# Diaperfurs



## ViperT24 (Jul 28, 2012)

Okay so this isn't meant to be a rant, but it pertains to furries wearing diapers, whether they're the baby/cub sort or the adult furry, whatever. So I personally am strongly against the idea of furs wearing diapers; I find it totally weird at best, and objectionable to look at in all cases. I realize that's just me, and far be it from me to impose my views on others. If artists _really_ want to post that sort of thing, and FA is cool with it, then fine. I'm just wondering if anyone can explain the surge of diaperfur art we've had recently. It used to be that I'd run into that kind of thing maybe a couple times in a week. Now I'm seeing it on a daily basis, and loads of it at that. I really don't enjoy it, but I've taken to blocking out artists who post that kind of material just so I personally don't have to see it, and yet after blocking out over 200, I'm still adding roughly 6-9 artists a day to the blocklist, and it's showing no signs of slowing down. So really, what's with that? It almost seems beyond the realm of coincidence now. Is it just a trend? Opinions?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 28, 2012)

No idea. One of the only artists I know that ever posts diaper art (usually for commissions) has a warning thumbnail for those that don't like it. Maybe you just watch the wrong artists.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 28, 2012)

It's not my thing either, but like you I recognise that I can't concretely dissmiss those people as disgusting or even distasteful. I haven't noticed a surge in their activity but neither have I been online for very long, furthermore there has not been a substantial amount of that content to merit me blocking those users in hope of avoiding it, as I generaly see images of that kind uploaded a long time ago when I'm bumbling around through searches and people's albums. 

If their activity has indeed increased perhaps a site they used to use by priority has shut down or maybe a successful artist has popularised that form of imagery.


----------



## SirRob (Jul 28, 2012)

I haven't seen an increase-- perhaps it only seems like that because it bothers you? I know I'm like that with particular stuff.


----------



## ViperT24 (Jul 28, 2012)

Yeah, it's not artists that I'm watching, it's general postings across the board. I browse through FA on a daily basis, and I'm absolutely certain there's way more of this stuff than there's ever been. Sometimes more than one artist to a page, but almost never less than every other page


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 28, 2012)

ViperT24 said:


> Yeah, it's not artists that I'm watching, it's general postings across the board. I browse through FA on a daily basis, and I'm absolutely certain there's way more of this stuff than there's ever been. Sometimes more than one artist to a page, but almost never less than every other page



Like sirrob said perhaps since you've become sensitised to that imagery you're just noticing it more now, whereas you would have just glanced and not realised previously.


----------



## ViperT24 (Jul 28, 2012)

SirRob said:


> I haven't seen an increase-- perhaps it only seems like that because it bothers you? I know I'm like that with particular stuff.



Yeah that's not a bad theory, and I thought of that too, but the thing is...after I noticed it seemingly increase, I went and did a keyword search by date for things like "diaperfur" "cub" "babyfur" etc. and blocked out nearly 200 artists that way. So I'm fairly certain the 6-9+ new artists I'm blocking every day are ones I haven't seen post before. And seriously, they come page after page after page...since it does bother me, I'm sure I would've noticed it at some point over the last five years if it was the general trend


----------



## Dreaming (Jul 28, 2012)

ViperT24 said:


> I realize that's just me


Not really, plenty of people - even here - find it sort of weird. It's artwork, it'll always be subjective so there will always be a group of people who like the stranger things. Though I have to say I haven't noticed a considerable increase in diaperfur art, I have noticed a decrease in MLP fanart on FA.


----------



## FM3THOU (Jul 28, 2012)

The only thing that seems to bother me is the way they usually draw the diaper. Most times its just unsettling to me for some reason. But I am so desensitized so it kinda blends in with the rest of the stuff.


----------



## Shadow (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't really give a damn, I just move on with life.


----------



## Elim Garak (Jul 28, 2012)

What we should do is put em on a island and :
[video=youtube;6BCoBGdvyiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BCoBGdvyiQ[/video]


----------



## H.B.C (Jul 28, 2012)

Yeah... It creeps me out.
 It's stuff like that that makes me feel that any slander I get for being furry (which I don't get anyway because I don't advertise it) is pretty much justified.

Can't say much about the main site since I don't have an account there.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Jul 28, 2012)

I browse a lot and I only see maybe one or two a day.


----------



## CrazyLee (Jul 28, 2012)

I happen to know a diaperfur IRL... once saw a pack of adult diapers in his trunk.

Besides that though, he never talks about it to others and he seems like a really nice guy for the most part.

It's weird and creepy to me but just, as long as they keep it to themselves..


----------



## Ikrit (Jul 28, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> I happen to know a diaperfur IRL... once saw a pack of adult diapers in his trunk.
> 
> Besides that though, he never talks about it to others and he seems like a really nice guy for the most part.
> 
> It's weird and creepy to me but just, as long as they keep it to themselves..



the problem is that some make an unhealthy lifestyle out if it, and then feel the need to tell everyone about it.  To them, it's no different then being gay.

The others know when to have fun, and when to grow up. so these people don't stick out, allowing the weird ones to form the face of everyone within


----------



## ViperT24 (Jul 28, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> Not really, plenty of people - even here - find it sort of weird. It's artwork, it'll always be subjective so there will always be a group of people who like the stranger things. Though I have to say I haven't noticed a considerable increase in diaperfur art, I have noticed a decrease in MLP fanart on FA.



Yeah, heh, I doubt it's just me...I only use that as a disclaimer since I'm not trying to offend anyone. Even though I find it offensive...yeah, well I dunno. Fact remains that I'm  seeing diapers every other page at _least_, usually more than that, and considering I block every artist I see doing that and there are still more and more, it seems like a surge to me. The whole diaperfur thing has always bothered me, so I'm sure it wouldn't have slipped past me before.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 28, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> the problem is that some make an unhealthy lifestyle out if it, and then feel the need to tell everyone about it.  To them, it's no different then being gay.
> 
> The others know when to have fun, and when to grow up. so these people don't stick out, allowing the weird ones to form the face of everyone within



Sounds a lot like the furry fandom as a whole to me.


----------



## Ikrit (Jul 28, 2012)

ArielMT said:


> Sounds a lot like the furry fandom as a whole to me.



It's exactly like that.


----------



## burakki (Jul 28, 2012)

As if the whole inkbunny/cub porn crap wasn't enough, now we get to deal with diapers!

seems stupid, but hey, live and let live.


----------



## TreacleFox (Jul 29, 2012)

In this case its FA's fault for not having any tagging system. What do you mean it seems beyond realm of coincidence?

Another faf angst filled thinly-veiled hate thread go.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 29, 2012)

Gosh dern dypeurs.
The fandom is what it is, get in or get out.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 29, 2012)

Am I wrong in reading this as "stop liking what I don't like"?  Granted, it's not at all popular subject matter, but still that's what I'm reading.


----------



## Campion1 (Jul 29, 2012)

I know at least one fur who has to wear diapers due to physical problems, to the point of embracing it as something he enjoys. I find it repulsive, but mostly harmless, unlike other certain "fetishes" that require the severe suffering of others to function


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 29, 2012)

ArielMT said:


> Am I wrong in reading this as "stop liking what I don't like"?  Granted, it's not at all popular subject matter, but still that's what I'm reading.



same here.
personally i absolutely hate seeing this stuff but i dont run around complaining about it. everyone is free to do what ever they want as long as they dont bother you with it.
as long as you dont run into people with a shitty diaper fetish who actually wear a diaper full of shit at a con or something this really isnt an issue in my opinion.
sure, its weird. but name one person who isnt weird.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 29, 2012)

Can't say much of anything until one goes to a convention and tosses their dirty diaper in an elevator....or under the table in the Headless Zone.
The image stuff? I personally do not care for it and will not look at it.


----------



## Dokid (Jul 29, 2012)

ViperT24 said:


> Okay so this isn't meant to be a rant, but it pertains to furries wearing diapers, whether they're the baby/cub sort or the adult furry, whatever. So I personally am strongly against the idea of furs wearing diapers; I find it totally weird at best, and objectionable to look at in all cases. I realize that's just me, and far be it from me to impose my views on others. If artists _really_ want to post that sort of thing, and FA is cool with it, then fine. I'm just wondering if anyone can explain the surge of diaperfur art we've had recently. It used to be that I'd run into that kind of thing maybe a couple times in a week. Now I'm seeing it on a daily basis, and loads of it at that. I really don't enjoy it, but I've taken to blocking out artists who post that kind of material just so I personally don't have to see it, and yet after blocking out over 200, I'm still adding roughly 6-9 artists a day to the blocklist, and it's showing no signs of slowing down. So really, what's with that? It almost seems beyond the realm of coincidence now. Is it just a trend? Opinions?



well it depends on the kind of artist your watching... I mean I haven't noticed any. Maybe turn the filter for Tame or mature art on? I mean you can't really stop people from posting things (although sometimes I wish I could)

Also you must spend a lot of time online if it bothers you that much....


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Jul 29, 2012)

To each his own, I guess.

Who're we to judge others for what they draw? Â¯\_(ãƒ„)_/Â¯


----------



## PapayaShark (Jul 29, 2012)

As long as I don't have to see it or it is of underage characters involved in sexual content, I have no problems with it.


----------



## Limbo (Jul 29, 2012)

Wat... I am glad I don't go to the main site =~=...
Diaper art makes me feel kind of awkward so I try not to go looking for it. Ah hah...


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 29, 2012)

Sand said:


> Wat... I am glad I don't go to the main site =~=...
> Diaper art makes me feel kind of awkward so I try not to go looking for it. Ah hah...



I go to the main site and I hardly see any.


----------



## Limbo (Jul 29, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I go to the main site and I hardly see any.



I understand, it's just I ran across things I did not want to see (even with my filters set to NONESHALLPASS) and I decided main site is just not where I belong.


----------



## KigRatel (Jul 29, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I go to the main site and I hardly see any.



Same here.

As many people have said, if it's not pornographic, then I don't give half a shit about these Nappyfurs. (FYI, Nappy is British English for Diaper)


----------



## SirRob (Jul 29, 2012)

KigRatel said:


> As many people have said, if it's not pornographic, then I don't give half a shit about these Nappyfurs. (FYI, Nappy is British English for Diaper)


But the same intent is there for a considerable amount of this sort of art.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jul 29, 2012)

It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.

It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.


----------



## KigRatel (Jul 29, 2012)

SirRob said:


> But the same intent is there for a considerable amount of this sort of art.



What do you mean the same inte- oh, _right._

Well, if that's their intent and they don't make it obvious, then that's their problem, not mine. I'll leave them to deal with consequences and stay out of it, thanks. That's the only way I can remain ignorant, and thus, untraumatized, in such a situation.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.
> 
> It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.



Et tu, Freud?  You seem to be sexualizing something that isn't necessarily sexual.  Also, what does _sexual_ retardation mean?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.
> 
> It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.



I'm no diaperfur but I feel this is either cutting edge sarcasm or incredibly unfair. 
-There's no guarantee all their members have a sexual interest or that those who do exclusively so.
-There's little ground to claim those who do are 'sexually retarded,' because they have a fetishism which you personally think is disgusting*; the only thing certain about sex is that everyone's into something that somebody else finds sinister and the only remedy to that is tollerance in the face of all harmless behaviour. 

*For instance a slug is not intrinsically disgusting because you don't like slugs.




ArielMT said:


> Et tu, Freud?  You seem to be sexualizing something that isn't necessarily sexual.  Also, what does _sexual_ retardation mean?




I assume he thinks that since that specific fetishism- not that they're all fetishistic individuals- features aspects from childhood that it means the individuals who subscribe to it have failed to develope into adults. 

However there exist other fetishisms which also feature aspects from childhood that the public find _completely acceptable _rather than sexually 'retarded', for example spankophiles.


----------



## Shadow (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.
> 
> It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.



Well that escalated quickly, especially since we were talking about it in general. You know, not making it sexual right away.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 29, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I assume he thinks that since that specific fetishism- not that they're all fetishistic individuals- features aspects from childhood that it means the individuals who subscribe to it have failed to develope into adults.



It's a pretty complicated thing, one that I'm trying not to pretend I fully understand.  That noted, a lot of DL art I come across falls into one of three categories.

The most repulsive is, of course, the explicit sex in which the wearing and use of diapers for their intended purpose plays a key role.  That, I just don't understand; not just what makes such a mind tick, but how it's physically possible, sort of like vore fetishism but less confined to pure imagination.

The second is the kink factor, identical in every way to other types of clothing fetishes, such as latex, business suits, or the culturally reinforced swimsuit kinks.

The third is not sexual at all, not in the least, and nor is it meant to be.  The desire is simply to recapture some of the innocence of youth as a relaxing form of temporary escapism.



Fallowfox said:


> However there exist other fetishisms which also feature aspects from childhood that the public find _completely acceptable _rather than sexually 'retarded', for example spankophiles.



I don't pretend to understand that one, either.  But hey, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jul 29, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm no diaperfur but I feel this is either cutting edge sarcasm or incredibly unfair.
> -There's no guarantee all their members have a sexual interest or that those who do exclusively so.
> -There's little ground to claim those who do are 'sexually retarded,' because they have a fetishism which you personally think is disgusting*; the only thing certain about sex is that everyone's into something that somebody else finds sinister and the only remedy to that is tollerance in the face of all harmless behaviour.
> 
> *For instance a slug is not intrinsically disgusting because you don't like slugs.



I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all. That just has not been my experience. I suppose it's possible, but do furries draw food because they like to eat, beds because they like to sleep, or stereo systems because they like music? Only very rarely.

As far as it being disgusting, you can argue that nothing is disgusting if any individual is not repulsed by it, but that's not how we come to understand the value of adjectives. We understand by relatives. If you want to explain what the word disgusting means, you would reference garbage. If you have experienced garbage, you would then understand what disgusting means, but only if your experiences with garbage have been unpleasant. Most people do not find rotting food and used tissues pleasant, so garbage is a standard.

I think most would consider an adult wearing an ugly bag for pleasure, that is meant to be pooped and peed in, and is designed for infants with limited physical capabilities, to be immature, irrational, unpleasant, and disgusting behavior. Enough to say that it is a standard. It's not just my own personal feelings, I'm deferring to the prevailing common logic.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all. That just has not been my experience. I suppose it's possible, but do furries draw food because they like to eat, beds because they like to sleep, or stereo systems because they like music? Only very rarely.
> 
> As far as it being disgusting, you can argue that nothing is disgusting if any individual is not repulsed by it, but that's not how we come to understand the value of adjectives. We understand by relatives. If you want to explain what the word disgusting means, you would reference garbage. If you have experienced garbage, you would then understand what disgusting means, but only if your experiences with garbage have been unpleasant. Most people do not find rotting food and used tissues pleasant, so garbage is a standard.
> 
> I think most would consider an adult wearing an ugly bag for pleasure, that is meant to be pooped and peed in, and is designed for infants with limited physical capabilities, to be immature, irrational, unpleasant, and disgusting behavior. Enough to say that it is a standard. It's not just my own personal feelings, I'm deferring to the prevailing common logic.



Do furries draw furries because they like furries for reasons other than sexual? All the time. In any case, I'm going to touch on popularity in the next paragraph. 

Many people would consider adults wearing diapers any of those following adjectives, but it doesn't make it intrinsically so or indicate that said individuals are retarded sexually or immature mentally, only that their interests are a minority behaviour. Appeal to popularity _is_ a fallacy. [there goes democracy] In light of this, as long as nobody comes to any harm, I cultivate an open mind to other people's behaviour regardless of its attached popularity and take effort [at least try] not to typify groups by non inherent descriptions.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> but do furries draw food because they like to eat,



https://www.furaffinity.net/view/2216781/ Also, a search for "food," searching by date, returned no result on the first page that was older than one day.  Just sayin' that furries _do_ draw stuff because they like it but don't get off to it.  It's a poor analogy.


----------



## Ikrit (Jul 29, 2012)

ArielMT said:


> https://www.furaffinity.net/view/2216781/ Also, a search for "food," searching by date, returned no result on the first page that was older than one day.  Just sayin' that furries _do_ draw stuff because they like it but don't get off to it.  It's a poor analogy.



still not as cool as cockwaffle, it has a syrup filling! 
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/607086/ (NSFW-ish)


----------



## SirRob (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all.


*Jawdrop* Are you seriously saying that?! That's like, highly offensive to every clean artist on FA. That's like... it's offensive to _yourself,_ dude.


----------



## Dokid (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all. That just has not been my experience. I suppose it's possible, but do furries draw food because they like to eat, beds because they like to sleep, or stereo systems because they like music? Only very rarely.



So if I draw a fish does that mean that I'm sexually attracted to it? Maybe I just like drawing fish all the time.

Your example is poor and you should re-word it or come up with a new one. I've seen plenty of clean artwork that is furry oriented where I highly doubt the artist created it simply because they're sexually attracted to the scene or whatever it is.


----------



## MitchZer0 (Jul 29, 2012)

Only little baby scrublet minecraft fans wear diapers


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 29, 2012)

SirRob said:


> *Jawdrop* Are you seriously saying that?! That's like, highly offensive to every clean artist on FA. That's like... it's offensive to _yourself,_ dude.



He's the only artist who ever produces non sexual imagery, and everyone else is obsessed with sex naturally. x3 

...I can perhaps see why somebody could be dooped into thinking that, since sometimes the 'newest' is almost entirely sexual and in general furries tend to think that other furries are more sexual than themselves- which is odd isn't it? Of course these impressions are entirely false.


----------



## KingNow (Jul 29, 2012)

I don't mind diaperfurs, as long as they keep it to themselves. 
The problem with that is the fact that they're furries, and furs have this unnatural lust for attention. 

It's also really fucking creepy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafK6jT5pnE&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## Streetcircus (Jul 29, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Do furries draw furries because they like furries for reasons other than sexual? All the time. In any case, I'm going to touch on popularity in the next paragraph.
> 
> 
> Many people would consider adults wearing diapers any of those following adjectives, but it doesn't make it intrinsically so or indicate that said individuals are retarded sexually or immature mentally, only that their interests are a minority behaviour. Appeal to popularity _is_ a fallacy. [there goes democracy] In light of this, as long as nobody comes to any harm, I cultivate an open mind to other people's behaviour regardless of its attached popularity and take effort [at least try] not to typify groups by non inherent descriptions.



Furries are a general interest, diapers are a very particular interest. 

Art is about concept, and many things that people draw have an idea behind them that they want to express. What could anyone want to express concerning diapers? If there was some kind of meaning behind the drawing of diapers, that would be one thing, but these are fixations, and fixations are most often related to sexual desire.

As I said, there is nothing intrinsically disgusting about anything. It's all based on our experiences, but without relatives, the word disgusting would have no meaning. To understand the word, we reference things like diapers. Diapers are not intrinsically disgusting, but they are a standard because they are consistently found to be offensive by the functioning senses of a typical human being. It is so consistent, that you would be immediately dismissed as a lunatic if you admitted to liking diapers in any modern society.

There is the chance that the majority are wrong, but I have a rule for that: if you can't rationalize a behavior, it is probably wrong. Now, you define wrong as harmful to another person, but there are many examples of unfavorable qualities that don't actually cause harm to anyone: cowardice, promiscuity, vanity, immaturity, or awkwardness. Acting cowardly doesn't actually do harm to anyone, and it may even prevent harm from coming to you, but it isn't admirable, and everyone has the right to petition against what they don't approve of. Cowardice is, inherently, a negative characteristic.

So, while diaper drawers may not be doing harm to anyone, except culture, they can't rationalize it, and I can rationalize my disapproval. I have more than enough right to protest against it.


----------



## Osiris the jackal (Jul 29, 2012)

I find it taboo as well, But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So as long as they keep to themselves and don't hurt anyone(Or the fandom ), I see no problem with them.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 29, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> Furries are a general interest, diapers are a very particular interest.
> 
> Art is about concept, and many things that people draw have an idea behind them that they want to express. What could anyone want to express concerning diapers? If there was some kind of meaning behind the drawing of diapers, that would be one thing, but these are fixations, and fixations are most often related to sexual desire.
> 
> ...



Sexual content is not an inherent criterion of diaperfurs, hence it's unfair to continue insisting that must necessarily be a fixation they all have. 

The word disgusting does have a meaning, to arous strong revulsion, no part of this meaning demands it be tied to 'standards', there are things many people find disgusting but there's no such thing as an intrinsically disgusting thing just as there is no intrinsically sexy thing or no intrinsically sad thing. Appealing to popularity again and again does *not* qualify comments such as 'they're sexually retarded,', only that they are a minority, and appealing to authority to then seek other unfavourable qualities is just repeating this fallacy. 
For example eventhough they may be viewed negatively by some people promiscuous individuals, should they practice safe sex, are of no concern to me. You also misuse the word 'inherent', because if cowardice can save your life it's not inherently negative. x3 Inherent means 'an essential permanent part'.

Furthermore their interest sexual or not can be easily rationalised- they enjoy it and they're not doing harm, that's as much rationalisation as is required. Sure you can petition against their activity because the idea of it makes you squirm, but it's a waste of your time since no harm's being done you'd be best to just ignore it and get on with other things.


----------



## Streetcircus (Jul 29, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Sexual content is not an inherent criterion of diaperfurs, hence it's unfair to continue insisting that must necessarily be a fixation they all have.
> 
> The word disgusting does have a meaning, to arous strong revulsion, no part of this meaning demands it be tied to 'standards', there are things many people find disgusting but there's no such thing as an intrinsically disgusting thing just as there is no intrinsically sexy thing or no intrinsically sad thing. Appealing to popularity again and again does *not* qualify comments such as 'they're sexually retarded,', only that they are a minority, and appealing to authority to then seek other unfavourable qualities is just repeating this fallacy.
> For example eventhough they may be viewed negatively by some people promiscuous individuals, should they practice safe sex, are of no concern to me. You also misuse the word 'inherent', because if cowardice can save your life it's not inherently negative. x3 Inherent means 'an essential permanent part'.
> ...



Fat fetishists create content that is not sexually suggestive at all, all the time. The fixation with obesity is still sexual, otherwise, there wouldn't be a fixation. I admit that it's possible that there is an artistic reason behind producing images featuring particular concepts like obesity and diapers, but I've never seen it - not in the furry fandom. They receive some kind of pleasure from creating an expression of their affinity for diapers, and what kind of pleasure could that be? Artistic gratification? Not likely.

You've made a mistake in your second paragraph: you used the word revulsion to describe disgust, but the definition of revulsion is a feeling of violent disgust. If you don't understand disgust, you don't understand revulsion. You must use a standard to relate the word disgust with the experience of being disgusted. This is where things like garbage, feces, vomit, and diapers are used to conjure the intended feeling, and link it to the expression. How do you know to use feces to invoke those feelings of disgust instead of flowers? It's simply the consistency of which people are disgusted by feces rather than flowers.

This same principle also determines retardation and sexual normalcy. Since any human being can be considered retarded if a more advanced being were to be observed, standards must also be used to understand what should comparatively be accepted as retardation. Again, sexual behavior is strongly consistent, and it isn't just that fact that suggests extreme fetishes are a result of sexual impairment, but it is also the irrationality of the behavior, and the failure of being able to explain their motives.

Also, preserving your life isn't necessarily positive. There is no virtue in saving your life at the cost of your dignity. Ultimately, transcending humanity through nobility and righteousness is worth far more than a human life. I maintain that cowardice is inherently negative, and the worth of a human being is measured by his deeds, not his vitality.

As far as pleasure being a rational motive for a behavior, I would contend that. Even the smallest organisms are driven by pleasure, and it does not require thought. Thought is the essence of sentience, and thoughtlessness is a burden on human progress. If you can't justify your actions with a comprehensible explanation, then whatever reaction you receive is appropriate. If you make others aware of yourself, they are naturally obligate to form an impression and respond accordingly. These are the mechanics of life, and they work this way for a reason. It's progress. In this case it's cultural progress, because it is culture that is being harmed when individuals are allowed to do as they please without being held accountable.


----------



## Mentova (Jul 30, 2012)

Alright this is getting dumb. Locking.


----------

