# People will go "rabblerabble" at CP, but why not Feral porn?



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

Cub porn depicts underage (Anthro) children and people will go "RAEG" at the thought of it, but at the same time not many people will go "RAEG" at feral porn because it depicts animals in sexually suggestive situations. 

How come?


 I r bored and the Den needs srs discussion


----------



## Tao (Jul 22, 2010)

All furries are into bestiality duh


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jul 22, 2010)

Children before animals?


----------



## Willow (Jul 22, 2010)

This argument is kinda like asking "Why are people so up in arms about child porn, but not any other porn"

IMO


----------



## Fenrari (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Cub porn depicts underage (Anthro) children and people will go "RAEG" at the thought of it, but at the same time not many people will go "RAEG" at feral porn because it depicts animals in sexually suggestive situations.
> 
> How come?
> 
> ...




 well from my personal view point. Feral porn is closer to traditional art. It's something you could possibly see irl... Wolves mating in the wild is plausible. Cubs in diapers touching each other... well not so much. Granted we get into multi/interspecies situations. Also feral situations usually depict adult/wildesque as opposed to the blaitantly underaged/humanoid cub porn.


----------



## chrest (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't support the whole cub thing, Ferals aren't half as bad as cubs, and to tell you the truth, I think feral porn is in the same league as Anthro porn, no difference in my mind.


----------



## Tally (Jul 22, 2010)

WillowWulf said:


> This argument is kinda like asking "Why are people so up in arms about child porn, but not any other porn"
> 
> IMO


 
This kinda sums it up. Child porn is illegal, most other types are not.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

chrest said:


> I don't support the whole cub thing, Ferals aren't half as bad as cubs, and to tell you the truth, I think feral porn is in the same league as Anthro porn, no difference in my mind.


 
Except that anthro porn (I.e. Aliens for example) does not make you a zoophile.


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

I dunno depends on what is being depicted. If it's two feral dogs or whatever then it's two animals having sex, whatever animals have sex. Sometimes the feral individuals are more anthropomorphic, but it's two adult animals. It's when things are put into a situation they can't fully understand that people get up in arms. So cubs, other people sexing up a feral, so on. 

Honestly i don't like any of it, but it's not worth crying over.


----------



## chrest (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Except that anthro porn (I.e. Aliens for example) does not make you a zoophile.



I guess you make a good point, but I still don't think it's right to have cub porn


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Cub porn depicts underage (Anthro) children and people will go "RAEG" at the thought of it, but at the same time not many people will go "RAEG" at feral porn because it depicts animals in sexually suggestive situations.
> 
> How come?



It's fucking hot

(Or dragons are anyway)


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I dunno depends on what is being depicted. If it's two feral dogs or whatever then it's two animals having sex, whatever animals have sex. Sometimes the feral individuals are more anthropomorphic, but it's two adult animals. It's when things are put into a situation they can't fully understand that people get up in arms. So cubs, other people sexing up a feral, so on.
> 
> Honestly i don't like any of it, but it's not worth crying over.


 
But people QQ about it sometimes.

Soo...What about an image of a human with a feral?


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Soo...What about an image of a human with a feral?


 
*fap fap fap*

Cerbrus version: I happen to find that quite enjoyable and have masturbated to it on many occasion


----------



## Willow (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Soo...What about an image of a human with a feral?


 Fringes on bestiality but what do I care?


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But people QQ about it sometimes.
> 
> Soo...What about an image of a human with a feral?


 
My personal opinion is it's creepy and pretty much zoo rape. people taking advantage of animals that don't really understand what is happening. I think it would cause more of a stir than feralxferal type porn.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> My personal opinion is it's creepy and pretty much zoo rape. people taking advantage of animals that don't really understand what is happening. I think it would cause more of a stir than feralxferal type porn.


 
Hey

PICTURES


----------



## Smelge (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But people QQ about it sometimes.
> 
> Soo...What about an image of a human with a feral?



It's not particularly nice, especially when it's the artist drawing themself fucking a feral wolf or something. Thats just tasteless. And yeah, it does fall into the same sort of camp as people who fap to cub shit.

That said, there is no correct answer. But people mentally categorise stuff to how much they are disgusted by them, and usually kiddyfiddlers rank worse than dogfuckers. It's just a part of the human mentality to sort things into an order of acceptance.


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Hey
> 
> PICTURES


 
You want them?


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> You want them?


 
Depends

Got any 'gator action?


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> Depends
> 
> Got any 'gator action?



I do not. I am one of those rare furries that isn't really interested in furry porn. I has no pictures.


----------



## Tally (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> You want them?


 
Your avatar reminds me of TashkentFox. Good times.


----------



## Don (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I do not. I am one of those rare furries that isn't really interested in furry porn. I has no pictures.


 
So you just watch the flash animations and read the smut stories :V

Face it, a furry not interested in porn is like a fish that hates swimming.


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

Tally said:


> Your avatar reminds me of TashkentFox. Good times.


 
I think i drew his first avi, the one with the mouse way back when I did random free requests.


----------



## Willow (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I think i drew his first avi, the one with the mouse way back when I did random free requests.


 I remember that


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

Don_Wolf said:


> So you just watch the flash animations and read the smut stories :V
> 
> Face it, a furry not interested in porn is like a fish that hates swimming.



I just prefer my porn to involve humans, I can't bring myself to find animals attractive. *shrug*


----------



## Vaelarsa (Jul 22, 2010)

I think artists of both types should go die in a fire.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 22, 2010)

Animals with mature human brains could consent. 

Kids can't consent. 


[/thread]


----------



## Smelge (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> I think i drew his first avi, the one with the mouse way back when I did random free requests.


 













Yep.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Animals with mature human brains could consent.
> 
> Kids can't consent.
> 
> ...



That does not answer the question. D:


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That does not answer the question. D:


 Yes it does. You asked why people went rabblerabblerabble at cubs but not ferals and that's why. 

Or at least that's why I think they don't.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Yes it does. You asked why people went rabblerabblerabble at cubs but not ferals and that's why.
> 
> Or at least that's why I think they don't.


 
Dogfuckery is bad, and so is kiddie fucking. :V


----------



## Fay V (Jul 22, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Yep.


 
That was by far my favorite broom comic. what happened to tashkent anyway?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Dogfuckery is bad, and so is kiddie fucking. :V


 Agreed on both.


----------



## Tabasco (Jul 22, 2010)

Ferals are generally assumed to have human personalities and thought, aren't they?


----------



## Smelge (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> That was by far my favorite broom comic. what happened to tashkent anyway?


 
He was banned, totally unfairly. All he did was be racist, call out other members, threaten to murder people and throw dogshit at memorials. Totally unjustified.


----------



## antihuman (Jul 22, 2010)

Personally I think the idea of a sentient person (anthro or human) having sex with an unintelligent animal is just as bad as having sex with a child. It's all about the inability to consent. Having sex with an intelligent feral in theory would be OK, but you can't really tell from the picture if the character is really intended to be intelligent or if the artist is just using that as a cover for their dogfucking desires.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

antihuman said:


> Personally I think the idea of a sentient person (anthro or human) having sex with an unintelligent animal is just as bad as having sex with a child. It's all about the inability to consent. *Having sex with an intelligent feral in theory would be OK, but you can't really tell from the picture if the character is really intended to be intelligent or if the artist is just using that as a cover for their dogfucking desires*.


 

There are some artists that do Feral-style porn, but only a few come out as being zoos to gain acceptance within the fandom.


----------



## antihuman (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> to gain acceptance within the fandom.


 
Wouldn't that make them lose acceptance in the fandom?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 22, 2010)

antihuman said:


> Wouldn't that make them lose acceptance in the fandom?


 
Depending on the artist and the "Talent".

Even though in the fandom they have lost resepct, there will still be that number of rabid meatshields that will go the lengths to protect their darling artist and their reputation. From harrassing a user who left comments about them being a Zoophile/Practicing bestialist to vandalizing the artist's ED/Wikifur article to remove any signs of the person being a Zoo.


----------



## antihuman (Jul 22, 2010)

Right, I forgot about the crazies.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 22, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> That does not answer the question. D:


 
Dogfuckery is bad because the dog lacks the intelligence necessary to give informed consent to a sexual relationship with a human.  In feral art, while they may have no human features, they are typically displaying human intelligence.

It's still pretty creepy though.

If there was furry porn where an anthro dog was depicted having only dog intelligence, I'd be pretty grossed out by that too.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 22, 2010)

Lobar said:


> If there was furry porn where an anthro dog was depicted having only dog intelligence, I'd be pretty grossed out by that too.


 That'd be the worst D:

That'd be like retarded people porn.


----------



## Shiroka (Jul 22, 2010)

...will this topic ever die?

As long as it remains lines on paper, I don't care. But to answer your question, children and their mental stability are more valuable than animals in our society, hence why cub porn is more debated than feral porn. Also, this is the same reason why the penalties for killing a dog is much lesser than for killing a human baby.

/thread


----------



## chrest (Jul 22, 2010)

Then it's agreed that both are bad, and both should be "Reabblerabbled" at, which was our opinions before the thread anyways.
At least it came full circle


----------



## antihuman (Jul 22, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> That'd be the worst D:
> 
> That'd be like retarded people porn.


 

You know somewhere in the dark corners of the main site someone has drawn that.


----------



## Qoph (Jul 22, 2010)

I think feral characters are generally depicted as sentient, while real animals are not.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 22, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Yep.


 
Why do I always get the urge to sing "CUTE THINGS EXPLODING, PLEASE KIDS DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!" when I see that comic?


----------



## Willow (Jul 22, 2010)

Qoph said:


> I think feral characters are generally depicted as sentient, while real animals are not.


 But at the same time, in the case of feralXferal, they're usually both adults. Much like with two real animals, and can technically consent I guess you could say.


----------



## Spawtsie Paws (Jul 22, 2010)

Fay V said:


> My personal opinion is it's creepy and pretty much  zoo rape. people taking advantage of animals that *don't really  understand what is happening.* I think it would cause more of a stir than  feralxferal type porn.


 
I think they would understand what was happening when a dude bends over them and sticks something inside.


----------



## Tabasco (Jul 22, 2010)

HAXX said:


> I think they would understand what was happening when a dude bends over them and sticks something inside.


 
I dunno. Sometimes even I get pretty confused when people do that. :V


----------



## Xaybiance (Jul 22, 2010)

Uh.. Hm... Let's take minute here now... If you could only choose one of the two...

Chillun'?... Or animals?...

I'd sell my junk to science. It'd be worth more than the experience with either of those two.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 23, 2010)

Ferals fucking ferals? Who cares? You see shit like that in the real world, animals have no shame.  They can't consent to sexual interactions with humans but there's a general mutual understanding between 2 animals when they decide to have sex.  People getting off to it is a bit creepy, but it's not like no one ever stood there and gawked at pets/farm animals screwing when they were younger.  When it's a depiction of "creature with human-level mind fucking creature with animal-level mind", though, I don't care how many goddamn legs they walk on, it's gross and a stop shy of bestiality.

Kids fucking is another can of worms.  2 kids screwing is at no time acceptable behavior, and the depictions of them fucking in cub smut frequently goes well beyond the actual "experimentation" kids tend to do, so it doesn't even have THAT to stand on.  It's kids performing ostensibly adult actions, puerile minds and bodies engaging in behavior reserved for adults.

And here I am srsposting in the Den yet again.  Every time I tell myself "no, never again, ignore that cesspool" and every time I let morbid-beyond-morbid curiosity take over.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 23, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Cub porn depicts underage (Anthro) children and people will go "RAEG" at the thought of it, but at the same time not many people will go "RAEG" at feral porn because it depicts animals in sexually suggestive situations.
> 
> How come?
> 
> ...


 I made a thread much like this one in R&R a while back. It didn't really get anywhere and then Ricky killed it by acting like a fucking cunt, so I've just come to the conclusion that furries get so mad by CP but not feral porn because they're retarded.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 23, 2010)

IMO it depends on what feral porn is depicting. If it is human + feral then imo it would be bad, but if it is feral + feral then I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## antihuman (Jul 23, 2010)

Xaybiance said:


> Uh.. Hm... Let's take minute here now... If you could only choose one of the two...
> 
> Chillun'?... Or animals?...
> 
> I'd sell my junk to science. It'd be worth more than the experience with either of those two.



This, I don't want either one.


----------



## Tally (Jul 23, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> because they're retarded.


 
We've found the answer to everything furry related, right here.




Fay V said:


> I think i drew his first avi, the one with the mouse way back when I did random free requests.


 
Also, really late, but it was one of my favorite avatars that I saw here. Kudos on the good work.


----------



## JoeStrike (Jul 23, 2010)

"rabblerabble"? Another reason I couldn't stand "Chowder" - that rabblerabble character just got on my fucking nerves...


----------



## Tally (Jul 23, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> "rabblerabble"? Another reason I couldn't stand "Chowder" - that rabblerabble character just got on my fucking nerves...


 
Oh. I thought it was from South Park.


----------



## Willow (Jul 23, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> I made a thread much like this one in R&R a while back. It didn't really get anywhere and then Ricky killed it by acting like a fucking cunt, so I've just come to the conclusion that furries get so mad by CP but not feral porn because they're retarded.


 No, that's only with feralxhuman because that really is borderline. Feralxferal really isn't that big of a deal seeing as how the animals normally depicted are adult and are able to consent. I don't see what the problem is. With cub porn, you're taking what depicts a child and putting them in that same situation, which isn't okay by any means. If feralxferal were borderline, so would adult anthroxanthro. 

I said it earlier though. 
This argument is about as silly as asking why are people so up in arms about child porn but not any other regular porn


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 23, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> IMO it depends on what feral porn is depicting. If it is human + feral then imo it would be bad, but if it is feral + feral then I don't see a problem with it.


Um, it IS a problem because humans are fappnig to this feral + feral porn. How can you people not see this problem? Anyone who faps to feral on feral porn should be avoided at all costs.



WillowWulf said:


> No, that's only with feralxhuman because that really is borderline. Feralxferal really isn't that big of a deal seeing as how the animals normally depicted are adult and are able to consent. I don't see what the problem is. With cub porn, you're taking what depicts a child and putting them in that same situation, which isn't okay by any means. If feralxferal were borderline, so would adult anthroxanthro.


I never said anthro on anthro porn wasn't bestiality. ;D

Also, I'm fucking tired of this consent argument. They're just drawings, *A DRAWING CAN'T FUCKING CONSENT BECAUSE IT'S AN INANIMATE OBJECT, FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.*


----------



## Shiroka (Jul 23, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> *A DRAWING CAN'T FUCKING CONSENT BECAUSE IT'S AN INANIMATE OBJECT, FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.*


 
I could so see that on a sign in a protest against pornography. :V


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 23, 2010)

I think that what I call the Brian Griffin rule applies here: if it talks, you're good to go.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 23, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> I think that what I call the Brian Griffin rule applies here: if it talks, you're good to go.


 
Parrots are fucked

Or they soon will be, anyway


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 23, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> I think that what I call the Brian Griffin rule applies here: if it talks, you're good to go.


 "No, officer. The dog talked, I swear! It said woof and bark! That means it's legal!"


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 23, 2010)

They're both weird, just one is a million times moreso.


----------



## Heimdal (Jul 23, 2010)

CP is notably gross and disgusting. It uses themes that enrage lots of people to see.

Feral is more confusing than disgusting. People understand that animals have sex with each other too, so can get over that, but are thoroughly perplexed at why anyone would want to draw it.

What's wrong, and the level as to how it is wrong, is not a technically winnable argument. There aren't enough proven facts behind these kinds of pornography questions. However, that is not an excuse in favour of weird controversial porn. There is an ultimate conclusion here that renders everything else as useless bitching. In place of actually scientific facts, society uses majority rule. I'm not talkin' FA majority (because it's a particular haven for those certain porn supporters,) I'm talking about what real human society thinks about this.

Do a porn survey. Go downtown in your city, and ask random people their opinions on drawings of anthropomorphic children having sex vs. drawings of animals having sex. The sentiments you'd get are the best answers to this question.

Presumably most people would be appalled.  Any defensive furry porn enthusiast doesn't have anything to stand on, because they should have known this their whole lives. And it's their job to fit into society, not the other way around.


----------



## Kiva19 (Jul 24, 2010)

Well I am "feral" (though I can talk), and I don't find porn involving me offensive XD!


----------



## 8-bit (Jul 24, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> "rabblerabble"? Another reason I couldn't stand "Chowder" - that rabblerabble character just got on my fucking nerves...


 
I think it was "radda radda".


----------



## Oovie (Jul 24, 2010)

RandyDarkshade said:


> IMO it depends on what feral porn is depicting. If it is human + feral then imo it would be bad, but if it is feral + feral then I don't see a problem with it.


 But isn't a human ultimately going to fap to either one? So they'd both be in the wrong right? Unless, we're just admiring art of plain 'ol animals screwing each other. Not my type of deal personally.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 24, 2010)

Kiva19 said:


> Well I am "feral" (though I can talk), and I don't find porn involving me offensive XD!


 
*sharp glare*

YOU ARE NOT REALLY A LION.


----------



## Tally (Jul 24, 2010)

Tycho said:


> *sharp glare*
> 
> YOU ARE NOT REALLY A LION.


 
But... But... Then I have to be a human! And humans are so violent! Humans should be like animals (lions in this case), living peacefully together.


----------



## Telnac (Jul 24, 2010)

One big difference between feral porn & cub porn: ferals (in the context of furry characters) can still be intelligent and of the age of consent.  While I'm not into any variety of furry porn, I wouldn't have a problem with furry porn depicting an intelligent, adult feral wolf getting it on with a human or humanoid.  Porn with blantantly underage characters, regardless of species?  No.  Porn with animals (with animal intelligence) getting it on with humans or humanoids?  No.

Ability & age to give informed consent is where the line of morality exists in my book.  Two intelligent and consenting adults can do whatever they like to each other, regardless of what form they may happen to be in.  Absent informed consent, or the intelligence & age to give consent, sexual activity is morally & legally wrong.  Art depicting such sexual activity is disgusting.  It may be legal, but I think it's morally questionable.

[Edit]
Just wanted to add: dragons and some other fantasy creatures are almost universally considered intelligent even if they're feral.  Does the fact that the dragon's on all fours put human/dragon porn in the same league as human/dog porn?  I don't think so.  I certainly don't think anyone would consider Telnac getting it on with a human bestiality just because Telnac's in the shape of a dragon and not more along the lines of C3PO with a metal dick.


----------



## Tally (Jul 24, 2010)

And now I am really missing the This button. Telnac really hit the spot.


----------



## Kiva19 (Jul 24, 2010)

When did I say I was really a lion? I was referring to my character being feral. I'm proud of my humanity


----------



## footfoe (Jul 24, 2010)

two things i have to say here.

CP is wrong because there's a victim.  In lolicon and Cub porn, there is no fucking victim so there isn't anything wrong with it.
Same with bestiality, when it's drawn there is no victim so there's nothing wrong with it.

Yall need to get the fuck over yourselves and stop pretending you have some kind of moral code.


----------



## virus (Jul 24, 2010)

Don't start up this shit again, seriously don't.


----------



## Slyck (Jul 24, 2010)

wait

People fap to feral porn?

I guess ya learn something new every day.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 24, 2010)

Slyck said:


> wait
> 
> People fap to feral porn?
> 
> I guess ya learn something new every day.


 What else were they supposed to do with it? Besides, it would explain the unusually high percentage of dogfuckers in this fandom.


----------



## Seas (Jul 24, 2010)

"Feral porn" (animals mating) in real life is a natural thing, the other is, well, not.

Watching feral porn may be morally/socially/mentally questionable as well as cp, but the existence of feral porn itself less so(unlike cp), because of the point above (and also because natural documentaries often include such acts).


----------



## Zaraphayx (Jul 24, 2010)

Because it's easy to moral high-ground to defend your position as a sick fuck when there are sicker fucks to witch-hunt.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 24, 2010)

Seastalker said:


> "Feral porn" (animals mating) in real life is a natural thing, the other is, well, not.
> 
> Watching feral porn may be morally/socially/mentally questionable as well as cp, but the existence of feral porn itself less so(unlike cp), because of the point above (and also because natural documentaries often include such acts).


Don't be silly now, think about why the fuck it would cross someone's mind to draw porn of non-antro animals fucking in the first place. It's obviously for masturbatory purposes. Nothing else.



Zaraphayx said:


> Because it's easy to moral high-ground to defend your position as a sick fuck when there are sicker fucks to witch-hunt.


 This pretty much explains it, too.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Jul 24, 2010)

Hmm, what? Feral Porn? What can this be...-OH MY GOD OH MY GODDDD NO DON'T DO THIS

People are less aware of feral porn, so furries put less effort into hiding their affinity to it.

Though, after all, it doesn't really matter. Furries love porn in any way.


----------



## Eske (Jul 24, 2010)

Perhaps it's because animal porn is something furries are sometimes associated with -- feral or not -- but child/cub porn adds a whole new dimension of "wrong" into the mix.  In other words, porn involving animals is something you're going to "expect" to see in a furry website that allows adult artwork, but under-age porn is not.

Unless you mean human + feral porn, in which case the answer is simple -- it's not as common.  Should human/feral porn gain popularity, I'm sure we will see our share of rallying against it.  For now, it seems to fly mostly under the radar because it isn't all over the place (yet).


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 24, 2010)

Supporters of both (or either) should be shot at birth :V


----------



## Seas (Jul 24, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Don't be silly now, think about why the fuck it would cross someone's mind to draw porn of non-antro animals fucking in the first place. It's obviously for masturbatory purposes. Nothing else.



It's still more natural, leading to the thread question of why people complain less about that one (possibly one less aspect to attack, or one more to justify).
But then again, I'm not telling about how these things may be justified by themselves, but the relativity of these two things and how people relate to this in general just like OP asked. 
There can be different levels of acceptability, even on an extreme end of the scale.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 24, 2010)

Seastalker said:


> It's still more natural, leading to the thread question of why people complain less about that one (possibly one less aspect to attack, or one more to justify).


 Yes, because it's more natural to fuck another species than to fuck someone who just happens to be under 18, DERP.


----------



## Tally (Jul 24, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Yes, because it's more natural to fuck another species than to fuck someone who just happens to be under 18, DERP.


 
We are talking about furry porn, so yes, I hope it is.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 24, 2010)

what if they're young _and_ animals

like little wolf pups

what then


----------



## Willow (Jul 24, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> what if they're young _and_ animals
> 
> like little wolf pups
> 
> what then


As in feral? I'd highly doubt they've even reached that stage in development. Like with cats.


----------



## Seas (Jul 24, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> fuck another species



This was never implied in any way in any of my posts, nor in OP.



> [...]feral porn because it depicts animals in sexually suggestive situations.



^Taken straight from the OP post.

It seems you are misinterpreting things here.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 24, 2010)

LizardKing said:


> what if they're young _and_ animals
> 
> like little wolf pups
> 
> what then


 
That's fairly disturbing.


----------



## Enwon (Jul 24, 2010)

More people are completely disgusted by pedophiles and the idea of sex with children than they are with the idea of animal sex.  Children should not be drawn in sexual situations.  Children, in most cases, do not have sex with each other, and don't know what sex is.  Meanwhile, animals will fuck each other naturally in nature.  It is not natural for children to have sex, but it is perfectly natural for animals to fuck each other.

Of course, if the porn is of a human or anthro fucking an animal, then I have a moral objection to it.  But if its a drawing of two animals fucking, then I'll just let it slide for now, even though you're still creepy if you fap to it.


----------



## Tally (Jul 24, 2010)

N106 said:


> even though you're still creepy if you fap to it.


 
So true. Damn furries.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 24, 2010)

The only logical reason I can come up with is that ferals have sex anyway, and kids don't.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 24, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The only logical reason I can come up with is that ferals have sex anyway, and kids don't.


 But does that mean that people who fap to feral porn should just get a free pass while the people who fap to CP make furries RAEG? Because finding feral porn to be sexually arousing is pretty zoophilie-esque in itself.


----------



## Enwon (Jul 24, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> But does that mean that people who fap to feral porn should just get a free pass while the people who fap to CP make furries RAEG? Because finding feral porn to be sexually arousing is pretty zoophilie-esque in itself.


 
Good point.  Feral porn enthusiasts have to be brutally murdered as well.  Thanks for informing me, Kellie.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 24, 2010)

N106 said:


> Good point. Feral porn enthusiasts have to be brutally murdered as well. Thanks for informing me, Kellie.



Ah, if only more furs actually had that kind of motivation...


----------



## Heimdal (Jul 24, 2010)

footfoe said:


> two things i have to say here.
> 
> CP is wrong because there's a victim.  In lolicon and Cub porn, there is no fucking victim so there isn't anything wrong with it.
> Same with bestiality, when it's drawn there is no victim so there's nothing wrong with it.
> ...


 
Go join society. Ask them what they think about it.

There doesn't need to be a victim for something to be disgusting and wrong. It's self-absorbed and deluded to assume your deviant interests are perfectly okay when _most of the world disagrees._ You need to get over yourself.

Don't even bother arguing with me, just deal with real society and learn something.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 24, 2010)

N106 said:


> Good point.  Feral porn enthusiasts have to be brutally murdered as well.  Thanks for informing me, Kellie.


 Or we could just decide not to murder either, because they're fapping to drawings and that's hardly a very criminal thing to do. :V


----------



## Kiru-kun (Jul 24, 2010)

Heimdal said:


> Go join society. Ask them what they think about it.
> 
> There doesn't need to be a victim for something to be disgusting and wrong. It's self-absorbed and deluded to assume your deviant interests are perfectly okay when _most of the world disagrees._ You need to get over yourself.
> 
> Don't even bother arguing with me, just deal with real society and learn something.




Goddamn my "this" button is still broken!


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Jul 24, 2010)

Animals are nakid all the time anyways.

You sick fucks..... Though I look at anthros sometimes.


----------



## Kiru-kun (Jul 24, 2010)

Just to throw something random in the mix, Anthro x Human?


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 24, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Just to throw something random in the mix, Anthro x Human?



Very very nice.


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Jul 24, 2010)

Kiru-kun said:


> Just to throw something random in the mix, Anthro x Human?


I see a pornographic comedy.

"Hey, would you tap that?"


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 24, 2010)

Foxy_Boy said:


> I see a pornographic comedy.
> 
> "Hey, would you tap that?"


 
By extension, if you fantasize about your pet, but in anthro form and as a sapient being, are you a sick freak?


----------



## Foxy_Boy (Jul 24, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> By extension, if you fantasize about your pet, but in anthro form and as a sapient being, are you a sick freak?


Well I consider myself to be the kind of "harmless" fucked in the head.... & I have never had any fantasy that involved a regular animal or an animal I know in sapient form...

YOU DECIDE! :O


----------



## Willow (Jul 24, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> But does that mean that people who fap to feral porn should just get a free pass while the people who fap to CP make furries RAEG? Because finding feral porn to be sexually arousing is pretty zoophilie-esque in itself.


 Morality. Furries, people in general would rather someone be turned on by two _adult_ animals (feral or anthro) having sex as opposed to two minors or a minor and an adult. 
Take the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 24, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> By extension, if you fantasize about your pet, but in anthro form and as a sapient being, are you a sick freak?


 
Personally, I don't think so - any more than any other furry.  Just keep your dick out of Fido's posterior.  I'd be curious as to exactly WHY you fantasize about *your pet* in particular.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 24, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Personally, I don't think so - any more than any other furry. Just keep your dick out of Fido's posterior. I'd be curious as to exactly WHY you fantasize about *your pet* in particular.


 
Your pets tend to be cuter (in your opinion). I know I have cute dogs (a male Pomeranian and a female Labrador Retriever).


----------



## antihuman (Jul 24, 2010)

Pets are viewed as being child like in society so that situation specifically probably would get people as angry as child porn, as apposed to just two random animals.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 24, 2010)

People do bitch about it, just seems Cub porn is more important to bitch about :V


----------



## LolitaOfTheVoid (Jul 25, 2010)

Personally, I don't like feral porn. My prons tastes is, well, simple. But I rage more over cubs because, well, I'm a mother. The thought of anyone touching my children, or ANY children, pisses me off. And people get OFF to that. it's sick. I don't rage over feral porn because, well, I don't CARE. Bestiality IRL upsets me; Animals CAN'T consent. It makes me feel sick; I see real animals as being adorable and innocent, companions and friends. I don't want to think about someone fucking my best friend =/ (in this case, my best friend being both my dogs) But I don't get upset enough to E-Rage over. two animals? it's honestly natural. Animals fuck. Period. The fact some people fap to that is weird to me, but, I'm less uncomfortable with it than with children.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 25, 2010)

Oh, come on.  Like 50% of you freaks own a Zeta toy.

This isn't a difficult question.


----------



## Tally (Jul 25, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Oh, come on.  Like 50% of you freaks own a Zeta toy.
> 
> This isn't a difficult question.


 
I don't even know what a Zeta toy is. :<


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 25, 2010)

Tally said:


> I don't even know what a Zeta toy is. :<


 Animal dildos.


----------



## Tally (Jul 25, 2010)

Kellie Gator said:


> Animal dildos.


 
I guessed that much. 

Eww.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 26, 2010)

Both are horrible, bad and morally wrong. But why the _hell_ am I even trying? Furries become extremely nihilistic when sexual morality is brought up.  

As for the the whole anthro zoo thing? Granted, I will exclude the female anthro "art" from this because the the artist could always say "she has a human va-jay-jay." I wish i could prove it, but i can't. I will say this though, male anthro art is zooish because of the animal genitalia they put on them. 

If you are attracted to that kind of genitalia, then you have some issue you need to confront.


----------



## Willow (Jul 26, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> If you are attracted to that kind of genitalia, then you have some issue you need to confront.


 What if they're just turned on by it because it resembles a penis?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 26, 2010)

Willow said:


> What if they're just turned on by it because it resembles a penis?


 Do they also get turned on by mushrooms, sausages, and dildos? :V


----------



## Tycho (Jul 26, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Do they also get turned on by *mushrooms, sausages,* and dildos? :V


 
Holy crap, a pizza is like a gay porn flick for those people.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Holy crap, a pizza is like a gay porn flick for those people.


 Except for the fact that sliced up mushrooms and sausage pieces don't resemble penises.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 26, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Except for the fact that sliced up mushrooms and sausage pieces don't resemble penises.


 
They resemble sliced up penises.

...fuckin' KINKY.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 26, 2010)

Hey, I like knots. Kitty barbs too. So there.


----------



## slydude851 (Jul 26, 2010)

Here's a simple idea,

Why quarrel over it?  It's all porn anyways.  And its free!


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 26, 2010)

Oh hey, just by all of the responses in the threrad you guys have proven that bestiality in the fandom is okay but pedophilia is not. 
Don't you think PETA might have something to say about that? :V


You might as well go and send an E-mail to Ebon lupus to tell him that he can come back to FA now.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 26, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Oh hey, just by all of the responses in the threrad you guys have proven that bestiality in the fandom is okay but pedophilia is not.
> Don't you think PETA might have something to say about that? :V
> 
> 
> You might as well go and send an E-mail to Ebon lupus to tell him that he can come back to FA now.


 
Excuse me?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 26, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Excuse me?


 
You can't have it one way or the other. :V
But it's okay, the internet will still view furries as sick fucks so nothing of value was lost.


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 26, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Oh hey, just by all of the responses in the threrad you guys have proven that bestiality in the fandom is okay but pedophilia is not.
> Don't you think PETA might have something to say about that? :V


 
They'd probably be jealous that we love animals more than them :3
Then they'd kill a bunch of puppies in a fit of rage


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 26, 2010)

SnowFox said:


> They'd probably be jealous that we love animals more than them :3
> Then they'd kill a bunch of puppies in a fit of rage


 
Each time the fandom brings in a Zoo/Bestie, PETA kills a puppy to save it from the furries.


----------



## SnowFox (Jul 26, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Each time the fandom brings in a Zoo/Bestie, PETA kills a puppy to save it from the furries.


 
We don't bring them in, they just invite themselves in and hide among the people that don't care.

PETA kills puppies because PETA can kill puppies, and that's what they like to do.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Jul 26, 2010)

Who's Ebon Lupus?


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 26, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Who's Ebon Lupus?


 A dogfucker.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 26, 2010)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Who's Ebon Lupus?


 
He's to the world of Bestiality what NAMBLA is to Pedophilia.

EDIT: As per the topic, the reason people don't want to call out the zooporn is because they are afraid to pass judgment even though the existence of it here creates a sub-community to harbor sick fucks. 

Lets not delude ourselves here. If something is feral porn it has no human attributes. Feral /=/ Anthropomorphism. Too many furfags can't make that distinction so they don't know how to bite back when the fail accusation that all furry porn is bestiality in training wheels is brought up. So they don't bother it as much.

Either way both of them can be enablers. They can be used a stepping stool to promote the unacceptable. There should be no difference in treatment to either one.


----------



## virus (Jul 27, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> If you are attracted to that kind of genitalia, then you have some issue you need to confront.


 
Holy fucking shit, you just crossed my line. Human curiosity and fascination ring a bell? People that laugh but they can't stop looking? Ever question it? No. If you can't even be slightly open minded about the world around us you mine as well go back into earths oven. The brain is a strange phenomena when its over developed.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 27, 2010)

virus said:


> Holy fucking shit, you just crossed my line. Human curiosity and fascination ring a bell? People that laugh but they can't stop looking? Ever question it? No. If you can't even be slightly open minded about the world around us you mine as well go back into earths oven. The brain is a strange phenomena when its over developed.


 
Point?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 27, 2010)

virus said:


> Holy fucking shit, you just crossed my line. Human curiosity and fascination ring a bell? People that laugh but they can't stop looking? Ever question it? No. If you can't even be slightly open minded about the world around us you mine as well go back into earths oven. The brain is a strange phenomena when its over developed.


 
There's a difference between fascination and jacking off to two lions mating.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Point?



There is no point, only an attempt at justification through stupid means. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 27, 2010)

virus said:


> Holy fucking shit, you just crossed my line. Human curiosity and fascination ring a bell? People that laugh but they can't stop looking? Ever question it? No. If you can't even be slightly open minded about the world around us you mine as well go back into earths oven. The brain is a strange phenomena when its over developed.


 
You do realize that when he said "attraction" he wasn't talking about the kind of fascination you have with something so hideously ugly that you can't turn your eyes away.

No by attraction he's talking about sexual attraction...and in this community of people drawing feral porn there is this awful coincidence that many of them end up being full blown zoofucks.  Which is why when people go rabble rabble, it's kind of stupid to not poke to some degree at the feral porn. Like it or not the themes behind it can be disturbing.

While it may be "harmless"on it's own many of the people making it are not.


----------



## JoeStrike (Jul 27, 2010)

8-bit said:


> I think it was "radda radda".


 
Really? In that case I change my mind, I LOVE "Chowder"!  (Oops, too late, they cancelled it.)

.....

Y'know, this is one strange thread. Personally, I think fapping to pix or nature films of real-life animals screwing is weird, but I can understand where people who dig that are coming from. (And besides, most folks outside the fandom probably think that _every/any _aspect of furry is 'weird,' blatantly sexual or not.) Perhaps they're imagining themselves as one of the animals, or maybe they just enjoy the sight of naked beings uninhibitedly going at it. (It's the same as porn of consenting humans screwing, except it's a different species, that's all.)

But zoophilia - sex with real-world animals, or cub porn? _Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww..._ _Especially _cub porn; even if it's all "imaginary, no one's getting hurt for real," it's still *WRONG* - children are _pre-sexual_ (I suspect that 'innocence' is a turn-on for folks into that stuff) and that should be respected. (I'm a father by the way.) Maybe it's not a 'slippery slope' situation, and that kind of porn is satisfying those urges and keeping those people from acting on them - or not - but if pictures of children (human, anthro, photoshop-manipulated, whatever) in sexual situations is arousing,_ you are sick and need serious help_. 

And stay away from my fandom, if you please.


----------



## Enwon (Jul 27, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> Maybe it's not a 'slippery slope' situation, and that kind of porn is satisfying those urges and keeping those people from acting on them - or not - but if pictures of children (human, anthro, photoshop-manipulated, whatever) in sexual situations is arousing,_ you are sick and need serious help_.
> 
> And stay away from my fandom, if you please.


 
Thank you for saying this.  I wish people would just realize that it is wrong to be sexually attracted to children.  Don't say that it isn't.  It is.  It's pedophilia, and all pedophiles are sick fucks.

Also, here's another important thing I would like to bring up about cub porn.

The "artists" in the cub porn community will likely be encouraging each other, and will make the cub porn enthusiast (pedophile) think that they're perversion of normal sexuality is acceptable.  This acceptance will increase their chances of actually molesting a child.  It is important that pedos always know that their fetish is sick and wrong, and that they need to repress it for the safety and morality of society.

With feral art, it is porn of two animals fucking.  Getting turned on by that is bestiality, and the zoophilia community is similar to the pedofur community in making the sick fucks feel like they're not sick fucks.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 28, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> There is no point, only an attempt at justification through stupid means. :V


 
Oh, I know. I just need him to out right say it.


----------



## Rockerkitsune (Jul 28, 2010)

I know what you mean,just go on E621 and you'll find that awful feral pr0n.


----------



## Sky Striker (Jul 28, 2010)

Rockerwolf said:


> I know what you mean,just go on E621 and you'll find that awful feral pr0n.


 
Oh jeez, I know that for sure. That site's got so much sick shit on it. _Some_ of the stuff on there is actually good but only a _very small percentage_ of it. Interestingly enough, I don't think I've seen very much, if any CP on that site. Odd.


----------



## Willow (Jul 28, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> Really? In that case I change my mind, I LOVE "Chowder"!  (Oops, too late, they cancelled it.)
> 
> .....
> 
> ...


This pretty much sums up everything, though I will say this. 



			
				JoeStrike said:
			
		

> (I suspect that 'innocence' is a turn-on for folks into that stuff)


I wouldn't say it's so much innocence, though that may be a factor, but it's more about having control or power over someone.


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jul 29, 2010)

N106 said:


> Thank you for saying this.  I wish people would just realize that it is wrong to be sexually attracted to children.  Don't say that it isn't.  It is.  It's pedophilia, and all pedophiles are sick fucks.
> 
> Also, here's another important thing I would like to bring up about cub porn.
> 
> ...


I disagree. Actually being a pedophile doesn't make you automatically wrong, but acting on pedophilia urges is; the reason is obvious, children can not consent, it's physically and mentally destructive, etc. etc.
Pedophiles are sick, yes, but because they're sick mentally. The cause of pedophilia is unknown. Treatment of pedophilia has been largely unsuccessful, and no one has reported (that I'm aware of) a "cured" pedophilia patient. Pedophiles have a high rate of recidivism, meaning they're likely to act on their urges multiple times.

In regards to your 3rd paragraph, you're wrong; you couldn't have missed harder.
No pedophile that I've ever communicated has let themselves think that their paraphilia is socially or sexually acceptable.
It is important that pedophiles do not have a high amount of psychosocial stress. Pedophiles are more likely to act out on their paraphilia having a high amount of stress. Keeping pedophiles down, and constantly reminding them that they're a monster, will make anyone act out, pedophile or not: Harming a pedophile socially is harming your children indirectly.
I think the cub community is actually beneficial because of general acceptance.


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> the reason is obvious, children can not consent


Well..yes and no. Children can consent in the sense that they can say yes or no, in some cases, but at the same time. They really don't _know_ what they're consenting to. 
Either that or it's "forced" consent. "If you don't do this/if you tell, then, X will happen" X varies of course, usually something negative. Or the reverse "Do this for me and X will happen" with the variable being positive. A kid's more likely to say okay, power of persuasion. Not to mention, most child molesters are related to the victim in some way. So of course, if they say it's okay to do this, it must be true. That's my take on it. 



Airborne_Piggy said:


> I think the cub community is actually beneficial because of general acceptance.


 "Oh, it's okay if you're turned on by little kids. Just don't act it out IRL"


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> "Oh, it's okay if you're turned on by little kids. Just don't act it out IRL"


Generally my opinion. Applicable to feral porn, rape, gore, and so on...

Although I try to get out that pedophiles can't help but be a pedophile.


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

Airborne_Piggy said:


> Generally my opinion. Applicable to feral porn, rape, gore, and so on...
> 
> Although I try to get out that people can't help be a pedophile.


Real life animals mating, and being turn on by that is one thing. Though feral furry porn, usually the animals are both adult and have some form of consent. If you _really_ wanted to talk about what would count as zoophilic (not even a word) then you would have to look at feralXhuman. (Let's not get into anthroXferal and anthroXhuman, kthxbai)

Rape/gore/vore/guro and so on, some form of sadism. The actual "clean" art of gore at least, some people don't actually get off to. They just like gore. Same goes for vore and guro in some instances. 
When it gets pornographic, the person is probably a sadist depending on what they're preference is I guess. 

 People can't help it no. That doesn't mean though they can use that as an excuse to look at drawn porn of kids though. A child is a child is a child, and will always stay like that drawn or otherwise. I'm not really a fan of shotacon and lolicon though either, the clean art like cub is okay, but the porn, not so much. 

If someone is turned on by _any_ of these things though, they might want to see a therapist though. You don't have to tell anyone else, about it, just a doc.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Jul 29, 2010)

I don't like either. That make sense?


----------



## Airborne_Piggy (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Real life animals mating, and being turn on by that is one thing. Though feral furry porn, usually the animals are both adult and have some form of consent. If you _really_ wanted to talk about what would count as zoophilic (not even a word) then you would have to look at feralXhuman. (Let's not get into anthroXferal and anthroXhuman, kthxbai)
> 
> Rape/gore/vore/guro and so on, some form of sadism. The actual "clean" art of gore at least, some people don't actually get off to. They just like gore. Same goes for vore and guro in some instances.
> When it gets pornographic, the person is probably a sadist depending on what they're preference is I guess.
> ...


An excuse is a justification. You don't need a justification to look at drawn images of anything, no matter how explicit. No one is actually getting hurt, and the absence of drawn porn will not stop a pedophile from fantasizing.

Let's face a reality here, people turned on by prepubescent children (furry/non-furry) probably will not see a psychologist or psychiatrist. I do highly recommend it though.


----------



## FancySkunk (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> (Let's not get into anthroXferal and anthroXhuman, kthxbai)


Why not? It feels like a cut and dry issue to me. If anthros have intelligence at a human level, such that they can provide consent, then anthroXhuman is acceptable. If they have the intelligence of an animal, then it isn't. As for anthroXferal, if the anthro is capable of higher thought, and thus "should know better" than to go around screwing creatures of lower intelligence, it isn't acceptable (unless, of course, there's a capacity for communication between anthros and ferals). Ultimately the rule of "is there a victim" would still apply to both scenarios, wouldn't it?

Though, there's still that nagging thought that it is hugely silly to debate this kind of thing.


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

FancySkunk said:


> Why not? It feels like a cut and dry issue to me.


Eh, because then we'll get into this whole debate about whether or not _that_ counts as zoophilia. It's a hot mess. 



FancySkunk said:


> Though, there's still that nagging thought that it is hugely silly to debate this kind of thing.


 Not only is it silly, but it's not really going to reach consensus either. All this is is a fight to see who can make the stronger case now. 
Saying that you can't ban CP from the site because "think about all those pedophiles" is a pretty big load. Though FA has to comply with certain laws in order to avoid being shut down or at the very least blacklisted. Making cub porn inaccessible is part of it for some. 

Also Airborne, pedophiles, people in general can only get as much help as they want if they just put forth the effort to do so.


----------



## Culebra Kai (Jul 29, 2010)

Because screwing a kid (cub) will get your ass locked up anywhere, but fucking your dog is still legal in some places.


----------



## Slyck (Jul 29, 2010)

Culebra Kai said:


> Because screwing a kid (cub) will get your ass locked up anywhere, but fucking your dog is still legal in some places.


 S O M O L I A


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2010)

Slyck said:


> F L O R I D A


 Fix'd


----------



## Cavy (Jul 29, 2010)

To the OP's question. Now considering that Cubbie Porn can borderline Pedophilia to an outsider, its perfectly under stable of why people would get their undies in a bunch over it.  Feral porn, its just  drawn animals doing it to each other. Animals are NOT the same as kids and they shouldn't be treated like one. And I wonder why pets keeping getting screwed over by people. Okay that's not the topic, but I just saying. Now the reason, I myself an not a fan of cubbie porn is because the idea of two year old's going down on each other, ack!!!!! So its not my cup of tea.  Another thing, do any of your furries know that one of the reasons why outsiders often think were pedophiles because they seem drawings of cubs in sexual situations? Did you think about that?

EDIT: Now Cubbie porn may not be my cup of tea but you don't see me forming a witch hunt going after people that do. (At least I hope not).


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

Cavy said:


> Another thing, do any of your furries know that one of the reasons why outsiders often think were pedophiles because they seem drawings of cubs in sexual situations? Did you think about that?


 People see the regular anthro porn before they see the cub, usually.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we dress up in cartoony animal suits and hang around parks. 
That's my guess though.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2010)

Cavy said:


> Another thing, do any of your furries know that one of the reasons why outsiders often think were pedophiles because they seem drawings of cubs in sexual situations? Did you think about that?


 
no they think we are another branch of Beasties


----------



## Tycho (Jul 29, 2010)

Culebra Kai said:


> Because screwing a kid (cub) will get your ass locked up anywhere



Unfortunately, no, not anywhere.



Culebra Kai said:


> but fucking your dog is still legal in some places.


 
And some is still too many, frankly.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Unfortunately, no, not anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> And some is still too many, frankly.


 dont worry, some of that group that its not illegal will still find a way to get your ass
Like Florida: it may not be illegal but we can still get you by lableing it as "cruelty to animals"


----------



## Ames (Jul 29, 2010)

Because furries are dogfuckers by default. Duh.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 29, 2010)

JamesB said:


> Because furries are dogfuckers by default. Duh.



It was either that or pigs.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 29, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> No by attraction he's talking about sexual attraction...and in this community of people drawing feral porn there is this awful coincidence that many of them end up being full blown zoofucks.  Which is why when people go rabble rabble, it's kind of stupid to not poke to some degree at the feral porn. Like it or not the themes behind it can be disturbing.


 Problem there is, the same argument can be made against people drawing anthro porn, at least as far as outside observers of the fandom are concerned, sadly we come off looking more like hypocrites.

I believe people have a big issue with CP, because the depicted character is seen as a child, and a lot of us find it deeply distasteful to depict a child in a sexual situation of any kind, it's sickening.
Pictures of two feral animals, weither or not the artist imbued them with sapience, are still two feral animals. Most of us have probably seen the Discovery channel, two animals doing what comes naturally isn't wrong or sick by most people's standards.


----------



## Kellie Gator (Jul 29, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Pictures of two feral animals, weither or not the artist imbued them with sapience, are still two feral animals. Most of us have probably seen the Discovery channel, two animals doing what comes naturally isn't wrong or sick by most people's standards.


 I for one find it to be just as disturbing. Not because of what it looks like, but because of the actual idea that someone drew it for masturbatory purposes and that people get off to it.  Makes me feel very uncomfortable.


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I believe people have a big issue with CP, because the depicted character is seen as a child, and a lot of us find it deeply distasteful to depict a child in a sexual situation of any kind, it's sickening.
> Pictures of two feral animals, weither or not the artist imbued them with sapience, are still two feral animals. Most of us have probably seen the Discovery channel, two animals doing what comes naturally isn't wrong or sick by most people's standards.


 Yea but then people will be like "Oh so you're fine with two feral animals having sex? You must support zoophilia"
Furries are still people believe it or not. Just because you stuck some ears and a tail on it and gave it fur doesn't mean it's not a child and should be treated as all the other porn.


----------



## The DK (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Yea but then people will be like "Oh so you're fine with two feral animals having sex? You must support zoophilia"
> Furries are still people believe it or not. Just because you stuck some ears and a tail on it and gave it fur doesn't mean it's not a child and should be treated as all the other porn.



that was i was gonna say and more. ive got nothing to add. A+ willow


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Yea but then people will be like "Oh so you're fine with two feral animals having sex? You must support zoophilia"
> Furries are still people believe it or not. Just because you stuck some ears and a tail on it and gave it fur doesn't mean it's not a child and should be treated as all the other porn.


 Then be Sad that somehow we started out as a "accepting of everyone" but sadly didnt get the new memo of us being "we arent really accepting of everyone"


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Then be Sad that somehow we started out as a "accepting of everyone" but sadly didnt get the new memo of us being "we arent really accepting of everyone"


 Maybe it's because people think they shouldn't bar people from enjoying a hobby just because of something like that. Probably happens more in these online communities though seeing as how most of the participants are between the ages of 14 and 20. That could be wrong though.


----------



## The DK (Jul 29, 2010)

i guess then it is all left to what your morals and standards are


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> Maybe it's because people think they shouldn't bar people from enjoying a hobby just because of something like that. Probably happens more in these online communities though seeing as how most of the participants are between the ages of 14 and 20. That could be wrong though.


 eh like our best example is "on another furry site, if someone admit to liking to screw fido they would get butt pats, come to FA/FAF and to the same thing gets ya ripped on then to an eventual ban"


----------



## Willow (Jul 29, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> eh like our best example is "on another furry site, if someone admit to liking to screw fido they would get butt pats, come to FA/FAF and to the same thing gets ya ripped on then to an eventual ban"


 This is true. Even admitting that you're a zoophile or that you support bestiality is enough to put you on a black list here. 
Everywhere else you're a "brave person" because you shared this to an online community.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2010)

Willow said:


> This is true. Even admitting that you're a zoophile or that you support bestiality is enough to put you on a black list here.
> Everywhere else you're a "brave person" because you shared this to an online community.


 its probably say that fa/Faf sorta woke up, we notice "hey...maybe being associated with Beastiality and semi pedophila isnt that good of a thing"
but we went about it another way we are going "Dont talk about what you are into, and thus you get no problems from us" to which most folks are going "well thats not being accepting like furs should be to each other"


----------



## Cavy (Jul 30, 2010)

Willow said:


> People see the regular anthro porn before they see the cub, usually.
> 
> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we dress up in cartoony animal suits and hang around parks.
> That's my guess though.


 
Actually, Willow I was talking about if they stumble on cubbie porn or a furry who was stupid enough to show him or her cubbie porn. That's where I was getting at. 

And @ Cysix Fousen, they think about alot of things, not just Beasties.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 30, 2010)

Cavy said:


> Actually, Willow I was talking about if they stumble on cubbie porn or a furry who was stupid enough to show him or her cubbie porn. That's where I was getting at.
> 
> And @ Cysix Fousen, they think about alot of things, not just Beasties.


 and remember, our first tag was thinking we were related to beastiality/zoophilia remember :V


----------



## Cavy (Jul 30, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> and remember, our first tag was thinking we were related to beastiality/zoophilia remember :V


 
But zoo/beast has nothing do with the topic, it was only about CP and Feral porn unlit we crossed it over, with zoo/beast. (Feral).


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 30, 2010)

Cavy said:


> But zoo/beast has nothing do with the topic, it was only about CP and Feral porn unlit we crossed it over, with zoo/beast. (Feral).


 oh I know, but they will still think Beastiality/Zoophile first


----------



## Cavy (Jul 30, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> oh I know, but they will still think Beastiality/Zoophile first


 
I quite surprised we don't think every freaken thing as Beast/zoo.


----------



## Machine (Jul 30, 2010)

Cavy said:


> I quite surprised we don't think every freaken thing as Beast/zoo.


What, because furries draw animal people having sex?


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 30, 2010)

Ugh, why is this thread still here? I mean, what is the reason for its existance?


----------



## Machine (Jul 30, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Ugh, why is this thread still here? I mean, what is the reason for its existance?


OP wants to know why furries don't freak out so much about bestiality as they do about pedophilia.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 30, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Ugh, why is this thread still here? I mean, what is the reason for its existance?


 
It's here for discourse and debate trollin' furries lulz fuck I don't know.


----------



## coward67 (Jul 31, 2010)

Tao said:


> All furries are into bestiality duh


 
Oooooh... I have been in FAF less than you have but even I can see some people REALLY hate bestiality, even zoophilia here.
My opinion? If a dog humps you... Give it what it wants!


----------



## Smelge (Jul 31, 2010)

coward67 said:


> My opinion? If a dog humps you... Give it what  it wants!


What the fuck?


----------



## Tally (Jul 31, 2010)

coward67 said:


> Oooooh... I have been in FAF less than you have but even I can see some people REALLY hate bestiality, even zoophilia here.
> My opinion? If a dog humps you... Give it what it wants!


 
You don't understand sarcasm, do you?

And what the fuck? Have fun being raped by dogs.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

coward67 said:


> Oooooh... I have been in FAF less than you have but even I can see some people REALLY hate bestiality, even zoophilia here.
> My opinion? If a dog humps you... Give it what it wants!


 






GET.

OUT.

NOW.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2010)

OH GOD SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DISAGREES WITH BESTIALITY BEING WITCHHUNTED. SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD, BURN HIM WITH FIRE, ET CETERA!

point made a thousand pages ago. you don't like it. oh my god. how fucking irritating is it to see the word "bestiality" and 9/10 of the next two pages are "GET OUT NOW" and OH GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> OH GOD SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DISAGREES WITH BESTIALITY BEING WITCHHUNTED. SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD, BURN HIM WITH FIRE, ET CETERA!
> 
> point made a thousand pages ago. you don't like it. oh my god. how fucking irritating is it to see the word "bestiality" and 9/10 of the next two pages are "GET OUT NOW" and OH GOD WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU.


 
Harley, shut up.  Just shut up.  You're playing devil's advocate for the sole sake of "sticking up for the unpopular kid".  It's fucking PATHOLOGICAL.  You seem to get off on trying to defend the indefensible.  You are INCREDIBLY BROKEN, even by FURRY standards.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Harley, shut up.  Just shut up.  You're playing devil's advocate for the sole sake of "sticking up for the unpopular kid".  It's fucking PATHOLOGICAL.  You seem to get off on trying to defend the indefensible.  You are INCREDIBLY BROKEN, even by FURRY standards.


 
gee, sorry you're mad. i just don't feel like being a prick to EVERYONE like you, and others, do. i don't get my jollies out of making everyone who isn't just like me feel like shit.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> eh like our best example is "on another furry site, if someone admit to liking to screw fido they would get butt pats, come to FA/FAF and to the same thing gets ya ripped on then to an eventual ban"


 Well if they admit it, they just signed their death sentence. If they're accused... they just end up like a certain pokefur.



Crysix Fousen said:


> its probably say that fa/Faf sorta woke up, we notice "hey...maybe being associated with Beastiality and semi pedophila isnt that good of a thing"
> but we went about it another way we are going "Dont talk about what you are into, and thus you get no problems from us" to which most folks are going "well thats not being accepting like furs should be to each other"





Crysix Fousen said:


> oh I know, but they will still think Beastiality/Zoophile first


 Furry will *always* be associated with bestiality, the only way to remove that association would be to remove *all* non-human aspects from the fandom.



Willow said:


> Yea but then people will be like "Oh so you're fine with two feral animals having sex? You must support zoophilia"
> Furries are still people believe it or not. Just because you stuck some ears and a tail on it and gave it fur doesn't mean it's not a child and should be treated as all the other porn.


 Prettymuch.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> gee, sorry you're mad. i just don't feel like being a prick to EVERYONE like you, and others, do. i don't get my jollies out of making everyone who isn't just like me feel like shit.


 
You're an apologist.  You were HORRIBLY PERSECUTED at some point in your life and now you feel the need to stick up for every bad apple out there because you feel some kind of warped kinship with them.  "Us freaks got to stick together" and shit like that, right? "They don't understand us", "They're afraid of us", "They've been brainwashed against us", "We're doing nothing wrong", "We're not hurting anyone", "We're unfairly persecuted by a hypocritical society", etc.  You're an ace short of a full deck.


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You're an apologist.  You were HORRIBLY PERSECUTED at some point in your life and now you feel the need to stick up for every bad apple out there because you feel some kind of warped kinship with them.  "Us freaks got to stick together" and shit like that, right? "They don't understand us", "They're afraid of us", "They've been brainwashed against us", "We're doing nothing wrong", "We're not hurting anyone", "We're unfairly persecuted by a hypocritical society", etc.  You're an ace short of a full deck.


 
haha. well, seeing as that never happened nor is that my attitude, i gotta say i'm sorry you don't know me as well as you thought you did :C
i just don't get some sort of sick pleasure out of making people feel like shit. i don't believe everything is okay to do, but it's not my place as someone who is not a part of their life to tell them how to live it. for the most part, i am pretty lax about everything. i think life should be. except when it comes to hurting others. if it involves someone in relation to me, i do get upset. but, someone who lives across the country that has sex with his pets? not my place to tell him how i feel, or even if i think it's wrong or not.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> haha. well, seeing as that never happened nor is that my attitude, i gotta say i'm sorry you don't know me as well as you thought you did :C
> i just don't get some sort of sick pleasure out of making people feel like shit. i don't believe everything is okay to do, but it's not my place as someone who is not a part of their life to tell them how to live it. for the most part, i am pretty lax about everything. i think life should be. except when it comes to hurting others. if it involves someone in relation to me, i do get upset. but, someone who lives across the country that has sex with his pets? not my place to tell him how i feel, or even if i think it's wrong or not.


 
We're not talking about "lifestyle choices" here, Harley.  We're talking about sexual abuse.  This isn't "telling someone how to live their life", this is "telling someone to stop abusing that animal".  Exploiting an animal for the sake of your own sexual and psychological gratification is reprehensible, I don't care who you are or where you live.

And your pattern of behavior around here in the past has ALWAYS screamed "apologist".


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Well if they admit it, they just signed their death sentence. If they're accused... they just end up like a certain pokefur.
> 
> 
> 
> Furry will *always* be associated with bestiality, the only way to remove that association would be to remove *all* non-human aspects from the fandom.


 yea but its very annoying when furs are going "You should be accepting of me when I tell you what I'm into cause both of us are furries" Tis why those who admit they are zoophiles are then ripped on and/or ousted, but those who are but keep their mouths shut arent bothered at all



HarleyRoadkill said:


> haha. well, seeing as that never happened nor is that my attitude, i gotta say i'm sorry you don't know me as well as you thought you did :C
> i just don't get some sort of sick pleasure out of making people feel like shit. i don't believe everything is okay to do, but it's not my place as someone who is not a part of their life to tell them how to live it. for the most part, i am pretty lax about everything. i think life should be. except when it comes to hurting others. if it involves someone in relation to me, i do get upset. but, someone who lives across the country that has sex with his pets? not my place to tell him how i feel, or even if i think it's wrong or not.


but when it against the law in their general area




maybe you should tell them "is screwing fido really worth it, I mean fucking up a animal's mentality and health to get sexual gratification for heavy fines and/or jail time and pretty much eventually getting all pet shops to get a memo saying "this person screws dogs, DO NOT SELL THEM ONE"


----------



## foxmusk (Jul 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> We're not talking about "lifestyle choices" here, Harley.  We're talking about sexual abuse.  This isn't "telling someone how to live their life", this is "telling someone to stop abusing that animal".  Exploiting an animal for the sake of your own sexual and psychological gratification is reprehensible, I don't care who you are or where you live.
> 
> And your pattern of behavior around here in the past has ALWAYS screamed "apologist".



it's not my place to tell them. you wanna scream at them over the internet? be my guest. see how far it gets you. if you HONESTLY get someone to stop having sex with animals because you told them they were shit because of it, PLEASE TELL ME. i would love to see ONE CASE where that actually works. it does nothing. DEGRADING PEOPLE FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE DOES NOTHING TO HELP THEM OR STOP THEIR PROBLEMS. it will only cause them to recluse farther away from other people, and that's where obsession sets in.

if you HONESTLY are trying to change people for the better, macros and "GET OUT NOW" isn't going to fix it. if you're just being a prick, A+ on that job. but if you are sincerely trying to change someone, you get to know them. talk to them like they aren't scum. give them a sense that someone sincerely cares about their life and their welfare and the welfare of those they are "hurting", and you're more likely to help.

if you don't want to actually put the effort into that, then you are no world changer. you are no life saver. you are just sitting at a computer telling people that they are shit. it's not for the well-being of anything, it's so you can be an ass to who you want. i think you mean well, honestly. but you are going about it in all the wrong ways.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2010)

Actually, macros and get out now, if they're successful, do benefit people-us. They're the reason why these forums are seen as a hateful place that doesn't support sickfuckery and different than any other furry forum. We don't want to be associated with that shit because it's messed up, so by eliminating the dogfuckers, we eliminate our connection to them.

Plus, harassing people for their sick destructive fetishes lets them know that they aren't ok and they shouldn't be embracing them. If you go around and support people, then they might not realize how messed up it is.


----------



## Willow (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Actually, macros and get out now, if they're successful, do benefit people-us. They're the reason why these forums are seen as a hateful place that doesn't support sickfuckery and different than any other furry forum. We don't want to be associated with that shit because it's messed up, so by eliminating the dogfuckers, we eliminate our connection to them.
> 
> Plus, harassing people for their sick destructive fetishes lets them know that they aren't ok and they shouldn't be embracing them. If you go around and support people, then they might not realize how messed up it is.


A person who can share a common ground with someone might not see it as much of a problem in some cases. 
I think in this case Harley's defending this because his fetishes are grounds for people to hate him or something like that. 
That's what I'm getting at least. 

Though I guess he really doesn't know that coward has a tendency to make really stupid posts like that.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

HarleyRoadkill said:


> <snip> i think you mean well, honestly. but you are going about it in all the wrong ways.


 Agreed here, on this much at least, they are going about it the wrong way, if, their goal is to help the person/get them to stop abusing animals. But Harley, for the most part, they're not trying to do that at all. They fall into one of three groups of people:
1. The scapegoaters/hypocrites - They have skeletons in their closet and want to draw attention away from themselves, so, they latch onto an incendiary topic and align with the popular opinion in a bid to draw as much attention to that as possible.
2. The genuine animal lovers (no pun intended) - They have a genuine feeling of concern for the animals without a voice who are being abused, and, they want to do something about it. They generally tend to be less vocal and will in a debate provide evidence to support their view.
3. The me-too's - They may be a lesser extent of #1, but, they align themselves with the popular responses, probably to raise their own sense of inclusion in the group.

They want to get those people off "their" forums, and get them off here because this is a community, and, if your community at home, found someone into this sick shit, they probably wouldn't be so subtle in telling that person to leave.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Actually, macros and get out now, if they're successful, do benefit people-us. They're the reason why these forums are seen as a hateful place that doesn't support sickfuckery and different than any other furry forum. We don't want to be associated with that shit because it's messed up, so by eliminating the dogfuckers, we eliminate our connection to them.
> 
> Plus, harassing people for their sick destructive fetishes lets them know that they aren't ok and they shouldn't be embracing them. If you go around and support people, then they might not realize how messed up it is.


 
We honestly might never weed out the dogfuckers completely, but at least we can say it's not for want of effort on our part to establish an atmosphere of strong antipathy towards them around here.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2010)

Willow said:


> A person who can share a common ground with someone might not see it as much of a problem in some cases.
> I think in this case Harley's defending this because his fetishes are grounds for people to hate him or something like that.
> That's what I'm getting at least.


 This is definitely right. Harley has some fucked up fetishes and sticks up for these people because he falls into many of the same categories and doesn't like being hated on for his fetishes, so he pretty much has to stick up for everyone's sickfuckery. 


Carenath said:


> Agreed here, on this much at least, they are going about it the wrong way, if, their goal is to help the person/get them to stop abusing animals. But Harley, for the most part, they're not trying to do that at all. They fall into one of three groups of people:
> 1. The scapegoaters/hypocrites - They have skeletons in their closet and want to draw attention away from themselves, so, they latch onto an incendiary topic and align with the popular opinion in a bid to draw as much attention to that as possible.
> 2. The genuine animal lovers (no pun intended) - They have a genuine feeling of concern for the animals without a voice who are being abused, and, they want to do something about it. They generally tend to be less vocal and will in a debate provide evidence to support their view.
> 3. The me-too's - They may be a lesser extent of #1, but, they align themselves with the popular responses, probably to raise their own sense of inclusion in the group.


 I'd put another group of 4.-Pessimists-Realize they can't get the person to get rid of their fetishes and decide to just try to distance themselves from the people as the next best thing.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> 2. The genuine animal lovers (no pun intended) - They have a genuine feeling of concern for the animals without a voice who are being abused, and, they want to do something about it. They generally tend to be less vocal and will in a debate provide evidence to support their view.


 
I can provide plenty of fucking evidence if it pleases you, o cynical dragon.  I am as vocal as I am because I am ANGRY.



Jashwa said:


> This is definitely right. Harley has some fucked up fetishes and sticks up for these people because he falls into many of the same categories and doesn't like being hated on for his fetishes, so he pretty much has to stick up for everyone's sickfuckery.


 


Tycho said:


> You're an apologist.  You were HORRIBLY PERSECUTED at some point in your life and now you feel the need to stick up for every bad apple out there because you feel some kind of warped kinship with them.  "Us freaks got to stick together" and shit like that, right? "They don't understand us", "They're afraid of us", "They've been brainwashed against us", "We're doing nothing wrong", "We're not hurting anyone", "We're unfairly persecuted by a hypocritical society", etc.  You're an ace short of a full deck.


 
Like I said.


----------



## Willow (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> This is definitely right. Harley has some fucked up fetishes and sticks up for these people because he falls into many of the same categories and doesn't like being hated on for his fetishes, so he pretty much has to stick up for everyone's sickfuckery.


 It's easier to relate when you've experienced it yourself.


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 31, 2010)

They're both different ways weird, but both are just downright filth to me. Sorry if I don't like your fetishes Harley, I just prefer clean pictures over the above.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Actually, macros and get out now, if they're successful, do benefit people-us. They're the reason why these forums are seen as a hateful place that doesn't support sickfuckery and different than any other furry forum. We don't want to be associated with that shit because it's messed up, so by eliminating the dogfuckers, we eliminate our connection to them.
> 
> Plus, harassing people for their sick destructive fetishes lets them know that they aren't ok and they shouldn't be embracing them. If you go around and support people, then they might not realize how messed up it is.


 Actually, people like you, are why these forums are seen as a hateful place, regardless of antipathy towards 'sickfuckery'. It's not because we don't support sickos among the ranks, it's because we're not a hugbox that openly accepts everyone for whatever shit they like beating the $5 footlong to.

Sadly, this isn't true, it's like telling smokers they're endangering their health and the health of others around them, they'll ignore you and go someplace more supportive.


----------



## Willow (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Actually, people like you, are why these forums are seen as a hateful place, regardless of antipathy towards 'sickfuckery'. It's not because we don't support sickos among the ranks, it's because we're not a hugbox that openly accepts everyone for whatever shit they like beating the $5 footlong to.
> 
> Sadly, this isn't true, it's like telling smokers they're endangering their health and the health of others around them, they'll ignore you and go someplace more supportive.


 ^This

Though lying and making it seem like their fetish is just fine isn't right either. 

You can always intervene though before things get serious I guess.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Sadly, this isn't true, it's like telling smokers they're endangering their health and the health of others around them, they'll ignore you and go someplace more supportive.


 
AT LEAST THEY AREN'T HERE TAKING SHELTER WITHIN OUR RANKS AS THEY PERPETUATE THEIR BRAND OF DEPRAVITY.

If I can't get rid of them altogether at least I can refuse to share a forum with them and choose to NOT cede the field to them.


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Actually, people like you, are why these forums are seen as a hateful place, regardless of antipathy towards 'sickfuckery'. It's not because we don't support sickos among the ranks, it's because we're not a hugbox that openly accepts everyone for whatever shit they like beating the $5 footlong to.


So essentially it's not because we're mean to them, but rather because we're just not nice to them? Those are pretty much the same thing, dude. 



			
				Carenath said:
			
		

> Sadly, this isn't true, it's like telling smokers they're endangering their health and the health of others around them, they'll ignore you and go someplace more supportive.


Which is still a better option than just ignoring the smoking and letting them smoke around everyone else that can't stand it. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to show them why it's wrong and bad.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> This is definitely right. Harley has some fucked up fetishes and sticks up for these people because he falls into many of the same categories and doesn't like being hated on for his fetishes, so he pretty much has to stick up for everyone's sickfuckery.


 Funny that, because I can think of at least two other members that have some fucked up fetishes, but they fall into category #1.



Tycho said:


> I can provide plenty of fucking evidence if it pleases you, o cynical dragon.  I am as vocal as I am because I am ANGRY.


That wasn't even necessary, I wasn't disagreeing with you.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Funny that, because I can think of at least two other members that have some fucked up fetishes, but they fall into category #1.
> 
> 
> That wasn't even necessary, I wasn't disagreeing with you.


 
You were trying to pigeonhole me and others with anti-bestiality sentiment into 3 categories.  Were everything so simple, we would have resolved a great many social issues a long time ago.  I resent it.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> So essentially it's not because we're mean to them, but rather because we're just not nice to them? Those are pretty much the same thing, dude.
> 
> Which is still a better option than just ignoring the smoking and letting them smoke around everyone else that can't stand it. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to show them why it's wrong and bad.


 Maybe.. but what I meant to say was, the forums have *always* been seen as a hateful place first and foremost, because we were never a hugbox. The fact that most of us show vitrious antipathy towards animal abusers, is just a double-dose of "get out".

True.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Sadly, this isn't true, it's like telling smokers they're endangering their health and the health of others around them, they'll ignore you and go someplace more supportive.


 ...which is sadly....the whole point?
Not doing anything can also be bad, it may start off with one smoker, give it time and suddenly due to no one going "dont do that here" we got 10 smokers affecting the area with their cigarette butts all over the place and a localize bad air area. 
Thats what we been doing simply going "Go elsewhere for that, we dont like that here" even if most of the time its in a harsh manner


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Funny that, because I can think of at least two other members that have some fucked up fetishes, but they fall into category #1.


Oh wow, people have different ways of dealing with their problems? Thanks for telling me that! I never would've figured it out. I wasn't talking at all about them, but rather about why Harley supports the destructive fetishes. The difference between him and the other people are that the others, usually, know that the fetish is bad but realize they can't change their attraction to certain things. Meanwhile, Harley tries to say that there's nothing wrong with and we shouldn't be insulting people that say if a dog humps you then you should just fuck it.



Carenath said:


> Maybe.. but what I meant to say was, the forums  have *always* been seen as a hateful place first and foremost,  because we were never a hugbox. The fact that most of us show vitrious  antipathy towards animal abusers, is just a double-dose of "get out".
> 
> True.


Ok, then we have pretty much the same opinion on the matter, then. The antipathy just further helps our cause of keeping away the kinds of people that we don't want.


----------



## Willow (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Maybe.. but what I meant to say was, the forums have *always* been seen as a hateful place first and foremost, because we were never a hugbox. The fact that most of us show vitrious antipathy towards animal abusers, is just a double-dose of "get out".


 ...animal abuse isn't okay, in any form though :|


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 31, 2010)

Willow said:


> ...animal abuse isn't okay, in any form though :|


 
Unless the animal deserves it, in which case it's animal vengeance :V


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Unless the animal deserves it, in which case it's animal vengeance.


 
Is this a joke? I hope this is an awkward attempt to inject levity into a heated discussion.


----------



## Willow (Jul 31, 2010)

Nyloc said:


> Unless the animal deserves it, in which case it's animal vengeance.


 So basically what you're saying is that it's okay for me to beat my cats because they pissed on my carpet? Or because they destroyed something of mine?


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Is this a joke? I hope this is an awkward attempt to inject levity into a heated discussion.


 
Yes it is, I just forget to add the :V to the end of my posts sometimes


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2010)

Willow said:


> So basically what you're saying is that it's okay for me to beat my cats because they pissed on my carpet? Or because they destroyed something of mine?


 He wasn't being serious, Willow.


----------



## Willow (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> He wasn't being serious, Willow.


 I noticed that, now.


----------



## Nyloc (Jul 31, 2010)

Sorry, I thought the ridiculous concept of "animal vengeance" would be enough to show sarcasm - however I forget the ridiculousness of some of the topics around here sometimes.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> You were trying to pigeonhole me and others with anti-bestiality sentiment into 3 categories.  Were everything so simple, we would have resolved a great many social issues a long time ago.  I resent it.


So I agree with you, and, you resent it, because I tried to categories you and others based solely on my observations of the fandom and the vested interest furries have to defend themselves and their sexual interests?


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> So I agree with you, and, you resent it, because I tried to categories you and others based solely on my observations of the fandom and the vested interest furries have to defend themselves and their sexual interests?


 you forgot to add "and attacking each other over our sexual interests/orientation"

Like that one gay group on FA who made a journal all about bashing females and vaginas


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Oh wow, people have different ways of dealing with their problems? Thanks for telling me that! I never would've figured it out. I wasn't talking at all about them, but rather about why Harley supports the destructive fetishes. The difference between him and the other people are that the others, usually, know that the fetish is bad but realize they can't change their attraction to certain things. Meanwhile, Harley tries to say that there's nothing wrong with and we shouldn't be insulting people that say if a dog humps you then you should just fuck it.
> 
> Ok, then we have pretty much the same opinion on the matter, then. The antipathy just further helps our cause of keeping away the kinds of people that we don't want.


 It was coward67 that said if a dog humps you, you should give it what it wants.
I believe Harley was only trying to point out, that harassing and confrontational behaviour won't get those people to stop abusing animals, and doing so is therefore a waste of time. That instead people should befriend them and then convince them to stop what they're doing. I believe they need to seek help, but they won't get that help here.



Willow said:


> ...animal abuse isn't okay, in any form though :|


 No, it is not.



Crysix Fousen said:


> you forgot to add "and attacking each other over our sexual interests/orientation"
> 
> Like that one gay group on FA who made a journal all about bashing females and vaginas


 That was utterly retarded.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> So I agree with you, and, you resent it, because I tried to categories you and others based solely on my observations of the fandom and the vested interest furries have to defend themselves and their sexual interests?


 
I feel your categorization was oversimplifying the matter and was invalidating my stance.  I have no skeletons in my closet (at least none that would be relevant to the subject at hand, I am not a "me-too", I am not a soft-spoken type and I tend to go in feelings-first logic-second.  I personally believe that while hard evidence can benefit our side of the argument it's usually pointless as the zoos/beasties will opt to IGNORE most of what is thrown at them, using the usual "I'm being persecuted by society, they'll say anything and come up with anything to hurt me" defense.  Logic and evidence are more for OUR benefit and validation than their potential elucidation upon the wrongness of bestiality.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> That was utterly retarded.


I think cause of that journal the group was banned


----------



## Jashwa (Jul 31, 2010)

Carenath said:


> It was coward67 that said if a dog humps you, you should give it what it wants.
> I believe Harley was only trying to point out, that harassing and confrontational behaviour won't get those people to stop abusing animals, and doing so is therefore a waste of time. That instead people should befriend them and then convince them to stop what they're doing. I believe they need to seek help, but they won't get that help here.


 You're missing the point where we don't want them as part of our community almost as much as we don't want them to fuck dogs. Befriending them makes them feel more into the community, which is the opposite of what we want. I know this isn't your point, but since you summarized Harley's, I figured I'd respond to it anyways.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I feel your categorization was oversimplifying the matter and was invalidating my stance.  I have no skeletons in my closet (at least none that would be relevant to the subject at hand, I am not a "me-too", I am not a soft-spoken type and I tend to go in feelings-first logic-second.
> 
> I personally believe that while hard evidence can benefit our side of the argument it's usually pointless as the zoos/beasties will opt to IGNORE most of what is thrown at them, using the usual "I'm being persecuted by society, they'll say anything and come up with anything to hurt me" defense.  Logic and evidence are more for OUR benefit and validation than their potential elucidation upon the wrongness of bestiality.


But that's just the thing, because furries are *already* seen as closet animal fuckers in denial.. consider how an outsider to the fandom would regard your arguments. They'll see you as having a vested interest in acting like this, because naturally you don't agree with the auto-association membership in the fandom bestows upon you. Hence my 3 categories, which I admit, were largely generalist, I could have added others, but I was trying to make a simple point that caught most people here in response to Harley.

And while I share your personal belief to an extent, I agree that evidence falls on deaf ears with respect to that group of people, I also recognise the pure futility of trying to convince them in any respect because they already feel alienated from human society and are too stubborn to listen to what they don't wish to hear. Unfortunately they cannot readily change their sexual attraction, and need to seek professional help.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 31, 2010)

now to add some comedy about dog fucking
[video=youtube;i1k7ATQoqyI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1k7ATQoqyI[/video]


----------



## Van Ishikawa (Jul 31, 2010)

Ferals are (usually) sentient, unlike real animals.  They can be given an intelligence to rationalize and decide on sexual situations much like humans/anthros could.  Children do not have the maturity to make such a decision.

I don't like feral porn but to compare it to cub is pretty dumb.  Anthro already sexualizes animals by giving them human traits, but the physical anatomy remains more animal-like.  

Is it better to have porn featuring a humanoid creature of sub-human intelligence or an animal with intelligence greater or equal to that of man?


----------

