# Attraction to Anthros - Is this Unusual?



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

It's actually kind of embarrassing to say (I don't really know why), but for some reason, I can find myself as attracted to both human and anthro characters in any fiction. In the real world, I favor human beings of course. :3 
But it just feels weird to me. I even find myself attracted to the characters I create when writing. It's nothing fetishy, but I can look at an anthro character and think, "Wow, she is beautiful!"
I gotta know... is this a common thing in the fandom, or am I right to feel weird about it? If you're the same, do you have any favorites? For me, Krystal, Blaze, and Tekal round out the top 3 outside of my own work.


----------



## Percy (Nov 3, 2012)

You don't have to feel weird about it, especially if it's nothing fetishy. People can be attracted to various things that'd be considered weirder.
As for it being a common thing in the fandom... I'm sure the fandom wouldn't exist if it weren't.


----------



## TreacleFox (Nov 3, 2012)

Attraction to anthros = every furry ever


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 3, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> It's actually kind of embarrassing to say (I don't really know why), but for some reason, I can find myself as attracted to both human and anthro characters in any fiction. In the real world, I favor human beings of course. :3
> But it just feels weird to me. I even find myself attracted to the characters I create when writing. It's nothing fetishy, but I can look at an anthro character and think, "Wow, she is beautiful!"
> I* gotta know... is this a common thing in the fandom, or am I right to feel weird about it?* If you're the same, do you have any favorites? For me, Krystal, Blaze, and Tekal round out the top 3 outside of my own work.



This is normally the part where I get really sarcastic, but I'm feeling unusually peaceful right now.

Suffice to say, that is nothing out of the ordinary for furries; it's probably more common than not.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

TreacleFox said:


> Attraction to anthros = every furry ever



Not unexpected.
My interest tend to snowball though. 



> Suffice to say, that is nothing out of the ordinary for furries; it's probably more common than not.



That's comforting. I'm rather new to the fandom, as you can tell, and I don't know any local furs, so I just felt the need to ask. And feel free to let loose with any sarcasm in the future. I'll just fire back. XD


----------



## Zenia (Nov 3, 2012)

TreacleFox said:


> Attraction to anthros = every furry ever


No... I am not attracted to anthros.


----------



## Dreaming (Nov 3, 2012)

Aesthetic attraction, dude


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

I think I'd call it a bit more than aesthetic, actually. I have found myself attracted to their personalities too, and catch myself daydreaming a little.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 3, 2012)

Story of My Life.

You are on a furry forum; this is expected, come on =P


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

@Ricky, good point. I guess the embarrassment comes from discussions and regular ball-busting from my AP, and the fear of history repeating itself and my (mostly) tame attraction spiraling into an obsession.

Ah, screw it! Anthros need lovin' too! haha XD


----------



## Batty Krueger (Nov 3, 2012)

The only way I can get off is when my mate puts on his fursuit : V
So for me, no.


----------



## Joey (Nov 3, 2012)

Honestly, it would only be unusual if you associated with the fandom and didn't have _some_ sort of attraction to them.

It's okay for it to even be an obsession. Just don't let it get to a point where it brings you down in life.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Nov 3, 2012)

Hey Sylvester, I'm in Anaheim right now,  Imma stalkin you.


----------



## Lyxen (Nov 3, 2012)

Yea dont be concered, for whatever reason most people are into the art for some reason, i mean anthro-art has been around since ancient times and Im sure our ancestors even masturbated to animal-human drawings or costumry as well. JUST LIKE YOU HAHAHAHA, so dont bring yourself down bro


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 3, 2012)

It's both common within and outside of the fandom. 

It wouldn't matter if it was uncommon in a hypothetical scenario anyway.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 3, 2012)

It's only really weird once you start making pony tulpas and shit

Crazy people


----------



## Lyxen (Nov 3, 2012)

what is a tulpa i dont feel like googling


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 3, 2012)

Lyxen said:


> what is a tulpa i dont feel like googling



Kind of like an invisible friend, with its own independent thoughts and desires, and able to fully interact with you. And that has a chance to go completely wrong and utterly insane.

That's assuming it's not all a bunch of rubbish people just like to pretend works to feel special, something they can post about on tumblr, but the essential idea has been around for a long long time. But if you're actively trying to do that, then yes, it's safe to say you're going a bit far.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 3, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Kind of like an invisible friend, with its own independent thoughts and desires, and able to fully interact with you. And that has a chance to go completely wrong and utterly insane.
> 
> That's assuming it's not all a bunch of rubbish people just like to pretend works to feel special, something they can post about on tumblr, but the essential idea has been around for a long long time. But if you're actively trying to do that, then yes, it's safe to say you're going a bit far.



So kind of like an imaginary friend or a deity. 

Suppose it suggests people doing that are literally trying to make their interest the centre of their devotion.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

Personally I just adore the female figure and making that figure a bit anthro still keeps the base attractions there due to the innate programming.


----------



## Lyxen (Nov 3, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Kind of like an invisible friend, with its own independent thoughts and desires, and able to fully interact with you. And that has a chance to go completely wrong and utterly insane.
> 
> That's assuming it's not all a bunch of rubbish people just like to pretend works to feel special, something they can post about on tumblr, but the essential idea has been around for a long long time. But if you're actively trying to do that, then yes, it's safe to say you're going a bit far.



that actually sounds kind of fun.. not gunna lie


----------



## Lyxen (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> Personally I just adore the female figure and  making that figure a bit anthro still keeps the base attractions there  due to the innate programming.


its like slapping a hot vixen face and tail on a butter face haaha


----------



## Kixu (Nov 3, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Kind of like an invisible friend, with its own independent thoughts and desires, and able to fully interact with you. And that has a chance to go completely wrong and utterly insane.
> 
> That's assuming it's not all a bunch of rubbish people just like to pretend works to feel special, something they can post about on tumblr, but the essential idea has been around for a long long time. But if you're actively trying to do that, then yes, it's safe to say you're going a bit far.



I actually kinda have one of those.  Sorta.  It's not a pony, though, and I only ever conjure her when I feel like I need guidance on a subject I'm not willing to discuss with an actual person.

To date, I've only invoked her three or four times.  The rest of the time she doesn't exist.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> Personally I just adore the female figure and making that figure a bit anthro still keeps the base attractions there due to the innate programming.



That's pretty much how it is for me.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

Lyxen said:


> its like slapping a hot vixen face and tail on a butter face haaha


Like? No man thats exactly what it is haha!


NightWolf20 said:


> That's pretty much how it is for me.


Yeah its really not that complex or a that big of a deal lol.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 3, 2012)

I think society's rules and regulations regarding sexual attraction is yet another example of taking an insanely complex thing and trying to mash it down into a box that's much, much too small for it.  In a perfectly designed world, sex would be for reproduction only, and hence all people would only be attracted to actual, living other people of the opposite sex that they can physically touch.  So things like porn wouldn't exist, because after all, that's a bunch of pixels on your screen, not a naked lady doing things to herself in front of you.  But clearly that isn't the case.  Homosexuals exist, gender confusion exists, you can buy inflatable sheep at Dr. John's, and there exists furry porn.  So don't worry about it unless it's making trouble for your social life, or whatever.  No one understands sex anyway.
I heard a story about some research somebody did with fish and other animals, regarding what they actually look for in mates or other things.  They managed to narrow it down to one or two things, which were, more or less, general shape and vibrancy of color.  Like, for a certain kind of bird, they replaced one of her eggs with an egg of similar size and shape but with a much brighter blue and much darker spots than the bird's actual eggs.  The bird chose to spend most of her time caring for that one, even though there was no chick inside of it and it was made of plastic.  It's called "supernormal stimuli": look it up.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

But that would be dull, dispassionate and culturally uninteresting LeRenard. Sex makes things more fun.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> But that would be dull, dispassionate and culturally uninteresting LeRenard. Sex makes things more fun.


Of course it would.  Perfect worlds are incredibly boring.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 3, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> I think society's rules and regulations regarding sexual attraction is yet another example of taking an insanely complex thing and trying to mash it down into a box that's much, much too small for it.  In a perfectly designed world, sex would be for reproduction only, and hence all people would only be attracted to actual, living other people of the opposite sex that they can physically touch.  So things like porn wouldn't exist, because after all, that's a bunch of pixels on your screen, not a naked lady doing things to herself in front of you.  But clearly that isn't the case.  Homosexuals exist, gender confusion exists, you can buy inflatable sheep at Dr. John's, and there exists furry porn.  So don't worry about it unless it's making trouble for your social life, or whatever.  No one understands sex anyway.
> I heard a story about some research somebody did with fish and other animals, regarding what they actually look for in mates or other things.  They managed to narrow it down to one or two things, which were, more or less, general shape and vibrancy of color.  Like, for a certain kind of bird, they replaced one of her eggs with an egg of similar size and shape but with a much brighter blue and much darker spots than the bird's actual eggs.  The bird chose to spend most of her time caring for that one, even though there was no chick inside of it and it was made of plastic.  It's called "supernormal stimuli": look it up.



Since evolution uses sex for a myriad of functions other than reproduction, I don't think a 'perfect' world would be one with utilitarian reproduction. I think that would be described as a 'simplest world'. 

Agreed with much of the rest, and in fact an interesting thing about supernormal stimuli is if you replace a bird's eggs with larger eggs there is no limit to the size of egg they prefer. Birds will prefer to nest ludicrously sized eggs many times bigger than normal eggs. In their evolutionary environment they were never faced with eggs 'too big' to nest, so no limiting factor ever emerged. 

Might explain why many humans will consume vast amounts of food even when it makes them unwell.



M. LeRenard said:


> Of course it would.  Perfect worlds are incredibly boring.



I wonder if they really constitute perfection if it is possible to be dissatisfied with them. ;3


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Of course it would.  Perfect worlds are incredibly boring.


 Though I do think attraction to anthros is quite simple. "Oh look tits" "Oh look penis" or "oh look sex" appeals to people. Because we like these things.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

It is quite simple when you really boil it down to what it is. I'm just ignorant. haha



Mokushi said:


> Though I do think attraction to anthros is quite simple. "Oh look tits" "Oh look penis" or "oh look sex" appeals to people. Because we like these things.



I tend to see focus on the whole body when it comes to what I find physically attractive, but for me, the face is what matters most. Figure is a close second.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> I tend to see focus on the whole body when it comes to what I find physically attractive, but for me, the face is what matters most. Figure is a close second.


Is a heavy focus on the emotionality of facial expression?
If so that would explain it completely.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> Is a heavy focus on the emotionality of facial expression?
> If so that would explain it completely.



That's a large part of it, yeah. I also find that if someone (anthro or otherwise) has nice eyes and I'm able to see them - which for me means that I'm either looking at a picture or I'm in kissing range - I have a hard time looking away.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> That's a large part of it, yeah. I also find that if someone (anthro or otherwise) has nice eyes and I'm able to see them - which for me means that I'm either looking at a picture or I'm in kissing range - I have a hard time looking away.


 Anthros expressions can be exaggerated in a way that can appeal to this nature without seeming over the top, and also the eyes are fairly universal. Really Anthros are just a median in which to appeal to many things you find attractive already.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> Anthros expressions can be exaggerated in a way that can appeal to this nature without seeming over the top, and also the eyes are fairly universal. Really Anthros are just a median in which to appeal to many things you find attractive already.



This is true. Look at some anthros in TV, movies, games, etc. I can't count the number of times I've seen anthrs portrayed as seductive or flirtatious or other characters chocking them up to the prettiest thing alive. Why else would they do this? I doubt it's for character development. lol


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> This is true. Look at some anthros in TV, movies, games, etc. I can't count the number of times I've seen anthrs portrayed as seductive or flirtatious or other characters chocking them up to the prettiest thing alive. Why else would they do this? I doubt it's for character development. lol


Because the body language is enough to translate the concept really. Its all quite naturally appealing.


----------



## Heliophobic (Nov 3, 2012)

It's not unusual at all. Well, not for a furry at least.

Since it's nothing fetishistic, I'd say it's just another way of appreciating anthropomorphism.



> If you're the same, do you have any favorites?



Sarina Cibex. I cannot even begin to explain why.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Nov 3, 2012)

People like stylized things because their imaginations can fill in, consciously or subconsciously, whatever the hell they want.  The same thing going on in your head that goes "That cloud looks like a bunny rabbit" is what operates to tell you "This flat mishmash of lines is HAWT" , so it is not unusual. 

And even if it is, just, go read what Ed Gein had in his house at the time of his arrest and be satisfied that your "strange" tastes make you a total amateur.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Holy crap!
Well, that's probably the strangest thing I've seen since high school Psychology class.


----------



## Grunnolf (Nov 3, 2012)

not really a big deal to be atracted to anthro's just don't make it were you "can't" live without it


----------



## NewYork (Nov 3, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> I can find myself as attracted to both human and anthro characters in any fiction.



You're not the only one. There are furs who love only other furs, and furs who are only into the furry art but are attracted to real women/men.

You're sort of balanced, I think. Just like me, I think both species are attractive. But you can only get a human piece of ass IRL.


----------



## Percy (Nov 3, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> And even if it is, just, go read what Ed Gein had in his house at the time of his arrest and be satisfied that your "strange" tastes make you a total amateur.


Of course, he had to have been from my state. >_>


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Nov 3, 2012)

Fwahahaha

You know what else, Percy?

Those vulvae in a shoebox? 

They were theoretically interchangable with his WOMAN SUIT. 

MADE OF WOMAN HIDE.


----------



## Lunar (Nov 3, 2012)

It's not unusual or weird until it gets to the point where you can't focus on literally anything else.


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Nov 3, 2012)

Kixu said:


> I actually kinda have one of those.  Sorta.  It's not a pony, though, and I only ever conjure her when I feel like I need guidance on a subject I'm not willing to discuss with an actual person.
> 
> To date, I've only invoked her three or four times.  The rest of the time she doesn't exist.



I'm pretty sure a tulpa is permanent. I remember reading that it requires complete mastery in order to summon or dismiss them at will, otherwise they act of their own accord. It's for this reason I want to get my existing psychological issues sorted out before I ever attempt this. 



NewYork said:


> You're sort of balanced, I think. Just like me, I think both species are attractive. But you can only get a human piece of ass IRL.



It sounds like the most common way to be in the fandom without detaching yourself from reality. So the OP, like most of us really is in the best spot to be.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Nov 3, 2012)

Auggh I knew this chick who dropped just shy of a thousand dollars on her ABJDs (asian ball jointed dolls, they used to cost about 800 dollars for a 1/3 scale doll, and IDK what they go for now) to "anchor" her fucking tuplas.  She had like six.


----------



## scourgekito-pandowyena (Nov 3, 2012)

I'm new to here as well, but I have to agree, having an attraction to anthro's is not uncommon. I'm an artist so I admit I enjoy adding/ drawing anthro figures and though I am female I find drawing female characters a lot more fun. *sucks at drawing men for some reason* but I also believe that it can easily turn into a obssession, you just have to watch out for that. Which is pretty much what everyone else has already said and I seem to merely be restating it, but it's something I agree with.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 3, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Fwahahaha
> 
> You know what else, Percy?
> 
> ...



I'm sure I've seen a Hannibal Lecter film about this.


----------



## badlands (Nov 3, 2012)

to answer the OP's question, no I'd guess 80-85% of the fandom's population is like that


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 3, 2012)

badlands said:


> to answer the OP's question, no I'd guess 80-85% of the fandom's population is like that



What a remarkeably accurate guess.  that figure usually pops out of the 'surveys'.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> What a remarkeably accurate guess.  that figure usually pops out of the 'surveys'.



Sounds about right though, wouldn't you say? Only one person on this thread admitted to *not *being attracted to them. Still, i agree with Dr. Cox. "Statistics mean nothing to the individual."

@NewYork, you are correct (somewhat unfortunately). We can fantasize about anthros all we want, but unless some antro alien race decides to pay us a visit, humans are really our only option. Oh look, now my mind is wandering... Anthro aliens. That would produce some strange hybrids. haha But who cares! For some furries, it'd probably be a dream come true!


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 3, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> Sounds about right though, wouldn't you say? Only one person on this thread admitted to *not *being attracted to them. Still, i agree with Dr. Cox. "Statistics mean nothing to the individual."
> 
> @NewYork, you are correct (somewhat unfortunately). We can fantasize about anthros all we want, but unless some antro alien race decides to pay us a visit, humans are really our only option. Oh look, now my mind is wandering... Anthro aliens. That would produce some strange hybrids. haha But who cares! For some furries, it'd probably be a dream come true!


I still think all that furr would cause issues lol. like one hair in the back of your mouth is bad...


----------



## Delta Fox (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> I still think all that furr would cause issues lol. like one hair in the back of your mouth is bad...



Can you imagine what helmets would look like if we were all anthro creatures

also wouldn't being an anthro make it difficult to live in places with extreme heat


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> I still think all that furr would cause issues lol. like one hair in the back of your mouth is bad...



hahaha Maybe, but if I lived in a world where anthros existed, and the opportunity to pursue a relationship with one presented itself, I'd go for it. Not just because they're anthros of course. The experience wouldn't be worth it if they didn't have a good personality.


----------



## Conker (Nov 3, 2012)

Not unheard of, but there's a difference between being attracted to a cartoon drawing and a theoretically real anthro character. One's a cute and sexualized drawing, the other is a monster.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 3, 2012)

Conker said:


> Not unheard of, but there's a difference between being attracted to a cartoon drawing and a theoretically real anthro character. One's a cute and sexualized drawing, the other is a monster.



If I can find physical attraction in an artist's rendering, I can find more and deeper attraction in real (hypothetically speaking, of course) anthro, because of her personality. And just for curiosity's sake, what would be that difference, aside from the obvious?


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Nov 3, 2012)

As a number of people have already pointed out already, while it's not unusual or weird to have an attraction to Anthros, it does get a tad-bit weird when it's all you can think about are Anthros. It gets even weirder when you start imagining Tulpas. =/


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> As a number of people have already pointed out already, while it's not unusual or weird to have an attraction to Anthros, it does get a tad-bit weird when it's all you can think about are Anthros. It gets even weirder when you start imagining Tulpas. =/



Well, Tulpas are too out there for me, and I've got a lot of other things to worry about that finding some smoking hot anthro girl to fantasize about. I leave that to my spare time (not much of that) and writing. lol I'd say I have nothing to be concerned about... as of now.


----------



## Conker (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> If I can find physical attraction in an artist's rendering, I can find more and deeper attraction in real (hypothetically speaking, of course) anthro, because of her personality. And just for curiosity's sake, what would be that difference, aside from the obvious?


If you can look at a dog and go "yeah, I'd fuck something with a face like that" then I guess there's your answer. Cartoon dog people look different because they are cartoons. 

It's like with anime girls and their big eyes and oddly shaped heads. Cute on paper, but some people have cosplayed as them with a ton of makeup and contacts and such to get a more realistic effect. They look absolutely frightening.


----------



## Avelore (Nov 4, 2012)

It seems that many people are attracted to the anthro form, including humans in that subject as well. However I have to say that I'm attracted to anthros and ferals of any creature, but not humans.

I honestly think it's because I've grown a little tired of the human design as I see it everyday. It could also be that I just don't like my own human body, but because anthros contain all the best parts of the human anatomy as well as the best parts of the fursona anatomy, I am physically attracted more to anthros than human beings.

It's the same story with ferals too. It's got to be because ferals have no human traits to spoil the image, and that anything with four legs instead of two is just plain better.

Also regrettably, I find feral beings more attractive than anthros, let alone humans. 

Is this weird?


----------



## Conker (Nov 4, 2012)

Avelore said:


> It's the same story with ferals too. It's got to be because ferals have no human traits to spoil the image, and that anything with four legs instead of two is just plain better.
> 
> Also regrettably, I find feral beings more attractive than anthros, let alone humans.
> 
> Is this weird?


Yes.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> If you can look at a dog and go "yeah, I'd fuck something with a face like that" then I guess there's your answer. Cartoon dog people look different because they are cartoons.
> 
> It's like with anime girls and their big eyes and oddly shaped heads. Cute on paper, but some people have cosplayed as them with a ton of makeup and contacts and such to get a more realistic effect. They look absolutely frightening.



I see your point. Drawings and such are exaggerated, but so are live action characters (anthro and human), when you think about it. I think as long as the human traits are still intact, physical attractiveness can still be found. If they're purely animal, that's when you start to wander into bestiality, which like most, I find completely disgusting. And as for cosplaying as anime charcters, yeah it does look freaky. All in all, exaggerations must go (or at least be toned down) for anything animated to fit in the real world.

And Avelore, yeah, I'd call that weird.


----------



## Conker (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> I see your point. Drawings and such are exaggerated, but so are live action characters (anthro and human), when you think about it. I think as long as the human traits are still intact, physical attractiveness can still be found. If they're purely animal, that's when you start to wander into bestiality, which like most, I find completely disgusting. And as for cosplaying as anime charcters, yeah it does look freaky. All in all, exaggerations must go (or at least be toned down) for anything animated to fit in the real world.
> 
> And Avelore, yeah, I'd call that weird.


Since none exist I suppose it's a moot argument. The best I can think of would be werewolves in various movies and media. They sure don't look fuckable.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> Since none exist I suppose it's a moot argument. The best I can think of would be werewolves in various movies and media. They sure don't look fuckable.



In that same order... Yeah, completely hypothetical. And no, but since when are they intended to even remotely look so? Every werewolf I've ever seen in any media was either made to be intimidating, wholly animal, or downright scary.


----------



## Conker (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> In that same order... Yeah, completely hypothetical. And no, but since when are they intended to even remotely look so? Every werewolf I've ever seen in any media was either made to be intimidating, wholly animal, or downright scary.


True, but that's part of the point. A real life anthro would be a mix of those things as they would be part animal.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> True, but that's part of the point. A real life anthro would be a mix of those things as they would be part animal.



For some, most definitely. But I wouldn't pin a generalization like that (or of any kind) to any hypothetical real-world anthropomorph. They wouldn't all be of the "cute and cuddly" variety either. It'd most likely be balanced between beautiful and intimidating, like humans are. Some lean to one side. Some the other. Still some manage both or neither.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> Not unheard of, but there's a difference between being attracted to a cartoon drawing and a theoretically real anthro character. One's a cute and sexualized drawing, _*the other is a monster.*_


The concept of a "monster" is a construct. Really in the hypothetical the creatures may actually be an emotionally superior, more well balanced individual by contrast and we would be the "monster". It is a too hypothetical situation to claim if they would be worse or better then us. In the same way assuming all space life wants to kill us is flawed.


----------



## Rheumatism (Nov 4, 2012)

I used to be attracted to anthros a couple years ago, but that's gone away.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 4, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> Auggh I knew this chick who dropped just shy of a thousand dollars on her ABJDs (asian ball jointed dolls, they used to cost about 800 dollars for a 1/3 scale doll, and IDK what they go for now) to "anchor" her fucking tuplas.  She had like six.


Tulpas needs anchors? I thought they only need a disciplined mind to imagine stuff constantly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> True, but that's part of the point. A real life anthro would be a mix of those things as they would be part animal.



The 'real life' equivalent of cartoon characters and art pieces is costumery, isn't it? 

A literal transcription or 'monster' would make me go ewrrgrhrgh D: A person in a costume isn't so objectionable.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 4, 2012)

Mokushi said:
			
		

> The concept of a "monster" is a construct. Really in the hypothetical the creatures may actually be an emotionally superior, more well balanced individual by contrast and we would be the "monster". It is a too hypothetical situation to claim if they would be worse or better then us. In the same way assuming all space life wants to kill us is flawed.


I honestly think it's like comparing apples and oranges at that stage.  Homo-sapiens are part of the ape family, and apes are social creatures, often with warlike tendencies (chimps, for example, have been known to cannibalize each other after particularly vicious raids... which is something humans are known for too).  Compare that with the ol' standard red fox; red foxes get kicked out of the den once they reach a certain age and end up wandering around alone until they find their own piece of territory and a mate.  Then they settle down with that one partner until they die, pretty much.  So I think taking those basic tendencies and adding on all the complications of sentience would just lead to something that's quite different from a human being in a lot of respects.  But 'monster' implies something we just couldn't live alongside, and I doubt that would be the case.  If anything, it would be extremely beneficial to have another smart creature to compare notes with.  Humans have, after all, never gotten a critique from an outside perspective before.


----------



## ADF (Nov 4, 2012)

Given many furries are intentionally sexualised, its not surprising that people find them attractive. Especially when they focus on traits that appeal both to our human sex drive, while adding flavour with animal elements people have deemed desirable.

But compare it with a movie that tries to make a furry. Say, Tank Girl.

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/ph...Girl-and-Booga-tank-girl-6825389-1044-770.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IWAt4bCdIIY/T_wY_VykYvI/AAAAAAAAAac/hd87TiiWXjA/s1600/tankgirl3.jpeg

And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of furries found that less desirable. But throw in stylisation again.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb3b9z7xKS1r7as1co1_1280.jpg

And people would probably like it.

As with models, furries are lusting after "beauty" that is unrealistic for the real world.


----------



## Conker (Nov 4, 2012)

Mokushi said:


> The concept of a "monster" is a construct. Really in the hypothetical the creatures may actually be an emotionally superior, more well balanced individual by contrast and we would be the "monster". It is a too hypothetical situation to claim if they would be worse or better then us. In the same way assuming all space life wants to kill us is flawed.


Oh sure, we could philosophize about the word "monster", but I'm talking in appearance here. Giant claws? Check. What big teeth they have? Check. Glowing eyes because that's how they roll? Check. Probably superior strength/sight/hearing? Check. 

Sure sounds like something out of a monster movie to me!


----------



## ADF (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> Oh sure, we could philosophize about the word "monster", but I'm talking in appearance here. Giant claws? Check. What big teeth they have? Check. Glowing eyes because that's how they roll? Check. Probably superior strength/sight/hearing? Check.
> 
> Sure sounds like something out of a monster movie to me!



Sounds pretty normal if you're canine/feline 

Those things are only monstrous to us because we don't have them. You are going to call a kitten a monster for having claws, fangs and glow in the dark eyes? To a feline furry, that's just someone's baby.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 4, 2012)

If we ran into our own ancestors from 40kya...6feet tall, muscular, wear dead things, live in houses made from the bones of mammoths...we might see them as monstrous too initially- eventhough they're technically anatomically modern. 

A Yupic man who's never seen a modern day european might also see them as monstrous- comparitively tall and slender with huge great pale eyes, bleached skin and maybe even blood red hair.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> Oh sure, we could philosophize about the word "monster", but I'm talking in appearance here. Giant claws? Check. What big teeth they have? Check. Glowing eyes because that's how they roll? Check. Probably superior strength/sight/hearing? Check.
> 
> Sure sounds like something out of a monster movie to me!



So... lions and tigers and bears, oh my?  It sounds less like a monster and more like an... animal.  Hm.
Although I do think some animals turned humanoid would be pretty terrifying, at least.  Try a 6 foot tall bipedal one of these: http://inglestic.wikispaces.com/file/view/deep-sea-anglerfish.jpg/139579323/deep-sea-anglerfish.jpg


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 4, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Try a 6 foot tall bipedal one of these: http://inglestic.wikispaces.com/file/view/deep-sea-anglerfish.jpg/139579323/deep-sea-anglerfish.jpg



There seem to be quite a few on FA actually.

(Possibly NSFW for butt)


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> It's actually kind of embarrassing to say (I don't really know why), but for some reason, I can find myself as attracted to both human and anthro characters in any fiction. In the real world, I favor human beings of course. :3
> But it just feels weird to me. I even find myself attracted to the characters I create when writing. It's nothing fetishy, but I can look at an anthro character and think, "Wow, she is beautiful!"
> I gotta know... is this a common thing in the fandom, or am I right to feel weird about it? If you're the same, do you have any favorites? For me, Krystal, Blaze, and Tekal round out the top 3 outside of my own work.


 i have that same feeling all the time HELL theres a few avatars on this site in whitch i have just thought OMG THATS HAWT!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 4, 2012)

DeathCoDread (Mike) said:


> i have that same feeling all the time HELL theres a few avatars on this site in whitch i have just thought OMG THATS HAWT!!!!!!!!!!!



Like mine of course.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 4, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Like mine of course.


sorry fallow my insides kindof turned no offence,,,, (dont kill me)


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Like mine of course.



No, I think he's referring to mine. :3 haha

@Mike, come on, man. It's not that bad. Not even close.
And yeah, I've thought the same thing about some user's avatars.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> No, I think he's referring to mine. :3 haha
> 
> @Mike, come on, man. It's not that bad. Not even close.
> And yeah, I've thought the same thing about some user's avatars.


 nah i dont do "FLESHY things" hrm i aint gay or bi but yes yours is VERY attractive :3 i have always admired it and have wounderd if you drew it just sayin  (sorry back on topic i think theres are some things that are really nice if you know what i mean


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

DeathCoDread (Mike) said:


> nah i dont do "FLESHY things" hrm i aint gay or bi but yes yours is VERY attractive :3 i have always admired it and have wounderd if you drew it just sayin  (sorry back on topic i think theres are some things that are really nice if you know what i mean



Thanks. :3 I can say the same of yours (also neither bi nor gay). Actually, cam-wolfe did it for me a few weeks ago. 
But back to the discussion at hand, there are tons of avatars that taking a gander at every once in a while. A lot of it's better than what I can Bing. But not all of it. Some antrho characters I've found in an image search... well, I'll just shut up before I say something i shouldn't. I'll just say McCloud really failed epically with Krystal.  And Blaze... let's just say it's good that Sonic '06's plot technically never happened. haha I'd give examples that don't have odd-colored fur, but I don't know their names.


----------



## Conker (Nov 4, 2012)

ADF said:


> Sounds pretty normal if you're canine/feline
> 
> Those things are only monstrous to us because we don't have them. You are going to call a kitten a monster for having claws, fangs and glow in the dark eyes? To a feline furry, that's just someone's baby.


They're always cute when they are little, and then they grow up and eat you :[


----------



## Grunnolf (Nov 4, 2012)

DeathCoDread (Mike) said:


> i have that same feeling all the time HELL theres a few avatars on this site in whitch i have just thought OMG THATS HAWT!!!!!!!!!!!



i have to agree i even get that sometimes when looking through profiles hell even some of the rave furry is like that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 4, 2012)

Conker said:


> They're always cute when they are little, and then they grow up and eat you :[



Certainly the case with pet tigers...of which there are more in the USA than exist in the wild.


----------



## Anubite (Nov 4, 2012)

I'll admit I find some attractive and its not really something I seek out on FA or any of the forums and art sites. When I come across one I say, wow she's pretty or that's nice. Not really my main goal when looking through anthro art.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Anubite said:


> I'll admit I find some attractive and its not really something I seek out on FA or any of the forums and art sites. When I come across one I say, wow she's pretty or that's nice. Not really my main goal when looking through anthro art.



Similar case here. When I'm looking for anthro art, I'm not dead-set on finding an attractive female to gawk at. But it happens that the most appealing art I can find on google or bing tends to be of attractive females.


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Nov 4, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Like mine of course.



Babe, your levator labii are superior


----------



## Traven V (Nov 4, 2012)

It's the first step in becoming a full fledged furry. I think it's common to find beauty in all things, I mean if it doesn't arouse you sexually than it's not really a sexual fetish but if you do seek those things out regularly it's a non-sexual fetish. I think avatars can be attractive, I believe a lot would have to agree with me because sometimes other furs seem to be more accepted or treated better because of an attractive avatar, really that's a given.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Traven V said:


> It's the first step in becoming a full fledged furry. I think it's common to find beauty in all things, I mean if it doesn't arouse you sexually than it's not really a sexual fetish but if you do seek those things out regularly it's a non-sexual fetish. I think avatars can be attractive, I believe a lot would have to agree with me because sometimes other furs seem to be more accepted or treated better because of an attractive avatar, really that's a given.



Personally, I wouldn't consider sexual attraction to anthros a "fetish" per se. Physical attractiveness can obviously lead to being arousing if the attraction is strong enough, and I'll admit, it does become that from time to time. But, I'm referring to intelligent beings, just with characteristics of animals. I don't remember who said it, but someone posted that it's just another way of appreciating the female figure, and I agree.


----------



## Anubite (Nov 4, 2012)

Avatars do make people want to talk to people. Good art shows good taste and I'm not going to lie I've started talking to people because of it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> Personally, I wouldn't consider sexual attraction to anthros a "fetish" per se. Physical attractiveness can obviously lead to being arousing if the attraction is strong enough, and I'll admit, it does become that from time to time. But, I'm referring to intelligent beings, just with characteristics of animals. I don't remember who said it, but someone posted that it's just another way of appreciating the female figure, and I agree.



If someone is sexually attracted to anthro/furry characters then it is a fetish; it's not intrinsically appealing and lots of people view it as abnormal, so it meets the definitive criteria. 

This is not mutually exclusive with your conclusion that it's 'just another way of appreciating human form'. I agree, but I have to point out it's a fetishistic way of appreciating human form if it's in a strong sexual context.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> If someone is sexually attracted to anthro/furry characters then it is a fetish; it's not intrinsically appealing and lots of people view it as abnormal, so it meets the definitive criteria.
> 
> This is not mutually exclusive with your conclusion that it's 'just another way of appreciating human form'. I agree, but I have to point out it's a fetishistic way of appreciating human form if it's in a strong sexual context.



Good point. It's not incredibly common for me, but yeah, I guess even if it is minimal, being sexually attracted to anthropomorph is fetishistic. It is something I should be aware of. It's a part of who I am, but while it is a fetish, Anthrophilia (not sure if that's what it's called; I basically just made it up) is nowhere near as objectionable as, say, Necrophilia or Bestiality. Wouldn't you agree? The people, characters, or whatever are still humanoid. I can see why people think it's weird or abnormal, because well, it is. But... apparently I enjoy it, so... good for me... I think.(?)

I guess the whole point of this thread was to prove I do, in fact, have an anthro fetish, huh? :3 If so, I see that fact as a good thing. It builds self-awareness, and this is definitely something that needs to be kept in check as my beliefs abhor any sexuality outside of marriage. I've dealt with "addiction" to pornography in the past. I DON'T want to go there again, even though I'm still not completely out of it.


----------



## Harbinger (Nov 4, 2012)

Its probably due to the curves and eyes borrowed from the human form.
If you see a cat or dog in the street and think 10/10 would bang then is the time to be worried.

Oh and as for the whole avatars thing they are almost alway showing human emotions, sexy time ones at that. Still waiting to myself one like all the cool kids. Im too tight to buy a commission so im just waiting untill my drawings are semi-decent.


----------



## Avelore (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> ...I guess even if it is minimal, *being sexually attracted to anthropomorph is fetishistic*. It is something ...



I would have to agree and disagree with this statement.

I disagree due to the fact that being sexually attracted to anthropomorphs could stem from an interest in the idea of anthropomorphs. One could prefer the look of anthro's simply because they grow tired of seeing humans. I know that I get bored of the look of human beings; I can go as far as say that I don't like many of the parts of the human body. I personally prefer to see pictures of anthros because it's a fresher face to look at, and their physique seems to just be better, both visual and fitness.

But at the same time, I would agree that being attracted to anthros, whether as a simple interest in them, or full blown sexually attracted to them, it is still a fetish. Although I don't SEE my admiration as a fetish, I accept that if it technically is a fetish, then that's what it is.

Sorry if my post made no sense. I just wanted to post something. ^.-.^


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Avelore said:


> I would have to agree and disagree with this statement.
> 
> I disagree due to the fact that being sexually attracted to anthropomorphs could stem from an interest in the idea of anthropomorphs. One could prefer the look of anthro's simply because they grow tired of seeing humans. I know that I get bored of the look of human beings; I can go as far as say that I don't like many of the parts of the human body. I personally prefer to see pictures of anthros because it's a fresher face to look at, and their physique seems to just be better, both visual and fitness.
> 
> ...



No worries. it made sense. 

Like I've said before, I can find equal attraction in both, but because humans are the only realistic option for relationships, they win by default. I can understand being more attracted to anthros and/or being tired of the human form. Anthros are something different to look at, so naturally the difference makes them ore intriguing, and possibly more attractive.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 4, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> Good point. It's not incredibly common for me, but yeah, I guess even if it is minimal, being sexually attracted to anthropomorph is fetishistic. It is something I should be aware of. It's a part of who I am, but while it is a fetish, Anthrophilia (not sure if that's what it's called; I basically just made it up) is nowhere near as objectionable as, say, Necrophilia or Bestiality. Wouldn't you agree? The people, characters, or whatever are still humanoid. I can see why people think it's weird or abnormal, because well, it is. But... apparently I enjoy it, so... good for me... I think.(?)
> 
> I guess the whole point of this thread was to prove I do, in fact, have an anthro fetish, huh? :3 If so, I see that fact as a good thing. It builds self-awareness, and this is definitely something that needs to be kept in check as my beliefs abhor any sexuality outside of marriage. I've dealt with "addiction" to pornography in the past. I DON'T want to go there again, even though I'm still not completely out of it.



It's not objectionable at all, really. Loads of fetishistic behaviours are acceptable even though they're abnormal, so of course I agree.

You _must _be joking in the last half of your post though? Acts of sex outside marriage...sure some people want to 'save' their first time... Having a libido however isn't ipso facto an addiction as much as other natural drives like hunger are. You don't need to beat yourself up about it, in fact regular masturbation actually decreases your probability of developing prostate cancers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> It's not objectionable at all, really. Loads of fetishistic behaviours are acceptable even though they're abnormal, so of course I agree.
> 
> You _must _be joking in the last half of your post though? Acts of sex outside marriage...sure some people want to 'save' their first time... Having a libido however isn't ipso facto an addiction as much as other natural drives like hunger are. You don't need to beat yourself up about it, in fact regular masturbation actually decreases your probability of developing prostate cancers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm



That's kind of why I had addiction in quotes. it felt like one to me, but it was all in my head really. And really, I'm a hypocrite for preaching against "sexual sin", because I'm very much guilty of it. I fantasize. I abuse Google. lol I don't really beat myself up over it, but there's a voice in the back of my head telling me to stop. Often times, it wins. Others, not so much. :3 It's a natural thing, I know. Fighting it is  never-ending battle I'll probably never win, but that's never stopped me from trying.

In short, the second half was more or less me rambling about standards I try and fail to live up to.


----------



## Joey (Nov 4, 2012)

I've met a handful of people who insist sexual attraction to anthros is tantamount to zoophilia. I'd have to disagree with that, but there's that opinion too, lol.


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

It is a matter of opinion, really. And there is some, albeit imperfect, logic to the argument. Bestiality is sexual attraction to animals, and anthros are partly animals. But I must stress the word "partly" to appeal to anyone who tries to make the connection. When you think about it, anthropomorphs are only animals on the surface. Beneath the skin, it's purely human, wouldn't you say? The fur and such is just a covering for what is essentially an intelligent, human-like being.


----------



## Glitch (Nov 4, 2012)

I would be lying if I said I wasn't attracted to anthros in many senses of the word.  Depending on the setting, I would/would not feel weird about it.  Of course I don't say how I'd want to do dog-people with mixed company at the dinner table.


----------



## triage (Nov 4, 2012)

whatever

as long as you're not in public saying "hi i'm ____ i have a fetish for dog dicks" i don't really care

if you got a fetish for it. well, you got it. not my business. please don't force it or make it seem like i want it to be my business. i don't. stop telling me about it.


----------



## ErikutoSan (Nov 4, 2012)

No it's normal for other furries to like it...I mean why else would you be in the fandom if you had no interest in it at all?


Just don't take it to far...


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

triage said:


> whatever
> 
> as long as you're not in public saying "hi i'm ____ i have a fetish for dog dicks" i don't really care
> 
> if you got a fetish for it. well, you got it. not my business. please  don't force it or make it seem like i want it to be my business. i  don't. stop telling me about it.



Hey, no skin off my bones. If you don't care, then you don't care. I won't make you listen to what I have to say. The curiosity was just bugging me. Believe me, I did not expect this to go on for so long. lol

The thread, I mean.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 4, 2012)

triage said:


> whatever
> 
> as long as you're not in public saying "hi i'm ____ i have a fetish for dog dicks" i don't really care
> 
> if you got a fetish for it. well, you got it. not my business. please don't force it or make it seem like i want it to be my business. i don't. stop telling me about it.


Uh thread title says attraction to anthros not dog dicks. Two vastly different things.


----------



## triage (Nov 4, 2012)

anthropomorphic dog dicks then


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 4, 2012)

triage said:


> anthropomorphic dog dicks then



Uh, I prefer females actually. And as i pointed out earlier, facial features are more important than anything else.


----------



## ErikutoSan (Nov 5, 2012)

Facial features....Well then.....................


----------



## NightWolf20 (Nov 5, 2012)

Of course, it's not the only thing. It just makes the top of my list.


----------



## Grunnolf (Nov 5, 2012)

an example for me would be Holo from spice and wolf


----------



## DW_ (Nov 5, 2012)

Re: thread title;

Not really. Anyone here who say's they're a furry but doesn't at least find the whole point of the fucking fandom interesting is being stupid for the sake of it.


----------



## Grunnolf (Nov 5, 2012)

nice avatar make it have longer hair and your good to go =P


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 5, 2012)

hrm i think the word yiff is mentioned somewere in this thread XD i dont think beastiality should come into the whole thing as its a bit daft but hey theres stranger things out there............. (aka i do not like beastiality) ps. my grammer still sucks


----------



## KobuMutt (Nov 5, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> It's actually kind of embarrassing to say (I don't really know why), but for some reason, I can find myself as attracted to both human and anthro characters in any fiction. In the real world, I favor human beings of course. :3
> But it just feels weird to me. I even find myself attracted to the characters I create when writing. It's nothing fetishy, but I can look at an anthro character and think, "Wow, she is beautiful!"
> I gotta know... is this a common thing in the fandom, or am I right to feel weird about it? If you're the same, do you have any favorites? For me, Krystal, Blaze, and Tekal round out the top 3 outside of my own work.



You're asking a group of people who are more or less attracted to anthro characters, so the consensus here is going to be that it isn't unusual.  It's pretty unusual when you consider normal people though.  Not to say I don't love being a furry, but it's pretty weird.


----------



## Em1l (Nov 5, 2012)

Pretty common around here I would have thought, as people have already said. So by furry standards I'd say its pretty normal


----------



## DragonFU (Nov 5, 2012)

I think I get off to anything, still not a furry though.


----------



## DW_ (Nov 5, 2012)

KobuMutt said:


> You're asking a group of people who are more or less attracted to anthro characters, so the consensus here is going to be that it isn't unusual.  It's pretty unusual when you consider normal people though.  Not to say I don't love being a furry, but it's pretty weird.



You're right, we are weird. :V


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Nov 6, 2012)

I just adore the female figure, and in some cases, male. Rare for both.

And that's just for art. In real life I'm as asexual as they come.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 6, 2012)

Unless you have a Waifu pillow of Krystal and kiss/dry hump it every night, then no. It isn't strange.



NightWolf20 said:


> It is a matter of opinion, really. And there is some, albeit imperfect, logic to the argument. Bestiality is sexual attraction to animals, and anthros are partly animals. But I must stress the word "partly" to appeal to anyone who tries to make the connection. When you think about it, anthropomorphs are only animals on the surface. Beneath the skin, it's purely human, wouldn't you say? The fur and such is just a covering for what is essentially an intelligent, human-like being.



I consider Anthro creatures another species of humanoids, like Twileks and Zabaraks...or elves and orcs. 
If Fapping to Anthro Animals is Bestiality, then fapping to Orc and Twilek porn makes you one too. :V


----------



## Ranguvar (Nov 6, 2012)

If I wasn't attracted to anthros I wouldn't be here. But seriously, dog people=hawt


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 11, 2012)

As has already been said it may be unusual for the general public, but it's not at all unusual for a furry to have a physical attraction to anthros. I'm attracted to anthros that way and I rationalize it as follows: Being attracted to humans is natural of course. But we have a just as natural curiosity with the rest of the animal kingdom. We admire their grace, strength, and mystique. They are out distant relatives of course. Anthros represent both the familiar (with their human attributes) and the exotic (other-animal attributes) which is what really draws me to them. They're like us in appearance and intellect, but have a connection to the extra-human. Sort of surprised myself with that insight...

I mean-- "cuz their hawt".


----------



## Saiko (Nov 11, 2012)

NightWolf20 said:


> It is a matter of opinion, really. And there is some, albeit imperfect, logic to the argument. Bestiality is sexual attraction to animals, and anthros are partly animals. But I must stress the word "partly" to appeal to anyone who tries to make the connection. When you think about it, anthropomorphs are only animals on the surface. Beneath the skin, it's purely human, wouldn't you say? The fur and such is just a covering for what is essentially an intelligent, human-like being.


Correction, _Bestiality_ is the act and is illegal in most nations. _Zoophilia_ is attraction to animals and could be described simply as one of many fetishes in some cases. The attraction to anthros /can/ be borne of some form of zoophilia but not necessarily. For example, I think for me it stems primarily from demisexuality. The anthro form depersonalizes it a little, so the yiff/porn/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit actually works for me. This is in contrast to the "real thing" only serving to make me feel awkward.


----------



## fbocabral (Nov 12, 2012)

well, nothing to add to the topic that wasn't already said, I guess... but I wanted to ask something:
do you think people mistakes the furry fandom for zoophilia? You see, I am a vet student, and I'm afraid people around me mistakes me for some maniac or anything like that.
I know it is completly different stuff. I feel atracted to anthro, but I don't even like ferals and I'm definetly not into animals. But you know... people are ignorant...

And here1s something that happens to me that I think it's kinda funny: For the real life, I like women a lot more than men. But in the fandom, I'm the opposite 0.o


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 12, 2012)

fbocabral said:


> well, nothing to add to the topic that wasn't already said, I guess... but I wanted to ask something:
> do you think people mistakes the furry fandom for zoophilia? You see, I am a vet student, and I'm afraid people around me mistakes me for some maniac or anything like that.
> I know it is completly different stuff. I feel atracted to anthro, but I don't even like ferals and I'm definetly not into animals. But you know... people are ignorant...
> 
> And here1s something that happens to me that I think it's kinda funny: For the real life, I like women a lot more than men. But in the fandom, I'm the opposite 0.o



Yes lots of the people who know about the furryfandom do mistake it for zoophilia because they rush to the erroneous conclusion that
-it involves animals
-it clearly involves sex
-hence it _must_ be about sex with animals, because let's face it the actual fandom is intensely boring if you're an outsider, whilst debauchery is sensational.

Your last comment is interesting, I used to claim the same thing when I thought I was heterosexual, but now I haven't a clue about real life and feel very homosexual inside the fandom. I put it down to social expectation of sexuality 'red shifting' my attitudes; the two groups clearly have very different expectations. 
Which of the two represent any 'true' vestige of a sexual orientation? Beats me.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 12, 2012)

I don't consider an attraction to anthros a fetish, or unusual in any way. You are merely applying what is more aesthetically pleasing about animals to human beings. It could not make more sense. You can't become less attracted to a person because they become cuter and more physically capable.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 12, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I don't consider an attraction to anthros a fetish, or unusual in any way. You are merely applying what is more aesthetically pleasing about animals to human beings. It could not make more sense. You can't become less attracted to a person because they become cuter and more physically capable.



And yet, it *is* a fetish. 


_"a form of sexual desire in which  gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of  clothing or part of the body; "common male fetishes are breasts, legs,  hair, shoes, and underwear" etc "_ [obviously this extends to other fields, not only physical objects]

Furries are abnormal anatomically and persistant attraction to them is a minority libidinal trait; not everyone finds them intrinsically hot. 

Similarly some people have fetishisms for clothing, which subjectively make a person more asethetically pleasing, more resistant to physical exposure etcetera- such as boots. 

Whether or not we personally consider our libidinal deviations strange is irrelevant to the defenition of sexual fetishism. I think a large number of people think that 'fetish' is an extreme label and want to avoid it, but if vanilla things like underwear and haircolour are fetishes this is clearly not so.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 12, 2012)

I agree with Fallow. Regardless of how one feels about it the attraction to anthros is a deviation. I am waaayyy past the point of fretting about majority opinion in this case though. Like FF says everyone has a fetish for something.


----------



## FreedomXJustice (Nov 12, 2012)

Yes, yes it is a fetish. An attraction I am cursed to find sexually appealing. To males no less. However, being it non-existent, it keeps me composed in the real world and uninterested in "other" forms of sexual distractions.


----------



## fbocabral (Nov 12, 2012)

maybe one reason for this, I was thinking, is that no matter if you like cartoon or realistic or even stories about anthro or any other kind of "drawing", the fact is that those anthros are... clean.
I don't know about you, but to think about real humans, in many ways, makes me think we are disgusting (physically). Not that I'm not attracted to my kin, neither I'm attracted to other species.
like, I find men in real life pretty ugly and hairy (well, that's ironic!!). But in the furry fandom, they are mostly not so different from the women and actually cute. Well, that works for me, at least.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 12, 2012)

If I'm understanding you right fbocabral you are referring to the kind of 'perfection' that anthros typically engender? If so, of course they are clean and neat. If one is creating a secondary identity why would they make one with flaws? But you're right that lends to their attractiveness. I assume that's how 'normal' porn is these days. Everything touched up, cleaned, and perfected digitally.


----------



## WagsWolf (Nov 13, 2012)

This has been an interesting ride, i've been enlightened by this post to the point that I now have a recorded speech readied in my head in case of anyone calling my out for my "fetish".
But yeah, I think we all got the point, we weird from the outside yet retrospectively MOST, if not the great majority of us understand.
All I can say is now I feel secure about my self in that stand point xD
I was kinda wondering the same thing and luckily NightWolf## threw it out there 
Thanks for that bro ^^


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 13, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> If I'm understanding you right fbocabral you are referring to the kind of 'perfection' that anthros typically engender? If so, of course they are clean and neat. If one is creating a secondary identity why would they make one with flaws? But you're right that lends to their attractiveness. I assume that's how 'normal' porn is these days. Everything touched up, cleaned, and perfected digitally.



In european history depictions of the human body were often heavily censored to make them perfect. Human body and pubic hair did not feature in western painting until early renaissance [please correct me if I am wrong] and european sculptors were expected to copy the perfection of the old masters even late than that, until Rodin dared to portray the 'ghastly' human body moving around in the ways it actually did, rather than only the most perfect theatrical stillnesses. 
Even looking at Rodin today many of us would still see his sculptures as 'overly perfect'.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> And yet, it *is* a fetish.
> 
> 
> _"a form of sexual desire in which  gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of  clothing or part of the body; "common male fetishes are breasts, legs,  hair, shoes, and underwear" etc "_ [obviously this extends to other fields, not only physical objects]
> ...



I think the key phrase in that definition is "gratification depends to an abnormal degree." To be abnormally dependent on an object or concept constitutes an obsession. This is very different from becoming aroused by the presence of underwear, nice legs, hair, or shoes because those things tend to enhance beauty objectively. It crosses over into fetishism when the desire for those things to be present during sexual stimulation compels you more significantly than the general act of sex. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to separate my appreciation of a beautiful woman in some cute underpants from the creep on DeviantArt who hordes massive amounts of underwear drawings in his favorites - many of them crude.

You argue that anthros are a deviation from standard attraction, but the definition you provided states that even common things like breasts can be fetishes. It isn't the abnormality of the attraction, it's the degree of dependency that must be abnormal to qualify a fetish, and that depends on the individual. I also find it very bold of you to suggest that _most_ people do not have the capacity to find anthros sexually appealing. I don't believe that's grounded in any facts. My beliefs are contrary to yours. As I mentioned, I believe applying the same qualities to a humanoid form that most people prefer in animals can only enhance the beauty of said humanoid form. Beauty objectively contributes to sexual arousal, and most people persistently find animals to be more beautiful than human beings - beauty is not a fetish.

I can't deny that I do not wish to be associated with the extreme end of fetishism, but I think that most fetishists would find it easier to believe that their inability to control their impulses is as common as a man becoming aroused at the sight of underpants, so they can continue to indulge in the pleasure they receive from it without feeling as though they've done anything wrong. I believe they have much more motivation to bend the truth in their favor than I do to try and take their fun away.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I think the key phrase in that definition is "gratification depends to an abnormal degree." To be abnormally dependent on an object or concept constitutes an obsession. This is very different from becoming aroused by the presence of underwear, nice legs, hair, or shoes because those things tend to enhance beauty objectively. It crosses over into fetishism when the desire for those things to be present during sexual stimulation compels you more significantly than the general act of sex. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to separate my appreciation of a beautiful woman in some cute underpants from the creep on DeviantArt who hordes massive amounts of underwear drawings in his favorites - many of them crude.
> 
> You argue that anthros are a deviation from standard attraction, but the definition you provided states that even common things like breasts can be fetishes. It isn't the abnormality of the attraction, it's the degree of dependency that must be abnormal to qualify a fetish, and that depends on the individual. I also find it very bold of you to suggest that _most_ people do not have the capacity to find anthros sexually appealing. I don't believe that's grounded in any facts. My beliefs are contrary to yours. As I mentioned, I believe applying the same qualities to a humanoid form that most people prefer in animals can only enhance the beauty of said humanoid form. Beauty objectively contributes to sexual arousal, and most people persistently find animals to be more beautiful than human beings - beauty is not a fetish.
> 
> I can't deny that I do not wish to be associated with the extreme end of fetishism, but I think that most fetishists would find it easier to believe that their inability to control their impulses is as common as a man becoming aroused at the sight of underpants, so they can continue to indulge in the pleasure they receive from it without feeling as though they've done anything wrong. I believe they have much more motivation to bend the truth in their favor than I do to try and take their fun away.



Abnormality doesn't necessitate obsession. Anybody who is attracted to urinating on their partners, however slight that attraction is, is pretty abnormal- even if they are not obsessive or if they anticipate 'normal' sex just as much as fetishistic behaviour. 

The role of the word [sexual] 'fetish' is not an insult for you to fling at artists or sexual deviants you want to separate yourself from. It simply describes the state of abnormal sexual desire, desires which are not intrinsic or majority-held within the population. 

Please refrain from using the words 'beauty' and 'objective' in the same claus; beauty is a subjective opinion that varies between indidivuals, even if an entire population has commonly shared standards of beauty. Hence if you find something not inherently sexual to be sexually beautiful I'm afraid it is fetishistic. 

Whether or not you feel more comfortable with these conclusions I'm deriving them from the definitions of sexual fetish. Having a fetish of any sort does not definitively associate you with extreme fetishists, perverts, paraphiles or people who are perhaps mentally ill at all.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Abnormality doesn't necessitate obsession. Anybody who is attracted to urinating on their partners, however slight that attraction is, is pretty abnormal- even if they are not obsessive or if they anticipate 'normal' sex just as much as fetishistic behaviour.
> 
> The role of the word [sexual] 'fetish' is not an insult for you to fling at artists or sexual deviants you want to separate yourself from. It simply describes the state of abnormal sexual desire, desires which are not intrinsic or majority-held within the population.
> 
> ...



I agree that having an abnormal attraction does not indicate an obsession, it is how much your behavior is influenced by the attraction that determines whether it is an obsession or not. To find the idea of peeing on someone arousing in passing is completely different from actually pursuing the act in anyway that is not completely convenient: drawing crude images of the subject when you have limited artistic ability, collecting images of the act like trophies, or even making an effort to find someone with the same desire. Something so trivial and so typically considered unpleasant should not hold enough significance for you to make such an effort towards obtaining it. If peeing on someone for fun matters to you either way, then it's a fixation.

The popular quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is misused more often than not. Many people interpret it to mean that anything can be considered beautiful if someone thinks it is so, but most experts in the field of aesthetics will tell you that it actually means beauty does not exist without an eye to behold it, and that beauty is actually easily defined by a handful of pretty exact principles. The rule of thirds, for example, is not subjective. It has been determined by science that the subject of a composition should take up roughly one third of the entire image to most effectively activate the orbitofrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that reacts to beauty.

Other concepts used to measure beauty are form, function, complimentary elements, symmetry, and complexity. Our standards of beauty are pretty consistent with these measurements as a whole. I believe anthros are biologically favorable, and that is what makes them attractive, not a mindless desire to bone a freak. I believe I cannot be aroused by anything that wouldn't make absolute sense to any rational person, and that if I couldn't make sense of it, I would instantly be incapable of being aroused by it. I believe fetishes exist out of emotional immaturity, and the inability to control one's impulses. Impulses are what we grow out of when we become adults, so I believe fetishists are somewhat mentally defective.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I agree that having an abnormal attraction does not indicate an obsession, it is how much your behavior is influenced by the attraction that determines whether it is an obsession or not. To find the idea of peeing on someone arousing in passing is completely different from actually pursuing the act in anyway that is not completely convenient: drawing crude images of the subject when you have limited artistic ability, collecting images of the act like trophies, or even making an effort to find someone with the same desire. Something so trivial and so typically considered unpleasant should not hold enough significance for you to make such an effort towards obtaining it. If peeing on someone for fun matters to you either way, then it's a fixation.
> 
> The popular quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is misused more often than not. Many people interpret it to mean that anything can be considered beautiful if someone thinks it is so, but most experts in the field of aesthetics will tell you that it actually means beauty does not exist without an eye to behold it, and that beauty is actually easily defined by a handful of pretty exact principles. The rule of thirds, for example, is not subjective. It has been determined by science that the subject of a composition should take up roughly one third of the entire image to most effectively activate the orbitofrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that reacts to beauty.
> 
> Other concepts used to measure beauty are form, function, complimentary elements, symmetry, and complexity. Our standards of beauty are pretty consistent with these measurements as a whole. I believe anthros are biologically favorable, and that is what makes them attractive, not a mindless desire to bone a freak. I believe I cannot be aroused by anything that wouldn't make absolute sense to any rational person, and that if I couldn't make sense of it, I would instantly be incapable of being aroused by it. I believe fetishes exist out of emotional immaturity, and the inability to control one's impulses. Impulses are what we grow out of when we become adults, so I believe fetishists are somewhat mentally defective.



To have an abnormal desire is all that is necessary for an attraction [a carnal *desire*] to be a fetish. Nothing more or less.

You don't find scat beautiful [ a wild guess ], some people do. You find furries beautiful, lots of people think they're gross and disturbing. Definitive arguments about what beauty is are hence redundant to that fact. 

People who don't find furries arousing are not 'irrational' they simply don't share your fetish. Fetishism is not inherently infantile or rabid. It is nothing more than an abnormal sexual desire. 

You actually need to understand what a fetish is before you start using freudian analysis to judge people's character by what turns them on. Much of the time you will not find a correlation; some people I know in real life turned out to be sadomasochists and macrophiles. If they hadn't have told me I would not have been able to deduce their fetish from their behaviour, so in turn I'm not going to assume anybody has a specific personality because of their libidinal desire.


* as a side note, not being able to 'make sense' of an attraction would mean you could not find it attractive? Pfft. I would instead suggest that you feel you have to rationalise your fetish as entirely normal in order to prove to yourself that you're not a degenerate. 
Having a fetish does not inherently make you a degenerate anyway, so you do not need to  rationalise your attraction, only be safe in the knowledge that it's pretty trivial in the grandscheme of things and no harm is going to come by it.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> To have an abnormal desire is all that is necessary for an attraction [a carnal *desire*] to be a fetish. Nothing more or less.
> 
> You don't find scat beautiful [ a wild guess ], some people do. You find furries beautiful, lots of people think they're gross and disturbing. Definitive arguments about what beauty is are hence redundant to that fact.
> 
> ...


 scat *PUKES* well iam sure that this thread should be sumed up soon.....


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 13, 2012)

NaxThewolf (mike) said:


> scat *PUKES* well iam sure that this thread should be sumed up soon.....



I'm just using it as an example; just like many of us are repulsed by poo lots of other people think that animal-folk are a massive turn-off.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm just using it as an example; just like many of us are repulsed by poo lots of other people think that animal-folk are a massive turn-off.


 i know buddy


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 13, 2012)

Here's a charming curiosity.
Consider that fetishism was entirely random; would it be deprived of sense? Well...no, actually. 
The choosiness in selecting partners that fetishism affords encourages greater genetic mixing in a population.

If the population density of group A is low compared to the overall population then individuals who choose to mate will likely be further apart and therefore provide a more direct route for the flow of genes over greater distances, spreading successful mutations throughout the population more rapidly. 

That is perhaps a general justification for 'fetish x', which relies upon no psychological explanation or implications at all. If rationalising your attraction is what you're after, this simpler explanation vetos your complex set of prejudices, streetcircus.


----------



## Berlik (Nov 13, 2012)

I had an immediate attraction to anthros when I saw my first furry art over a year ago! The experience sucked me right into the fandom!


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> To have an abnormal desire is all that is necessary for an attraction [a carnal *desire*] to be a fetish. Nothing more or less.
> 
> You don't find scat beautiful [ a wild guess ], some people do. You find furries beautiful, lots of people think they're gross and disturbing. Definitive arguments about what beauty is are hence redundant to that fact.
> 
> ...



According to the definition that you provided, it is not an abnormal desire that constitutes a fetish, it is an abnormal dependency on an object or concept for sexual gratification to be possible. My interpretation of the definition is supported by definitions provided by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster:


_"Psychology__. __any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or __fixation._"
"_an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression_"

The abnormal attraction must be habitual, depended upon for sexual gratification to an abnormal degree, and a fixation. Just having the capacity to be aroused by something abnormal is not enough, it must be coupled with fixative behavior.

Essentially, people who find poop beautiful are wrong. They are conditioned to find appeal in something they are biologically predisposed to find repulsive. You have to wonder that out of everything that could be found arousing, it is the most unpleasant thing possible that becomes an object of aesthetic appreciation for a person. I don't believe it's the inherent properties of poop that people find beauty in, it's their psychological state that makes them find appeal in something repugnant. The mind that feels liberated by indulging in waste and disease is not a sound one.

I assert that rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I assert that rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.


Source?


----------



## Ricky (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You actually need to understand what a fetish is before you start using freudian analysis to judge people's character by what turns them on.



Except for poo. If someone is into poo, they are gross.

Sorry, but it's true


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Here's a charming curiosity.
> Consider that fetishism was entirely random; would it be deprived of sense? Well...no, actually.
> The choosiness in selecting partners that fetishism affords encourages greater genetic mixing in a population.
> 
> ...


Listen to this one. He knows his stuff.



> I assert that  rational choice is preferable to mindless desire. What makes all life on  Earth inferior to human beings is their inability to control their  impulses. Indulging in irrational fixations despite all logic is  primitive, and it is the defining characteristic of parasites.


Woah. When did human beings become objectively superior to the rest of life on Earth? *end sarcasm* Parasites don't indulge in irrational fixations mang. Parasitism is a legitimate lifestyle for a creature. We all need to eat.

My first memorable sexual attraction was toward furries and that impulse hasn't changed with age. Show me pictures of humans and generally my response is 'meh' but show me something furry, scaly, feathery and I'm into that noise.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> According to the definition that you provided, it is not an abnormal desire that constitutes a fetish, it is an abnormal dependency on an object or concept for sexual gratification to be possible. My interpretation of the definition is supported by definitions provided by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster:
> 
> 
> _"Psychology__. __any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or __fixation._"
> ...



The keywords are '*or*' and '*may*'. Fetishes can be fixations and they may interfere with complete sexual expression. In many cases they do not.

 whether fetishism is necessary for sexual expression should be viewed as contentious, since some people have multiple fetishes that cannot be practiced simultaneously, which renders that definition physically defunkt- forcing into the contraction '_may_ be necessary'. 

You think their fetish is gross, but plenty of people will think the stuff you and me are into is gross or appalling, so perhaps throwing accusations of mental illness is premature.

Many of us don't choose what turns us on. I didn't sit down and have a debate with myself before I decided I could get my jollies to yiff. 
As the forests burn and our population explodes like no other species' I think humanity should recognise that if we pride ourselves in resisting compulsion that we have failed spectacularly. 
Fixation and indulging for the sake of indulging are not the defining characteristics of parasites. The defining characteristic of a parasite is that it survives by directly stealing resources from another lifeform's body without returning any survival advantage, most parasited don't have brains so don't have fixations. 

No true scotsmen fallacies do not entitle you to insult people who get turned on by things that you don't understand.
*
Most importantly: if we want other people to respect us for the characters we are, regardless of our sexual desires, we should be open to the possibility that other people might demand the same respect in return, rather than 'getting your rocks off to animal-headed people is totally normal, but you're just weird'- a deeply hypocritical sentiment. *


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 13, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The keywords are '*or*' and '*may*'. Fetishes can be fixations and they may interfere with complete sexual expression. In many cases they do not.
> 
> whether fetishism is necessary for sexual expression should be viewed as contentious, since some people have multiple fetishes that cannot be practiced simultaneously, which renders that definition physically defunkt- forcing into the contraction '_may_ be necessary'.
> 
> ...



Well, now you've literally dismissed every single official definition given for what a fetish is, insisting that fetishes aren't at all what they're defined as most of the time. I, however, take no issue with distinguishing fetishes from attractions by fixative behavior, as three separate sources have testified.

I have no reason to believe that there are plenty of people who would find what sexually appeals to me appalling. I think that what peaks my sexual interests would be found acceptable by anyone sensible. I offer anyone the chance to alter my perception if they are willing and have given it as much thought as I have. If someone were able to put the sexual attraction to anthros in a context I have never considered before, I could potentially cease to be aroused by anthros. I don't know how people can continue to be drawn to something they either know is wrong or that doesn't make sense to them because that's not possible for me.

I don't know who is claiming that any attraction to anthros at all is weird or the result of mental illness, but I imagine they're referring to the same depictions of anthros that I find weird as well. If I explained my particular preferences, I'm convinced that those same people would completely understand my point of view. If not, then I'm perfectly able to accept that I'm wrong and change. It doesn't matter that much to me, I'm not fixated.

You are correct that parasites destroy for the sake of themselves without consideration for other life, and they are the worst kind of organism. They are compelled by mindless desire. Rational thought will always lead to a better product than mindless desire - always.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> You are correct that parasites destroy for the sake of themselves without consideration for other life, and they are the worst kind of organism. They are compelled by mindless desire. Rational thought will always lead to a better product than mindless desire - always.


Tell that to the non-sentient animals that keep the Earth functioning every bit as much as the sentient ones do. We're all part of the circle of life you know.



> I have no reason to believe that there are plenty of people who would find what sexually appeals to me appalling.


Also I have no idea how you believe this. I'm pretty sure if I showed whatever variety of furry porn you (or I) enjoy to a 'normal' person they'd recoil in disgust.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 13, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> Tell that to the non-sentient animals that keep the Earth functioning every bit as much as the sentient ones do. We're all part of the circle of life you know.


No, we're a fundamentally different organism in a class all of its own, due to our unique ability to do things and stuff. This entitles us to do exactly as we please with the mere objects of the animal kingdom, and anybody who disagrees with this is a parasitic looter :V


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 13, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> No, we're a fundamentally different organism in a class all of its own, due to our unique ability to do things and stuff. This entitles us to do exactly as we please with the mere objects of the animal kingdom, and anybody who disagrees with this is a parasitic looter :V


Please sarcasm, please sarcasm...


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> Please sarcasm, please sarcasm...



Well, the Bible says:



			
				Genesis 1:28 said:
			
		

> God blessed them. God said to them, 'Be fertile and become many. Fill the land and conquer it. *Dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every beast that walks the land*.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Well, the Bible says [steaming load of camel shit]


We know, and it's a significant part of the problem here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Well, now you've literally dismissed every single official definition given for what a fetish is, insisting that fetishes aren't at all what they're defined as most of the time. I, however, take no issue with distinguishing fetishes from attractions by fixative behavior, as three separate sources have testified.
> 
> I have no reason to believe that there are plenty of people who would find what sexually appeals to me appalling. I think that what peaks my sexual interests would be found acceptable by anyone sensible. I offer anyone the chance to alter my perception if they are willing and have given it as much thought as I have. If someone were able to put the sexual attraction to anthros in a context I have never considered before, I could potentially cease to be aroused by anthros. I don't know how people can continue to be drawn to something they either know is wrong or that doesn't make sense to them because that's not possible for me.
> 
> ...



On the contrary the definitions of fetishism necessitate abnoraml forms of attraction, but do not necessitate fixation. Fixation is merely expressed as one possibility. 

In a similar way scotsmen are by necessity of scottish nationality or decent but do not have to wear kilts. Wearing kilts is just one aspect of stereotypical scottishness. 

There is plenty of reason; loads of people think furry porn is absolutely gross. Attraction obviously isn't about how rational or morally acceptable the subjectmatter is. 

I conjecture there is no 'worse kind of organism', there are just organisms. Slugs and intestinal worms are not inherently disgusting or bad, for instance. If you place confidence in rationality show some and realise that whether or not somebody's sexual habits can currently be rationalised to agree with your personal taste provides no grounds to judge other people's personalities or try to suggest they are parasites.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> On the contrary the definitions of fetishism necessitate abnoraml forms of attraction, but do not necessitate fixation. Fixation is merely expressed as one possibility.
> 
> In a similar way scotsmen are by necessity of scottish nationality or decent but do not have to wear kilts. Wearing kilts is just one aspect of stereotypical scottishness.
> 
> ...



Again, an abnormal degree of dependency, not abnormal in the sense that the attraction isn't common.



> _"a form of sexual desire in which *gratification depends to an abnormal degree* on some object or item of clothing or part of the body; "common male fetishes are breasts, legs, hair, shoes, and underwear" etc "_



Nowhere does it say that an attraction to something considered abnormal is a fetish. It's just not there.

I'm guessing you think I'm making a no true Scotsman argument because I said that mature people do not indulge in fetishes, but I have so much to say on that subject that it would probably require another thread to even get into it. In summary, rational thought is superior to compulsion in every way, and our compulsions are developed as our brains are. If you have acquired a mindless attraction to something others find abrasive, it was most likely because of something damaging to your mental health as a child, and to lose the acceptance of other human beings in favor of meaningless pleasure is just bad judgement.

Loads of people think that the amount of fetishes in furry porn is gross, that nerds trying to act cute is gross, and that dragons wearing glasses while getting ass-banged by a whale with a hyper dick is gross, but that's more of a dislike of the individuals who make up the furry fandom, not a distaste for the concept of anthros. Dr. Comet has gained massive popularity outside of the fandom because a lot of his art is tasteful and fetish-free. I would say roughly five percent of furry porn isn't absolutely fucked up; it's no wonder that most people think it's gross when I can only stand a small portion of it.

Also, don't kid yourself, human beings have philosophy and in-door plumbing; we are more worthy of life because of our contributions and our compassion. Understanding existence is more important than just existing, and parasites are just impediments to our human progress. Nature-nuthugging in the furry fandom isn't cute anymore.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Also, don't kid yourself, human beings have philosophy and in-door plumbing; we are more worthy of life because of our contributions and our compassion. Understanding existence is more important than just existing, and parasites are just impediments to our human progress. Nature-nuthugging in the furry fandom isn't cute anymore.


That is offensive. Human beings are undoubtedly more intelligent than most (if not all) other animals, but that by no means makes us more worthy of anything. You clearly submit to an anthropocentric worldview. Every animal plays a part in its ecosystem. Just because the deer in the woods doesn't understand what life is the way we do doesn't make it 'below' us. 

It's kind of funny (read: completely hilarious) that you talk about the compassion of humanity and immediately dismiss parasites, and apparently *any* nonhuman animal as not worthy enough to live. I suppose if a more advanced race of aliens were to come along us pitiful humans would have to be put out to pasture hm?


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I'm guessing you think I'm making a no true Scotsman argument because I said that mature people do not indulge in fetishes, but I have so much to say on that subject that it would probably require another thread to even get into it. In summary, rational thought is superior to compulsion in every way, and our compulsions are developed as our brains are. If you have acquired a mindless attraction to something others find abrasive, it was most likely because of something damaging to your mental health as a child, and to lose the acceptance of other human beings in favor of meaningless pleasure is just bad judgement.



Most people are into weird shit. Generally if they don't act on it, that's because their partner isn't into it or more commonly in my experience they are afraid of what their partner would think. I know people into ab/dl for example that haven't let their partner of many years know because they are afraid of what he/she would think. That's not a sign of maturity pal, that's a sign of fear.



Streetcircus said:


> Loads of people think that the amount of fetishes in furry porn is gross, that nerds trying to act cute is gross, and that dragons wearing glasses while getting ass-banged by a whale with a hyper dick is gross, but that's more of a dislike of the individuals who make up the furry fandom, not a distaste for the concept of anthros. Dr. Comet has gained massive popularity outside of the fandom because a lot of his art is tasteful and fetish-free. I would say roughly five percent of furry porn isn't absolutely fucked up; it's no wonder that most people think it's gross when I can only stand a small portion of it.



When people can't find satisfaction on a regular basis they seem to turn to fetishes. When it's art, people seem to get bored of things after a while and the stuff they are into just becomes more and more bizarre. I think that's the reason for all the weird fetish porn; it's a self-perpetuating masturbatory thing and doesn't really translate to real life. One could argue this displays a certain level of immaturity but I'm not one to complain about art.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> When people can't find satisfaction on a regular basis they seem to turn to fetishes. When it's art, people seem to get bored of things after a while and the stuff they are into just becomes more and more bizarre. I think that's the reason for all the weird fetish porn; it's a self-perpetuating masturbatory thing and doesn't really translate to real life. One could argue this displays a certain level of immaturity but I'm not one to complain about art.


That actually makes a lot of sense to me. Never thought about it before. With boredom the tastes change over time, man I feel like a dingus for not figuring that out.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Again, an abnormal degree of dependency, not abnormal in the sense that the attraction isn't common.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Deliberately seeking out furry images to get sweaty over or the like _is_ in fact an abnormal degree, as it is a minority interest. 
Having a fetish does not mean you are deprived of rational thought or ruled by compulsion in your personality. 'even the wisest men enjoy a little nonsense now and then,'.
Personally I don't choose to shun or decide what other people's personalities are on the premise of the sexual kinks they may or may not have, or assume everyone who has a fetish I don't share must be mentally ill in some sense. 

You're correct that many individuals are detered from yiff because of exogenous or superfluous qualities but a large number of people still do not find animal-people arousing at all, if not incredibly creepy. 

Oh brother. ._. this is now tangential, but let's persue it doggedly anyway. Puppies are not inherently cute, mosquitos are not intrinsically bad guys. These are generally held human responses, that do not reflect any intrinsic value of natural forms, but the relationship humans have with them. That's a matter of epistemology; if we were to turn to parastic bacteria and ask 'who has the greatest right to life?' the survival of their species long past the doom of ours _might_ answer the question.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You're correct that many individuals are detered from yiff because of exogenous or superfluous qualities but a large number of people still do not find animal-people arousing at all, if not incredibly creepy.



I don't know about that. I think it depends on the art.

If it's more feral characters then yeah; most people wouldn't find that hot. I bet most straight guys would think Lola Bunny is hot because she has most of the characteristics that would be considered attractive for a female and has a human form.

I know I've said this before but I have had some female pinup type art on my walls for a while and got a bunch of comments from guys like that.

I don't think it's the anthro art that people find weird, just all the fetishes and the fact that 90% of it is gay.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Oh brother. ._. this is now tangential, but let's persue it doggedly anyway. Puppies are not inherently cute, mosquitos are not intrinsically bad guys. These are generally held human responses, that do not reflect any intrinsic value of natural forms, but the relationship humans have with them. That's a matter of epistemology; if we were to turn to parastic bacteria and ask 'who has the greatest right to life?' the survival of their species long past the doom of ours _might_ answer the question.


It's like we're being visited by the ghost of Descartes, the Father of Modern Animal Abuse. 
Funny how for all of Streetcircus' appeals to 'higher thinking' to justify his claims, the points he's trying to make stem from primitive reasoning.


----------



## ADF (Nov 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I don't think it's the anthro art that people find weird, just all the fetishes.



I must admit the erotic subtlety of a suggestive pose has been lost with a lot of furries. I take a peep in the lizard section and there is vore, beheading, double dicked herms, latex bondage, exaggerated scale breasts and genitals and that's just the first page! I admit I enjoy some exotic themes (though none of the above), but if you just want to check for a nice pin up; you've got to wade through a lot of heavy fetish material to find one. So even if someone was willing to recognise "each to their own" and not judge a furry for having a taste for anthro animal creatures, there is always that element of taking it to the 'next level' of shock porn that makes even the most open minded pressured to judge furries.

Frankly I wish we could enable/disable different categories on FA, a sort of filter options where each type has its own tick box. So you could get your preferred themes and block out the rest.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> It's like we're being visited by the ghost of Descartes, the Father of Modern Animal Abuse.
> Funny how for all of Streetcircus' appeals to 'higher thinking' to justify his claims, the points he's trying to make stem from primitive reasoning.



DON'T ARGUE WITH THE BIBLE, MOTHAFUCKA

We could learn some things from it, like how to treat women :V



ADF said:


> Frankly I wish we could enable/disable different  categories on FA, a sort of filter options where each type has its own  tick box. So you could get your preferred themes and block out the  rest.



You can filter out tags on Inkbunny...


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Deliberately seeking out furry images to get sweaty over or the like _is_ in fact an abnormal degree, as it is a minority interest.
> Having a fetish does not mean you are deprived of rational thought or ruled by compulsion in your personality. 'even the wisest men enjoy a little nonsense now and then,'.
> Personally I don't choose to shun or decide what other people's personalities are on the premise of the sexual kinks they may or may not have, or assume everyone who has a fetish I don't share must be mentally ill in some sense.
> 
> ...



Any porn that is drawn or animated is a minority interest, but it isn't the fact that's it's drawn that is arousing to people: it's heightened reality. There is nothing fetishistic about idealizing sex. The human body is not arousing in every way. Anthropomorphic characters have no flaws, and everything that is preferable in other animals that we know exist. Why would you fantasize about dangling labias, hairy butt cracks, blemished skin, and shriveled ears if you can fantasize something better than human?

You may not shun others for trying to act cute when they're really just awkward nerds, collecting massive amounts of pregnant porn, or obsessing over trivial things, but most people do; and for good reason: it's not pleasant to see, it shows a lack of self-awareness, and it indicates that you have very poor taste. Society encourages favorable behavior, and discourages unfavorable behavior. It's important for cultural progress that we don't allow the bruised apples to spoil the whole bunch. If you had a normal sexual development, it will show in your ability to control your impulses and not become fixated with senseless things. Let's have that if we can.

As the concept of cute would not exist without our minds to comprehend it, I would say that whatever we think is cute, is - intrinsically. Also, if parasitic organisms survive past our extinction, it's because we didn't decide to wipe them out on a whim. Our intellect is the most beneficial survival ability, and it is beneficial for every other organism to not be on bad terms with us. That would reduce their chances of survival pretty significantly.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Any porn that is drawn or animated is a minority interest, but it isn't the fact that's it's drawn that is arousing to people: it's heightened reality. There is nothing fetishistic about idealizing sex. The human body is not arousing in every way. Anthropomorphic characters have no flaws, and everything that is preferable in other animals that we know exist. Why would you fantasize about dangling labias, hairy butt cracks, blemished skin, and shriveled ears if you can fantasize something better than human?



You can draw human-like characters and get the same effect (i.e. Anime).



Streetcircus said:


> You may not shun others for trying to act cute when they're really just awkward nerds, collecting massive amounts of pregnant porn, or obsessing over trivial things, but most people do; and for good reason: it's not pleasant to see, it shows a lack of self-awareness, and it indicates that you have very poor taste. Society encourages favorable behavior, and discourages unfavorable behavior. It's important for cultural progress that we don't allow the bruised apples to spoil the whole bunch. If you had a normal sexual development, it will show in your ability to control your impulses and not become fixated with senseless things. Let's have that if we can.



That's not how fetishes work. If it were, we would know how fetishes work =P

Fetishes don't stem from "abnormal sexual development." They are a normal part of human sexuality.

As for the art though, well yeah. I already said what I thought about that.

Personally, I pretty much lost interest in porn once I was getting laid on a normal basis. unless I am on amphetamines


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 14, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You can draw human-like characters and get the same effect (i.e. Anime).
> 
> That's not how fetishes work. If it were, we would know how fetishes work =P
> 
> ...



At least some fetishes are definitely a result of childhood trauma. We know that sexual abuse as a child can cause fixative sexual behavior. All I know is that I don't have any fetishes, and I think I could not have had a healthier and more normal childhood. I was socially acceptable, loved, and happy. I wonder if any vore fetishists can say that. Probably not, though.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> _*At least some fetishes are definitely a result of childhood trauma*_. We know that sexual abuse as a child can cause fixative sexual behavior.



[citation needed]



> All I know is that I don't have any fetishes, and I think I could not have had a healthier and more normal childhood. I was socially acceptable, loved, and happy. I wonder if any vore fetishists can say that. Probably not, though.



...good for you :roll:


----------



## FreedomXJustice (Nov 14, 2012)

...Humans.


----------



## ADF (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> At least some fetishes are definitely a result of childhood trauma. We know that sexual abuse as a child can cause fixative sexual behavior. *All I know is that I don't have any fetishes*, and I think I could not have had a healthier and more normal childhood. I was socially acceptable, loved, and happy. I wonder if any vore fetishists can say that. Probably not, though.



Except the whole animal people thing of course.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 14, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Any porn that is drawn or animated is a minority interest, but it isn't the fact that's it's drawn that is arousing to people: it's heightened reality. There is nothing fetishistic about idealizing sex. The human body is not arousing in every way. Anthropomorphic characters have no flaws, and everything that is preferable in other animals that we know exist. Why would you fantasize about dangling labias, hairy butt cracks, blemished skin, and shriveled ears if you can fantasize something better than human?
> 
> You may not shun others for trying to act cute when they're really just awkward nerds, collecting massive amounts of pregnant porn, or obsessing over trivial things, but most people do; and for good reason: it's not pleasant to see, it shows a lack of self-awareness, and it indicates that you have very poor taste. Society encourages favorable behavior, and discourages unfavorable behavior. It's important for cultural progress that we don't allow the bruised apples to spoil the whole bunch. If you had a normal sexual development, it will show in your ability to control your impulses and not become fixated with senseless things. Let's have that if we can.
> 
> As the concept of cute would not exist without our minds to comprehend it, I would say that whatever we think is cute, is - intrinsically. Also, if parasitic organisms survive past our extinction, it's because we didn't decide to wipe them out on a whim. Our intellect is the most beneficial survival ability, and it is beneficial for every other organism to not be on bad terms with us. That would reduce their chances of survival pretty significantly.



Idealised people don't have tails and fangs, generally speaking...well it depends on who is doing the idealising, doesn't it? 

The fetishists I know aren't awkward nerds and are as aware of themselves as much as anybody else- perhaps more so than people who pretend they're normal to themselves for fear of not fitting in. I don't care if seeing them have sex would turn me off; I don't really plan on spying on their bedrooms. 
A fetishless sexuality is not inherently superior or indeed indicative of supreme mental health, can we please establish that?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the way people see the universe inside their heads after their brains have done extensive processing, is not the same universe that exists externally. Outside of our heads there are lots of non-human creatures and even inanimate objects that humans erroneously label as cute, these objects are not intrinsically anything more than objects- cute is a label we attribute to them. Similarly Organisms do not carry anthropomorphised emotional characters by virtue of their existance; we attribute those adjectives to them. 
Humans value human life above most other forms of life, it does* not* mean that human life is 'inherently more valuable' than standard.

@Ricky, yes you mentioned that previously. We should perhaps propone some controls: many individuals might also not find bondage material objectionable even if they do not claim a fetishistic interest, so there is some ambiguity here. Never the less worth some thought.



Streetcircus said:


> At least some fetishes are definitely a  result of childhood trauma. We know that sexual abuse as a child can  cause fixative sexual behavior. All I know is that I don't have any  fetishes, and I think I could not have had a healthier and more normal  childhood. I was socially acceptable, loved, and happy. I wonder if any  vore fetishists can say that. Probably not, though.



*At least some fetishistic behaviours stem from childhood experiences that may or may not have been traumatic experiences. Perhaps a strange sexualisation of cartoon characters. ;3 

This is verging into freudian analysis though [much of which is batwazzedry]. I will conclude by saying that just because some people attribute some sexual deviations to childhood trauma it does *not* mean that all sexual deviations you come across are a result of childhood trauma. 

One strange paradox for you to consider is that comments on the 'spankedfurs' group reveal few were beaten as children, which is the polar opposite of your assertion's prediction.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> @Ricky, yes you mentioned that previously. We should perhaps propone some controls: many individuals might also not find bondage material objectionable even if they do not claim a fetishistic interest, so there is some ambiguity here. Never the less worth some thought.



You're going to hate me, but I don't really consider BDSM a fetish. (though there can be leather or rubber fetishes)

I understand what you're getting at here though, and yeah -- that's seen as pretty normal these days.

I see BDSM as a play on the innate human desire for dominance or submission.

You could stretch a lot of things this way, which is why I don't see a lot of fetishes as that strange.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 14, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Idealised people don't have tails and fangs, generally speaking...well it depends on who is doing the idealising, doesn't it?
> 
> The fetishists I know aren't awkward nerds and are as aware of themselves as much as anybody else- perhaps more so than people who pretend they're normal to themselves for fear of not fitting in. I don't care if seeing them have sex would turn me off; I don't really plan on spying on their bedrooms.
> A fetishless sexuality is not inherently superior or indeed indicative of supreme mental health, can we please establish that?
> ...



The vampire craze would suggest that fangs can be considered pretty desirable.

I'm cautious about accepting a furry's word as proof that someone is not awkward and does not lack self-awareness. Furries are the most awkward group of people on the planet, and may not be the most capable of judging self-awareness. I can't say that the socially adept friends that I have definitely do not have fetishes, but they seem to react to the topic of fetishes the same way: with disgusted amusement. Maybe I just don't know many fetishists, but I've never seen fetishistic behavior brought up in conversation without everyone responding as if it's shameful and childish.

Then, there is my own observations. I wouldn't say that posting crude drawings of your uncommon sexual desires all over the internet is in the best taste, but it's a reoccurring phenomenon. I think, for every popular female character in fiction, there is a crude drawing of them pregnant, obese, and tied up everywhere that can be posted. It's never really enough for them to just practice it in the bedroom. How can it be; are they going to find a perfect partner to go along with it to their satisfaction? Most likely, not. They have to satiate their urges somehow, so they involve unassociated communities like this one in their activities. You don't have to spy on them for them to expose every seedy thought that enters their consciousness, they'll make a crude drawing of it and make sure it's on a popular website for your viewing pleasure.

Real Sex on HBO is another opportunity for me to to see what admitted fetishists are like, and though they may be the more extreme and open representations of the fetish, they're absolutely the most childish and immature people I have ever witnessed. They are more intensely absorbed in the fetish, and that may support my belief that fetishes are a result of damaged mental health. Of course, there is not enough research to confirm Sigmund Freud's theories about how fetishes develop, but that doesn't mean their wrong. In fact, in some cases, his theories are definitely correct. Logically, we can assume that it's possible that all fetishes are a result of less significant trauma, like confusion or emotional conflict - nothing good, to say the least. Like I said, I don't know your friends, but the fetishists I do know of certainly seem very confused to me.

As far as how we view the universe, what people see in their heads is what exists. We see it the way we do because we experienced it the best way you can: with sentient intelligence. If we feel compassion and sympathy for anything, living or inanimate, that we characterize as vulnerable, innocent, and non-threatening, then it is cute because our perception of nature is a natural evolution.



Ricky said:


> You're going to hate me, but I don't really consider BDSM a fetish. (though there can be leather or rubber fetishes)
> 
> I understand what you're getting at here though, and yeah -- that's seen as pretty normal these days.
> 
> ...



I just don't agree with any of this. I don't think humans have an _innate_ desire to dominate or submit, I think they have a gay, furry, bondage desire to assign formulaic roles during sex. The dom/sub stuff annoys me to no end.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 15, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Furries are the most awkward group of people on the planet



No they aren't; scientists are.

Have you ever worked in research? :V



> I just don't agree with any of this. I don't think humans have an _innate_ desire to dominate or submit, I think they have a gay, furry, bondage desire to assign formulaic roles during sex. The dom/sub stuff annoys me to no end.



Look at almost every heterosexual couple in existence.

Of course it's innate.

Most males try to be dominant and most females tend to be submissive and seek out a dominant male (obvious evolutionary implications).

This isn't true _all the time_, but it's prevalent enough I feel confident using the word "innate."



Streetcircus said:


> The vampire craze would suggest that fangs can be considered pretty desirable.



wat


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 15, 2012)

Whilst domination and submission are innate parts of sex- principally manifested in dimorphism between the two sexes- sexual deviations based off of that behaviour are still fetishistic. 

@ Streetcircus. ._. really now? My assessment of other individuals is flawed because I like fluffy folk? I might add that I don't openly chat about sexual deviation with my friends; I came to know some of them were fetishists because they revealed their interests by accident or sought confidence in me. 
So, why would people who are fetishists themselves or comfortable with other people being fetishists feign disgust when the topic comes into public discussion? Embarrassment and social conformity, with a hash of psychological projection. Perhaps one reason why very loud homophobes are significantly more likely to be homosexual _themselves_. 

...so sexual deviation is unacceptable and must be viewed as a mental illness because some of us stumble across drawings we don't like on the internet? Pfft.

Here's an alternative hypothesis: People who are casted towards the social fringe, possible because of trauma, are less likely to obey social taboos such as keeping their mouths shut about their sexual fantasies. 
;3

'as far as what we see in our minds, what we see in our minds is what we see in our minds,'...how enlightening. x3 
Look, a human things a rose is sweet whereas a fly would prefer horse poo. Neither roses or horse poo are inherently good or bad smelling- the two organisms live life in different ecological niches that demand different viewpoints. There _aren't _inherent emotional values in nature, the universe is not anthropmorphic.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 18, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Whilst domination and submission are innate parts of sex- principally manifested in dimorphism between the two sexes- sexual deviations based off of that behaviour are still fetishistic.
> 
> @ Streetcircus. ._. really now? My assessment of other individuals is flawed because I like fluffy folk? I might add that I don't openly chat about sexual deviation with my friends; I came to know some of them were fetishists because they revealed their interests by accident or sought confidence in me.
> So, why would people who are fetishists themselves or comfortable with other people being fetishists feign disgust when the topic comes into public discussion? Embarrassment and social conformity, with a hash of psychological projection. Perhaps one reason why very loud homophobes are significantly more likely to be homosexual _themselves_.
> ...



Been busy, but I just wanted to make a quick few points.

Furries tend to be overly-accepting. The reason they are is because people who accept anything and everything need others to be that way to be accepted themselves. Furries _need _others to be extremely tolerant or they won't be tolerated at all. That's because of their lack of social grace, which includes being openly fetishistic.

I think most people are just genuinely disgusted with fetishes, like I am. I find it easier to believe that most people accept that fetishes are obsessive behavior, as the official definitions suggest, and that obsessions are a result of emotional conflict, rather than believe that everyone is just playing a big mean game of pretend. Very loud homophobes are just insecure people, but there are many times more people who are accepting of gays while quietly feeling that men kissing and getting plowed in the butt is vomit inducing.

I think about it this way: let's take an extreme example of a social taboo, like exposing your genitals to children. The consequence of that behavior can lead to serious psychological damage for the child, and the appropriate punishment is imprisonment and a lifelong branding as a sex offender. As you dial back the severity of the offense, the reaction to the offense should also be less severe, but not dissimilar. The nature of indulging in a fetish is of the same ilk as exhibitionism or some other kind of senseless, harmful sexual behavior. It's only natural that people have a similar, albeit less severe, response.

I have to say again, flies eat poop, then they spread the bacteria around, which causes diseases and sickness. We evolved, naturally, the superior ability to determine that poop is threatening to our health. We are much more advanced than flies, so the capabilities we have developed are favorable to what less evolved beings have acquired, especially when it comes to our cognitive abilities. If we have evolved a certain emotional response to poop or roses, it was a cognitive benefit that has allowed our species to surpass every other on the food chain without being more physically dangerous, and no other species has leapfrogged another without being more physically dangerous or having more offspring.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 18, 2012)

Whether our community is 'over tolerant' is not an objective matter. By saudi standards western cultures are 'over tolerant' on a spectrum of issues. We'd do well to keep in mind that social values _aren't_ objective and are not grounds on their own to insist that people who differ are emotionally crippled or mentally ill. 
Trying to justify stigmatising fetishism with mental illness by misrepresenting animal evolution is a fantastic piece of BS.

To bring us back to the crux of the discussion persistant attraction to furries is unusual, hence fetishistic. It's okay though because this does not necessitate obsessive or emotionally damaging contexts- so my statement that your attraction to furries is fetishistic is not an attempt to call you obsessive or mentally ill.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 18, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Whilst domination and submission are innate  parts of sex- principally manifested in dimorphism between the two  sexes- sexual deviations based off of that behaviour are still  fetishistic.



I generally think of a fetish as an attraction to an inanimate object, but Wikipedia says physical object or "specific situation." I would call this an attraction to a situation, but anything can be a situation. Sex or kissing is a situation.

When something is so ubiquitous I have a hard time considering it a "fetish."



Streetcircus said:


> I think most people are just genuinely disgusted with fetishes, like I am. I find it easier to believe that most people accept that fetishes are obsessive behavior, as the official definitions suggest, and that obsessions are a result of emotional conflict, rather than believe that everyone is just playing a big mean game of pretend.



Fetishes are not always "obsessive behavior."

While some people turn their fetish into a lifestyle (and I agree that is weird and probably debilitating) there are also people who just have them.

I don't think "most people" are disgusted with benign things like a foot fetish, or a sneeze fetish. Think it is strange, yes. But disgusted? No.

Some fetishes MOST people would find disgusting. It really all depends.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being open about fetishes as long as people do it at the right time and place.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 18, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Whether our community is 'over tolerant' is not an objective matter. By saudi standards western cultures are 'over tolerant' on a spectrum of issues. We'd do well to keep in mind that social values _aren't_ objective and are not grounds on their own to insist that people who differ are emotionally crippled or mentally ill.
> Trying to justify stigmatising fetishism with mental illness by misrepresenting animal evolution is a fantastic piece of BS.
> 
> To bring us back to the crux of the discussion persistant attraction to furries is unusual, hence fetishistic. It's okay though because this does not necessitate obsessive or emotionally damaging contexts- so my statement that your attraction to furries is fetishistic is not an attempt to call you obsessive or mentally ill.



I guess I have nothing more to say then. I can't make you accept that fetishes are defined as obsessions, and not at all as uncommon sexual interests. I also can't make you accept that it is established that many fetishes are definitely the result of trauma, and they have all long been theorized to be the result of less severe trauma, but you have helped me become more firm in my beliefs, so our discussion wasn't fruitless.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 18, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I guess I have nothing more to say then. I can't make you accept that fetishes are defined as obsessions, and not at all as uncommon sexual interests. I also can't make you accept that it is established that many fetishes are definitely the result of trauma, and they have all long been theorized to be the result of less severe trauma, but you have helped me become more firm in my beliefs, so our discussion wasn't fruitless.


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

"A sexual fetish *may *be regarded as an enhancing element to a  romantic/sexual relationship "achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the  partner wear a particular garment)"* or *as a mental disorder/disorder  of sexual preference* if* it causes significant psychosocial distress for  the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life " 

The conditional words mean that not all fetishism has to be obsessional.

Indeed if you bother reading further, which I emplore you to, you'll discover that the idea 'all fetishes are caused by strong emotional events, like trauma' was an early idea which *has since been dismissed* in favour of uncertainty. Nobody is quite sure why fetishes emerge but it's likely they are not all born of the same causes.

As a footnote we should be aware the medical definition of fetishism is different to the colloquial one. [IE doctors only bother including harmful behaviours in their diagnosis- there's no point in diagnosing vanila deviations] We are discussing the colloquial version.

Essentially your idea of what fetishism is is exclusive to psychologists who died decades ago.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 18, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I have to say again, flies eat poop, then they spread the bacteria around, which causes diseases and sickness. We evolved, naturally, the superior ability to determine that poop is threatening to our health. We are much more advanced than flies, so the capabilities we have developed are favorable to what less evolved beings have acquired, especially when it comes to our cognitive abilities. If we have evolved a certain emotional response to poop or roses, it was a cognitive benefit that has allowed our species to surpass every other on the food chain without being more physically dangerous, and no other species has leapfrogged another without being more physically dangerous or having more offspring.


*facepalm* 
Evolution is not and never has been a purposeful race toward an archetypical 'ideal' organism conceived in the mind of the observer. There is no 'Great Chain of Being'.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 18, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetish
> 
> "A sexual fetish *may *be regarded as an enhancing element to a  romantic/sexual relationship "achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the  partner wear a particular garment)"* or *as a mental disorder/disorder  of sexual preference* if* it causes significant psychosocial distress for  the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life "
> 
> ...



I think we can both agree that a fetish isn't just something that enhances a sexual relationship, and we can chalk that up to the unreliability of wikipedia, but then we're only left with one other option. It's defined as either an enhancing element _or _a mental disorder. None of the definitions are consistent or very comprehensive, so I guess you can just continue believing whatever you want, but they all consistently state that fixative, obsessive, and dependent behavior is related to fetishes. That's the only certainty provided. I'll tell you what's consistently absent though: anything to indicate that anthropomorphism is a fetish.

I'm sure there are many fetishes that are born out of simple sexual association, and I'm positive there are many that are born out of trauma, but I think that what most people consider unpleasant - like vore or diapers - are the latter.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 18, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> It's defined as either an enhancing element _or _a mental disorder.



A fetish is never considered a mental disorder unless it is debilitating.

There are a lot of people who have fetishes who don't take it to that level.

Are you claiming if someone is into paws, as in _it turns them on_, and they don't take it to obsessive levels, it's not really a fetish?


----------



## Batty Krueger (Nov 18, 2012)

I'm into paws, not like real dog paws but footpaws I guess you could say.  I'm not obsessed with em though certain types can turn me on.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> A fetish is never considered a mental disorder unless it is debilitating.
> 
> There are a lot of people who have fetishes who don't take it to that level.
> 
> Are you claiming if someone is into paws, as in _it turns them on_, and they don't take it to obsessive levels, it's not really a fetish?



It depends on what you mean by being "into" paws. If you have the capacity to be turned on by paws while they're presented in a sexual manner, then no, I don't consider it a fetish. If you happen to see some paws on an animal and you get an erection, I would say that's pretty obsessive. Think about it as if you saw an attractive person sucking on a popsicle. You would kind of be turned on by the popsicle, but a normal person wouldn't be turned on by popsicles all the time, or make an attempt to include popsicles in your sexual activities unless it was completely spontaneous and absolutely convenient. If you felt like you just had to go google pictures of people sucking on popsicles to get off, then it would be somewhat obsessive to even make that much of an effort towards something so senseless.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I think we can both agree that a fetish isn't just something that enhances a sexual relationship, and we can chalk that up to the unreliability of wikipedia, but then we're only left with one other option. It's defined as either an enhancing element _or _a mental disorder. None of the definitions are consistent or very comprehensive, so I guess you can just continue believing whatever you want, but they all consistently state that fixative, obsessive, and dependent behavior is related to fetishes. That's the only certainty provided. I'll tell you what's consistently absent though: anything to indicate that anthropomorphism is a fetish.
> 
> I'm sure there are many fetishes that are born out of simple sexual association, and I'm positive there are many that are born out of trauma, but I think that what most people consider unpleasant - like vore or diapers - are the latter.



Operative words are* conditional*. 

You'll also notice the article doesn't comment on thousands of possible fetishes, so if yiff's not there it doesn't, by virtue of not being mentioned, prove it's not fetishistic. 

You would need to prove this assertion [an alternative hypothesis could be that they are relics from the oral and anal development stages proposed by sigmund freud, for instance], but these aren't what we are discussing.

[you have me in stitches describing the deplorable senselessness of popsicles]


----------



## Ricky (Nov 19, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> It depends on what you mean by being "into" paws. If you have the capacity to be turned on by paws while they're presented in a sexual manner, then no, I don't consider it a fetish



dude, it was a rhetorical question



> If you happen to see some paws on an animal and you get an erection, I would say that's pretty obsessive.



That's not even what obsessive means.

I'm not trying to start a semantic debate either; I'm telling you that you're using the word improperly.

"Obsessive" does not mean "catmongling."


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2012)

Significantly heightened attraction to furries compared to the general population is fetishistic, but this doesn't mean it is a form of mental illness or obsessive behaviour, if you think this you either don't know what 'fetish' or 'obsess' mean. 

Or in this case both. 

If we can establish that there are actually far more interesting tangents to explore provided we don't jump to conclusions prematurely. For instance could we hypothesise that people who exhibit attraction to anthros are more likely to claim alternative orientations because the frequency of fetishism correlates with a 'promiscuity gene,'? 
Or maybe there is a feedback that being in one sexual minority group encourages the frequency of claiming membership in others. 

How would we tell? Interestingly the siblings of homosexual people tend to be more promiscuous, which is one reason why a 'promiscuity gene' could hypothetically be used as an explanation for some behaviours.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 19, 2012)

Bold the part where it says that fetishes are defined as uncommon sexual interests. Here are your options:

Merriam-Websters: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression.

Dictionary.com: any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

Wikipedia: A sexual fetish may be regarded as an enhancing element to a romantic/sexual relationship "achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment)" or as a mental disorder/disorder of sexual preference if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Bold the part where it says that fetishes are defined as uncommon sexual interests. Here are your options:
> 
> Merriam-Websters: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression.
> 
> ...



Objects and nongenital body parts. These are things which are not conventionally sexual in nature and hence unusual.

Furthermore I'd like to highlight that selecting definitions and then removing the sections you disagree with _isn't _very honest. In fact it's called 'quotation mining'. For instance the wikipedia article on fetishism states the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetish 'Sexual fetishism, sexual attraction to objects, body parts, or situations *not conventional*ly viewed as being sexual in nature.'


But I suppose because it wasn't on the list of quotations you stated are my only options to quote that we'll have to ignore expanding our knowledge, right?


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 19, 2012)

You're a nut. _Any_ object or nongenital part of the body is a fetish now, like butts and boobs? That's not what it says; it says it must cause a habitual erotic response - a habit, like doing something again and again automatically.

Also, you misquoted the redirect page there. It actually says, "Sexual fetishism, sexual *fixation* with objects, body parts, or situations not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature." Why would I include a redirect page, abbreviated description that concurs with what I have been saying all along?


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 19, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> _Any_ object or nongenital part of the body is a fetish now, like butts and boobs? That's not what it says; it says it must cause a habitual erotic response - a habit, like doing something again and again automatically.


I don't understand what that second sentence is supposed to mean. Most males, though, enjoy boobs and/or butts. It becomes a fetish when there is a habit and ongoing interest in these body parts themselves. For another example I've heard a couple instances of men who are infatuated with vaginas. Not just that they like sex, but that vaginas themselves drive these people wild. I would call such people fetishists. And as FallowFox has said multiple times, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a fetish.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm not mentally ill, as far as I know at least. 

Provided the attraction is to an abnormal degree, yes. This is why breasts were highlighted as a common fetish earlier in the thread. ' 


a form of sexual desire in which  gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of  clothing or part of the body; "common male fetishes are *breasts*, legs,  hair, shoes, and underwear" '

 But you've missed the point; I showed the unconventional was a definitive characteristic of the fetishistic, which is what you asked for.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 20, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> I don't understand what that second sentence is supposed to mean. Most males, though, enjoy boobs and/or butts. It becomes a fetish when there is a habit and ongoing interest in these body parts themselves. For another example I've heard a couple instances of men who are infatuated with vaginas. Not just that they like sex, but that vaginas themselves drive these people wild. I would call such people fetishists. And as FallowFox has said multiple times, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a fetish.



Fallowfox seems to think that anything unusual that arouses you, even if it's just one brief instance, is a fetish, even though there is nothing official to support that claim. My argument is that furries are not a fetish because they are idealized beings who are optimized for aesthetic appeal, and he thinks it doesn't matter, and that if it's not a commonly held attraction, it's a fetish, regardless of the condition of the attraction.

Also, I would like to hear a reason why fetishes are not wrong. I have explained why I think they are through several posts. I think that any fixation is the result of internal conflict, and that it isn't a positive thing to nurture that internal conflict by accepting it as normal. We should try to promote healthy emotional development, not excuse disturbances in the proper functioning of a person's brain.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 20, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Fallowfox seems to think that anything unusual that arouses you,* even if it's just one brief instance*, is a fetish, even though there is nothing official to support that claim. My argument is that furries are not a fetish because they are idealized beings who are optimized for aesthetic appeal, and he thinks it doesn't matter, and that if it's not a commonly held attraction, it's a fetish, regardless of the condition of the attraction.
> 
> Also, I would like to hear a reason why fetishes are not wrong. I have explained why I think they are through several posts. I think that any fixation is the result of internal conflict, and that it isn't a positive thing to nurture that internal conflict by accepting it as normal. We should try to promote healthy emotional development, not excuse disturbances in the proper functioning of a person's brain.



I stated 'persistant' earlier, so you're rather stretching the truth. 

_Any_ fetish can be rationalised as an idealised or optimised attraction, but even if we were to do this 'idealism' is not mutually exclusive from fetishism. So rationalising fetishes _doesn't _prove they're not fetishes.

Fetishes are often quite vanila, like boots, soft materials, bondage, spanking, partialism or dressing up. There's nothing wrong with having a heightened sexual interest in any of those activities or objects, eventhough they're not inherently sexual and lots of other people find them off putting or creepy.

Many sexual fetishes are perfectly harmless behaviours which enhance people's sexual enjoyment. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill if you think you have the grounds to forcibly discourage or stigmatise that behaviour, which is why the psychological consensus is that most fetishism_ isn't_ worth worrying about.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 20, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Fetishes are often quite vanila, like boots, soft materials, bondage, spanking, partialism or dressing up. *There's nothing wrong with having a heightened sexual interest in any of those activities or objects, eventhough they're not inherently sexual and lots of other people find them off putting or creepy.
> *
> Many sexual fetishes are perfectly harmless behaviours which enhance people's sexual enjoyment. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill if you think you have the grounds to forcibly discourage or stigmatise that behaviour, which is why the psychological consensus is that most fetishism_ isn't_ worth worrying about.


That is why fetishes aren't wrong Streetcircus. Bizarre sexual tastes don't necessarily say anything about a person's mental health or capability. When a persons fetish drives them to be destructive or to hurt others then it is a problem. However a man enjoying wearing womens underwear (for example) is pretty innocuous. 

Also...


> if it's not a commonly held attraction, it's a fetish, regardless of the condition of the attraction.


That is a fetish, yes. That furries are (idealized beings who are optimized for aesthetic appeal" (lol) is entirely subjective. Just because we may find them attractive doesn't mean anyone else does.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 20, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I stated 'persistant' earlier, so you're rather stretching the truth.
> 
> _Any_ fetish can be rationalised as an idealised or optimised attraction, but even if we were to do this 'idealism' is not mutually exclusive from fetishism. So rationalising fetishes _doesn't _prove they're not fetishes.
> 
> ...



So, even though I have the capacity to be aroused by anthropomorphism if it's presented in a tastefully sexual manner, it ceases to be a fetish if I just stop looking at it? I mean, if someone was aroused by one exceptionally drawn picture of furries, wouldn't they also be aroused by similarly drawn furries? If so, then your suggesting that any interest in seeking out more furry pictures qualifies it as a fetish, but what if the interest isn't strong, or only occurs for a very short period of time between exclusive interest in vanilla porn. You said I definitely have a fetish for furries just because I'm aroused by them, but how did you determine that my attraction to them is persistent?

I think it's more important for you to excuse fetishism than to agree upon an all-encompassing definition. It's more fun to believe the easy lie than the hard truth. Like sex can replace exercise; liberals love to believe that.

I don't think you can say with certainty that fetishes are _perfectly_ harmless. Does Justin Bieber or Jersey Shore cause physical injury? People need to be discouraged from taking pleasure in these things because you are nurturing a detriment to human progress: senselessness, immaturity, mindlessness, irrationality, thoughtlessness, and tastelessness. It's easier to let everyone do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt any person directly, but I'd rather do the right thing, no matter how hard it is.



benignBiotic said:


> That is a fetish, yes. That furries are (idealized beings who are optimized for aesthetic appeal" (lol) is entirely subjective. Just because we may find them attractive doesn't mean anyone else does.



I've addressed this already. Beauty is not subjective, and is also not a fetish.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 20, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> So, even though I have the capacity to be aroused by anthropomorphism if it's presented in a tastefully sexual manner, it ceases to be a fetish if I just stop looking at it? I mean, if someone was aroused by one exceptionally drawn picture of furries, wouldn't they also be aroused by similarly drawn furries? If so, then your suggesting that any interest in seeking out more furry pictures qualifies it as a fetish, but what if the interest isn't strong, or only occurs for a very short period of time between exclusive interest in vanilla porn. You said I definitely have a fetish for furries just because I'm aroused by them, but how did you determine that my attraction to them is persistent?
> 
> I think it's more important for you to excuse fetishism than to agree upon an all-encompassing definition. It's more fun to believe the easy lie than the hard truth. Like sex can replace exercise; liberals love to believe that.
> 
> ...



If you have no desire for it, then it's not a sexual desire and probably not habitual. 
If someone is seeking out furry imagery because they're attracted to furries then that's the habitual gratification of desire. I could propose a parody in which someone is seeking out bondage themed imagery; it would be clear to outside observers that they had a bondage fetish. 

...Sex can replace exercise? ._. Sorry I feel that's a really irrelevant tangent and political party lines shouldn't come into this. Evidently lots of fetishes don't do any measurable harm [and if you want to build a grounds to say a certain fetish should be discouraged you need to measure the harm it does to others, if any, rather than theorising it could be harmful, otherwise you're only rationalising an assumption]. Unless we have good reason to believe that a fetishistic behaviour is significantly harmful we would be unfairly encrouching on people's lives if we tried to discourage those behaviours.

If anyone is believing lies it is unfortunately you; you persistantly claimed sexual fetishes are a form of mental illness and that they are harmful deviations induced by trauma, but this simply is not a consensus amongst psychologists. Some of these ideas were actively dismissed in psychology a century ago. Please stop pretending your personal convictions are psychological hard truthes. There simply isn't a good psychological model that explains every facet of sexual fetishism at the moment, which is something we have to accept until such a time that an empirically sound model may appear.

Plenty of people would think being aroused by furries is immature irrational, tasteless and various other words ending in 'ess'. Does that mean they have poor taste?...or maybe _we_ have poor taste?  Well...no, not really. 
Taste and beauty are, even if you want to represent them as concrete, open to subjectivity. That's why standards of beauty and taste vary hugely.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 20, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> If you have no desire for it, then it's not a sexual desire and probably not habitual.
> If someone is seeking out furry imagery because they're attracted to furries then that's the habitual gratification of desire. I could propose a parody in which someone is seeking out bondage themed imagery; it would be clear to outside observers that they had a bondage fetish.
> 
> ...Sex can replace exercise? ._. Sorry I feel that's a really irrelevant tangent and political party lines shouldn't come into this. Evidently lots of fetishes don't do any measurable harm [and if you want to build a grounds to say a certain fetish should be discouraged you need to measure the harm it does to others, if any, rather than theorising it could be harmful, otherwise you're only rationalising an assumption]. Unless we have good reason to believe that a fetishistic behaviour is significantly harmful we would be unfairly encrouching on people's lives if we tried to discourage those behaviours.
> ...



You're being purposefully vague. If someone, who had no previous interest in furries, saw one image that was drawn exceptionally well that aroused them, and then sought out more similar images in the span of an hour, only to never make an effort to find images again, would you consider it their fetish? I wouldn't. Let's just keep narrowing it down until we conclude that habitual is another word for fixative.

Liberalism isn't exclusive to politics. You're culturally liberal - undeniably. Furthermore, how much would it actually interfere with a person's life to dissuade them from indulging in a fetish? Giving up nothing weighed against the negative impact it probably has on our cultural progress sounds like the best thing to do. So you can't get off on something wierd - boo-fuckin'-hoo.

I thought we agreed that some fetishes are definitely a form of mental illness. Just because no one cares to diagnose fetishistic behavior that doesn't immediately harm anyone doesn't mean that it's not wrong. Impulses are primitive, and are not favorable. As most people are uncomfortable with crude drawings of pokemon porn, I think they are every bit entitled to express their displeasure, especially when it doesn't have a significant impact on the fetishist.

The standard of beauty is always the same. You may prefer the combination of white and green because they're your favorite team's school colors, but the combination of red and green is scientifically the more beautiful combination. You can prefer to look at some things over others, but you can't say they are more beautiful unless they are concurrent with the established measurements. Anthros, in fantasy, are scientifically more beautiful than real humans.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 20, 2012)

Ha, not only is beauty objective now, it's a refined *science*.


----------



## Lewi (Nov 20, 2012)

Here's a question: *What is 'Normal'?*


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 20, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Ha, not only is beauty objective now, it's a refined *science*.



Yeah, because symmetry wasn't a scientific measurement of beauty until I suggested it right now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 20, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> You're being purposefully vague. If someone, who had no previous interest in furries, saw one image that was drawn exceptionally well that aroused them, and then sought out more similar images in the span of an hour, only to never make an effort to find images again, would you consider it their fetish? I wouldn't. Let's just keep narrowing it down until we conclude that habitual is another word for fixative.
> 
> Liberalism isn't exclusive to politics. You're culturally liberal - undeniably. Furthermore, how much would it actually interfere with a person's life to dissuade them from indulging in a fetish? Giving up nothing weighed against the negative impact it probably has on our cultural progress sounds like the best thing to do. So you can't get off on something wierd - boo-fuckin'-hoo.
> 
> ...



It's a colloquial term, like the definitions of the english language. Do words like concierge or bungalow count as english when they were imported from foreign languages? It's fuzzy at the edges. 
We're not going to conclude that habit is synonymous with fixation though, because these words have _overlapping_ definitions but habit does not demand fixation. Just like being european does not demand being german. 

People having fetishes prevents cultural progress now? Since you're trying to make us believe psychological bullcrap that was thrown out 100 years ago I think you're actually a greater step to cultural progress, but nevermind. Having unusual sexual habits is okay as long as nobody comes to harm and for many people it actively enhances their enjoyment of sex, so trying to prevent that would be very inconsiderate. 

*Some* fetishes are mental illnesses. The majority are not, which is why credible psychologists don't bother diagnosing those. Some impulses can be important, such as our human compulsion to identify with others' emotions or to flee danger and react to pain or fear. Some human impulses can be harmful, like fearing the unknown or the new. Some impulses are neither particularly positive or negative. 
Impulses are not inherently negative behaviours, in fact disgust* is* an impulse, so there are numerous contradictions in your statements. It is as if you want to only harvest all the hatred disgust and mistrust from the id, when it is a treasure trove for some of the most rewarding friendship love and pleasure in life. 

Standards of beauty clearly _aren't_ always the same. Some east african tribes think beauty is represented in ritual scarring, some western cultures think beauty is represented by hyperbolically skinny or muscular sexual stereotypes, some people think hairless bodies are beautiful, some people adore body hair. 

Anthros are scientifically more beautiful? [Post your scientific research.]Well we'll have to go out there and tell people to stop thinking the venus is so great or that thor's abs are fantastic; they're too ugly...now a nice dog's tail stuck between those buttocks _that's_ scientifically beautiful. ';3


----------



## helioswolf (Nov 20, 2012)

@ Streetcircus, Fallowfox, etc.

I was talking to a non-fur yesterday, and furry came up.  This person said, "Furry is the next big thing since homosexuality," which instantly gave me a boner, and I also want to know what you think of that statement.

Personally, I'm hoping that statement is right.  Then we'll get to demand things, like being able to fursuit on the job and stuff.  I'm excited!


----------



## FreedomXJustice (Nov 20, 2012)

helioswolf said:


> @ Streetcircus, Fallowfox, etc.
> 
> I was talking to a non-fur yesterday, and furry came up.  This person said, "Furry is the next big thing since homosexuality," which instantly gave me a boner, and I also want to know what you think of that statement.
> 
> Personally, I'm hoping that statement is right.  Then we'll get to demand things, like being able to fursuit on the job and stuff.  I'm excited!


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 20, 2012)

Freedom I just laughed at that post for about ten days straight.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 21, 2012)

helioswolf said:


> @ Streetcircus, Fallowfox, etc.
> 
> I was talking to a non-fur yesterday, and furry came up.  This person said, "Furry is the next big thing since homosexuality," which instantly gave me a boner, and I also want to know what you think of that statement.
> 
> Personally, I'm hoping that statement is right.  Then we'll get to demand things, like being able to fursuit on the job and stuff.  I'm excited!



I think this must be a joke. ;3


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 21, 2012)

Is there a poll we could do tosee. How many people love anthros then it coulld lead somewere..... ^^


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 21, 2012)

NaxThewolf (mike) said:


> Is there a poll we could do tosee. How many people love anthros then it coulld lead somewere..... ^^



The wikipedia article on the furrydom [perhaps not such a reliable source] spits out a figure of ~80% of furry fans having some form of sexual interest. 
It seems a_ fairly _consistant number compared with other questionaires. It's a rather obvious conclusion that a significant portion of furries have such an interest.

But I'm not sure how this information is relevant to the discussion? Have you thought of an idea the rest of us haven't mentioned? 

What might be interesting is a comparrison to a randomly selected control group who do not identify as furries.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 21, 2012)

helioswolf said:


> I was talking to a non-fur yesterday, and furry came up.  This person said, "Furry is the next big thing since homosexuality," which instantly gave me a boner, and I also want to know what you think of that statement.



Thanks for the verbal diarrhea.

I mean, if I didn't know what kind of weird shit gives you an erection I probably wouldn't make it through the day :roll:



helioswolf said:


> Personally, I'm hoping that statement is right.  Then we'll get to  demand things, like being able to fursuit on the job and stuff.  I'm  excited!



Well, you gotta have goals.


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The wikipedia article on the furrydom [perhaps not such a reliable source] spits out a figure of ~80% of furry fans having some form of sexual interest.
> It seems a_ fairly _consistant number compared with other questionaires. It's a rather obvious conclusion that a significant portion of furries have such an interest.
> 
> But I'm not sure how this information is relevant to the discussion? Have you thought of an idea the rest of us haven't mentioned?
> ...


Hrm sounds intresting^^ well what group would fit the critera?


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 21, 2012)

NaxThewolf (mike) said:


> Hrm sounds intresting^^ well what group would fit the critera?



A randomly selected control group would just be absolutely random people you bump into, having checked they either do not identifiy themselves as furries or do not know what they are. 

Then sit them down in a room and measure their erectile diameter whilst you bombard them with images. >:C 

[sounds ridiculous but actually some psychologists do this! That's how it was discovered that 'straight' homophobic individuals are significantly more likely to be aroused by homosexual porn than a random sample of people who are not homophobic]


----------



## NaxThewolf (mike) (Nov 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> A randomly selected control group would just be absolutely random people you bump into, having checked they either do not identifiy themselves as furries or do not know what they are.
> 
> Then sit them down in a room and measure their erectile diameter whilst you bombard them with images. >:C
> 
> [sounds ridiculous but actually some psychologists do this! That's how it was discovered that 'straight' homophobic individuals are significantly more likely to be aroused by homosexual porn than a random sample of people who are not homophobic]


Ha i can see this being on the sex education show........


----------



## Fal-San (Nov 24, 2012)

It probably was...

I wouldn't put it past them...


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 24, 2012)

For those who are interested this is a synopsis of the study I was referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1a_ier3Cjs 
[contains mildly nsfw content]


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 24, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> It's a colloquial term, like the definitions of the english language. Do words like concierge or bungalow count as english when they were imported from foreign languages? It's fuzzy at the edges.
> We're not going to conclude that habit is synonymous with fixation though, because these words have _overlapping_ definitions but habit does not demand fixation. Just like being european does not demand being german.
> 
> People having fetishes prevents cultural progress now? Since you're trying to make us believe psychological bullcrap that was thrown out 100 years ago I think you're actually a greater step to cultural progress, but nevermind. Having unusual sexual habits is okay as long as nobody comes to harm and for many people it actively enhances their enjoyment of sex, so trying to prevent that would be very inconsiderate.
> ...



Few things...

Having citizenship in Europe would make being European a certainty, no behavior is either definitively habitual or fixative. When does a habit become a fixation? No one can say for sure, but if you wanted to excuse fixative behavior, you could easily call it a habit instead.

Impulses have no advantages over rationality. Fleeing from danger on impulse is just foolishness. Understanding that something is dangerous, determining the severity of the danger, and then deciding the appropriate response is the superior method of avoiding danger. Preparedness usually involves understanding what people are naturally inclined to do in the middle of adversity, why that only hinders the best possible outcome, and what you must do despite yourself. Where there is impulse, there could be reason and understanding, and that is cultural progress.

I'm not familiar with ritual scarring, but the standard for preferred body shapes is always health. In western cultures, fit body shapes are favored because they are the healthiest. In impoverished countries, fat body shapes are preferred because the alternative is malnutrition. I can't comment on why someone might say they like body hair or don't, because I think it would depend on a lot of things. Some men look good with it, others don't. Maybe you like to touch it, but don't want to look at it - or vice versa. I think it's universally accepted that excessive body hair is the worst of all your options. There are conditioned preferences, like someone may like fat bodies because they think overweight people have lower self-esteem and are more easily obtainable, but the appeal is not beauty then.

Anthros, being fantasy, are by nature idealized. Why would you imagine flaws? The animal features, specifically, are pretty obvious to me. Animals are cuter, more diverse, more physically capable, they have beautiful soft fur, large eyes, cool claws and teeth, and ears that you can make sense out of. I think people generally think animals have more aesthetic appeal than other people. That's what I've always thought. Obviously, the sexual appeal isn't there for many reasons, but most of those reasons don't apply to anthros. They have every ideal feature of both animals and people combined.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 24, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Impulses have no advantages over rationality. Fleeing from danger on impulse is just foolishness. Understanding that something is dangerous, determining the severity of the danger, and then deciding the appropriate response is the superior method of avoiding danger. Preparedness usually involves understanding what people are naturally inclined to do in the middle of adversity, why that only hinders the best possible outcome, and what you must do despite yourself. Where there is impulse, there could be reason and understanding, and that is cultural progress.


I'm not sure you understand how foolish this statement is. Human beings as well as most sentient animals developed fight-or-flight responses specifically so we wouldn't have to be rational in a tense situation. 1. Startling stimulus appears 2. Our bodies shoot us full of steroids and neurochemicals that prime us to either run or stand our ground. There's no time in there to be acting rational. If you were attacted by an intimidating masked hoodlum right now you'd probably fucking bolt out the door or somehow summon the moxie to arm yourself and fight. Either way that's impulse.

Not to mention your continued misunderstanding of beauty as an objective concept.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 25, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Few things...
> 
> Having citizenship in Europe would make being European a certainty, no behavior is either definitively habitual or fixative. When does a habit become a fixation? No one can say for sure, but if you wanted to excuse fixative behavior, you could easily call it a habit instead.
> 
> ...



Fixation is defined as having an obsessional compulsive element, habit does not necessitate this. 

Actually impulses do have an advantage, that's why evolution has instilled many creatures with them. If caveman A runs away everytime he thinks he has seen a lion, even if there isn't one, and caveman B stands around to _find out_ who do you think is going to pass on their genes? 
It would be idiocy to insist all examples of innate behaviour are primitive and therefore bad. My heart races and my foot begins to tap when I hear good music, this impulse is enjoyable. Lots of behaviours we cannot epistemologically rationalise are enjoyable- so we are presented with a paradox if any 'irrational' behaviour is to be avoided:
If a behaviour is enjoyable but we cannot rationalise it does that mean our current knowledge is thin and we may rationalise it in the future or that we should immediately stop behaving in that way, even if it's harmless?

The unnaturally thin body types many of us westerners expect of women_ aren't _healthy, they're hyperbolic. People's ideas of beauty are incredibly variable, often based on the same impulses you're criticising as irrational, and highly subjective. 

Some people would think being covered in fur, having massice claws and teeth is monstrous. Most people however simply aren't interested in singing the praises of how fantastic furries look- because they're not objectively more beautiful than other fantasies.


*...and now maybe we should actually get back to the topic; is attraction to anthros unusual and is it fetishistic? *You can argue that furries represent an ideal fantasy but this is not mutually exclusive with being unusual _or_ being fetishistic, so it doesn't get us anywhere. 
What we have established in this thread is that _most_ furries are attracted to furries [who'd'a thought?] but that outsiders aren't that fussed. Their reaction is mixed at best. A persistant attraction to furries is quite unusual and other people don't view animal-folk as an inherently sexual idea, so the criteria for fetish are quite neatly met.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 25, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Fixation is defined as having an obsessional compulsive element, habit does not necessitate this.
> 
> Actually impulses do have an advantage, that's why evolution has instilled many creatures with them. If caveman A runs away everytime he thinks he has seen a lion, even if there isn't one, and caveman B stands around to _find out_ who do you think is going to pass on their genes?
> It would be idiocy to insist all examples of innate behaviour are primitive and therefore bad. My heart races and my foot begins to tap when I hear good music, this impulse is enjoyable. Lots of behaviours we cannot epistemologically rationalise are enjoyable- so we are presented with a paradox if any 'irrational' behaviour is to be avoided:
> ...



We can get back on topic after this.

Obsession means to have an excessive preoccupation, but that can't be measured. At what point does a preoccupation become excessive? It's semantics. A habit occurs without consideration, and is still compulsive. Even if a behavior isn't excessive, it doesn't mean that any repeated behavior or response is either a habit or a fixation.

Cavemen could certainly have benefited from impulses, but cavemen are primitive. I don't doubt that we have inherited all of our instincts for good reason, but we are modernized, and we no longer benefit from them. It isn't problematic to feel compelled or to experience emotions, but when you allow them to influence your actions and choices, you are not taking the best possible approach. Also, enjoyment is not a reason to do anything. Joy has no purpose unless it is received by understanding how you are making progress. Feeling good without being productive or accomplishing anything is worthless.

I disagree with the way you characterize thin body shapes, and the western desire for females to be malnourished. I don't think that's the case. Low body fat does not mean being under nourished, and I think that's what is preferred to being either fat or very thin. As I already stated, people have different preferences, but beauty is always measured the same way. You may think short hair is beautiful because your mom had her hair that way, but that's conditioned. What isn't conditioned is that hair, long or short, must be symmetrical, functional, proportional, or complimentary to be considered beautiful.

Finally, many people aren't that interested in vampires or Star Wars, and certain groups are consistently aroused by the vampire or alien fantasy. It doesn't make them fetishists. Some people just really think Star Trek is the most interesting thing, and their sexual fantasies are amplified by how much having sex with an alien is more thrilling than real life. There are many vampire communities just the same as furry, where the sexual aspect is a large part of their participation. Vampires are just cool, and furries are cute. I don't see how having a particular interest that others don't bother with qualifies anything as a fetish.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 25, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> We can get back on topic after this.
> 
> Obsession means to have an excessive preoccupation, but that can't be measured. At what point does a preoccupation become excessive? It's semantics. A habit occurs without consideration, and is still compulsive. Even if a behavior isn't excessive, it doesn't mean that any repeated behavior or response is either a habit or a fixation.
> 
> ...



Talk about semantics, using terms such as 'best' is *definitely *semantics. ;3

Emotion is a mixed bag, but I don't think eliminating it would be 'for the best'.
To quote Bertrand R' 'Time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted,'. 
If people can squeeze some joy out of existance without hurting eachother I would not call this inertia, especially as progress is usually undertaken in the pursuit of creating environments that allow us to feel more joyous. 

A point of fact; if furries are measurably more beautiful than normal humans why is the general public so apathetic? There is clearly an element of attraction involved which is not sexually intrinsic or conventional. 

Being turned on by vampires or aliens_ *is*_ a fetish...you seem to think the only scenario in which something can be called fetishistic is when you think it's a disgusting mental illness, which simply isn't true.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 25, 2012)

benignBiotic said:


> I'm not sure you understand how foolish this statement is. Human beings as well as most sentient animals developed fight-or-flight responses specifically so we wouldn't have to be rational in a tense situation. 1. Startling stimulus appears 2. Our bodies shoot us full of steroids and neurochemicals that prime us to either run or stand our ground. There's no time in there to be acting rational. If you were attacted by an intimidating masked hoodlum right now you'd probably fucking bolt out the door or somehow summon the moxie to arm yourself and fight. Either way that's impulse.
> 
> Not to mention your continued misunderstanding of beauty as an objective concept.


I want to know where he gets all of his 'facts' from. His posts make me think of Ayn Rand high as a kite.


----------



## Varden (Nov 25, 2012)

To be entirely objective; anthropomorphic, by definition, means something with human qualities. Everything within the anthro part is just human nature (Anthro is a prefix that means human, by the way), and the pomorphic bit is just curiosity.

That is, until you fap to it. Then you're a sick bastard and if you stay right there I'll go get the cleansing flames.
_Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. _*Burns you to ashes*


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 25, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Talk about semantics, using terms such as 'best' is *definitely *semantics. ;3
> 
> Emotion is a mixed bag, but I don't think eliminating it would be 'for the best'.
> To quote Bertrand R' 'Time you enjoyed wasting was not wasted,'.
> ...



I didn't say we should eliminate our emotions, but our emotions must be secondary to rationality. They have to be discarded if they are not absolutely advantageous.

Bertrand "R" seems to be propagating degeneration. Our rapidly diminishing resources cannot be spent on people who have no higher intention than to have fun and feel good. That's ignorance. The so called progress we have made towards happiness and convenience has resulted in cancer and the destruction of our habitat. Worth of life is measured by our awareness, and we expand our awareness by pursuing knowledge and power. You must believe that if you don't believe plants and insects deserve the same rights as horses and dolphins. The reason it's so heinous to set a horse on fire, and why it's okay to step on a spider is because the horse has a higher level of understanding. Just existing to experience one chemically induced high after another is a horrible burden on those of us who wish to accomplish something noble.

Most people are apathetic to beauty, especially when it comes to porn. Beauty enhances porn, but how many people actually want to watch anything but close-up penetration? It takes an artist to really value beauty in all things, and it's no coincidence that many furries are some type of artist.

A lot of women get weak in the knees at the thought of Robert Pattinson sucking on their necks, but they're not fetishists. Vampires have been romanticized, and so have anthros. Making everything a fetish will not mean that fetishists do not have to take responsibility for their social inequality. If you choose mindless pleasure over tact, then you deserve to be chastised.



benignBiotic said:


> I'm not sure you understand how foolish this statement is. Human beings as well as most sentient animals developed fight-or-flight responses specifically so we wouldn't have to be rational in a tense situation. 1. Startling stimulus appears 2. Our bodies shoot us full of steroids and neurochemicals that prime us to either run or stand our ground. There's no time in there to be acting rational. If you were attacted by an intimidating masked hoodlum right now you'd probably fucking bolt out the door or somehow summon the moxie to arm yourself and fight. Either way that's impulse.
> 
> 
> Not to mention your continued misunderstanding of beauty as an objective concept.




I didn't see this reply until someone quoted it, but if you are attacked, it doesn't take an impulse for you to immediately flee. Impulse doesn't mean an instantaneous reaction, it means to have an involuntary response.


Also, read a book on aesthetics. That's where I learned about beauty as an objective concept, not my junior high art teacher.



Varden said:


> To be entirely objective; anthropomorphic, by definition, means something with human qualities. Everything within the anthro part is just human nature (Anthro is a prefix that means human, by the way), and the pomorphic bit is just curiosity.
> 
> That is, until you fap to it. Then you're a sick bastard and if you stay right there I'll go get the cleansing flames.
> _Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. _*Burns you to ashes*



I've never jerked off to furry porn, so I feel like I definitely do not have a fetish for it.


----------



## Judge Spear (Nov 25, 2012)

Fap fap fap it erryday. Fap it to anthros, fap it erryday.


----------



## Varden (Nov 25, 2012)

XoPachi said:


> Fap fap fap it erryday. Fap it to anthros, fap it erryday.


I'll ready the fire.

@Lanefair
You don't necessarily need to masturbate to it to have a fetish for it. But I'll take your word.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 26, 2012)

Varden said:


> @Lanefair
> You don't necessarily need to masturbate to it to have a fetish for it. But I'll take your word.



uuh... I would say if someone doesn't masturbate to it then it's probably not their fetish.

Also, Lanefair???


----------



## epslion (Nov 26, 2012)

..sorry streetcircus but i cant agree with your statement, in fact more  then half of what you said would not be rational though to most people i  know(if your gonna pull the, the people your talking about are furries crap  don't bother, all of you could be blue facebook avatars for all i care i  dont know any of you or any furries in rl for that matter, im not talking about church ether i don't go to  church,im also an independent if your gonna pull the political argument)



Streetcircus said:


> I  didn't say we should eliminate our emotions, but our emotions must be  secondary to rationality. They have to be discarded if they are not  absolutely advantageous.



the moment when rationality takes hold over our emotions, is the point when humans can do nothing more than evil 

such  thought is the very mind set of eugenics .. whether or not you  intentionally were sending those themes, many of your posts gave them.

is  it rational for you to help some one being mugged in an ally, perhaps  not, but would you turn the other way and just leave as if nothing  happened? 

i sure wouldn't, so of course, i must be mentally, *ahem* insane 

a  wise man once said ''silence in the face of evil is evil, to not act is  to act to not speak is to speak" and he paid the ultimate price to call  out evil for evil

my  own understanding of emotion(its 4 am when im writing this i Google it  later) is that is not the same as a subconscious primal urge(so if you  think im saying its ok to fuck fuck fuck everything that moves, your  mistaken)


and you state that we deserve better than other creatures just because we can rationalize? 

however  i do concur that we are on a different level than say a dog, we  understand the consequences our actions may cause, be it good or bad, we  feel remorse for our actions, regret, shame, that is the main reason  why i disprove of bestiality, sex between two coherent individuals both  of who understand that there actions may bring new life into this world,  is not the same as a dog whose instincts drive them to fuck, the primal  urge may be the same but we think! we know what this will cause, but  the dog does not, having intercourse with any animal is wrong, and is  taking advantage of there instincts (i highly doubt a dog will say no if  you shove your butt into its face,then again i don't have any pets) oh  yeah don't forget to hate bash me, by my trying to explain a different  topic in this post, about how i said if rational takes place over  emotion 

but what about grass? does it think, no,does it want, no  ,does it  feel, no, buts its very existence lets you live yours, so who  is to say what species is more important, definitely not me, or you for  that matter.
i do find anthros attractive both sexually and non  sexuality, i do have a few weird fetishes. so go ahead focus on the  little things, grandma, big bird,you know, women's rights that were not  in any danger, but that's ok. it may just win your argument.

if im sound like an ass im not trying to be im just to tired to have a nice and pretty argument right now. its all mashed up as well


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I didn't say we should eliminate our emotions, but our emotions must be secondary to rationality. They have to be discarded if they are not absolutely advantageous.
> 
> Bertrand "R" seems to be propagating degeneration. Our rapidly diminishing resources cannot be spent on people who have no higher intention than to have fun and feel good. That's ignorance. The so called progress we have made towards happiness and convenience has resulted in cancer and the destruction of our habitat. Worth of life is measured by our awareness, and we expand our awareness by pursuing knowledge and power. You must believe that if you don't believe plants and insects deserve the same rights as horses and dolphins. The reason it's so heinous to set a horse on fire, and why it's okay to step on a spider is because the horse has a higher level of understanding. Just existing to experience one chemically induced high after another is a horrible burden on those of us who wish to accomplish something noble.
> 
> ...


Pfft, you'd be lying if you claimed you lead a perfectly rational existance in which you exhibit emotions only when they have absolute advantage. You'd be lying because such a position would practically require _omniscience_. Life doesn't come in a series of helpful absolutes.

Bertrand Russell's point was that happiness is itself a valuable thing, he was not suggesting that anything done in pursuit of happiness is justifiable even if it is detrimental or down right harmful. Taking some time to enjoy yourself without needing to create a bullshit excuse to rationalise the fact you like dancing or watching old movies, is valuable _because_ you enjoy it. 

There is no universal measure of 'worth of life', shall we establish this? I'm not going to follow your inane argument that fetishists give in to subconscious urges, therefore aren't as sentient as people without fetishes and hence deserve to be severly punished. That's complete BS. We may as well insist that people who like music but don't understand why deserve horrible treatment for not being self-aware. 

If people have a desire to get their rocks off to furries vampires aliens pirates cowboys or any other such instance this _is_ fetishism, but as has been established, this doesn't make them inferior as people or a drain on society. Squabbling and trying to make people feel horrible about trivial things which give them happiness *is *detrimental though, especially when arguments must be launched from a position of psychological ignorance on the subject.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 26, 2012)

Man, I'm ducking out of this 'argument.' Streetcircus your sheer lack of understanding of most of your arguments is staggering. It's really not worth the effort to try and explain to you why emotions are important. Enjoy thinking humanity is the master-species while the rest of us are evolving into the future. 

I will echo Fallowfox again though:


> *If people have a desire to get their rocks off to furries vampires aliens pirates cowboys or any other such instance this is fetishism*, but as has been established, this doesn't  make them inferior as people or a drain on society. Squabbling and  trying to make people feel horrible about trivial things which give them  happiness *is *detrimental though, especially when arguments must be launched from a position of psychological ignorance on the subject.


I agree entirely. I am attracted to anthros and that attraction is fetishistic. Actracctioin to anthros isn't uncommon for someone in the furry community, but probably is uncommon in the general population.



> Also, Lanefair???


I believe this is a 'sick burn' on Street (lane) circus' (fair) behalf  I lol'd


----------



## Varden (Nov 26, 2012)

Ricky said:


> uuh... I would say if someone doesn't masturbate to it then it's probably not their fetish.
> 
> Also, Lanefair???


Probably, but not_ definitively._ And Lanefair is a wordplay on Streetcircus.


----------



## ADF (Nov 26, 2012)

You know... I just watched that new spider man film for the first time, and I couldn't keep my eyes off that lizard tail... Ugly face but yeah... the tail.

Tail fascination seems to be quite common amongst furries. That or paws, I just prefer thick tails. I know there is no "logic" to such things, how does a foot fetishist explain the reasoning of their obsession to someone who doesn't have it? Even then, they can at least say they are attracted to anatomy of their own species. Furries don't have that. Lizards aren't even mammals so lack the sort of things that tend to catch a humans eye (breasts, buttocks and so on).

You can understand why so many people would be put off by furry, because even fetishists as often portrayed by the media at the very least still direct their attraction towards the human form. That and that canine girl pin-up is uncomfortably close to a certain taboo sexual interest.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 26, 2012)

If there was any attraction in reality I would call it "strange", at least against the already unclear human "nature". Otherwise, it's just appreciation for characters.
 It is not surprising that people find beauty in anthropomorphic creatures - that's why you find so much work of them, both on this site and other places.


----------



## Ricky (Nov 26, 2012)

Afterimage said:


> It is not surprising that people find beauty in anthropomorphic creatures - that's why you find so much work of them, both on this site and other places.



That's what most furries fail to understand.

There have been characters designed PURPOSELY to be sexually attractive (Lola, Minerva Mink...)

They have human traits that most guys (who aren't furries) find attractive.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 26, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Pfft, you'd be lying if you claimed you lead a perfectly rational existance in which you exhibit emotions only when they have absolute advantage. You'd be lying because such a position would practically require omniscience. Life doesn't come in a series of helpful absolutes.
> 
> 
> Bertrand Russell's point was that happiness is itself a valuable thing, he was not suggesting that anything done in pursuit of happiness is justifiable even if it is detrimental or down right harmful. Taking some time to enjoy yourself without needing to create a bullshit excuse to rationalise the fact you like dancing or watching old movies, is valuable because you enjoy it.
> ...




I never said I was omniscient, but I try my best to get as close to it as possible. That's what the entire human race should be doing.


Contentedness is a valuable thing, but it should be experienced by knowing you have done something of merit.


I don't know exactly where you're from, but in most developed countries, social ostracism doesn't entail severe punishment.


Explain how holding people to a standard of etiquette is detrimental just because it prevents them from enjoying a tingling in their groin. They won't wither away.




epslion said:


> is it rational for you to help some one being mugged in an ally, perhaps not, but would you turn the other way and just leave as if nothing happened?




Yes, it is rational to help someone being mugged. I would ask myself, "Wouldn't I want someone to help me?" and that thought is only possible through rationality.




benignBiotic said:


> I agree entirely. I am attracted to anthros and that attraction is fetishistic. Actracctioin to anthros isn't uncommon for someone in the furry community, but probably is uncommon in the general population.




Why do you think your attraction to anthros is fetishistic just because it is uncommon?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 26, 2012)

Ricky said:


> They have human traits that most guys (who aren't furries) find attractive.



I wonder if the center is on the human traits or the animal traits.
Perhaps the combination is a deadly mixture that attracts people very easily?


----------



## Ricky (Nov 26, 2012)

Afterimage said:


> I wonder if the center is on the human traits or the animal traits.
> Perhaps the combination is a deadly mixture that attracts people very easily?



I don't think there's a distinction for most.

People find certain physical or behavioral traits attractive; I don't think it's "human" or boy/girl that turns most people on.

I don't think "normal" people would have a preference for furries, though ;3

Just my guess.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm sure there are normal people out there that wank it to furry porn secretly.


----------



## Ranguvar (Nov 26, 2012)

d.batty said:


> I'm sure there are normal people out there that wank it to furry porn secretly.



I was basically that person until I had to admit to myself that I was a big ol' furfag


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I never said I was omniscient, but I try my best to get as close to it as possible. That's what the entire human race should be doing.
> 
> 
> Contentedness is a valuable thing, but it should be experienced by knowing you have done something of merit.
> ...



The pursuit of knowledge is important, but don't get fixated upon trying to be a perfect personal embodiment of logic. You risk seriously distorting your view of reality, ironically, because justification and understanding is sparing in a world where the unknown abounds. 

I'm from the UK. You mentioned 'chastisement', which is 'severe punishment'. Still, I don't think socially rejecting other people because they have harmless but unusual turn ons is at all nice or justifiable. It's an awfully trivial thing to be upset about, much less insist others are _limiting social progress_ as a result.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 26, 2012)

d.batty said:


> I'm sure there are normal people out there that wank it to furry porn secretly.



Porn is like Coffee. It's a stimulant and porn stimulates people sexually. Some aren't stimulated by it like others are.

And I could go for some coffee right now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Porn is like Coffee. It's a stimulant and porn stimulates people sexually. Some aren't stimulated by it like others are.
> 
> And I could go for some coffee right now.


Bit of a tangent: 

Coffee makes me, and some other members of my family, tired instead of alert. I've always found this a curiosity.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 27, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The pursuit of knowledge is important, but don't get fixated upon trying to be a perfect personal embodiment of logic. You risk seriously distorting your view of reality, ironically, because justification and understanding is sparing in a world where the unknown abounds.
> 
> I'm from the UK. You mentioned 'chastisement', which is 'severe punishment'. Still, I don't think socially rejecting other people because they have harmless but unusual turn ons is at all nice or justifiable. It's an awfully trivial thing to be upset about, much less insist others are _limiting social progress_ as a result.



If there is one ant on the ant-hill that stops and thinks, "Maybe what I think is important, really isn't, and what if there is so much more to existence than I can even grasp." That ant would have greater worth than the others because he would be correct. We ought to do that more persistently.

No one has the right to not be insulted, offended, or rejected. Everyone should be subjected to criticism, because that's how cultural progress is made. You either explain why what you have done isn't wrong, change for the better, or remain a social pariah.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> If there is one ant on the ant-hill that stops and thinks, "Maybe what I think is important, really isn't, and what if there is so much more to existence than I can even grasp." That ant would have greater worth than the others because he would be correct. We ought to do that more persistently.
> 
> No one has the right to not be insulted, offended, or rejected. Everyone should be subjected to criticism, because that's how cultural progress is made. You either explain why what you have done isn't wrong, change for the better, or remain a social pariah.



Actually such a philosophical ant is '_of more interest to streetcircus_' than the other boring ants, not 'worth more' by any natural measure- weather things are attributed intrinsic worth by nature is unclear. Nature is probably not anthropic. 

People do not deserve to be insulted and rejected over trivial things such as whether they masturbate to fetishistic pornography or not. It really is making a mountain out of a molehill. Claiming that intentionally setting out to make such people 'pariahs' in the name of social _'progress_' simply shows your own infantile intollerance to arbitrary differences between people. Largely fetishism makes little difference to people's lives, just providing them with some sexual pleasure. What turns them on might not make sense to you, but in the grander scheme of things it's not very significant at all.


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 28, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Actually such a philosophical ant is '_of more interest to streetcircus_' than the other boring ants, not 'worth more' by any natural measure- weather things are attributed intrinsic worth by nature is unclear. Nature is probably not anthropic.
> 
> People do not deserve to be insulted and rejected over trivial things such as whether they masturbate to fetishistic pornography or not. It really is making a mountain out of a molehill. Claiming that intentionally setting out to make such people 'pariahs' in the name of social _'progress_' simply shows your own infantile intollerance to arbitrary differences between people. Largely fetishism makes little difference to people's lives, just providing them with some sexual pleasure. What turns them on might not make sense to you, but in the grander scheme of things it's not very significant at all.



Omnipotence is intrinsically worth more than flaw. If we can acknowledge that there is a spectrum from omniscience to a complete lack of knowledge, we would place higher than an ant.

Rejecting a person isn't a burden on the one doing the rejecting, so I don't know how it is a mountain of an issue. Everyone, including you, needs to welcome criticism and be willing to improve on themselves no matter how insignificant the fault. At the very worst, receiving criticism will force you to become more thoughtful, because you will need to consider whether your behavior is wrong or right in order to defend it. You don't like this approach because it's harder and less fun, but the right thing to do is always the hardest. The right thing should never be compromised.


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 28, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Omnipotence is intrinsically worth more than flaw. If we can acknowledge that there is a spectrum from omniscience to a complete lack of knowledge, we would place higher than an ant.
> 
> Rejecting a person isn't a burden on the one doing the rejecting, so I don't know how it is a mountain of an issue. Everyone, including you, needs to welcome criticism and be willing to improve on themselves no matter how insignificant the fault. At the very worst, receiving criticism will force you to become more thoughtful, because you will need to consider whether your behavior is wrong or right in order to defend it. You don't like this approach because it's harder and less fun, but the right thing to do is always the hardest. The right thing should never be compromised.



All powefulness doesn't exist...I think you might have meant 'omniscience' but that's a philosophical bomb too. We might as well say 'faster than light travel'. 

You're exaggerating vanila sex deviations into 'social inertia'. That's why you're making a mountain from a molehill. You're not an all-knowing God like authority whose job it is to dish out hate over others for the silliest of things. 
Things aren't black or white right and wrong by virtue of how difficult they are; that's a ritualistic view. You should consider the fact you live in a world where there is more to gain by being friends with other people than there is by trying to shame them because they like sexual situations that you can't rationalise [yet]. 

You are not omniscient, nor will you ever be, because the most important thing we should ever be aware of is our own ignorance. You don't have a justification for being mean to fetishistists- you just have some apriori bullshit that they are somehow limiting your quest for complete omniscience in some round about way. 

That's like me saying I don't like videogamers because they play in the virtual world, so they are clearly less aware of the real one. x3


----------



## Streetcircus (Nov 28, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> All powefulness doesn't exist...I think you might have meant 'omniscience' but that's a philosophical bomb too. We might as well say 'faster than light travel'.
> 
> You're exaggerating vanila sex deviations into 'social inertia'. That's why you're making a mountain from a molehill. You're not an all-knowing God like authority whose job it is to dish out hate over others for the silliest of things.
> Things aren't black or white right and wrong by virtue of how difficult they are; that's a ritualistic view. You should consider the fact you live in a world where there is more to gain by being friends with other people than there is by trying to shame them because they like sexual situations that you can't rationalise [yet].
> ...



Omnipotence, which encompasses omniscience, exists as a concept, and remains the apex of potential.

Criticism does not equate to hatred. I think you're the one exaggerating. Aren't people almost universally expected to keep fetishes private anyways? Isn't the reason it's expected to be kept private because it isn't pleasant? Fetishes are also completely unnecessary, making it a choice to partake in them. If a person openly indulges in senseless sexual behavior, and they obviously have neglected to remain pleasant to the people they share this world with, then you have an obligation to express your distaste. No person who must give up senseless, mindless, apish sexual pleasure is a victim. If it's trivial, then not doing it should be easy enough.

If the person can rationalize their behavior, then they're welcome to explain it to anyone who protests it. Only by raising an objection to it can that process happen. Whether the fetishist changes, or the objector understands the fetish, progress has been made. Turning a blind eye doesn't allow anyone to become aware of their ignorance.

I think you're just being overly sympathetic here, as liberals tend to be.


----------



## Mentova (Nov 28, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Porn is like Coffee. It's a stimulant and porn stimulates people sexually. Some aren't stimulated by it like others are.
> 
> And I could go for some coffee right now.


I was never much of a coffee fan honestly.


----------

