# Babyfur art (sfw) - weird reactions/psychological???



## McRoz (Dec 23, 2012)

This is a repost from a journal I posted on my regular FA page, because after re-reading this, it seems more suited for a forum query than a journal. However, I'll keep the journal open just in case.

I want to establish right away: by babyfurs, I *do NOT* mean anthropomorphic animal characters appearing in an infantile or early developmental stage of life _engaging in sexual or activity._ I mean babyfurs _being babyfurs._ 

I haven't the first clue as to why, but something really bothers me on a deep, psychological level when I see babyfur art, specifically when diapers or a minor accident on part of the infant (not the kind immediately associated with diapers) is involved. For some reason I can't stand looking at the helplessness or even just the implied helplessness of a given situation in art like this, it literally brings me to tears. 

Shot in the dark, but anyone know why?

I'm not a parent and I don't particularly care for kids, of my own or otherwise, so I don't think it's anything to do with a paternal instinct. I'm pretty certain I wasn't abused as a child either. 

This really bothers me, I want to know why.

EDIT: I think it's a good idea to include an example of the kind of art that provokes these reactions:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/8932837/

In fact, it was that exact one that got me started on thinking about this whole thing. Upon searching for it, I also came across this one, which doesn't hit me as hard but had a similar emotional response:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7137282/


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

McRoz said:


> I haven't the first clue as to why, but something really bothers me on a deep, psychological level when I see babyfur art, specifically when diapers or a minor accident on part of the infant (not the kind immediately associated with diapers) is involved. For some reason I can't stand looking at the helplessness or even just the implied helplessness of a given situation in art like this, it literally brings me to tears.



It's a fetish thing, I think.

People who are AB(/DL) like that feeling of "helplessness."

Why it bothers you on a deep psychological level, I have no clue. I usually just find the art "cute."


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 23, 2012)

I get really uncomfortable at babyfur art because even if it is SFW and it's just babies acting like babies (or babies acting like...The weird island of ideas that some weirdo on the internet thinks constitutes childish behavior, so they come off like weird retards and not actually kids), I know that there is a huge chance someone is unhealthily interested in this and/or faps to it and sexualizes it.  Just, no. No thanks, man.

The first one bothered me but the second one of the corgi didn't.  I don't associate that second one of the corgi with babyfur. Just, a dog doing his whole "I did a bad thing, didn't I?" look.


----------



## Tableside6 (Dec 23, 2012)

It's probably because a part of you feels bad for the baby. They're still learning what is right or wrong. A picture tells a thousand words (or something like that). It might be thought of the baby being punished that is giving you a strange feeling. I'm not exactly sure about this.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> I get really uncomfortable at babyfur art because even if it is SFW and it's just babies acting like babies (or babies acting like...The weird island of ideas that some weirdo on the internet thinks constitutes childish behavior, so they come off like weird retards and not actually kids), I know that there is a huge chance someone is unhealthily interested in this and/or faps to it and sexualizes it.  Just, no. No thanks, man.



So, wait... The fact that someone _might_ fap to something makes you uncomfortable?

You know people fap to just about anything, right? :roll:



> The first one bothered me but the second one of the corgi didn't.  I don't associate that second one of the corgi with babyfur. Just, a dog doing his whole "I did a bad thing, didn't I?" look.



What about this one? :lol:


----------



## Monster. (Dec 23, 2012)

McRoz said:


> Shot in the dark, but anyone know why?
> 
> I'm not a parent and I don't particularly care for kids, of my own or otherwise, so I don't think it's anything to do with a paternal instinct. I'm pretty certain I wasn't abused as a child either.
> 
> This really bothers me, I want to know why.


It could simply be that you "relate" to said babyfurs or something. Like as a kid, when you had an accident. That's really all I can think of.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 23, 2012)

No, the thought that someone faps to little kids makes me uncomfortable.  It reminds me of pedophiles, pedophiles make me uncomfortable.


----------



## helioswolf (Dec 23, 2012)

Babyfurs is like being gay. Babyfurs have a diaper fetish, gays have a penis fetish, that's it


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 23, 2012)

I don't have a penis fetish, I just have a penis. 

And a prince.

His name is Albert.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> No, the thought that someone faps to little kids makes me uncomfortable.  It reminds me of pedophiles, pedophiles make me uncomfortable.



That's understandable. Everyone has their comfort zones. It might help to know most of the art (i.e. oops I had an accident) has nothing to do with pedophilia. Babyfurs get off to thinking they are in a helpless position like that, not fucking a kid.

That other picture I posted makes me wonder but TBH I don't really care. That's still adorable as hell XD


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 23, 2012)

Oh, I didn't actually look at that picture since I figured maybe you'd link me to Drainage City shenanigans for the lolz.  Regardless of what babyfurs get off to or don't get off to in reality, as far as I am concerned I make the connection in my head that they're sexualizing children.  I can see people fixate on vulnerability and helplessness in some contexts.  When children are mixed into this, though, all I see is the child aspect, which bothers me.


----------



## Streetcircus (Dec 23, 2012)

You can tell the most time was spent drawing the diaper. You can see the folds overlapping eachother while everything else lacks the same amount of detail. It takes a great deal of study to recognize how the material reacts to areas of stress. This person is intimately familiar with diapers. Obsession rules this person, and they are emotionally crippled. That's the first ugly thing, but not the ugliest.

Children and sexual abuse is as sensitive a subject in modern society as anything, and this artist understands that. There are many ways to vicariously experience the feeling of being helpless, but this person has specifically chosen an infant to be depicted as a victim. It's exciting to them because it's despicable and depraved. If it wasn't enough to entertain your twisted fantasies in your own mind, you just have to draw it and post it on the internet. The next step in sexual depravity is to include an unwilling audience. Others have to witness your shame, or the fantasy just wouldn't be complete.

Please, let's have no more excuses for this abominable behavior. They are doing it with a complete lack of consideration for you, so don't let them trample over everything decent in the world so everything can be as ugly as they feel on the inside.


----------



## GhostWolf (Dec 23, 2012)

As long as it not sexual, I think McRoz's work is kinda cute.


----------



## Kalmor (Dec 23, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0zConOPZ8Y

There's a part in this video about why we feel an urge to take care of young offspring even if they are not human. It's to do with physical appearance and how similar they are to human offspring.


----------



## Harbinger (Dec 23, 2012)

A lot of it is just creepy when it just focuses is on the kids like that, then again it might just be because i dont trust other furries to not be uber creepy.


----------



## Calemeyr (Dec 23, 2012)

Really, any people with fetishes involving helpless things outside a bedroom "pretend" setting (usually being violated) need to get off the Internet and seek professional help. You see this with the weeaboos and their loli, and you see it here sometimes with the cub and zoo. Infantilism isn't hurting anyone but the people who do it, though. Still is creepy.

Here's the deal: deeply wanting to take advantage of someone or something in order to make yourself feel good or be in a better position (without caring what happens to the people you hurt), whether it be monetary, sexual, or political, is one of the most fundamental things wrong with this species. It could be sociopathy in some cases, but, for the Internet, it's wimpy nerds who want to feel better by being a bully in their porn. What these kids need is a good slap and a disconnected computer, tell them to man up and go out into the real world and stop fantasizing about raping a helpless digimon or some other weird shit.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Dec 23, 2012)

Whenever I look at diaperfur art I feel a bit nauseous.
The first picture gives me the feeling that the artist is corrupt inside, and the second one lacks that feeling.
I don't know what drives people into drawing things like this, but it certainly doesn't seem like helplessness to me.


----------



## TreacleFox (Dec 23, 2012)

Babyfurs have nothing to do with pedophilia, stop making that connection everyone. Pedophiles are attracted to children (and objects related to  childhood) due to the desire for a child sexual partner, babyfurs  imagine themselves as the "child" and use objects and ideas of childhood to increase this feeling.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Really, any people with fetishes involving helpless things (usually being violated) need to get off the Internet and seek professional help.



Welp, there goes the whole BDSM crowd :roll:


----------



## Calemeyr (Dec 23, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Welp, there goes the whole BDSM crowd :roll:


I think you misunderstood my post. I mean people who fantasize about raping things outside of a "bedroom pretend" setting. People who get turned on from seriously harmful things. Like guro for instance. That's creepy.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Dec 23, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Welp, there goes the whole BDSM crowd :roll:


 LOL


----------



## CynicalCirno (Dec 23, 2012)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> I think you misunderstood my post. I mean people who fantasize about raping things outside of a "bedroom pretend" setting. People who get turned on from seriously harmful things. Like guro for instance. That's creepy.


Yeah, they're creepy, but I get the feeling people like those are more likely to be surgeons than jack the ripper.

Not any person who takes a fetish too far is potentially a dangerous person, but I guess most known fetishes allow extreme hazard.
It might be best for such people to stay in the limits of the internet and not get their thoughts outside of their doors.


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2012)

Remember everyone, there is a distinct line between fantasy and reality, thoughts and actions. There is no harm in two consenting adults acting like babies and indulging themselves in whatever fetish they desire. There is a problem with one adult raping a babby and it is quite clear why. Even so, there is no way you can connect one with the other without taking a giant leap in logic that ends completely erroneously. Thought crime does not exist, no matter how much you wish it did. Thank you. That said, I don't really care much for the whole baby thing, to each their own however.


----------



## Calemeyr (Dec 23, 2012)

Afterimage said:


> Yeah, they're creepy, but I get the feeling people like those are more likely to be surgeons than jack the ripper.
> 
> Not any person who takes a fetish too far is potentially a dangerous person, but I guess most known fetishes allow extreme hazard.
> It might be best for such people to stay in the limits of the internet and not get their thoughts outside of their doors.


I'd very much prefer for them to keep it to themselves too. I don't want to go to a con and hear guys loudly talking about their weird porn. Keep it in the bedroom, where it's more private and meaningful, m'kay.


----------



## Heliophobic (Dec 23, 2012)

ohboyherewego.exe


----------



## NewYork (Dec 23, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> They are doing it with a complete lack of  consideration for you, so don't let them trample over everything decent  in the world so everything can be as ugly as they feel on the  inside.






Marcus Stormchaser said:


> deeply wanting to take advantage of someone or something in order to make yourself feel good or be in a better position (without caring what happens to the people you hurt), whether it be monetary, sexual, or political, is one of the most fundamental things wrong with this species. It could be sociopathy in some cases, but, for the Internet, it's wimpy nerds who want to feel better by being a bully in their porn.



*Great words to echo... both of you. I think we all need to take these statements into consideration. EVERYONE should. Often times I do feel pissed off by others oÌ¶nÌ¶lÌ¶iÌ¶nÌ¶eÌ¶   everywhere. I mean, wouldn't it be great to give them a taste of their own prescription? Harass and intimidate them; make them feel like outcasts too? Then I slam my head into the wall, trying to repress those thoughts and cool down. Human nature makes us feel that way, sadly. In order to fight back, you feel the need to be on the tippy-top of others.

Comparing it to pedophilia isn't nearly right. One of which is meant to symbolize childish behavior and an adventurous looney attitude of being a kid. The other is a serious mental illness that takes lengthy therapy and causes lots of psychological anguish. If babyfurs are what you're into, then by all means, I have no obstruction.*


----------



## Joey (Dec 23, 2012)

I really dislike cub art. I don't care if it's SFW, just no.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> I'd very much prefer for them to keep it to themselves too. I don't want to go to a con and hear guys loudly talking about their weird porn. Keep it in the bedroom, where it's more private and meaningful, m'kay.



Anyone who talks about weird porn in person is probably an aspie and has no tact or idea how to carry on a conversation whatsoever. How do you even carry on a conversation about porn, unless it becomes a meta topic about the porn itself?

I even find this creepy on the comments on FA and IB. I'll be the first to admit there is some stuff I find hot but I'm not going to comment and tell the fucking world. I'll say something if I think it's intelligent, but telling everyone the dirty things you think of when you see some character is at the least, kind of creepy IMO.

That's not anywhere close to talking about creepy shit like that in person. I'll admit those comments can have comedic value but I know furries who talk about their scat fetishes in person or pedophiles who openly talk about finding 15 year olds who are abdl and want their diaper changed by a 70-something year old creeper who pretends he's a "daddy."

So yeah, tact is good ;3


----------



## Heliophobic (Dec 23, 2012)

Sylvester Fox said:


> I really dislike cub art. I don't care if it's SFW, just no.



The SFW stuff honestly creeps me out more than the NSFW stuff. At least if it's porn there's a chance that they're just doing it for their own dick-tickling and not because they're devoting their life to this shit.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

Saliva said:


> The SFW stuff honestly creeps me out more than the NSFW stuff. At least if it's porn there's a chance that they're just doing it for their own dick-tickling and not because they're devoting their life to this shit.



How do you get "devoting your life" from drawing art that doesn't happen to be porn?

There has to be something I'm missing here :roll:


----------



## McRoz (Dec 23, 2012)

> As long as it not sexual, I think McRoz's work is kinda cute.



Somehow I think you just looked at either of those links and assumed thye were my work. 
If you saw my actual gallery I think you'd be singing a different tune, ahahahaha.

Anyways, thanks for all the responses thusfar, even if they are--at a glance--veering off in a debate about reality vs. fantasy sexuality, babyfur art being/not being inseparably akin to pedophillia, etc. Too many tl;drs and posts to fix to really comment on them all in depth at this point. It's been a while since I've used this forum frequently so I'm still getting used to the weirdass editing system again.


----------



## FiiCoon (Dec 23, 2012)

Oh jeez. Babyfurs just act like children. It's called ageplay, someties they just want to act like  kid, sometimes it becomes a taboo roleplay scenario. However no matter what, it is between two consenting adults. Never children. I've never understood why people are actually creeped out by just pictures of SFW cub art. Perhaps you associate them with being needy and spoiled rotten, when it's most likely not a 24/7 thing, just the occasional "scene".


----------



## Dreaming (Dec 23, 2012)

You know, I don't mind the art itself when it's done well. The cutesy clean stuff, even though I know deep down there's some kind of fetish thing going on 

It's that diaper art with all the shit and piss stains that I don't get, I just... what, what inspired this. Shit, I didn't want to burn my computer but purging isn't gonna clean that out


----------



## McRoz (Dec 23, 2012)

Yeah, strangely enough the pissing and shitting doesn't evoke the same reaction out of me as the exemplary pics.
I just find those ones silly and gross.

Only 200 posts? How pathetic.


----------



## Conker (Dec 23, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> It's that diaper art with all the shit and piss stains that I don't get, I just... what, what inspired this. Shit, I didn't want to burn my computer but purging isn't gonna clean that out


Part of the problem there is people can't control what turns them on. If you could, you'd pick something other than scat or watersports. But, those things turn people on for whatever reason, and instead of suppressing it they just go with the flow.

Things get a bit more eery when it comes to babyfur art and the like, because that involves kids. In some cases, the art is drawn because the artist wants to be a kid again and gets off to that, in other cases it's the opposite. The former harms no one and is just a stupid fetish, the latter is creepy and could become problematic, but as was pointed out earlier, you can't get arrested for having bad thoughts.


----------



## TreacleFox (Dec 23, 2012)

Conker said:


> Part of the problem there is people can't control what turns them on. If you could, you'd pick something other than scat or watersports. But, those things turn people on for whatever reason, and instead of suppressing it they just go with the flow.
> 
> Things get a bit more eery when it comes to babyfur art and the like, because that involves kids. In some cases, the art is drawn because the artist wants to be a kid again and gets off to that, in other cases it's the opposite. The former harms no one and is just a stupid fetish, the latter is creepy and could become problematic, but as was pointed out earlier, you can't get arrested for having bad thoughts.



Someone who finds children sexually attractive is called a  pedophile, and the definition of babyfur in no way encapsulates that. Also, not all babyfurs "get off" to the art or ideas.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

I think the unease surrounding non-sexual babyfur art or art that is sexual but does not feature minors stems from the fact that there are some babyfurs who also happen to be paedophiles. ['well duh, fallowfox' you say- but I'll carry on]

So rather than investigate the difference between the two groups- and risk being seen as defender of paedophilia, it's much easier just to psychologically lump the entire genre into depraved category. 

I think it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance- if you run into a babyfur who says they are not a paedophile you think to yourself 'they must be lying' 'they must be in the minority' or 'it must be latent', to justify the presumption taken to protect our easier view of reality.


----------



## badlands (Dec 23, 2012)

to me stuff like this https://www.furaffinity.net/view/9081946/ is perfectly fine, it's just cute.

when it gets to diapers and/or NSFW, the former is just creepy and the latter something i really hate


----------



## McRoz (Dec 23, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I think it's a classic case of cognitive dissonance- if you run into a babyfur who says they are not a paedophile you think to yourself 'they must be lying' 'they must be in the minority' or 'it must be latent', to justify the presumption taken to protect our easier view of reality.



All of you would-be witch hunters would be wise to take a page from this man(woman?).
Granted, this is the opinion of someone who frequently lumps Christians and moronic zealots together :F


----------



## Streetcircus (Dec 23, 2012)

It's not that I think babyfurs are potential pedophiles, it's that I know they are sexually undesirable in real life, and to compensate for their unfulfilled sexual aspirations, they must constantly look for something to satiate their sexual frustrations after previous fetishistic exploits lost their potency, which can only lead to a dependency on the shock of depravity. That's why babyfurs and infantilists are always very unattractive men.

So, because a bunch of very unattractive men are sexually frustrated, we must bear the burden of their sexually incompetency. That's what bother me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> It's not that I think babyfurs are potential pedophiles, it's that I *know *they are sexually undesirable in real life, and to compensate for their unfulfilled sexual aspirations, they must constantly look for something to satiate their sexual frustrations after previous fetishistic exploits lost their potency, which can only lead to a dependency on the shock of depravity. *That's why babyfurs and infantilists are always very unattractive men*.
> 
> So, because a bunch of very unattractive men are sexually frustrated, we must bear the burden of their sexually incompetency. That's what bother me.



Please support these assertions. I think they are your personal presumptions and I do not share them. 

Your argument is silliness balanced on top of assumptions. If some individuals like baby fur art and have no sexual interest that's obviously completely fine- and those people do exist. If some individuals like infantalism but are not paedophiles that is also fine- and said people do exist. 

If I scroll into content of either of those groups it will appeare strange and offputting to me, but luckily I live in a free country and nobody will force me to consume that content if I don't want to, so I can be on my merry way- I'm not exactly bearing a burden.


----------



## Streetcircus (Dec 23, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Please support these assertions. I think they are your personal presumptions and I do not share them.
> 
> Your argument is silliness balanced on top of assumptions. If some individuals like baby fur art and have no sexual interest that's obviously completely fine- and those people do exist. If some individuals like infantalism but are not paedophiles that is also fine- and said people do exist.
> 
> If I scroll into content of either of those groups it will appeare strange and offputting to me, but luckily I live in a free country and nobody will force me to consume that content if I don't want to, so I can be on my merry way- I'm not exactly bearing a burden.



Search "infantilism" on google images. Only very, very unattractive men. Losers of the worst kind.

I don't expect to be forced to participate in someone else's fetish, and I don't want to force them to stop enjoying what they do, but I do also live in a free country, and I will make my disapproval of them very clear. I don't want them to even forget the disgust I feel towards them when their behavior comes to my attention. That is a freedom that I will not take for granted.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Search "infantilism" on google images. Only very, very unattractive men. Losers of the worst kind.
> 
> I don't expect to be forced to participate in someone else's fetish, and I don't want to force them to stop enjoying what they do, but I do also live in a free country, and I will make my disapproval of them very clear. I don't want them to even forget the disgust I feel towards them when their behavior comes to my attention. That is a freedom that I will not take for granted.



Not so long ago searching michelle obama on google images returned pictures of apes. Google images is not the ultimate voice of truth, its algorithm supports popularity, not representative demographics. 

Well everyone is free to ignore your crackpot behaviour. Why is it important to you that other people are aware they disgust you? Why on earth would you prioritise this behaviour in the pursuit of trying to make other people miserable or feel inadaquate? 
If anybody is forcing their sexual attitudes in the attempt to deliberately cause a burden it's you. You are keen to apply freudian psychology to everyone else, so turn the lens on yourself- what strange psychosis is justifying this pointless behaviour? A delusion of grandeur that upsetting people with weird fetishes is going to make you an unsung hero of society?


----------



## Streetcircus (Dec 23, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Not so long ago searching michelle obama on google images returned pictures of apes. Google images is not the ultimate voice of truth, its algorithm supports popularity, not representative demographics.
> 
> Well everyone is free to ignore your crackpot behaviour. Why is it important to you that other people are aware they disgust you? Why on earth would you prioritise this behaviour in the pursuit of trying to make other people miserable or feel inadaquate?
> If anybody is forcing their sexual attitudes in the attempt to deliberately cause a burden it's you. You are keen to apply freudian psychology to everyone else, so turn the lens on yourself- what strange psychosis is justifying this pointless behaviour? A delusion of grandeur that upsetting people with weird fetishes is going to make you an unsung hero of society?



The most popular results for infantilism are the only results. Thank God there isn't more demand for photographs of adults in diapers.

I know I'm more thoughtful than someone who listens to Soulja Boy, and I know they have to be told to stop listening to terrible music. It's just the way culture works. The more keenly aware individuals have to guide the rest. I'm very confident that I have it right because I know I have been well accepted by others and had the privilege of a better upbringing than most. I feel I should share that wealth.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> The most popular results for infantilism are the only results. Thank God there isn't more demand for photographs of adults in diapers.
> 
> I know I'm more thoughtful than someone who listens to Soulja Boy, and I know they have to be told to stop listening to terrible music. It's just the way culture works. The more keenly aware individuals have to guide the rest. I'm very confident that I have it right because I know I have been well accepted by others and had the privilege of a better upbringing than most. I feel I should share that wealth.



...oh goodness. 

No, musical taste is not indicative of thoughtfullness. I know people who listen to awful cheesey german crap, rather tha vivaldi, who have been interviewed by oxford university. 
Cultural stereotypes and expectations do not always hold true, it's important to know this. 
You're not sharing wealth, you're deliberately spreading ignorant assumptions and incitement to hate. That's horrible behaviour.


----------



## TreacleFox (Dec 23, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> The most popular results for infantilism are the only results. Thank God there isn't more demand for photographs of adults in diapers.
> 
> I know I'm more thoughtful than someone who listens to Soulja Boy, and I know they have to be told to stop listening to terrible music. It's just the way culture works. The more keenly aware individuals have to guide the rest. I'm very confident that I have it right because I know I have been well accepted by others and had the privilege of a better upbringing than most. I feel I should share that wealth.



How would you know the most popular results are the only results? This is not the way culture works either. Being well accepted does not mean you're right either, many ABDL's feel accepted in their sub-culture and rightly so.


----------



## Conker (Dec 23, 2012)

TreacleFox said:


> Someone who finds children sexually attractive is called a  pedophile, and the definition of babyfur in no way encapsulates that. Also, not all babyfurs "get off" to the art or ideas.


No, not all of them get off to the art or ideas, but enough of them do where that's what causes this "wow, that image is kind of creepy" feel. It's not so much the image itself but the idea that someone is sexually attracted to it. The reason this isn't the case with any other kind of image--since everything is a fetish to someone--is because the image contains a child or something akin to a child. 

To be honest, none of it really bothers me. I mean, pedophilia is really bad, but there can be more to a piece of art than strictly that. I don't view the art or talk to people that do, so I'm not bothered by it.


Fallowfox said:


> Well everyone is free to ignore your crackpot behaviour. Why is it important to you that other people are aware they disgust you? Why on earth would you prioritise this behaviour in the pursuit of trying to make other people miserable or feel inadaquate?


Because he's Streetcircus


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Dec 23, 2012)

Isn't Streetcircus the guy who got shat on because he said stupid shit about how people with aspergers should be socially excluded?


----------



## TreacleFox (Dec 23, 2012)

Conker said:


> No, not all of them get off to the art or ideas, but enough of them do where that's what causes this "wow, that image is kind of creepy" feel. It's not so much the image itself but the idea that someone is sexually attracted to it. The reason this isn't the case with any other kind of image--since everything is a fetish to someone--is because the image contains a child or something akin to a child.
> 
> To be honest, none of it really bothers me. I mean, pedophilia is really bad, but there can be more to a piece of art than strictly that. I don't view the art or talk to people that do, so I'm not bothered by it.
> 
> Because he's Streetcircus



Does this mean its pretty much impossible to depict anything child like without you being creeped out? I'm sure there is a stock photo fetish out there somewhere. :V
Really, there has to be something more than that.


----------



## Streetcircus (Dec 23, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> ...oh goodness.
> 
> No, musical taste is not indicative of thoughtfullness. I know people who listen to awful cheesey german crap, rather tha vivaldi, who have been interviewed by oxford university.
> Cultural stereotypes and expectations do not always hold true, it's important to know this.
> You're not sharing wealth, you're deliberately spreading ignorant assumptions and incitement to hate. That's horrible behaviour.



Just like reading tabloids isn't indicative of thoughtfulness? Can you take pleasure in reading made-up celebrity gossip without being a mental midget? You are way too relenting towards stupidity. Being passive towards a crime makes you guilty as well as the perpetrator.

It makes sense to me that the cause of infantilism is an unfulfilled sexual life. I guess you can be attractive and have unfulfilled sexual ambitions, but I don't think choosing to make the world a more ignorant place to live should be glamorized.


----------



## Conker (Dec 23, 2012)

TreacleFox said:


> Does this mean its pretty much impossible to depict anything child like without you being creeped out? I'm sure there is a stock photo fetish out there somewhere. :V
> Really, there has to be something more than that.


There's a kind of intention behind anime and furry drawings of this kind. Or maybe it just creeps me out when furries do it BECAUSE FURRIES D:


----------



## Batty Krueger (Dec 23, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Anyone who talks about weird porn in person is probably an aspie and has no tact or idea how to carry on a conversation whatsoever. How do you even carry on a conversation about porn, unless it becomes a meta topic about the porn itself?
> 
> I even find this creepy on the comments on FA and IB. I'll be the first to admit there is some stuff I find hot but I'm not going to comment and tell the fucking world. I'll say something if I think it's intelligent, but telling everyone the dirty things you think of when you see some character is at the least, kind of creepy IMO.
> 
> ...


My friends and I talk about it but in a joking way.  It's hilarious to make fun of certain types of porn.


----------



## McRoz (Dec 23, 2012)

Street, bro, you need to seriously re-evaluate your claims. You're coming off as very ignorant and poised to pull the trigger. Step bac ka little bit and check yourself before you wreck yourself.
This advice brought to you by an ex-aspie, because apparently the US gov't no longer recognizes us (look it up)


----------



## Conker (Dec 23, 2012)

McRoz said:


> Street, bro, you need to seriously re-evaluate your claims. You're coming off as very ignorant and poised to pull the trigger. Step bac ka little bit and *check yourself before you wreck yourself.*
> This advice brought to you by an ex-aspie, because apparently the US gov't no longer recognizes us (look it up)


And there's a Limp Bizkit nod.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 23, 2012)

d.batty said:


> My friends and I talk about it but in a joking way.  It's hilarious to make fun of certain types of porn.



Oh, absolutely. It's really funny usually, why wouldn't you?

I mean, there's a time and place for things but there's also a difference between joking about porn and talking about it loudly and incessantly, non-stop like that person in SF I was referring to.

There's even an appropriate time and place to talk about that stuff, or with certain people but this really just boils down to tact.


----------



## McRoz (Dec 24, 2012)

LB nod = ???


----------



## Saga (Dec 24, 2012)

SO DAMN CUTE  :']


----------



## starcandy12 (Dec 26, 2012)

@McRoz: To answer your original question, chances are the reason you felt that way was because of a sense of empathy. You feel for them since they are depicted in such a vulnerable way. The fact that the character is a child just makes it worse since humans feel the need to protect the young and helpless.

@Street: Every thing you said sounds like a huge negative generalization. I consider myself a babyfur, and I can promise you that I and a number of other babyfurs I know are not unattractive pedophiles with diaper fetishes. You shouldn't judge a group based on a few examples. Not to mention that one doesn't have to be an ABDL to be a babyfur. Those are two separate concepts that cross-over sometimes because of how much in common they have at times. I simply enjoy viewing and making the art and role playing as a toddler. I don't like sexualized babyfurs, just as many others in the community, though I do acknowledge there are some who do, but since anything can be sexualized, that's somewhat of a given. Personally, I only enjoy being a babyfur because it's fun and the art can be very cute. Everything you've said just rubs me the wrong way, so I hope you re-evaluate your claims.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 26, 2012)

starcandy12 said:


> I consider myself a babyfur, and I can promise you that I and a number of other babyfurs I know are not unattractive pedophiles with diaper fetishes.



The "daddies" are usually the pedophiles ;3

There are a lot of cute babyfurs out there. Not everyone can get over the diaper squick factor, though.

Some people claim the _diaper itself_ is gross. I'll never figure out how a clean diaper is gross.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Just like reading tabloids isn't indicative of thoughtfulness? Can you take pleasure in reading made-up celebrity gossip without being a mental midget? You are way too relenting towards stupidity. Being passive towards a crime makes you guilty as well as the perpetrator.
> 
> It makes sense to me that the cause of infantilism is an unfulfilled sexual life. I guess you can be attractive and have unfulfilled sexual ambitions, but I don't think choosing to make the world a more ignorant place to live should be glamorized.



I accidentally missed this comment, what a shame. The conversation has strolled off the path, but it's an interesting walk in the woods, so let's follow.

Can people who like celebrities also have brains? Yes they can, it's just a stereotype that anybody who enjoys raunchy gossip is also braindead. It might seem paradoxical to you...but some academics enjoy having their fortunes told eventhough they know it's not real, because they think it's good fun.

The only people with small minds are those that genuinely believe these social stereotypes are representative of the real world. 


Sigmund Freud's analysis is not infallible, in fact much of it is downright wrong and poisons the study of psychology and sexuality. According to Freud Homosexuals are infantalist, because how can one possibly be attracted to the same sex without regressing to the infinite perversion, and hence bisexuality, of one's impressionable infant state? 

You should start to be seeing that it is quite easy to rationalise any bullshit you like with Freud- insulting groups of other people with freudian analysis allows you to fling whatever shit you like under the pretense that you're an academic.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Sigmund Freud's analysis is not infallible, in fact much of it is downright wrong and poisons the study of psychology and sexuality. According to Freud Homosexuals are infantalist, because how can one possibly be attracted to the same sex without regressing to the infinite perversion, and hence bisexuality, of one's impressionable infant state?



Freud coined the term "projection" and then claimed everyone wants to kill their dad and fuck their mom.

NOBODY should take him seriously.


----------



## DairyProduct (Dec 26, 2012)

I actually get the same uncomfortable feeling about babyfurs and adult babies too. I think with babyfurs, it's the art styles that bother me. Babies and baby animals are (physically) perfect, pristine balls of adorable that bring about gross maternal instincts in me. seeing it mimicked in the weird wonky psuedo-disney style most furries use just really rubs me the wrong way, like some sort of uncanny valley effect. I think it's also because adult babies tend to grossly exaggerate certain idyllic or cutesy aspects of childhood and infancy, like babytalk. We all know children are dicks, but ABs tend to ignore the dickish aspects of children and play the part of an angelic, slightly mischievous but still adorable and sweet dream child. Maybe it's the weird uncanny valley thing again? I'm so used to kids being vile shitheads that when I see a baby character that isn't like that, I'm uncomfortable. Also, the fact that you know that adult babies are...well, adults...yeah, that's weird for obvious reasons.

i dunno, I understand adult baby stuff usually isn't sexual and it's usually an escapist fantasy, but I think the idea that some people find pleasure in pretending to be a helpless baby really discomforting. Like, I dunno, I find pleasure and pride in succeeding at tasks that are at or higher than my mental level. Like, doing a really hard college math assignment or whatever? It's not fun but when I finish it I'm like fuck yeah I'm an adult I can DO THIS, and I get a sense of accomplishment. The fact that some people want to shun away that good feeling and go to the complete opposite end of the comfort spectrum, and lay around babbling and playing with toys and being mothered. I dunno. People sure are weird!


----------



## Ricky (Dec 26, 2012)

DairyProduct said:


> i dunno, I understand adult baby stuff usually isn't sexual and it's usually an escapist fantasy, but I think the idea that some people find pleasure in pretending to be a helpless baby really discomforting.



IME, it's usually a fetish.



DairyProduct said:


> Like, I dunno, I find pleasure and pride in succeeding at tasks that are at or higher than my mental level. Like, doing a really hard college math assignment or whatever? It's not fun but when I finish it I'm like fuck yeah I'm an adult I can DO THIS, and I get a sense of accomplishment. The fact that some people want to shun away that good feeling and go to the complete opposite end of the comfort spectrum, and lay around babbling and playing with toys and being mothered. I dunno. People sure are weird!



You're trying to rationalize a fetish, but fetishes aren't really rational.

As far as the role play and art, I can see how it can be cute but I don't enjoy it on nearly the same level.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Freud coined the term "projection" and then claimed everyone wants to kill their dad and fuck their mom.
> 
> NOBODY should take him seriously.


Although he _was_ right about psychological projection, that's verified by human behaviour under test conditions. 

It feels like Galen all over again. He moved anatomy forward in great leaps and bounds...but he also made loads of really obvious mistakes like thinking the human jaw bone was divided into two separate bones...and nobody bothered to correct or even question him in the scientific literature for hundreds of years.


----------



## starcandy12 (Dec 26, 2012)

Ricky said:


> The "daddies" are usually the pedophiles ;3
> 
> There are a lot of cute babyfurs out there. Not everyone can get over the diaper squick factor, though.
> 
> Some people claim the _diaper itself_ is gross. I'll never figure out how a clean diaper is gross.



Hm...Glad I don't have a "daddy" then. ;3 

And I don't understand and have never heard of that; I understand someone being creeped out by who's in the diaper but never the diaper itself. 




DairyProduct said:


> I think with babyfurs, it's the art styles that bother me. Babies and baby animals are (physically) perfect, pristine balls of adorable that bring about gross maternal instincts in me. seeing it mimicked in the weird wonky psuedo-disney style most furries use just really rubs me the wrong way, like some sort of uncanny valley effect.



What style is this? I've probably seen what style you're talking about but don't identify as 'psuedo-disney'. And I don't see how that style would bother you, but okay. 



DairyProduct said:


> I think it's also because adult babies tend to grossly exaggerate certain idyllic or cutesy aspects of childhood and infancy, like babytalk. We all know children are dicks, but ABs tend to ignore the dickish aspects of children and play the part of an angelic, slightly mischievous but still adorable and sweet dream child.



From what I've heard and seen, that's part of the fantasy. If they regress as a sort of stress relief or fantasy, why would they want to act like dicks? That'd ruin the fantasy. A fantasy is supposed to be idealistic, that's the point of it. You're not supposed to take the bad parts into account in a fantasy.   



DairyProduct said:


> i dunno, I understand adult baby stuff usually isn't sexual and it's usually an escapist fantasy, but I think the idea that some people find pleasure in pretending to be a helpless baby really discomforting. Like, I dunno, I find pleasure and pride in succeeding at tasks that are at or higher than my mental level. Like, doing a really hard college math assignment or whatever? It's not fun but when I finish it I'm like fuck yeah I'm an adult I can DO THIS, and I get a sense of accomplishment. The fact that some people want to shun away that good feeling and go to the complete opposite end of the comfort spectrum, and lay around babbling and playing with toys and being mothered. I dunno. People sure are weird!



Some people find laying around babbling and things like that fun and comforting. They're escaping responsibility and stress and all those 'adult' things and going back to a time where they didn't have to worry about hard things and had virtually no cares in the world. They'd take comfort in not even having to bother with something hard like the math assignment. As for the pretending thing, I say to each their own. Some people like being helpless, and that's fine; whatever floats your boat. And I can't imagine that ABs would act like a baby all the time. I'm sure they do other, more age-appropriate things too, so they might feel that sense of accomplishment you're talking about when they're not being a baby.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 27, 2012)

Ricky said:


> The "daddies" are usually the pedophiles ;3
> 
> There are a lot of cute babyfurs out there. Not everyone can get over the diaper squick factor, though.
> 
> Some people claim the _diaper itself_ is gross. I'll never figure out how a clean diaper is gross.



Personally I associate the use of adult diapers with severe disability or illness. To me that gives it all the sex appeal of a feeding tube.


----------



## ViperT24 (Jan 1, 2013)

Unsilenced said:


> Personally I associate the use of adult diapers with severe disability or illness. To me that gives it all the sex appeal of a feeding tube.



Very much agreed. Anyway, the squick factor of a diaper, yes even a clean one, comes not from what it's currently holding but from its intended purpose. A diaper is meant to hold body waste, there's no way around that fact. They weren't invented as a cute decoration for infants; they exist as a means for the incontinent to not drop urine and feces all over the floor. When you see someone wearing one, you know that sooner or later, that diaper is going to fulfill its intended purpose. That's the gross out.


----------



## PapayaShark (Jan 1, 2013)

As long as its not sexual or involves bodily fluids, I don't really give a shit.


----------



## guy (Jan 1, 2013)

Those pics didn't bother me too much. (maybe a little) It's the ones where they're posing in a pseudo- sexual manner with some sort of "Come hither" look that make me want to start punching people.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 2, 2013)

ViperT24 said:


> When you see someone wearing one, you know that sooner or later, that diaper is going to fulfill its intended purpose. That's the gross out.



There are plenty of cubs who wear diapers but don't use them. So, I don't think that statement is necessarily true.



PapayaShark said:


> As long as its not sexual or involves bodily fluids, I don't really give a shit.



Oh, but THEY do ;3  *rim shot*



guy said:


> Those pics didn't bother me too much. (maybe a little) It's the ones where they're posing in a pseudo- sexual manner with some sort of "Come hither" look that make me want to start punching people.



Didn't your mommy ever tell you the internet tough-guy act is lame?


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 2, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Can people who like celebrities also have brains? Yes they can, it's just a stereotype that anybody who enjoys raunchy gossip is also braindead. It might seem paradoxical to you...but some academics enjoy having their fortunes told eventhough they know it's not real, because they think it's good fun.
> 
> The only people with small minds are those that genuinely believe these social stereotypes are representative of the real world.
> 
> ...



I was pretty busy, so I missed you're comment also.

What I understand you are meaning to say is that reading tabloids is okay because smart people do it, but I disagree. Partaking in something you know is intended for people who sincerely take pleasure in the misfortunes of the fortunate is what is known as a "guilty pleasure". It means you can't help enjoying it, but you feel ashamed because you enjoy it. That's different than watching bad movies just to make fun of them because, hopefully, the bad movies are flops. If you know the fortune teller or the tabloid writer have an audience of people who genuinely take pleasure in something heinously stupid, then how can you be okay with that unless you're oblivious to the harm it causes?

Sigmund Feud doesn't have a patent on theories which explain that extreme sexual fetishes are the result of trauma or disorder. Just because I believe he had some things definitely correct - which he did - it doesn't mean I adopt the whole mess. I don't know why you have made that assumption. I'm not attempting to medically diagnose anyone, I'm only making a social observation. Between what is certain about fetishes, and what is left ambiguous due to the lack of necessity to diagnose fetishes as medical disorders, I have personally concluded that extreme fetishists are victims of trauma and disorder. If it doesn't hurt anyone, that's fine, but it isn't pleasant or socially acceptable.

I'm not claiming to be an authority, I just make my opinions clear and allow others the chance to convince me there is a more logical explanation. I think I have it right, though, why would anyone want to believe that easy, free pleasure can be wrong? It's so easy and fun. Sacrificing something fun for an uncertain, eventual benefit is hard. So, you have every incentive to make an excuse for the sake of convenience, and I have no incentive other than the truth.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 2, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> I was pretty busy, so I missed you're comment also.
> 
> What I understand you are meaning to say is that reading tabloids is  okay because smart people do it, but I disagree. Partaking in something  you know is intended for people who sincerely take pleasure in the  misfortunes of the fortunate is what is known as a "guilty pleasure". It  means you can't help enjoying it, but you feel ashamed because you  enjoy it. That's different than watching bad movies just to make fun of  them because, hopefully, the bad movies are flops. If you know the  fortune teller or the tabloid writer have an audience of people who  genuinely take pleasure in something heinously stupid, then how can you  be okay with that unless you're oblivious to the harm it causes?
> 
> ...



That's a straw argument. 

I do not think there is any moral  value, positive or negative, attached to reading trashy newspapers.  _Believing_ what's in them may have moral connotations. 
I'm arguing  that you cannot judge somebody's compitence or intelligence on what  newspaper they read. That's far too little information to formulate a  view on someone and hence a prejudicial statement. 

My apologies. You should however be made aware  that both the view of what constitutes an 'extreme fetish' [or  paraphilia] and how they are created has changed a great deal since the  Time of Sigmund Freud. The trauma hypothesis in particular is about a  century out of fashion and does not deserve to be treated as an  orthodoxy. It is a curiosity that may or may not be applicable to individual cases, rather than a brush with which all strange fetishes can be painted.  

You claimed that people with infantalist fetishism  were so by virtue of their physical repulsiveness or lack of sexual stimuli and that they were  responsible for 'spreading ignorance'- alluding that you are morally  obliged to socially reject them for the greater good. 
These are  hyperbolic claims that are frankly ludicrous. You don't have the grounds  to make these very sweeping and severe assumptions, if you cared about epistemology you would know this, but instead you seem to be assuming the position that your hypothesis is right until proven wrong by someone you cannot attribute dubious motives to. 

Epistemology does not operate in that fashion, your hypotheses are _not_ deamed right until proven wrong. Hypotheses are to be assesed on their own evidencial merits rather than how sensible they sound or whether there are any competing hypotheses.


----------



## ViperT24 (Jan 2, 2013)

Ricky said:


> There are plenty of cubs who wear diapers but don't use them. So, I don't think that statement is necessarily true.
> 
> That some don't necessarily use them is deflection from the main point though, in that holding bodily waste is their only purpose in existence. That's my explanation for the poster who didn't understand why some consider even the clean ones to be "gross"


----------



## Poison Jam (Jan 2, 2013)

Cub Porn is banned on FA and rightly so. I think ink bunny is what you people want.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 3, 2013)

ViperT24 said:


> That some don't necessarily use them is deflection from the main point though, in that holding bodily waste is their only purpose in existence. That's my explanation for the poster who didn't understand why some consider even the clean ones to be "gross"



this is what you said:



> When you see someone wearing one, you know that sooner or later, that diaper is going to fulfill its intended purpose.



You weren't talking about an association there. You were saying _that specific diaper_ would "fulfill its intended purpose."


----------



## ViperT24 (Jan 4, 2013)

I'm quite aware of what I said, and yet I fail to see whatever point you're trying to make. Once again, I was explaining why diapers, even "clean" ones, may be considered "gross" to some people. If you think wearing diapers is cute, that's all well and good, but once again, their only purpose, literally the only reason they exist, is to catch and hold the bodily waste of those that are incontinent. It doesn't really matter what your personal tastes are in the matter, that is what they're for. And that is why many consider them to be detestable. If you consider wearing diapers to be cute, fine...it's besides the point. People will assume that diaper is going to be used for it's intended purpose.

If someone made a furry with a jetpack strapped to his back, it's within reason that one would assume he'd use it at some point to fly around. That's the purpose of jetpacks. Not just to look cool or interesting, but to be used. That's what many people see when they see a diaper. It's probably going to be used at some point. If you personally don't intend to use it to its purpose, alright then, that's fine. But the default assumption is that it will be used, otherwise it wouldn't be worn. That's all.


----------



## ViperT24 (Jan 4, 2013)

I fail to see whatever point you're trying to make. Once again, I was  explaining why diapers, even "clean" ones, may be considered "gross" to  some people. If you think wearing diapers is cute, that's all well and  good, but once again, their only purpose, literally the only reason they  exist, is to catch and hold the bodily waste of those that are  incontinent. It doesn't really matter what your personal tastes are in  the matter, that is what they're for. And that is why many consider them  to be detestable. If you consider wearing diapers to be cute,  fine...it's besides the point. People will assume that diaper is going  to be used for it's intended purpose.
If someone made a furry with a jetpack strapped to his back, it's within  reason that one would assume he'd use it at some point to fly around.  That's the purpose of jetpacks. Not just to look cool or interesting,  but to be used. That's what many people see when they see a diaper. It's  probably going to be used at some point. That's all.


----------



## ViperT24 (Jan 4, 2013)

Excuse the double post


----------



## Heliophobic (Jan 4, 2013)

PapayaShark said:


> As long as its not sexual or involves bodily fluids, I don't really give a shit.



L.O.L.


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Jan 4, 2013)

Regression, It's a thing. If people are into it, who are we to judge?


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 5, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> That's a straw argument.
> 
> I do not think there is any moral  value, positive or negative, attached to reading trashy newspapers.  _Believing_ what's in them may have moral connotations.
> I'm arguing  that you cannot judge somebody's compitence or intelligence on what  newspaper they read. That's far too little information to formulate a  view on someone and hence a prejudicial statement.



Tabloids exist because people believe them and value them. There is no intellectual reward, and supporting such a vile thing takes an absence of thought.



Fallowfox said:


> My apologies. You should however be made aware  that both the view of what constitutes an 'extreme fetish' [or  paraphilia] and how they are created has changed a great deal since the  Time of Sigmund Freud. The trauma hypothesis in particular is about a  century out of fashion and does not deserve to be treated as an  orthodoxy. It is a curiosity that may or may not be applicable to individual cases, rather than a brush with which all strange fetishes can be painted.
> 
> You claimed that people with infantalist fetishism  were so by virtue of their physical repulsiveness or lack of sexual stimuli and that they were  responsible for 'spreading ignorance'- alluding that you are morally  obliged to socially reject them for the greater good.
> These are  hyperbolic claims that are frankly ludicrous. You don't have the grounds  to make these very sweeping and severe assumptions, if you cared about epistemology you would know this, but instead you seem to be assuming the position that your hypothesis is right until proven wrong by someone you cannot attribute dubious motives to.
> ...



All that has changed concerning the belief that trauma is always, or mostly, related to extreme fetishes is that it isn't clear whether it is or not, and that it isn't necessary to medically diagnose extreme fetishes because they don't cause any physical arm. It doesn't mean that trauma isn't the leading cause of sexual fetishes, it just means it isn't a medical fact. It doesn't need to be. Just like dressing as Sailor Moon as a thirty year old man isn't necessary to medically diagnose to know that it isn't pleasant or socially acceptable.

You keep trying to associate the belief that trauma is directly responsible for most cases of extreme fetishes with Sigmund Freud's other outdated theories, but these are widely held opinions. It is well-documented that trauma and disorder often lead to paraphilia. Children who are abused develop violent and bizarre sexual habits. It isn't like the cause of paraphilia is a mystery, it's just hard to define. I'm not making blind accusations. They're broad, yes, but they're not blind, or without merit.


----------



## goth gangster (Jan 5, 2013)

it bothers me if they are doing sexual things but if they are just being little babies i think its cute. In no way or form am ithinking DEAR GOD THATS HOT or THAT REALLY RUSTLES MY JIMMIES. im just like thats fucking kawaii. I don't look for this art though im just like cool i guess. Baby talk bugs the shit out of me though so i hate the SOWWY. it has nothing to do with the photos themselves. I am adopted and know lots of sexualy abused children and I understand what can come of an infant trusting a sexually deranged parent or guardian.  Things like that make my stomach sick but if it is just a doodle of them in different stages of like it is fine with me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 5, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Tabloids exist because people believe them and value them. There is no intellectual reward, and supporting such a vile thing takes an absence of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading tabloid newspapers does not mean a person is stupid. Not everyone who reads tabloids believes them. 

The following are not valid measurements of a person's intelligence: Dress sense, musical taste, physical appearance, social status, sexual habits or choice of newspaper.

It's not a medically obscure out of lack of will to diagnose. It's obscure because there isn't enough high quality research and there is a huge semantic fuss surrounding what exactly constitutes 'paraphilia' _anyway_. Homosexuality was considered a paraphilia until relatively recently. Masochism and Sadism still are. 

Transvestism is innocuous in my view. 

Trauma at a young age can, in some cases, be shown to instigate paraphilia, particularly in the extreme instance of propogating rapists if I am not mistaken.
This does not mean all paraphilia is the result of childhood trauma or that even a majority is, it just means some is, and that is why the deducation 'paraphilia results from early trauma' is not supported in medicine.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 5, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Reading tabloid newspapers does not mean a person is stupid. Not everyone who reads tabloids believes them.
> 
> *The following are not valid measurements of a person's intelligence: Dress sense, musical taste, physical appearance, social status, sexual habits or choice of newspaper.*
> 
> ...



They're a measurement of a person's wisdom.

I guess a person _can _read a tabloid for a reason alternative to its purpose, even though they are intelligent enough, but they must know that they exist for people that enjoy humiliating and degrading famous people. They must know it's wrong, harmful, and that the world would be a better place if they didn't exist. That's the same as listening to Justin Beiber even though you know it isn't good music. You know it exists because of an absence of thought, and that people who value it as art do so because they are idiots. It still qualifies as a guilty pleasure. I guess not everyone who listens to it is stupid, but it's for stupid people, and I don't know how you can justify liking something that's meant to appeal to people without a thought in their heads. It has to make you wonder what is wrong with you that you like the same things that are made to appeal to the very dumbest people on Earth.

I don't think it's accurate to say that paraphilia resulting from trauma isn't supported in medicine. I think there is a better way to phrase it. It's supported by medicine, there just isn't enough known to say that all, or most, paraphilia is caused by trauma. If a young girl's earliest memories are of being raped by her father, and she developed some very bizarre sexual habits, it's not going to take a guess for a doctor to determine that the abuse is the direct cause.

If we know for sure that sexual abuse to that degree will very likely cause paraphilia, and many other cases of paraphilia are probably caused by some degree of trauma or disorder, even though there are some things left uncertain, it isn't a far reach to say that most extreme and bizarre sexual behaviors are most likely related to trauma or disorder. I can't medically say that all diaper fetishists are ugly and retarded, but they probably are, and you would be very hard pressed to find an example of someone normal and well-adjusted who would even think about putting on a diaper for a sexual thrill, while the fat and retarded sort are in abundance and abound.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 5, 2013)

I wasn't following this thread, but had to tune in for some Streetcircus lols. Better watch your choice of newspaper as it is apparently a measure of your wisdom. And if you listen to Justin Bieber you belong on the short bus. Sry :/

OP - Creepo babyfur art is one of those things that is simply _going _to happen in a fandom like this one. I'm guessing your aversion to the art is just that: an aversion to the art you are seeing.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 5, 2013)

ViperT24 said:


> I fail to see whatever point you're trying to make. Once again, I was  explaining why diapers, even "clean" ones, may be considered "gross" to  some people. If you think wearing diapers is cute, that's all well and  good, but once again, their only purpose, literally the only reason they  exist, is to catch and hold the bodily waste of those that are  incontinent. It doesn't really matter what your personal tastes are in  the matter, that is what they're for. And that is why many consider them  to be detestable. If you consider wearing diapers to be cute,  fine...it's besides the point. People will assume that diaper is going  to be used for it's intended purpose.



Sometimes it's just cute:


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 5, 2013)

Ricky said:


> Sometimes it's just cute:


D'oh my goodness that shit is adorable! He's a little knight brandishing is cardboard sword of justice.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 5, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> They're a measurement of a person's wisdom.
> 
> I guess a person _can _read a tabloid for a reason alternative to its purpose, even though they are intelligent enough, but they must know that they exist for people that enjoy humiliating and degrading famous people. They must know it's wrong, harmful, and that the world would be a better place if they didn't exist. That's the same as listening to Justin Beiber even though you know it isn't good music. You know it exists because of an absence of thought, and that people who value it as art do so because they are idiots. It still qualifies as a guilty pleasure. I guess not everyone who listens to it is stupid, but it's for stupid people, and I don't know how you can justify liking something that's meant to appeal to people without a thought in their heads. It has to make you wonder what is wrong with you that you like the same things that are made to appeal to the very dumbest people on Earth.
> 
> ...



Smart people are not one dimensional logic automatons. They do have other interests, even celebrity gossip or justin bieber, rather than philosophy and Mozart. [and people who like JB are not idiots, they simply have a different taste in music to you. This is irrelevant to their intelligence]
Enjoying activities or media you claim 'are for dumb people' doesn't mean there is something wrong with you. 
It is like insisting that you cannot find beauty or entertainment in Beowulf 'because it was written for a race of barbarians,' or that you cannot enjoy the tale of cinderella 'because it is for kids,'.

Hypotheses are not adaquatly supported if they do not have meritable evidence _to_ support them. Individual cases may spring up but to typify an entire genre in their name would be a confirmation bias. For instance if one house burns down and a smoker lived there it does not mean all housefires are caused by smokers. 

It is a far reach, way beyond the support of evidence. Some cases of paraphilia are associated with trauma, this does not mean this can be established as the active mechanism behind all sexual deviation. Some cases of amensia are associated with head injuries, it doesn't mean you can claim all head injuries cause amnesia or that all cases of amnesia were caused by head injuries [which the amensiac presumeable forgot happened]. 

It is incredibly improbable that all daiper fetishists are ugly and stupid. Just as it is incredibly improbable that all violinists are intelligent and attractive. 
They simply have a different set of interests to us, and whilst we might find their interests off putting this does not give us grounds to make psychological inferences about their personal qualities.

You should watch this clip on cognitive dissonance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyE8wUteFA4 
The author discusses atheism at most points but the crux is the same as the effeminate gay example.


----------



## McRoz (Jan 5, 2013)

DairyProduct said:


> gross maternal instincts



This should be a band name \m/


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Smart people are not one dimensional logic automatons. They do have other interests, even celebrity gossip or justin bieber, rather than philosophy and Mozart. [and people who like JB are not idiots, they simply have a different taste in music to you. This is irrelevant to their intelligence]
> Enjoying activities or media you claim 'are for dumb people' doesn't mean there is something wrong with you.
> It is like insisting that you cannot find beauty or entertainment in Beowulf 'because it was written for a race of barbarians,' or that you cannot enjoy the tale of cinderella 'because it is for kids,'.
> 
> ...



This knit-sweater, grade-school, appoligetic, liberal back-patting makes me so ashamed of the human race. Do you not realize that there are incredibly gifted musicians who can't support a career in music because of people like you who think it's okay that Justin Bieber makes millions being packaged and sold as a desirable male to ignorant preteen girls who buy his music because they were fooled by salesmen who don't actually have any personal interest in his music themselves?

You are litterally stomping out something beautiful because you don't have the courage to tell other people they are doing something wrong. Oh, I forgot, a person's happiness is more important than acheiving things for the greater good of us all. Honestly, I don't think it's because you are just so nice you don't want to hurt other people's feelings. You're in a wheelchair, or have some type of disability that makes you feel like everyone has to be accepted by everyone no matter what, because, otherwise, you won't be. I know there is some other agenda than your belief in what is right.

This is really happening: Rebecca Black released a song for no other reason than to get famous, and a song she put absolutely no thought or skill into made it on the billboard top 100; while Jason Lytle, a talented song writer who has put so much dedication and creativity in his work had to retire from music because he couldn't make enough money to live off of. The world lost a great artist, and gained a popular buffoon. This is not progress, and it really is coupled with degeneration and dysgenics. A world where thought is valued is slipping away little by little, and it's your fault. So, whatever the reason is that you sympathize so strongly with outcasts, Aspergers sufferers, and paraphiliacs, I suggest you try considering that a world where a Marc Chagall painting is on DeviantArt.com, and My Little Pony fanart hangs in the National Gallery is not a world that encourages thought.

I don't know how your video about cognitive dissonance is relevant to this discussion other than to imply that I don't consider my view points, I just believe whatever my peers and parents told me. It serves no purpose other than to offend me, and it's just outright arrogant. It requires much less effort and consideration to just excuse everything you don't agree with, choosing to ignore the things that might be wrong. "If it makes people happy, it can't be wrong!" Just like ignoring a crime is easier than stepping in to stop it. You believe what is easiest to believe, and what feels good to believe, I believe what is true, no matter how much it inconveniences me or anyone else. The truth is often inconvenient.

As far as trauma causing paraphilia, you are going to say sometimes it does because that benefits your argument, I'm going to say it happens a lot because it benefits mine. What we can agree on is that it definitely does happen, and if it's not certain that trauma has caused extreme sexual behavior, we can agree that the probable cause is either trauma or a mystery alternative that might not even exist. Is there evidence that there is a benign alternative? No, you just want to believe there is one because it's easier.


----------



## rapid 99 (Jan 6, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> * Oh, I forgot, a person's happiness is more important than acheiving things for the greater good of us all.* Honestly, I don't think it's because you are just so nice you don't want to hurt other people's feelings. You're in a wheelchair, or have some type of disability that makes you feel like everyone has to be accepted by everyone no matter what, because, otherwise, you won't be. I know there is some other agenda than your belief in what is right.
> 
> This is really happening: Rebecca Black released a song for no other reason than to get famous, and a song she put absolutely no thought or skill into made it on the billboard top 100; while Jason Lytle, a talented song writer who has put so much dedication and creativity in his work had to retire from music because he couldn't make enough money to live off of. The world lost a great artist, and gained a popular buffoon.



Rebecca Black is not popular by any stretch of the imagination. I even believe she has gone into hiding and is home schooled due to the ridicule she has received from releasing such a god awful song. Yes the song was terrible but would you also like it if people like Bieber were hounded and had to lock themselves away from the braying mob? Personally I detest his music. But I also know that the people who buy it are younger than me and simply like poppy lyrics and a nice beat. Are they less intelligent than me? Probably; they're only 13. Will they remain that way? No; they'll grow up and mature.

Love that personal attack. Really makes you sound like an intellectual human being equating defending the right for the radio to produce drivel, to being physically disabled.

Also highlighted a rather scary phrase you have used.

Many "great artists" I bet you hail were regarded as awful in their time. Should EVERYONE who produces music, drama, literature, art etc who doesn't meet your criteria have their works confiscated?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 6, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> This knit-sweater, grade-school, appoligetic, liberal back-patting makes me so ashamed of the human race. Do you not realize that there are incredibly gifted musicians who can't support a career in music because of people like you who think it's okay that Justin Bieber makes millions being packaged and sold as a desirable male to ignorant preteen girls who buy his music because they were fooled by salesmen who don't actually have any personal interest in his music themselves?
> 
> You are litterally stomping out something beautiful because you don't have the courage to tell other people they are doing something wrong. Oh, I forgot, a person's happiness is more important than acheiving things for the greater good of us all. Honestly, I don't think it's because you are just so nice you don't want to hurt other people's feelings. You're in a wheelchair, or have some type of disability that makes you feel like everyone has to be accepted by everyone no matter what, because, otherwise, you won't be. I know there is some other agenda than your belief in what is right.
> 
> ...



[video=youtube;OsuAKtHwny4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsuAKtHwny4[/video]

People enjoying music I don't like is not wrong. Musical taste makes no certain comment about a person's intelligence. Diversity and economic equality in the musical landscape are separate issues unrelated to the personal qualities of consumers. I may think that there should be more blues bar music for example, this does not mean I am entitled to say that all people who enjoy rap music are violent in order to justify my view. 

I'm not disabled, no. Insisting that we do not jump to conclusions about people's characters based on trivial things is not 'accepting everyone no matter what,'. It's not judging books by their covers. 

We're going to stray into Godwin territory if you call artists you do not like 'degenerates' so let's refrain from that. If you think a world where low and high art switch places is a fiction you are living in the past. Takashi Murakami already produces animÃ© and manga art, which I have seen on display in the british Tate modern. Did the world crumble at this development? No- it pretty much carried on. 
You need to remember that the current 'masters' of art we remember like Edvard Munch, Berthe Morisot and Van Gogh were viewed as degenerates and threats to academicism in art in their own days. Those threats proved moot- art continued diversifying but academicism still exists. 

I think you're exercising cognitive dissonance: You have a belief that all media art and oddities you do not like are associated with thoughtlessness and infantile intelligence. This clearly isn't so, just like people who believe all gay men are effeminate, but however much I explain this you are just retreating into further prejudicial reasoning to protect your beliefs. 'oh, some oxford applicants have a bad taste in music? I guess some people who listne to bad music are smart, but they're fuelling a culture of idiocy so I'm still right overall,'. It's ridiculous. 

I'm not advocating ignoring crime, that's a straw fallacy. You can't make claims of epistemilogical objectivity over matters without evidencial foundations or with intrinsically subjective qualities. 
I say that paraphilia is sometimes associated with early trauma because that's what the available evidence shows. There is not suitable evidence to show this is the case with a majority of paraphilias, so I cannot make that claim and will refute that claim if anyone else makes it without supplying new evidence. 
Saying 'unless you can suggest an alternative we should assume that it is traumatic in nature' is not epistemilogical behaviour. It's prejudical. 

In any scenario in which you do not know the answer the only justifiable answer is 'I don't know [although my hypotheses are as follows- let's test them],'. Plenty of benign explanations exist for paraphilia, including imprinting, psychological regression, the association of closely positions brain regions, psychological conditioning etcetera.
None of them adaquatly explain the entire picture, which is why I'm not insisting on proponing them 'instead of trauma'. Paraphilia can not be explained with just one hypothesis, just like eye colour cannot be explained through the expression of just one gene's influence- it's several genes working together.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> [video=youtube;OsuAKtHwny4]I think you're exercising cognitive dissonance: You have a belief that all media art and oddities you do not like are associated with thoughtlessness and infantile intelligence. This clearly isn't so, just like people who believe all gay men are effeminate, but however much I explain this you are just retreating into further prejudicial reasoning to protect your beliefs. 'oh, some oxford applicants have a bad taste in music? I guess some people who listne to bad music are smart, but they're fuelling a culture of idiocy so I'm still right overall,'. It's ridiculous.


Excellent breakdown of Streetcircus. Geez SC that last post was a new low. That you think your beliefs are good is simultaneously very depressing and very hilarious. I leave your philosophical trouncing in Fallow's capable hands.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 6, 2013)

I don't know why you people even bother :\

You do realize you're trying to argue _*why liking certain music is okay*_ 

Some discussions I don't feel are even worth the effort.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 6, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> People enjoying music I don't like is not wrong. Musical taste makes no certain comment about a person's intelligence. Diversity and economic equality in the musical landscape are separate issues unrelated to the personal qualities of consumers. I may think that there should be more blues bar music for example, this does not mean I am entitled to say that all people who enjoy rap music are violent in order to justify my view.
> 
> I'm not disabled, no. Insisting that we do not jump to conclusions about people's characters based on trivial things is not 'accepting everyone no matter what,'. It's not judging books by their covers.
> 
> ...



I don't understand how you are so keen on accusing others of making straw man arguments while making them repeatedly yourself. Can you accept that a person's meaning can become lost in the translation without assuming there is an insidious intention behind it, since you are as vulnerable to it as anyone? At what point did I give the impression that I believe any music that I don't like is wrong? Just perhaps, I hate Coldplay and Modest Mouse with a passion. Does that mean I think it can't help but to attract the dumbest possible person? No, and that's not a logical assumption.

There is a very real, and measurable difference between blues music played in as many bars as you prefer, and a fart. There just is. Blues music requires a mastery of craft, dedication to your instrument, lyrics that culminate in a climax of musical and emotional synergy, and an understanding of music theory. Telling women you have a lot of money and will spend it all on them, having other musicians produce cookie-cutter beats and bass lines while you strum the only two chords you know on a guitar your parents bought you, and being told exactly how to sing without your own creative input takes nothing but the desire to fool ignorant people out of their money. I'm sorry that life isn't what you want it to be.

You have accumulated over 2,000 posts in only half a year, you admit you have many friends with autism, and I'm assuming you're never away from your computer for very long. That's disabled enough for me. I'm just wondering what the agenda is, because there is one. You are tireless in your pursuit of social equality, redemption of outcasts, and superficial happiness. You sympathize with certain victims because you are one. I'm just wondering why you aren't considered socially acceptable.

I couldn't possibly dislike certain behaviors because I have dissected them, ventured to understand them, given them more thought than the people who partake in them, and have concluded something must change because I believe in the epistemological validity of my pursuits, could I? If one babyfur could convince me they have given their actions more thought than I have, then my logic would quickly fall to theirs as I campaign against them in fandoms where they are prevalent. You and I both know they don't believe in what they do, they do it without thought because it makes them feel good. They cling to it because they can't muster the courage to cope with life in a way that is tactful and productive. Maybe I'm convinced I'm quite a bit tougher than the bleeding-heart liberals who cave in to the adversities of life, and that's the superior way to be.

I believe I have rationalized my belief that extreme paraphilia is most likely caused by trauma _or di_s_order _sufficiently enough. You don't have to adopt my philosophies, and I don't have to adopt yours, but you are acting as if I need a determined medical fact to claim someone is immature for playing pokemon as a thirty year old adult. There is no demand for that to be medically diagnosed, and I don't need it to be to validate my understanding of what is mature and immature, and to treat that person accordingly.

Just so you know, psychological regression, imprinting, and all that good stuff are disorders. You wanted to focus on the trauma theory, but disorders aren't to be nurtured either, and certainly aren't benign.



benignBiotic said:


> Excellent breakdown of Streetcircus. Geez SC that last post was a new low. That you think your beliefs are good is simultaneously very depressing and very hilarious. I leave your philosophical trouncing in Fallow's capable hands.



Way to be a grunter.


----------



## Symlus (Jan 6, 2013)

I was going to leave a meaningful post, then I saw the length of the posts. This is not my domain.


----------



## rapid 99 (Jan 6, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> You have accumulated over 2,000 posts in only half a year, you admit you have many friends with autism, and I'm assuming you're never away from your computer for very long. That's disabled enough for me. I'm just wondering what the agenda is, because there is one. You are tireless in your pursuit of social equality, redemption of outcasts, and superficial happiness. You sympathize with certain victims because you are one. I'm just wondering why you aren't considered socially acceptable.



Saying "You want social equality therefore you must be disabled" is like saying "You want equal rights for women therefore you must be female".


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 6, 2013)

> You have accumulated over 2,000 posts in only half a year, you admit you  have many friends with autism, and I'm assuming you're never away from  your computer for very long. That's disabled enough for me.


Wow FallowFox is clearly disabled. Sorry FF, I didn't know. :V


----------



## Ricky (Jan 6, 2013)

Okay, fine -- just for the hell of it...



Streetcircus said:


> I don't understand how you are so keen on accusing others of making straw man arguments while making them repeatedly yourself. Can you accept that a person's meaning can become lost in the translation without assuming there is an insidious intention behind it, since you are as vulnerable to it as anyone? At what point did I give the impression that I believe any music that I don't like is wrong? Just perhaps, I hate Coldplay and Modest Mouse with a passion. Does that mean I think it can't help but to attract the dumbest possible person? No, and that's not a logical assumption.
> 
> There is a very real, and measurable difference between blues music played in as many bars as you prefer, and a fart. There just is. Blues music requires a mastery of craft, dedication to your instrument, lyrics that culminate in a climax of musical and emotional synergy, and an understanding of music theory. Telling women you have a lot of money and will spend it all on them, having other musicians produce cookie-cutter beats and bass lines while you strum the only two chords you know on a guitar your parents bought you, and being told exactly how to sing without your own creative input takes nothing but the desire to fool ignorant people out of their money. I'm sorry that life isn't what you want it to be.



The reason your argument is *FUCKING RETARDED* is _liking anything_ is subjective. CCR was an awesome band in my opinion and their music was incredibly simple. It consists of repetitive riffs and is not technically complex at all. According to you, I must be dumb because I happen to like their catchy tunes. Oh, by the way -- there is shitty Blues music as well, even though you think the entire genre implies some sort of technical ability (which it does not).



Streetcircus said:


> You have accumulated over 2,000 posts in only half a year, you admit you have many friends with autism, and I'm assuming you're never away from your computer for very long. That's disabled enough for me.



...and this is you replying to him with these huge text walls of horse shit:








Streetcircus said:


> I couldn't possibly dislike certain behaviors because I have dissected them, ventured to understand them, given them more thought than the people who partake in them, and have concluded something must change because I believe in the epistemological validity of my pursuits, could I?
> 
> If one babyfur could convince me they have given their actions more  thought than I have, then my logic would quickly fall to theirs as I  campaign against them in fandoms where they are prevalent. You and I  both know they don't believe in what they do, they do it without thought  because it makes them feel good. They cling to it because they can't  muster the courage to cope with life in a way that is tactful and  productive. Maybe I'm convinced I'm quite a bit tougher than the  bleeding-heart liberals who cave in to the adversities of life, and  that's the superior way to be.



Making dumb and irrational arguments on an internet forum does not equate to trying to understand something. If you really want to understand them, the onus is on you. Befriend a couple of babyfurs. Ask them (in a polite way) what it is you want to know. I've already done this and I've found, as with any other group, there are some awesome ones and there are some gross creepers you'd never want to be around.



Streetcircus said:


> I believe I have rationalized my belief that extreme paraphilia is most likely caused by trauma _or di_s_order _sufficiently enough. You don't have to adopt my philosophies, and I don't have to adopt yours, but you are acting as if I need a determined medical fact to claim someone is immature for playing pokemon as a thirty year old adult



No, you don't "rationalize" a scientific fact as a "belief." That's why I haven't bothered to respond to most of your posts. Bring some actual FACTS to the table and I'll listen. This isn't a "philosophical debate." Holy shit.


----------



## Ikrit (Jan 6, 2013)

dear babyfurs

stop acting like children IRL trying to embrace a life style that doesn't exist
stop trying to make yourself incontinent, you are going to hate your life afterwards, and if you don't you should see a doctor
stop the baby-talk, it makes me want to punch babies
no I do not want a full list of your mental illnesses when I disagree with your lifestyle choices and opinions.
stop being so sensitive, just because I have a different opinion doesn't make me a troll
and we are not a collective like the Borg, I do not need to share the same opinion as you do

thank you


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 6, 2013)

Ricky said:


> The reason your argument is *FUCKING RETARDED* is _liking anything_ is subjective. CCR was an awesome band in my opinion and their music was incredibly simple. It consists of repetitive riffs and is not technically complex at all. According to you, I must be dumb because I happen to like their catchy tunes. Oh, by the way -- there is shitty Blues music as well, even though you think the entire genre implies some sort of technical ability (which it does not).
> 
> ...and this is you replying to him with these huge text walls of horse shit:
> 
> ...



So, because tastes vary, that means anything anyone thinks is good music, is? You know there is a huge difference between Born on a Bayou and Friday, you're just trying really hard not to admit it. CCR is consistently rated as one of the greatest classic rock bands of all time, Rebecca Black isn't. How do you think that happens? People who give their tastes in music more thought end up with more refined tastes, and the better people know music, the better they are able to appreciate it.

I don't need to befriend babyfurs to exchange knowledge with them. I don't understand why you think that's necessary. A pedophile can be an awesome guy.

Determining whether someone's behavior is socially acceptable is a philosophical topic. It can't be proven that paraphiliacs are unpleasant, it's a belief. I can't conduct my own medical research, and none is going to be provided. It is no more necessary to determine what causes immaturity, and it doesn't excuse a willing participant.

You came in here guns blazing and only accomplished falling flat on your face.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 6, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> You have accumulated over 2,000 posts in only half a year, you admit you have many friends with autism, and I'm assuming you're never away from your computer for very long. That's disabled enough for me. I'm just wondering what the agenda is, because there is one. You are tireless in your pursuit of social equality, redemption of outcasts, and superficial happiness. You sympathize with certain victims because you are one. I'm just wondering why you aren't considered socially acceptable.



Other people have kindly and logically replied to the rest of your comment, but you did impart some personal accusations, which only I can respond to with any gravity.


I am not a victim. My_ sister _is severely disabled, to the point she cannot walk or talk to  any substantial degree. I have a window into what disabled life is and  how varied it is between people and situations, [though that much must be obvious]. 
My knowledge is minute in comparison to the vastness of disability. 

It is however enough so that I can both legitimately view your comments on disability, and your attempts to extend and muddy its definition between medicine and derogation, as completely deplorable. Your attempts to marry medicine and social stigmatism together are poisonous. I wish to share my knowledge with people like you so that you might stop viewing other people as subhuman for imperfection in their physical or mental capacity. Though this conversation is largerly tangential to those concerns, because the people being discussed often suffer neither.




Streetcircus said:


> You came in here guns blazing and only accomplished falling flat on your face.



In my view Ricky, whilst being blunt, was empathic. If any philosophy is worth persuing, it's that.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 6, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> So, because tastes vary, that means anything anyone thinks is good music, is? You know there is a huge difference between Born on a Bayou and Friday, you're just trying really hard not to admit it. CCR is consistently rated as one of the greatest classic rock bands of all time, Rebecca Black isn't. How do you think that happens?



You're completely avoiding the point, as usual. You were trying to make the argument that certain music is objectively "better" and people must be idiots if they like simple music that's not technically complicated. I just threw that out the window with CCR. You can give a critique and look at things objectively, but _actually liking a song_ is something purely subjective. That's the first thing we learned in Music Theory; you can like music that isn't necessarily "good" by any objective measure.

Your argument that you can infer certain characteristics about people from their subjective taste in music is just... fucking retarded.



Streetcircus said:


> I don't need to befriend babyfurs to exchange knowledge with them. I don't understand why you think that's necessary.



You really don't need _anything _to jump to a conclusion.

Everything you post is unfounded bullshit. I'm not sure if you realize that, but everyone else does.



Streetcircus said:


> Determining whether someone's behavior is socially acceptable is a philosophical topic.



I was referring to your statement that "extreme paraphilia is most likely caused by trauma or disorder."



Streetcircus said:


> You came in here guns blazing and only accomplished falling flat on your face.



As usual, you have your head so far up your ass you can't see the sun shine, _let alone_ know what is going on around you.

You try to argue these ridiculous points but when everyone proves you are wrong you keep going, like the Energizer Bunny.

I'd like to think you know this and are just arguing for the hell of it, but I sincerely doubt that's the case.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 6, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> You came in here guns blazing and only accomplished falling flat on your face.


Ricky is countering you admirably! You aren't listening to what they are saying. You are impossibly dense. 

Without getting to know any babyfurs yourself how can you claim to know anything about them as individuals? Ignoring what causes paraphilia, these are simply people who draw anthropomorphic animals as babbies. Nothing inherently wrong with that. Some are dirty with it and that's gross, but it doesn't say anything about them as people. To get an idea of what they are like you'd have to lurk a babyfur board, or find some on FA. If you actually cared to get to know them, which clearly you do not.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 6, 2013)

So, SC, I like alternate bands like Coldplay and some pop. I also like film, classical and baroque music. What does that make me? A normal human being with a PERSONAL taste in music and opinions on what is "good". The music you think is "good" may not be true for other people, it's a completely subjective opinion. Give me one, unbiased, scientific study that proves one style of music is "better" than any other and I'll eat my words.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 6, 2013)

I suddenly feel like a tolerant, open-minded person.


----------



## idejtauren (Jan 6, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I suddenly feel like a tolerant, open-minded person.



Is that even allowed?


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 7, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I am not a victim. My sister is severely disabled, to the point she cannot walk or talk to any substantial degree. I have a window into what disabled life is and how varied it is between people and situations, [though that much must be obvious].
> My knowledge is minute in comparison to the vastness of disability.
> 
> 
> It is however enough so that I can both legitimately view your comments on disability, and your attempts to extend and muddy its definition between medicine and derogation, as completely deplorable. Your attempts to marry medicine and social stigmatism together are poisonous. I wish to share my knowledge with people like you so that you might stop viewing other people as subhuman for imperfection in their physical or mental capacity. Though this conversation is largerly tangential to those concerns, because the people being discussed often suffer neither.




If the reason you are championing everyone viewed as socially inferior is because people who have severe physical and mental impairments have been treated with unkindness, then your sympathy is wildly misdirected. "If the truth is mean, then it can't really be the truth!" Disabled people have to be tolerated to the capacity that they can be because it can happen to anyone, but you can't force socially equality, especially if you choose to indulge in your disability because it's easier. You are really just being overly-sensitive. Social rejection is not persecution, it's how culture develops, and it's perfectly okay.




Ricky said:


> You're completely avoiding the point, as usual. You were trying to make the argument that certain music is objectively "better" and people must be idiots if they like simple music that's not technically complicated. I just threw that out the window with CCR. You can give a critique and look at things objectively, but actually liking a song is something purely subjective. That's the first thing we learned in Music Theory; you can like music that isn't necessarily "good" by any objective measure.
> 
> 
> Your argument that you can infer certain characteristics about people from their subjective taste in music is just... fucking retarded.




Just because a song isn't complex in it's structure or musicianship, it doesn't mean there isn't a unique level of creativity and thought put into the concept of a song. Yesterday is a simple song, with a simple harmony, and simple lyrics, but the concept of the song builds a hauntingly real emotional experience for the listener. Execution is only a small part of what makes art, concept is a much greater part. Yesterday was deliberately much more than telling someone you love them because you are incapable of writing anything more meaningful than that.


There is no concept behind Justin Bieber or Rebecca Black's music to get, it's mindless. Like I said, tastes vary, but at some point, you like something because of a flaw in your personality.




Ricky said:


> I was referring to your statement that "extreme paraphilia is most likely caused by trauma or disorder."




What is most likely to cause immaturity or spoiled behavior? There's no all-encompassing medical fact that says it's the parenting, but you can't just accept that people act spoiled because there might be some unknown cause that probably isn't excusable or real.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 7, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> If the reason you are championing everyone viewed as socially inferior is because people who have severe physical and mental impairments have been treated with unkindness, then your sympathy is wildly misdirected. "If the truth is mean, then it can't really be the truth!" Disabled people have to be tolerated to the capacity that they can be because it can happen to anyone, but you can't force socially equality, especially if you choose to indulge in your disability because it's easier. You are really just being overly-sensitive. Social rejection is not persecution, it's how culture develops, and it's perfectly okay.


Seeing that "social rejection" can also be another word for bullying, you think it's "okay" that kids get bullied in school? You think it's "okay" to exclude disabled people from society, even when usually it's not their fault? Do those examples in any way help to "develop culture"? Are you one of those people who think bullying is just "character building"?

Humans are social animals, empathy is a pretty advanced social skill that is only present in a few species on this planet, _that_ is an important trait we developed to let us be able to get to where we are today, _not_ excluding fellow members of our species. We need to be able to give and receive affection to be psychologically healthy.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm not championing people who you view as inferior because of my limited understanding of disability. You leveled some personal accusations at me, so I am answering them specifically. It is among the reasons I oppose the confusion of medicine and derogation. 

In a more general case I think stigmatising people because of trivial and superficial qualities, such as the music they like or what gets them going in the bedroom, is unjustified, a waste of effort and unnecessarily mean. 
Your justification appears to be 'because that's the way culture is,', which is  both a simple reassertion of your initial claim and clearly not the case, culture is a much broader and more interesting collection of behaviours than simple-minded stereotypes. 


The origins of paraphilia are not comparable to the behaviour of spoilt children. Mostly because there is volumes of medical research into the behaviour of children and because the term 'parenting' is diffuse. 
The equivalent claim is that paraphilia is mostly likely a result of experience 'in and prior to adolescence.'

and to bring this back to the topic it is not evidencially justified to insist that anybody with a sexual fetish for infantalism has suffered abuse or trauma at a young age, that they are physically repugnant or that they are responsible for encouraging a culture of ignorance.
Hence encouraging other people to socially reject them because they posess these qualities is nonsense, although encouraging people to reject _victims of abuse_ is on a whole new level of nonsense anyway.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 8, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Seeing that "social rejection" can also be another word for bullying, you think it's "okay" that kids get bullied in school? You think it's "okay" to exclude disabled people from society, even when usually it's not their fault? Do those examples in any way help to "develop culture"? Are you one of those people who think bullying is just "character building"?
> 
> 
> Humans are social animals, empathy is a pretty advanced social skill that is only present in a few species on this planet, that is an important trait we developed to let us be able to get to where we are today, not excluding fellow members of our species. We need to be able to give and receive affection to be psychologically healthy.



Cruelly tormenting and harassing someone for something they have no control over is obviously wrong, but there is a more reasonable way to "bully" people. Simply voicing your displeasure with someone's choices is a privilege every free person should exercise. Otherwise, you're talking about forbidding anything that might possibly hurt someone's feelings, and that's censorship. People ought to learn to deal with criticism instead of expecting everyone else to tip-toe around something they see wrong like broken glass.

Expecting everyone to be pleasant to others is not apathy, and it's not persecution. Would you rather hang out with someone funny or boring? You get to choose, and the boring person will learn not to bore others. Mentally handicapped people should be tolerated, but they can't force their way into social circles without offering anything. If you thought about it now, would you want to be such a burden on everyone else if you were handicapped?



Fallowfox said:


> In a more general case I think stigmatising people because of trivial and superficial qualities, such as the music they like or what gets them going in the bedroom, is unjustified, a waste of effort and unnecessarily mean.
> Your justification appears to be 'because that's the way culture is,', which is  both a simple reassertion of your initial claim and clearly not the case, culture is a much broader and more interesting collection of behaviours than simple-minded stereotypes.
> 
> The origins of paraphilia are not comparable to the behaviour of spoilt children. Mostly because there is volumes of medical research into the behaviour of children and because the term 'parenting' is diffuse.
> ...



On the same token, as easily as you can ignore someone who does something that can be construed as culturally deleterious, people can change themselves for the better if it's something so trivial. Look at the pros and cons, and tell me how turning a blind eye is justifiable. If you simply tell someone they are ignorant for the music they listen to, they can choose whether your opinions hold weight or not, and then they can change if they understand something new. The only con is that you might hurt their widdle feewings. Boo-hoo. Conversely, if you hold your opinions, something wrong may continue and spread. It can result in a real consequence, like an artist not being able to make a living. You thought that might happen, "but I can't tell other people they are wrong for what makes them happy!" Careful, you could make someone feel shame. What a horrible fate.

Culture can be as beautiful as a poem, or as ugly as Andy Dick sticking his finger in his ass. You have to take an active approach to make the world a better place.

There are volumes of research that conclude that extreme paraphilia results from heinous acts. They are breed from rape, malnutrition, and emotional turmoil. Spoiled children are just a result of a lack of boundaries. I think you have to be quite a bit more assuming when it comes to possibly nurturing the darkest part of a person's psyche when you encounter it online, where you can't actually help the person. Victims of abuse need help, and if you encourage behavior that is linked to their trauma, you are only damaging them further.

What if they just happen to associate diapers with comfort, and it's completely harmless, and I tell them it's not okay? What harm can come from it? They can ignore me, give it up and be a little sadder, they could pick up a worse habit; or they can stop buying diapers, make more friends, and give the money they spent on diapers to charity. I think the world only has something to gain at the cost of the individual. That's just a good trade, to me.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 8, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Cruelly tormenting and harassing someone for something they have no control over is obviously wrong, but there is a more reasonable way to "bully" people.


So you encourage psycological bullying, which is often even worse than verbal/physical bullying?



Streetcircus said:


> Simply voicing your displeasure with someone's choices is a privilege every free person should exercise. Otherwise, you're talking about forbidding anything that might possibly hurt someone's feelings, and that's censorship. People ought to learn to deal with criticism instead of expecting everyone else to tip-toe around something they see wrong like broken glass.


I agree with freedom of speech, but being blunt and bullying are seperate things. You can be blunt, but you should not bully them because of your negative opinions.



Streetcircus said:


> Expecting everyone to be pleasant to others is not apathy, and it's not persecution. Would you rather hang out with someone funny or boring? You get to choose, and the boring person will learn not to bore others. Mentally handicapped people should be tolerated, but they can't force their way into social circles without offering anything. If you thought about it now, would you want to be such a burden on everyone else if you were handicapped?


"Would you rather hang out with someone funny or boring?" - Personally, I'd try and get to know them better first, but for the sake of example i'd go for the funny one. But it is my OPINION if someone is interesting or boring to me or not, someone else may have something in common with the "boring" person and they can hang out.

You are still trying to pass off personal opinion as fact, and It's one of the reasons we are having this debate.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 8, 2013)

> Mentally handicapped people should be tolerated


You talk about culture being possibly beautiful after saying that we should merely tolerate the mentally handicapped? If you were mentally handicapped you might not have the capacity to understand that you are a burden on someone. This is why they need the kindness and help of others. Or if we're to follow your example we should ignore them. 



> On the same token, as easily as you can ignore someone who does something that can be construed as culturally deleterious, people can change themselves for the better if it's something so trivial. Look at the pros and cons, and tell me how turning a blind eye is justifiable. If you simply tell someone they are ignorant for the music they listen to, they can choose whether your opinions hold weight or not, and then they can change if they understand something new. The only con is that you might hurt their widdle feewings. Boo-hoo. Conversely, if you hold your opinions, something wrong may continue and spread. It can result in a real consequence, like an artist not being able to make a living. You thought that might happen, "but I can't tell other people they are wrong for what makes them happy!" Careful, you could make someone feel shame. What a horrible fate.


You continue to insist that the subjective nature of music taste is an objective reality. Having said that I am predicting you are thinking of posting about how music scholars have in fact researched and created criteria for music quality in another awe inspiring display of 'missing the point.' Also what is this 'something wrong' that is continuing to spread? Pop music? Not every musician in the world is going to be able to make a living from their talents. Not to say that all pop artists worked hard to get to where they are. You once posted about a small time musician who had to give up music. That sucks for him, but maybe he just didn't have what it takes to make it.
The problem with calling someone ignorant for their music tastes isn't that one could hurt the person's feelings (though I insist you are an unfeeling ignoramus) it's that there's no basis for calling someone ignorant due to the objective v. subjective thing above. What if I told you I listen to The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and any other music that fits your 'ideal' view and then said "I also kindof like Lady Gaga." Would I become garbage in your eyes for her inclusion? 



> There are volumes of research that conclude that extreme paraphilia results from heinous acts. They are breed from rape, malnutrition, and emotional turmoil. Spoiled children are just a result of a lack of boundaries. I think you have to be quite a bit more assuming when it comes to possibly nurturing the darkest part of a person's psyche when you encounter it online, where you can't actually help the person. Victims of abuse need help, and if you encourage behavior that is linked to their trauma, you are only damaging them further.


I've seen Fallow refute this at least four times for you in this and other threads and you still aren't listening. Paraphilia can't as of yet be attributed to one cause. Some cases are surely attributed to trauma, but others might simply develop out of habit or circumstance.



> You are still trying to pass off personal opinion as fact, and It's one of the reasons we are having this debate.


This :-]


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 8, 2013)

Streetcircus, you seem to think we are encouraging you to censor your opinions in order to live in an unrealistically happy-daffy world. 

This is not the case, we are criticising their lack of evidencial foundations along with their presumptious and patronising nature. 
There is a big difference between saying you dislike a type of music and arguing that people who do should be psychologically bullied until they are convinced to stop listening, or that bullying paraphiles is a morally defencible decision because you believe this constitutes 'helping abuse victims' in some strange form. 

You can make those prejudicial and extreme statements, nobody is censoring you, but you will recieve harsh criticism of these views until such a time that they are evidentially supported rather than rationalised and rationalised and rationalised. 

Any belief can be rationalised, such as 'elephants are living on mars,'. You ask for pictures, I say 'they're invisible,'. You ask how they live in a martian climate, I say 'they're magic,'. Such an example is deliberately obtuse to illustrate the defunkt conclusions drawn from believing that rationalising can establish fact, rather than hypothesis.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 8, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Streetcircus, you seem to think we are encouraging you to censor your opinions in order to live in an unrealistically happy-daffy world.
> 
> This is not the case, we are criticising their lack of evidencial foundations along with their presumptious and patronising nature.
> There is a big difference between saying you dislike a type of music and arguing that people who do should be psychologically bullied until they are convinced to stop listening, or that bullying paraphiles is a morally defencible decision because you believe this constitutes 'helping abuse victims' in some strange form.
> ...


Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-INsIbVcw
Watch from 1:25 to 2:08, gay marriage is irrelevent to this topic, but Hank's idea about hypothesis and theroies is.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 8, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Any belief can be rationalised, such as 'elephants are living on mars,'. You ask for pictures, I say 'they're invisible,'. You ask how they live in a martian climate, I say 'they're magic,'. Such an example is deliberately obtuse to illustrate the defunkt conclusions drawn from believing that rationalising can establish fact, rather than hypothesis.



... and Christianity is still alive because of this kind of logic ignorance :roll:


----------



## Riho (Jan 11, 2013)

HipsterCoyote said:


> No, the thought that someone faps to little kids makes me uncomfortable.  It reminds me of pedophiles, pedophiles make me uncomfortable.


I believe that everyone except pedophiles are uncomfortable with pedophiles.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 12, 2013)

Raptros said:


> So you encourage psycological bullying, which is often even worse than verbal/physical bullying?
> 
> I agree with freedom of speech, but being blunt and bullying are seperate things. You can be blunt, but you should not bully them because of your negative opinions.
> 
> ...



As I said, there is a pleasant way to bully. When a child is cruelly harassed and tortured for nothing they have any control over, then psychological damage can occur. Simply raising an argument against a persons behavior, forcing them to consider a better alternative, and choosing to interact with other people instead is perfectly acceptable. I've seen really annoying kids turn out to be really cool adults because they were discouraged from their unpleasant behavior.

Also, these are my philosophies. I'm not trying to pass them off as fact, I'm trying to explain why you shouldn't dismiss them. You are doing the same, so I don't understand why you are pointing fingers at me.



Fallowfox said:


> Streetcircus, you seem to think we are encouraging you to censor your opinions in order to live in an unrealistically happy-daffy world.
> 
> This is not the case, we are criticising their lack of evidencial foundations along with their presumptious and patronising nature.
> There is a big difference between saying you dislike a type of music and arguing that people who do should be psychologically bullied until they are convinced to stop listening, or that bullying paraphiles is a morally defencible decision because you believe this constitutes 'helping abuse victims' in some strange form.
> ...



I think it's kind of hypocritical that you claim to take such an issue with my blending of personal opinion and lack of medical facts. You didn't have a problem using Bill Gates and Andy Warhol as flag-bearers for autism when their diagnoses are based on assumptions. Adding to your statement that your problem with my point of view is that it's patronizing and derogatory, I can't help but to think that you do, in fact, twist reality to make it more convenient for you. It's less fun for you to believe some people are socially inferior to others, then you would have to feel shame for what you lack socially.

Um... did I not propose a hypothesis? Didn't I suggest that paraphilia is born of some degree of trauma or disorder, when we know for a fact that some paraphilia does result from trauma and disorder? That's a hypothesis.


----------



## Harbinger (Jan 12, 2013)

What the hell is going on this this thread, i thought it would be 2 pages max of people saying "ew thats nasty" and now im reading page 5 about quality of music 0_0


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 12, 2013)

Harbinger said:


> What the hell is going on this this thread, i thought it would be 2 pages max of people saying "ew thats nasty" and now im reading page 5 about quality of music 0_0


What did you expect from FAF?


----------



## Machine (Jan 12, 2013)

Harbinger said:


> What the hell is going on this this thread, i thought it would be 2 pages max of people saying "ew thats nasty" and now im reading page 5 about quality of music 0_0


It's in the process of being derailed. Don't worry, just give it time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

If I have misrepresented autism by discussing people with borerline or uncertain diagnosies then I apologise. If I made this mistake it does not excuse you from deliberately doing so, however. 

I'm not sure why you continue to assume that because I _don't_ presume other people are socially inferior for trivial or irrelevant differences that I myself have something horribly wrong with me. It's an ad hominem argument which I think I've addressed enough times already, if you think your view represents the truth you should be able to justify it epistemilogically instead. 

You rationalised an assumption. Hypotheses are ideas, often phrased as questions, which you plan to investigate. You rationalised a view you already held, which isn't exactly hypothesis generation, then you treated it as a theory. If your view _was_ intentionally a hypothesis you would not insist that we treat people differently or make further extrapolations about their personal characters until such a time that your hypothesis is shown valid, because you would recognise it lacks sufficient justification to be a theory. 

A justifiable hypothesis would be 'does all paraphilia result from trauma or disorder?' The current answer is 'it seems unlikely as it is both an extreme and very simple hypothesis. There is significant subjectivity in both the semantics of disorder and paraphilia- especially since some people define paraphilia itself as a disorder. If we are to consider strange fetishism to constitute paraphilia there is _still_ a semantic issue but the current understanding indicates that there are a diversity of mechanisms by which sexual fetishism can result. More importantly a significant portion of paraphiles do not admit being traumatised- we might insist they are lying, but this doesn't epistemologically give us any ground to justify the hypothesis.



Harbinger said:


> What the hell is going on this this thread, i  thought it would be 2 pages max of people saying "ew thats nasty" and  now im reading page 5 about quality of music 0_0



I'm sorry, Harbinger, bare with me. I do plan on eventually bringing my focus back to the original topic, we have unfortunately become trapped in a tangent.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 12, 2013)

I think, what's most disturbing of anything I've seen on FA isn't babyfurs or diapers or any liscensed character porn, they are macrophiles, people into rap/guro, and other possibly violent imagery. People getting off to seeing death/forceful violation is frankly disgusting and a testament to the problems in modern culture. Too violent. But if you want to do that, fine, keep it. Just don't make ir so apparent that when I'm looking through my watches' submissions (who may have a neat fursuit or something) with the sfw tag on, I end up seeing giant furries eating humans. That and main page with sfw off...it's Russian roulette baby! Which refresh will show the guro or the death of your childhood?

What the hell is wrong with this fandom? Why do furries on the Internet seem to hate humans so much?! In fact, why are internet subcultures in general so creepy? I have a solution: make these fandoms something that relies more on offline material than online. That disassociates the fandom (any fandom actually) from the creepy Internet. And people who were normal (not into guro for instance...what the hell) won't notice anything different.

I think the fandom is too open about the porn, which, should be more private to actually be meaningful. That's what most everyone else does. Even bigger, Furries (or geeky people in general) spend way too much time on the Internet as well. Not good for socialization. Damn I've spent too much time myself.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> You have to derail the derail. I think, what's most disturbing of anything I've seen on FA are macrophiles, people into rape, and other possibly violent imagery. People getting off to seeing death/violation is frankly disgusting and a testament to the problems in modern culture. Too violent. But if you want to do that, fine, keep it. Just don't make ir so apparent that when I'm looking through my watches' submissions (who may have a neat fursuit or something) with the sfw tag on, I end up seeing giant furries eating humans. That and main page with sfw off...it's Russian roulette baby! Which refresh will show the guro or the death of your childhood?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with this fandom? Why do furries on the Internet seem to hate humans so much?! In fact, why are internet subcultures in general so creepy? I have a solution: make these fandoms something that relies more on offline material than online. That disassociates the fandom (any fandom actually) from the creepy Internet. And people who were normal (not into guro for instance...what the hell) won't notice anything different.
> 
> I think the fandom is too open about the porn, which, should be more private to actually be meaningful. That's what most everyone else does. Even bigger, Furries (or geeky people in general) spend way too much time on the Internet as well. Not good for socialization.



How is macrophilia disturbing? The problem with your example is related to vore. 

Internet cultures are likely 'creepier' because you can anonymously express aspects of your self and find like minded people much more easily. Overall those two things are more positive than negative in my view. 
FA certainly isn't open about porn, as you must register as an adult and switch off an automatic filter to access it. I'm not sure what you mean by 'meaningful porn' anyway, could you explain this, please? 
However many walls the porn was behind it's still going to be the content by which the fandom's reptutation is constructed because it's simply the most scandelous content. If you could force the fandom offline it would be known almost exclusively for sexual fursuitism rather than for internet pornography, not that either of those are wrong- just not particularly representative. 

To bring this back round to the discussion concerning babyfurs obviously the most scandelous content is what grabs our attention and it's what paints our view of the rest of their group. We are to them as normal people are to the majority of furries. Perhaps from this view we can negate revulsions we might have upon stumbling across their content, knowing that despite any infantalism we might come across the reaction we have, which is based on an association with paedophillia, is not justified as an automatic response.


----------



## Calemeyr (Jan 12, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How is macrophilia disturbing? The problem with your example is related to vore.
> 
> Internet cultures are likely 'creepier' because you can anonymously express aspects of your self and find like minded people much more easily. Overall those two things are more positive than negative in my view.
> FA certainly isn't open about porn, as you must register as an adult and switch off an automatic filter to access it. I'm not sure what you mean by 'meaningful porn' anyway, could you explain this, please?
> ...


 By meaningful I mean sex is usually a private thing in modern culture, so  porn should also be private. Something not meant to be shown in public usually. I'm just saying the porn's a little too apparent for all the internet subcultures.but I guess that's the nature of he Internet. As you mentioned, anonymity removes inhibitions. And I guess I was getting confused by the different paraphilias. Some are weird, yeah, and maybe controversial, but most are tame. My whole argument is that certain fetishes send off red flags in people's minds, others don't. Feeling pleasure in seeing horrible acts happening to others, whether it be death, rape, or maiming is very creepy. Maybe as a culture we've seen serial killers or rapists feel this way. I'm sure there are upstanding citizens who may be a little dark with their kinks, but when people get a little too deep into that, too open about it, warning bells go off. As for babyfurs, as you said, we also are very quick to react to anything that smells of pedophilia, even though in this case it's infantilism, not pedophilia. It's not hurting anyone (babyfurs) nor could it. It's not like it's guro or rape fetishism.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 12, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> By meaningful I mean sex is usually a private thing in modern culture, so  porn should also be private. Something not meant to be shown in public usually. Im just saying the porns a little too apparant for all the internet subcultures.but I guess that's the nature of he Internet. As you mentioned, anonymity removes inhibitions. And I guess I was getting confused by the different paraphilias. Some are weird, yeah, and maybe controversial, but most are tame. My whole argument is that certain fetishes send off red flags in people's minds, others don't. Feeling pleasure in seeing horrible acts happening to others, whether it be death, rape, or maiming is very creepy. Maybe as a culture we've seen serial killers or rapists feel this way. I'm sure there are upstanding citizens who may be a little dark with their kinks, but when people get a little too deep into that, too open about it, warning bells go off. As for babyfurs, as you said, we also are very quick to react to anything that smells of pedophilia, even though in this case it's infantilism, not pedophilia. It's not hurting anyone (babyfurs) nor could it. It's not like it's guro or rape fetishism.



I think it is private...erotica is going to be redistributed whatever constraints it is put behind, but on the internet it is done in relative privacy anyway- anonymity enables that privacy really, doesn't it? If you don't have a meaningful name and face to put to it no individual's privacy is at risk- although it does make it easier to make some sweeping assumptions about the groups the erotica is produced for. 

I agree that when people openly speak about darker sides of sexuality it provides a very 'loud' impression. I don't believe this can be reasonably avoided, as people will say whatever they feel like saying even if you or I are disturbed by it. It's something we just have to put up with I suppose, and if we don't like it we can always go offline- other people certainly aren't going to because we ask them to afterall.

In regard to your last comment I think a distinction may possibly be made between 'spiritual' and 'plastic' attractions. I hate to use such draconian language.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 13, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure why you continue to assume that because I _don't_ presume other people are socially inferior for trivial or irrelevant differences that I myself have something horribly wrong with me. It's an ad hominem argument which I think I've addressed enough times already, if you think your view represents the truth you should be able to justify it epistemilogically instead.
> 
> You rationalised an assumption. Hypotheses are ideas, often phrased as questions, which you plan to investigate. You rationalised a view you already held, which isn't exactly hypothesis generation, then you treated it as a theory. If your view _was_ intentionally a hypothesis you would not insist that we treat people differently or make further extrapolations about their personal characters until such a time that your hypothesis is shown valid, because you would recognise it lacks sufficient justification to be a theory.
> 
> A justifiable hypothesis would be 'does all paraphilia result from trauma or disorder?' The current answer is 'it seems unlikely as it is both an extreme and very simple hypothesis. There is significant subjectivity in both the semantics of disorder and paraphilia- especially since some people define paraphilia itself as a disorder. If we are to consider strange fetishism to constitute paraphilia there is _still_ a semantic issue but the current understanding indicates that there are a diversity of mechanisms by which sexual fetishism can result. More importantly a significant portion of paraphiles do not admit being traumatised- we might insist they are lying, but this doesn't epistemologically give us any ground to justify the hypothesis.



I didn't say you had something horribly wrong with you. I'm not sure why the thing would have to be horrible for you to be rejected by others. A lot of people could just not like you. You may blame it on the prejudice of others instead of wondering what you can do to be more appealing to other people. That's very typical of people who are culturally liberal.

I think we're far past the point of proposed hypotheses explaining the role of trauma and disorder in the formation of fetishes, at least concerning something like the fetishization of infants. I think something so crass and unpleasant must have resulted from something significantly traumatic, or by a separate disorder. I could be wrong, but it's widely believed that fetishes are the product of a psychological imprint that is acquired by experiencing something so significant that it instigates abnormal sexual attractions that are fixative. Something occurred which rendered the fetishist in a state of internal confusion, which is just a form of less severe trauma. It doesn't need to be diagnosed unless the paraphile's behavior becomes too expensive, or a family member discovers their secret shame, but there is still evidence enough that it is damaging to culture and socially inferior.

I also don't think it's significant that many paraphiles don't admit to being traumatized. They may not consider some things that happened to them traumatic, but I'm sure I could pick out one thing from every paraphile's childhood that could reasonably explain why they have the attractions that they do.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 13, 2013)

> You may blame it on the prejudice of others instead of wondering what  you can do to be more appealing to other people. That's very typical of  people who are culturally liberal.


You are assuming a lot about Fallow. You are also trying to infer that because Fallow wishes to show compassion to those you deem socially inferior he himself is somehow disabled. Not sure you understand how foolish that is.



Streetcircus said:


> I could be wrong, but it's widely believed that fetishes are the product of a psychological imprint that is acquired by experiencing something so significant that it instigates abnormal sexual attractions that are fixative. Something occurred which rendered the fetishist in a state of internal confusion, which is just a form of less severe trauma. It doesn't need to be diagnosed unless the paraphile's behavior becomes too expensive, or a family member discovers their secret shame, but there is still evidence enough that it is damaging to culture and socially inferior.


You've given us this same spiel several times and many of us have tried to explain to you you need to produce evidence before making a claim like that. I believe Fallow has produced findings that said the causes of fetishes are not sufficiently known, at least not know enough to warrant your claim that every paraphile had a traumatic experience in childhood. You should also give us some explicit evidence showing how paraphilia "damages culture" and is "socially inferior." I'm sure you believe both of those things, but not everyone else will so where's your evidence??


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 14, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> I didn't say you had something horribly wrong with you. I'm not sure why the thing would have to be horrible for you to be rejected by others. A lot of people could just not like you. You may blame it on the prejudice of others instead of wondering what you can do to be more appealing to other people. That's very typical of people who are culturally liberal.
> 
> I think we're far past the point of proposed hypotheses explaining the role of trauma and disorder in the formation of fetishes, at least concerning something like the fetishization of infants. I think something so crass and unpleasant must have resulted from something significantly traumatic, or by a separate disorder. I could be wrong, but it's widely believed that fetishes are the product of a psychological imprint that is acquired by experiencing something so significant that it instigates abnormal sexual attractions that are fixative. Something occurred which rendered the fetishist in a state of internal confusion, which is just a form of less severe trauma. It doesn't need to be diagnosed unless the paraphile's behavior becomes too expensive, or a family member discovers their secret shame, but there is still evidence enough that it is damaging to culture and socially inferior.
> 
> I also don't think it's significant that many paraphiles don't admit to being traumatized. They may not consider some things that happened to them traumatic, but I'm sure I could pick out one thing from every paraphile's childhood that could reasonably explain why they have the attractions that they do.



BenignBiotic addressed everything I do not mention in this post.

We are indeed far past the proposition of the hypothesis 'paraphilia is caused by trauma', as this hypothesis is antique. It has been revised in the light of evidence to state 'early or adolescent trauma may instigate a paraphilia in some individuals' and not the other way around. 

Trying to use semantic subjectivity to argue trauma must be responsible is absurd. Your argument is essentially 
-I think x is unpleasant
-X clearly has a causality
-Causalities that result in things I find unpleasant are called 'traumas'
-X was caused by trauma

which suffers subjectivity in the first premise and has a corrupted third premise. 

In science controls are important. If you psychoanalysed a group of people who are not paraphiles you may be able to build a false rational to explain a paraphilia you have been falsely informed they have for the purpose of the test, for instance. If you want to propose a test it must include a control and it must be blind or it is just an exercise in bias.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 15, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> BenignBiotic addressed everything I do not mention in this post.
> 
> We are indeed far past the proposition of the hypothesis 'paraphilia is caused by trauma', as this hypothesis is antique. It has been revised in the light of evidence to state 'early or adolescent trauma may instigate a paraphilia in some individuals' and not the other way around.
> 
> ...



Specifically, eroticising babies, child humiliation, and the sexualization of the helplessness of a child are red flags for trauma. There is nothing outdated about diagnosing someone who associates infants with sex with having childhood trauma. 

As far as less severe paraphilia, how does something become a psychological imprint? How does one thing become associated with sex to the degree of fixation, while many other things regularly involved in sex do not? There must have been something discomforting about the object of fixation to make that kind of impression on a person. We can't call this trauma because it isn't something harmful that happened, but it is of the same ilk. It still caused a deep-seated, internal confusion that a person cannot overcome by their own free will. This is what you and the authorities on fetishism refer to as conditioning.

Some paraphilia is caused by trauma, some is related to a separate disorder, and some is caused by something being imprinted against their will. We don't need to diagnose all paraphilia, but psychological ticks are not desirable either. We come back to the idea that impulses should be controlled, like people learn to do by entering adulthood. Impulses are objectively unpleasant, and socially inferior.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 15, 2013)

Streetcircus you're doing it again. You aren't bringing this discussion anywhere. You can't assert "X are red flags for childhood trauma" or "Impulses are objectively unpleasant (and _socially inferior_ lol)" without presenting evidence to us that says so. Well you can try to make those assertions but don't be surprised when we call 'bullshit.' 

Having said that I am calling bullshit. Explain to me (not rationalize mind you) how impulses are objectively unpleasant? Give me some data or tell me about a study. Please. I'd also love to know where it is written that people who engage in "eroticising babies, child humiliation, and the sexualization of the helplessness of a child" were universally traumatized in youth. Give us some solid evidence. I'm dying for it.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 15, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> Streetcircus you're doing it again. You aren't bringing this discussion anywhere. You can't assert "X are red flags for childhood trauma" or "Impulses are objectively unpleasant (and _socially inferior_ lol)" without presenting evidence to us that says so. Well you can try to make those assertions but don't be surprised when we call 'bullshit.'
> 
> Having said that I am calling bullshit. Explain to me (not rationalize mind you) how impulses are objectively unpleasant? Give me some data or tell me about a study. Please. I'd also love to know where it is written that people who engage in "eroticising babies, child humiliation, and the sexualization of the helplessness of a child" were universally traumatized in youth. Give us some solid evidence. I'm dying for it.


Exactly! SC this debate is going in circles because you don't bring any evidence to support your views to the table. Rationalisation does not count as evidence.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 15, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> Streetcircus you're doing it again. You aren't bringing this discussion anywhere. You can't assert "X are red flags for childhood trauma" or "Impulses are objectively unpleasant (and _socially inferior_ lol)" without presenting evidence to us that says so. Well you can try to make those assertions but don't be surprised when we call 'bullshit.'
> 
> Having said that I am calling bullshit. Explain to me (not rationalize mind you) how impulses are objectively unpleasant? Give me some data or tell me about a study. Please. I'd also love to know where it is written that people who engage in "eroticising babies, child humiliation, and the sexualization of the helplessness of a child" were universally traumatized in youth. Give us some solid evidence. I'm dying for it.



Your existence is a study in rationality's superiority over instinct.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 15, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Specifically, eroticising babies, child humiliation, and the sexualization of the helplessness of a child are red flags for trauma. There is nothing outdated about diagnosing someone who associates infants with sex with having childhood trauma.
> 
> As far as less severe paraphilia, how does something become a psychological imprint? How does one thing become associated with sex to the degree of fixation, while many other things regularly involved in sex do not? There must have been something discomforting about the object of fixation to make that kind of impression on a person. We can't call this trauma because it isn't something harmful that happened, but it is of the same ilk. It still caused a deep-seated, internal confusion that a person cannot overcome by their own free will. This is what you and the authorities on fetishism refer to as conditioning.
> 
> Some paraphilia is caused by trauma, some is related to a separate disorder, and some is caused by something being imprinted against their will. We don't need to diagnose all paraphilia, but psychological ticks are not desirable either. We come back to the idea that impulses should be controlled, like people learn to do by entering adulthood. Impulses are objectively unpleasant, and socially inferior.



How paraphilia and fetishism in general emerges is an interesting question, so let's not leap to the answer 'because something bad happened,' without having good reason to, we may miss out on some genuinely interesting investigation. 

I'd be just as entitled to insist that a scenario or object must be comforting to a person if they want to associate it with the joyous notion of sex. 

I've voiced this hypothesis before, but I suspect that the reasoning behind some fetishism is abritrary. It matters not what kind of fetish a person has, as long as a minority of people have a conducive sexuality [for example the _same _fetish] then this adds volumes of structure and incentive into the spreading of genes most likely to people far away [if the fetish has a low population density] which improves the genetic resillience of a group. 

We might also suggest that many people have a compulsive negative response to fetishism that does not match their own sexuality because this enforces said structures through the social hierachy.

Using the same epistemic behaviour as you, to rationalise my hypothesis but not evidencially support it, I can draw an entirely different conclusion and one which casts you as the person suffering from impulses and a superiority complex over those who are sexually incompatible with you.

Of course I don't believe my hypothesis, I have a suspicion about arbitrary justification for fetishism but I would not confidently insist that you have a psychological disorder like you frivelously insist about others. Be aware that without demanding solid standards of justification you open a door that goes both ways and which spread emotionally motivated statements instead of fact.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 15, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Your existence is a study in rationality's superiority over instinct.


That's not evidence. It's a vague and succinct statement. Would you like to try explaining it?


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 16, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> How paraphilia and fetishism in general emerges is an interesting question, so let's not leap to the answer 'because something bad happened,' without having good reason to, we may miss out on some genuinely interesting investigation.
> 
> I'd be just as entitled to insist that a scenario or object must be comforting to a person if they want to associate it with the joyous notion of sex.
> 
> ...



No one is leaping to the conclusion that sexualizing infants is caused by something distressing, and probably traumatic. Adult babies will often admit that acting like a baby gives them a sense of security and comfort that they can't achieve normally. Taking such extreme measures to cope with the insecurity they feel is a sure sign that they have been violated in some way. There is no investigation to be had. It's all but common sense.

Yes, you are capable of rationalizing something you would rather face than the truth, too, but suggesting that fetishes exist to entice people to spread their genetics more widely is just a bizarre and far-reaching claim. Children and animals are ruled by impulse, while adult human beings are able to overcome instinct and impulse with thought and rationality. Fetishes are compulsive psychological quirks that people are not able to discard by their own free will. If you cannot counter these statements then I've already supplied sufficient evidence to support my beliefs. You would just rather not accept the evidence because it is not convenient for you.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 16, 2013)

> Specifically, eroticising babies, child humiliation, and the  sexualization of the helplessness of a child are red flags for trauma.





> No one is leaping to the conclusion that sexualizing infants is caused by something distressing, and probably traumatic.


You yourself are apparently jumping to that conclusion  

I posit that it's not 'common sense' and in fact I won't come close to believing it until you can convince me with hard data. You can't say "It's common sense. End of Discussion." because that has nothing to do with the facts of the situation. Everything you just posted is what you _believe_. We have no reason to think any of that is evidence, because you haven't backed any of it up with actual, empirical data. I may be wrong, but I don't think you've presented a single piece of 'evidence' in this thread. You just say what you think (that trauma causes fetishes) over and over and in different ways. So when you say "_You would just rather not accept the evidence because it is not convenient for you._" It's really more like he isn't believing you because the evidence isn't there.


----------



## Sannamy (Jan 16, 2013)

Well, my opinion is a mix... (is a little long, but please, if you're interest in saw what i'm going to say about the topic, read it)

 I'm the side of "everything can be learned" and "we're what societt made of us"...  So... Is posible that fetichism and paraphilias comes from traumas (I do not use the term in the same way... every thing that's not natural is a trauma... the humanself live out of the wild nature, in his own society with his own rules, cause his social nature... An example: The schoolarship educatins are traumas as well, the response of other due our actions are traumas... almost everything can be consider a trauma, if it cause  change in the person... good or bad is decided by society due the quantiti of people that's in or outside that particular group)... so what?... everything comes from them... Shy people becomes shy cause his life experience, violent people too... there are fanatic of boobs and asses there and nobody says nothing, cause is socially acepted... but sometimes is discusting how people reacts to "normal" sexual themes ... you can saw it in the tv advertisings, that use this acepted behaviour of the people as a weapon to sell more.

In some way we can even consider homosexuality as a someting learnable... but if we do so.. we have to consider heterosexuality as something that can be learn too... There is no wrong thing about anything as far as it doesnÂ´t harm others... If someone want to think about himself as a wolf cub in diapers, he's free of do it... in the same way that someone is free to use erotic costumes or leather and bondage with his/her lover, cause it turns him on. There are people that turn on seing anime shota pictures, but they do not when it comes to real childs (cause they're not the same), thisngs like age regression are about the lose of control, being dependant, maybe humilliation... but doesnÂ´t involve real childs cause they have adult minds (mos tof times).. and people that turn on with them do not necesary have the impulse fo fuckthem (maybe the whole situation is erotic for them, but most of the cases the desire of rape/had sex is tottally a NO... cause it work against the inocence of the picture/sutuation... Pedophilia is not he same thing).

What I'm trying to say... "everything comes from stimules... yes... but that means everything... even our tastes, like music, clothes, games, dislikes,etc"... yeah infantilist should think about the reason of their condition, but not only them, everybody should askthemselves... why do i like this?, why this tun me on?, why a lady and not a man?, why metal and not pop?, why atheist and not religius?... Is about know about ourselves, and madurate as human beings not about start a war aginat poepl with diferent tastes... when you knows that much about you ownself, you'll be finally able to start a discussion about such a topic... well, every one is free to give his opinion, the advice is just to avoid the situation of being unqualified to the eyes of other interlocutors.

One more time... "as far as it doesnÂ´t harm anybody... is not bad", if he/she tuns on seing babyfur... cool for him/her, he/she can use that images when he/she's with his/her lover and if the lover is not against that... then everything is okey... if he rape a lio cub in the zoo or a baby... well that is something very diferent caise is causing damage in someoneelse that prbably doesn't want that situation.

I'm not liberal at all... Ther are things that i donÂ´t like too, but "be and let others be", maybe some bad and combative reaction of some people against this topics is due some traumas, maybe in their lives people bottered them about their tastes and elections... For that people... "No everybody is bad or cruel, they are not monsters, and you, you're not a monster either, you can be what you want and do what you want, just try to not overpass others being's liberties"

Thanks for your atention. ^^

English is not my native talk, and also I'm writing everyting in a fast energic mod... so.. I'm sorry if I misswriting something. ^^


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 16, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> No one is leaping to the conclusion that sexualizing infants is caused by something distressing, and probably traumatic. Adult babies will often admit that acting like a baby gives them a sense of security and comfort that they can't achieve normally. Taking such extreme measures to cope with the insecurity they feel is a sure sign that they have been violated in some way. There is no investigation to be had. It's all but common sense.
> 
> Yes, you are capable of rationalizing something you would rather face than the truth, too, but suggesting that fetishes exist to entice people to spread their genetics more widely is just a bizarre and far-reaching claim. Children and animals are ruled by impulse, while adult human beings are able to overcome instinct and impulse with thought and rationality. Fetishes are compulsive psychological quirks that people are not able to discard by their own free will. If you cannot counter these statements then I've already supplied sufficient evidence to support my beliefs. You would just rather not accept the evidence because it is not convenient for you.



I'm going to source my claims from now on to show you how evidence is gathered to reach epistemological conclusions.

_'There is no recognized [causation] for infantilism and little research on the subject. It has been linked to masochism and a variety of other paraphilias. Though commonly confused with paedophilia the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not seek children as sexual partners.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] A variety of causes has been proposed, including altered lovemaps, imprinting gone awry and errors in erotic targets, though there is no consensus.'_

~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantalism

Such quotations are the justification for my refutation of your claim. 'it's common sense' simply is not meritable in contrast to professional medical opinions. Note that further text upon the subject of sexual infantalism reveals that other than being strange it's an innocuous and harmless behaviour that does not seem to adversely effect its subscribers. Along with being heavily closeted, probably due to the presumptions that people like you take that it's your job to bully them back into a healthy state of mind, this is why there is so little information available on this paraphilia. 

 If there was sufficient evidence to support your claim do you not think psychologists who actually get paid for turning over such discoveries would recognise this?


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 16, 2013)

I was wondering why this thread was still active, but when I realized that people're trying to argue with StreetCircus, it all made sense.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Yes, you are capable of rationalizing something you would rather face  than the truth, too, but suggesting that fetishes exist to entice people  to spread their genetics more widely is just a bizarre and far-reaching  claim.


_*That*_ is something I'd love to debate on some thread in the future. I've been wanting to clear my mind about it.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm going to source my claims from now on to show you how evidence is gathered to reach epistemological conclusions.
> 
> _'There is no recognized [causation] for infantilism and little research on the subject. It has been linked to masochism and a variety of other paraphilias. Though commonly confused with paedophilia the two conditions are distinct and infantilists do not seek children as sexual partners.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] A variety of causes has been proposed, including *altered* lovemaps, imprinting *gone awry* and *errors* in erotic targets, though there is no consensus.'_
> 
> ...



There seems to be a consensus that infantalism is caused by something undesirable. That's all I'm saying is a fact. If you prefer ambiguity to what little we are certain of, then that's your initiative. I do know that infantalism is undesirable because there is no advantage to having a psychological quirk that results in desires that can't be discarded by one's own accord. This is reinforced by everything available that I have read on Adult Baby Syndrome. I can link a handful of articles, but a quick google search will lead you to many examples of how unhealthy and wrong ABS is. That's why I say it is common sense. There is nothing available that can explain how adult baby behavior is healthy or favorable.

One adult baby has PTSD, a few purposefully taught themselves to have no control over their bladder, one admits to being bullied and practicing self-harm, and one is adopted and wears onesies to his psychiatric evaluation. The cause of infantalism is not a mystery, it's just that out of all the negative things that we know cause infantalism, not one of them can encompass every example of everyone inflicted. Enough of them are caused by trauma or are used as a method of coping with something distressing in their lives that I can comfortably say that infantalists are victims of trauma, internal confusion, and separate disorders. The three proposed causes you provided encourage this belief.

What is immeasurable and also common sense, is the harmful cultural impact that fetishes have. No one can say what influence indulging in sexual fetishes has on our progression, but it is undeniable that as something trivial, irrational, and psychologically impure is nurtured, supported, and forcibly woven into the fabric of our culture, it has an effect on every single one of us. Every time you click on porn, you are adding to every other click and viewership. This action encourages more porn, which facilitates more clicks and viewership, which, then, gives the porn influence over our culture. This leads to pornography becoming a multi-billion dollar industry which could be allowed to science and art instead.

It is the responsibility of every single one of us to encourage or discourage what would eventually grow and become a part of our culture. If there is a small chance that babyfurs are just a harmless hobby that will remain in the shadowy pits of InkBunny forever, that possibility is far outweighed by how unlikely it is that its protest could have any negative impact on our culture whatsoever.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 17, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> There seems to be a consensus that infantalism is caused by something undesirable. That's all I'm saying is a fact. If you prefer ambiguity to what little we are certain of, then that's your initiative. I do know that infantalism is undesirable because there is no advantage to having a psychological quirk that results in desires that can't be discarded by one's own accord. This is reinforced by everything available that I have read on Adult Baby Syndrome. I can link a handful of articles, but a quick google search will lead you to many examples of how unhealthy and wrong ABS is. That's why I say it is common sense. There is nothing available that can explain how adult baby behavior is healthy or favorable.
> 
> One adult baby has PTSD, a few purposefully taught themselves to have no control over their bladder, one admits to being bullied and practicing self-harm, and one is adopted and wears onesies to his psychiatric evaluation. The cause of infantalism is not a mystery, it's just that out of all the negative things that we know cause infantalism, not one of them can encompass every example of everyone inflicted. Enough of them are caused by trauma or are used as a method of coping with something distressing in their lives that I can comfortably say that infantalists are victims of trauma, internal confusion, and separate disorders. The three proposed causes you provided encourage this belief.
> 
> ...



'Undesireable' depends on who is doing the desiring. I would describe some of the hypotheses, such as imprinting, as being neutral. 
I want to be aware of the limits to my knowledge, so that I don't make claims bolder than the available evidence. This isn't a choice about whether or not you want to excuse bad behaviour by muddying scientific knowledge;it's occam's razor and healthy skepiticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

The cause of infantalism in general is poorly understood because there's little research into the subject matter, and it also demands complex hypthoses. This doesn't mean that we can insist individual cases are representative or indicative of others within their group, because the hypothesis is beyond the level of complexity that evidence can reasonable support. 
Of course, we're straying into deep ad hominem territory, by attacking said individual's personal histories instead of agknowledging their harmlessness and moving on. 

If you make claims that you admit are unquantifiable don't expect anyone with two braincells to rub together to believe them. The real world is often countintuitive, so rationalising your beliefs doesn't justify them, as has been explained. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ This link should provide a rudimentary explanation if you have further questions on this topic. 

Strange fetishism is not solely responsible for pornography, individuals who exhibit normal sexualities are prime consumers as well. If you want to attack pornography for being an industry then fine, just as long as we shut down the tourism industry [which accounts for a tenth of gdp], candy manufacturers, videogames, alcohol companies, pet shops and everything else in order to divert their money to science and art too. 

The existance of people with infantalism does not pose any threat to art or science or culture. People who think culture is or should be a hierachy of social stigmatism and rejection or who propogate claims they have insufficient evidence to support are.


----------



## McRoz (Jan 18, 2013)

Holy crap, I didn't think this topic would still be active ahaha.

It's been awhile since I posted and nothing else has really caused me this same discomfort until today:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9716521/

The more I look at it, trying to draw connections in my head with what I remember of the first pic, I think it's less about feeling vulnerable or feeling bad for someone else who is, and more about a deep, disturbing-to-the-core nostalgia I've had for at least five years now that extends into more than just cub art. 

I remember having a bed somewhat like the one pictured, the lamp, the teddy...
There's also stuff in there I didn't have growing up, but I feel like it exemplifies the times just as much: the ribbon, the obvious interest in superheroes especially the memorabilia, etc.
I desperately want that back, all of it.

I don't know, it's just that, since five years ago (probably even longer than that) I become profoundly depressed whenever I think back on not only _my_ childhood, but childhood _in general_... I've been writing journals about this shit for years and it's still difficult to describe it right, so that will have to suffice.
Sadly, this is mirrored in my progressively pessimistic and nihilistic attitude towards an increasingly frustrated life as an unresolved, bitter adult.

And I've been a good boy... no weird pun intended... 3.8+ GPA up until last year at college; parents still happily married, no abuse of any kind I can recall.
The only thing that's significant is I _may have_ had Asperger's: I have no documentation of an official diagnosis, but I know for a FACT that I had an extra teacher follow me around from elementary to early middle school, and distinctly remember being read from a binder about some sort of behavioral/mental subject by my mom.
Of course, now Asperger's is no longer considered a part of the Autism spectrum, make of that what you will (I'm still figuring out what _I_ make of it).

I don't have any proof of it, but something just feels like it's _missing_ from those years.

It feels like I've been _robbed_.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 18, 2013)

Aaagh, I remember being followed around by my kindergarten teacher like she was Jane Goodall and I was like, the littlest gorilla who could or something.  She took notes on my behavior.  Then  when my best friend died when I was 7 I was put in special ed for a little while because I shut down so hardcore.  I still cry over the senselessness of her death.   I had one friend, just one at the time (small town), and her mother killed her.  She got liquored up and started driving.  She was thrown out of the windshield and crushed by the car when it spun.  Lacy's two older siblings were also in the car but survived her. One suffered brain damage.  The brutality has not worn off and I can't imagine being one of Lacy's siblings.  I remember feeling a sort of triumph when I learned that her mother was in jail for murder and only later did it really hit me what Lillian (surviving sister) and her brother were going through: no more little sister, no more MOM. 

Anyway after that I ended up in behavioral classes, the ones where they make you do stupid teamwork focus group bullshit and try to build your confidence or whatever else they think you don't have? FUCK THAT, MAN.  I'd end up in In-School-Suspension and over and over again my teachers asked my parents to have me tested for this or that -- especially ADD and ADHD, always with that -- and my mom was like, "How about you learn how to handle a kid without drugging it into complacency?"   So I never got tested for anything and part of me is really curious to go get officially tested because if I do have ADHD, then the first thing I'm going to do is point and laugh at one of my friends who uses her ADHD as an excuse whenever she does poorly in class regardless of whether her ADHD was actually to blame. 

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS, MAN, BECAUSE I CAME OUT JUST FINE :V

Maybe you just went to college and the move and stress was growing up and leaving what was familiar too quickly for you, IDK, but, why are you even FINDING these babyfur images?  Because when I read what you just did post I was thinking, "This guy isn't serious, right?"

Don't tell me you're a closeted babbyfur who wants to get in touch with his lost or broken childhood.


----------



## McRoz (Jan 18, 2013)

I don't know, maybe.
For the record, I still live at home: in college, but not "on my own" as it were.
If I was officially diagnosed, the first thing I would do is see if I could get some drugs or educational assistance, ironically both of which I was against when I was younger.


----------



## Taralack (Jan 18, 2013)

I forgot what exactly this thread is about any more


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 18, 2013)

Toraneko said:


> I forgot what exactly this thread is about any more


Streetcircus tried to say that anyone involved with babyfur art was traumatized in childhood. A few of us took issue and have been trying to explain why he can't say that without offering evidence. It's not working.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 18, 2013)

Well the reason the OP had a strong emotional response has started to become evident now. Perhaps babyfur art isn't the exclusive reason this thread was produced, so perhaps you'd like to elucidate some other tangents, McRoz, if you think that would be productive?

This article, which is much broader than the topic of discussion, might be relevant, as suspicion of disorder and drug assitance were mentioned. I just happened to be reading it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20986796


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Jan 18, 2013)

Don't say you had childhood trauma, McRoz, you'll only encourage StreetCircus.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 18, 2013)

Ignoring the cyclical arguments going around... I'm not a fan of babyfur art, NSFW or not, for a couple reasons.

The first is... well, I don't like babies IRL. They're not cute, they're not endearing. They're prone to getting themselves hurt, they're very noisy (and I hate noise) and they're ideal machines for the production of large amounts of mess. They have a single function: to grow up. People putting them in cutesy clothes and showering them with gifts they can barely comprehend (and will likely grow out of in a year) baffle me. Children make for more interesting subjects IMO, simply because they do a lot of other things besides look cute and adorable. You don't find a lot of babies developing fiendishly good accuracy with slingshots, compared to 7-year old kids, for example.

(Ah, those were the days... shooting beehives with slingshots and running like hell...)

Compounding that, the way most babyfurs are drawn puts them squarely in the middle of the uncanny valey to me. I'm not entirely sure why. My best guess is the eyes and the expressions. With the exaggerated proportions I see in those drawings, some end up looking like adult faces in tiny bodies (big snouts are a serious offender in this sense: babies have tiny noses). The expressions very rarely match the ones you usually see in babies, since it's hard to translate the delicate features into lines and innocence can very easily devolve into "creepy" if not done right.

Ironically, I quite like children. Well, the ones who are curious about the world and want to learn about it, at least. I'm notoriously grumpy around kids, but if one comes up to me with a bunch of questions and seems genuinely interested in learning I'll be glad to answer what I can. Babies... well, they don't have that. It feels extremely silly to type this, but babies don't present any intellectual stimulation beyond "why is he staggering in the direction of that particular sharp corner?". But that's a different can of worms. =P

And yet the really big beef is the diapers. Yeah, I know. They're supposed to be clean and all that. But I've had to change diapers before (that's one favor I'm not repeating, ever) and that's one seriously unpleasant experience. The association alone makes them an unpleasant element in a picture, to the point where I find most babyfur pictures in which the characters are naked (_without genitals being depicted, thank you very much!_) much cuter and more acceptable than the ones in which they're in diapers. Even if they are literally two versions of the same picture.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> 'Undesireable' depends on who is doing the desiring. I would describe some of the hypotheses, such as imprinting, as being neutral.
> I want to be aware of the limits to my knowledge, so that I don't make claims bolder than the available evidence. This isn't a choice about whether or not you want to excuse bad behaviour by muddying scientific knowledge;it's occam's razor and healthy skepiticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
> 
> The cause of infantalism in general is poorly understood because there's little research into the subject matter, and it also demands complex hypthoses. This doesn't mean that we can insist individual cases are representative or indicative of others within their group, because the hypothesis is beyond the level of complexity that evidence can reasonable support.
> ...



Whoever wrote the wikipedia article you quoted indicated paraphilia is undesirable, that's why they described it as an error, something gone awry, and something altered. Awry and error mean mistakes, or wrong.

I think your word choice is poor. Infantalism is not poorly understood at all. There are many sound theories that would explain the cause of infantalism. It has been narrowed down to conditioning, disorder, or trauma. Most experts believe it is caused by one of the three. "If the truth is too mean, let's find an alternative!" - benignBiotic and Fallowfox.

Treat others as you wish to be treated is an unquantifiable statement, but people still believe that subscribing to that philosophy is culturally advantageous. There is no way to determine that treating others well will increase the likelyhood that you are treated that way, it's just better to give every small sacrifice of yourself for the greater good. It's noble.

Who said anything about shutting down an industry? How about just looking at less porn and supporting more art so their isn't such a disparity in favor of pornography. I swear you just argue everything I say for the sake of it.

Your last paragraph is just a reflection of your overly-sentimental, bleeding-heart liberal propaganda.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 18, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Whoever wrote the wikipedia article you quoted indicated paraphilia is undesirable, that's why they described it as an error, something gone awry, and something altered. Awry and error mean mistakes, or wrong.
> 
> -snip- "If the truth is too mean, let's find an alternative!" - benignBiotic and Fallowfox.
> 
> ...


The word undesirable appeared nowhere in the wiki's Infantilism article. Fact. This is because, as Fallowfox indicated, undesirable is subjective. I find ham undesirable, but you may find it perfectly desirable. You find babyfur art undesirable, but there are clearly scores of furries who find it perfectly desirable. Awry, altered, and error don't necessarily mean wrong in this case but I won't stray into semantics. 



> Infantalism* is not poorly understood at all*. There are *many sound  theories* that would explain the cause of infantalism. It *has been  narrowed down to* conditioning, disorder, or trauma. *Most experts* believe  it is caused by one of the three


[Emphasis added] Street these are things you can't say without evidence. Do you understand that? If you tried to say those things no intelligent person would believe you. You appear to be the one rejecting the truth. Fallow and I have our evidence. Empirical, scientifically determined evidence. But where is yours? You're reasoning yourself into a corner. 
We argue everything you say because (I at least) want to see you learn. I'm sure your pride won't allow you to do that, but there you go.

Look at this guy talking about unquantifiable statements. Yes Street, I'm sure treating other human beings with general kindness and decency is going to ruin human culture :V What fools we are for ... caring about others???


----------



## Ricky (Jan 18, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> The first is... well, I don't like babies IRL. They're not cute, they're not endearing. They're prone to getting themselves hurt, they're very noisy (and I hate noise) and they're ideal machines for the production of large amounts of mess.



I think it's funny when people say babies are cute. They aren't cute.

Babies are fat, ugly and bald. They also smell bad and are noisy as hell.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 18, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Whoever wrote the wikipedia article you quoted indicated paraphilia is undesirable, that's why they described it as an error, something gone awry, and something altered. Awry and error mean mistakes, or wrong.
> 
> I think your word choice is poor. Infantalism is not poorly understood at all. There are many sound theories that would explain the cause of infantalism. It has been narrowed down to conditioning, disorder, or trauma. Most experts believe it is caused by one of the three. "If the truth is too mean, let's find an alternative!" - benignBiotic and Fallowfox.
> 
> ...


How many times do we have to tell you to CITE YOUR SOURCES! I mean really, it's an essential part of any debate when you try to give "facts".

Also, did you know that most Wikipedia pages have sources and references at the bottom? It might be worth reading through them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 18, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Whoever wrote the wikipedia article you quoted indicated paraphilia is undesirable, that's why they described it as an error, something gone awry, and something altered. Awry and error mean mistakes, or wrong.
> 
> I think your word choice is poor. Infantalism is not poorly understood at all. There are many sound theories that would explain the cause of infantalism. It has been narrowed down to conditioning, disorder, or trauma. Most experts believe it is caused by one of the three. "If the truth is too mean, let's find an alternative!" - benignBiotic and Fallowfox.
> 
> ...



This is irrelevant, though also fallacious; the language clearly describes deviation but this by itself does not imply inferiority. Needless to say that even if it did this would be a subjective point of view. 

The reason for its emergence is not fully understood. There's too little research to yet widely validate the hypotheses and few people are interested in continuing research because infantalism is not a disorder and doesn't require medical treatment. It would be much like performing research into the psychology of Norwegians who eat rotten fish.

If you're a jerk to people they're a jerk to you. Yes, this is quantifiable, and my citation is the stanford experiment. Proof by contradiction. 
It's obviously quantifiable, which is why it has been quantified, by numerous studies. I cited the stanford experiment as a proof by contradition but I could also cite hundreds of other examples, such as studies in the Human idea of fairness* and the fact children who perform acts of kindness tend to become more popular with their peers**.

Some art is porn. You're approaching the topic arse-first though. If you want people to look at art other than pornography, demonstrate that art is exciting and introduce people to he art you think they would like. I don't persuade my friends to read a book I think they'll like by telling them how much television sucks, afterall. [and the people who do this meet only resistance and somewhat valid accusations of intellectual snobbery]

I currently do not subscribe to a political faction, please address the flaw in such a claim if you can expose one. Claims of self-confessed unquantifiability won't cut the mustard.

_*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game Players of the ultimatum game act out of spite if they feel they have been undervalued, eventhough it is free money. Players often offer 50/50 sums because that's what they would want to recieve in the other player's position.
**http://www.bps.org.uk/news/kind-children-tend-be-more-popular_



Ricky said:


> I think it's funny when people say babies are cute. They aren't cute.
> 
> Babies are fat, ugly and bald. They also smell bad and are noisy as hell.



Agreed, I hate babies. The mother instinct must be powerful to overcome the revulsion of nurturing a little snotbag into maturity. x3


----------



## McRoz (Jan 18, 2013)

Guess I'll jump on the bandwagon: I don't like babies either. I'd go even farther to say I have zero interest in having one of my own any time soon. And by 'soon' I mean, like EVER. Similarly, marriage seems more like a socio-economic arrangement to me with an utterly devastating effect on my own free will, but that's a topic for another day.

@HispterCoyote: 
I should also mention a family history of depression but now that's just getting into excuses.
Honestly, when I posted last time, I was in no mood to be cheered up or given the straight shit; I'm one of those guys who refuses to be wrong, I'm trying to help it with little success.
I guess, when I look at those kids of images, I feel bad because I see myself in them. I just want to reach in there and do something to change the future and avoid being the emotional clusterfuck of a human being I am today.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 19, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> [Emphasis added] Street these are things you can't say without evidence. Do you understand that? If you tried to say those things no intelligent person would believe you. You appear to be the one rejecting the truth. Fallow and I have our evidence. Empirical, scientifically determined evidence. But where is yours? You're reasoning yourself into a corner.
> We argue everything you say because (I at least) want to see you learn. I'm sure your pride won't allow you to do that, but there you go.
> 
> Look at this guy talking about unquantifiable statements. Yes Street, I'm sure treating other human beings with general kindness and decency is going to ruin human culture :V What fools we are for ... caring about others???





Raptros said:


> How many times do we have to tell you to CITE YOUR SOURCES! I mean really, it's an essential part of any debate when you try to give "facts".
> 
> Also, did you know that most Wikipedia pages have sources and references at the bottom? It might be worth reading through them.



You two are cheerleading, and adding nothing to the debate. Fallowfox already accepted the various proposed theories for the causation of fetishes:



Fallowfox said:


> Plenty of benign explanations exist for paraphilia, including imprinting, psychological regression, the association of closely positions brain regions, psychological conditioning etcetera.



Why would I cite something that doesn't need to be proven to be true? If your tactic is to make every reply needlessly laborious to prevent me from having an opposing opinion, then all you're doing is strong-arming. I thought you were against bullying?

Here, read every listed theory by psychologytoday.com: http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias?tab=Causes

It's like needing to cite that the cause of obesity is overeating - in a thread about babyfurs.



Fallowfox said:


> This is irrelevant, though also fallacious; the language clearly describes deviation but this by itself does not imply inferiority. Needless to say that even if it did this would be a subjective point of view.
> 
> The reason for its emergence is not fully understood. There's too little research to yet widely validate the hypotheses and few people are interested in continuing research because infantalism is not a disorder and doesn't require medical treatment. It would be much like performing research into the psychology of Norwegians who eat rotten fish.
> 
> ...



They used the word 'error', and the phrase 'gone awry'. Those words can have no other meaning than to imply a mistake, and something wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/error
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awry?s=t

It's not like you will accept those definitions either, just like you couldn't accept that fetishes are fixative and are marked by sexual dependency despite the clear wording.

"Too little" is unquantifiable. It's too little for you, it's not too little for psychiatric medicine. There are a few widely accepted theories:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/fetishism?tab=Causes
http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias?tab=Causes

The most commonly held theories are all the same. I think, for as many medical definitions there are that all suggest the same causes, it's safe to say most other possible causes have already been ruled out in favor of what we do know and have observed.

You will have to cite the experiment that determined that if you treat others unkindly, you will ultimately receive the same amount of unkindness, or more, in general. I don't see how that's possible. You may be treated unkindly by people who know you have treated others that way, but that doesn't mean that more unkindness will ultimate befall you than kindness.

By making art more easy to understand, you are making it less complex, and less meaningful. Everyone cannot be as knowledgeable about politics as they are about music, sports, science, math, and movies. One person may love a book featuring political satire because they are very knowledgeable about politics. If you suggest a book about music, they may not be able to appreciate it. Another person may find the book about politics boring because they aren't as knowledgeable about politics as the other. Does this mean the book about politics needs to be easier for the second person to understand and appreciate? I don't understand politics as much as I do sports, but I watch C-span (an American television network that broadcasts federal government proceedings) because I recognize the importance of political events. I really hate it because it's boring and doesn't appeal to me, but I support it because it matters.

I have explained this, but you are culturally liberal:

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


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 19, 2013)

A deviation from the norm does not imply objective undesirability. The most notable example being mutation, which is often a result of reproduction errors. Mutations are neither intrinsically good or bad, this is dependant on their qualities. This is why the scientific language should not be confused with colloquial language. On reflection the blurring of these two language sets is the reason for almost all of the disagreement in this discussion. 

The colloquial use of fetishism is different to the psychological disorder. This is the reason for diagreement here. To resolve this just stick 'pathological' infront of the word when you are discussing the psychological disorder. 

You should note the very sources you quote also elucidate that it is not clear what the causation of pathological fetishism is. Clearly being about pathological fetishism they furthermore do not elucidate the causality of vanila sexual deviations or other abnormal but not pathological sexual attractions, such as much of infantalism. They go as far as providing broad hypotheses on the possible causation of disorders that include infantalist desires which are so pronounced they pose a problem to someone's normal function. 

This is all rather moot though, regardless of what the possible cause is, do we have justification to pester infantalists about their sexual deviation? No. It wouldn't matter if the causation was genetic, epigenetic, social or psychological, the only thing we need to care about is whether their deviation is actually pathological. If they enjoy it and it's not causing harm then it is not pathological* and hence there's no justification for us to waste our time bullying or mollycoddling them, or hypothesising what awful tragedy they must have experienced. 

Ofcourse, here you go. 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0051380 There might be an embargo, but the abstract is available. 
The mechanism is pretty obvious. If you treat other people nicely they trust and like you because of this and hence are more likely to be nice to you in the future.

What's your point? Promoting media you like, rather than pointlessly thrashing at media you don't, does not equate to 'dumbing down'. 

Which ever political colour you want to paint me, my political attitude is not relevant to this discussion.

*This is not a culturally liberal view, this is just the semantics of disease and pathology and hence is true whether you are communist, conservative, religionist, liberal, libertarian or anarchist. It's the same reason that gut bacteria are not considered a disease but TB is, because TB is the one which can do you harm.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jan 19, 2013)

To me it's just a fetish in disguise about diapers and pissing/shitting themselves.
I mean, why are those freaking diapers always so pronounced in those images? What is the appeal of having a 'sona that is just a baby?
It's just plain weird.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 19, 2013)

Grown-up men (and women, let's be fair) pretending to be babies is serious business indeed.

I've seen so much weird stuff out there, I've started adopting George Carlin's views on matters like this: _"We're not  gonna bother consenting adults who like to dress up in leather Boy  Scout uniforms and smash each other in the head with ball peen hammers  while they take turns blowing their cat. There's certainly nothing wrong  with that. It's a victimless hobby. And think of how good the cat must  feel!"_ :V


----------



## Machine (Jan 19, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Grown-up men (and women, let's be fair) pretending to be babies is serious business indeed.
> 
> I've seen so much weird stuff out there, I've started adopting George Carlin's views on matters like this: _"We're not  gonna bother consenting adults who like to dress up in leather Boy  Scout uniforms and smash each other in the head with ball peen hammers  while they take turns blowing their cat. There's certainly nothing wrong  with that. It's a victimless hobby. And think of how good the cat must  feel!"_ :V


You get +5 internets for referencing George Carlin.


----------



## Golden (Jan 20, 2013)

I disapprove of SFW babyfur art. It's not cute, it's fucked.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 20, 2013)

RaichuOPs said:


> I disapprove of SFW babyfur art. It's not cute, it's fucked.



I take it you're only into the porn, then?  :V


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 20, 2013)

Stepping away from the main arguement, as that isn't really going anywhere...

I'm on the fence about the art itself, I like the well drawn pieces and if I find them, ones that don't include "dream children", as that gets boring after a while. The people that have them as 'sonas though, yeah, that's quite strange to me. I also don't like the stupid baby-talk role play that the do, it just makes me cringe at the thought that there're mostly adults behind their screens partaking in it.


----------



## Harbinger (Jan 20, 2013)

I just clicked the browse button on FA, babyfur nappy vore, what the actual fuck...
I can never understand why vore is so popular let alone that.


----------



## Kahoku (Jan 20, 2013)

I still take the stand that this whole thing stems from lack of being loved as a child and that is why people get off on this. But I really also believe two other things with my first one, and that is A) People also regret missing out on trying stuff when they were younger and
 B) Some people are just plain fucked up.

That's about the size of it from what I see.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 20, 2013)

Kijha said:


> I still take the stand that this whole thing stems from lack of being loved as a child and that is why people get off on this.



Is that your "scientific" *opinion*? :roll:


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 20, 2013)

Armchair psychology. 

Did you know that _all_ furries are actually just subconsciously trying to retreat to their childhoods, via the animation age ghetto, because they've grown up to be twisted and dissapointing adults? Either that or they're just plain fucked over.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 20, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I'm on the fence about the art itself, I like the well drawn pieces and if I find them, ones that don't include "dream children", as that gets boring after a while. The people that have them as 'sonas though, yeah, that's quite strange to me. I also don't like the stupid baby-talk role play that the do, it just makes me cringe at the thought that there're mostly adults behind their screens partaking in it.


Babyfurs as fursonas is a strange thing. I just don't understand it. Why are you pretending to be babyfur? So weird. 

When it comes to babyfur art I feel the same as I do about any piece. If it's quality and not squicky I'll probably like it.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 20, 2013)

I have no problems with age play or the related fetishes.  I do however have a problem with the majority of babyfurs.  Children are awesome, they are adorable, sweet, nieve, creative, inventive and all that.  Babyfurs on the other hand by in large seem to think that all children have developmental disorders and speech impediments instead.  I wonder if it's a result of babyfurs not being endeared by children but rather being endeared by babyfurs.  So babyfurs copying babyfurs copying babyfurs, and so on, untill all that's left is an imbred mess at the end.


----------



## Itzal (Jan 20, 2013)

I personally take no issue with babyfurs or ageplay, so long as it's SFW. It's really the diaper fetish that creeps me out the most, as I don't get the appeal of soaking in your own excrement until "Mommy" or "Daddy" can change you. I mean, it's different of you have bladder issues or anything like that that causes you to need a diaper, but otherwise no. Just no.

Sorry if I got off topic


----------



## McRoz (Jan 20, 2013)

Okay, so I was looking through the sunday funnies when this one surprised me today:

http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy#mutable_878356

Looking at it, there's really nothing to do here with babies, babyfurs, nor youth in general, really. 

But compare this one to the first pic I posted and there's a connection here: both pics involve an _accident._

I don't know why, but this idea of an accidnet and more importantly the reaction of the one who had it seems to elicit the same reaction out of me as the previous pic where nothing liek that was present.

Any ideas?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jan 20, 2013)

McRoz said:


> Okay, so I was looking through the sunday funnies when this one surprised me today:
> 
> http://www.gocomics.com/getfuzzy#mutable_878356
> 
> ...



I think you spend far too much time trying to self analyze yourself over innocuous things.  You saw something cute, you liked it, shut up and enjoy it.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 20, 2013)

AshleyAshes said:


> I think you spend far too much time trying to self analyze yourself over innocuous things.  You saw something cute, you liked it, shut up and enjoy it.


This is what I'd say McRoz. Unless it really really bothers you why don't you just ignore the babyfur stuff?


----------



## Golden (Jan 20, 2013)

Ricky said:


> I take it you're only into the porn, then?  :V


  oh murr yes :V Seriously though, babyfurs need to fuck off.


----------



## McRoz (Jan 21, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> This is what I'd say McRoz. Unless it really really bothers you why don't you just ignore the babyfur stuff?



It's not just babyfurs, it's _why_. This shit obviously ties into something far deeper that's been haunting me for years, before I even knew what "babyfur" meant. I can't move on until I resolve whatever _it_ is.

Simply ignoring it is out of the question.


----------



## Ricky (Jan 21, 2013)

McRoz said:


> It's not just babyfurs, it's _why_. This shit obviously ties into something far deeper that's been haunting me for years, before I even knew what "babyfur" meant. I can't move on until I resolve whatever _it_ is.
> 
> Simply ignoring it is out of the question.



Why don't you just find a couple of cubs who aren't creepy and try it out? =p


----------



## Caden_The_Dingo (Jan 21, 2013)

All I have to say, to each his own.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 23, 2013)

Let's not close this topic just yet. I have a few stories to tell...


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 23, 2013)

Denim Mage said:


> Let's not close this topic just yet. I have a few stories to tell...


Tell us then.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 23, 2013)

My name is Charles. I myself am an infantilist. I'm also autistic, but that probably doesn't have a vital role in the subject of infantilism.

Someone said here, on the first or second page, that it was easier to just shove every infantilist person into a group with pedophilia because it would make it much easier to be comfortable with the subject, and that it would make it so that the person would not appear to be defending pedophilia, as a cultural point. That person hit the nail on the head. The other thing that I notice is that generally, the people uncomfortable with infantilism are people who do not understand how it works. That may seem a bit obvious, but I stress it.

I can't tell you where it comes from or how exactly it works either, but I can give you my psychological story.

As an autistic person, I don't tend to share emotions with people. I have a sense of humor, I have anger. But I almost never get sad and I certainly don't empathize. Just to learn to understand what other people expected from me, I had to get to a point where I had to logically figure out what they were thinking, and why. I have to ask people to restructure sentences all the time just to understand what they are asking; finding out what they are _feeling_ is still extremely difficult. I state these things for insight, later down the road.

When I was a baby, my mother was abusive and very neglectful of me and my siblings. We ended up being moved around from home to home every several weeks or months or whatnot until they found us a foster family. Within this foster family, my foster father raped me and my brother. It was pretty bad for me, but I can't say about my brother. However, due to my logical and somewhat objective outlook on life, as opposed to an emotional and empathetic outlook experienced by others, the events don't seem to have a major emotional impact on me. No, the abuse from the adoptive family that they moved me to afterwards is the source of much of my anger and shame. It's not really that I see the rape as harmless-- the man who did it was, objectively and outside of the rape itself, a good person. The world is filled with grey morality, which most people find uncomfortable to admit and find it easier to just repress the concept.

Regardless, it was during this time, when I first moved to the foster family, that I noticed my obsession with babyhood. I don't believe it has anything to do with the events that happened. I just think that the moment I realized I wasn't a baby anymore, I was obsessed with being one. I wanted something I knew babies get but that I never got. And after this family, I moved into an abusive adoptive family, where I lived for several years before they sent me off to an abusive boarding school from age 15.5 to 18.5.

I loved An American Tail growing up in the foster family, and similar movies and shows in which the main character was a young child. I wanted their cuteness, their privileges, and their unconditional love that they got whenever anyone saw them in less than ideal conditions. An American Tail was a good example because the main character was sad, surrounded by mooded environments like rain, and was looking for family in a dark time. I also grew up with Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which I was fascinated with for many of the same reasons as American Tail-- it was dark, the good people were very pure and kind, the scope and self-awareness felt very large and dynamic, and the music and colors used were transcendent and extremely moving. I quickly began to write music and fiction of my own, most of which featured children in deplorable environments who ended up well taken care of. Even if I do not feel or understand empathy or love, it seems obvious that I have always sought it.

The thing about diapers is that they are symbolic of many things. They are the core peculiarity about babyhood-- for an adult, logically, there are many things that can define babyhood. But for a younger child, the diaper is the most obvious. Not only does it symbolize babyhood in itself, but it also symbolizes being cared for, physical and psychological innocence, and comfort. As far as the latter goes, it is well documented that autistic people desire controlled pressure. I have always slept wrapped snuggly in blankets. But having a relatively thick and soft baby diaper and wearing thick and snug pajamas, for me, would be a more complete experience physically, not to mention psychologically.

I find that most infantilists on Fur Affinity are children. I would have made the same art as them at that age if I weren't worried about what my overly-judgemental adoptive parents thought. Heck, I wasn't allowed to draw most of the time, and I got a beating the first time I drew Stitch from Lilo and Stitch-- not because I was drawing, but because it was Stitch. I understand most of the babyfur art I see here. The baby you draw as an infantilist isn't another person-- it's you. In the future, my avatar is supposed to be a 6-year-old blond boy with green eyes, a white cloak, a wizard staff, and overalls. That boy is supposed to be me. I always believe I never should have grown up. Now, I'm not the best-looking person around (I'm not ugly though), but I've always felt that a beautiful blond child is one most likely to get the kind of unconditional love and treatment that I have always been seeking. The cloak and wizard's staff are a testament to my own creativity, intelligence, and desire for some kind of "magic" to happen-- or for me to make it happen. I used to be a fan of blue eyes, being a more cynical and anti-social person, but now I am moving to green eyes because they symbolize youth and newness-- and I'm turning over a new leaf in my life to be more social and more charitable, while being less critical. Everyone has an affinity to their avatar for a reason.

As far as my sexuality goes, I am attracted to diapers. But I am actually not attracted to anything other than diapers. Most infantilists are social people. I am autistic-- I don't seek a relationship with other people outside of friendship. But I have some guesses as to why I am attracted to what I am. After all, more and more, I am beginning to believe that everyone is sexually attracted to _something_. My main guess is that since my individual psychology did not see much interest in other people, it would go to the thing most-likely to become sexual that I was already interested in: the diaper. The way I see it, a diaper makes perfect sense within a sexual aspect, once you remove the social aspect of sex. It covers the sexual areas, has a very peculiar weight and softness and smell to it that makes it impossible to ignore, and is probably one of the top things on any list of things that people shouldn't see an adult having/doing in public. What I mean is, it's a kind of taboo, like any kind of sex is (unless you don't respect the taboo of sexual subjects in public). Even if my theory isn't right, it does seem natural that diapers would be a sexually-charged object for many.

So if many infantilists are like this, then should someone be worried if one draws diapers on their characters? Well, that's another grey area. As a child, infantilism may consist of drawing whatever is emotionally important to you. But once you reach puberty, it's nearly impossible to draw the same pictures without thinking about the sexuality of the diaper. There is a way, but this is supposed to be a tame topic, so I won't go there. Anywho, if this is the case, if someone is drawing an infantilist picture, the infantilism might be exactly the way they want it. But of course, like a poster on the first or second page said, once the person starts drawing the diaper, they may feel obligated to add more detail, revealing their obsession, and hinting at their sexual interest, with the object. I absolutely understand that some infantilists are probably pedophiles, but I understand from my own complex experience that it is not necessarily, and probably not _usually_, the case. I mean, I'd do anything to be a child again. It would mean that nobody would judge me for my inclination to childish behavior and hobbies. It would mean that I would be cute and therefore lovable again, and that people would actually care about me. I could even still have the communication difficulties I have due to autism, and nobody would judge me. I would live in a softer, warmer, more exciting, more colorful world in which I would be free to do or be anything (within reason) without fear of judgement. But especially toddlerhood for me, as the world will be softer and sweeter and I could always be wrapped up in some large bundle of something and be at peace.

Do these feelings keep me from having a life? No, actually-- they inspire me to inspire others. Sure, my works may not be centered around babyhood, but the dark and complex, yet colorful, huge world that is always a part of my fantasy would inspire anyone to acts of introspect, beauty, and ambition, just like An American Tail, The Land Before Time, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Zelda: A Link to the Past did for me. The childhood part of this wonderful world is just one aspect of it to me. I don't know how infantilism affects everyone else, but I do know that it is certainly not necessarily negative in any way.

There really is much more to it, but there's only so much I can write before I get off track. I may remember things if someone comments on this.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

Interesting story.
(EDIT: seriously, I enjoyed reading it. No sarcasm, no irony. I hadn't expected something like that.)

Still, no amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that some elements of babyfur creep some people out on a very fundamental level. 

I think the point here is more about the balance between suspicion and tolerance than anything else. Yes, it's weird. And yes, it's damn close to pedophilia on occasion. So we need to watch out for the actual creeps and criminals*. But yes, there are people who are perfectly innocent about it and those should be tolerated if you can't bring yourself to like them.

You heard it first, folks: generalizations are bad! Who'd have thought it?! 

(Now vorists? Those need to go burn in the deepest pits of hell. :V)

* I couldn't care less for people who enjoy fictionalized depictions of illegal/immoral activities, as long as no real people are involved or any illegal actions are carried at any point. I'd much rather they relieved their urges upon drawings instead of performing the act. And if they feel the urge to take it into the real world, they need psychological intervention. Doesn't make a lot of those things any less disgusting or deeply unsettling to me, of course. Again, vorists can go to hell. :V


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

That is a good point though. I mean, a lot of people are into fictional rape or bondage or similar, and I totally understand why. The thing is, those people would usually never consider real rape or similar, and many of them only want it to happen to themselves. I imagine it might be the same with pedophilia. While creepier than rape or bondage, I suppose that since there is no such thing as a thought crime, and I suppose that since the people cannot control their sexual interests for the most part, that as long as they keep it to themselves, there's not much you can judge them on. But it's not easy for most people to admit that, because of the level of uncomfortable it draws. That brings up the question: is pedophilia any worse than any other kind of rape? Possibly, but I doubt that it's much better.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

Denim Mage said:


> That brings up the question: is pedophilia any worse than any other kind of rape? Possibly, but I doubt that it's much better.


I don't think there's much of a question here. Pedophilia is worse. It is not only rape, but rape inflicted upon someone who couldn't defend themselves and who doesn't have the necessary mental and emotional equipment to process the traumatic experience. An adult being raped may have their life ruined by the experience. A child will have even more of their life ahead of them to be damaged by it, and it will most certainly affect their development.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

The idea is that rape is forced. The very idea of rape is that it is done to the helpless and unwilling. Hurting children affects people a lot more emotionally than hurting older people, but children are as resilient, if not more so, than adults. I seem to find that children don't tend to make the worst of every experience. Rather, they tend to be more optimistic than adults. The question then is: is hurting children _really_ worse than hurting adults? Or are we just more emotionally moved when children are hurt?

I may not be a good example, but as far as trauma goes, that sure didn't happen for me. I don't know of anyone who can prove that rape necessarily leads to trauma. It's easier for people to comfortably just assume it does rather than face the idea of thinking to themselves "is rape really as bad as they say?" Yes, rape is very bad, but _anything_ can be exaggerated. It makes people feel more comfortable to exaggerate. After all, that's one of the reasons why rape is usually done so poorly in fiction.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

What happened to set off the recent explosion of babyfur art, anyway?


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

Denim Mage said:


> The idea is that rape is forced. The very idea  of rape is that it is done to the helpless and unwilling. Hurting  children affects people a lot more emotionally than hurting older  people, but children are as resilient, if not more so, than adults. I  seem to find that children don't tend to make the worst of every  experience. Rather, they tend to be more optimistic than adults. The  question then is: is hurting children _really_ worse than hurting adults? Or are we just more emotionally moved when children are hurt?
> 
> I may not be a good example, but as far as trauma goes, that sure didn't  happen for me. I don't know of anyone who can prove that rape  necessarily leads to trauma. It's easier for people to comfortably just  assume it does rather than face the idea of thinking to themselves "is  rape really as bad as they say?" Yes, rape is very bad, but _anything_  can be exaggerated. It makes people feel more comfortable to  exaggerate. After all, that's one of the reasons why rape is usually  done so poorly in fiction.


That is not a point up for being argued. Rape is rape. Exaggerated or not, it's a violation of one's condition as a human being and no discussion of degree is acceptable. You are one anecdotal case on the internet who, as far as we all know, could just have invented that nice piece of text up there (you know it happens), so you are indeed not a good example. Better steer away from this line of debate, nothing good will come out of it.

EDIT: 


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> What happened to set off the recent explosion of babyfur art, anyway?


It's dem goddamned nazis. :V


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> That is not a point up for being argued. Rape is rape. Exaggerated or not, it's a violation of one's condition as a human being and no discussion of degree is acceptable. You are one anecdotal case on the internet who, as far as we all know, could just have invented that nice piece of text up there (you know it happens), so you are indeed not a good example. Better steer away from this line of debate, nothing good will come out of it.


 Yeah cuz, y'know maybe some kids _like_ to be raped? Who are we to judge?


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Yeah cuz, y'know maybe some kids _like_ to be raped? Who are we to judge?


Hey, you know what they say: you can't rape the willing. *:V*
(You can certainly brutalize the willing, though.)


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

Guys, that's not what I meant. I am not justifying rape in any way. My main point was that rape is rape, whether it was done to a child or to an adult; and that it's questionable, at least to me, as to whether it's worse or the same when done to children. That is a purely logical question, one that discards the emotional comparison between children being hurt and adults being hurt.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm questioning your question. What is the point of asking which thing is worse if both should be avoided at all costs?

Besides, it could very well be argued that many people would see you as being deeply disturbed and that your current behavior and attractions are in themselves an effect of your own childhood issues. You pretty much admitted it yourself in that big post up there. That would only reinforce the point of abuses (sexual or not) during one's formative years being as or even more traumatizing than abuses after maturity is reached.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

Possible, but I doubt it. I myself am very honest about my own psychology. The only way I was able to develop was by, in my early-20's until now, learning about the inner workings of my mind and psychology, learning about those of others, and comparing the two. A lot of the time, basic communication requires me to be the minds of both people so I can try to understand where they're coming from. But I digress.

If I remember correctly, I brought up the question because it stemmed from a point I made about how fantasizing about rape and bondage isn't always looked down upon, as long as the person doesn't actually want to rape someone in real life (and also the fact that most people into rape or bondage want it done to themselves, too). Like someone here said before, there's no such thing as thought crime. The question we are referring to now naturally stems from this kind of logic-- that if rape fantasy for people who would do no rape is okay when fantasizing about adults, how, in pure logic, would child rape fantasy be different? The emotions strongly say "No, that is wrong. That can't be." But logic says it could be otherwise. Does that condone child rape fantasy? Most likely not. But it is still a curious matter when thought about purely objectively.

I repeat myself-- I do not condone rape, and rape fantasy about *any* person is a dark grey. But I do understand the fantasy, and it's always more difficult to be judgemental about things you understand.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

It seems there was a communication breakdown at some point there.

ACTUAL rape, child or adult? Nope, go to hell. It's not worth even talking about.

Fantasy rape? Knock yourself out. Hell, I've been disgusted by some pretty weird things in the fandom (why hello cockvore!) but I don't care about who gets off to that stuff as long as they don't try anything like in real life. Again, I'd rather they had that particular outlet instead of just bottling it up.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

That kind of hits the nail on the head. But people still are pretty uncomfortable about other peoples' fantasies.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

Yes, and they have the right to. Again, some of the stuff folks like creeps the hell out of me. Furthermore, some people aren't satisfied with just drawings and writing as their outlets. Those criminals are the ones that make everybody else get _even more _uncomfortable.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

Fair enough. But it's not right to associate infantilists with pedophiles.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jan 24, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> A deviation from the norm does not imply objective undesirability. The most notable example being mutation, which is often a result of reproduction errors. Mutations are neither intrinsically good or bad, this is dependant on their qualities. This is why the scientific language should not be confused with colloquial language. On reflection the blurring of these two language sets is the reason for almost all of the disagreement in this discussion.
> 
> The colloquial use of fetishism is different to the psychological disorder. This is the reason for diagreement here. To resolve this just stick 'pathological' infront of the word when you are discussing the psychological disorder.
> 
> ...



Been extremely busy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error#Science_and_engineering

"In science and engineering in general an error is defined as a difference between the desired and actual performance or behavior of a system or object."

A scientific error is defined as undesirable.

Also, I don't see how the cause between pathological infantalism and otherwise would be different. At what point their fetish interferes with their lives depends on the individual's goals. If they want to raise normal children, their behavior would be harmful, if they want to live alone, then suddenly it isn't pathological. It isn't pathological until treatment is sought.

The study you provided shows that you will be happier and healthier as you build relationships with other people you treat kindly, but it doesn't explain that if you were to treat people neutrally and indifferently, whether you would receive more kindness or more negativity. I was wrong to say you can't improve the likelihood of returned kindness, but the ratio of kindness to unkindness cannot be measured or predicted.

I don't see how you could feasibly measure the effect of fetishism on the overall contentedness, progression, and well-being of a population.

You fit the definition of someone culturally liberal as accurately as anyone I have ever seen. You believe what you do because you have decided that the happiness of an individual will always have a positive effect. You won't consider that happy people who cause no immediately observable harm may ultimately hurt the progress of the human race as a whole. You have decided to believe that because it's easier and it makes you feel good.

Lastly, I would like to thank Denim Mage for capping off this debate as irrefutable proof of every last thing I have suggested about infantalists. Case closed.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Lastly, I would like to thank Denim Mage for capping off this debate as irrefutable proof of every last thing I have suggested about infantalists. Case closed.



Could you summarize or link to a few of those suggestions, please? I've  read a lot, but there is still a lot more in this thread.


----------



## benignBiotic (Jan 24, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> I don't see how you could feasibly measure the effect of fetishism on the overall contentedness, progression, and well-being of a population.
> 
> You fit the definition of someone culturally liberal as accurately as anyone I have ever seen. You believe what you do because you have decided that the happiness of an individual will always have a positive effect. You won't consider that happy people who cause no immediately observable harm may ultimately hurt the progress of the human race as a whole. You have decided to believe that because it's easier and it makes you feel good.
> 
> Lastly, I would like to thank Denim Mage for capping off this debate as irrefutable proof of every last thing I have suggested about infantalists. Case closed.


Aren't you the one who has been trying to say that fetishism being 'undesirable,' as you say, will have a negative effect on the progress of society? 

Fallow has explained his beliefs before and they have nothing to do them being easier or making him feel good. You are making an assumption. Also why should we think that happy people who aren't doing any harm will hurt 'progress' in any way?

I'll bite. How is Denim Mage's rant _proof_?


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 24, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> I'll bite. How is Denim Mage's rant _proof_?


I'll add to your question, how is *one* person's life story on the subject enough to _prove_ a point? That's not how science works. It gives your opinion more credibility, yes, but it does not necessarily prove a hypothesis.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I'll add to your question, how is *one* person's life story on the subject enough to _prove_ a point? That's not how science works. It gives your opinion more credibility, yes, but it does not necessarily prove a hypothesis.



That's right. And I don't claim to be a person that has a common psychology. There's little such thing as "proof", even in something as fundamental as math. I believe that knowledge is relative to your goal. If your goal is, for example, not to harm someone, then you can get closer to the truth towards that goal, but you can never fully realize that truth. There's no way to be in all places, at all times, and experiencing and understanding everything well enough to prove or even define any absolutes.

I can only give my experience. My ability to understand, validate, and compare others' experiences are limited. I believe my experiences and the communication of them may help people to step closer to the "truth" relative to the goal of, for example, preventing rape, even if we cannot fully define what that truth itself is. Same with other people's experiences-- they help too.


----------



## Caden_The_Dingo (Jan 24, 2013)

Why is this still going? It doesn't matter what people like, accept them for who they are.


----------



## Kalmor (Jan 24, 2013)

Caden_The_Dingo said:


> Why is this still going? It doesn't matter what people like, accept them for who they are.


Some people don't seem to get that though. One even says that it's right that disabled people should be bullied out of society (look back a few pages if you missed it).


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 24, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> I'll bite. How is Denim Mage's rant _proof_?


Hell, can we go back a little further and explain what on Earth does he mean with "culturally liberal" and why is that a bad thing? I've been boggling over that for more pages than I'd care to admit!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 24, 2013)

benignBiotic said:


> I'll bite. How is Denim Mage's rant _proof_?


  And don't blow this one; you might actually have a valid point this time around.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 24, 2013)

> Hell, can we go back a little further and explain what on Earth does he  mean with "culturally liberal" and why is that a bad thing? I've been  boggling over that for more pages than I'd care to admit!



Not sure. I was wondering about that too...


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 25, 2013)

Streetcircus said:


> Been extremely busy...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error#Science_and_engineering
> 
> ...



[I understand that these arguments are largely irrelevant to the thread topic and that Denim Mage may have much more relevant or informed answers to them]

This is pointless semantics now. A _systematic error_ is undesireable in a scientific test. An error in the development of a bundle of cells, developing differently to its archetype is not intrinsically good or bad. Which one do _you _think is relevant to the development of humans, who are bundles of cells? 
In evolutionary history colour vision was developed when errors in the copying of genes responsible for light sensitivity changed the range of frequencies some cells detected stimuli. These copying errors in fact turned out to be advantageous, despite being errors. The concept of error in nature is unlike that of engineering because there is no engineer and no desired outcome. 

This is another semantic debate, it depends on where the boundry of pathology exists and if there are indeed groups of justifiable causes for sexual deviation. If we were to discover there are differences then this may indeed define the boundry of pathology [for instance we might discover that sexual deviations that develop post adolescence are more/ess likely to be harmful than pre-adolescent deviations.] For now though there is simply not enough research to answer these questions. 

Simple rules for social interaction and kindness certainly can be predicted and to an extent quantified using known biological mechanisms. Brains contain mirror neurons which reciprocate the emotional states of those we interact with, allowing a plethora of useful behaviours, which provide a clear mechanism that explains why being kind to someone encourages them to be kind in return that fits with experimental results. Read on this subject further yourself if you want to be persuaded. 

I don't think that would be easy either, until anybody manages it I'm not going to automatically believe any assertions about the effects of fetishism on societal development or take any action to be nasty to fetishists on those grounds. 

I don't believe happiness of individuals always has a positive effect. This isn't what cultural liberalism is anyway, because that description of cultural outlook specifically _omits _negative repercussions from acceptable behaviour in the clause 'as long as it isn't harmful,'. 
I don't accept your assertion that some people with odd but superficially innocuous sex lives are causing harm to human progress because in this particular instance the hypothesis has not been vindicated, or even worded to avoid semantic misery. 

The concordance that Denim Mage is an infantalist and had an abusive childhood is not conclusive proof of _all _your claims. It's not even conclusive proof of the relevant claim that infantalism in the general case is rooted in childhood traumatic experiences. In order to ascertain this we would require thousands of infantalists to explain whether they ever experienced childhood trauma and then thousands of control test subjects to do the same. 

We might as well insist that Europeans are especially likely to be gay because the first European you happened to bump into was.



Holtzmann said:


> Hell, can we go back a little further and  explain what on Earth does he mean with "culturally liberal" and why is  that a bad thing? I've been boggling over that for more pages than I'd  care to admit!



In the source he himself quoted cultural liberalism is defined as the belief that people should be able to 'march to the beat of a different drummer' as long as they're not causing evident harm. 

As far as I understand it's _not_ a bad thing. Neither is 'cultural conservatism' -although the definition is more variable. I thought it would be the opposite at first but nope. The most popular usage seems to be about conserving cultural icons and practices so that future generations can enjoy them, like special cultural buildings, paintings, works of literature etcetera. 

Despite numerous references to a culture war we can both defend people's right to do what they like as long as it's not harmful as well as petition the protection of special archeaological sites, cultural celebrations and the teaching of shakespeare in schools.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 25, 2013)

This I agree with. I told my story as one example of life events *possibly* having significant influence on infantilism. I never meant for it to be concluded that it was the main reason I am an infantilist, and I also never meant for it to be concluded that infantilism stems from traumatic childhood experience. My story is a small part of a whole, and I doubt it's feasible to understand to what extent my story has an impact on infantilism as a whole. I'm not belittling the possible impact of my experience-- I'm just admitting that the amount of impact is *possibly* not significant in relation to the general infantilism population. I'm trying to weigh all sides.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 25, 2013)

Denim Mage said:


> This I agree with. I told my story as one example of life events *possibly* having significant influence on infantilism. I never meant for it to be concluded that it was the main reason I am an infantilist, and I also never meant for it to be concluded that infantilism stems from traumatic childhood experience. My story is a small part of a whole, and I doubt it's feasible to understand to what extent my story has an impact on infantilism as a whole. I'm not belittling the possible impact of my experience-- I'm just admitting that the amount of impact is *possibly* not significant in relation to the general infantilism population. I'm trying to weigh all sides.



What streetcircus is doing is like trying to decide whether an image is a picture of a cat or a dog, when he's only been allowed to see one pixel.


----------



## Denim Mage (Jan 25, 2013)

So I hear.


----------



## Holtzmann (Jan 25, 2013)

Going by what Denim Mage wrote, I don't think most (or even many) infantilists have gone through comparable childhood trauma. So it very likely had something to do with it, but he's such an outlying case you can't really apply anything learned from him to infantilists as a whole. As Fallowfox said, we need more data. Loads more data. Actually, there should be a study over that buried in some psychology college's vaults, but hell if I'm able to find any.

Anyone proficient with google-fu willing to look for it?

(Unrelated: thanks for the explanation on cultural liberalism. It made Streetcircus sound even more bigoted.)


----------



## Fallowfox (Jan 25, 2013)

Holtzmann said:


> Going by what Denim Mage wrote, I don't think most (or even many) infantilists have gone through comparable childhood trauma. So it very likely had something to do with it, but he's such an outlying case you can't really apply anything learned from him to infantilists as a whole. As Fallowfox said, we need more data. Loads more data. Actually, there should be a study over that buried in some psychology college's vaults, but hell if I'm able to find any.
> 
> Anyone proficient with google-fu willing to look for it?
> 
> (Unrelated: thanks for the explanation on cultural liberalism. It made Streetcircus sound even more bigoted.)




I tried finding studies but since most infantallists are secretive in real life there are few good studies on them. Unfortunately many psychological studies are performed on psychology students themselves, which means that touchy subjects like strange fetishes often don't get studied in detail and that much psychology previously taken for granted turns out to be a quirk perculiar to psychology students. 

For instance:






This optical illusion _just doesn't work _on Hunter gatherers from Austral-asia [who the experiment was only recently tried on] In fact, rather than being an innate feature of brain processing as studies on western psychology students had indicated, this illusion appears more and more only to work on people who have grown up inside houses.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jan 25, 2013)

What the fuck am I looking at here?


----------



## Bree Pup (Nov 15, 2013)

Treacle is right it is just like saying all furries are zoophilias and all anime fans are geeks in a basement getting of to hentia. I know for a fact that not all babyfurs are pedophilias. There is a stereotypical name for everything if you take all of those as true than you are living in a blind state of mind. I say get to know a group before you go around labeling a full group.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Nov 15, 2013)

OH COMMON!!
I thought the zombie thing was finally over with


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 15, 2013)

Bree Pup said:


> I know for a fact that not all babyfurs are pedophilias.



Honestly, I find the babyfurs that treat it as a lifestyle to be *immensely* creepier than the ones that just treat it like a fetish.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 15, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> Honestly, I find the babyfurs that treat it as a lifestyle to be *immensely* creepier than the ones that just treat it like a fetish.



This. The whole thing is just fucking bizarre...
As a fetish? Eh... What ever. Everyone is free to do what they want in the bedroom and in private.
But turning it into a lifestyle? Turning "being a baby" into a lifestyle means to live like a fucking baby. Which means diapers 24/7, which is fucking gross when you take it so far that you purposely shit and piss yourself in public, and acting like an annoying brat which really is SUPER creepy.

Again, I don't care what people do in private. But when you do it in public that is just freaky as all hell, mang.

Also, nice necro brah.


----------



## Distorted (Nov 15, 2013)

I had no idea necro summons of this magnitude were possible. 

But I don't really know what to say to the thread. It's hard enough to see an older person acting like a kid, let alone an infant. To each their own and all, but it's still a bit questionable.


----------



## IAN (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm not going to read the entire thread as I can only go so far without  vomiting over StreetCircus's posts. I could do without having to endure  another Sigmund Freud wannabe with a thesaurus up his ass who thinks his  beliefs are the only thing that are correct (and lol at "AB/DL's are  always unattractive males", I know several babyfurs who are actually  pretty hot).


I first want elaborate that there are  differences between diaperfurs and babyfurs. Just because both wear  diapers, the age of the characters in question is entirely different.  And the bigger difference is that the first treats diapers and the feel  of wearing as a sexual fetish, while a babyfur in general is into more  of a regressive aspect which is generally non sexual and for comfort.  Diapers only being an assist.

And as mentioned there are many  cases of babyfurs that centralize on the diaper aspect versus the  childish aspect, those I wouldn't really consider babyfurs much at all.  More of just diaperfurs with toddler age characters.


In the  case of me, I've always been a diaperfur, diapers being just another  kink of mine as well as the factors centered around it (embarrasment,  the manner in which they make a character look less powerful/submissive,  etc.). But recently I've been getting more into the babyfur/regressive  side of things, and to be honest when I do act babyish or commisison  babyfur, diapers are MUCH less of a focus. And I get no sexual feelings  from it whatsoever, yet it is comforting emotionally somehow.

Problem  is I'm seeing far to many who identify as babyfurs yet really aren't  into anything else aside from shitting themselves, wanking, and being  done. Which in my opinion, deteriorates the conception of babyfurs in  general.


Now on the subject of being related to pedophilia:

While  many will say there is not direct connection, and I don't assume anyone  who is a babyfur automatically has a sexual attraction to children, I  have observed and I would say there actually is a slight connection, if  not more than slight. I've noticed an increasing number of babyfurs that  are decently known where on FA you see their gallery and favorites  filled with mostly clean and innocent art of kids, with the occasional  yiffy piece involving an older characters, but then you search their  name on Inkbunny, only to find a shit ton of cub porn involving their  fursonas along with favorite galleries loaded with the most pedophilific  shit imaginable. Like, enough to make Chris Hansen have a stroke.

And  I continuously have been noticing this with more and more babyfurs, not  just a few. So yes, I'd say there could be a slight connection between  the two.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Nov 15, 2013)

Distorted said:


> I had no idea necro summons of this magnitude were possible.



"It's alive. ITS ALIVE!"


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 15, 2013)

Distorted said:


> I had no idea necro summons of this magnitude were possible.



Geez it's only from January. I've seen necros of threads from *2009*.


----------



## Antronach (Nov 15, 2013)

Oh great, I thought vore and inflation was weird. @_@;

I can understand some people wanting to act like a baby for kinky reasons as such, but drawing art with that mindset with characters at the matching age just seems weird when you beat off to that stuff. I understand people making fanart to stuff like buster bunny and throwing in their own OC's and such.But  I'd rather see an average anthro pic with someone wearing a diaper than an adolecent anthro doing the same. It just has that pedo vibe to me.


----------



## JesseR92 (Nov 15, 2013)

Teal said:


> I've seen older.



My record was necroing a post from the Monkey Island forums 11 year old thread.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 15, 2013)

Antronach said:


> Oh great, I thought vore and inflation was weird. @_@;
> 
> I can understand some people wanting to act like a baby for kinky reasons as such, but drawing art with that mindset with characters at the matching age just seems weird when you beat off to that stuff. I understand people making fanart to stuff like buster bunny and throwing in their own OC's and such.But  I'd rather see an average anthro pic with someone wearing a diaper than an adolecent anthro doing the same. It just has that pedo vibe to me.



A pedo _vibe_?

You're just getting a _vibe_?


----------



## JesseR92 (Nov 15, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> A pedo _vibe_?
> 
> You're just getting a _vibe_?



Well where does a vibe rank ?

Below a gut instinct?Above a feeling?Same level as a sensation?This is important info we are missing here.


----------



## Machine (Nov 15, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> A pedo _vibe_?
> 
> You're just getting a _vibe_?


I'm getting full-blown pedo heebie-jeebies from this kind of shit.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Nov 16, 2013)

Machine said:


> I'm getting full-blown pedo heebie-jeebies from this kind of shit.


Not just the heebie-jeebies, shits straight up jeebie-heebies


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Nov 16, 2013)

This whole fandom gives me the heebie-jeebies.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 16, 2013)

Mr. Sparta said:


> This whole fandom gives me the heebie-jeebies.



Really? That sucks.


----------



## Aulendra (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm on the same boat as many here. No matter how G-rated, all babyfur art just gives me a deep down twisting gut feeling. A feeling of just...EW. Like there is something horrendously wrong with the concept and even moreso with the person who drew it.

It sucks because on one level, The concept of having a character with a different age is interesting (I love old, grizzled characters with interesting pasts, for example). But these people don't create babyfurs for that reason and it's always tied into some horrible creepy fetish shit. Same with Loli or ageplay or any of that other stuff. NO. NOOOO.


----------



## Tailmon1 (Nov 16, 2013)

Of all the things I have seen and been through in my life Baby play has not been one of them. I do 
know that some people desire that return to the time where they were innocent and liked being 
cared for and didn't have to do anything but be a baby. It's just another Kink in the fetish world.


----------



## Antronach (Nov 16, 2013)

Heliophobic said:


> A pedo _vibe_?
> 
> You're just getting a _vibe_?



Yeah, the same vibe I got when I saw my supervisor naked online. @_@;


----------

