection, as in to someone can see the furry fandom as a fetish but not be listed as a sexual fetish.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> we talking about fetishes in whole you just talked about a subsection, as in to someone can see the furry fandom as a fetish but not be listed as a sexual fetish.


Whut? 

Could you please be more specific as to what you mean? I keep reading this and its making less and less sense every time.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> *Whut?
> *
> But for reals, can you explain this to me? I have no idea what you mean when you say Sexual Fetishes are not Exclusivily Sexual.
> 
> ...



A fetish is not always sexual, and something sexual isn't always a fetish. Like there's Lolita and "Sexual" Lolita.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> A fetish is not always sexual, and something sexual isn't always a fetish. Like there's Lolita and "Sexual" Lolita.


First part I disagree with to a point*. Second part is on a base level is true. 

POINT*: As a person with a fetish, seeing that situation or fetish object presented non-sexually or otherwise is irrelevant. It still has the same effect.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> First part I disagree with to a point*. Second part is on a base level is true.
> 
> POINT*: As a person with a fetish, seeing that situation or fetish object presented non-sexually or otherwise is irrelevant. It still has the same effect.


Arousal? Of course. Until you start masturbating to it, it isn't really "sexual". :V
And like with arousal, it doesn't equate to sex.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Arousal? Of course. Until you start masturbating to it, it isn't really "sexual". :V
> And like with arousal, it doesn't equate to sex.


And thus you finally figure out why everybody feels the need to "Come out" as a furry. Congratulations. 

Anyway, from a male perspective there is no real difference. If it arouses, it is sexual. Doesn't have to have physical intercourse involved.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> And thus you finally figure out why everybody feels the need to "Come out" as a furry. Congratulations.


Coming out as a furry is much different than fetishism. :V
If you read the "You do not have to come out as a furry" thread, you'd know this by now. 




> Anyway, from a male perspective there is no real difference. If it arouses, it is sexual. Doesn't have to have physical intercourse involved.



Then it is a "Sexual Fetish" to you because it stimulates you sexually, whereas others could  be stimulated non-sexually from it. I5It does not matter the gender in order to be stimulated.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Coming out as a furry is much different than fetishism. :V
> If you read the "You do not have to come out as a furry" thread, you'd know this by now.



I meant as in in relation to sexual attraction, mistaking furry for their arousal rather than something else.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> whereas others could  be stimulated non-sexually from it. I5It does not matter the gender in order to be stimulated.



Okay let me level with you here, I still have no idea what you mean when people could be stimulated Non-sexually by it. I don't think I have the current mental capacity to know *exactly* what you mean.

Also Gender is important concerning fetishes as fetishes occur much much much more often in men than women.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

Spatel said:


> The dogfuckers have mostly been eliminated from the furry community. I've never encountered anyone talking about that at meets or conventions, and if it happens it is certainly rare. You bring up the extremely disgusting stuff, the zoophiles and the shitting dicknipples, as if that's in any way related to what we're talking about, but it comes off as a cheap strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The dogfucking was just a stereotypical example I picked, and I don't see how it isn't related since we're talking about the fetishy aspects of the fandom.


Also did... did you just compare this debate to Israeli-Palestinian conflicts? And you're the one bitching at _me _for dumb strawmans?


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> I meant as in in relation to sexual attraction, mistaking furry for their arousal rather than something else.



When furries "Come out", it is due to the nature of people accepting/tolerating them for being a furry despite the fact that it has negative deviant connotations that has been portrayed several times in the media. 






> Okay let me level with you here, I still have no idea what you mean when people could be stimulated Non-sexually by it. I don't think I have the current mental capacity to know *exactly* what you mean.



Arousal doesn't automatically mean "Sexually Stimulated". It means that you are intested or attracted to a certain item or subject. Example: I am stimulated by Werewolves in art. Is it sexual? No.
Sexual Arousal means that you are sexually stimulated by a certain item or subject. For now, you are leaning on the sexual aspect of the fetish definition.




> Also Gender is important concerning fetishes as fetishes occur much much much more often in men than women.



I am going to assume bias on your part on this due to the fact that the fandom is predominately male and therefore a female aroused by a sexual fetish is rare.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Mentova said:


> The dogfucking was just a stereotypical example I picked, and I don't see how it isn't related since we're talking about the fetishy aspects of the fandom.
> Also did... did you just compare this debate to Israeli-Palestinian conflicts? And you're the one bitching at _me _for dumb strawmans?


I contest, Stereotypes are bad to use in general as they are dubious examples in the first place. You should have been more clear, such as stating bestiality instead. To which I feel is rarer in the fandom though probably the most heinous in association as the average uneducated person thinks bestiality and furry are the same thing, to which they are obviously not.

Also I think this is a discussion, not a debate. Unless of course you are debating as to WHY there is a large amount of sex related things in the fandom.


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 31, 2012)

I can't be bothered to go through and click 'this' on about two thirds of the last posts, particularly those quoting my own words against me, or to quote them all here.
I quite agree, things like what we do should not be made public, there are maturity filters on the main site for a good reason, and people do use them. I am very much in favour of more non-pornographic works in the fandom, but yet, at the same time, it is something people here do so well, and so many share similar interests, is it any wonder we congregate in such a place, where there are few others quite the same. Perhaps what we need are different sites for different things. 
For what it's worth (nothing) arousal can mean non-sexual, but I believe not in the sense used above, the most common sense. And I second that it is entirely possible for one person to not feel, or even realise, the sexuality of another's fetishes, not until they are told and then it becomes weird for them.
For myself, I am just going to enjoy a few nice pictures, interesting stories (and yes, some of each sexually interesting) whilst working to, in my own way, slightly increase the ratio of non-sexual works. What more can one cat do?


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> I contest, Stereotypes are bad to use in general as they are dubious examples in the first place. You should have been more clear, such as stating bestiality instead. To which I feel is rarer in the fandom though probably the most heinous in association as the average uneducated person thinks bestiality and furry are the same thing, to which they are obviously not.
> 
> Also I think this is a discussion, not a debate. Unless of course you are debating as to WHY there is a large amount of sex related things in the fandom.


Yes clearly furry porn/fetishes and beastiality are so far apart. You know, with the fixation on dog cocks and furry-run websites that sell dog and horse dildos. :V

While they are different, furries seem to really enjoy blurring the line between them.


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 31, 2012)

I was under the impression that real beastiality was just about the only thing that could get you declared anathema to the rest of the community. Apparently not.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> I was under the impression that real beastiality was just about the only thing that could get you declared anathema to the rest of the community. Apparently not.




It can be assumed that people who draw animal penii (lol) on an anthro animal have Zoophiliac desires. :V


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> When furries "Come out", it is due to the nature of people accepting/tolerating them for being a furry despite the fact that it has negative deviant connotations that has been portrayed several times in the media.


I was going to add that. I think. I just didn't know how to phrase it right. Hehe I am sooo smart. Whoops did I just type that out loud?



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Arousal doesn't automatically mean "Sexually Stimulated". It means that you are infested or attracted to a certain item or subject. Example: I am stimulated by Werewolves in art. Is it sexual? No.
> Sexual Arousal means that you are sexually stimulated by a certain item or subject. For now, you are leaning on the sexual aspect of the fetish definition.


Do you mean stimulation as in mental imagination or adrenalin? Because I get both. But I think I understand what you mean. 


Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I am going to assume bias on your part on this due to the fact that the fandom is predominately male and therefore a female aroused by a sexual fetish is rare.


No no no, I read a study once. Though I forgot where, if I can find it I will link it, it may take awhile. If I can't find it, then ignore this for now.

But also its important to know that fetishes and arousal caused by them acts like a drug, you get used to it over time, and crave greater and greater things that can satisfy it. Kinda like heroin or fear, or laughter. 

That could explain why there is SOOO much fetish related pornography and such in furry fandom.  SOoo much.. Oh god. Its beautiful. 

People with fetishes never get bored of it, It only grows more and more until they simply cannot have any sexual feeling without it involved.  Its a very sexy curse.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jan 31, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It can be assumed that people who draw animal penii (lol) on an anthro animal have Zoophiliac desires. :V



I don't have zoophilic desires. I just think dog knots and cat barbs look cool. And they could make for a lot of fun in bed.

It's probably more the transformation fan in me... I like seeing male equipment change into something more exotic.

But that's just me.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> I don't have zoophilic desires. I just think dog knots and cat barbs look cool. And they could make for a lot of fun in bed.
> 
> It's probably more the transformation fan in me... I like seeing male equipment change into something more exotic.
> 
> But that's just me.


Man if dog dicks and cat dicks are cool, then I don't wanna be cool anymore :C


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Yes clearly furry porn/fetishes and beastiality are so far apart. You know, with the fixation on dog cocks and furry-run websites that sell dog and horse dildos. :V
> 
> While they are different, furries seem to really enjoy blurring the line between them.


Thanks to the internet and poor compulsion control it has spiraled into a massive feast of fetish. Or something. Not that I mind it, I mean, after all I find it very arousing. But alas, its hard to not indulge when so much is offered. I to am venerable, becoming an ever hungry monster.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> Thanks to the internet and poor compulsion control it has spiraled into a massive feast of fetish. Or something. Not that I mind it, I mean, after all I find it very arousing. But alas, its hard to not indulge when so much is offered. I to am venerable, becoming an ever hungry monster.



I find it very easy not to indulge in when 90% of it is horrifying and real boobies are hotter. :V


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> Perhaps what we need are different sites for different things.


Not to say that won't work but, its been tried across years, and they slowly died off, vanished into obscurity or were hunted to extinction (so to speak, if you catch my drift). United we are strong! kind of thing. If every aspect of the fandom exists in one location, its easier for it to live on in every aspect and that includes the fetish art and such.



Mentova said:


> I find it very easy not to indulge in when 90% of it is horrifying and real boobies are hotter. :V


I know that little smiley on the end is suppose to mean sarcasm but, with you, its different and awkward as I feel you have enmity with fetishes in general judging by your previous posts.

Perhaps you should give me insight into how the Fandom _should_ be. If that makes any sense.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> I don't have zoophilic desires. I just think dog knots and cat barbs look cool. And they could make for a lot of fun in bed.
> 
> It's probably more the transformation fan in me... I like seeing male equipment change into something more exotic.
> 
> But that's just me.



Zoo. :V


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> Not to say that won't work but, its been tried across years, and they slowly died off, vanished into obscurity or were hunted to extinction (so to speak, if you catch my drift). United we are strong! kind of thing. If every aspect of the fandom exists in one location, its easier for it to live on in every aspect and that includes the fetish art and such.



My plan is to create a website with links to all other furry stuff all over the internet, where it can be sorted by different categories and such like, so people can just look up what they want and find it anywhere. Would that help at all, or is it a terrible waste of effort?


----------



## Spatel (Jan 31, 2012)

Mentova said:


> While they are different, furries seem to really enjoy blurring the line between them.


Furry characters are abstractions. They are creatures that do not exist. They have features from animals, as well as humans, but they are unlike any of the real animals they're based on.



Mentova said:


> Also did... did you just compare this debate to  Israeli-Palestinian conflicts? And you're the one bitching at _me _for dumb strawmans?


It's an analogy, not a strawman. I can't help it if you don't like the analogy, but it seems to fit pretty well. Over the past 20 years the fetish furries jumped in and now they're basically a major force in the fandom. What was the percentage in the poll? 30% considered the sexual aspect very important to their being a furry? Another 30 percent considered it moderately important? How do you plan on getting *most* furries to leave? Why don't you leave? There are plenty other fandoms that cater to artists, where the art form is up-front and center and not the porn. You certainly don't have to be a furry to draw or appreciate anthro art.

If the majority of the people in the fandom want some sexual aspects then who are you to tell them otherwise? It's their fandom as much as it is yours.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 31, 2012)

Please refrain from double-posting and use the edit button to add onto your post.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> My plan is to create a website with links to all other furry stuff all over the internet, where it can be sorted by different categories and such like, so people can just look up what they want and find it anywhere. Would that help at all, or is it a terrible waste of effort?


I have no idea. For now I think it may be not so useful as FA has become some sort of furry mecca. Kinda like how PC gamers are on Steam. Or at least, thats the only comparison I can find.


----------



## Kitutal (Jan 31, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> I have no idea. For now I think it may be not so useful as FA has become some sort of furry mecca. Kinda like how PC gamers are on Steam. Or at least, thats the only comparison I can find.



oh, that's a shame, I even thought up a funny name for it. 
frankly, there is no way we can get even most of the stuff we don't like off the site, without either some dramatic changes to the rules that see this place nearly abandonned, or somehow splitting the whole fandom down the middle into two opposing camps. I vote, we just accept it as best we can


----------



## FM3THOU (Jan 31, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> oh, that's a shame, I even thought up a funny name for it.
> frankly, there is no way we can get even most of the stuff we don't like off the site, without either some dramatic changes to the rules that see this place nearly abandonned, or somehow splitting the whole fandom down the middle into two opposing camps. I vote, we just accept it as best we can


I am of similar opinion as I believe in non-duality of existence (that is, by my pseduo philosophical definition). If it is, It is. Why should it be two or more halves if they go together so well for so many people? 

Though of course, proper restraint should be encouraged. Though hopefully sown with kindness and not iron grip. 

In fact bravo to all who encourage good social habits. You have done well to improve the image of the fandom, I have noticed a huge difference. Or maybe people just forgot... NO MATTER continue on as you were.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 1, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> I don't have zoophilic desires. I just think dog knots and cat barbs look cool. And they could make for a lot of fun in bed.
> 
> It's probably more the transformation fan in me... I like seeing male equipment change into something more exotic.
> 
> But that's just me.


Are you kidding? Those barbs look fucking nasty and painful. Masochist.


----------



## Xash (Feb 1, 2012)

i had no idea there was such a thing as furry porn till my ex introduced me to e621 XD i honestly dont see a problem with it but then again im not very in-tune with the furry mainstream scene. as long as you dont go around having cybersex with everything you see people will respect you as a regular person


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 1, 2012)

Xash said:


> i had no idea there was such a thing as furry porn till my ex introduced me to e621 XD i honestly dont see a problem with it but then again im not very in-tune with the furry mainstream scene. as long as you dont go around having cybersex with everything you see people will respect you as a regular person


For me it was the other way around, I discovered furry porn before I knew what a furry was. Took me a couple of years until I got into it, though.


----------



## Xash (Feb 1, 2012)

my first encounter with the furry hatred was when i joined VO in '09. so much hate...


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 1, 2012)

Xash said:


> my first encounter with the furry hatred was when i joined VO in '09. so much hate...


Hate is a strong word and I'm not sure I'd use it. The only people who seem to dislike furries are nerds on the internet who lack independent thought and just latch onto a popular opinion. I'm sure most people IRL wouldn't give a shit.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 1, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Furry characters are abstractions. They are creatures that do not exist. They have features from animals, as well as humans, but they are unlike any of the real animals they're based on.
> 
> 
> It's an analogy, not a strawman. I can't help it if you don't like the analogy, but it seems to fit pretty well. Over the past 20 years the fetish furries jumped in and now they're basically a major force in the fandom. What was the percentage in the poll? 30% considered the sexual aspect very important to their being a furry? Another 30 percent considered it moderately important? How do you plan on getting *most* furries to leave? Why don't you leave? There are plenty other fandoms that cater to artists, where the art form is up-front and center and not the porn. You certainly don't have to be a furry to draw or appreciate anthro art.
> ...


If you don't see how comparing the pain, suffering, and death of thousands if not millions of people in the middle east to furries and fetishes is awful then I just don't know what to tell you.



FM3THOU said:


> I know that little smiley on the end is suppose to mean sarcasm but,  with you, its different and awkward as I feel you have enmity with  fetishes in general judging by your previous posts.
> 
> Perhaps you should give me insight into how the Fandom _should_ be. If that makes any sense.


I've said many times in this thread. I don't mind that the porn exists, what I do mind however is how mainstream and upfront it all is. I shouldn't be bombarded with porn when I wanna go to go see cute pictures of foxes, I shouldn't have people asking me to typefuck or send them porn or have them tell me how dead sexy my character is after about 5 minutes of interaction, and there shouldn't be giant sex toy vendors smack dab in the middle of a convention.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 1, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It can be assumed that people who draw animal penii (lol) on an anthro animal have Zoophiliac desires. :V



Not necessarily. If I were to draw porn, then each species would be accurate, or at least similar, to the real world version of that animal. I'm not a zoo, but it seems like a random human penis on an anthro would look weird. Especially since the males I draw have sheaths. (or pants. Ha.)


----------



## virus (Feb 1, 2012)

Amazed how fast the honest answer gets eroded in just 5 years. But anyways I know the real answer, started in around 1978 or so- imagine growing up with comic books and cartoons featuring furry/animal people characters. Now- imagine you didn't really pay attention to what they were until you about 11-12, then puberty starts. Suddenly said furry characters start taking on a double forte between being "cool" and this new unknown of sexuality- you_can't_describe_it_yet but now for some reason you feel more "drawn" into said character types. 
Suddenly around 14-15 you notice there's even more of these kinds of characters- I must see them all, must know what they are- maybe some are sexually deviant. Which eventually leads into the troubled teen to make his or her own character because they want to make something that no base, no specific area can be covered by comic book or television characters.
A devious sexual side appears because it's designed into puberty- a memorized snapshot of sexuality and what the person may consider sexual.  You ride on it forever. 
In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 1, 2012)

virus said:


> Amazed how fast the honest answer gets eroded in just 5 years. But anyways I know the real answer, started in around 1978 or so- imagine growing up with comic books and cartoons featuring furry/animal people characters. Now- imagine you didn't really pay attention to what they were until you about 11-12, then puberty starts. Suddenly said furry characters start taking on a double forte between being "cool" and this new unknown of sexuality- you_can't_describe_it_yet but now for some reason you feel more "drawn" into said character types.
> Suddenly around 14-15 you notice there's even more of these kinds of characters- I must see them all, must know what they are- maybe some are sexually deviant. Which eventually leads into the troubled teen to make his or her own character because they want to make something that no base, no specific area can be covered by comic book or television characters.
> A devious sexual side appears because it's designed into puberty- a memorized snapshot of sexuality and what the person may consider sexual.  You ride on it forever.
> In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom


This is kind of scary to read because of how well it applies to me. ;__;


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 1, 2012)

virus said:


> Amazed how fast the honest answer gets eroded in just 5 years. But anyways I know the real answer, started in around 1978 or so- imagine growing up with comic books and cartoons featuring furry/animal people characters. Now- imagine you didn't really pay attention to what they were until you about 11-12, then puberty starts. Suddenly said furry characters start taking on a double forte between being "cool" and this new unknown of sexuality- you_can't_describe_it_yet but now for some reason you feel more "drawn" into said character types.
> Suddenly around 14-15 you notice there's even more of these kinds of characters- I must see them all, must know what they are- maybe some are sexually deviant. Which eventually leads into the troubled teen to make his or her own character because they want to make something that no base, no specific area can be covered by comic book or television characters.
> A devious sexual side appears because it's designed into puberty- a memorized snapshot of sexuality and what the person may consider sexual. You ride on it forever.
> In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom



Sounds like you're saying people get sexually attracted to anything they are around a lot through adolescence. I only got into this at 23, well outside the usual range of puberty, and yet it took me a week to be drawn over to the more adult side. been through all that before, yes, but not with furry stuff.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 1, 2012)

virus said:


> Amazed how fast the honest answer gets eroded in just 5 years. But anyways I know the real answer, started in around 1978 or so- imagine growing up with comic books and cartoons featuring furry/animal people characters. Now- imagine you didn't really pay attention to what they were until you about 11-12, then puberty starts. Suddenly said furry characters start taking on a double forte between being "cool" and this new unknown of sexuality- you_can't_describe_it_yet but now for some reason you feel more "drawn" into said character types.
> Suddenly around 14-15 you notice there's even more of these kinds of characters- I must see them all, must know what they are- maybe some are sexually deviant. Which eventually leads into the troubled teen to make his or her own character because they want to make something that no base, no specific area can be covered by comic book or television characters.
> A devious sexual side appears because it's designed into puberty- a memorized snapshot of sexuality and what the person may consider sexual.  You ride on it forever.
> In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom


I can't say that has happened to me. When I was a dumb kid I just thought animals ruled and that it would be so cool if I was a fox or could turn into one or something. It was just a dumb kid fantasy that continued itself through games (I nearly always pick animal races in RPGs, for example) and arts and stuff. I didn't join the fandom because of a weird attachment to anthros during puberty. I didn't even know what the furry fandom was until I was like 15/16.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 1, 2012)

virus said:


> Amazed how fast the honest answer gets eroded in just 5 years. But anyways I know the real answer, started in around 1978 or so- imagine growing up with comic books and cartoons featuring furry/animal people characters. Now- imagine you didn't really pay attention to what they were until you about 11-12, then puberty starts. Suddenly said furry characters start taking on a double forte between being "cool" and this new unknown of sexuality- you_can't_describe_it_yet but now for some reason you feel more "drawn" into said character types.
> Suddenly around 14-15 you notice there's even more of these kinds of characters- I must see them all, must know what they are- maybe some are sexually deviant. Which eventually leads into the troubled teen to make his or her own character because they want to make something that no base, no specific area can be covered by comic book or television characters.
> A devious sexual side appears because it's designed into puberty- a memorized snapshot of sexuality and what the person may consider sexual.  You ride on it forever.
> In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom



That might be true for people that discovered it before puberty, but I wasn't aware of the furry fandom until long after. Then again I don't have any particular sexual interest in furries at all so maybe it's true that actually are in it for the sexual stuff.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 1, 2012)

Mentova said:


> If you don't see how comparing the pain, suffering, and death of thousands if not millions of people in the middle east to furries and fetishes is awful then I just don't know what to tell you.


Well, the first things that come to my mind are generally pain, suffering, and death whenever someone mentions furries. :V


----------



## FM3THOU (Feb 2, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I've said many times in this thread. I don't mind that the porn exists, what I do mind however is how mainstream and upfront it all is. I shouldn't be bombarded with porn when I wanna go to go see cute pictures of foxes, I shouldn't have people asking me to typefuck or send them porn or have them tell me how dead sexy my character is after about 5 minutes of interaction, and there shouldn't be giant sex toy vendors smack dab in the middle of a convention.


Okay then, how would one go about fixing these problems?


----------



## Recel (Feb 2, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> Okay then, how would one go about fixing these problems?



The only way would be to fix the people causing these problems. But that won't happen in a big hurry.


----------



## FM3THOU (Feb 2, 2012)

virus said:


> In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom


I do not really know how to respond considering how you frame it as a absolute gospel truth. That isn't to say that it is not completely incorrect, I am just wondering where it came from.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 2, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> Okay then, how would one go about fixing these problems?



You can't. It lies within the community to fix this problem, and the socially awkward fetishy people are too ingrained in furry culture (lol furry culture :V ) for that to easily happen. There is no furry overlord government who can determine what will and won't fly in the community. For example, the FA cub porn ban. FA didn't tolerate it anymore (due to monetary issues but that's beside the point. :V ) and the artists just posted their porn somewhere else. You can't cut off the head of the snake to cull the issue if there are a billion heads.


----------



## FM3THOU (Feb 2, 2012)

Recel said:


> The only way would be to fix the people causing these problems. But that won't happen in a big hurry.


What if there was a unified social rule set? or something to benefit anyone and everyone participating in furry fandom? You know, like how the fighting game community has unified tournament rules or whatever that is.


----------



## triage (Feb 2, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> What if there was a unified social rule set? or something to benefit anyone any everyone participating in furry fandom? You know, like how the *fighting game community has unified tournament rules* or whatever that is.



still changes from event to event. rules at EVO are different from rules at SBO. as a rule of thumb it would be nice, but every con (for probably good reason) has their own method of a ruleset.

there's a unified rules of mixed martial arts, but the ruleset of UFC is very different than Bellator or DREAM. the one problem with a unified ruleset is that anything that the ruleset didn't catch is pretty much fucked unless the unified rules had like, updates every month/year.

and i really doubt it would be easy to implement, if possible at all.


----------



## Recel (Feb 2, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> What if there was a unified social rule set? or something to benefit anyone any everyone participating in furry fandom? You know, like how the fighting game community has unified tournament rules or whatever that is.



Besides that starting a huge baaawwwfest, I'm pretty sure it couldn't be applied to the whole fandom. Also, where to start it? If you would miraculously manage to apply these rules to, say, every website, furrys still wouldn't follow it at cons and real life. And there's the problem. Even if it would be placed as a universal law on furrys, its up to the individuals to follow the rules.

And as you probably could see, furrys really have problems with following even basic rules sometimes. So one that would force them to really change how they act would simply go neglected and only cause drama.


----------



## FM3THOU (Feb 2, 2012)

triage said:


> still changes from event to event. rules at EVO are different from rules at SBO. as a rule of thumb it would be nice, but every con (for probably good reason) has their own method of a ruleset.
> 
> there's a unified rules of mixed martial arts, but the ruleset of UFC is very different than Bellator or DREAM. the one problem with a unified ruleset is that anything that the ruleset didn't catch is pretty much fucked unless the unified rules had like, updates every month/year.
> 
> and i really doubt it would be easy to implement, if possible at all.


I hate fighting game rules anyway.

What about a unified treatise of social conventions? Nothing that is meant to be followed like the law but used as reference for troubled people and updated over time, functioning like a guide book, maybe a wiki like design.

As the other posters have mentioned, doing such may be ineffectual. 

I however believe that it could help if one considers that the troublesome people are completely socially ignorant and may lack the capacity of forethought concerning their actions and may actually need guidelines of some sort.

Reminds me of those threads asking "How to be a Furry" Or "How do you engage in the furry community" Such a guidebook may be helpful for those kinds of people also. I guess.


----------



## chewycuticle (Feb 2, 2012)

i would say because the fandom is based so much around art and people who draw comics. 
every one naturally loves porn so when you have a fandom of artists, they are gonna get asked to draw porn. and being that these artists are big on comics and cartoons, the artwork is much more accessible, and light hearted. and being that these characters are so human-like, it lends its self easily to drawing porn. but because of the characters not actually being human, looking like animals, people find it way more interesting (good or bad) because its different. people who look at lots and lots of porn end up wanting to look at different porn. and the internet helps in getting those people the wacky and furry porn they desire.

the same can be said with anime and hentai. starts off as art inspired by cartoon/comics, people like big boobs, people realize you could draw a lot more than just big boobs, and then anime tends to have fantastical qualities and and monsters (and tentacles) and so people wanting something different to fap to, demand and are then supplied with crazy anime porns and it becomes well known.

same thing can be said with the lowbrow/pop surrealist art scene. lots of artists inspired by cartoons/comics and other pop icons (cars, old horror movies, surf culture) are like anyone, fascinated by boobies and sexy things. so they draw alot of boobies and sexy things intertwined with the cartoons and frankensteins and woody cars, and because its sexy stuff mixed in with the more accessible, lighthearted, and different/weird attributes, people end up loving it and it's that stuff that becomes most popular. 
however, this example doesn't have quite the internet base so it's not so in your face...

i could give you more examples but well...you know....


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (Feb 2, 2012)

chewycuticle said:


> same thing can be said with the lowbrow/pop surrealist art scene. lots of artists inspired by cartoons/comics and other pop icons (cars, old horror movies, surf culture) are like anyone, fascinated by boobies and sexy things. so they draw alot of boobies and sexy things intertwined with the cartoons and frankensteins and woody cars, and because its sexy stuff mixed in with the more accessible, lighthearted, and different/weird attributes, people end up loving it and it's that stuff that becomes most popular.
> however, this example doesn't have quite the internet base so it's not so in your face...
> 
> i could give you more examples but well...you know....



*chewycuticle*, are you a Coop fan (NSFW)?



virus said:


> Amazed how fast the honest answer gets eroded in  just 5 years. But anyways I know the real answer, started in around 1978  or so- imagine growing up with comic books and cartoons featuring  furry/animal people characters. Now- imagine you didn't really pay  attention to what they were until you about 11-12, then puberty starts.  Suddenly said furry characters start taking on a double forte between  being "cool" and this new unknown of sexuality-  you_can't_describe_it_yet but now for some reason you feel more "drawn"  into said character types.
> Suddenly around 14-15 you notice there's even more of these kinds of  characters- I must see them all, must know what they are- maybe some are  sexually deviant. Which eventually leads into the troubled teen to make  his or her own character because they want to make something that no  base, no specific area can be covered by comic book or television  characters.
> A devious sexual side appears because it's designed into puberty- a  memorized snapshot of sexuality and what the person may consider sexual.   You ride on it forever.
> In someway this has happened to everyone, ever that has or will exist in the fur fandom



If you have a link for this info, I'd totally appreciate it.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 2, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> Okay then, how would one go about fixing these problems?


The best option is to simply remove the notion that this is what everyone is here for. 
That statement above "everyone in the fandom has gone through a period of sexual awakening with furries" they really haven't. There are plenty of people that have absolutely zero interests in the sexual side of the fandom. 
They're no better or worse than those that do, it's just that there's still a pervasive assumption that somewhere there's this attraction. I think the more people realize it isn't a sexual interest and some extra stuff, but does have a completely clean side as well as the sexual side, the focus on sex will lessen.

Every fandom with members older than 14 will have porn in it. It's just many of them don't assume that the sexual interest is somehow mandatory.


----------



## Xash (Feb 3, 2012)

Mentova said:


> You can't. It lies within the community to fix this problem, and the socially awkward fetishy people are too ingrained in furry culture (lol furry culture :V ) for that to easily happen. There is no furry overlord government who can determine what will and won't fly in the community. For example, the FA cub porn ban. FA didn't tolerate it anymore (due to monetary issues but that's beside the point. :V ) and the artists just posted their porn somewhere else. You can't cut off the head of the snake to cull the issue if there are a billion heads.



hmm... furry government... that might be a good idea  we could vote online to elect a leader or president or whatever or even have a monarchy. that would be cool, no?


----------



## eljonfelarca (Feb 3, 2012)

I'm not sure but one thing is that this is the reason why Furry Fandom is popular to most(pervs) out there.


----------



## triage (Feb 3, 2012)

Xash said:


> hmm... furry government... that might be a good idea  we could vote online to elect a leader or president or whatever or even have a monarchy. that would be cool, no?



nope


----------



## Xash (Feb 3, 2012)

triage said:


> nope


why not? D:


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 3, 2012)

Xash said:


> hmm... furry government... that might be a good idea  we could vote online to elect a leader or president or whatever or even have a monarchy. that would be cool, no?



They could try, but I have a suspicion it'll not be so easy as all that.

I think, what we need is a new 'thing', something we can do a lot of and make people associate with us instead. Charity work perhaps, helping out in the local comminity, selling biscuits, whatever takes peoples' minds off the other stuff.


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Feb 3, 2012)

No idea, but I do know it got furry kicked out of my local sci fi con in the 1990s


----------



## chewycuticle (Feb 3, 2012)

ElectricBlue1989 said:


> *chewycuticle*, are you a Coop fan (NSFW)?



why yes i am


----------



## Benufon (Feb 3, 2012)

FA was swamped with pron since I first came here. I though these are furry "norm" (my bad), but I found out later that there is also people who is not struct with pron. My answer for this question is sexual drive is an instinctive bahavior which is linked with "reward system", that means there's never be enough for sex -and for porn- so it's unstopably growing in number. What I concern is those are not expressed appropriately, porn is too easily accessible in the community. It seems quite large part of the site is regulated by porn. If all the porn is withdrawn, the site would have collasped.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 3, 2012)

Benufon said:


> FA was swamped with pron since I first came here. I though these are furry "norm" (my bad), but I found out later that there is also people who is not struct with pron. My answer for this question is sexual drive is an instinctive bahavior which is linked with "reward system", that means there's never be enough for sex -and for porn- so it's unstopably growing in number. What I concern is those are not expressed appropriately, porn is too easily accessible in the community. It seems quite large part of the site is regulated by porn. If all the porn is withdrawn, the site would have collasped.



If I recall statistics say that FA has more clean art than mature art. So no, the site would not collapse if the porn went away.


----------



## FM3THOU (Feb 5, 2012)

Mentova said:


> If I recall statistics say that FA has more clean art than mature art. So no, the site would not collapse if the porn went away.


In your opinion which has a more negative effect upon the fandom? The Users or The Art?

I mean of course it would quantifying the effects exactly would be kinda impossible but based sheerly upon ones own observation I would say the users themselves produce the negativity. And on top of this I do not think the art itself that is problematic, its the venue and how openly displayed it is by certain users. 

I am just at a loss for solutions.


----------



## BRN (Feb 5, 2012)

FM3THOU said:


> I am just at a loss for solutions.



Consider removing your cranium from your anus, it might help you get over your sense of infallibility.

Mathematical problems need solutions. Physics anomalies require solutions. A matter of cultural drift doesn't require a solution, while bigotry is typically solved at its source.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 5, 2012)

SIX said:


> Consider removing your cranium from your anus, it might help you get over your sense of infallibility.
> 
> Mathematical problems need solutions. Physics anomalies require solutions. A matter of cultural drift doesn't require a solution, while bigotry is typically solved at its source.



I wouldn't say disliking the openness of the sexual side of the fandom is bigoted.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 5, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I wouldn't say disliking the openness of the sexual side of the fandom is bigoted.


 SIX may have been referring to the sexual side. It's not only the "DA FANDUM ISN'T SEXUAL!" crowd that kneejerks in response to comments, after all ("OMG IF U DUN LIKE FATFUR VORE FETISH DON'T LOOK AT FRONT PAGE WHEN I POST AND REPOST 20 COMMISSIONS GAWD").


----------



## Human (Feb 5, 2012)

Mentova said:


> If I recall sta[SUB][/SUB]tistics say that FA has more clean art than mature art. So no, the site would not collapse if the porn went away.



Five-hundred clean images with zero to ten views
Five porn images with 10,000 views

FA would go the way of Elfwood without porn


----------



## Spatel (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I wouldn't say disliking the openness of the sexual side of the fandom is bigoted.



But does that stem from disliking individuals for their behaviors or ultimately disliking people for their sexual tastes? And before you throw in a knee-jerk "furry is not a sexuality, don't compare it to being gay" response, you can be prejudiced against a group of people that have a fetish, just as you can against a sexuality. They are all sexual minorities, at the end of the day.

As an example, transvestites experience prejudice. Transvestitism is not a sexuality; it is actually pretty similar to a creature transformation fetish.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

Spatel said:


> But does that stem from disliking individuals for their behaviors or ultimately disliking people for their sexual tastes? And before you throw in a knee-jerk "furry is not a sexuality, don't compare it to being gay" response, you can be prejudiced against a group of people that have a fetish, just as you can against a sexuality. They are all sexual minorities, at the end of the day.
> 
> As an example, transvestites experience prejudice. Transvestitism is not a sexuality; it is actually pretty similar to a creature transformation fetish.



The hate lies more on the behavior then the fetish. I don't care what you do behind closed doors with consenting adults, just don't shove it in my face and act like it's an important part of your identity that EVERYONE has to know. However if you jack off to children I'm going to hate you because that's just sick even if it is a drawing. (And yes furry is not inherently a fetish or sexuality despite you bitching about it. >=[ )

For the last part... what? A transexual is not similar to a transformation fetish. That's pretty bigoted of you. They don't go "OH GOD IT WOULD BE SO SEXY IF I HAD A DICK!" it's "I do not feel comfortable in my current gender's body".


----------



## Fay V (Feb 6, 2012)

SIX said:


> Consider removing your cranium from your anus, it might help you get over your sense of infallibility.
> 
> Mathematical problems need solutions. Physics anomalies require solutions. A matter of cultural drift doesn't require a solution, while bigotry is typically solved at its source.


maybe take a breathe of air before telling others to do so eh?
If a person believes that a general set of behaviors is having a negative impact then yes, it is absolutely a problem that would need a solution.



Spatel said:


> But does that stem from disliking individuals for their behaviors or ultimately disliking people for their sexual tastes? And before you throw in a knee-jerk "furry is not a sexuality, don't compare it to being gay" response, you can be prejudiced against a group of people that have a fetish, just as you can against a sexuality. They are all sexual minorities, at the end of the day.
> 
> As an example, transvestites experience prejudice. Transvestitism is not a sexuality; it is actually pretty similar to a creature transformation fetish.



I'd say it's ultimately the behavior that is hated, but one starts to associate the behavior with the fetish by generalizing their experiences. If sonic porn artists only ever obnoxiously defend their fetish at you then you start disliking cub porn artists. 
In the end it comes to that problem where people show bad behavior and push their fetishes at the same time which links the fetish and behavior. If a person acted badly without shoving their sex life in my face I'd still hate them (and I do, for many people). Those that keep that share that information in relevant places (a TF forum maybe) but not in places not meant for it (like FAF) don't bother me at all, but I never learn that fetish because they never made the mistake of just pushing it. 

that was over generalized. sometimes it comes up naturally, which is fine, but largely the most negative responses are not to the fetish itself, but the behavior of pushing the fetish on another person.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 6, 2012)

Mentova said:


> For the last part... what? A transexual is not  similar to a transformation fetish. That's pretty bigoted of you. They  don't go "OH GOD IT WOULD BE SO SEXY IF I HAD A DICK!" it's "I do not  feel comfortable in my current gender's body".



*Transvestites are not the same thing as transsexuals.*



			
				Fay V said:
			
		

> Those that keep  that share that information in relevant  places (a TF forum maybe) but  not in places not meant for it (like FAF)  don't bother me at all, but I  never learn that fetish because they  never made the mistake of just  pushing it.



Of course. The problem to keep in mind is that one community is almost  entirely a subset of another. Most TFs are furries, and a substantial  proportion of furries are the converse. The forums that cater to TFs  are... furry forums, except for FaF.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 6, 2012)

Spatel said:


> *Transvestites are not the same thing as transsexuals.*
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. The problem to keep in mind is that one community is almost  entirely a subset of another. Most TFs are furries, and a substantial  proportion of furries are the converse. The forums that cater to TFs  are... furry forums, except for FaF.


Alright then enlighten me Mr. Giant Obnoxious Red Text.

Nevermind I looked it up myself. I always was under the assumption that the former was a derogatory term for the latter. I apologize and I guess I learned something today.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 6, 2012)

Spatel said:


> *Transvestites are not the same thing as transsexuals.*
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. The problem to keep in mind is that one community is almost  entirely a subset of another. Most TFs are furries, and a substantial  proportion of furries are the converse. The forums that cater to TFs  are... furry forums, except for FaF.



That's fair enough, but that wouldn't give a free pass to say "this is furry, I'll talk about my wet dreams brought on by Rock-a-doodle". There can be a lot of places for TF furries to talk freely. Many of them are probably furry forums. However it's a major problem to assume to automatically assume it's okay on any furry forum just because it's alright on a majority of them. 
I think that is the fundamental issue with the people that cause such a negative response. It isn't that they are sexual, it's that they lose the ability to recognize that not every place in the fandom is perfectly okay with hearing every aspect of their sex lives and interests. 
The idea seems to be a majority are sexual>>>the fandom (entirely) is sexual>>>it's okay for me to talk about this anywhere. 

in many cases it's mild, a mistake easily forgotten. However I had an early interaction where I was at a convention. There was a nearby denny's that gave great discounts so a lot of furries were talking over there. My friend and I met two guys our age at a stop light and just started talking about simple stuff. Home state, had the con been fun so far, whatever. In the time it took to get to the resturant we started to talk about pets. Dogs and cats, do you like them, cats can be kinda stuck up. The guy thought it was perfectly reasonable to start telling a story about jacking off and his cat walking in. 
That is the extreme form of the behavior that is a detriment to the fandom. 

In terms of forums, it's up to a person to lurk a bit and at least see what sort of things are accepted, and this works both ways. I can't go to a furry forum that openly accepts TF fetish talk, then start bitching about people talking about their TF fetish, that's silly. It's my responsibility to find a place relevant to my interests. 
It's other peoples responsibility to find places relevant to their interests and not try to drastically change the forum they find to accept their fetish talk if it doesn't happen to do that.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 6, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> They could try, but I have a suspicion it'll not be so easy as all that.
> 
> I think, what we need is a new 'thing', something we can do a lot of and make people associate with us instead. Charity work perhaps, helping out in the local comminity, selling biscuits, whatever takes peoples' minds off the other stuff.



What we "Need" is for people to adopt a lead by example. How you act impacts how others act. New members look to those they directly see often as a guide. If a fur-meet starts getting large numbers, plans big meets, does out-reach, and the long time active members everyone is use to seeing acts in good wonderful appropriate ways that has an influence on new members and upon other meets. People will look to those well run meets as an example of how to be run. People will look to it's leaders as a guide for what is an isn't appropriate behavior.

The same can go for the internet as well and it's communities. Lead by example is far reaching. Choosing to not get bent out of shape over trolls and hand them tactfully. Then others look at that and learn from it. Choosing to not talk 24-7 about fetish's and actually having diverse interest discussions about various things may encourage others to do the same. Choosing to not have a mouth that is turned on to talking fetish garbage 24-7 also has an effect. We don't need a government. We need individuals to take initiative.

Lead and others may follow...not by force but by behavior.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> In the time it took to get to the resturant we started to talk about pets. Dogs and cats, do you like them, cats can be kinda stuck up. The guy thought it was perfectly reasonable to start telling a story about jacking off and his cat walking in.



A cat walked in while someone was masturbating. So.... I guess they continued masturbating, because it's a cat and it's not gonna care? That could be a conversation between any two non-furry, non-fetishy adults on a sunday morning in church. If someone's parents walk in on them masturbating, does that make it incest? Do normal people ever have conversations about being walked in on while masturbating? Of course.

I don't see anything disturbing about that.

Rock-a-Doodle though... I see where you're coming from. That would be awkward to sit through. Like I said before, not excusing bad behavior.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Spatel said:


> A cat walked in while someone was masturbating. So.... I guess they continued masturbating, because it's a cat and it's not gonna care? That could be a conversation between any two non-furry, non-fetishy adults on a sunday morning in church. If someone's parents walk in on them masturbating, does that make it incest? Do normal people ever have conversations about being walked in on while masturbating? Of course.
> 
> I don't see anything disturbing about that.
> 
> Rock-a-Doodle though... I see where you're coming from. That would be awkward to sit through. Like I said before, not excusing bad behavior.



The issue was not really content. The issue is derived entirely from meeting a person and discussing masturbation within the first 15 minutes. I'm not sure what church you go to, but in general it's not socially acceptable to meet someone for the first time and go "Hi my name is dave, this one time when I was jacking off my cat came in and rubbed against me while I came". It's "turn to your neighbor and offer a greeting" not "turn to your neighbor and discuss the finer points of handcuffs in bed" 

I get that average people can talk about sex, but surely you don't believe that is a conversation you have with strangers, because if that's the case then we are operating on two different levels. 

Like I said it's not the content. I don't think people are disgusting for masturbation. I don't think a cat walking in suddenly makes you an undesirable. It is that we have people in the fandom that think it is acceptable to meet a person for the first time, and can walk into a restaurant and bring up their masturbation stories completely unprompted.

That is a level of social ignorance I haven't seen elsewhere.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 7, 2012)

Spatel said:


> A cat walked in while someone was masturbating. So.... I guess they continued masturbating, because it's a cat and it's not gonna care? That could be a conversation between any two non-furry, non-fetishy adults on a sunday morning in church. If someone's parents walk in on them masturbating, does that make it incest? Do normal people ever have conversations about being walked in on while masturbating? Of course.
> 
> I don't see anything disturbing about that.
> 
> Rock-a-Doodle though... I see where you're coming from. That would be awkward to sit through. Like I said before, not excusing bad behavior.


You really don't see what's awkward about a guy you've met for about 5 minutes randomly going on about how his cat walked in when he was jacking off?


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> That is a level of social ignorance I haven't seen elsewhere.



You would be surprised. :[


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> You would be surprised. :[



Not really. I did the anime thing for a while. The whole omgpenguinrandom highschool thing. I've seen some really socially awkward people, people that just act like idiots in public and think it's cool. 
That was just...it really took the cake.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Not really. I did the anime thing for a while. The whole omgpenguinrandom highschool thing. I've seen some really socially awkward people, people that just act like idiots in public and think it's cool.
> That was just...it really took the cake.



I knew this girl who, when the subject of World of Warcraft came up, told everyone in the conversation about her erotic role-play escapades in vivid detail. She then tried to brush it under the rug as a big joke when she noticed that this was no longer funny and in fact very awkward and uncomfortable.

I suppose that in most cases of extreme social awkwardness, it's easy to just file it all under 'lolinternet'.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I knew this girl who, when the subject of World of Warcraft came up, told everyone in the conversation about her erotic role-play escapades in vivid detail. She then tried to brush it under the rug as a big joke when she noticed that this was no longer funny and in fact very awkward and uncomfortable.
> 
> I suppose that in most cases of extreme social awkwardness, it's easy to just file it all under 'lolinternet'.



Sometimes. I do give a bit more leeway with the internet because some places accept more than others. I mean imagine if we were all at 4 chan standards...some people just don't adjust between two groups well. 

I get more shocked by IRL escapades.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> Sometimes. I do give a bit more leeway with the internet because some places accept more than others. I mean imagine if we were all at 4 chan standards...some people just don't adjust between two groups well.
> 
> I get more shocked by IRL escapades.



I just think that most of the social norms are so different between meatspace and online that it's easy for people to blur the lines when they feel too comfortable in conversation. Especially since we spend so much time in both as a culture (everyone, not just furries). I've had conversations on the internet I would never even fathom engaging in irl.

I mean, I will grant that the furry fandom is probably the only place I  can think of where 'hi my name is billy and here are a list of my  fetishes and perceived mental disorders' is not only commonplace but completely acceptable in most  circles, though.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 7, 2012)

I accidentally a second post.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I just think that most of the social norms are so different between meatspace and online that it's easy for people to blur the lines when they feel too comfortable in conversation. Especially since we spend so much time in both as a culture (everyone, not just furries). I've had conversations on the internet I would never even fathom engaging in irl.
> 
> I mean, I will grant that the furry fandom is probably the only place I  can think of where 'hi my name is billy and here are a list of my  fetishes and perceived mental disorders' is not only commonplace but completely acceptable in most  circles, though.



I think that's a problem with this generation as a whole. I don't mean that the internet makes people socially awkward, it's just a tool to help those that are avoid further contact. It's a great tool, I've had some of the most enriching conversations online. I have discussed things I wouldn't do offline before. The internet is the best place for an open and free range of ideas, which is incredibly important 
That's why I never think content is an issue. All content can be discussed. I can find people to discuss how to clean corpses with and the best techniques for that. I can find people to wax lyrical about the sexuality of anglo saxons and I have learned more about fetishes and the thought process people have with some of them. 
It's just when faced with a wide open world people seem to lose the ability to discern where it is appropriate to discuss, and that leaks offline. Offline there's all kinds of cues that tells people "no, avoid that" but if you retreat to the internet all the time you never learn the cues.

In the end it's a pity really. It hurts people in the end. There's little at stake online, or at a con, but imagine the poor kid that gets fired because they think it's fine to just tell their coworkers about their jacking off, or what interests them in sex.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 7, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> What we "Need" is for people to adopt a lead by example. How you act impacts how others act. New members look to those they directly see often as a guide. If a fur-meet starts getting large numbers, plans big meets, does out-reach, and the long time active members everyone is use to seeing acts in good wonderful appropriate ways that has an influence on new members and upon other meets. People will look to those well run meets as an example of how to be run. People will look to it's leaders as a guide for what is an isn't appropriate behavior.
> 
> The same can go for the internet as well and it's communities. Lead by example is far reaching. Choosing to not get bent out of shape over trolls and hand them tactfully. Then others look at that and learn from it. Choosing to not talk 24-7 about fetish's and actually having diverse interest discussions about various things may encourage others to do the same. Choosing to not have a mouth that is turned on to talking fetish garbage 24-7 also has an effect. We don't need a government. We need individuals to take initiative.
> 
> Lead and others may follow...not by force but by behavior.


This sounds nice in theory but unfortunately I've known too many retards who wanted to be "furry role models" and it's never worked.

To be frank, I think the "problems" we have in this fandom are unfixable. The least you can do is just carry on and maybe form smaller sub-communities that caters to your own interest. FAF is a good example of that even if I sometimes feel you guys are a bit... extreme. I'd be willing to give people a second chance but I guess I understand why you people don't. Like I've said before, I'm too nice sometimes.


----------



## zachhart12 (Feb 7, 2012)

Vaelarsa said:


> but because of the "accepting" nature (or the reputation of it in this regard) of the fandumb



That's funny...there's A SHITLOAD of non-accepting crap going all the time...A lot of furs hate other furs for their being babyfurs and all that crap or just being trolls/assholes to eachother.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> That's funny...there's A SHITLOAD of non-accepting crap going all the time...A lot of furs hate other furs for their being babyfurs and all that crap or just being trolls/assholes to eachother.




Human nature, my friend.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 7, 2012)

Mentova said:


> You really don't see what's awkward about a guy you've met for about 5 minutes randomly going on about how his cat walked in when he was jacking off?



Someone I met 5 minutes ago, sure. It may be awkward, but there's nothing offensive about it.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Someone I met 5 minutes ago, sure. It may be awkward, but there's nothing offensive about it.



I'm not sure we'd be able to see eye to eye then. To me it's pretty basic that you get to know someone before talking about the bedroom, along with a few other things. 
If you don't think that jumping into that with strangers out to lunch is not poor behavior then you're not going to see why the behaviors are so vilified and it has nothing to do with the fetish.

I mean even if you are not personally offended, can't you see how others would be?
Do you see why it's fairly socially inept to just jump into a conversation with charged material?
It's one thing if it's in an area for it. If we were at a sexual health talk then no big deal, but it was a resturant with absolutely zero prompting that it was a topic people wanted to discuss.


----------



## BRN (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> I mean even if you are not personally offended, can't you see how others would be?
> Do you see why it's fairly socially inept to just jump into a conversation with charged material?
> It's one thing if it's in an area for it. If we were at a sexual health talk then no big deal, but it was a resturant with absolutely zero prompting that it was a topic people wanted to discuss.



Put in generic terms. If "statement x" is something you find offensive, how can anyone know without bringing it up? I wasn't there at the resteraunt and yeah, I can see how it would be awkward as hell - but offensive goes from person to person. The word "retarded" gets flung around as a negatively biased adjective here at college, but having been here for two years I only saw someone react offended to its misuse for the first time - today.

There's a difference between "awkward" and offensive. Yeah, it's socially inept to jump into a conversation with charged material, but social ineptness is also kind of a misnomer; in a polite, reserved society, wearing the "wrong colour" hat is social ineptness. It's as subjective as offense.

Lastly, if people always needed a prompt about agreeable topics and topic "wanting to be discussed", conversation would be rather dull. Your acquaintaince made one hell of a mistake by choosing an awkward topic, but conversations aren't deterministic. He was imprudent, oblivious, mistaken, awkward - but you were offended, rather than him being offensive.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

SIX said:


> Put in generic terms. If "statement x" is something you find offensive, how can anyone know without bringing it up? I wasn't there at the resteraunt and yeah, I can see how it would be awkward as hell - but offensive goes from person to person. The word "retarded" gets flung around as a negatively biased adjective here at college, but having been here for two years I only saw someone react offended to its misuse for the first time - today.
> 
> There's a difference between "awkward" and offensive. Yeah, it's socially inept to jump into a conversation with charged material, but social ineptness is also kind of a misnomer; in a polite, reserved society, wearing the "wrong colour" hat is social ineptness. It's as subjective as offense.
> 
> Lastly, if people always needed a prompt about agreeable topics and topic "wanting to be discussed", conversation would be rather dull. Your acquaintaince made one hell of a mistake by choosing an awkward topic, but conversations aren't deterministic. He was imprudent, oblivious, mistaken, awkward - but you were offended, rather than him being offensive.



That's natural conversation shift Six. There's a lot of non-verbal and tonal cues on what is and is not acceptable in conversation with a person and the way to broach a subject is to start small and build up when you know that people are comfortable. 
That's really basic knowledge. It's the same way you learn your friends are interested in the same stuff you are, or are not interested in some things. It's called small talk because you start small and build up. 
I can accept that what is offensive lies in the person being offended, but my entire point is that we have people in the fandom that are incredibly socially inept and have no idea how to approach a topic so they go zero to charged material. 
That is what causes the negative reaction to the fandom. Not the material itself, that doesn't matter. It's the kids that think it's okay to go to a brand new forum and talk about how they like to jack off to rainbow dash, or the people that meet someone in person for the first time and show them the porn they just bought. 
People in the fandom lose the sense of a time and place, they lose the ability for basic human conversation, and it makes the fandom appear worse than it is. 

I honestly think the only difference in sexuality between the furry fandom and many others is the ratio of people that think the furry fandom is free to discuss anything, no matter what, no matter where. So you get fursuiters that randomly hump others, teens that identify themselves with their fetishes, and kids that just in general are losing the ability to function without causing a stir in public.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 7, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Someone I met 5 minutes ago, sure. It may be awkward, but there's nothing offensive about it.


You're right in that, technically, there's nothing _offensive_ about it, but it's still extremely rude and poor tact to go up to strangers you've just barely associated with and start publicly talking about your sexual activities. 



zachhart12 said:


> That's funny...there's A SHITLOAD of non-accepting crap going all the time...A lot of furs hate other furs for their being babyfurs and all that crap or just being trolls/assholes to eachother.


I think that was Vael's point in putting quotation marks around "accepting". And it's rather obvious that (in general) Furries dislike anyone who mocks them ("GORRAM TWOLLS") or anyone who is suspected as a potential mocker at any time ("BAW MUNDANE HYOOMANZ").


----------



## Spatel (Feb 7, 2012)

Attaman said:


> You're right in that, technically, there's nothing _offensive_ about it, but it's still extremely rude and poor tact to go up to strangers you've just barely associated with and start publicly talking about your sexual activities.



I think it is bad tact but there's nothing about sexual topics that should make them automatically rude to bring up.

The very first sentence that comes out of someone's mouth probably shouldn't be  "I was masturbating the other day and..." But a 5-minute conversation could naturally lead there. If you're talking to Lewis Black or George Carlin it would only take 5 minutes to get there.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 7, 2012)

Spatel said:


> I think it is bad tact but there's nothing about sexual topics that should make them automatically rude to bring up.
> 
> The very first sentence that comes out of someone's mouth probably should be  "I was masturbating the other day and..." But a 5-minute conversation with someone could naturally lead there without getting uncomfortable, certainly. If they have a sufficiently good wit and personal presentation, an ability to clearly demonstrate when they're being ironic or self-deprecating, an understanding that they're being bawdy for polite society but that it's all in good fun... depends on the vibe. Depends on the execution.


The point is it _didn't _naturally lead to that point. He just randomly brought it up for no reason. They were not at a point where it would be appropriate to discuss a sexual topic and he just brought it up anyways. This is what we've been saying is bad about the fandom.

Let me put it this way, would you be annoyed if we were talking about furries and out of the blue I was like "yesterday I bought $200 worth of legos and it was cool"? That is not how you carry a conversation. That's being a socially awkward dweeb and just blathering on about completely unrelated topics. _That _is the issue. Furries just seem to do that with sex and fetishes.


----------



## BRN (Feb 7, 2012)

Fay V said:


> That's natural conversation shift Six. There's a lot of non-verbal and tonal cues on what is and is not acceptable in conversation with a person and the way to broach a subject is to start small and build up when you know that people are comfortable.
> That's really basic knowledge. It's the same way you learn your friends are interested in the same stuff you are, or are not interested in some things. It's called small talk because you start small and build up.
> I can accept that what is offensive lies in the person being offended, but my entire point is that we have people in the fandom that are incredibly socially inept and have no idea how to approach a topic so they go zero to charged material.
> That is what causes the negative reaction to the fandom. Not the material itself, that doesn't matter. It's the kids that think it's okay to go to a brand new forum and talk about how they like to jack off to rainbow dash, or the people that meet someone in person for the first time and show them the porn they just bought.
> ...



Not that I'm denying how conversations naturally develop from cues, or that socially awkward people don't fully pick up on them. And not that I'm denying that social ineptness causes negative association, or that oversexualisation is a pretty terrible personal trait. 

What I am saying, though, is that awkwardness and offense are pretty different. Some people become offended by particular topics, and if those topics are handled without care then that's when controversy forms.

Awkwardness is something you walk away from and leave behind - bad memory, you don't deal with the person again. But it's borderline fallacy to treat offense in any other way. If the person is offensive without intent and it's not harmful, then it's just social incompatibility, much like awkwardness. To say your personal, subjective reaction to things you perceive as offensive makes the social "crime" objectively worse is rather silly. 

 Your resteraunt acquaintance was an awkward prat, but "offensiveness" isn't something that belongs to his character, just subjective perception. You can't really apply it to what he's said, as if it's a trait of his speech.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 7, 2012)

Isn't "tactless" the word we are looking for when it comes to sutiations when a person brings up a topic that is highly unsuitable for public discussion? Akwardlessness can lead to tactless behavior, but it varies I guess.


----------



## Spatel (Feb 7, 2012)

Mentova said:


> Let me put it this way, would you be annoyed if we were talking about furries and out of the blue I was like "yesterday I bought $200 worth of legos and it was cool"? That is not how you carry a conversation. That's being a socially awkward dweeb and just blathering on about completely unrelated topics. _That _is the issue. Furries just seem to do that with sex and fetishes.



You make an excellent point. I'll add that Furries do this with everything, and not just sex and fetishes. The lego example could've easily been someone at any of the furmeets I've ever been to.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 7, 2012)

Reproduction is pretty much hard-wired in, as everyone is well aware. How it got mixed up with furries...was when they day-dreamed about reality-escaping fantasies as a furry...which ultimately led around to other aspects of what makes us an animal.

Also. I don't want to know what you are doing in your bedroom unless I explicitly ask. That's just vulgar.


----------



## Fay V (Feb 7, 2012)

SIX said:


> Stuff


I think we're arguing in circles. 

What I believe is the furry fandom is no more sexual than any other fandom. I do believe the furry fandom gets a far more negative reaction to the sexual side. I believe this is because many furries are tactless. 
The content doesn't matter, the offense doesn't actually matter. What matters is there are enough furries that are tactless about their sexual adventures, or really mostly anything that their behavior causes more problems, and makes it appear that the fandom is more sexual than it is. 
That is the long and short of the problem, the tactlessness. That is a problem on many fronts with furries, not just with sex. 

Now I accept that offense is something that comes from me, I am offended by X, but it's foolish to think that is a minority opinion. So when you have a lot of furries without tact, bringing up a subject that is still offensive in some way or another to a lot of people, then you have a problem. 



Spatel said:


> You make an excellent point. I'll add that Furries do this with everything, and not just sex and fetishes. The lego example could've easily been someone at any of the furmeets I've ever been to.



Yeah that's fair enough really. I remember another furry telling me all about his second life character and wanting to show me and everything, when all I did was sit in the lobby so I could use the internet for a few minutes. 
tactlessness is a big issue in furries.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 7, 2012)

HAXX said:


> Reproduction is pretty much hard-wired in, as everyone is well aware.


 No, stop. Bad HAXX, bad. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

This is one of the worst justifications of the sexuality of Furry, right along with "Mind your own business" and "At least we're not as horny as [x], amirite?" Reproduction is hard-wired into us (humanity), but look at Star Trek. Look at Warhammer. Look at Model Trains. If this justification held water, why - praytell - don't these hobbies / fandoms have excessive amounts of pornography? Why are they not fetish havens with off-the-top-of-head examples of sites with features like "Did you jizz to this picture" or "Search by Fetish, any Fetish!"?

This is a terrible excuse for why Furry has been so sexualized, and is more often than not used purely to _defend_ such behavior. 



HAXX said:


> Also. I don't want to know what you are doing in your bedroom unless I explicitly ask. That's just vulgar.


 How do you feel about forums with 10%+ of their avatars being cropped porn?


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 8, 2012)

This is getting all the more confusing and I'm clueless on what side to take here. On one hand it is kind of tactless to talk about porn where it's not needed but isn't it also pretty damn tactless to fly into infantile rage and insult someone just because the other person was being "tactless"?



Attaman said:


> How do you feel about forums with 10%+ of their avatars being cropped porn?


As long as it's not something completely tasteless like ass and titties or an obvious orgasm-face I don't see the problem. If it's PG-13 it should be fine.


----------



## huskyhuskyhusky (Feb 8, 2012)

Wanna know what other group is far more into porn and sex than furries? The human race as a whole. Honestly, try waking up in the morning and counting every single sexualized commercial, reference, advertisement, joke, or personal thought that you have before you go to bed. Every single popular fandom in the world is going to have sex in it, and in all honesty, the furry fandom is about average in my opinion. It's virtually impossible to avoid this subject no matter where you are in the world unless you're a eunuch that lives in a concrete cubical in the middle of a desert. I think it would be more surprising if porn and sex wasn't common with furries.


----------



## Tycho (Feb 8, 2012)

Attaman said:


> How do you feel about forums with 10%+ of their avatars being cropped porn?



That's an optimistic number for a base percentage.  Just saying.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 8, 2012)

huskyhuskyhusky said:


> Wanna know what other group is far more into porn and sex than furries? The human race as a whole. Honestly, try waking up in the morning and counting every single sexualized commercial, reference, advertisement, joke, or personal thought that you have before you go to bed. Every single popular fandom in the world is going to have sex in it, and in all honesty, the furry fandom is about average in my opinion. It's virtually impossible to avoid this subject no matter where you are in the world unless you're a eunuch that lives in a concrete cubical in the middle of a desert. I think it would be more surprising if porn and sex wasn't common with furries.


Dude what? No thanks. Attaman already approached this reasonably well...



Attaman said:


> This is one of the worst justifications of the sexuality of Furry, right along with "Mind your own business" and "At least we're not as horny as [x], amirite?" Reproduction is hard-wired into us (humanity), but look at Star Trek. Look at Warhammer. Look at Model Trains. If this justification held water, why - praytell - don't these hobbies / fandoms have excessive amounts of pornography? Why are they not fetish havens with off-the-top-of-head examples of sites with features like "Did you jizz to this picture" or "Search by Fetish, any Fetish!"?
> 
> This is a terrible excuse for why Furry has been so sexualized, and is more often than not used purely to _defend_ such behavior.


Besides, from what I can gather the human race just tries to tell you that sex is fucking shameful anyway. I hate people.


----------



## huskyhuskyhusky (Feb 8, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Dude what? No thanks. Attaman already approached this reasonably well...



I wasn't asking your opinion, bud, I was stating my own. Views are relative to the person on this subject, they are called fetishes for a reason. To say there isn't a train fetish, or a rock fetish, a bridge fetish, a nature fetish, a waterfall fetish, ect ect is like saying there isn't a foot fetish, a vore fetish, a tail fetish, leather fetish, and so on. The main difference is that the former fetishes might not be as well known or as indulged as the ladder. To say it's such a tragedy that sex has been intertwined a bit into the furry fandom doesn't really make much sense to me because there are several other fandoms with equal acceptability of art that have about equal amounts of sex. It's not a new concept, and if there is such an openness to creativity that being a furry has then it's pretty unavoidable.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Feb 8, 2012)

huskyhuskyhusky said:


> I wasn't asking your opinion, bud, I was stating my own.


My friend, this is a discussion board. If you state your opinion here, you _are_ asking for others to chime in on it. If you aren't willing to deal with that then you should put your thoughts on a personal journal of some sort. 


I have no dogs in this fight, however.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 8, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> There's something quite peculiar about the furry fandom. Sure, all fandoms have a sexual side to it, but with furries it's somehow become a norm and "mainstream" in the fandom in comparison to other fandoms I know of.



Wait.  Isn't this "mainstream" for like...  _Humanity in general_?

I don't see anything different with furries except it's a bunch of sexually repressed geeks.

Maybe that's why it stands out so much?

EDIT: I see this was already brought up but it's true, so whatever


----------



## Attaman (Feb 8, 2012)

huskyhuskyhusky said:


> To say there isn't a train fetish, or a rock fetish, a bridge fetish, a nature fetish, a waterfall fetish, ect ect is like saying there isn't a foot fetish, a vore fetish, a tail fetish, leather fetish, and so on.


Saying I argued something I never argued to add credence to your stance.

I'm not saying there's no train fetish, or no Star Trek fetish. I'm saying that if your excuse holds water, then these fandoms should have a pornographic presence comparable to Furry. I challenge you - _challenge_ you - to find the Furaffinity, SoFurry, and Inkbunny of _Star Trek_. Now Model Trains. _Harry Potter_. But don't spend too long, it's a generally wasted effort.

Furthermore, you make the claim that "Humanity as a whole is more sexual than the Furry Fandom". Either pony up a source, or withdraw / concede the claim. 



huskyhuskyhusky said:


> The main difference is that the former fetishes might not be as well known or as indulged as the ladder.


 ... Doesn't this statement directly contradict your earlier claim? "Furry is not extra sexual! The only difference between it and other fandoms is that other fandoms might not indulge in porn as much as Furry!"



huskyhuskyhusky said:


> To say it's such a tragedy that sex has been intertwined a bit into the furry fandom doesn't really make much sense to me because there are several other fandoms with equal acceptability of art that have about equal amounts of sex.


 Name one besides Anime that is not a Fetish-first Fandom-second fandom. Go on. And this is being generous with Anime being considered sexual, and not the difference between _Anime_ fan and _Hentai_ fan. 



huskyhuskyhusky said:


> and if there is such an *openness to creativity* that being a *furry*


 Goddammit, now my orange juice is all over my keyboard!


----------



## FiiCoon (Feb 8, 2012)

I think it's the fact that a lot of furries are socially awkward and don't have good self-images; who wouldn't want to role play as a sexy fit vixen rather than an unemployed overweight man who lives at home. Not saying the latter is terrible, but it's certainly less appealing than a fox girl who is all boobs.


----------



## zachhart12 (Feb 9, 2012)

FiiCoon said:


> who wouldn't want to role play as a sexy fit vixen rather than an unemployed overweight man.



CSI much?  lawl


----------



## Perception (Feb 9, 2012)

Split, make a sub group which is completely anti porn.

If you know what i mean. But no doubt people will hate my idea =)


----------



## Spatel (Feb 9, 2012)

FiiCoon said:


> I think it's the fact that a lot of furries are socially awkward and don't have good self-images; who wouldn't want to role play as a sexy fit vixen rather than an unemployed overweight man *who lives at home*. Not saying the latter is terrible, but it's certainly less appealing than a fox girl who is all boobs.



Hey, at least he owns his own house. Most furries live with their parents.

I'm in good shape and I have a good job, but I'd totally give Satan my soul to wake up a sexy vixen tomorrow... not all boobs though. Probably more medium-ish in the boob department. Moderation, y'know?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 9, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Hey, at least he owns his own house. Most furries live with their parents.



Most furries who live with their parents do not contribute to the household and/or go to school.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 9, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Most furries who live with their parents do not contribute to the household and/or go to school.



I contribute :C


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 9, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Most furries who live with their parents do not contribute to the household and/or go to school.



I do. :C Mostly cos if I don't, bad things happen.

Though admittedly, I was a NEET when I joined this place.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 9, 2012)

Mentova said:


> I contribute :C



I do too...but I shoud've said "some".


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 10, 2012)

I don't have a jorb or school but I have my own apartment. Do I win?


----------



## WhiteWolfeh (Feb 12, 2012)

Why is it wrong?

I mean, come on. We don't live in the middle ages anymore. I really don't understand why so many people are ashamed of it, are you really that insecure?
 Humans are sexual animals, and most of these desires have been surpressed by religion for a long time. Simply out of fear for being thrown into the pits of hell. Ever wonder why so many Americans go ape-shit when a boob is shown on TV, yet war, death and violence is perfectly okay? Fear.

Seriously, America (and most western countries) need to get rid of religion and being oversensative to sex.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 12, 2012)

WhiteWolfeh said:


> Why is it wrong?
> 
> I mean, come on. We don't live in the middle ages anymore. I really don't understand why so many people are ashamed of it, are you really that insecure?
> Humans are sexual animals, and most of these desires have been surpressed by religion for a long time. Simply out of fear for being thrown into the pits of hell. Ever wonder why so many Americans go ape-shit when a boob is shown on TV, yet war, death and violence is perfectly okay? Fear.
> ...


I want to agree with you but I'm not sure I like where you're going with this opinion. I'm not one who wants to talk about masturbation at Wayne's Coffee (Swedish Starbucks equivalent).


----------



## Mentova (Feb 12, 2012)

WhiteWolfeh said:


> Why is it wrong?
> 
> I mean, come on. We don't live in the middle ages anymore. I really don't understand why so many people are ashamed of it, are you really that insecure?
> Humans are sexual animals, and most of these desires have been surpressed by religion for a long time. Simply out of fear for being thrown into the pits of hell. Ever wonder why so many Americans go ape-shit when a boob is shown on TV, yet war, death and violence is perfectly okay? Fear.
> ...


It's not out of fear. Sex is a private and intimate thing. Some people don't wanna hear about how you masturbate to dog dicks 5 minutes after we've met for the first time.


----------



## Aetius (Feb 12, 2012)

WhiteWolfeh said:


> Seriously, America (and most western countries) need to get rid of religion and being oversensative to sex.



Sorry that some of us enjoy privacy and decency.


----------



## Moonfall The Fox (Feb 12, 2012)

I don't mind privacy and decency but America is obsessed with censorship, really. I don't want to see giant cocks in my face, but I've had trouble even getting SONGS on youtube because they're censored to 18+. And if I can find the song, it usually has half the words bleeped out (There was a song where hit was bleeped out..really?).


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 12, 2012)

WhiteWolfeh said:


> Why is it wrong?
> 
> I mean, come on. We don't live in the middle ages anymore. I really don't understand why so many people are ashamed of it, are you really that insecure?
> Humans are sexual animals, and most of these desires have been surpressed by religion for a long time. Simply out of fear for being thrown into the pits of hell. Ever wonder why so many Americans go ape-shit when a boob is shown on TV, yet war, death and violence is perfectly okay? Fear.
> ...



Sex is a private matter between two or more consenting adults. We don't need to know what you do or how many dildos you can take up your ass.
And seriously, you masturbate in a public area like a library, watch out for me. I am more likely to spray mace all over your pecker than to tell you to stop. :V


----------



## ADF (Feb 12, 2012)

Trying to explain why furry is sexual is like trying to explain why people are attracted to furries in the first place. Bugger knows why our sex drive latches onto different themes. For me it was just a inexplicable childhood obsession with lizards/dragons and thick long tails, expressed by making lizardy things out of everything from plasticine to K'nex, that turned naughty come puberty.

Clearly all the fetishism is a result of the fandoms openness to all, but I doubt the sexual themes are something that was imported in and the fandom was "pure" at any one point. Just a bunch of weirdos enjoying anthro themes, some who simply enjoy anthro stuff; and some that are attracted to that stuff.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Feb 13, 2012)

this probably doesn't apply to anyone but I see it as some uncanny valley-type thing. I don't have too many weird fetishes so somebody with one please help me out. I've seen some random Youtube fetish videos, like let's say giantess videos. Macro stuff in furry I just can kind of ignore but the way the Youtube videos are depicted are just so weird to me. Like if everything in the video is intended to stimulate/emulate feeling of bigness I cannot understand that fetish at all. So are a lot of macro furries also youtube macro video people at the same time, or are those people 'weird' to you? I don't think it's that furries are perverts, more that perverts are furries lol. Like a safe way to explore sexuality... like how a bunch of furries seem to admit being gay/bi with furries but straight with humans. I think it serves the same purpose as a shemale/drag queen with kinda gay/bi guys, and transsexuals always seem to be oversexualized compared to the rest of the population


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 13, 2012)

For my thing, I like it in real life, on youtube (and xtube) and seeing pictures and animations on here, as well as reading stories, and perhaps more I haven't found yet. Though, I can understand why some people might not feel that way about all media forms, it just comes down to what you like, often with no apparent rational explanation. For example, I have never been a particularly huge fan of roleplaying it, somehow that just doesn't do it for me anywhere near as much. Or maybe I'm just bad at it.
What appeals most to me is this huge variety, if I were only seeing the same thing over and over, I would soon get bored, but reading a story, watching a short film, looking at pictures and then discussing it with friends, one after another, so much better, for me.
And the great thing is, there are so many other people here that share my interests and are really very good at drawing and writing about it, seems this site attracts some very talented and creative people.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Feb 14, 2012)

Attaman said:


> No, stop. Bad HAXX, bad. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
> 
> This is one of the worst justifications of the sexuality of Furry, right along with "Mind your own business" and "At least we're not as horny as [x], amirite?" Reproduction is hard-wired into us (humanity), but look at Star Trek. Look at Warhammer. Look at Model Trains. If this justification held water, why - praytell - don't these hobbies / fandoms have excessive amounts of pornography? Why are they not fetish havens with off-the-top-of-head examples of sites with features like "Did you jizz to this picture" or "Search by Fetish, any Fetish!"?
> 
> ...



So, natural human behavior is not justifiable (reproduction)? Excuse me then!  Also, I am a little confused as to where you think I said it was okay as an excuse...it was merely a grossly simplified opinion.There is no single suggestion that determines why the fandom became sex crazed.

Damnit Jim! I'm a medic not a politian!


----------



## Attaman (Feb 14, 2012)

HAXX said:


> So, natural human behavior is not justifiable (reproduction)?


 Not when, if it were true, you'd see it much more frequently elsewhere. The defense was "Furry is sexual because humans are horny"... but that doesn't hold water unless (on average) other fandoms are approximately as sexual as Furry. For the most part, other fandoms _aren't_ as sexual. You can then try to defend it by saying "Furry is more open about their sexuality", but that merely changes the question.



HAXX said:


> Also, I am a little confused as to where you think I said it was okay as an excuse...it was merely a grossly simplified opinion.


 The problem is, there is a number of furries that don't present it as an opinion. For them, it's a knee-jerk defense because "Mundane don't understand!" and "Mind your own business!" are no longer applicable, and is essentially saying "Hey, it's alright if we have a Cum Counter and identify people by fetishes / their online persona's genitalia! Other fandoms are just no-fun prudes!"



HAXX said:


> There is no single suggestion that determines why the fandom became sex crazed.


 This bit I'll agree with. There's a variety of factors that have lead to Furry being sexual: That it's portrayed as alright, that some Furries need all their consumed media to be Furry or Furry affiliated, that some consider it more than a Hobby / Interest, the "tolerance" toward other Furries within the fandom, that Furry often reaches out to try absorbing other fandoms... You'd have to address so many points to properly reduce the sexuality that it's no surprise the more common solution is "Scorched Earth".


----------



## Blutide (Feb 14, 2012)

Some weird shit happens when you just get locked up in a basement.


----------



## WhiteWolfeh (Feb 21, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> I want to agree with you but I'm not sure I like where you're going with this opinion. I'm not one who wants to talk about masturbation at Wayne's Coffee (Swedish Starbucks equivalent).



It depends on the situation. With relationships, i'd prefer some privacy too. 
However, sex can also be a recreational activity. I do it frequently.



			
				mentova said:
			
		

> It's not out of fear. Sex is a private and intimate thing. Some people don't wanna hear about how you masturbate to dog dicks 5 minutes after we've met for the first time.


Where did i mention bestiality you sick ****?


----------



## Mentova (Feb 21, 2012)

WhiteWolfeh said:


> It depends on the situation. With relationships, i'd prefer some privacy too.
> However, sex can also be a recreational activity. I do it frequently.
> 
> 
> Where did i mention bestiality you sick ****?



You can say fuck here.

And it's a furry stereotype to masturbate to dog dicks. If that silly example offended you this might not be a good forum for you...


----------



## triage (Feb 21, 2012)

WhiteWolfeh said:


> Where did i mention bestiality you sick ****?



hey now there's no need to be offended
if you jerk it to dog dicks
that's you man


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Feb 21, 2012)

triage said:


> hey now there's no need to be offended
> if you jerk it to dog dicks
> that's you man


so ****ing mad right now mane .  My animal people obsession is legit I assure you, fellow furrie lover.


----------



## Flippy (Feb 21, 2012)

An old sock used for inappropriate things sat around for too long, the mold grew into a horny furry wolf that learned how to use IRC and the rest is history. True Story. The end. Glad I could help debunk that for you guys.



P.S. Don't drink hard cider and post guys. This has been a public service announcement by Flippy.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 22, 2012)

Flippy said:


> An old sock used for inappropriate things sat around for too long, the mold grew into a horny furry wolf that learned how to use IRC and the rest is history. True Story. The end. Glad I could help debunk that for you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Don't drink hard cider and post guys. This has been a public service announcement by Flippy.


This made my day. You should totally write the furry book of genesis.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 22, 2012)

triage said:


> hey now there's no need to be offended
> if you jerk it to dog dicks
> that's you man



Dog dicks screwing horizontal human vaginas. :V


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 22, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Dog dicks screwing horizontal human vaginas. :V


I still haven't seen these rumored horizontal vaginas I keep hearing about. I'm desperately curious here.


----------



## BRN (Feb 22, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> I still haven't seen these rumored horizontal vaginas I keep hearing about. I'm desperately curious here.



You find them on realistic feral scalesonas. Because I'm me I'll say "Dragonite", but the popular 'western dragon' artists seem to feature them a lot.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 22, 2012)

SIX said:


> You find them on realistic feral scalesonas. Because I'm me I'll say "Dragonite", but the popular 'western dragon' artists seem to feature them a lot.


Oh yeah, that. I thought she was referring to horizontal vagoos on regular anthros.


----------



## PapayaShark (Feb 22, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Dog dicks screwing horizontal human vaginas. :V



Its not vaginas, its papercuts between their legs. :V


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Feb 22, 2012)

Kellie Gator said:


> Oh yeah, that. I thought she was referring to horizontal vagoos on regular anthros.



I thought she was referring to humans.

Blarrgghhh D:


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 22, 2012)

SIX said:


> You find them on realistic feral scalesonas. Because I'm me I'll say "Dragonite", but the popular 'western dragon' artists seem to feature them a lot.



Your Avvie is cute btw...-off topic-


----------



## JaguarSoul (Feb 22, 2012)

I prefer more realistic genitals, humans's are kinda ugly if u ask me, imo.


----------



## Xenke (Feb 22, 2012)

JaguarSoul said:


> I prefer more realistic genitals, humans's are kinda ugly if u ask me, imo.



Argument makes no sense, but ok then. We didn't need to know that.


----------



## PapayaShark (Feb 22, 2012)

JaguarSoul said:


> I prefer more realistic genitals, humans's are kinda ugly if u ask me, imo.



How is human genitalila not realistic?


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 22, 2012)

JaguarSoul said:


> I prefer more realistic genitals, humans's are kinda ugly if u ask me, imo.


In contrary to other FAFers, I find great enjoyment in your posting and I do hope you get to keep doing so for a very long time.

Yes, you're right. Human dicks are merely exaggerated cartoon fiction!


----------



## Khei (Feb 22, 2012)

I personally think Furry Porn was around long before there was even a furry fandom..

How far back does "furry" as a fandom actually date back? Does anyone know?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 22, 2012)

Khei said:


> I personally think Furry Porn was around long before there was even a furry fandom..
> 
> How far back does "furry" as a fandom actually date back? Does anyone know?



The 80's. :V
Unless you mean Bestiality....that's been around for a long time unless you count horse-fucking as furry porn. :V


----------



## Khei (Feb 22, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The 80's. :V
> Unless you mean Bestiality....that's been around for a long time unless you count horse-fucking as furry porn. :V



XP

I still say Furry Porn came first. "Fritz the Cat" is proof of that unless Furry dates back to prior to 1965

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

There's a X-rated cartoon of the same name too.

Just Sayin'


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 22, 2012)

Khei said:


> XP
> 
> I still say Furry Porn came first. "Fritz the Cat" is proof of that unless Furry dates back to prior to 1965
> 
> ...



Just because sexualized anthro animals were in film and media, doesn't mean that it is furry.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 22, 2012)

Khei said:


> I personally think Furry Porn was around long before there was even a furry fandom..
> 
> How far back does "furry" as a fandom actually date back? Does anyone know?



Not sure if trolling or intellectually challenged. :c

Let us get something straight here. Every furry thing is Anthro-Animal. Not Every Anthro-Animal thing is furry. So you can't go back and look at things like old cartoons that pushed boundaries by hiding it behind cartoon animal characters and say "oh well obviously it dates back to that!". Fritz the Cat was not furry. Albedo Anthropomorphics was not furry. Lion King is not Furry. Gex the Gecko, Spyro the Dragon...It's all not furry and you know how I know? I don't see anywhere detailing mainstream accepted information by the public labeling that stuff furry.

Furry dates back to the Science Fiction conventions...and to when people began to get together there just for the concept of Anthro-Animals. That initially was not called furry, but they were like proto-furs in a sense. What evolved from that is the actual Furry Fandom.


----------



## Khei (Feb 22, 2012)

It's still anthro porn and since "furry" is a fandom dedicated to Anthros in a general sense it's easy to understand why 90% of non-furries make the connection. Anthros fucking + Furries = Sexual deviants


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2012)

Khei said:


> It's still anthro porn and since "furry" is a fandom dedicated to Anthros in a general sense it's easy to understand why 90% of non-furries make the connection. Anthros fucking + Furries = Sexual deviants



Non furries do not make the connection, real furries do. :V
I bet if you walk up to a person and ask them if they know what a furry was, they'd say it was a toy.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 23, 2012)

Khei said:


> It's still anthro porn and since "furry" is a fandom dedicated to Anthros in a general sense it's easy to understand why 90% of non-furries make the connection. Anthros fucking + Furries = Sexual deviants



Please do not pull statistics when you know you don't have any actual factual truth to them. Now I will give you this, that is true that we are a fandom that is dedicated to Anthro animal themes. We should however remember that despite our own intense interest in the matter there is a lot of anthro-animal content that is not us. It's not made for us. It's not made by us. It does not wear our name. It is our own people being unable to sit and differentuate between mainstream/non furry anthro content and furry content that causes a confuses for some outsiders. Really though most non furs I speak with are perfectly capable of telling the difference between actual real furry content and non furry anthro-animal content.

EDIT: It can be a strong form of disrespect to look at a lot of older cartoons with racy themes and simply label it anthro-porn. Doing so belittles and ignores the entire reason and historical context behind that content. For example when Fritz the Cat was made it was an attempt to touch topic on things that otherwise were not acceptable during those times to bring up(basically it pushed boundaries/made a statement). The way they brought it up in that way kind of edged the way in for targeting different themes. It's similar to how South Park has been able to touch topics that otherwise would be banned from the television (not the internet oops).


----------



## Calemeyr (Feb 23, 2012)

I blame Robert Crumb for all of the fandoms problems...or maybe the fact that a large amount of socially awkward people congregate in small places has something to do with it...


----------



## Khei (Feb 23, 2012)

That "90%" wasn't intended as a legit statistic nor did I claim it to be.

Back on topic...

 It's a situation of agree to disagree here. Anthro art (In whatever form) is Anthro art (The term "Anthro" here specifically pertaining to Anthro Animals). Just because the artist/creator isn't a furry doesn't change that fact. If I draw the Enterprise, even tho I'm not a Trekkie, it's still the Enterprise. It's not magically not related to Star Trek just because I'm not part of the fandom dedicated to it.

My opinion is in the mix. I'm not given to flame wars or drama so this' all I have left to say on the matter.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 23, 2012)

Khei said:


> It's still anthro porn and since "furry" is a fandom dedicated to Anthros in a general sense it's easy to understand why 90% of non-furries make the connection. Anthros fucking + Furries = Sexual deviants


Just a FYI: Most non-Furries don't associate non-Furry content with Furry. It's Furries who see, say, Shelob, and go "OH EM GEE DAT'S FURRY!" Similarly, while I don't have the numbers on hand to back up this claim, I'm fairly certain that if you look for the major source of, say, Anubis Porn, or Star Fox Porn, it isn't going to be non-Fandom members.

And as another note: It's not because of a non-fandom person's miscommunication "error" that the fandom is perceived as sexual. The fandom, well, does its best to give this image on its own. Or, more accurately, does its best to openly portray (if not brag about) this image internally, sweep it under the carpet (hilariously incompetently) when non-fandom members look, then try to say the mountain in the middle of their living room floor is no different than the shoebox of _Playboy_ magazines underneath the Warsie-neighbor's bed.

EDIT: Also, the Enterprise example is a poor one to say "All anthro content belongs to the Fandom". By this logic, all Sci-Fi with heat rays belongs to the _War of the Worlds_ fandom.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2012)

Attaman said:


> EDIT: Also, the Enterprise example is a poor one to say "All anthro content belongs to the Fandom". By this logic, all Sci-Fi with heat rays belongs to the _War of the Worlds_ fandom.



Or any tentacle and grotesque looking monster belongs to the Hentai fandom.




Khei said:


> That "90%" wasn't intended as a legit statistic nor did I claim it to be.
> 
> Back on topic...
> 
> ...




Anthro animals in media in general is targeted to a broad audience, mostly children, it just so happens that furries enjoy watching it so they watch it. Other than that, the semantics of furry art and anthropomorphic is off topic.


----------



## ziK (Feb 23, 2012)

Attaman said:


> EDIT: Also, the Enterprise example is a poor one to say "All anthro content belongs to the Fandom". By this logic, all Sci-Fi with heat rays belongs to the _War of the Worlds_ fandom.





Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Or any tentacle and grotesque looking monster belongs to the Hentai fandom.



He was making a legitimate point that fiction containing significant anthropomorphic characters is a sort of "anthro-fiction". It can also be any other genre; sci-fi, steampunk, neo-classical zombie parody, whatever. It would be more apt to say that if I were to write a science fiction story, it doesn't matter that I don't have a deep vested interest in the sci-fi fandom. Likewise, if I get bored on a lazy rainy Sunday afternoon and draw an explicit manga about a busty chick getting pleasured against her will by a tentacle monster with a cockney accent, even if I don't give the slightest care about hentai it's still basically a hentai manga.

Dissociating from the "furry" stigma is a wise move, especially for stuff like Spyro and mainstream things like that that are more than just fodder for the masturbating furry masses. So it makes sense to say "Spyro isn't furry" because it has zilch to do with the fandom. It's still literally an anthropomorphic media.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 23, 2012)

ziK said:


> He was making a legitimate point that fiction containing significant anthropomorphic characters is a sort of "anthro-fiction". It can also be any other genre; sci-fi, steampunk, neo-classical zombie parody, whatever. It would be more apt to say that if I were to write a science fiction story, it doesn't matter that I don't have a deep vested interest in the sci-fi fandom. Likewise, if I get bored on a lazy rainy Sunday afternoon and draw an explicit manga about a busty chick getting pleasured against her will by a tentacle monster with a cockney accent, even if I don't give the slightest care about hentai it's still basically a hentai manga.



I think you misunderstood. Let's say I drew a picture of Shub Niggurath in all of it's glory, because it has tentacles should it go into the hentai fandom? :V
What the person stated is all anthro animals are furry when their target audience wasn't made for furries. It just so happens that furries take an intrest in anthro animal catoons, games and literature. Just because it has ears and a tail doesn't necessarily make it furry artwork. Same goes if someone drew up Cthulu or Shub Niggurath if they were trying to place the old gods into the hentai fandom Other than that, we're getting off topic. Want to debate about it more, make a thread about it.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 23, 2012)

I thought the original argument was something about adult-targetted cartoon animals being around long before furryness existed, and that therefore we were merely adapting something and expanding on it, rather than starting something new. Though I wasn't paying much attention, I may have missed something.


----------



## ziK (Feb 23, 2012)

I found out about furry from /b/. Posting porn was perfectly natural because /b/ is all trash and smut anyways. Everyone understands you go there to be awful and gross and post whatever dank dirty stuff you feel like.

On the other hand, FA is as close to a furry facebook as it gets, and if you refresh the front page enough, even without an account, there'll be thumbs of weird porn in no time.

At furmeets, I often see people straight-up scrolling through porn in living rooms or drawing softcore porn on the host's couch.

There's no separation of the fetish and the fandom because a lot of furs refuse to keep them separate. The notion that "furry" is innocent, at least the way it functions now, is false.


----------



## Mentova (Feb 23, 2012)

ziK said:


> I found out about furry from /b/. Posting porn was perfectly natural because /b/ is all trash and smut anyways. Everyone understands you go there to be awful and gross and post whatever dank dirty stuff you feel like.
> 
> On the other hand, FA is as close to a furry facebook as it gets, and if you refresh the front page enough, even without an account, there'll be thumbs of weird porn in no time.
> 
> ...


This is one of those things where your mileage may vary. Yeah, there are a lot of socially unacceptable pervs, but there are also plenty of chill people who have tact in this regard.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 24, 2012)

Off topic a bit but I want to disagree, I see pounced.org as more facebook like in that you create a personal profile and communicate with people by commenting on their profiles. But that's an unimportant distinction.
Otherwise, I feel I have to agree with mentova here, everyone is different, we attract almost the whole range of different people from across the internet and there is no way of stereotyping people in any way.
Though, of course, sites like this do slightly encourage those as want to to be a little more free than they might otherwise in the areas of discussing weird interests and drawing adult pictures.


----------



## JaguarSoul (Feb 24, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> Off topic a bit but I want to disagree, I see pounced.org as more facebook like in that you create a personal profile and communicate with people by commenting on their profiles. But that's an unimportant distinction.
> Otherwise, I feel I have to agree with mentova here, everyone is different, we attract almost the whole range of different people from across the internet and there is no way of stereotyping people in any way.
> Though, of course, sites like this do slightly encourage those as want to to be a little more free than they might otherwise in the areas of discussing weird interests and drawing adult pictures.



The promlem with pounced is that im always attracted to the avatars but never the photographs its always so a dissapointment


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 24, 2012)

JaguarSoul said:


> The promlem with pounced is that im always attracted to the avatars but never the photographs its always so a dissapointment


fuck it
go to soFurry
get the fuck over there


----------



## triage (Feb 24, 2012)

JaguarSoul said:


> The promlem with pounced is that im always attracted to the avatars but never the photographs its always so a dissapointment



yes that is how real life works


----------



## jcfynx (Feb 24, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> fuck it
> go to soFurry
> get the fuck over there



U show em whose a CoolFur


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 24, 2012)

I went to SoFurry once, someone I know has an account there, it didn't seem all that bad. though, I did only see a little bit.


----------



## ziK (Feb 24, 2012)

Mentova said:


> This is one of those things where your mileage may vary. Yeah, there are a lot of socially unacceptable pervs, but there are also plenty of chill people who have tact in this regard.



There totally are. But the fact that there's no problem with it is the problem. If someone shows up in infantile costume to your average meet, do you just welcome them in with open arms? At what point do you look at a furry and say "Okay, stop it, you shouldn't be doing that in public, go find a room"? I think one problem might be that furries don't ever say that lol

Arguably, this happens the same way on the internet, but it's not exactly the same because the internet is bloated with porn anyways. But when the most popular internet furry outlets are FA, which is a large percentage pornography (and if you don't have an account you're still probably gonna have at least one gay necro fat transformation image thumbnail on the front page), and imageboards like 4chan, which is also mostly porn.

If the fandom isn't sexual, then the non-sexual stuff isn't straightforward to find, is difficult to find without running into sexual stuff, and is *not* what the fandom shows of itself to the public.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 24, 2012)

ziK said:


> There totally are. But the fact that there's no problem with it is the problem. If someone shows up in infantile costume to your average meet, do you just welcome them in with open arms? At what point do you look at a furry and say "Okay, stop it, you shouldn't be doing that in public, go find a room"? I think one problem might be that furries don't ever say that lol
> 
> Arguably, this happens the same way on the internet, but it's not exactly the same because the internet is bloated with porn anyways.* But when the most popular internet furry outlets are FA, which is a large percentage pornography (and if you don't have an account you're still probably gonna have at least one gay necro fat transformation image thumbnail on the front page), and imageboards like 4chan, which is also mostly porn.*
> 
> If the fandom isn't sexual, then the non-sexual stuff isn't straightforward to find, is difficult to find without running into sexual stuff, and is *not* what the fandom shows of itself to the public.




The funny thing is statwise that FA has more clean art than mature and adult art combined..the porn just gets more views becuase everyone needs to fap, amirite?


----------



## ziK (Feb 24, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The funny thing is statwise that FA has more clean art than mature and adult art combined..the porn just gets more views becuase everyone needs to fap, amirite?



If you go down the popufur.com list there's a pretty heavy bias towards porn lol


----------



## Mentova (Feb 24, 2012)

ziK said:


> There totally are. But the fact that there's no problem with it is the problem. If someone shows up in infantile costume to your average meet, do you just welcome them in with open arms? At what point do you look at a furry and say "Okay, stop it, you shouldn't be doing that in public, go find a room"? I think one problem might be that furries don't ever say that lol
> 
> Arguably, this happens the same way on the internet, but it's not exactly the same because the internet is bloated with porn anyways. But when the most popular internet furry outlets are FA, which is a large percentage pornography (and if you don't have an account you're still probably gonna have at least one gay necro fat transformation image thumbnail on the front page), and imageboards like 4chan, which is also mostly porn.
> 
> If the fandom isn't sexual, then the non-sexual stuff isn't straightforward to find, is difficult to find without running into sexual stuff, and is *not* what the fandom shows of itself to the public.


Again, your mileage may vary. I'm not going to argue that you'll get told to get out if you show up in fetish gear at meets, because I am sure it happens. However, that doesn't mean it happens everywhere and is totally accepted. I know that if someone did that with my local group they would be told to get the fuck out faster than they could ask for sex, and at AC all fetish gear is banned. If someone is walking around in a sex fursuit, bondage gear, etc, they will be thrown out of the con if caught. And about clean art vs porn, what zeke said.



ziK said:


> If you go down the popufur.com list there's a pretty heavy bias towards porn lol


Like zeke pointed out, the statistics are that there is more clean art, but porn gets more views. Since I'm pretty sure that site is about views and not quantity, that makes it obvious how that happens. Plus some of those artists still do clean stuff, like blotch.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 24, 2012)

ziK said:


> If you go down the popufur.com list there's a pretty heavy bias towards porn lol



That's their observational bias based upon views. Popufur goes off of views, not content.




Mentova said:


> Again, your mileage may vary. I'm not going to argue that you'll get told to get out if you show up in fetish gear at meets, because I am sure it happens. However, that doesn't mean it happens everywhere and is totally accepted. I know that if someone did that with my local group they would be told to get the fuck out faster than they could ask for sex, and at AC all fetish gear is banned. If someone is walking around in a sex fursuit, bondage gear, etc, they will be thrown out of the con if caught. And about clean art vs porn, what zeke said.




The furmeet I attend (and now help mod >:V) has a zero tolerance policy against inappropriate behavior and dress in public. What we do is take the person aside, talk to them and tell them that what they are doing is inappropriate and ask them to leave for the day. If they refuse, they are barred from attending any group events that the meet has. The gripe that some furries have about our furmeets that they complain that it is "Draconian" and "Drama fodder". Believe me...it's usually those furries that complain about it being draconian drama fodder causing the drama. :V


----------



## Mentova (Feb 24, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The furmeet I attend (and now help mod >:V) has a zero tolerance policy against inappropriate behavior and dress in public. What we do is take the person aside, talk to them and tell them that what they are doing is inappropriate and ask them to leave for the day. If they refuse, they are barred from attending any group events that the meet has. The gripe that some furries have about our furmeets that they complain that it is "Draconian" and "Drama fodder". Believe me...it's usually those furries that complain about it being draconian drama fodder causing the drama. :V


But zeke they should totally be able to grope each other and wear fetish gear in public at the meets! Furries are all ok with that and have no personal space right? :V


----------



## ziK (Feb 24, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That's their observational bias based upon views. Popufur goes off of views, not content.



that's what i mean. it's a drastic example but if 90% of stuff on the site is clean and 10% is adult, but 90% of views are adult material and 10% are clean, doesn't that mean something?


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 24, 2012)

ziK said:


> that's what i mean. it's a drastic example but if 90% of stuff on the site is clean and 10% is adult, but 90% of views are adult material and 10% are clean, doesn't that mean something?



Actually! The numbers still favor general art over adult art, but it's mature that confuses me.

Based off Dragoneer's FA stats posted:
Views
282,419,291 Gen
286,016,228 Mat
107,776,786 Adult

Percents (hasty rounding)
42% Gen
42% Mat
16% Adult

So general art still dominates over adult art. No clue what the mature view count means though, since the content varies wildly.


----------



## ziK (Feb 25, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Actually! The numbers still favor general art over adult art, but it's mature that confuses me.
> 
> Based off Dragoneer's FA stats posted:
> Views
> ...



Good point. According to the Acceptable Upload Policy,

"

*General* - Content suitable for all viewers. 
 *Mature*  - Offensive content or mature themes. Mature work may involve or depict  nudity in an artistic, non-sexual manner, blood and/or violence or  non-explicit sexual themes. 
 *Adult* - Explicit sexual themes or adult content."  
Scrolling through examples, I found pics of full frontal nudity [both genders] labeled "Mature" and a barely-noticeable buttcrack labeled "Adult".

This is madness


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 25, 2012)

ziK said:


> Scrolling through examples, I found pics of full frontal nudity [both genders] labeled "Mature" and a barely-noticeable buttcrack labeled "Adult".
> 
> This is madness



Totally! 
You have violence marked as adult too! ...And vore, which is probably almost all sexual but in a small minority it's not...I guess "cannibalism" would be a better word for it. 

I also know of some artists that mark their work as mature or adult, regardless of the actual content rating, just so they can keep google and certain random people from seeing their work. They are probably a very small minority of total submissions, but there's no current way to determine the nature of the mature stuff anyway. I personally just hand wave it all and not think too much about it.


----------



## ziK (Feb 26, 2012)

I still think it stands for something that 58% of the content of FA will fall under the category of "stuff the average non-furry is *NOT* gonna wanna see".

In addition, regarding the original question, do furries not think sex is a part of the fandom? Also, what are the most significant representations of the fandom to the general public? How do they portray furries?


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 26, 2012)

ziK said:


> I still think it stands for something that 58% of the content of FA will fall under the category of "stuff the average non-furry is *NOT* gonna wanna see".
> 
> In addition, regarding the original question, do furries not think sex is a part of the fandom? Also, what are the most significant representations of the fandom to the general public? How do they portray furries?



Eh? 
There was almost 3.5 million general submissions compared to 500,000+ mature and 486,000+ adult back in July last year.
The 2012 stats aren't much different.

About 74% of non-deleted content is general. It's the views that confuse me, since mature art gets a lot of views for only making up a small portion of the content. It's even less than adult content, which still gets less views. 

I'm gonna add those questions to a list I'm forming by the way (for my other thread mostly). I'd like to know that stuff too. Hope you don't mind?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 26, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Eh?
> There was almost 3.5 million general submissions compared to 500,000+ mature and 486,000+ adult back in July last year.
> The 2012 stats aren't much different.
> 
> ...




You are my new hero. :V


----------



## ziK (Feb 26, 2012)

Sorry, I was misreading that. 58% of the content views.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 27, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You are my new hero. :V



I don't know what I did that was so special but thanks. xD



ziK said:


> Sorry, I was misreading that. 58% of the content views.



Happens! No biggie. I wasn't actually sure where you got that number at first anyway. I got confused. ^^;


----------



## ziK (Feb 27, 2012)

ziK said:


> that's what i mean. it's a drastic example but if 90% of stuff on the site is clean and 10% is adult, but 90% of views are adult material and 10% are clean, doesn't that mean something?



so again with this post. lots of general-rated stuff that isn't getting nearly its share of views, if i'm interpreting this right.. thoughts?


----------



## BRN (Feb 27, 2012)

ziK said:


> so again with this post. lots of general-rated stuff that isn't getting nearly its share of views, if i'm interpreting this right.. thoughts?



A recent clean commission of mine has earned about 360 views in two months. A much more recent adult commission of mine has earned about 450 in one week.


Through my gallery, most of my clean commissions have generated about 60-150 views with outliers on either side of that band. Yet very few of my adult commissions have less than 200, with most claiming at least 300. One in particular earned about 1200.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 27, 2012)

Haven't had the patience to read the whole thread. Will get back to it, after I get something off my chest.

I'll be frank, I'm here mainly for the porn. I do like some "general" furry art, but furry animals themselves are just a facet of our modern media a teensy-tiny spec. If you think about it, furries really don't have much to unite around, aside from retro shows and cartoons, and even that is dwindling, since no new good material is produced. Sex became something furs could hold up as a banner and say "look, numbnuts, follow this!". I don't mind people like cartoon animal people (really, why should I?), but when the same people tell us, that we should take our fetishes away, I have to tilt my head. Say, transformation and TG. Hell, even dickgirls. I've never seen this much quality material for these fetishes outside the furry community. "Quality" is the keyword here. Try it - search for any TG sites, for an example. Rampant with sexism, middle-aged crossdressers and things you don't really want to see. When most rational fans of your fetish tend to be furry, then yeah, you go to the furry sites. If not your fandom, than where?

On the other hand, yeah, it made me think. I've only posted my NSFW work on FAFF, because, well, I'm aware, that most people won't grace an aside glance for my clean stuff, which makes up the majority of the things I write, actually. I want my works to be read, so I write porn, because it sells, I guess.

Ever heard of Whateley Universe, by the way? I heard it started as a fetish work, gained popularity, as a result and evolved into something completely different. Food for thought.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 27, 2012)

Goronian said:


> Haven't had the patience to read the whole thread. Will get back to it, after I get something off my chest.
> 
> I'll be frank, I'm here mainly for the porn. I do like some "general" furry art, but furry animals themselves are just a facet of our modern media a teensy-tiny spec. If you think about it, furries really don't have much to unite around, aside from retro shows and cartoons, and even that is dwindling, since no new good material is produced.




That's not true, with new games and media coming out it creates more fan work and more furries flocking to it.. Furries do have something to come together on, but not all of it is going to be for the same reasons you or I come here for. We may not have our own canon, but furries do create their own work and that gathers interest. 

If you are here for the porn, that's your reason. Not everyone's here for that same reason.




> Sex became something furs could hold up as a banner and say "look, numbnuts, follow this!".



I don't follow.... :V

Sex is just sprinkes of the Fandom's ice cream. It's not a ohuge part of it, but it isn't a big thing. With any fandom comes porn, that's a given.



> I don't mind people like cartoon animal people (really, why should I?), but when the same people tell us, that we should take our fetishes away, I have to tilt my head.



If I am reading this correctly, your gripe is people telling you to "Keep it were it belongs" or "Stop banning my porn!" The Gripe that some may have is that furries can be tactless with their porn and fetishes. Instead of treating it like something they enjoy, they use it as a badge of honor to display in an attempt to have people accept them or convert to their way of thinking. It makes people uncomfortable when they do this, and furries who "Don't get it" get upset when someone tells them to stop and put it away. 

No one wants to take your fetishes, instead want to you be more tactful. 



> Rampant with sexism, middle-aged crossdressers and things you don't really want to see.



Congrats, you just explained the Furry fandom's bowels. :V





> When most rational fans of your fetish tend to be furry, then yeah, you go to the furry sites. If not your fandom, than where?



I am going to have to stop you there. Most furries are NOT rational about their fetishes. There have been times when types of fetishes have been a liability to this site that it had to go. Instead of finding another place to host it, they throw a tantrum and go to great stretches at risk of their account being banned to harass an admin to get their way. This was seen during the CP ban, and also when the "no fetish gear" restriction was put into place as well. I also lost a friend because he was pissed and I didn't agree with him on sex and fetishes in the fandom.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 27, 2012)

In the end, though, we just have the best fantasy and fetish based porn on the internet, and people flock here for that from far and wide.
that, and we're open and accepting of everyone just enough that many people push the boundaries a little too far now and then.

interesting anecdote I learnt recently, about ten years or so ago, people were openly engaging in sexual acts at london furmeets, because the organisers had booked private venues to host them, and people thought they could get away with anything.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 27, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That's not true, with new games and media coming out it creates more fan work and more furries flocking to it.. Furries do have something to come together on, but not all of it is going to be for the same reasons you or I come here for. We may not have our own cannon, but by hell we can create our own work.


Frankly, I may be wrong, but I haven't seen anything furry in years. Not since early noughties.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I don't follow.... :/


You have to excuse me, I had a lot of work lately, which means it's kinda hard for me to express my thoughts clearly today. I guess, what I was trying to say, um... There is barely a clear definition, what a "furry" is, nor is there a clear image. "Sex" is easy, "being aesthetically attracted to antropomorphic beings" makes common folks heads hurt.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If I am reading this correctly, your gripe is people telling you to "Keep it were it belongs" or "Stop banning my porn!" The Gripe that some may have is that furries can be tactless with their porn and fetishes. Instead of treating it like something they enjoy, they use it as a badge of honor to display in an attempt to have people accept them or convert to their way of thinking. It makes people uncomfortable when they do this, and furries who "Don't get it" get upset when someone tells them to stop and put it away.


Look, a fetish is a fetish, however you name it. Furry fandom is one of the places where all fetishes are accepted, absorbed and boiled in one big fetish pot. It's like water. I can see why people are too upfront with their fetishes, but that's what mature filters are for, right?
It's like... Disliking people, who also happen to be furry, for liking a fandom and being really-really intrusive with it. Like MLP ones, which are bloody everywhere. I'm more personally bothered by them, then by latex freaks, since the latter are a minority, compared to the former, but tolerate them, since they're all a part of the same community. If that makes sense. It doesn't to me, I can tell you that.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I am going to have to stop you there. Most furries are NOT rational about their fetishes. There have been times when types of fetishes have been a liability to this site that it had to go. Instead of finding another place to host it, they throw a tantrum and go to great stretches at risk of their account being banned to harass an admin to get their way.


Weirdly enough, my fetishes are much worse outside of FAFF. I don't even dare visit TG sites these days. Maybe I just had reverse luck, I dunno.
These people are bad, I wholeheartedly agree. But I think people are too quick to judge the porn artists, who are into some of the weird stuff. It's like... There are drama queens and there are quiet ones, who just enjoy what they are doing and the latter get ostracized even when they don't do anything. I think everyone needs to calm down and look at it from the outside perspective. People in general find furries weird, with or without sex and fursuits. Furries want some degree of acceptance. "Normal" furries find "sex" furries weird. Don't they deserve some degree of acceptance? Not... Crazy exaggerated ones, but the ones who just find the mix of a human and an animal sexy and project their fetishes on it?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 27, 2012)

Goronian said:


> There is barely a clear definition, what a "furry" is, nor is there a clear image. "Sex" is easy, "being aesthetically attracted to antropomorphic beings" makes common folks heads hurt.



There is a clear definition which blankets whe whole fandom, not just one part of it.If you are in it for the sex? Great, that's your definition for you being in the fandom. Not everyone is here for porn. I bet if you ask random furry strangers why are they in the fandom, you'd get less "For porn" answers. 




> Look, a fetish is a fetish, however you name it. Furry fandom is one of the places where all fetishes are accepted, absorbed and boiled in one big fetish pot.




Not all fetishes are accepted mind you. Tolerated to a certain degree, but not accepted. There are fetishes that are broguht in that are "Questionable" to law standards and seen as dangers that shouldn't be tolerated at all. 




> but that's what mature filters are for, right?



Mature filters do not block out everything. Trust me. 







> But I think people are too quick to judge the porn artists, who are into some of the weird stuff.



Not all porn artists are into the stuff that they are commissioned to do. Just sayin'. I've seen artists whore themselves out for money because sex sells. Most porn artists have standards, some do not and will draw anything, even though they do not like it themselves.

So in essence, we artsts are whores. :V




> It's like... There are drama queens and there are quiet ones, who just enjoy what they are doing and the latter get ostracized even when they don't do anything. I think everyone needs to calm down and look at it from the outside perspective. People in general find furries weird, with or without sex and fursuits. Furries want some degree of acceptance. "Normal" furries find "sex" furries weird. Don't they deserve some degree of acceptance? Not... Crazy exaggerated ones, but the ones who just find the mix of a human and an animal sexy and project their fetishes on it?




Personally, I don't care if someone accepts me for being a furry or not. It's not 100% of my being that I eat, breathe and sleep it. Yes, furry is just one of those wierd things, but so is just about anything else that other people will see as "abnormal" from their perspective. Not everything should be accepted. They should be tolerated to a degree, but you do not have to accept them.

It's not the fact of "Sex is wierd", it's the fact that many furries have the social graces of a mosquito when it comes to sex in the fandom, both online and in public. Especially the ones that could get you a 1-way trip in a paddywagon.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 27, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> There is a clear definition which blankets the whole fandom, not just one part of it.If you are in it for the sex? Great, that's your definition for you being in the fandom. Not everyone is here for porn. I bet if you ask random furry strangers why are they in the fandom, you'd get less "For porn" answers.


I do not really consider myself a furry and barely even consider myself a part of the fandom. I'm just saying, that for the general public "sex" was the defining characteristic, since it was easier and people latched on to that, especially newcomers. Am I more clear now?



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Not all fetishes are accepted mind you. Tolerated to a certain degree, but not accepted. There are fetishes that are broguht in that are "Questionable" to law standards and seen as dangers that shouldn't be tolerated at all.


Okay, most fetishes, but not too weird or illegal ones. Still doesn't change my point about furry fandom being a unifying thing, for better or for worse.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Mature filters do not block out everything. Trust me.


They certainly don't block out MLP art. See, it kind of offends me, for reasons I don't want to dive into. No offense to the fans of the show, but you can't update the front page without happening upon something pony-related. Just trying to make an analogy.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Not all porn artists are into the stuff that they are commissioned to do. Just sayin'. I've seen artists whore themselves out for money because sex sells. Most porn artists have standards, some do not and will draw anything, even though they do not like it themselves.
> 
> So in essence, we artsts are whores. :V


Eh, it goes with the job. I meant those who do it for themselves or buy it, or whatever. You know, what I mean.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Personally, I don't care if someone accepts me for being a furry or not. It's not 100% of my being that I eat, breathe and sleep it. Yes, furry is just one of those wierd things, but so is just about anything else that other people will see as "abnormal" from their perspective. Not everything should be accepted. They should be tolerated to a degree, but you do not have to accept them.
> 
> It's not the fact of "Sex is wierd", it's the fact that many furries have the social graces of a mosquito when it comes to sex in the fandom, both online and in public. Especially the ones that could get you a 1-way trip in a paddywagon.


Curses! Defeated by finer points of English, once again!

"Tolerated" is really the word I was looking for, in both situations, but forgot it existed, because my head is full of sweet scented air, it seems. 

Yeah, those guys? Screw 'em, I don't like them too. I post my smut, but I don't ever pretend it's not smut.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 27, 2012)

Goronian said:


> Curses! Defeated by finer points of English, once again!
> 
> "Tolerated" is really the word I was looking for, in both situations, but forgot it existed, *because my head is full of sweet scented air,* it seems.
> 
> Yeah, those guys? Screw 'em, I don't like them too. I post my smut, but I don't ever pretend it's not smut.




What are you smoking? :V


----------



## Kellie Gator (Feb 27, 2012)

I hate go off-topic but you don't need to end every paragraph in every post with the same emoticon, Zeke. Let people who are too stupid to get sarcasm be stupid!


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 27, 2012)

ziK said:


> so again with this post. lots of general-rated stuff that isn't getting nearly its share of views, if i'm interpreting this right.. thoughts?



I can't say this is the "right" answer, but I suspect it's only based on perception. As SIX wrote, his adult submission gained more views in one week than his clean one in two months. The problem is that...well, take this scenario:

You have 200 total views. 100 of them are split evenly between 2 adult submissions. The other 100 is split between 20 general submissions. Based on this, adult submissions seem to be getting way more attention. General content is only getting 5 views each compared to the 50 per adult submission But if we add it up in total, they're the same. And if we used the numbers from Dragoneer back in July 2011, general art really dominates furry attention over adult art by almost three times the views and makes up almost 75% of the entire site. So I think it's really just a matter of concentration from what I can tell.

Well, this is my take on the data anyway. It may not be the correct answer, but it's what I'm seeing on the numbers.


----------



## ziK (Feb 27, 2012)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sex is just sprinkes of the Fandom's ice cream. It's not a ohuge part of it, but it isn't a big thing. With any fandom comes porn, that's a given.



I disagree. If you look at, say, Star Trek community pages, pornography isn't a surface-level integral portion like it is in furry.



Garek Maxwell said:


> I can't say this is the "right" answer, but I suspect it's only based on perception. As SIX wrote, his adult submission gained more views in one week than his clean one in two months. The problem is that...well, take this scenario:
> 
> You have 200 total views. 100 of them are split evenly between 2 adult submissions. The other 100 is split between 20 general submissions. Based on this, adult submissions seem to be getting way more attention. General content is only getting 5 views each compared to the 50 per adult submission But if we add it up in total, they're the same. And if we used the numbers from Dragoneer back in July 2011, general art really dominates furry attention over adult art by almost three times the views and makes up almost 75% of the entire site. So I think it's really just a matter of concentration from what I can tell.
> 
> Well, this is my take on the data anyway. It may not be the correct answer, but it's what I'm seeing on the numbers.



You're ignoring the mature views, though, and those are very important. General art gets the same amount of views as mature but has seven times as much content. So for every time someone is looking at a cute innocent kitten, seven people are looking at dicks (or one person is looking at dicks seven times lol).


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 27, 2012)

we need more high quality cute innocent stuff around that people will want to look at. Although, that said, people come here for the porn, there are other sites around where they can go and see other stuff, including a lot of comics and graphic novels, for example.
then again, many of the best artists on this site know people want one thing more than any other and are willing to give it to them, just making it even worse, rather than doing lots more really good general rated stuff.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 27, 2012)

I like to imagine that in 2756 when we're all space-furries they will still make threads like this wondering how in Xenu's Great Galaxy porn ever became a surface level facet in a fandom created on the internet.


----------



## Kosdu (Feb 27, 2012)

I like to imagine in 2756 there will be holodecks reserved for yiff on every street corner....


----------



## Zaraphayx (Feb 27, 2012)

Leitfaden said:


> I like to imagine in 2756 there will be holodecks reserved for yiff on every street corner....



Ams*fur*dam? Red Rocket District?


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 28, 2012)

ziK said:


> You're ignoring the mature views, though, and those are very important. General art gets the same amount of views as mature but has seven times as much content. So for every time someone is looking at a cute innocent kitten, seven people are looking at dicks (or one person is looking at dicks seven times lol).



But then, why look at a nude when you could look at sex? Adult is straight up sex. Mature is a mixed bag so it's not a good idea to say it's only sexual.
There's plenty of character sheets that include nudity, but it's not always sexual. There's adult humor, but it's not like people are getting off to the jokes. There's also violence, and many other things that fall under mature.

Mature art is a complicated category that can't be boiled down to fap material. A piece _can _be fap material, but it just as easily can be non-fap material. That's the problem of the category and why I do not associate it with either or in terms of general vs. adult. :I


----------



## ziK (Feb 28, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> But then, why look at a nude when you could look at sex? Adult is straight up sex. Mature is a mixed bag so it's not a good idea to say it's only sexual.
> There's plenty of character sheets that include nudity, but it's not always sexual. There's adult humor, but it's not like people are getting off to the jokes. There's also violence, and many other things that fall under mature.
> 
> Mature art is a complicated category that can't be boiled down to fap material. A piece _can _be fap material, but it just as easily can be non-fap material. That's the problem of the category and why I do not associate it with either or in terms of general vs. adult. :I



because some like me like softcore way more than hardcore

but honestly i think this is all gonna boil down to "NO CONCLUSION"; trying to come to any conclusions about the fandom always does that


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 28, 2012)

in the end, everyone here likes something slightly different and there's no way of categorising us all under one stereotype and wondering why anything else needs to exist at all. Amongst the people that like the stuff I do, for example, we can create and enjoy works that, simply because others don't see them in the same way, can be categorised under general still. I don't think you can get much softer than some of our works (and luckily noone's going to spot the rather awkwardly set out bad pun there).
of course there's no single conclusion, each person sees this in a different way and acts about it in a different way.


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> in the end, everyone here likes something slightly different and there's no way of categorising us all under one stereotype and wondering why anything else needs to exist at all. Amongst the people that like the stuff I do, for example, we can create and enjoy works that, simply because others don't see them in the same way, can be categorised under general still. I don't think you can get much softer than some of our works (and luckily noone's going to spot the rather awkwardly set out bad pun there).of course there's no single conclusion, each person sees this in a different way and acts about it in a different way.



I once came across an amazingly cute picture of a Quilava hugging an inflated beachball to his chest, as he smiled with a cute little blush. Cute as hell. It was a couple of months later that, after I shared a version of it on Skype, and I was almost immediately accosted for the "full pic", that I realised there was something less innocent about the picture. Apparently, beachballs are of interest to some people. 

 Same with paws, right? It's hard to look at cute pictures without a sense of cynicism nowadays.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 28, 2012)

I have a friend that particularly likes beachballs, and he writes the most amazing messages to me about them some times, so sensual and poetic, I can see the appeal of them myself. But yes, pretty much anything can be interpreted in that way, I've heard of people with interests in a particular brand of jackets or in lorry tires.
Here's an odd fact, though, I'm a member of three other websites dedicated to specific sexual interests, and only one of them is this fact actually mentioned, the other two, it is so subtle and careful, noone actually talks about it at all, we talk around the subject and everyone there knows what we mean. Here, though, quite the opposite.


----------



## iPodFoxxy (Feb 28, 2012)

I believe I have the answer. You've probably heard of Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica right? What about Oh Internet? They have articles on the furry fandom and not very nice ones. I've read them and I laughed at their insolence and ignorance.

They think that being a furry is the same as being a zoophile. They created the stereotype that furries like animals _that _way. Its because of those ignorant morons that furries are thought of to be zoophiles.

Its fucked up really. I just laugh at them.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 28, 2012)

iPodFoxxy said:


> I believe I have the answer. You've probably heard of Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica right? What about Oh Internet? They have articles on the furry fandom and not very nice ones. I've read them and I laughed at their insolence and ignorance.
> 
> They think that being a furry is the same as being a zoophile. They created the stereotype that furries like animals _that _way. Its because of those ignorant morons that furries are thought of to be zoophiles.
> 
> Its fucked up really. I just laugh at them.


FYI: The Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica pages on Furry are more factual than the Wikifur one.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 28, 2012)

iPodFoxxy said:


> I believe I have the answer. You've probably heard of Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica right? What about Oh Internet? They have articles on the furry fandom and not very nice ones. I've read them and I laughed at their insolence and ignorance.
> 
> They think that being a furry is the same as being a zoophile. They created the stereotype that furries like animals _that _way. Its because of those ignorant morons that furries are thought of to be zoophiles.
> 
> Its fucked up really. I just laugh at them.



You should realize at this point that not everything written in those sites is inherently false. If you take the time to start looking into those places, you can get some forms of truth about the furry fandom...uncomfortable part-truths, and sort of truths that many furries don't want to see. These are half truths because while they don't apply to everybody it should make you think because of the ones it does apply to. If anything just so that you don't become one of _those_ people.


----------



## ziK (Feb 28, 2012)

iPodFoxxy said:


> I believe I have the answer. You've probably heard of Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica right? What about Oh Internet? They have articles on the furry fandom and not very nice ones. I've read them and I laughed at their insolence and ignorance.
> 
> They think that being a furry is the same as being a zoophile. They created the stereotype that furries like animals _that _way. Its because of those ignorant morons that furries are thought of to be zoophiles.
> 
> Its fucked up really. I just laugh at them.



uncyclopedia is literally a collection of nonsense. dramatica is just a condensed 4chan opinion. oh internet is written by 9-year-olds. none of them *invented* the furry/zoophile stereotype.

if you look at the State of the Fandom 2008, 17.1% of furries identify as zoophiles, and roughly half of furries are ambivalent to positively-opinioned on it. there's plenty of reason for people to associate furries with zoophilia.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

This whole discussion and the problems it addressed reminds me greatly of Rocky Horror Show. The way I saw it, it had one simple message - "While holding back your sexuality is wrong, going overboard with it is equally as bad." I think both sides should calm down and give it a little more thought.

Let's admit it, porn is a big part of our society, like it or not. Especially on the internet, where people feel safer about discussing their kinks and whatnot. But forcing it on others or holding it up, like some kind of a banner should not be tolerated. People are entitled to their opinions, but no one has to put up with it. This, however, doesn't apply strictly to porn. Say, I'm really tired of seeing MLP stuff everywhere and it's even harder to filter, than porn. Really, I have no means of filtering it. Porn can be controlled - just improve the filtering system and ban anyone, who doesn't follow the content guidelines, without exceptions or second chances. 

This still doesn't solve the problem, who want to discuss their sexuality with strangers. There was this one time, my husband drew a picture of a girl, wearing a strap-on and posted it on FAFF. One of the comments? "Hands you lube and bends over". I felt... Kind of weird. I don't know, you can say he was inviting it, but if a person happens to share your kinks, I don't think it's appropriate to ERP with them, even as a "joke".


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> This whole discussion and the problems it addressed reminds me greatly of Rocky Horror Show. The way I saw it, it had one simple message - "While holding back your sexuality is wrong, going overboard with it is equally as bad." I think both sides should calm down and give it a little more thought.
> 
> Let's admit it, porn is a big part of our society, like it or not. Especially on the internet, where people feel safer about discussing their kinks and whatnot. But forcing it on others or holding it up, like some kind of a banner should not be tolerated. People are entitled to their opinions, but no one has to put up with it. This, however, doesn't apply strictly to porn. Say, I'm really tired of seeing MLP stuff everywhere and it's even harder to filter, than porn. Really, I have no means of filtering it. Porn can be controlled - just improve the filtering system and ban anyone, who doesn't follow the content guidelines, without exceptions or second chances.
> 
> This still doesn't solve the problem, who want to discuss their sexuality with strangers. There was this one time, my husband drew a picture of a girl, wearing a strap-on and posted it on FAFF. One of the comments? "Hands you lube and bends over". I felt... Kind of weird. I don't know, you can say he was inviting it, but if a person happens to share your kinks, I don't think it's appropriate to ERP with them, even as a "joke".



The thing is the moment you say "Hey, please don't bring up your kinks in inappropriate ways" you get labeled as a prude. Or you get tackled with the "Oh you are supposed to be accepting" or you get called "troll". If we wanted to see this behavior changed we'd have to do it by holding ourselves as better examples, and getting enough people to start not putting up with bad behavior. That's something that some fur-meets get into doing. They establish boundaries. You could do so within your own circles. If enough people react in ways that are more favorable (and don't be afraid to message a person once and say "Hey that comment was really inappropriate please don't do that again") you might eventually see that "Problem" solved. (well it will still exist to some level but you can help make it less of an issue)


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> The thing is the moment you say "Hey, please don't bring up your kinks in inappropriate ways" you get labeled as a prude. Or you get tackled with the "Oh you are supposed to be accepting" or you get called "troll". If we wanted to see this behavior changed we'd have to do it by holding ourselves as better examples, and getting enough people to start not putting up with bad behavior. That's something that some fur-meets get into doing. They establish boundaries. You could do so within your own circles. If enough people react in ways that are more favorable (and don't be afraid to message a person once and say "Hey that comment was really inappropriate please don't do that again") you might eventually see that "Problem" solved. (well it will still exist to some level but you can help make it less of an issue)


Frankly, I'm starting to lean closer to your side of the fence. I think on sites, like FAFF content shouldn't be restricted (I'm not talking about zoo or pedophilia, which are just wrong, real or imagined), since it's just convenient to have all your stuff in one place, but the "clean" parts and "naughty" parts should be more separate, with clearer and stricter rules about submissions. And I totally agree, that we should start policing ourselves, even the porn artists or writers, like myself. There is nothing wrong with sex or even consensual ERPing, but if you don't want to see it, you shouldn't see it. The freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of another starts, after all.



iPodFoxxy said:


> I believe I have the answer. You've probably heard of Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica right? What about Oh Internet? They have articles on the furry fandom and not very nice ones. I've read them and I laughed at their insolence and ignorance.


Eh, Uncylopedia is harmless, Oh Internet is a shallow shadow of ED and ED itself, well... It's hard to take them seriously. I heard there were (or are) many furries in the site administration even and many furries contribute to the site's furry pages. Everyone knows you should take everything there with a grain of salt and it's mostly sexist, racist, offensive, but harmless fun.

P.S. One more thing I feel I should mention. Don't these people see they're acting creepy? It's like... Has no one ever told them something among the lines of "hey, numbnut, here's Hannibal Lector. Here's Chris-chan. Here's Ahuviya. Here's Chikatilo. Don't be like them."?


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> P.S. One more thing I feel I should mention. Don't these people see they're acting creepy? It's like... Has no one ever told them something among the lines of "hey, numbnut, here's Hannibal Lector. Here's Chris-chan. Here's Ahuviya. Here's Chikatilo. Don't be like them."?



I'd like to answer this question directly with "no".

 The types of people who do this tend to congregate around each other as common fans of the same porn artists, and the communities/friendship-rings they build tend to lead them to believe that "creepy" acting is OK because it's OK with each other. 

They don't recognise what they're doing as creepy - they believe that the correct response to something they find sexual (whatever it is) is to let other people know; often with the intent of spreading the content, with the aim of making their buddies horny enough to roleplay. They then extrapolate and assume that the behaviour is OK elsewhere.

I am extremely equipped for this question. ;~;


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

SIX said:


> I'd like to answer this question directly with "no".
> 
> The types of people who do this tend to congregate around each other as common fans of the same porn artists, and the communities/friendship-rings they build tend to lead them to believe that "creepy" acting is OK because it's OK with each other.
> 
> ...



...

Okee-dokee. I'm going to sit in that pretty little corner over here and feel uncomfortable.

P.S. I'm perfectly okay with people fapping to my porn, though.


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> ...
> 
> Okee-dokee. I'm going to sit in that pretty little corner over here and feel uncomfortable.
> 
> P.S. I'm perfectly okay with people fapping to my porn, though.



The trouble is that people _do_ tell these people to be normal, that they're being creepy as hell. 

But, to paraphrase my experience with these individuals, roleplay to them is escapism from the world. Their metaverse is a bubble-reality they've constructed. And infringement on that bubble-reality is grounds, to them, for violent and immediate rejection. 

 You can't reach them no matter how hard you try, and if you manage to reach them, the "hugbox" mentality drags them back in - 'no, it's OK, he's just a troll, *hug* /me rolls'. It's practically dependency.

ED: However, far aside from psychotic roleplay, some of the most interesting and sane, clear-minded and intelligent people I've met have been nonsequitor as anything. I spoke briefly on this forum about a friend of mine who "is" a Quilava/Jolteon hybrid "IRL". And he's an incredible character to chat with.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

SIX said:


> The trouble is that people _do_ tell these people to be normal, that they're being creepy as hell.
> 
> But, to paraphrase my experience with these individuals, roleplay to them is escapism from the world. Their metaverse is a bubble-reality they've constructed. And infringement on that bubble-reality is grounds, to them, for violent and immediate rejection.
> 
> ...


The dreaded hugbox... I probably won't ever understand these people. I mean, I used to ERP with my husband, back when we still used to live on two different sides of the globe. I wouldn't mind ERPin with some people I know IRL, not without my spouse, of course. But that's that. No matter, how sexually open I am, I would never ever even talk about my fetishes that openly with a stranger. I don't know, those people seem to be stuck in RP mode 24/7, which is just weird. There are other things, besides sex. 

Eh, I can be as insane, as it goes, mostly because I'm a bunch of issues, anyway. But it's not fun, when you don't know, when to stop.


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> The dreaded hugbox... I probably won't ever understand these people. I mean, I used to ERP with my husband, back when we still used to live on two different sides of the globe. I wouldn't mind ERPin with some people I know IRL, not without my spouse, of course. But that's that. No matter, how sexually open I am, I would never ever even talk about my fetishes that openly with a stranger. I don't know, those people seem to be stuck in RP mode 24/7, which is just weird. There are other things, besides sex.
> 
> Eh, I can be as insane, as it goes, mostly because I'm a bunch of issues, anyway. But it's not fun, when you don't know, when to stop.



 Oh gosh, pretty much this. Tact, propriety, prudence... are concepts that just seem lost in the hugbox mentality. I don't keep it much of a secret that I'm a sexualised guy, and my interests are generally projected in my commissions. I don't work to eliminate these things from my psyche, they're there. But I've no need to talk about them until it's prudent and I refuse to work sex into my identity. 

And yet these people haven't just worked sex into their identity - they've made their identity as sex. Pure and simple. There's no distinction for them between roleplay and reality anymore.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

SIX said:


> Oh gosh, pretty much this. Tact, propriety, prudence... are concepts that just seem lost in the hugbox mentality. I don't keep it much of a secret that I'm a sexualised guy, and my interests are generally projected in my commissions. I don't work to eliminate these things from my psyche, they're there. But I've no need to talk about them until it's prudent and I refuse to work sex into my identity.
> 
> And yet these people haven't just worked sex into their identity - they've made their identity as sex. Pure and simple. There's no distinction for them between roleplay and reality anymore.


Okay, that's just sick. Me and my husband are the two most openly sexual people in our social circle, but we would never even bring that subject up with some of our friends. Let alone, you know, forcing it on others. I think these people should realize, that sex is just sex. I do have a sort of a sick satisfaction in realizing, that their first IRL time will be nothing like the massively explosive, squirty ecstasy, they've imagined.


----------



## BRN (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> Okay, that's just sick. Me and my husband are the two most openly sexual people in our social circle, but we would never even bring that subject up with some of our friends. Let alone, you know, forcing it on others. I think these people should realize, that sex is just sex. I do have a sort of a sick satisfaction in realizing, that their first IRL time will be nothing like the massively explosive, squirty ecstasy, they've imagined.


http://puu.sh/iMAA  This person has 228 Steam friends.


----------



## ziK (Feb 28, 2012)

SIX said:


> http://puu.sh/iMAA  This person has 228 Steam friends.



i laughed. was this supposed to be a problem or something?



Goronian said:


> This whole discussion and the problems it addressed reminds me greatly of Rocky Horror Show. The way I saw it, it had one simple message - "While holding back your sexuality is wrong, going overboard with it is equally as bad." I think both sides should calm down and give it a little more thought.



i think this is a good comparison because you can be pervy and creepy within the auditorium but RHPS-goers know you go back to being a normal person when you leave. i don't think furries understand that there's a place/time for this kind of stuff.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 28, 2012)

SIX said:


> But, to paraphrase my experience with these individuals, roleplay to them is escapism from the world. Their metaverse is a bubble-reality they've constructed. And infringement on that bubble-reality is grounds, to them, for violent and immediate rejection.
> 
> You can't reach them no matter how hard you try, and if you manage to reach them, the "hugbox" mentality drags them back in - 'no, it's OK, he's just a troll, *hug* /me rolls'. It's practically dependency.



The most frightening problem with them is the furry fandom doesn't having a huuuge number of crazies. You can see the same kinds of people in politics all the time and that's bigger than what the furry fandom can ever be. No matter the side, ideology, _whatever_ they're rampant in politics. Actually, I'd say the same about religion AND lack there of (atheists aren't exempt). The two most controversial topics in the world obviously have the craziest people in the world in them. Furries just happen to have sex as their weird quirk to deal with. The only sad part is that these are the people often running things.
.__.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

ziK said:


> i think this is a good comparison because you can be pervy and creepy within the auditorium but RHPS-goers know you go back to being a normal person when you leave. i don't think furries understand that there's a place/time for this kind of stuff.


You lucky-lucky Americans, with your superspecial RHPS showings. Russians only get crappy Blu-Rays.

Frankly, I was going by the content of the movie, but your take works, as well. There is a time and place for everything.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> Let's admit it, porn is a big part of our society, like it or not.


 Hopefully I'm not going to have to pull up the "Show me Star Trek's Cum Counter-totting website" request again...



Goronian said:


> There was this one time, my husband drew a picture of a girl, wearing a strap-on and posted it on FAFF. One of the comments? "Hands you lube and bends over". I felt... Kind of weird. I don't know, you can say he was inviting it, but if a person happens to share your kinks, I don't think it's appropriate to ERP with them, even as a "joke".


 On this note, it kind of makes you wonder why some people who are obviously taken / in relationships posts large quantities of "Here's my character in the nude" art. Not referring to your husband, but the many people on FA who have comments like "Happily in relationship", then get a dozen commissions of their character inviting every single watcher to fuck them to death. What, pray-tell, is the purpose of these commission binges? 



Garek Maxwell said:


> The most frightening problem with them is *the furry fandom doesn't having a huuuge number of crazies*.


 I'm sorry, _what_? You cannot seriously believe that the batshit:sane ratio of the fandom is miniscule.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Hopefully I'm not going to have to pull up the "Show me Star Trek's Cum Counter-totting website" request again...
> 
> On this note, it kind of makes you wonder why some people who are obviously taken / in relationships posts large quantities of "Here's my character in the nude" art. Not referring to your husband, but the many people on FA who have comments like "Happily in relationship", then get a dozen commissions of their character inviting every single watcher to fuck them to death. What, pray-tell, is the purpose of these commission binges?


Media is obsessed with demonizing porn. Everyone is trying to make the clothes on female characters as skimpy, as possible. Then there's skin flicks and rule 34. Yeah, porn is everywhere.

We don't have fursonas, really. Okay, my husband does have this weird S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-inspired character, that pops up here and there, but I don't think he'd ever draw porn with him. It's more of a mascot.

It's funny how for my "my character" means one of the dozens characters, none of which happen to be based on myself, while for others "my character" is just their avatar.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> Media is obsessed with demonizing porn.


Funny, since they're very fond of sexualizing.



Goronian said:


> Yeah, porn is everywhere.


 But the thing is, Furry has an above-normal concentration. You will not find e621, Dammit, Lulz, 7chan, Paws, and so-on all for _Resident Evil_ Fandom, let alone "general" art sites that filter by fetish / cum counter.



Goronian said:


> We don't have fursonas, really. Okay, my husband does have this weird S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-inspired character, that pops up here and there, but I don't think he'd ever draw porn with him. It's more of a mascot.


 Which is fine. What I was finding odd is that this is someone who admits to being in a happy, steady relationship (which either means in-person, or through frequent contact online / via phone / via mail), is taken... then spends hundreds on large quantities of art that're basically saying "IM me some time". On a character that's supposed to be them.


----------



## Goronian (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Funny, since they're very fond of sexualizing.
> 
> But the thing is, Furry has an above-normal concentration. You will not find e621, Dammit, Lulz, 7chan, Paws, and so-on all for _Resident Evil_ Fandom, let alone "general" art sites that filter by fetish / cum counter.
> 
> Which is fine. What I was finding odd is that this is someone who admits to being in a happy, steady relationship (which either means in-person, or through frequent contact online / via phone / via mail), is taken... then spends hundreds on large quantities of art that're basically saying "IM me some time". On a character that's supposed to be them.


A-yep. Media is weird, that's why I don't like them very much.

I think if gamers ever did a site, where most gamers hung out and posted pictures, it would also be 60-70% smut. And yeah, some people already explained to me the relationship between furries and sex, I understand it a lot more now.

Yeah, same here. I mean, it's like cheating on your significant other, isn't it?


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> But the thing is, Furry has an above-normal concentration. You will not find e621, Dammit, Lulz, 7chan, Paws, and so-on all for _Resident Evil_ Fandom, let alone "general" art sites that filter by fetish / cum counter.



The furry fandom is not a fandom based on any one piece or series of work. It is based on a VERY BROAD subject of anthropomorphic creatures. The Furry fandom is pretty much a perfect mirror of the Anime fandom. It is based on, and operates around, an art style. There is a LOT of porn for both of them. A LOT of cosplay. A LOT of cons. A LOT of fetish stuff. (See: Guro/Loli.)

It is not an above-normal concentration, you are just comparing it to stuff that does not translate well. You cannot compare the furry fandom to a small fandom of something based on a game or a show. 

Also- 


> Funny, since they're very fond of sexualizing.


The media is fond of sexualizing a very narrow, marketable area. Anything outside of that narrow vision is demonized. They like to sexualize specific images of men and women doing things within a heteronormative and "vanilla" lifestyle. Fetishes are usually used as a punchline or a "Oh look how gross that is" sort of reaction.


----------



## ziK (Feb 28, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> The furry fandom is not a fandom based on any one piece or series of work. It is based on a VERY BROAD subject of anthropomorphic creatures. The Furry fandom is pretty much a perfect mirror of the Anime fandom. It is based on, and operates around, an art style. There is a LOT of porn for both of them. A LOT of cosplay. A LOT of cons. A LOT of fetish stuff. (See: Guro/Loli.)
> 
> It is not an above-normal concentration, you are just comparing it to stuff that does not translate well. You cannot compare the furry fandom to a small fandom of something based on a game or a show.



furry mixes adult and clean much more than anime. a ton of people interested in anime aren't into hentai, and even then hentai isn't something anime fans are shameless about and proud of


----------



## Mentova (Feb 28, 2012)

ziK said:


> furry mixes adult and clean much more than anime. a ton of people interested in anime aren't into hentai, and even then hentai isn't something anime fans are shameless about and proud of


I disagree. I went to an anime con in baltimore once for the game stuff and they had lots of obvious henti booths. The yaoi one even had a guy with a megaphone waving flags around to draw your attention to it. That booth was also pretty damn busy compared to some of the others.

I was actually very surprised as I saw more weird and pervy shit there then at anthrocon.


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 28, 2012)

ziK said:


> furry mixes adult and clean much more than anime. a ton of people interested in anime aren't into hentai, and even then hentai isn't something anime fans are shameless about and proud of



I would really debate there being more porn in the furry fandom than the anime one. Perhaps I've just spent an absurd amount of time browsing porn in my life, but hentai is everywhere. Although, more often than not, people who fawn over hentai may not specifically like anime. They're just in it for the porn. Whereas in the furry fandom, if you're into furry porn you're probably also into it for the clean stuff.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 28, 2012)

ziK said:


> furry mixes adult and clean much more than anime. a ton of people interested in anime aren't into hentai, and even then hentai isn't something anime fans are shameless about and proud of


good thing anime dont hide the fact hentai exist...like furries trying to deny "yiff" exist in theirs


----------



## Attaman (Feb 28, 2012)

Goronian said:


> I think if gamers ever did a site, where most gamers hung out and posted pictures, it would also be 60-70% smut.


 Counter-argument.

There's _tons_ of sites like this for other assorted hobbies. Furry is highly sexualized (when compared to most other fandoms). I'd actually wager that one reason for this is because the fandom rarely does anything to address this. Case in point: Look at Maxwell's recent number run on submission types and view count. Then look at the Furry Survey's results. Adult and Mature works make up the majority of views... yet for the most part people say "Oh, I'm not that guy". If everyone really wasn't that guy, shouldn't clean content have a much higher view ratio?



Goronian said:


> Yeah, same here. I mean, it's like cheating on your significant other, isn't it?


 Sort-of, kind-of. Getting the art in and of itself isn't the problem (I mean, you can gift it to your Significant Other and what-not), but publicly showing it? In a forum that it'll likely receive dozens / hundreds / thousands of views? What possible reason can there be for that other than "Oh it's typefucking it doesn't count"? It's only marginally better than keeping your relationship status as single on a dating site and hitting up as many people as you can up until the Honeymoon.




Thingymabob said:


> The furry fandom is not a fandom based on any one piece or series of work. It is based on a VERY BROAD subject of anthropomorphic creatures. The Furry fandom is pretty much a perfect mirror of the Anime fandom.


 Not quite. Anime at least takes an effort to enforce the divide between "Porn" and "Not Porn", and members of the Anime Fandom are willing to admit there's a lot of messed up shit (as opposed to Furry, which tends to respond with "Nuh-uh", "Prove it," "Uh... LOOK OVER THERE! PORN TOO! NOT DIFFERENT AT ALL!").



Thingymabob said:


> It is not an above-normal concentration, you are just comparing it to stuff that does not translate well.


 Wargaming (in general). Pen & Paper games (in general). Both of them also have a very character-centric environment, and are rather large communities, but they do not have the complete saturation of porn being presented as "normal". Furthermore, I've admitted myself (several times, and in several threads) that Furry is somewhat of a broader scale. The issue is that this scale shouldn't matter with the defense of "everyone's this horny", as then - logically - every fandom / genre should have a similar percentage. But they don't. Some come close, yes, but "some" is not "all", and the focus is on why Furry has such a high concentration versus why Anime and Furry do.



Thingymabob said:


> You cannot compare the furry fandom to a small fandom of something based on a game or a show.


 In terms of raw numbers, without looking at percentages? No. When looking at the argument "Furry is just as sexual as everything else"? Yes, you can. Otherwise what you're saying is "Furry is just as sexual as everything else, except those fandoms and subjects which disprove my point which I say don't count."


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> In terms of raw numbers, without looking at percentages? No. When looking at the argument "Furry is just as sexual as everything else"? Yes, you can. Otherwise what you're saying is "Furry is just as sexual as everything else, except those fandoms and subjects which disprove my point which I say don't count."



I would not be surprised if the amount of furry porn, in PERCENTAGES, is on par or below that of the anime porn. And, hell, I'd even wager that it's on par with the Sherlock/Supernatural/Hometsuck/MLP porn (although MLP is on questionable ground considering it's anthro.)
Seriously do you have any idea how much slash fic there is in the world? Obsessive fans come up with a lot of porn. A lot.

What I'm saying is that there are not usually entire sites dedicated to smaller fandoms specific porn.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Case in point: Look at Maxwell's recent number run on submission types and view count. Then look at the Furry Survey's results. Adult and Mature works make up the majority of views... yet for the most part people say "Oh, I'm not that guy". If everyone really wasn't that guy, *shouldn't clean content have a much higher view ratio?*



It kinda does. :V
General Art makes up almost 75% of all submissions and is neck and neck with about 42% in view counts with mature content, which makes up almost 10% of all known submissions. Adult is almost 12% of all known content and only gets about 16% of all views.

General art boringly dominates in content and almost in views. Mature art is too much a wild card to put labels too and, almost as Zik put it, too much effort to bother with debating over. 

If anything at all, that says furries are incredibly boring with sex since they get off more on nudes than depictions of sex itself..._IF_ you were going to say anything at all with the data of course. Again, mature, wild card, yada yada.

*Edit: Oops, I mixed up 2011's and 2012's data. Well, they're not all that different. View percents stay the same, it's known submission percents that would be a single percent different. I'll leave it as is since it's pretty insignificant.

Also, I got my numbers from Dragoneer and Yak. I didn't do anything but make it easier to read.*


----------



## Attaman (Feb 28, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> I would not be surprised if the amount of furry porn, in PERCENTAGES, is on par or below that of the anime porn.


 So you try to argue Furry isn't sexual... by saying it has a parity with another fandom which you are quoted saying is sexual?

And, again, when you look at fandoms as a whole, there should be a much higher saturation of porn in all of them if your argument was to hold water. But this is not the case. It doesn't matter if there's 100,000 or 1,000 members in the fandom, if everyone was equally horny then both should see something like [x]% of their content as mature / adult. 



Thingymabob said:


> And, hell, I'd even wager that it's on par with the Sherlock/Supernatural/Hometsuck/MLP porn (although MLP is on questionable ground considering it's anthro.)


 Go right ahead. Show me the Sherlock equivalent to SoFurry's Cum-Counter, the plethora of porn sites such as e621, Paws, Lulz, Dammit... 

Or, hell, look on a site that makes it their duty to keep track of porn (paheal's Rule 34 section, for instance) and compare Sherlock porn hits to Furry. I'll give you a hint: Furry does not have times ten thousand times the number of followers as Sherlock, or Doctor Who, or Megaman, or...



Thingymabob said:


> Seriously do you have any idea how much slash fic there is in the world? Obsessive fans come up with a lot of porn. A lot.


 Yes, I have an idea. But your argument so far has been nothing but "I'm sure, honest, that there's just as much relating to [x] as there is [y]!"



Thingymabob said:


> What I'm saying is that there are not usually entire sites dedicated to smaller fandoms specific porn.


 So your argument is that, despite having entire sites dedicated to its porn (hell, dedicated to _specific fetishes_ in their porn), being compared to a fandom you admit has an excessive amount of porn, and in general other fandoms not having the same proportion of "Smut / Not-Smut" ratio as Furry... Furry is not abnormally sexualized?



Garek Maxwell said:


> It kinda does. :V
> General Art makes up almost 75% of all submissions and is neck and neck with about 42% in view counts with mature content, which makes up almost 10% of all known submissions.


 Hypothetical with these numbers: 97 Submissions (one for every percent), 1000 Views.

Adult: 12 Submissions, 160 Views 
Mature: 10 Submissions, 420 Views 
General: 75 Submissions, 420 Views  

Average View for Adult: 13.33 
Average Views Mature: 42 
Average Views General: 5.6

If everyone really wasn't "that guy", why are only 420 of the 1000 views on General, with on average Adult material getting twice the views as General and Mature getting 7-8ish times?

Another example: There's a jar with 50 coins. You can take one coin out, or put one coin in. There's an enforcer which makes sure you don't cheat the system in regards to action (but will not force you to answer honestly). Of the 50 people that go to the jar, 40 say "I put a coin in". There's five coins left in the jar. With only ten people saying they took from the jar, shouldn't there be 80 coins left? Not five? 



Garek Maxwell said:


> General art boringly dominates in content and almost in views.


 Adult generates double the views on average, with Mature 7-8 times as much. How is this "dominating" the views?


----------



## ziK (Feb 28, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> good thing anime dont hide the fact hentai exist...like furries trying to deny "yiff" exist in theirs



it's a maturity issue. the ones that are "comfortable with their sexuality and the sexuality of furries and the fandom and yadda yadda" are the manchildren of the fandom. i'm talking about the ones who are comfortable groping and grinding a stranger in public (or even at a meet) and expecting people to just sit there and watch or whatever



Mentova said:


> I disagree. I went to an anime con in baltimore once for the game stuff and they had lots of obvious henti booths. The yaoi one even had a guy with a megaphone waving flags around to draw your attention to it. That booth was also pretty damn busy compared to some of the others.
> 
> I was actually very surprised as I saw more weird and pervy shit there then at anthrocon.



how many <18-year-olds were around? are fur cons advertised as family/under-18-year-old friendly?


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 28, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> I would not be surprised if the amount of furry porn, in PERCENTAGES, is on par or below that of the anime porn.


Dont ever use PERCENTAGES, math have taught me that percentages dont mean crap if the total numbers are different.


Attaman said:


> Adult generates double the views on average, with Mature 7-8 times as much. How is this "dominating" the views?


they used the word Lazy for a reason, General art outnumbers the other two so their total views will outnumber both adult and mature by sheer weight (or zerg rush kekekekeke)


----------



## Fay V (Feb 28, 2012)

ziK said:


> it's a maturity issue. the ones that are "comfortable with their sexuality and the sexuality of furries and the fandom and yadda yadda" are the manchildren of the fandom. i'm talking about the ones who are comfortable groping and grinding a stranger in public (or even at a meet) and expecting people to just sit there and watch or whatever
> 
> 
> 
> how many <18-year-olds were around? are fur cons advertised as family/under-18-year-old friendly?


In general yes, they don't recommend small children but the major cons will all have stipulations which only allow for age appropriate content. adult sections that only 18+ can enter for art shows. Any mature events occuring after ten (even when not sexual in nature, like nude figure drawing) they can't police people walking around all the time but they do a good job of keeping it serpated in my opinion


----------



## Keeroh (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> So you try to argue Furry isn't sexual... by saying it has a parity with another fandom which you are quoted saying is sexual?



Furry - being interested in anthropomorphic animals- is not sexual in itself. Anime - the art style - is not inherently sexual. Humans are, however, highly sexual. The things we like, we often make sexual. A lot of people like furry stuff in a sexual nature. A lot of people like furry stuff, and are "meh" about the sexual stuff. 
And then there are those that vehemently despise the sexual stuff and freak out when it's mentioned or outright deny it exists. 

And at the end of the day, it really shouldn't ruffle your feathers this much.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 28, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Hypothetical with these numbers: 97 Submissions (one for every percent), 1000 Views.
> 
> Adult: 12 Submissions, 160 Views
> Mature: 10 Submissions, 420 Views
> ...



Where on earth are you getting your numbers? Please, tell me, because the numbers I have for 2011 are:
Submissions
Black - General    3230450
Blue  - Mature    453522
Red - Adult    495617
White - Deleted    1480811
Total - 5660400
Source: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5660204

Submission Percentage of Total
Black - General    57.07%
Blue  - Mature    8.01%
Red - Adult    8.76%
White - Deleted    26.16%

2012's Data I mixed up with is here: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7232474
And it is for submissions:
Black - General    4078539
Blue  - Mature    566288
Red - Adult    620877
White - Deleted    1930696
Total    7196400

Submission Percentage of Total
Black - General    56.67%
Blue  - Mature    7.87%
Red - Adult    8.63%
White - Deleted    26.83%


For view data, I was going by Dragoneer's post.
general  - 3493114 subs -  282419291 views 
mature - 532859 subs - 286016228 views 
adult - 486858 subs - 107776786 views
Source: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/103627-Fur-Affinity-Stats-(July-7-2011)

I did more maths to get the percentages without deleted content, but the results are still in favor of general content with mature content being well viewed as well. However, adult? Where's the heavy leaning of adult content here? Adult content is very small.

I don't know where you're getting adult content being 7-8 times as popular in view counts as general. If this is a language barrier mix up, that's fine. Because mature means, "at worst", nudity that is anatomically correct whether that's to titillate or be art. However, it includes violence, language, humor (sexual and generally just controversial things), and many other things that don't even come close to being adult. To generalize heavily on the numbers, adult is like 10% of the content with 15% of the views. That's nothing.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> MASSIVE SNIP


oi, go small scale, and you'll notice 100 of each group adult and mature arts will dominate, BUT total general art will dominate due to it being the majority of art posted. As a person who does percentages and stats, you should also be doing that...really how did you miss that part of the process


----------



## Attaman (Feb 29, 2012)

Thingymabob said:


> Furry - being interested in anthropomorphic animals- is not sexual in itself. Anime - the art style - is not inherently sexual. Humans are, however, highly sexual. The things we like, we often make sexual.


 And so you keep repeating this point hoping no-one notices you've been called on the fact that - should this hold water - than on average _all_ fandoms should be this way.



Garek Maxwell said:


> Where on earth are you getting your numbers? Please, tell me, because the numbers I have for 2011 are:


From your post. You gave both view percent and submission percent. The numbers for view and submission _count_ are hypothetical, but that on average General work gets less views / submission than Mature / Adult is not.



Garek Maxwell said:


> I did more maths to get the percentages without deleted content, but the results are still in favor of general content with mature content being well viewed as well.


 How?



Garek Maxwell said:


> For view data, I was going by Dragoneer's post.
> general - 3493114 subs - 282419291 views
> mature - 532859 subs - 286016228 views
> adult - 486858 subs - 107776786 views
> ...


107776786/486858 = 221 views / Submission on average.
286016228/532859 = 536 views / Submission on average.
282419291/3493114 = 80 views / submission on average.

Adult Submissions, despite having only 1/7th the total works of General, has nearly half as many views. Mature, with about a sixth / seventh the number of submissions as well, actually _surpasses_ General.

In terms of views, General isn't dominating through anything but sheer number of submissions allowing the much lower views / submission average to make up for the fact. "That's nothing" only furthers to strengthen the point.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> oi, go small scale, and you'll notice 100 of each group adult and mature arts will dominate, BUT total general art will dominate due to it being the majority of art posted. As a person who does percentages and stats, you should also be doing that...really how did you miss that part of the process



Uhhh...what?
Okayyyy, let's do it all based on 100 representing Dragoneer's July 2011 post...



SubmissionsViewsGeneral7742Mature1242Adult1116

Where's this 7-8 times more adult views? :\
This changed nothing...

*NEVERMIND I see what you're saying.* Reply coming.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> *NEVERMIND I see what you're saying.* Reply coming.


One thing to keep in mind also is I was addressing how most people go "Nuh-uh I don't care for the porn", whereas at the same time someone's about 3-7ish times more likely to look at any one specific Adult / Mature submission than they are any one General submission. You do not get such ratios of views / content unless someone's fibbing.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Attaman said:


> 107776786/486858 = 221 views / Submission on average.
> 286016228/532859 = 536 views / Submission on average.
> 282419291/3493114 = 80 views / submission on average.
> 
> ...


This is the sheer fact I tell folks to NOT rely on percentages, if anything to COVER everything. This is why furs are always going on FA "yes I know General art is dominant, but porn is still popular". Porn may have the smallest number but it has the greater views/submission than General art, if anything porn/adult works will get 2.76 times more views than general with mature getting 6.7 times more than general (using those numbers of course)


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

Attaman said:


> And so you keep repeating this point hoping no-one notices you've been called on the fact that - should this hold water - than on average _all_ fandoms should be this way.
> 
> From your post. You gave both view percent and submission percent. The numbers for view and submission _count_ are hypothetical, but that on average General work gets less views / submission than Mature / Adult is not.
> 
> ...



This is...one way to look at it, for sure. But you're entering into the argument that concentration equals popularity. If I have 200 views divided equally into two categories Adult and General, but general has 20 submissions and adult has 2, then it would appear that adult is the most popular thing ever. I mean, it's getting the most attention, right? That's 50 per submission! If there was more submissions, then this trend would surely continue!

...But that's not what people are doing. People are looking at what's there for them to look at in different amounts, with most people looking at general art the most because it's partly the most out there. Adult is being looked at less than general content in total. There's less adult content, so it racks up more views than any general submission could.

It isn't necessarily a wrong way to look at the data, but the problem is that it's ignoring the total picture. By those numbers, we should only see sexual content rising in content because clearly the demand is gigantic. It's enormous by those numbers! But the trend is the opposite. It's stable over mature art which is shrinking, but both are shrinking to general. If I were a business betting on what to invest in, I'd invest in the sex based on those numbers. ...but then I might loose my money to the other person who invested in something for everyone. Hard to say. Does making games that cater to a tiny audience that is sure to play the hell out of your game get you a lot of money? Or does making a very generic well advertised and well viewed title get you a lot of money? Even in the games industry, despite the few successes with indie devs, everything still dominated by big names and generic content. It brings in the cash.

It's the same if we applied this to movie genres, fashion styles, or anything else consumer related. Though if you want to know why things always seem to be the same formula, this is partly why. :V


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> This is...one way to look at it, for sure. But you're entering into the argument that concentration equals popularity. If I have 200 views divided equally into two categories Adult and General, but general has 20 submissions and adult has 2, then it would appear that adult is the most popular thing ever. I mean, it's getting the most attention, right? That's 50 per submission! If there was more submissions, then this trend would surely continue!
> 
> ...But that's not what people are doing. People are looking at what's there for them to look at in different amounts, with most people looking at general art the most because it's partly the most out there. Adult is being looked at less than general content in total. There's less adult content, so it racks up more views than any general submission could.
> 
> ...


and thats why your stats are incomplete, you are now passing over the small scale, you probably didnt even think of that instead concentrated on the larger picture, the end product. Its fine to pull up data showing that yes Mature works and porn are more popular, but not the driving force cause of general art being produced the most. When ya do stats such of that, you have to gather everything, not leave anything out cause then everything else is now flawed afterwards


----------



## Attaman (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> ...But that's not what people are doing. People are looking at what's there for them to look at in different amounts, with most people looking at general art the most


 Er, no, people aren't looking at General Art the most. The above numbers show that. General Art is being _submitted_ the most, but it's getting a handful of views (on average) compared to Mature. It's like saying "This author for Publisher X published 20 books and sold 400 copies, while this author for Publisher X published two books and sold 200. Seeing as Author 1 sold 400 copies, they're where the interest lies."



Garek Maxwell said:


> because it's partly the most out there.


 Another thing to keep in mind, though how one would track this I have zero idea, is how controversial an image is. Generally, a controversial Adult / Mature image doesn't draw too much in the way of comments / drama: Those who put up drama-llama art also are the sort who go "FUCK YOU!" and delete post-haste. But General? Recall the averages again: If someone puts up an image that suddenly gets people in riot (a comment on a sexuality or lifestyle, for instance), and they get 3,000 views for that, they made up the average for another 36 images that acquired 0 pageviews. Bear in mind that "drama views" are also something different than "consumption views", IMO (mostly because a consumption view is when someone looks at a bit of content to, well, look at the content, whereas a Drama view is looking in on the drama and that it happens to be affiliated with a submission is convenient).



Garek Maxwell said:


> It isn't necessarily a wrong way to look at the data, but the problem is that it's ignoring the total picture.


 The thing is, ignoring the averages is ignoring something as well. Adult & Mature submissions - on average - acquire a number more views than General submissions. 



Garek Maxwell said:


> By those numbers, we should only see sexual content rising in content because clearly the demand is gigantic.


 Not quite. It's a well-established fact that the most popular artists tend to draw decent amounts of porn, but not all people make content solely for views. For some it's basically a (very informal, mind) online portfolio / image hosting site.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> and thats why your stats are incomplete, you are now passing over the small scale, you probably didnt even think of that instead concentrated on the larger picture, the end product. Its fine to pull up data showing that yes Mature works and porn are more popular, but not the driving force cause of general art being produced the most. When ya do stats such of that, you have to gather everything, not leave anything out cause then everything else is now flawed afterwards



If I were to use the same math in television genres, then we end up with ridiculous situations like 2 poker shows being the most popular thing ever because, when you spread out 100 million viewers over 30 shows in the same genre, then it seems obvious the next show line up for 2013 is going to consist of more poker shows since clearly more people are watching per show than, say, game shows. 

There is a problem with the model right there. It's huge flaw is that it inflates concentrations.

Alternatively, I could use the same model to say you are 80 times more likely to contract the flesh eating virus on shopping carts than you are with chicken pox. Fewer people are afflicted with the flesh eating virus, but based on a model not that different the numbers _could_ show that you should be very very worried about contracting a disease you may never even come in contact with in your life time. :\


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Er, no, people aren't looking at General Art the most. The above numbers show that. General Art is being _submitted_ the most, but it's getting a handful of views (on average) compared to Mature. It's like saying "This author for Publisher X published 20 books and sold 400 copies, while this author for Publisher X published two books and sold 200. Seeing as Author 1 sold 400 copies, they're where the interest lies."
> 
> Another thing to keep in mind, though how one would track this I have zero idea, is how controversial an image is. Generally, a controversial Adult / Mature image doesn't draw too much in the way of comments / drama: Those who put up drama-llama art also are the sort who go "FUCK YOU!" and delete post-haste. But General? Recall the averages again: If someone puts up an image that suddenly gets people in riot (a comment on a sexuality or lifestyle, for instance), and they get 3,000 views for that, they made up the average for another 36 images that acquired 0 pageviews. Bear in mind that "drama views" are also something different than "consumption views", IMO (mostly because a consumption view is when someone looks at a bit of content to, well, look at the content, whereas a Drama view is looking in on the drama and that it happens to be affiliated with a submission is convenient).
> 
> ...



In terms of the total, people ARE looking at general the most. That's the problem. According to your model, people are barely paying attention to general. Just about everyone is looking at porn constantly. ...But they aren't. The individual views more general and mature art than adult. With fewer adult submissions, you add those views up and, surprise surprise, one porn submission appears to rise up above the 50 general pics they also looked at. They must be a total perv! ...but...that's not...correct. 

This isn't to say your model doesn't have it's use, is what I should have said. The problem is that in this case it's inflating a specific behavior. It's making it seem like 20 people viewing one piece makes it the most popular thing ever. Yet, there's 50 other pieces that, when the views add up, show that more people are looking at those 50 works of art than viewing that one single other work of art.

Pulling your drama view type content. If we could isolate it from all other content out there, I have no doubt that by the same model it would dominate. But as a whole, it's such an insignificant amount of FA art in total. But hey, drama is pretty popular given the million views on one piece compare to the two million views equally spread out amongst one thousand images.

The problem I have with the model on the whole is that it scews the data seemingly for ulterior motives. I have no problem with presenting information that might say adult is the most popular thing in the furry fandom. I have a problem with information that depends on a very questionable method for demonstrating this popularity.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> In terms of the total, people ARE looking at general the most. That's the problem. According to your model, people are barely paying attention to general. Just about everyone is looking at porn constantly. ...But they aren't. The individual views more general and mature art than adult. With fewer adult submissions, you add those views up and, surprise surprise, one porn submission appears to rise up above the 50 general pics they also looked at. They must be a total perv! ...but...that's not...correct.
> 
> This isn't to say your model doesn't have it's use, is what I should have said. The problem is that in this case it's inflating a specific behavior. It's making it seem like 20 people viewing one piece makes it the most popular thing ever. Yet, there's 50 other pieces that, when the views add up, show that more people are looking at those 50 works of art than viewing that one single other work of art.
> 
> ...


it doesnt skew the model, its data too, you have actively ignored another piece of data cause it doesnt work for you. You are trying to compile data of FA, like the idola clan we DONT ignore possible data we can use, you have actually went out of your way to ignore possible data that actually doesn't have questionable methods as its a common method to do. We understand that General art TOTAL have more views, ONLY cause its the most posted item. Do you accept that the only reason that General art have the most views cause it tops BOTH mature and adult works in submissions (General have 6.6 times more submissions than Adult and 7.2 times more submissions than mature works). I mean its very obvious from dragoneers post (Using general to mature General art have 6.5 times more submissions than mature works but mature works have 3,596,937 more views than it going one on one) that something is going on in the deeper workings...and yet you didnt get curious and do data work towards that?

please start getting ALL the data, not whats and easy and provide only half of a story


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> it doesnt skew the model, its data too, you have actively ignored another piece of data cause it doesnt work for you. You are trying to compile data of FA, like the idola clan we DONT ignore possible data we can use, you have actually went out of your way to ignore possible data that actually doesn't have questionable methods as its a common method to do. We understand that General art TOTAL have more views, ONLY cause its the most posted item. Do you accept that the only reason that General art have the most views cause it tops BOTH mature and adult works (General have 6.6 times more submissions than Adult and 7.2 times more submissions than mature works) I mean its very obvious from dragoneers post (Using general to mature General art have 6.5 times more submissions than mature works but mature works have 3,596,937 more views than it going one on one) that something is going on...and yet you didnt get curious and do data work towards that?
> 
> please start getting ALL the data, not whats and easy and prove only half of a story



Why should I use a model on data that, providing I had the data, could show adult amphibians are the most viewed art because, based on the averages per species, they come out on top with their measly 10 submissions? Adult amphibian art more popular that wolves or foxes. It can easily happen.

Are you not seeing the problem with this?

Let's take this to economics.
One person can sell ice cream for $100 a pop using special ingredients or expert skill, but he can only sell 5 a day. Now it looks like they're doing incredibly well. For only putting in the work to make 5, they can earn $500.
Now lets say another person comes along and sells their ice cream for $5 a pop using everyday ingredients and mass production. They can sell 1000 a day. 
According to the model being proposed, it is better to sell the ice cream at $100 per unit than $5 per unit based on per unit earnings (or in FA's case, based on per content viewings).

Do you see the problem with is? This is the model you're proposing I include. A model that takes a concentrated few and shows they have greater impact or importance. This model can be used to show medieval based production is better than industrial production from per unit earnings! (Or with FA, per content viewings.) How is this not a problem for you? It's a problem for me, since it sounds identical to the same kinds of math used to say Crest is the most popular toothpaste, ignoring that more people buy generic in total than Crest! Or the same math used in scare tactics to say you're more likely to die from this new disease than the flu despite this disease only affecting those who swim in sewage while thousands die from the flu each year.

That's a huge problem. I don't think I can state this enough. 
Mine's not perfect and would suffer the usual problems even this new model would have due to needing to abstract data, but as far as I can tell, my model doesn't have the same gaping hole in logic this other one has. If it does, please point it out to me.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Why should I use a model on data that, providing I had the data, could show adult amphibians are the most viewed art because, based on the averages per species, they come out on top with their measly 10 submissions? Adult amphibian art more popular that wolves or foxes. It can easily happen.
> 
> Are you not seeing the problem with this?
> 
> ...


its extra data, supplementary data, data you use to know more. Thats what i'm trying to hammer into your head, and why already we shown that, we have SHOWN by itself mature and adult works get more views, again BY IT SELF. I have pointed out if you do a control group of 100 submissions for each section congrats General loses, only reason its has the most views is cause it have the most submissions. I have pointed out "Mature and Adult works are popular, for every 1 submission of porn you need 2-3 submissions of general art to match the views of that one single porn pic, for mature you need 6-7 art pieces of general to match it" heck you even left out favorites cause folks who do stats seem to not like to touch favorites cause it would then destroy what they are working on/towards.

You are GATHERING data, all data is valuable even if its minuscule, specially if you are trying to know more about FA. its fine if you are just good enough with the basics, but you wont know much unless you try to know everything.

So yea its not a problem for me, I like working with numbers, probabilities, percentages. I dont mind pulling as much information OUT of everything I can get out of it cause its my thing. Its why I get angry when Cannonfodder does stats, hes probably far horrible than you with it.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> its extra data, supplementary data, data you use to know more. Thats what i'm trying to hammer into your head, and why already we shown that, we have SHOWN by itself mature and adult works get more views, again BY IT SELF. I have pointed out if you do a control group of 100 submissions for each section congrats General loses, only reason its has the most views is cause it have the most submissions. I have pointed out "Mature and Adult works are popular, for every 1 submission of porn you need 2-3 submissions of general art to match the views of that one single porn pic, for mature you need 6-7 art pieces of general to match it" heck you even left out favorites cause folks who do stats seem to not like to touch favorites cause it would then destroy what they are working on/towards.
> 
> You are GATHERING data, all data is valuable even if its minuscule, specially if you are trying to know more about FA. its fine if you are just good enough with the basics, but you wont know much unless you try to know everything.
> 
> So yea its not a problem for me, I like working with numbers, probabilities, percentages. I dont mind pulling as much information OUT of everything I can get out of it cause its my thing. Its why I get angry when Cannonfodder does stats, hes probably far horrible than you with it.



Okay, here's the problem I have with what is being done. Let's start with what I'm okay with.

_Views per piece on average (random numbers pulled out of thin air)
General - 54
Mature - 108
Adult - 8675_

That's fine. I'll gladly include that sort of information. The problem is what I'm about to do next.

_Adult content is more popular because it is viewed, like, 3x more than general content!_

This right here is a problem because, while "correct" it's misleading and illogical.
It makes no sense next to stats that say adult content only gets 15% of all views. How can it be 3x more popular yet get only 16 views out of a 100 total? 
It's misleading and it IS the same tactics used in advertising and politics. 
For example, again:
_Homosexuals are twice as likely to have AIDS  . (dunno actual rates)_
This is a "correct" statement using the above method, despite misleading the reader. African American Women are more likely to have AIDS than homosexuals. They have the numbers, but the earlier statement makes it appear homosexuals frequently have AIDS when you isolate such a small segment of population.

I can use the same method over and over again, pulling more and more from advertising and politics every time. But if this doesn't sound alarms, then, frankly, I'm done. I'll stick to what businesses use to make financial decisions than what they use in their marketing departments.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 29, 2012)

so many statistics.
So, there is more general art than adult, but each adult piece is seen by more people than each general piece, on average.
either way, we look at a lot of pictures and a substantial proportion of them, on this site at least, are adult in nature. on some other sites it'll be more, on some less. No chance of data from across a whole range of sites?

Anyways, in the end, what is the point of clean art? I like seeing it myself, but only if it's been done really well, lower quality submissions don't really appeal to me unless they're of an interesting scene or concept, and in that case, it seems to almost always be something at least vaguely sexual in nature, just because there's so much more you can do there. So sure, there's a huge amount of general art, but a huge amount of that is... just not very good, I'm afraid. And of course, so many of the better artists draw porn just becaue it can get them a lot of views. For example, I recently found an artist that does the most incredibly wondrful romantic scenes, couples cuddling up together, all cosy and sweet and everything, things like that, but at the same time, he also does some pretty standard, decently high quality porn, and I get the impression would rather do more of that, at a quick look through, the adult submissions are getting roughtly twice as many views as the best cute romantic scenes, and 50% more favourites.
Now there's a thought, forget how many people glance through at all this stuff, I usually look through all the submissions by anyone I watch from beginning to end, but how many of each type have actually been favourited?

Then throw in this idea, rather than looking at a single picture like that, what about all the comics and graphic novels out there, a lot of them are entirely or almost free of actual explicit sexual scenes. For myself, I prefer that sort of thing, if I'm going to be looking at a picture of a character, I would prefer there to be some sort of story behind it, rather than just a single picture, so of course you need to include all those into your calculations too.



But, whatever, in the end, we do have a lot of porn about and people do act in odd ways at times. We're so accepting and open about the whole thing, and that just encourages them, letting them think it's OK and they can get away with it. In the end, we seem mostly confined to the internet, how many people on this site and others get almost all of their human interaction via the internet? that's got to affect how they see the world.
People do what they want on here, and we let them becaue we have maturity filters and different websites, and it works, until our paths cross somewhere else...


----------



## BRN (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Okay, here's the problem I have with what is being done. Let's start with what I'm okay with._Views per piece on average (random numbers pulled out of thin air)General - 54
> 
> Mature - 108
> 
> ...



Consider this hypothetical:

 There are, hypothetically, 1,000,000 different established companies which serve food on Christmas Island. McDonalds is one of them. McDonalds only has five branches on Christmas Island, compared to a total of 2,000,000 total stores which serve food. Are you implying that, despite McDonalds having the highest sales of any of the companies on that island, maybe owning 15% of the share of food sales there, that McDonalds isn't popular simply because 999,999 other companies managed to take a total of 85%?


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Okay, here's the problem I have with what is being done. Let's start with what I'm okay with.
> 
> _Views per piece on average (random numbers pulled out of thin air)
> General - 54
> ...



So you you want to avoid the truth it doesnt work for you cause you already got yourself STUCK instead of adapting.
so you wish to dispense a lie that General art is more popular cause it has more views TOTAL, not realizing in a small scale General art loses cause the ONLY reason they have more views is cause they have the GREATEST number of submissions. Heck neer's post on the whole thing shows on a one on one, Mature works had more views than general art. What SIX is saying is pretty much what you are doing, you refuse to acknowledge something with a much smaller of submissions cant be more popular cause the larger group by its SHEER weight have more views. Congrats on skipping a process that both me and Attaman had to fill in that shows your stats and charts are incomplete. Again YOU ARE GATHERING DATA, you are not pushing financial decisions or marketing, that is where you dont get the fucking point. You are going at this like a BUSINESSMAN, me and the Idola clan are going at this at a RESEARCHERS view...and everyone knows businesses will gladly skip over information that doesnt work for it(look at the shitstorm PIPA/SOPA and the many times BUSINESS pull up info that works for them and not full truths), researchers DONT (same folks who came about and shot down PIPA/SOPA several times by giving the FULL DAMN TRUTH).


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Feb 29, 2012)

*Edit: I've figured out the exact problem with the model. Reply coming since it's going to take a while to run the numbers and explain it.*



Kitutal said:


> So, there is more general art than adult, but  each adult piece is seen by more people than each general piece, on  average.
> either way, we look at a lot of pictures and a substantial proportion of  them, on this site at least, are adult in nature. on some other sites  it'll be more, on some less. No chance of data from across a whole range  of sites?
> 
> Then throw in this idea, rather than looking at a single picture like  that, what about all the comics and graphic novels out there, a lot of  them are entirely or almost free of actual explicit sexual scenes. For  myself, I prefer that sort of thing, if I'm going to be looking at a  picture of a character, I would prefer there to be some sort of story  behind it, rather than just a single picture, so of course you need to  include all those into your calculations too.
> ...



1. The data shows we look at more general art than adult art. Adult art  gets more views per piece. It's all likely due to concentration. The  average user might view 7 general art for every 1 adult art. That's what  I've been trying to get at with this other model of data, and why it's  problematic. How can you view 7-8x more adult art than general art when  you're looking at more general art than adult art? The numbers don't add  up...

2. I might be getting some data on comics but I didn't think to ask  about views per subject matter. Maybe I can get those too if the person  doing them doesn't mind.
3. I'll be doing two other furry sites with statistics and compare them  to FA's, but due to them being somewhat different in how they handle  submissions I don't think I can compare the full range of data that FA  may have.

--------------



SIX said:


> Consider this hypothetical:
> 
> There are, hypothetically, 1,000,000 different established companies  which serve food on Christmas Island. McDonalds is one of them.  McDonalds only has five branches on Christmas Island, compared to a  total of 2,000,000 total stores which serve food. Are you implying that,  despite McDonalds having the highest sales of any of the companies on  that island, maybe owning 15% of the share of food sales there, that  McDonalds isn't popular simply because 999,999 other companies managed  to take a total of 85%?



*THANK YOU.* I was about to ask Crysix for an example where this can be applied to inform people.

The problem I see with this model is that, say all the other restaurants  are two other companies. Just two split evenly on branch numbers.  McDonalds could easily be the most popular restaurant on the island  based on this model given because, on average, their five branches  receive more customers per branch than the two other restaurants. Now  something that takes up a very small portion of total sales and impact  on the island has "greater impact" than 999,995 other restaurants split  between two companies. How is this logical? Even with a slightly more  customers per branch, how can it be claimed McDonalds is more popular  than the other two companies that receive more total customers than  McDonalds per day on the island, garner more sales, more economic  impact, and even more political sway. This is the kind of model that can  say a single mom and pop shop is more popular than McDonalds. This  makes zero sense.

It feels like the statistical equivalent of making a mountain out of a molehill to me.

-------------------



Crysix  Fousen said:


> So you you want to avoid the truth it doesnt work for  you cause you already got yourself STUCK instead of adapting.
> so you wish to dispense a lie that General art is more popular cause it  has more views TOTAL, not realizing in a small scale General art loses  cause the ONLY reason they have more views is cause they have the  GREATEST number of submissions. Heck neer's post on the whole thing  shows on a one on one, Mature works had more views than general art.  What SIX is saying is pretty much what you are doing, you refuse to  acknowledge something with a much smaller of submissions cant be more  popular cause the larger group by its SHEER weight have more views.  Congrats on skipping a process that both me and Attaman had to fill in  that shows your stats and charts are incomplete. Again YOU ARE GATHERING  DATA, you are not pushing financial decisions or marketing, that is  where you dont get the fucking point. You are going at this like a  BUSINESSMAN, me and the Idola clan are going at this at a RESEARCHERS  view...and everyone knows businesses will gladly skip over information  that doesnt work for it(look at the shitstorm PIPA/SOPA and the many  times BUSINESS pull up info that works for them and not full truths),  researchers DONT (same folks who came about and shot down PIPA/SOPA  several times by giving the FULL DAMN TRUTH).



Be more like SIX and give me applicable real world examples of this  model being used to inform people that doesn't have the problems I've  outlined every single time.

When the individual usually  views 4 general works, 5 mature works, and 1 adult work, you're saying  this makes adult the most popular. This is literally what you are  arguing for at the moment. Give me a specific reason other than some  sort of vague sense of completeness. "My data must be complete for the  sake of completeness" is not a reason, that's circular reasoning, but  whatever. Give me better reasons. 

Every single example given  (one by SIX) has shown it is problematic and I have explained repeatedly  why it is a problem. Unless you can demonstrate its use in informing  people WITHOUT USING FA, and without running into the same problems I've  been explaining over and over and over again, then as I said before,  we're done. 

You've been nothing but hostile to what I'm trying  to do since the very beginning and frankly I'm suspecting you have  motivations for your demands. I don't know, maybe you don't, but being  hostile since the beginning isn't helping your case.


----------



## Attaman (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek: SIX's example doesn't mean what you think it does. He's pointing out that it doesn't make sense to say "McDonalds means diddly" in his example. 

Furthermore, I notice you're changing your argument again to try reaching the same conclusion (since the demand on source and "Well then why does anyone draw non-Adult / -Mature?" arguments have fallen through). Would it not be much easier, than coming up with odd scenarios, to admit "Yeah, Adult / Mature is the main source of interest in the fandom, acquiring the most views both overall and per submission"? Trying to get in a long-winded dance around basic statistics isn't working: 75% of the submissions generate less than half the views.


----------



## Kitutal (Feb 29, 2012)

Does it really matter? it's a lot of porn either way, and the topic is why, not exactly how much.




Sorry, you can get back to your argument now.


----------



## Verin Asper (Feb 29, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Be more like SIX and give me applicable real world examples of this  model being used to inform people that doesn't have the problems I've  outlined every single time.
> 
> When the individual usually  views 4 general works, 5 mature works, and 1 adult work, you're saying  this makes adult the most popular. This is literally what you are  arguing for at the moment. Give me a specific reason other than some  sort of vague sense of completeness. "My data must be complete for the  sake of completeness" is not a reason, that's circular reasoning, but  whatever. Give me better reasons.
> 
> ...


Cause your using it wrong constantly your relying on your precious percentages something I constantly point out "dont solve everything.", your using a group of 10 and dividing it among em, I'm going about by saying give each one 10 submissions equally and see who gets the most views (attaman pointed this out already). But when you stated you are going about this in a business sense instead of a research sense that already put us on different fields, you only gather whats viable to you while I gather everything. I need to know MORE than you in this sense cause I want to know MORE than what is already set. 

Everyone already knows that general art dominates by submissions, cause of that it would be natural to think "well then they must have more views" which is true, the problem is that dropping out information stating that General's arts views per submission is smaller than mature works and adult works, actually doesnt fall in your area, you dont want that kind of information cause it then messes with larger data cause not much folks know about neer stating that Mature views though having less submissions has about 4million more views than general art even though General art have 6 times the number of submissions than mature arts. Thats what I need to know more, you dont need that information.

By orders of the Idola clan I'm told to stop bothering you cause your data is in a totally different area if not below what we need thus useless in a research sense since we are trying to learn more not run a business.

And also I cant be hostile to anyone on these forums any more, I got 2 temp bans to my name another would get me perma-banned, but to help you out in the future "I'm like this, this is who I am. If I appear hostile to someone its cause they picked view me as hostile." Just like If I stop viewing cannonfodder as an idiot with stats he'll suddenly stop being bad at stats (good thing that wont ever happen)

PS dont ever use Mom and Pop vs corp, worst set up EVER. Its better to go Corp vs Corp. "Its like saying Walmart makes more money than Target, ignoring the fact that there probably MORE Walmarts than Target"


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Mar 1, 2012)

And now I know why the model is problematic. It is a logical/statistical fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/baserate.html
I thought it was a rate of change fallacy, but it's a base rate fallacy when I read the explanation closely.

Specifically there's this part:
_"If you thought it was 75%, then you were probably basing your estimate  on the fact that the rate of the disease is three times higher among  homosexuals.  In doing this, you neglected to take into consideration  the base rate of homosexuality in the population."_

So, I tried translating their equation into one more applicable to this situation, but I made wayyyy too many mistakes. I completely misread the | as / for example, so I'm kinda tired of working on it today.
Total Subs ( category subs | total views ) = [times more likely to be category * total subs ( total views | not category subs) * percent of total subs that's the category] / [Times more likely to be category * total subs (total views | not category subs) * percent of total subs that are category] + percent that's not category Subs * total subs (total views | not category subs)

I also am pretty sure I pulled data from the wrong categories when I was going through it each time. Either way, sick of it today. I'll deal with it more later. Feel free to make corrections.

*Edit: Sleeping on it I realized I messed up the above equation. I may be wrong, but I'm not sure if I should input "action" data or population data...*

We want the probability that when the average user views submission A it is either X, Y, or Z. We're solving for what A equals.
So do we pull from total viewing rate habits of the entire site? Or do we pull from the submission population?
On the one hand, total viewing rates is the behavior we're looking at...
But on the other hand, if they have no bias to what they want to look at, then we would want to use total submission populations to determine what they would likely see....

I guess it would be better to include both, I'll see what I can do. I'm very slow with this since it's been 5 years since doing anything near this level of math, and I've forgotten most of it. I don't recall doing probability, but at the same time I do remember seeing the symbols so I don't know. Regardless, slow work unless a math lover is willing to help. I need to go through it step by step so I understand and don't screw up anything along the way. I'll probably also need to explain it to others for clarity, so that's a problem too.

Also: Extra source I later found that happens to link to the first link I found. :V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Yeah, the more I see the more I understand it better.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Mar 2, 2012)

Okay, spending extra time on the whole darn thing, I've got the results and formulas somewhat down I believe.
For anyone who wants the results right away and doesn't want to bother  with the long explanation with examples to follow, here they are:

"What is the probability the average user chooses [CATEGORY]?"


P(A | B)
General
83%
Mature
13%
Adult
4%

Note:  With zero bias towards what they're looking for, if they were to  randomly click a submission without looking it would follow the  submission statistics only since you are not given the time of day, the  number of attempts, or any other data that would change the results.  Thus, this would be an "any time, infinite attempts" result. At least I think so...

These are probabilities of choosing one of the three categories based on submissions and views using Bayes Theorem. 

*Introduction*

*Quick note: I may go back and forth between how I say the same thing. This was all assembled over the course of three days crash coursing in probability. I apologize if I haven't worded everything exactly as a mathematician might while having trouble keeping it consistent every time. Each time I did a problem I often reworded it to make more grammatical sense to me and try to explain what I was doing with the numbers as I did it. I followed the examples to a tee, but it's describing what I'm doing is where I had trouble.*

Bayes  Theorem is used to avoid situations in which you ignore the population  you have to work with. In the sources included at the end of this post,  one explains why not using it will often result in a fallacy (according  to some sources, small numbers in special circumstances are within a  range of acceptable accuracy but that's beyond my abilities for the  moment at least). I believe the model being proposed by Attaman  and Crysix is incorrect and I will attempt to demonstrate why using the  formulas I used in several examples, two applicable to the situation at  hand and another from one of the sources. First, my method:

Let's look at just one specific situation between choosing general submissions and not choosing them.

There  are 3453453 general submissions out of a total 34534534 submissions on  FA. When the user intends to choose a general submission, they have a  0.774041 (77%) chance of correctly choosing a general submission (Prior  probability). They incorrectly pick the other 0.225959 (23%) of the  time. These events are mutually exclusive, as in choosing one does not  impact the chances of the other happening (such as removing from the  pool of possible submissions to view).
So we have to define the parts of our equation: 
P(A1) = 0.77 - _One of the possible 3453453 general submissions is chosen out of the total 4512831 submissions (general subs / total subs)_
P(A2) = 0.23 - _One of the possible 1019717 not-general submissions is chosen out of the total 34534534 submissions_
P( B | A1) = 0.42 - _When user picks general, they had intended to view it by a value of 0.417648849  (General views / Total views possible)._ 
P( B | A2 ) = 0.58 - _When they do not pick general,  they had intent in choosing the other options by a value of 0.582351151  (not-General views / Total Views possible) _ 

So let's plug these into Bayes Theorem!
P( A1 | B ) = P(A1) * P( B | A1) / P(A1) * P( B | A1) + P(A2) * P( B | A2 )
This entire bit ends up as:

P( A1 | B ) = 0.77 * 0.42 / 0.77 * 0.42 + 0.232 * 0.58 = 0.32 / 0.32 +  0.13 = 0.32 / 0.45 = 71.07% Probability of choosing General

But  wait! These aren't the numbers I posted! That's because this is just  between two values, yes or no, not three equally viable values. That's  where I started using excel to speed this up since it's slow doing it  manually. I believe it's correct, but feel free to point out mistakes. I  have yes/no alternatives to each category individually as a kind of  "back up" to fall back on that should be correct as well.


*Excel Sheet using Bayes Theorem*







This  is what it looks like in Excel, copied directly from the sheet. You can  see where the numbers come from based more on the above explanation  than my own notes. Most of that is junk to help me understand what was  being said between the differences in Excel and manually doing the  equation out. Terminology gets thrown around fast and I needed to learn  it all. Hence taking forever... 

If you want to know how I got  each part, I can explain it but it will take time and honestly it's  better if you check the sources and compare them to my methods to insure  I did them properly. I do want to be correct after all.

_To be continued in the following post...._


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Mar 2, 2012)

*Bayes Theory with Attaman's Formula*

Let's try using Bayes Theory in Attamans formulas to try and determine if his method works (they don't, sorry Attaman).

Attaman was dividing category views by category submissions. Attaman  proposed the probability of choosing adult over the other options ended  up being 7-8 times more likely.
But let's look at what probability is:

"P(A) is the sum of the probabilities of all sample points in event A." - Number of possible Actions / Total Actions possible _(doing and not doing)_.
As Attaman wrote, Adult Views / Adult Submissions. In probability this  means Adult views possible is based Adult submissions. (!)
Adult views are _dependent_ upon adult submissions. Likelihood in choosing it would go down with more submissions. 
For example: 800 views / 100 submissions = 8, but 1000 views / 200 submissions = 8, and 1200 views / 800 submissions = 1.5

Let's go with this anyway and see where it takes us! Nothing could go  wrong plugging it into Bayes  Theorem, right? (Grammar Nazi's beware)

Okay, so we know we need start defining the parts of our equation:

P(A1) = 107776786 views / 486858 subs = 221.3721167 -  _One of the 107776786 Adult views possible is chosen out of the 486858 Adult Subs._
P(A2) X / Y = X / Y - _X not-Adult Adult Submissions is chosen out of the Y non-Adult Adult views available.        _ 
P( B | A1) = 1 - _When user picks Adult, they had intended to view it by number of adult views possible / adult views available. (1/1 = 1)           _
P( B | A2 ) = 1 - _When they pick not-adult adult, they intended to chose the other options by a value of not-adult adult views available / not-adult adult views possible. (1/1 = 1)  _

Well, we can't really plug that into our theorem. But let's just up  and  cram in information that doesn't belong so we can try to solve it   using our equation.

P(A1) = 107776786 / 486858 = 221.3 - _One of the 107776786 Adult views available is chosen out of the 486858 Adult Subs._
P(A2) = 568435519 / 4025973 = 141.2 - _568435519 not-Adult Views is chosen out of the 4025973 non-Adult Subs available._
P( B | A1) = 1 - _When user picks Adult, they had intended to view it by number of adult views available / adult views possible. (in other words 1/1 = 1)_
P( B | A2 ) = 1 - _When they pick not-adult, they had intent in choosing the other options by a value of not-adult views available / not-adult views possible. (1/1 = 1 )_

Now we can plug it into our equation.
P( A1 | B ) = P(A1) * P( B | A1) / P(A1) * P( B | A1) + P(A2) * P( B |   A2 ) = (221.4 * 1) / (221.4 * 1) + (141.2 * 1) = 221.4 / 362.6
P(A1 | B) =  0.61 (61%)
To put this in words before it seems like a "correct" answer:
The probability of choosing adult is viewing adult GIVEN the probability of Adult submissions.
To choose viewing adult is to view adult. Is that philosophy?

Does this make  no sense? I hope so, given I just butchered an equation.  This is the  same method I used to check the other equations, which  make sense when  you don't shove things where they don't belong. For  comparison, let's do  one of the examples in a source to see how they do  it and how it gets  worded.


*Source Example*
It only rains 5 days a year in the  desert. A weatherman predicts rain  tomorrow. When it actually rains,  weatherman correctly forecasts rain  90% of the time. When it doesn't  rain, he incorrectly forecasts rain 10  of the time. What's the  probability of rain tomorrow?

Our Sample Space is defined by 2 mutually exclusive events, rain or no rain. A third event occurs when rain is predicted.
Event A1 = It rains
Event A2 = It does not rain
Event B = Rain Predicted

In terms of probabilities, we know the following:                                                
P(A1) = 5/365 = 0.0136985 - It rains 5 days out of the 365 days a year.  
P(A2) = 360/365 = 0.9863014 - It does not rain 360 days out of the year  
P( B | A1) = 0.9 - When it rains, weatherman predicts 90% chance of rain   
P( B | A2 ) = 0.1 - When it does not rain, the weatherman predicts rain 10% of the time.

We want to know P( A1 | B ), the probability it will rain given a forecast for rain. Our Starting equation:
P( A1 | B ) = P(A1) * P( B | A1) / P(A1) * P( B | A1) + P(A2) * P( B | A2 )
With information:
P(A1 | B) = (0.014)(0.9) / [(0.014)(0.9) + (0.986)(0.1)] = P(A1 | B) = 0.111
Even when rain is predicted, it only rains 11% of the time despite the weather prediction of 90% chance of rain. 


With  all that said, I can very well have made a mistake at some point  in my  main equation. If I have, please point it out to me. I'm not  going to up  and display it prominently until I can be more sure. They  appear  correct given that I followed the rules for each but translating  them to  excel was where I might have gone wrong. It's the terminology  that  mixed me up at times. So my stuff have notes out the wazoo (most   unnecessary I'm sure) and I'd bet someone more competent in mathematics   could have done this more cleanly. I just need to keep track of what's   going on at all times.

If this went over your head, definitely  check out the steps in the  probability examples from the sources. I  relied heavily on Stat Trek to  learn the method of doing probability.  Following their examples helped  a lot in understanding the  process...despite the mess of notes.


Now for sources! This is where I got all the help in doing this.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/baserate.html
http://stattrek.com/probability/probability.aspx?Tutorial=Stat
http://www.herkimershideaway.org/writings/bayes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
http://www.youtube.com/user/ExcelIsFun#p/search/1/XqlLzUHjTMo  (Video tutorials in using Bayes theorem in excel.)


----------



## Attaman (Mar 3, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> Okay, spending extra time on the whole darn thing, I've got the results and formulas somewhat down I believe.
> For anyone who wants the results right away and doesn't want to bother  with the long explanation with examples to follow, here they are:
> 
> "What is the probability the average user chooses [CATEGORY]?"
> ...


And yet, if this was the case, and 83% of all views went into the 75% of total submissions... why does General make up less than half the total pageviews on the website?

You're trying to apply odds of someone completely randomly coming to the site and clicking something, to the general behavior. Something that might work if you worked with only the number of submissions... but we have a viewcount percentage that means this is blatantly false. It's no different than me going "I am offering 14 $1's, 4 $20's, and 2 $100's for people to take with no strings attached. ASSUMING ONE PERSON TAKES A BILL AT RANDOM, the $1 will be taken more than the $20 and $100. Ergo $1's are the most desired currency!"



Garek Maxwell said:


> Bayes  Theorem is used to avoid situations in which you ignore the population  you have to work with.


 ...

"Porn gets the majority of views, numbers support it, and on average adult / mature content both get more views per piece than General."

"Well, yeah, if you look at them fancy schmancy view numbers. But if you assume they don't exist, and that every view was made at random..."



Garek Maxwell said:


> I believe the model being proposed by Attaman  and Crysix is incorrect


 _It's basic statistics_. If there's 100 apples of various sorts, and John Doe buys all 10 Red Delicious, it doesn't mean he had an 80% chance of getting Macintosh Apples. _It means he bought 10-fer-10 Red Delicious Apples_. It's like you're building your post in the hope that someone sees lots of numbers and goes "Oh man, that's so legit. I mean, Attaman had numbers in his, but Garek has numbers AND graphs. Point goes to Garek." 



Garek Maxwell said:


> There  are 3453453 general submissions out of a total 34534534 submissions on  FA. When the user intends to choose a general submission, they have a  0.774041 (77%) chance of correctly choosing a general submission (Prior  probability). They incorrectly pick the other 0.225959 (23%) of the  time. These events are mutually exclusive, as in choosing one does not  impact the chances of the other happening (such as removing from the  pool of possible submissions to view).


 Again, you're assuming people are blind as a bat, holding the mouse and clicking at random in the hope they get some image they like, which is a horrible basis to your argument as you might as well say "Let's assume I put 100 slips of paper in a hat, 77 named Gen, and 23 NotGen. If someone wants a Gen slip, there's a 77% chance they'll get lucky and pull a Gen slip out!" _Views on FA very rarely work that way_ (fun game: Ask about on the forum and see how many people find all the submissions they look at this way).



Garek Maxwell said:


> P( A1 | B ) = 0.77 * 0.42 / 0.77 * 0.42 + 0.232 * 0.58 = 0.32 / 0.32 +  0.13 = 0.32 / 0.45 = 71.07% Probability of choosing General


 First, for your numbers you said  3453453 general submissions out of 34534534 total submissions: Why is general only 10% of the total submissions now? 

Second, again, your entire argument is "But what if every view was completely accidental"! Or, in other words, you're basically trying to justify "Most of the views are not in General and Adult / Mature has the highest view count" with "Well obviously despite this what REALLY is happening is people are just getting extraordinarily unlucky with finding a general submission that they want".



Garek Maxwell said:


> But  wait! These aren't the numbers I posted! That's because this is just  between two values, yes or no, not three equally viable values. That's  where I started using excel to speed this up since it's slow doing it  manually. I believe it's correct, but feel free to point out mistakes. I  have yes/no alternatives to each category individually as a kind of  "back up" to fall back on that should be correct as well.


 Your mistake doesn't lay in the equation, it lay in what you're trying to use the equation for. 



Garek Maxwell said:


> Attaman was dividing category views by category submissions. Attaman proposed the probability of choosing adult over the other options ended up being 7-8 times more likely.


 No, what I was saying is that Mature has roughly seven times as many views per piece (on average) than General (per piece). It's a very basic statistic that I'm not sure why you're continuing to argue over / try to disprove. General gets most of its views because it has so much content that it can afford to have only 80 views / average per image instead of the 536 for Mature. It doesn't have an advantage because people like looking at individual General images more than they enjoy looking at individual Mature / Adult images. Which returns to the point of "Something's fishy when porn is said to be a non-concern by the majority, but at the same time an individual piece of General art is unlikely to get half the views of an individual Adult art, let alone Mature which will receive 6-7 times as much."



Garek Maxwell said:


> Adult views are _dependent_ upon adult submissions. Likelihood in choosing it would go down with more submissions.
> For example: 800 views / 100 submissions = 8, but 1000 views / 200 submissions = 8, and 1200 views / 800 submissions = 1.5


 Yes, exactly. However, if views are being used as a direct representation of what the members like, then _it shouldn't matter that General has 75% of the art_, as even with the majority of the art general _if you're assuming people want to see any one General image just as much as any one Mature image then their average viewcount should be the same_.


EDIT

Actually, Garek, you just proved my point. Using your above two examples, disregarding the actual view count, there _should_ be a higher ratio for General Images. Your numbers show this. The issue is... there isn't. We instead have the current view-ratio.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Mar 3, 2012)

Attaman said:


> And yet, if this was the case, and 83% of all views went into the 75% of  total submissions... why does General make up less than half the total  pageviews on the website?
> 
> You're trying to apply odds of someone completely randomly coming to the  site and clicking something, to the general behavior. Something that  might work if you worked with only the number of submissions... but we  have a viewcount percentage that means this is blatantly false.



This right here tells me you don't understand what I did. Views are taken into account along with submission data. I'm modeling behavior more complex than x/y = z. *We can't model an individual's personal watch list.* The idea is, instead people being presented with random art (like the front page) we instead model what is likely to be in a given set of images (the percents of submissions). In other words, what people submit. Best done by total submissions, as if they got to pick from everything on FA. The only alternative is to get what everyone sees in their watched user submissions, which...well...ends up being everything just about anyway. 



Attaman said:


> "Porn gets the majority of views, numbers support it, and on average  adult / mature content both get more views per piece than General."
> 
> "Well, yeah, if you look at them fancy schmancy view numbers. But if you  assume they don't exist, and that every view was made at random..."



Not what I did at all.



Attaman said:


> _It's basic statistics_. If there's 100 apples of various sorts,  and John Doe buys all 10 Red Delicious, it doesn't mean he had an 80%  chance of getting Macintosh Apples. _It means he bought 10-fer-10 Red Delicious Apples_.  It's like you're building your post in the hope that someone sees lots  of numbers and goes "Oh man, that's so legit. I mean, Attaman had  numbers in his, but Garek has numbers AND graphs. Point goes to Garek."



I could have easily just given the numbers I got and linked to the theorem while stating you're wrong and fallacious, but instead I explained and used 3 examples to show how it works and why your model is problematic. Not my problem you ignored them. Take your time reading them over and understanding them, it actually isn't very hard and I will be explaining the process with the results in an image in the future. I've got nothing to hide.



Attaman said:


> Again, you're assuming people are blind as a bat, holding the mouse and  clicking at random in the hope they get some image they like, which is a  horrible basis to your argument



I'm not saying they're blind. I'm saying WE are blind. WE don't know what the user wants. Therefore WE make a model to determine what they are likely going to do (picking submission x,y,z GIVEN the viewer is probably going to view x,y,z, means the probability that whatever it is, is x,y,z, based on the theorem given.)



Attaman said:


> First, for your numbers you said  3453453 general submissions out of  34534534 total submissions: Why is general only 10% of the total  submissions now?



Mistype, the equation is correct but I accidentally copied over the number wrong for total subs.
4512831 Subs total should be correct and I will amend the post with the correct number.



Attaman said:


> Your mistake doesn't lay in the equation, it lay in what you're trying to use the equation for.


 
I'm using it to show the likelihood someone will pick something with intent of picking something without us knowing what they're picking... Rather than saying a category is more likely to be chosen because it gets more views per submission (the fallacy itself, for not recognizing that a user could pick anything without us knowing their intent or what they pick). As in, someone LOOKS reaches into a bag of marbles with three colors, without seeing what they picked, what is the probability they picked x,y,z?  Well, we know how many and what they likely might pick. We go from there.



Attaman said:


> No, what I was saying is that Mature has roughly seven times as many views per piece (on average) than General (per piece).


 
This was actually fine and I had no problem with it, as I stated previously.



Attaman said:


> General gets most of its views because it has so much content that it  can afford to have only 80 views / average per image instead of the 536  for Mature. It doesn't have an advantage because people like looking at  individual General images more than they enjoy looking at individual  Mature / Adult images. *Which returns to the point of "Something's fishy  when porn is said to be a non-concern by the majority, but at the same  time an individual piece of General art is unlikely to get half the  views of an individual Adult art, let alone Mature which will receive  6-7 times as much."*



Your two statements do not match. "People like looking at individual general images more than they enjoy mature/adult" and "porn is a concern by the majority because each individual mature/adult piece gets more views."

This is not logical, and the problem, since the beginning, is that you are claiming that the views per piece = views over all by your underlined statement. The majority being total. The total views show people aren't interested in adult as much as they are interested in mature and general. *The majority (or total) cannot simultaneously be viewing adult art 7-8 times more than general while also viewing it the least in total, which is what this claims.*

This has been the problem statement since the beginning, but you instantly jump from views per image to "and this equals what the majority is viewing" or what the total views are. 



Attaman said:


> Yes, exactly. However, if views are being used as a direct representation of what the members like, then _it shouldn't matter that General has 75% of the art_, as even with the majority of the art general _if  you're assuming people want to see any one General image just as much  as any one Mature image then their average viewcount should be the same_.



Once more, _we_ don't know what they are viewing, _we_ just know how much there is (submissions in each category) and the likelihood they'll view x,y,z over each other. That's the equation. It's probability given we don't know what they'll do. A 20-year-old pervert is going to pick something very different from a 13-year-old kid, but we can't know who's doing the viewing or what their interests are. 

If we just were to go with the old views in total = views in total formula without bothering with probabilities, then it would be about as the underlined part showed...which is exactly what I did long before all this mess. Because if people = Total people, one category image = views per category image, then we're fine. The minute you say views per category is the same (or should be) the same as total views (i.e. what people [total people] are doing), then there's the problem. 



Attaman said:


> Actually, Garek, you just proved my point. Using your above two examples, disregarding the actual view count, there _should_  be a higher ratio for General Images. Your numbers show this. The issue  is... there isn't. We instead have the current view-ratio.


 
If you discount the likelihood of viewing something, then you've just messed up the entire equation by removing a key component. Since the problem before was ignoring the population, you've instead ignored the likelihood of viewing it. So effectively you've made it so that given the ability to pick anything with no bias towards what the user wants, they will randomly come upon a submission that fits exactly the "blind as a bat" mold you were accusing me of using. Now we just have submissions to go off of, because you can't eliminate part of that theorem willy nilly.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 3, 2012)

I would get involve in this but Idola state to stay out, I am allowed to say
"Ya ignoring the main point still Garek, ya trying to do a business bullshitting way"
FA cant work with that system at all as Idola already did do that, it showed to be too unreliable cause again General art is the most produced.
"what you did is like asking a person to be blind folded and then randomly get into a car" that doesnt work with what we have, the front page on FA could be nothing but general work and the person would pick one, and then by some weird chance the whole front page is nothing but adult and mature works, it throws that whole out the damn window.
stop clinging to general art having the most submissions = far popular than mature and adult.
I already broke that hypothesis with neer's data which openly shows that even though Mature having FAR less content posted it had about 4million more views than general in a one on one battle with adult losing to Both. That means that a single mature art submission will get more views than a single General submission, the one weirdly sitting in the middle ground is Adult works. Adult works will get more views than general art, but less views than mature.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Mar 3, 2012)

Crysix Fousen said:


> stop clinging to general art having the most submissions = far popular than mature and adult.*1*
> I already broke that hypothesis with neer's data which openly shows that even though Mature having FAR less content posted it had about 4million *more* views than general*2* in a one on one battle with adult losing to Both. That means that a single mature art submission will get more views than a single General submission*3*, the one weirdly sitting in the middle ground is Adult works. Adult works will get more views than general art, but less views than mature.*4*



You obviously didn't read my three posts, with the third clarifying the user isn't blindfolded but we are since we cannot know what the user intends to do. We base it on what the majority will do.

Underlined statements in order:
1. I don't, mature has more views than general which has more views than adult.
2. Correct.
3. Correct.
4. Incorrect, Adult art gets more views per submission than general art per submission, but Adult WORKS (PLURAL) do not as a whole get more views than GENERAL ART AS A WHOLE. 

*Edit: By the way, I made no such hypothesis.*

*EDIT2: This*
_"Adult art gets more views per submission than general art per  submission, but Adult WORKS (PLURAL) do not as a whole get more views  than GENERAL ART AS A WHOLE."_
*Is exactly what I have been stating from the beginning and what I have been pointing out as the problem since the beginning of this mess, and I am no longer going to bother responding to any more of this mathematically incorrect nonsense. If there's actually something wrong with my probability equation, or any of my other equations, let me know. I'm moving on from this mess.* 

And now for a message from me to everyone:
Thank you to those who are supportive of my endeavors to accurately show how FA is regardless of how sick and pervy or clean and spotless things are. I hold no personal bias over what the data should or should not be, only whether or not equations themselves are logical and make sense. As a porn artist, I'd be totally cool with a porn centered FA. More fap material, so it's totally awesome to me. But FA isn't a porn site, FA is what FA is because of the users. I have no invested interest in what FA should look like (well, maybe with a few User Interface tweaks, but that's totally off topic). I plan to do the same sort of analysis with SoFurry and InkBunny. I wouldn't be surprised if those are more adult oriented than FA given their history but maybe they'll surprise me like with FA's mature view counts. Long story short, thank you all. Yes, even you two Attaman and Crysix, as without you two I would never have discovered Bayes Theorem or learned even more about math and statistics. You both helped, just not in the way either of you intended. I'd say no hard feelings but I'm betting there are. That's fine, that'll fade, but Bayes is forever. <3

 Thank you two and everyone else for your efforts.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Mar 3, 2012)

First off, I think this is my most long-lived thread ever. That feels a bit weird.

Second, this is really getting lame with all the arguing about statistics concerning _one_ out of many, many furry web sites. I'm starting to remember why I prefer political debates these days...


----------



## Delta Fox (Mar 3, 2012)

To be honest I don't give a fuck about sex in the fandom because sex is something that the grand majority of people partake in, it is our society as a whole that has said we should be discreet about it.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 3, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> This right here tells me you don't understand what I did.


 I understand rather well, the issue is that it has no relevance to the point at hand. Which is made clear to me when - below - you directly state "We only know the submission numbers and what odds say they're likely to view", which _completely ignores_ the actual viewcount. And, once more, it throws the ball in your court: The basis of this argument is "Shouldn't General get more views than Mature / Adult if it's rated roughly twice as high on Kil's Furry Survey, instead of making up slightly less than half of the total site views and having an average of between 1/3 and 1/7th Adult and Mature images". That is the quote we started this debate from, and your math here _directly supports that conclusion_ as it means that there _should_ be a great deal more views put into General artwork versus Mature / Adult. 

Hell, let's go back to your first statistic: There's an 83% chance a completely neutral, luck-of-the-draw pick would be General. Look at the view count we have: Mature does not count for 83% of the total view count. It counts for roughly / barely half that. Using _your_ equation, and _your_ provided numbers, _my_ argument that "Shouldn't General be getting more views on average / Adult and Mature less views on average" is _very_ handily supported. 



Garek Maxwell said:


> In other words, what people submit.


 Garek, your argument is changing every day. First it was "Those numbers are silly, here's mine," (found to be your numbers) then "If Porn is enjoyed so much then why does anyone draw non-porn", (just because Porn is better viewed on average doesn't mean everyone will stop drawing non-porn), then "Let's assume luck-of-the-draw submission viewing," (which supports my prior argument rather handily) now "Let's rank what is more important over total amount submitted" (which completely discounts the views and your prior ratio, as what people submit =/= what people select, even if to degrees there is correlation). 



Garek Maxwell said:


> Best done by total submissions, as if they got to pick from everything on FA.


 Which _then_ brings up the point of all the minors on FA who _can't_ view anything higher than General. Yes, most of them have no interest in the porn, but you should be well aware of the number of minors who have had to be age-locked.



Garek Maxwell said:


> Not what I did at all.


 Which is why your posts almost makes it a goal to avoid referencing "View Count" in any way, shape, or form?



Garek Maxwell said:


> I could have easily just given the numbers I got and linked to the theorem while stating you're wrong and fallacious,


 I'm rather certain that there's a fallacy for repeatedly saying someone's using a fallacy, but I can't be certain. And again, your numbers - if taken at face value - _only continue to support my argument, not yours_.



Garek Maxwell said:


> I'm not saying they're blind. I'm saying WE are blind. WE don't know what the user wants. Therefore WE make a model to determine what they are likely going to do (picking submission x,y,z GIVEN the viewer is probably going to view x,y,z, means the probability that whatever it is, is x,y,z, based on the theorem given.)


 Tell you what. Let's look at this model in a year's time. If you're right, then the view count should be roughly as you say: 83% in the General pieces of artwork, and 17% in the rest. It turns out that the last few years were merely the fandom trying to get itself ready for showing how not-interested everyone is in the porn.

... Or, or we'll find a year from now that Mature & Adult still make up the majority of the site's views (as in acquire 51%+ of the total viewcount), and it'll be clear that the predicted numbers and actual numbers don't match.

What shall you say? Agree to wait a year's time and see if this equalization takes place?



Garek Maxwell said:


> Rather than saying a category is more likely to be chosen because it gets more views per submission (the fallacy itself, for not recognizing that a user could pick anything without us knowing their intent or what they pick).


 _Your own numbers show that Mature artwork is more likely to be picked than anything else, having the largest percentage of views of any of the three categories_. That is not a _fallacy_, it's a basic _fact_.



Garek Maxwell said:


> As in, someone LOOKS reaches into a bag of marbles with three colors, without seeing what they picked, what is the probability they picked x,y,z?  Well, we know how many and what they likely might pick. We go from there.


 So you try to counter my "Draw from a hat" example... by changing it a slight bit but keeping the premise exactly the same?



Garek Maxwell said:


> Your two statements do not match. "People like looking at individual general images more than they enjoy mature/adult" and "porn is a concern by the majority because each individual mature/adult piece gets more views."


 My first part was not saying people like looking at general more. I was specifically saying that General does NOT get its view count from the idea of people enjoying it more than Adult / General. Because the second half is false. I was saying General gets its views because when you throw down seven submissions for every one of another category, you only need one view / work for every five of the other category and General _still_ comes out ahead.



Garek Maxwell said:


> *The majority (or total) cannot simultaneously be viewing adult art 7-8 times more than general while also viewing it the least in total, which is what this claims.*


 No, what this claims is that - again - the ratio should be much, _much_ higher for General views. Do you want me to go back to the post you quote from me, that you bolded the part you disagree with, and then tried to rebute? That your above numbers have so far done nothing more than support / prove?

Furthermore, I have _never_ said Adult in and of itself gets 7-8 times the views on its own, as anyone can see if they look through my prior posts, so this is _you_ trying to argue I said things I did not in the off chance that someone goes "Open and shut case!"



Garek Maxwell said:


> This has been the problem statement since the beginning,


 





It's amazingly simple to show otherwise. Garek, don't assume that once it passes over the last page, no-one can ever see the content again. You're doing it with the 7-8 times bit too (which was used purely with both the hypothetic example using your _first_ set of numbers, and for _mature_ artwork as opposed to adult), even though I can show otherwise in about five seconds.

Hell, looking on that page, the only one who's been making the point of "7-8 times for adult"... has been you. Which is the same as me slipping some little quote / statement by you into a reply of mine that you _never actually said_, disproving what you never actually said, and then going 'Hah, credibility SHATTERED'.



Garek Maxwell said:


> Once more, _we_ don't know what they are viewing, _we_ just know how much there is (submissions in each category) and the likelihood they'll view x,y,z over each other.


 "Lalala Viewcount / Submission Type doesn't exist"?



Garek Maxwell said:


> If we just were to go with the old views in total = views in total formula without bothering with probabilities, then it would be about as the underlined part showed...which is exactly what I did long before all this mess.


 No, you didn't. Again, Kil's Furry Survey results. According to that Survey, the average person cares diddly about the porn versus the Online Chats, Fursuits, Artwork... 

If such was the case, and looking at your above numbers to try and prove it... why does the viewcount record paint a completely different image?



Garek Maxwell said:


> If you discount the likelihood of viewing something, then you've just messed up the entire equation by removing a key component.


 Again, I'm willing to concede and accept your numbers... because it does nothing to disprove my point that you tried to disprove in the above image. It only supports it. Hilariously so.


----------



## Garek Maxwell (Mar 3, 2012)

*I'm going back to my previous closing statement above thanking everyone. *



Attaman said:


> Average View for Adult*(per submission)*: 13.33
> Average Views Mature*(per submission)*: 42
> Average Views General*(per submission)*: 5.6
> 
> ...





Garek Maxwell said:


> Where on earth are you getting your  numbers? Please, tell me, because the numbers I have for 2011 are:
> For view data, I was going by Dragoneer's post.
> general  - 3493114 subs -  282419291 views
> mature - 532859 subs - 286016228 views
> ...





Garek Maxwell said:


> http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/103627-Fur-Affinity-Stats-%28July-7-2011%29
> 
> I did more maths to get the percentages without deleted content, but the  results are still in favor of general content*(total)* with mature content*(total)* being  well viewed as well. However, adult? Where's the heavy leaning of adult  content*(total)* here? Adult content*(total)* is very small.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting adult content*(total)* being 7-8 times as  popular in view counts*(total)* as general*(total)*. *If this is a language barrier mix up,  that's fine. *To generalize heavily on the numbers, adult*(total)* is like 10%  of the *(total)* content with *(total)* 15% of the views. That's nothing.






Attaman said:


> Adult Submissions*(total)*, despite having only 1/7th the  total works of General*(total)*, has nearly half as many views*(total)*. Mature*(total)*, with  about a sixth / seventh the number of submissions*(total)* as well, actually _surpasses_ General*(total)*.
> 
> In terms of views, General*(total)* isn't dominating through anything but sheer  number of submissions*(total)* allowing the much lower views / submission average*(per submission)*  to make up for the fact. "That's nothing" only furthers to strengthen  the point.





Attaman said:


> One thing to keep in mind also is I was  addressing how most people go "Nuh-uh I don't care for the porn",  whereas at the same time someone's about 3-7ish times more likely*(total)* to  look at any one specific Adult*(per submission)* / Mature submission*(per submission)* than they are any one  General submission*(per submission)*. You do not get such ratios of views*(per submission)* / content*(per submission)*  unless someone's fibbing.



This has been the problem since the beginning and why I refuse to acknowledge it anymore. Bold parenthesis to point out how you switched between per submission views to total views in every post and that I had a problem with this and this alone from the beginning.
I'm not addressing any more of this mess as I said before, since there's nothing else worth addressing at this point.

*VVV This is going back to the same mess so I'm going back to my previous closing statement above thanking everyone. *


----------



## Attaman (Mar 3, 2012)

Garek Maxwell said:


> This has been the problem since the beginning and why I refuse to acknowledge it anymore.


 My god, you're really doing it. You're taking my quotes and _cutting out sections of them_ to prove your point. I give you the benefit of a quote of yours with full context... and you reply by taking several of mine, cutting out several sections, and presenting them as though they're all I said.

The first quote of mine you so completely represented:



Attaman said:


> Hypothetical with these numbers *[ED Note: Numbers being those provided in the Garek post I quote]*: 97 Submissions (one for every percent), 1000 Views.
> 
> 
> Adult: 12 Submissions, 160 Views
> ...


So, let's see what you cut / modified to change the interpretation:
1) The first series of numbers. "But that changes nothing!" you might wail, but it _does_. Why, praytell, would I post this:


Attaman said:


> Adult: 12 Submissions, 160 Views
> Mature: 10 Submissions, 420 Views
> General: 75 Submissions, 420 Views


Then say in the exact same post "Oh, yeah, of the total views 420 is definitely 7-8 times 420"? Maybe, perhaps, I was referring to the second set of numbers? The one that was per-submission?

2) The context. Without the example, or a sub-quote within the quote, you provide no context as to what I was arguing. Merely the numbers. For one who was whinging that without probability their numbers are worthless, you were rather content to purposefully strip both numbers (in regard to total views) and context (why I'm presenting this information) from my reply to you.

3) The final paragraph. Again, in my first post the first chart is _total_ views, and the second is _average views / submission_. Anyone reading the above quote should - hopefully - find this rather clear what with the simple fact that 420/420 =/= seven or eight. However, with what _you_ are asserting, this is not the case. Hell, with what you're saying I claimed, you're saying I specifically made that post to claim "420/420 = 7" or "420/420 = 8".

Humorously, despite cutting my quote apart, you forgot to remove the link to it held within the quote-tag. Funny how you provided the material yourself (yet _again_) to show that you're willing to cut-paste facts. Again, I will concede on the theorem. I may be wrong in my interpretation of it. But you know what? If you're right, it does absolutely nothing to disprove this:



Attaman said:


> Counter-argument.
> 
> There's _tons_ of sites like this for other assorted hobbies. Furry is highly sexualized (when compared to most other fandoms). I'd actually wager that one reason for this is because the fandom rarely does anything to address this. Case in point: Look at Maxwell's recent number run on submission types and view count. Then look at the Furry Survey's results. Adult and Mature works make up the majority of views... yet for the most part people say "Oh, I'm not that guy". If everyone really wasn't that guy, shouldn't clean content have a much higher view ratio?



So, hell, me warbling on about the statistics (mine or yours) was barely even necessary. All that was needed was:
1) The Furry Survey Results, a document rather easy to get on a basic Google Search that Klisoura tends to vouch for rather frequently.
2) The raw numbers on views / submission type (which you acquired from Dragoneer and Yak, which I assume is another rather good indicator of their quality). 

With those two things alone, the point was proven: If Sex really does have such little significance to the average person (4.37 average on the Personal Scale as of 5:10pm EST Mar 3, 2012 when I linked the post, with a little over 56% of the votes put in 1, 5, 2 and 3 (respectively)), and Artwork is so very high (9.42, meaning at least two tens for every three nines-or-less), why does the General Artwork have an approximate tie in Total Views with Mature (which, technically, eeks ahead by a smidge in views), and Adult Artwork (with only 1/6.25 the total submissions of General, approximately) 38% the views of General (wherein it should only have 16% of the views of General assuming people ranked it equally with General, let alone significantly less).



Attaman said:


> 107776786/486858 = 221 views / Submission on average.
> 286016228/532859 = 536 views / Submission on average.
> 282419291/3493114 = 80 views / submission on average.
> 
> ...


 My second quote you again stripped context of, BTW.

However, I will admit / concede that I flubbed on this post:



Attaman said:


> One thing to keep in mind also is I was addressing how most people go "Nuh-uh I don't care for the porn", whereas at the same time someone's about 3-7ish times more likely to look at any one specific Adult / Mature submission than they are any one General submission. You do not get such ratios of views / content unless someone's fibbing.



This _is_ supported by your numbers to one degree or another (it's still correct in that any one Mature image will probably have 7-8 times the views as any one General view on average, but false in that I worded this horrendously and for all intents and purposes it does look like I was claiming here that with a random click you'll find an Adult / Mature image before a General one). Also note that this one post was never responded to directly by you with a quote until this one: When you start using the theorem, it actually isn't in reply to any one specific post (that I can see quoted / acknowledged, anyways).


----------



## Zaraphayx (Mar 3, 2012)

Disclaimer: I am totally aware that nothing I am about to write is contributing to the current discussion at hand. 

Why on Earth is this even worth the effort of analyzing the data?

Setting aside the fact that per-submission, pornography receives the highest amount of views (and that I'm willing to bet a good number of the viewers of clean art also look at a lot of porn :V); even if it didn't, you cannot rationalize away the general perception of furry as a sexual subculture.

Numbers will not change the fact that the first thing most people are exposed to from the furry fandom is sexual material. Go google 'furry' or 'furry fandom' right now and I promise you if safe-search is off you will see man-children in poorly designed costumes, hypersexualized imagery or even flat out pornography right there in the first 25 submissions. You cannot say the same for 'sci fi' 'star trek', 'pokemon' and even furry's twice removed cousin 'anime' is MUCH more tame.

Please note that I am not saying that those things do not have a sexual side or that furry is all about porn. I am saying that the perception of this fandom is that of a haven for sexual deviants, and when it concerns the individual, perception is reality. It is put right up there either from internal sources within the fandom or external sources of hatedom for all to see. This has the polarizing effect of attracting the sexual deviants as well as those who seek a target of their wrath while warding away people who have no particular interest in sexual deviancy or flaming/trolling.

Maybe someone else posted this already, but I felt an answer to the question this thread actually posed (as opposed to arguing what amounts to semantics) was worth articulating even if no one reads it or it's redundant. I'm also on hydro so fuck you I'm a dragon.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm leaving Attaman at this, they are far better at debating than me
and also Attaman it was me who brought up the 6-7times in a former posts of mines when I did the math
----------------------------------


Attaman said:


> 107776786/486858 = 221 views / Submission on average.
> 286016228/532859 = 536 views / Submission on average.
> 282419291/3493114 = 80 views / submission on average.
> 
> ...


This is the sheer fact I tell folks to NOT rely on percentages, if anything to COVER everything. This is why furs are always going on FA "yes I know General art is dominant, but porn is still popular". Porn may have the smallest number but it has the greater views/submission than General art, if anything porn/adult works will get 2.76 times more views than general with mature getting 6.7 times more than general (using those numbers of course)
-----------------------


Garek Maxwell said:


> In terms of the total, people ARE looking at general the most. That's the problem. According to your model, people are barely paying attention to general. Just about everyone is looking at porn constantly. ...But they aren't. The individual views more general and mature art than adult. With fewer adult submissions, you add those views up and, surprise surprise, one porn submission appears to rise up above the 50 general pics they also looked at. They must be a total perv! ...but...that's not...correct.
> 
> This isn't to say your model doesn't have it's use, is what I should have said. The problem is that in this case it's inflating a specific behavior. It's making it seem like 20 people viewing one piece makes it the most popular thing ever. Yet, there's 50 other pieces that, when the views add up, show that more people are looking at those 50 works of art than viewing that one single other work of art.
> 
> ...


it doesnt skew the model, its data too, you have actively ignored another piece of data cause it doesnt work for you. You are trying to compile data of FA, like the idola clan we DONT ignore possible data we can use, you have actually went out of your way to ignore possible data that actually doesn't have questionable methods as its a common method to do. We understand that General art TOTAL have more views, ONLY cause its the most posted item. Do you accept that the only reason that General art have the most views cause it tops BOTH mature and adult works in submissions (General have 6.6 times more submissions than Adult and 7.2 times more submissions than mature works). I mean its very obvious from dragoneers post (Using general to mature General art have 6.5 times more submissions than mature works but mature works have 3,596,937 more views than it going one on one) that something is going on in the deeper workings...and yet you didnt get curious and do data work towards that?

please start getting ALL the data, not whats and easy and provide only half of a story
------------------------------------
To the idola clan they are trying too hard to prove that General is dominant in everything, so far you and me have pretty much said "General art Dominates in the submissions area by its amount of its posted, they *dont* dominate in the views per submission area that adult and mature does." They have come back with "only cause theres numbers of it." My counter to that argument is that if you decided to have 100 General arts, 100 Mature arts and 100 Adult works, Mature works would get the most views, then adult works, then finally General art base off of Neer's data


			
				Neer's data post said:
			
		

> For view data, I was going by Dragoneer's post.
> general - 3493114 subs - 282419291 views
> mature - 532859 subs - 286016228 views
> adult - 486858 subs - 107776786 views
> Source: http://forums.furaffinity.net/thread...July-7-2011%29


which you already provided that
General works on average would get 80 Views PER submission
Mature would get on average 537 PER submission
and adult would get 221 PER submission

I already accepted that "Mature works are far too wild card anyway since it tends to contain violence, nudity gore etc.." thing is General art still lose to adult works in the Per submission area."

@Zaraphayx: the only reason I jumped in cause they left out data, I jumped out when they openly admitted that they only doing this from a business and financial view instead of a researcher's view thus their info will always be incomplete and if not Skewed already


----------



## jcfynx (Mar 3, 2012)

Crysix boy tell um


----------



## Machine (Mar 4, 2012)

If furries accept everyone, then sick fucks come in and make them look bad.
If furries tell everyone to GTFO to prevent the aforementioned from happening, then they'll just look like dicks to the rest of the internet, I assume.
I'd imagine there would be a more realistic result...

Then again, this is the internet, and logical outcomes need not apply.


----------



## Kitutal (Mar 4, 2012)

what is with all these statistics?

in the end-
1) general art in total gets more views than adult art in total
2) each piece of adult art gets more views on average, hence why so many good artists choose to do such works

the rest, why does it matter again?
In fact, how is it even relevant to the topic of this thread?


----------



## SiLJinned (Mar 4, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> what is with all these statistics?
> 
> in the end-
> 1) general art in total gets more views than adult art in total
> ...



The whole statistic debate on what gets more views was just TL;DR, too trivial and long for my tastes for something to read over. I guess it could be considered revelant if you want to say how popular sex is within the fandom. Then again I wouldn't be suprised if even non-furry pornography gets more views in general (the entire internet), sex sells, and quite a few people have found out the fandom/whatever through finding explict pictures unintentionally (I refuse to call it adult art, since they aren't the only beings who think about such things), leaving more people interested in the porn aspects, while those who hate furry porn, end up turning their heads back (well quite a few of them) and while probably still not minding animal people, still feel retracted from it, because of the general society influences is of that, if it's for the family or kids, you shouldn't make porn of it (yes I'm talking about rule 34 in this part). I can understand why people get offended by such work though, but I stopped caring and sometimes laugh at it. There's also the whole association with beastiality thing even though I don't fully agree with it. Then you'll get some furs who may have seen the porn, but actually dislike it, I'm glad they have an open enough mind to think that you don't have to feel sexual attraction to them to be part of the fandom, and quite frankly I see less of them than I do vice versa. It's getting a bit annoying people saying "OH I THINK IM TURNING FURRY" when they see some porn of something related, I generally don't care what people get their rocks off too, but really? By the way, there's quite an amount of good clean artists too, they just don't get as much attention in general, I bet a lot of the adult work done by popular artists are actually commisions.

Whoops, getting too carried away with unrelated stuff there, I think people generally tend to be more open within their fetishes and sex life within the fandom, which is made other people think it's okay to be like that all the time, when there's a time a place for that. I don't really pay much attention to the sexual side and while it doesn't bother me as much as it used to, it does detract some people.


----------



## Attaman (Mar 4, 2012)

Kitutal said:


> what is with all these statistics?
> 
> in the end-
> 1) general art in total gets more views than adult art in total


 Correct. However, having three times the views whilst having seven times the content is _not_ a clear sign that Adult work is loathed by the general population (which one would think it is, with how low a ranking it has on average for a personal scale).

Also, while Adult gets less views than General, Mature gets a smidgeon more while also being only a fraction of the total submissions when compared to General. 



Kitutal said:


> 2) each piece of adult art gets more views on average, hence why so many good artists choose to do such works


 I'd wager it's as much the views as it is the money. Saying you're willing to draw porn on commission opens a _ton_ of doors in the fandom. Never underestimate how much someone's willing to pay to have their Dragon-Wolf's trademarked Red-Rocket impale some Fox / Otter / Dragon / Wolf / Hybrid.



Kitutal said:


> In fact, how is it even relevant to the topic of this thread?


The fact that it's silly the majority (of Kil's survey takers, anyways) claim "Oh, sex has no importance to me, honest", yet Adult & Mature (or Mature on its own) make up the majority of views on the site (despite making up roughly a quarter of the total content when combined). 



SiLJinned said:


> I guess it could be considered revelant if you want to say how popular sex is within the fandom.


 Which is what this thread is about.



SiLJinned said:


> Then again I wouldn't be suprised if even non-furry pornography gets more views in general (the entire internet)


 One thing to keep in mind is, well, my last comment to Kitutal. The issue is not so much that Adult & General get more views on average (that's a whole other debate of whether Adult & General art - on average - get more views in other fandoms, and one I can't comment on), but that at the same time the majority goes "Oh, nope, don't particularly care for the porn. I'm here for the writing and art, Fursuits too. Yessiree." 

It's roughly akin to making a modding community and asking them what sort of mods they like. The majority say "We have no interest in the sex mods, they can sit for all I care." Then someone looks at the download record, and despite Sex Mods making up 25% of the total mods on the community site, they make up nearly 60% of the total downloads. 



SiLJinned said:


> Then you'll get some furs who may have seen the porn, but actually dislike it, I'm glad they have an open enough mind to think that you don't have to feel sexual attraction to them to be part of the fandom,


 "Open enough mind"

Hint: When you start thinking someone needs to be of "open enough mind" to participate in something, they aren't the ones who're close-minded. Furthermore, "open mindedness" isn't always a positive trait.


----------



## Kitutal (Mar 5, 2012)

Of course, it is possible to say 'I'm not hugely interested in the sex, it's not that important to me' and then look at say half a dozen pornographic pictures before going on to do something else, just because someone occasionally does something, doesn't mean it has to be a huge important part of their lives. As they're often telling these supposed lifestylers here.


----------



## ziK (Mar 5, 2012)

i'm tempted to just hit the "like" button for every one of attaman's posts

he has a point with the mature/adult views, especially the ratio compared to the actual number of mature/adult work, not matching up with what people are answering in surveys (i.e., people saying sex isn't important, but then favoriting/looking at a ton of porn).

in addition, i've met plenty of furs who embody the ["i'm here because i appreciate anthros and fursuit and yadda yadda"/(bones/gets boned by anyone willing)] ideal who don't even use websites like FA.

i don't think it's a trend that will be 100% mapped out in any statistics, at least until surveys start asking some really grungy questions. still, i don't think i'm the only one who's seen plenty of furs with this sort of personality trait.


----------



## SiLJinned (Mar 5, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Hint: When you start thinking someone needs to be of "open enough mind" to participate in something, they aren't the ones who're close-minded. Furthermore, "open mindedness" isn't always a positive trait.



Perhaps an open enough mind weren't all around the best words to use, since some furries, clean or not, tend to be way too enclosed into such things (FURRY EVERYTHING11!1!ONE) and never branch out of it. Then there's the problem of others tolerating other people who are doing dumbass/disturbing things and aren't doing a single thing about it, or asspat instead. Then again, you can't always do something about it and just have to avoid them, there's no pass to the fandom. I guess being tolerant of that the sexual side of this exists widely is a better way to put it.


----------



## sniper-tf (Mar 7, 2012)

Basically, I think the reason sex seems too overt in the furry community is simply because it's the only place they can indulge their particular fetish, so it's more condensed. For instance, if furry was the norm (God forbid) and "straight" sex was marginalised, people would say "Wow, that straight community has a lot of porn" in the same way because the only place it's available is within that community. I'm not entirely sure if furries are more or less sexualised than anyone else. I wouldn't say I am, but then if someone looked through some of my files on here they would think "Good God, this man is the kinkiest freak to ever live", whereas if they looked through my "normal" stuff they'd just think "Well, a dude's gotta fap".


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 8, 2012)

I still think it's like... furryness increases the believability factor of fetish Y because it's more removed from real life. Like I can't see someone having an inflation fetish and their ideal representation is something super-literal, how it would look if somebody really got inflated. Which would probably look like that scene from Total Recall. Also literal vore which would be CANNIBALISM etc.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 8, 2012)

-takes a shotgun to the thread-
bad Zombie thread!

Please check the date(s) before posting.


----------

