What does this little corner of the web think of them?
who?
I don't think any of us really give a fuck.
Quote from: Alfred Rhazi on November 07, 2008, 05:45:33 PM
What does this little corner of the web think of them?
Some people like them, some people don't, some people use them as puppets...
I like puppets.
Must have something to do with pulling the strings.... :lulz:
Define anonymous.
I don't care one way or the other about Anon.
Some of their jokes are funny, most of them are terrible. Same as with any other group of monkeys.
i thought anon was just an idea. a label. not really a cohesive group...
Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2008, 06:10:58 PM
i thought anon was just an idea. a label. not really a cohesive group...
That's what they want you to think....
Anonymous are actually 40 year old WoW players who convince you they are a hot female using voice distortion, so when you invite them over and you open the door, a big hairy fists jams itself in your eye as he runs to your freezer and steals your hotpockets, giggling like Mango from old SNL.
I think Anonymous, as an organism, is fascinating. I expect we will see many other other decentralized consciousnesses in the next decade. We don't yet have the language to describe exactly what this thing is or how it works, but give it time.
I study anonymous and their behavior as I study caddisflies.
Its fascinating.
I like seeing anyone poke a hole in Scientology, but conversely I would also like to see someone poke a hole in Anonymous.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 07, 2008, 06:10:58 PM
i thought anon was just an idea. a label. not really a cohesive group...
:mittens:
4chan and the other chans are boring and rely on repetition for their humor, the Scientology thing was interesting but to date i have never seen anything interesting posted on the like
The Scientology thing is dumb as hell. Most of them do it out of hatred, which is messed up.
I don't see it that way.
I see it as the CoS having EXTREMELY deep pockets when it comes to lawyers fees, which is why most people won't bother with them in court. They can afford to keep the trials going indefinitely.
Anonymous hits them where they can't really do anything about it. For this, I appreciate them.
Maybe it's just because I live in Utah, but seriously nothing the CoS does can ever be more evil to me than half the things the LDS church monolith does on a regular basis. So I don't really care.
(http://www.chrisrue.com/funcave/graphics/ostrich.jpg)
Fuck you.
The minute Anonymous started to take itself seriously was the moment it became an ego-crutch for basement dwelling social misfits. It was an interesting example of emergence and web-based organization, but there are other examples of that now.
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 09:59:18 PM
The minute Anonymous started to take itself seriously was the moment it became an ego-crutch for basement dwelling social misfits. It was an interesting example of emergence and web-based organization, but there are other examples of that now.
PING!
In the hacker universe, there are lots of groups like anonymous, but they actually remain, well, anonymous. ;-)
All I want is for Anonymous to get back to making serious IRL digs at Scientology. The last protest was in April, FFS.
Quote from: Alfred Rhazi on November 07, 2008, 05:45:33 PM
What does this little corner of the web think of them?
I think they're cowards with a fucked up set of priorities.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 07, 2008, 08:53:49 PM
Most of them do it out of hatred, which is messed up.
:sadbanana:
Quote from: Hoopla on November 07, 2008, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 07, 2008, 09:02:17 PM
Fuck you.
TOUCHÉ!!
Seriously, though, Scientology may be an evil pyramid scheme but it doesn't do anything as horrible as, say...and I'm just pulling a random example out of a hat, here....ohh, let's say changing a state constitution to fit its moral mandates. So, really, fuck you.
Hatred of entire blocks of people just because they belong to X religion or have Y skin color is messed up.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 08, 2008, 02:40:52 AM
Hatred of entire blocks of people just because they belong to X religion or have Y skin color is messed up.
Well, sure, or at least tribally motivated or ignorant.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 08, 2008, 02:40:52 AM
Hatred of entire blocks of people just because they belong to X religion or have Y skin color is messed up.
did you just equate following a moral code dictated to you by someone else (which you choose to do) with having a skin color (which you are born with, Michael Jackson notwithstanding)?
because that doesn't really work.
Quote from: Alfred Rhazi on November 07, 2008, 05:45:33 PM
What does this little corner of the web think of them?
congratz you have earned your ten thetans :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 08, 2008, 05:36:04 AM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 08, 2008, 02:40:52 AM
Hatred of entire blocks of people just because they belong to X religion or have Y skin color is messed up.
did you just equate following a moral code dictated to you by someone else (which you choose to do) with having a skin color (which you are born with, Michael Jackson notwithstanding)?
because that doesn't really work.
YESSSS
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 08, 2008, 05:36:04 AM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 08, 2008, 02:40:52 AM
Hatred of entire blocks of people just because they belong to X religion or have Y skin color is messed up.
did you just equate following a moral code dictated to you by someone else (which you choose to do) with having a skin color (which you are born with, Michael Jackson notwithstanding)?
because that doesn't really work.
No, I didn't, I said hating someone because of one single identifying feature is wrong. Chosen or not, it's still bigotry.
wrong.
hating someone for something they have chosen to do is not bigotry.
Otherwise, I'd be a bigot for hating white supremacists.
Quote from: Kostatar on November 07, 2008, 10:23:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 09:59:18 PM
The minute Anonymous started to take itself seriously was the moment it became an ego-crutch for basement dwelling social misfits. It was an interesting example of emergence and web-based organization, but there are other examples of that now.
PING!
In the hacker universe, there are lots of groups like anonymous, but they actually remain, well, anonymous. ;-)
Yeah, I've stumbled upon groups like that on occasion. Not very often, but here and there.
What was fascinating was when John Robb talked to a member of Anonymous, when discussing strategy for their attacks on the CoS. I don't know if this particular member was well linked within the /i/nsurgency, but he had an excellent grip on 4GW and said that such theories had made an impact on how the fight was being directed, at least in the early days.
WTF, WHY DOES SHE GET THETANS?!
There are no thetans here.
duh, everyone gets ten free thetans when they register, if you have not received said thetans please check with your local post office
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 08, 2008, 02:35:47 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 07, 2008, 10:02:57 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 07, 2008, 09:02:17 PM
Fuck you.
TOUCHÉ!!
Seriously, though, Scientology may be an evil pyramid scheme but it doesn't do anything as horrible as, say...and I'm just pulling a random example out of a hat, here....ohh, let's say changing a state constitution to fit its moral mandates. So, really, fuck you.
Not yet, but they are getting there and I guess we can deal with them then, right? So actually fuck you...
Oh, and what are they doing to do, put a tax on thetans? Ban all aliens from outer space?
Pardon me for having different priorities than you. I didn't know that individual thought was frowned upon round these parts. Obviously I'm just completely wrong and have my head stuck up my ass. Thanks for setting me straight, there, buddy.
I'm just saying that simply because they aren't controlling elections yet doesn't mean they never will... you can either resist them now or later, because with the way the Cos deal with it will probably eventually be a problem.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 08, 2008, 12:34:43 PM
wrong.
hating someone for something they have chosen to do is not bigotry.
Otherwise, I'd be a bigot for hating white supremacists.
you're not?
Mr. Webster says:
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
so, although it is especially associated racial or ethnic groups, it is not limited to that.
oooor, i could stick my foot in shit and say that hating gay people is hating someone for something they have 'chosen' to do..... :D
I think the difference lies in hating the individual or the actions of the individual.
For example, the misguided Christian may 'hate' the act of sodomy, but may still treat a homosexual as any other human being. I don't consider this bigotry.
OR
The misguided Christian may 'hate' fags. I do consider this bigotry.
RWHN may hate the acts of bigotry perpetrated by individuals associated with white supremacist groups.
OR
RWHN may hate all people associated with white supremacist groups.
etc.
I still reserve the right to hate furries, though. Fuck em.
I find Furries hilarious, personally.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 08:45:49 PM
I still reserve the right to hate furries, though. Fuck em.
So at Pennsic this year, I ran into a 15 year old furry... self identified. Yet, he seemed to consider the whole costume, yiffing etc to be disgusting and dumb. Apparently, in his view a furry is simply someone that really likes sexy anthropomorphic pictures. The other stuff is what the crazy furries do...
I had never considered this viewpoint before.
Further, I had to think moar... why do I dislike furries anyway. I mean as far as I can tell there are three major points to being a furry:
1. Enjoy Sexy Anthropomorphic Art
2. Enjoy orgies/group sex/some sort of non monogamy sex.
3. Likes to wear costumes while involved with No. 2
Number 1 doesn't bother me, because sexy art can be sexy if the artist is good... no matter what might be in the picture. I don't get off on it... but I don't see a problem there.
Number 2, I don't have a problem with... mostly cause its not all that different from my own choice in that area.
Number 3 is weird, but surely no more weird than what BDSM people wear, or sexy nurse outfits or sexy cheerleader outfits or any of the other outfits you can buy at Lion's Den.
So then, I have asked myself the question, why dislike furries... and I haven't come up with any reason other than prejudice.
Any ideas here? Am I missing something?
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 09:01:02 PM
Any ideas here? Am I missing something?
to fit in around here.
hey.... is 'Bondage Fairies' comic considered 'Furries'?
cause that comic is awesome.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 10, 2008, 08:32:23 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 08, 2008, 12:34:43 PM
wrong.
hating someone for something they have chosen to do is not bigotry.
Otherwise, I'd be a bigot for hating white supremacists.
you're not?
Mr. Webster says:
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
so, although it is especially associated racial or ethnic groups, it is not limited to that.
oooor, i could stick my foot in shit and say that hating gay people is hating someone for something they have 'chosen' to do..... :D
OK, then I'm a bigot for hating white supremacists.
ECH,
OK with that.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 10, 2008, 09:07:15 PM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 09:01:02 PM
Any ideas here? Am I missing something?
to fit in around here.
hey.... is 'Bondage Fairies' comic considered 'Furries'?
cause that comic is awesome.
I hope not, cause one of my beautiful female friends is into bondage faeries and the other makes fairy wings for a Ren Faire business.... I have high hopes for a collision of concepts.
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 07, 2008, 10:23:06 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 07, 2008, 09:59:18 PM
The minute Anonymous started to take itself seriously was the moment it became an ego-crutch for basement dwelling social misfits. It was an interesting example of emergence and web-based organization, but there are other examples of that now.
PING!
In the hacker universe, there are lots of groups like anonymous, but they actually remain, well, anonymous. ;-)
YOU WIN THE THREAD! CONGRATULATIONS!
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 10, 2008, 09:07:15 PM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 09:01:02 PM
Any ideas here? Am I missing something?
to fit in around here.
hey.... is 'Bondage Fairies' comic considered 'Furries'?
cause that comic is awesome.
SERIOUSLY AWESOME!!
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
How literally should I take this?
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
yiffy isnt actually sex, dont they just :fap: in their costumes while humping each other?
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
yiffy isnt actually sex, dont they just :fap: in their costumes while humping each other?
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Yeah, but do you have any idea what they did to that guy? Srsly.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
yiffy isnt actually sex, dont they just :fap: in their costumes while humping each other?
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
I dunno... I don't ask those questions... but since I have seen furry outfits (not being worn) which appear to have... access panels... I'd guess that sombunal yiffing goes further than the fap.
But again... what is the unacceptable bit... the 'sin'... It's weird, until recently I'd hadn't even consider it....
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
Besides, in this case, it is not the "sin" of masturbating in an animal costume that I hate, it's the PEOPLE who like to do it.
Quote from: Cainad on November 10, 2008, 10:47:27 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Yeah, but do you have any idea what they did to that guy? Srsly.
actually i think it was his only one god that pissed most off,
romans didnt like their wifes going sorry honey i cant sleep with you cause your going to hell
and the non-gentiles merely hated him for plagiarizing their shit
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
Besides, in this case, it is not the "sin" of masturbating in an animal costume that I hate, it's the PEOPLE who like to do it.
So why do you hate those people? I mean, I'm really curious... it seems like a BiP bar for most of us, but I can't seem to find any rational reason for it being there.
someone people need a bar to hang onto reality. more so if we seen where they put that bar
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 11:23:25 PM
someone people need a bar to hang onto reality. more so if we seen where they put that bar
I don't want to know where you put your bar ;-)
Hrmmm, so its just an arbitrary line then, you think?
It's an arbitrary line for me at least. It can be a way of venting hate without (knowingly) hurting anybody.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
As I was skimming, I misread that as something to do with moose and salmon yiffing.
This thread is now about moose and salmons fucking. Enjoy.
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
:lulz: It was Gandhi.
Quote from: you guys are fucking up my chi on November 11, 2008, 01:14:12 AM
Quote from: you guys are fucking up my chi on November 10, 2008, 11:48:51 PM
This thread is now about moose and salmons fucking. Enjoy.
Lazy bastard.
(http://calwater.ca.gov/images/delta/nature/larger/Spawning%203.jpg)
(http://tastybooze.com/wp-content/gallery/moosehump/moose4.jpg)
Go re-read this thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18301.0) and tell me that's not a crime against humanity.
I mean.
Badger Marilyn Monroe, for fucks sake!
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 11:20:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
Besides, in this case, it is not the "sin" of masturbating in an animal costume that I hate, it's the PEOPLE who like to do it.
So why do you hate those people? I mean, I'm really curious... it seems like a BiP bar for most of us, but I can't seem to find any rational reason for it being there.
Joking, man.
For the most part, people who are into furry sex are probably not people I'd hang out with, and I certainly have no compunction about making fun of them, but I don't HATE them, I was just riffing off of Cramulus' "Don't hate the disease, hate the PEOPLE with the disease" line.
Also, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" appears nowhere in the Bible and I bet Mr. YDobbs cannot identify the "famous person" who supposedly said it.
:cn: :thumb:
as if i went to bible school
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 03:55:28 AM
Also, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" appears nowhere in the Bible and I bet Mr. YDobbs cannot identify the "famous person" who supposedly said it.
Mormons say that as an reason to drive gay people to suicide instead of just accepting them as they are.
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
No, it's because they love cock.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
I think that's what the :kingmeh: indicates. But perhaps I'm biased because I made that smiley.
Quote from: Cainad on November 11, 2008, 02:41:36 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
I think that's what the :kingmeh: indicates. But perhaps I'm biased because I made that smiley.
I don't know what that smile indicates. Looks like a stonefaced stare of death with a crown.
:lol:
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 03:49:28 AM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 11:20:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
Besides, in this case, it is not the "sin" of masturbating in an animal costume that I hate, it's the PEOPLE who like to do it.
So why do you hate those people? I mean, I'm really curious... it seems like a BiP bar for most of us, but I can't seem to find any rational reason for it being there.
Joking, man.
For the most part, people who are into furry sex are probably not people I'd hang out with, and I certainly have no compunction about making fun of them, but I don't HATE them, I was just riffing off of Cramulus' "Don't hate the disease, hate the PEOPLE with the disease" line.
:lulz:
So you probably wouldn't hang out with people that like furry sex... would you hang out with people that are into S&M? What about Cosplay?
I'm not being pro-furry here... I'm really just trying to figure out why they seem so universally bagged on... don't get me wrong, I've made fun of furries for years... it's an old pastime at Marcon (spring Con in Columbus). Yet, I've got two friends that always seemed rather sane and normal, who have said that they're furries. They have a social life, they have 'normal' relationships... and they also like to look at furry art and one of them likes to dress up in costumes three or four times a year.
I'm not gonna pretend to understand why cartoon animal costumes get them off... but I can't seem to figure out why its such a taboo among otherwise open minded individuals. It's not just here, they seem universally reviled by most of the groups of people I hang out with. Yet, no one has been able to pin down any sort of reason for this singled out sort of behavior.
If they were actually fucking real animals, I think I'd understand it a lot better. Apparently though, there's not really any correlation between them.
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
Quote from: Cainad on November 11, 2008, 02:41:36 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
I think that's what the :kingmeh: indicates. But perhaps I'm biased because I made that smiley.
I don't know what that smile indicates. Looks like a stonefaced stare of death with a crown.
The original concept for "King of Meh" was a request to have :| and :digtbk: combined into one, though I'm not sure what the original intended usage was. I see it being used mostly to indicate either self-deprecation or to mock someone else. In other words, it indicates that someone is the king of a particular variety of lame.
Example 1: "I admit that the only 'literature' I read is pulp fantasy fiction. :kingmeh: "
Example 2:
Spag: "Guys, I know Prop 8 is generally seen as a bad thing, but maybe it's for the best that California decides for itself, y'know?"
Anti-spag: " :kingmeh: "
...
...Did I seriously just write an exposition on the meaning of a particular smiley, complete with examples?
I need to spend more time away from the internets. :kingmeh:
Yes. It was helpful.
I've always taken :| to mean a look of stonefaced dissaproval, a look that says "are you really THAT stupid?"
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
Some o you youngins may not remember this, but back in my day, we had this stuff called "sarcasm". That's what that was.
It was a reference to her statement:
QuoteFurries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I was just pointing out through the magic of "sarcasm" that lots of people think the same thing about gay men. (Not gay women, though. Gay women are gay because everyboddy loves tittay.)
My theory is that furriphobes want to be homophobes, but they can't because it isn't "cool" in their culture to be a homophobe so they use furriphobia as a surrogate activity.
I dunno why I chose kingmeh. A better expression would have been more like the one given to Weird Al by Emo Phillips in the movie UHF after Weird Al says "table saw".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNsPh-pxgc
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 04:47:54 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 11, 2008, 02:36:54 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Gay men are just gay because they don't have the social skills to hook up with chicks.
But surely you knew that already. :kingmeh:
Obvious troll is obvious.
Some o you youngins may not remember this, but back in my day, we had this stuff called "sarcasm". That's what that was.
It was a reference to her statement:
QuoteFurries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I was just pointing out through the magic of "sarcasm" that lots of people think the same thing about gay men. (Not gay women, though. Gay women are gay because everyboddy loves tittay.)
My theory is that furriphobes want to be homophobes, but they can't because it isn't "cool" in their culture to be a homophobe so they use furriphobia as a surrogate activity.
I dunno why I chose kingmeh. A better expression would have been more like the one given to Weird Al by Emo Phillips in the movie UHF after Weird Al says "table saw".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toNsPh-pxgc
Maybe you could have quoted the original post for context, because that post is not on this page and there is no context nearby for what you are talking about.
Yes, that would have been better. I was grumpy and incoherent at the time due insomnia.
i think its more akin to people mock what they dont understand either out of fear
or out of curiousity
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 03:23:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 03:49:28 AM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 11:20:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
Besides, in this case, it is not the "sin" of masturbating in an animal costume that I hate, it's the PEOPLE who like to do it.
So why do you hate those people? I mean, I'm really curious... it seems like a BiP bar for most of us, but I can't seem to find any rational reason for it being there.
Joking, man.
For the most part, people who are into furry sex are probably not people I'd hang out with, and I certainly have no compunction about making fun of them, but I don't HATE them, I was just riffing off of Cramulus' "Don't hate the disease, hate the PEOPLE with the disease" line.
:lulz:
So you probably wouldn't hang out with people that like furry sex... would you hang out with people that are into S&M? What about Cosplay?
I'm not being pro-furry here... I'm really just trying to figure out why they seem so universally bagged on... don't get me wrong, I've made fun of furries for years... it's an old pastime at Marcon (spring Con in Columbus). Yet, I've got two friends that always seemed rather sane and normal, who have said that they're furries. They have a social life, they have 'normal' relationships... and they also like to look at furry art and one of them likes to dress up in costumes three or four times a year.
I'm not gonna pretend to understand why cartoon animal costumes get them off... but I can't seem to figure out why its such a taboo among otherwise open minded individuals. It's not just here, they seem universally reviled by most of the groups of people I hang out with. Yet, no one has been able to pin down any sort of reason for this singled out sort of behavior.
If they were actually fucking real animals, I think I'd understand it a lot better. Apparently though, there's not really any correlation between them.
No, it's not that furriness creeps me out so much that I wouldn't hang out with someone cool BECAUSE they were a furry, it's that most of the people I've known who are furfags are NOT COOL. Not even the kind of marginal, extremely nerdy/dorky/geeky/gay "cool" that I'm into, which is not at all "cool" by many people's standards. I'm sure that if I ever met a cool furry that I liked, I would hang out with them.
S&M - lots of people I like are into that scene to some degree or another.
Cosplay - not so many, but a few. I can't help laughing at it, though.
Furries tend to verge on "otherkin" and "vampires", though, in terms of the people who are attracted to it. I would have to say that I am more likely to want to hang out with the sort of people who are into AB than the sort of people who are into furry, just based on a generalization about the personalities who tend to be into each. Individuals may vary etc. etc.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 04:47:54 PM
My theory is that furriphobes want to be homophobes, but they can't because it isn't "cool" in their culture to be a homophobe so they use furriphobia as a surrogate activity.
I call bullshit. Queers mock furries just as much as anyone else does. You know why? Because that shit is FUNNY.
Let's face it: SOME FETISHES ARE FUCKING HILARIOUS.
laughing at/with is different than hating on, though....
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 06:18:33 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 04:47:54 PM
My theory is that furriphobes want to be homophobes, but they can't because it isn't "cool" in their culture to be a homophobe so they use furriphobia as a surrogate activity.
I call bullshit. Queers mock furries just as much as anyone else does. You know why? Because that shit is FUNNY.
Let's face it: SOME FETISHES ARE FUCKING HILARIOUS.
No! Sex is SRS BSNS. Just lie back and think of England.
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 06:15:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 03:23:38 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 03:49:28 AM
Quote from: A Cad Quirked Florists Rotors on November 10, 2008, 11:20:41 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 10, 2008, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 10, 2008, 10:46:08 PM
didnt someone important once say hate the sin not the sinner?
Nobody cares what Moses or Solomon or whoever said about shit.
Besides, in this case, it is not the "sin" of masturbating in an animal costume that I hate, it's the PEOPLE who like to do it.
So why do you hate those people? I mean, I'm really curious... it seems like a BiP bar for most of us, but I can't seem to find any rational reason for it being there.
Joking, man.
For the most part, people who are into furry sex are probably not people I'd hang out with, and I certainly have no compunction about making fun of them, but I don't HATE them, I was just riffing off of Cramulus' "Don't hate the disease, hate the PEOPLE with the disease" line.
:lulz:
So you probably wouldn't hang out with people that like furry sex... would you hang out with people that are into S&M? What about Cosplay?
I'm not being pro-furry here... I'm really just trying to figure out why they seem so universally bagged on... don't get me wrong, I've made fun of furries for years... it's an old pastime at Marcon (spring Con in Columbus). Yet, I've got two friends that always seemed rather sane and normal, who have said that they're furries. They have a social life, they have 'normal' relationships... and they also like to look at furry art and one of them likes to dress up in costumes three or four times a year.
I'm not gonna pretend to understand why cartoon animal costumes get them off... but I can't seem to figure out why its such a taboo among otherwise open minded individuals. It's not just here, they seem universally reviled by most of the groups of people I hang out with. Yet, no one has been able to pin down any sort of reason for this singled out sort of behavior.
If they were actually fucking real animals, I think I'd understand it a lot better. Apparently though, there's not really any correlation between them.
No, it's not that furriness creeps me out so much that I wouldn't hang out with someone cool BECAUSE they were a furry, it's that most of the people I've known who are furfags are NOT COOL. Not even the kind of marginal, extremely nerdy/dorky/geeky/gay "cool" that I'm into, which is not at all "cool" by many people's standards. I'm sure that if I ever met a cool furry that I liked, I would hang out with them.
S&M - lots of people I like are into that scene to some degree or another.
Cosplay - not so many, but a few. I can't help laughing at it, though.
Furries tend to verge on "otherkin" and "vampires", though, in terms of the people who are attracted to it. I would have to say that I am more likely to want to hang out with the sort of people who are into AB than the sort of people who are into furry, just based on a generalization about the personalities who tend to be into each. Individuals may vary etc. etc.
By AB do you mean Adult Baby?
As far as I know, I've never met anyone who was a furry or into the BDSM "lifestyle", so I have no real impressions of them other than what I have seen online, which is limited to BDSM. Maybe I should check out a furry site to get better acquainted.
As far as the BDSM subculture goes, for the most part they seem like mostly cool people except when some of them get those spiraling shapes in their eyes and start talking about
"THIS IS WAHT I YAM!!!!1".
Then they start to creep me out and I get the urge to tell them to seek therapy.
QuoteLet's face it: SOME FETISHES ARE FUCKING HILARIOUS
All sex/sexual behavior is fucking hilarious. We stick part(s) of our bodies into other people/have somebody else stick part(s) of their body into us, and thrust repeatedly because tiny robots in our brains compel us to as a part of a massive self-replication scheme.
ORAs part of a battle for control between an invisible old man in the sky and some kind of evil subterranean serpent/lava-man.
What part of that
isn't hilarious?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 06:22:23 PM
laughing at/with is different than hating on, though....
Sometimes, when the personalities that tend to be drawn to certain fetishes are unsympathetic, they become interchangeable.
Take "vampires", for example. I've known a couple of pretty decent people who were into the goth/vampire scene, but the majority the ones I've known are FUCKING INSUFFERABLE. Like you want to stab them through the heart with a wooden stake just to make them SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You would THINK furries would be cute, and I'm sure some of them are, but most of the ones I've known to be furries (and I'm sure a lot of people don't let on, because of fursecution) were the type of utterly annoying snively people I just couldn't stand to be around.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 11, 2008, 07:06:55 PM
As far as the BDSM subculture goes, for the most part they seem like mostly cool people except when some of them get those spiraling shapes in their eyes and start talking about "THIS IS WAHT I YAM!!!!1".
Then they start to creep me out and I get the urge to tell them to seek therapy.
Ugh. Yes.
Quote
All sex/sexual behavior is fucking hilarious. We stick part(s) of our bodies into other people/have somebody else stick part(s) of their body into us, and thrust repeatedly because tiny robots in our brains compel us to as a part of a massive self-replication scheme.
OR
As part of a battle for control between an invisible old man in the sky and some kind of evil subterranean serpent/lava-man.
What part of that isn't hilarious?
You have a good point.
the INTERNET!
without it, we wouldn't be privy to the creepy things that furries do in their bedrooms, bathrooms, dog houses.
This one time I was sitting on a train, and the girl in the seat behind me was having a conversation about how much beer she drank (a lot), followed by how much anal sex she had (a lot). I was grossed out, and yet, I couldn't stop listening.
But I don't have the patience to wait for furries to have lurid conversations near me on a train. Luckily I have the INTERNETTTTT!
:musak:
I find that most people which make it obvious that they're into some particular kink, do so in a cry for attention. I know people that are professional Doms etc and they never say a word about it except among their close friends. I also know people that are pathetic wastes of flesh and breath... and EVERYONE knows they're into the S&M scene. I wonder if that's similar to your furry experiences?
However, at least we've identified your particular basis for the view... I still haven't identified mine :-/
Nothing to add, I just like xkcd.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/aversion_fads.png)
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 07:20:33 PM
... I still haven't identified mine :-/
I already told you; peer pressure.
by elimination, that's all there is. your thoughts are not your own. in order to reprogram yourself, you must make a furry outfit....
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:06:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 07:20:33 PM
... I still haven't identified mine :-/
I already told you; peer pressure.
by elimination, that's all there is. your thoughts are not your own. in order to reprogram yourself, you must make a furry outfit....
*And thus was Ratatosk enlightened*
OMGZ, I could make it a Squirrel outfit and use it in official Discordian rituals...
aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:06:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 07:20:33 PM
... I still haven't identified mine :-/
I already told you; peer pressure.
by elimination, that's all there is. your thoughts are not your own. in order to reprogram yourself, you must make a furry outfit....
*And thus was Ratatosk enlightened*
OMGZ, I could make it a Squirrel outfit and use it in official Discordian rituals...
You must use this squirrel as the template.
(http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/4673/squirrelnutsio3.jpg)
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 08:11:03 PM
aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power
I don't know, are they?
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 08:21:55 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 08:11:03 PM
aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power
I don't know, are they?
Hm....
only the ones that are, i guess?
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
srsly, i would say that many are not.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 08:11:03 PM
aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power
I dunno, I suppose it depends on which psychologists you talk to.
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
Most of the furry pics i've seen show them as highly developed/mature. The fact that the theme is a holdover from childhood doesn't make it pedophillic. I would think that spanking would be much closer to that.....
does spanking make you :vom:
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
So do you think there's a legitimate basis for that, or mostly just an association in your mind?
I place Furries of all kinds in a mental category titled: "I have no idea/only a vague idea what they're getting out of it, but they aren't really hurting anyone and they seem to be enjoying themselves". This category also contains artists, WoW players and people who like football.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:35:50 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
Most of the furry pics i've seen show them as highly developed/mature. The fact that the theme is a holdover from childhood doesn't make it pedophillic. I would think that spanking would be much closer to that.....
does spanking make you :vom:
I didn't say that the people depicted are children. As consenting adults they can do whatever quasi-pedo shit that they want and I'll continue to exercise my freedom of speech about how disgusting it is.
What I'm saying is that the "fur" in furry is sexualized child culture.
When most children get spanked there is nothing sexual about it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 08:36:43 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
So do you think there's a legitimate basis for that, or mostly just an association in your mind?
I don't think these associations are limited to my own mind.
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:42:56 PM
I didn't say that the people depicted are children. As consenting adults they can do whatever quasi-pedo shit that they want and I'll continue to exercise my freedom of speech about how disgusting it is.
What I'm saying is that the "fur" in furry is sexualized child culture.
When most children get spanked there is nothing sexual about it.
exactly.... the cartoon animals are non sexual child culture that is sexualized in ....um...adulthood.
spanking is non sexual childhood 'related' event that is sexualized in adulthood.... but in that case one is actually acting as 'child' and one as 'parent'....
so... does that seem more, less, or equally disgusting as sexualizing cartoon animals?
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:44:12 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 08:36:43 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
So do you think there's a legitimate basis for that, or mostly just an association in your mind?
I don't think these associations are limited to my own mind.
So what other info do you have on this? My initial thoughts were also in this direction, but I can't find any information at all to indicate that furries have a higher likelihood of pedophilia. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it seems kind of opposite. That is, they seem to be childlike in their interests, rather than interested in children.
So whatever other stuff outside of your mind that you have, I'd appreciate seeing. :)
Gotta admit Furries strike me more as just plain wierd. Most fetishes do, tho.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:47:35 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:42:56 PM
I didn't say that the people depicted are children. As consenting adults they can do whatever quasi-pedo shit that they want and I'll continue to exercise my freedom of speech about how disgusting it is.
What I'm saying is that the "fur" in furry is sexualized child culture.
When most children get spanked there is nothing sexual about it.
exactly.... the cartoon animals are non sexual child culture that is sexualized in ....um...adulthood.
spanking is non sexual childhood 'related' event that is sexualized in adulthood.... but in that case one is actually acting as 'child' and one as 'parent'....
so... does that seem more, less, or equally disgusting as sexualizing cartoon animals?
Well lets see...
One is an act of affection that doesn't necessarily involve children. Look it up.
The other appropriates something
designed for children and perverts it into a bestiality theme.
Hmmm....
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:42:56 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:35:50 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
I think I'm revolted by furries because of the associations of fursuits:
Theme parks, children and cartoons for children.
To sexualize that seems highly pedophillic.
Therefore:
:vom:
Most of the furry pics i've seen show them as highly developed/mature. The fact that the theme is a holdover from childhood doesn't make it pedophillic. I would think that spanking would be much closer to that.....
does spanking make you :vom:
I didn't say that the people depicted are children. As consenting adults they can do whatever quasi-pedo shit that they want and I'll continue to exercise my freedom of speech about how disgusting it is.
What I'm saying is that the "fur" in furry is sexualized child culture.
When most children get spanked there is nothing sexual about it.
I think it's more like arrested development than pedophilia.
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
Troof! But when they insist on doing it on my internets we have a problem :argh!:
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:59:22 PM
Well lets see...
One is an act of affection that doesn't necessarily involve children. Look it up.
The other appropriates something designed for children and perverts it into a bestiality theme.
I'm not trying to needle you, or anything.
I'm just trying to get at the difference. If you say that spanking as an act of affection is ok, then this argument makes some sense..... but i don't think that's the primary fetish angle on it.
If the dialog during spanking is "you've been a very naughty girl!" *spank* "oh yes, i have!" *spank* etc....
you don't see how this is more pseudo-pedophillic than two people dressed at 'adult' bunnies humping?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 08:50:38 PM
Gotta admit Furries strike me more as just plain wierd. Most fetishes do, tho.
You are a hyper-evolved squishy monkey-thing with a mind made of meat living on a spinning ball that's called "Earth" despite the fact that it's mostly covered in water which is orbiting a gigantic naturally-formed fusion reactor and moving at incredible speeds that you can't feel and are communicating impossibly quickly with someone on another continent using a bunch of lines and dots which your meat-brain somehow interprets as meaning things relevant to you via a non-physical connection between two glowing boxes. *Takes a deep breath* At the risk of sounding rude, I'm curious to know what your definition of 'weird' is, and why you think it's a bad thing.
You know, that last post of mine might make a good meme-bomb.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:05:41 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 08:59:22 PM
Well lets see...
One is an act of affection that doesn't necessarily involve children. Look it up.
The other appropriates something designed for children and perverts it into a bestiality theme.
I'm not trying to needle you, or anything.
I'm just trying to get at the difference. If you say that spanking as an act of affection is ok, then this argument makes some sense..... but i don't think that's the primary fetish angle on it.
If the dialog during spanking is "you've been a very naughty girl!" *spank* "oh yes, i have!" *spank* etc....
you don't see how this is more pseudo-pedophillic than two people dressed at 'adult' bunnies humping?
Is calling a woman a
girlfriend psuedo-pedophillic too?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 08:21:55 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 08:11:03 PM
aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power
I don't know, are they?
Hm....
only the ones that are, i guess?
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
srsly, i would say that many are not.
while you might not see it, most might be and probally are.
even if its just embarassment for having to ask to do something weird
Quote from: Alfred Rhazi on November 11, 2008, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 08:50:38 PM
Gotta admit Furries strike me more as just plain wierd. Most fetishes do, tho.
You are a hyper-evolved squishy monkey-thing with a mind made of meat living on a spinning ball that's called "Earth" despite the fact that it's mostly covered in water which is orbiting a gigantic fusion reactor and moving at incredible speeds that you can't feel and are communicating impossibly quickly with someone on another continent using a bunch of lines and dots which your meat-brain somehow interprets as meaning things relevant to you via a non-physical connection between two glowing boxes. *Takes a deep breath* At the risk of sounding rude, I'm curious to know what your definition of 'weird' is, and why you think it's a bad thing.
I have no definition of weird, I just slap the label on, on a case by case basis.
I also by no means equate weird with bad. Bad is a separate label that bears no relation to weird.
Some weird things cause my lunch to defy gravity. Furries, scat, amputee pron and Ann Widdecombe spring immediately to mind.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 09:11:04 PM
Quote from: Alfred Rhazi on November 11, 2008, 09:06:00 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 08:50:38 PM
Gotta admit Furries strike me more as just plain wierd. Most fetishes do, tho.
You are a hyper-evolved squishy monkey-thing with a mind made of meat living on a spinning ball that's called "Earth" despite the fact that it's mostly covered in water which is orbiting a gigantic fusion reactor and moving at incredible speeds that you can't feel and are communicating impossibly quickly with someone on another continent using a bunch of lines and dots which your meat-brain somehow interprets as meaning things relevant to you via a non-physical connection between two glowing boxes. *Takes a deep breath* At the risk of sounding rude, I'm curious to know what your definition of 'weird' is, and why you think it's a bad thing.
I have no definition of weird, I just slap the label on, on a case by case basis.
I also by no means equate weird with bad. Bad is a separate label that bears no relation to weird.
Some weird things cause my lunch to defy gravity. Furries, scat, amputee pron and Ann Widdecombe spring immediately to mind.
Fair play.
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:10:27 PM
Is calling a woman a girlfriend psuedo-pedophillic too?
Do you make her wear bloomers?
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
I kind of like it when I DON'T know all the freaky things strangers do with each other. If it's my friends and it turns out that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy, I WILL make fun of them. However, if complete strangers tell me that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy... actually, I'll also make fun of them.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:10:27 PM
Is calling a woman a girlfriend psuedo-pedophillic too?
Do you make her wear bloomers?
Only when we go out, why?
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
I kind of like it when I DON'T know all the freaky things strangers do with each other. If it's my friends and it turns out that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy, I WILL make fun of them. However, if complete strangers tell me that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy... actually, I'll also make fun of them.
if i wasn't at work i would invoke rule 34
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
I kind of like it when I DON'T know all the freaky things strangers do with each other. If it's my friends and it turns out that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy, I WILL make fun of them. However, if complete strangers tell me that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy... actually, I'll also make fun of them.
if i wasn't at work i would invoke rule 34
Filling a baloon with live termites, shoving it up someones ass and then setting fire to it ....
GO!
I don't see what the big deal is about sexualizing child culture. I mean, it's something that people have in common, right? They were children in the same general culture.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 08:21:55 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 08:11:03 PM
aren't most fetishes based on embarrassment and power
I don't know, are they?
Hm....
only the ones that are, i guess?
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
srsly, i would say that many are not.
You know having one of those is impossible (http://www.xkcd.com/468/), right?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 09:16:29 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
I kind of like it when I DON'T know all the freaky things strangers do with each other. If it's my friends and it turns out that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy, I WILL make fun of them. However, if complete strangers tell me that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy... actually, I'll also make fun of them.
if i wasn't at work i would invoke rule 34
Filling a baloon with live termites, shoving it up someones ass and then setting fire to it ....
GO!
Then a rain of the burning bugs should be sprayed out the ass onto someone's face.
Quote from: GA on November 11, 2008, 09:17:42 PM
I don't see what the big deal is about sexualizing child culture. I mean, it's something that people have in common, right? They were children in the same general culture.
more so if they were abused as a child it might help them redirect into adult actions instead of creating more victims
Quote from: GA on November 11, 2008, 09:17:42 PM
I don't see what the big deal is about sexualizing child culture. I mean, it's something that people have in common, right? They were children in the same general culture.
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:19:49 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 09:16:29 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
I kind of like it when I DON'T know all the freaky things strangers do with each other. If it's my friends and it turns out that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy, I WILL make fun of them. However, if complete strangers tell me that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy... actually, I'll also make fun of them.
if i wasn't at work i would invoke rule 34
Filling a baloon with live termites, shoving it up someones ass and then setting fire to it ....
GO!
Then a rain of the burning bugs should be sprayed out the ass onto someone's face.
Together we will break rule 34 ... Mwuhahaha!!!!
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:19:49 PM
Then a rain of the burning bugs should be sprayed out the ass onto someone's face.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 09:20:31 PM
more so if they were abused as a child it might help them redirect into adult actions instead of creating more victims
It appears I've gone insane, because I can't stop laughing at that.
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:26:04 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....
It does.
Combine that with the bestiality element and I'd just like to kick someone in the face.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:26:04 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....
It's the two combined that really piss him off. Vodka is okay. Fire is okay. The two together can scar people (physically, in my example) in a way that neither can alone.
ok. ok. i'll just let it go.....
as an aside..... I wonder what the average furry has in their costume, monetarily?
I'm mildly surprised that I appear to be the only furry active on PD.com. The only out one anyway. Though I suppose what with the venom heaped on furries regularly, I shouldn't be shocked.
Firstly, in defense of furry fandom, I present this image:
(http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/shadowfist23/felicia.jpg)
(GIS 'Felicia' for some more)
If you think she's sexier in those little cat ears than without, you may be a furry, or have furry tendencies. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn't mean you want to fuck your cat.
There's been a lot of people mentioning that the only furs they know are on the loserish side; again though what with all the furry-hate going around, LOTS of furries don't openly identify themselves as such. Significantly, the ones with greater social skills don't.
My time in the furry community was interesting. My theory is that in any large group of people you'll find on one end people you think are really cool and interesting and would like to hang out with more, on the other end the creepy weird people you'd rather avoid, and a big gray range in the middle of people you really don't have much of an opinion on. Furry fandom has a much smaller gray range, in my experience. I've met some very cool people, and I've met some people that made me run away screaming.
It is a common misconception that anyone who is a furry is also a fursuiter, or would like to be (I blame CSI). Totally not the case. Many furries think fursuiters are weird. Fursuits are also expensive. Some fursuits are built to be fuckable, but that's less common really. Personally, a velvet bodysuit and some ears and a tail can flip my switches something fierce but I think full-on fursuits are weird (I can't get past the fake head thing, its just too odd).
Similarly, it is commonly believed that 'furry' is purely a sexual fetish, but it need not be. Some people are really in to anthropomorphics and there isn't anything sexual about it. Popular focus on the fetish aspect marginalizes these people though, which is a shame.
Some people believe that furries like to fuck animals. In truth, only a small percentage of furries fuck animals. These people call themselves "zoophiles" and are about as shunned within the furry community as they are outside it. "Zoophiles" don't rape animals; they contend that the animals enjoy the relationship. (Yes, I'm trying to gross you out now. Heh. Still true tho'.)
In conclusion, I present this informative infographic:
(http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/shadowfist23/1138673128104-1.jpg)
I will now open the floor for questions. Those wishing to ask trollish questions are directed to that slightly discolored section of floor over there, and will kindly stand there while I pull this lever... at which point the man-eating tigers in the pit below will answer those questions.
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:26:04 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....
It does.
Combine that with the bestiality element and I'd just like to kick someone in the face.
Ok, well that doesn't seem to be all that rational, but its entirely understandable. Personal opinion surely forms most of our reality ;-)
However, beyond the personal opinions of the posts here... it doesn't seem that there's any objective reason that furries would be more or less bad/troublesome/problematic/whatever than any other random weird fetish.
So before anyone takes this the wrong way... let me state clearly that I don't care what your personal opinions are, or what your opinion of furries are. I am not trying to say 'not rational therefore wrong". I'm really looking at my own opinion on this and trying to decide if there is some reason for it, or if its just another arbitrary brick in the wall of my BiP.
So far, it appears to be a brick for most of us, does anyone disagree? (and again, nothing wrong with picking and choosing which bricks to keep, if you want to have a wall ;-) ).
EDIT: Error removed from Net's quote.
I remember seeing this website about a dude that had a sexual relationship with a dolphin, one time. he claimed that he would swim out into the ocean to meet his love, and they would have sex. he drew pictures and poetry and crap. I think he fantasized about dolphinpomorphizing himself in some of his 'art'....
would he be a furry? (since there is no fur involved)...
what if you dress up as a naked mole rat?....
Approximately, what percentage of 'Furries' with suits have suits made of real fur?
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 11, 2008, 09:59:03 PM
Personally, a velvet bodysuit and some ears and a tail can flip my switches something fierce...
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but I do have this picture to share.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/PopeTom/0005dgds.jpg)
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 09:14:09 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 11, 2008, 09:01:29 PM
Meh, whatever consenting adults want to do behind their closed doors doesn't bother me.
I kind of like it when I DON'T know all the freaky things strangers do with each other. If it's my friends and it turns out that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy, I WILL make fun of them. However, if complete strangers tell me that they like to dress in clown costumes and fuck while eating cotton candy... actually, I'll also make fun of them.
if i wasn't at work i would invoke rule 34
I was using a real example of a fetish, not making one up. Believe it or not!
are you friends with the Porn Clown Posse (http://www.pornclownposse.com/)??
No, but now I wish I was.
Honestly, I think the reason so many people on the internet hate furries (whereas people not on the internet rarely have an opinion besides "Haha... really?") is because the Internet is INUNDATED with furries, and a lot of them are obnoxious.
Quote from: Nigel on November 11, 2008, 11:02:57 PM
No, but now I wish I was.
Honestly, I think the reason so many people on the internet hate furries (whereas people not on the internet rarely have an opinion besides "Haha... really?") is because the Internet is INUNDATED with furries, and a lot of them are obnoxious.
I've been online since 1990 and I really don't think I've ever noted Furries being more plentiful than any other weirdo group (like those damned Discordians). ;-)
(http://www.legaljuice.com/objection%20court%20out%20of%20order%20lawyer%20attorney%20object.jpg)
There are WAY more furries on the net than Discordians.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 10:15:51 PM
I remember seeing this website about a dude that had a sexual relationship with a dolphin, one time. he claimed that he would swim out into the ocean to meet his love, and they would have sex. he drew pictures and poetry and crap. I think he fantasized about dolphinpomorphizing himself in some of his 'art'....
would he be a furry? (since there is no fur involved)...
what if you dress up as a naked mole rat?....
Thanks, I now have a burning curiosity to see what someone dressed up as a naked mole rat would look like :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 11:31:16 PM
Thanks, I now have a burning curiosity to see what someone dressed up as a naked mole rat would look like :argh!:
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/mtdozier/molerat.jpg)
Jesus Fucking Christ on a trampoline... :eek:
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
go wild.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 12, 2008, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
go wild.
huh.... went to the list and noticed there was an entry for 'beastiality' and one for 'beastiosexuality' so i followed the latter to see if there was some distinction (that might pertain to this thread) and found that they both linked to 'zoophilia'. it was tl;dr, but upon scrolling down, i saw this picture:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_%2828%29.jpg/300px-%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_%2828%29.jpg)
Now, my parents raise goats, so i'm somewhat familiar with them... (not
that familiar) and i can tell you this, that goat would be kicking his guts out if it wasn't complicit..... If you try to force a goat to do something it doesn't want to, you'd better be good at wrestling. ..... and cover yer nuts.
i dunno where i'm going with that.
just sayin' is all...
you just made my moral grounds for hating zoophiliacs soggy, fuck you!
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 10:15:51 PM
I remember seeing this website about a dude that had a sexual relationship with a dolphin, one time. he claimed that he would swim out into the ocean to meet his love, and they would have sex. he drew pictures and poetry and crap. I think he fantasized about dolphinpomorphizing himself in some of his 'art'....
would he be a furry? (since there is no fur involved)...
what if you dress up as a naked mole rat?....
The gentleman in question would probably be best categorized as a zoophile. Some furries are in to reptiles, birds, dolphins - fur isn't a requirement.
Quote from: Alfred Rhazi on November 11, 2008, 10:17:25 PM
Approximately, what percentage of 'Furries' with suits have suits made of real fur?
What, of dead animal fur? Few if any, and loudly proclaiming your fursuit is real fur would be pretty high-caliber trolling.
I originally read your question as the more interesting and less trollish "What percentage of furries own fursuits?" and I' probably peg that at somewhere between 2% and 5%, at cons anyway. Overall in real life, probably less than 1% of self-identified furries would be fursuiters.
Quote from: PopeTom on November 11, 2008, 10:28:40 PM
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but I do have this picture to share.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v713/PopeTom/0005dgds.jpg)
I like you.
I rather like the chick on the left (and the boy in the bottom middle, actually) but I've never understood the appeal of putting SPIKY things in your face. Is that someone's way of saying "I
really don't like oral sex," or what?
um, those actually improve oral sex.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 12:42:11 AM
I rather like the chick on the left (and the boy in the bottom middle, actually) but I've never understood the appeal of putting SPIKY things in your face. Is that someone's way of saying "I really don't like oral sex," or what?
Quote from: Faust on November 12, 2008, 12:44:20 AM
um, those actually improve oral sex.
sshhhh don't let reality interfere with teh funny!
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 12, 2008, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 08:24:03 PM
let's seeeeee, where did i put my 'comprehensive list of fetishes'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias
go wild.
I wish I hadn't clicked that link! :x
Then again, if I hadn't clicked that link, I wouldn't have found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_fetishism
Also, "zaftigaphilia" should totally be a word but isn't.
Quote from: Regret on November 12, 2008, 12:31:51 AM
you just made my moral grounds for hating zoophiliacs soggy, fuck you!
I knew a guy who would pick up stray dogs, take them home, feed them, bathe them, brush them, trim them then fuck 'em (usually male dogs, so in the ass). He didn't have a good no-kill shelter near him so usually he'd return them where he found them afterwards. If he encountered these dogs again, they would bound up to him and lick him and generally behave as though they were very pleased to see him. So he said anyway, I didn't witness any of this, but I trusted people who did know him when they said it was true.
I've also met a few people who
really love their dogs - a husky, just so the mental image is crystal clear :D
Finally, I've known people who fuck female horses. Apparently a horse has a rather higher body temperature than humans. Also, you'd think a human wang would be too small, but the one fellow (god damn he was cute, I'm totally glad I got to fool around with
him) claimed the horse would in fact orgasm, it's whole body shuddering. He was quite effusive about the experience. And yes, a stepladder was involved (again, just making sure that mental image is crystal-clear for you).
I've known some weird people.
Never done anything like that myself, and have
no interest, thank you.
ok, well, maybe i was curious about the horse thing.
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
I know a lot of furries are sexually repressed in some way or another, usually from a strict Christian upbringing. And so, to me, it seems more like escapism and arrested development and fear all tangled together into a horrible and nasty paraphilia that I, personally, react to very badly. That is why I do not like furries.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 01:39:06 AM
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
I know a lot of furries are sexually repressed in some way or another, usually from a strict Christian upbringing. And so, to me, it seems more like escapism and arrested development and fear all tangled together into a horrible and nasty paraphilia that I, personally, react to very badly. That is why I do not like furries.
Plus, "piling".
TGRR,
:puke:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 10:02:33 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:26:04 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....
It does.
Combine that with the bestiality element and I'd just like to kick someone in the face.
Shadowfist's post seems pretty similar to the positions held by the few furries I know.
Ok, well that doesn't seem to be all that rational, but its entirely understandable. Personal opinion surely forms most of our reality ;-)
However, beyond the personal opinions of the posts here... it doesn't seem that there's any objective reason that furries would be more or less bad/troublesome/problematic/whatever than any other random weird fetish.
So before anyone takes this the wrong way... let me state clearly that I don't care what your personal opinions are, or what your opinion of furries are. I am not trying to say 'not rational therefore wrong". I'm really looking at my own opinion on this and trying to decide if there is some reason for it, or if its just another arbitrary brick in the wall of my BiP.
So far, it appears to be a brick for most of us, does anyone disagree? (and again, nothing wrong with picking and choosing which bricks to keep, if you want to have a wall ;-) ).
You fucked up my quote. Edit your post and fix it.
Also, invoking "objectivity" about this to support your own personal opinion is utter bullshit unless you have some hard evidence to cite.
Shadowfist's experience just supports my position that furries are closely associated with bestiality.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 12:42:11 AM
I like you.
I rather like the chick on the left (and the boy in the bottom middle, actually) but I've never understood the appeal of putting SPIKY things in your face. Is that someone's way of saying "I really don't like oral sex," or what?
I am the boy in the bottom middle.
I gave away 22 or 23 pairs of kitty ears to girls I know. Many of them were kind enough to wear them out clubbing for my birthday. Others just wear them time to time to surprise me. :D
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 01:48:59 AM
Shadowfist's experience just supports my position that furries are closely associated with bestiality.
Now now, a 'zoophile' would insist on the distinction that beastiality doesn't imply consent, but zoophilia does. And again I stress, I hung out with people who were weird
even for furries. As for practicing zoophiles, at a con of over 1000 I recall hearing there might have been 6 at an invitation-only and rather secret "zoophile brunch".
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 01:39:06 AM
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
Soooooo... you don't like furries because they have a personal avatar that isn't anything like themselves?
Dude. The future, especially the Internet of the future, is going to SUCK for you. Seriously. I'm going to stand over here and laugh at you now.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* Bahahahaha. heh. *wipes tear* That's precious, really. Should I get off your lawn now?
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 02:15:40 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 01:48:59 AM
Shadowfist's experience just supports my position that furries are closely associated with bestiality.
Now now, a 'zoophile' would insist on the distinction that beastiality doesn't imply consent, but zoophilia does. And again I stress, I hung out with people who were weird even for furries. As for practicing zoophiles, at a con of over 1000 I recall hearing there might have been 6 at an invitation-only and rather secret "zoophile brunch".
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 01:39:06 AM
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
Soooooo... you don't like furries because they have a personal avatar that isn't anything like themselves?
Dude. The future, especially the Internet of the future, is going to SUCK for you. Seriously. I'm going to stand over here and laugh at you now.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* Bahahahaha. heh. *wipes tear* That's precious, really. Should I get off your lawn now?
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom: :vom:
:vom:
:vom:
:vom:
:vom:
:vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom:
:vom:
:vom:
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 02:31:33 AM
:vom:
Ironically, your spammy use of that emoticon irritated more than any described fursona ever has. And I used to hang out on FurryMUCK in my misspent youth, so I've seen a fuckton of 'em.
Quote from: Faust on November 12, 2008, 12:44:20 AM
um, those actually improve oral sex.
Really? Hm.
I'm afraid I will require a demonstration.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 02:15:40 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 01:48:59 AM
Shadowfist's experience just supports my position that furries are closely associated with bestiality.
Now now, a 'zoophile' would insist on the distinction that beastiality doesn't imply consent, but zoophilia does. And again I stress, I hung out with people who were weird even for furries. As for practicing zoophiles, at a con of over 1000 I recall hearing there might have been 6 at an invitation-only and rather secret "zoophile brunch".
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 01:39:06 AM
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
Soooooo... you don't like furries because they have a personal avatar that isn't anything like themselves?
Dude. The future, especially the Internet of the future, is going to SUCK for you. Seriously. I'm going to stand over here and laugh at you now.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* Bahahahaha. heh. *wipes tear* That's precious, really. Should I get off your lawn now?
Your reading comprehension is shit. To reiterate, I don't like furries because they have to pretend to be animals to feel sexy. :vom:
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 01:39:06 AM
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
I know a lot of furries are sexually repressed in some way or another, usually from a strict Christian upbringing. And so, to me, it seems more like escapism and arrested development and fear all tangled together into a horrible and nasty paraphilia that I, personally, react to very badly. That is why I do not like furries.
You make it sound like it is something they choose , again, much like the religious fundamentalists try to make the claim that gays choose to be gay. Personally, I don't see much difference between someone who thinks that, deep down inside, they're really a pink and purple polkadotted pony and a man who thinks he's a woman.
At least their delusions are obvious. "Normal" people are just as delusional about sex, but in a more subtle way. For example, it's pretty common for people to be sexually aroused by the idea that their sexual partner is "the one", or that they were "destined" for each other.
What the fuck is up with that?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:00:56 AM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 01:39:06 AM
Okay. My problem with furries is the whole "fursona" thing. I don't know if all furries do that, but the ones I have known/known of do. And they're always a sexy purple fox with three tails and two dicks, incredibly suave and amazing and blah blah blah. And that bothers me. For some reason, these people are channeling their sexual identities into something that is pure fantasy, unsharable with the real world (unless you buy a fursuit), something that can only be acted out in masturbation fantasies. BDSM and other fetishes can at least be shared between two people in a concrete way.
I know a lot of furries are sexually repressed in some way or another, usually from a strict Christian upbringing. And so, to me, it seems more like escapism and arrested development and fear all tangled together into a horrible and nasty paraphilia that I, personally, react to very badly. That is why I do not like furries.
You make it sound like it is something they choose , again, much like the religious fundamentalists try to make the claim that gays choose to be gay. Personally, I don't see much difference between someone who thinks that, deep down inside, they're really a pink and purple polkadotted pony and a man who thinks he's a woman.
At least their delusions are obvious. "Normal" people are just as delusional about sex, but in a more subtle way. For example, it's pretty common for people to be sexually aroused by the idea that their sexual partner is "the one", or that they were "destined" for each other.
What the fuck is up with that?
Okay....you're really trolling this time right?
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
That's definitely the
easier choice.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with sexual abuse, the other isn't anymore, except by ignorant backwater hicks.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 03:00:28 AM
Your reading comprehension is shit. To reiterate, I don't like furries because they have to pretend to be animals to feel sexy. :vom:
Have to? Not in my experience - I have no clue where you even got that idea. Want to? Of course, that's what makes them furries.
But by all means, keep talking out of your ass.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
That "strong association" exists ONLY IN
YOUR MIND.
Get over it. Seriously, are you one of those people who thinks every single Catholic priest fucks little boys?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:42:47 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
That "strong association" exists ONLY IN YOUR MIND.
Get over it. Seriously, are you one of those people who thinks every single Catholic priest fucks little boys?
I do think Catholic priests are more likely to fuck little boys than the general population.
And I do think furries are more likely to abuse animals or children than the general population.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 01:48:59 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 11, 2008, 10:02:33 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:29:00 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 09:26:04 PM
Quote from: Net on November 11, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
It's the bestiality component that makes it too fucked up for me.
hm.... i must've misread something somewhere. i thought it was the child nature of cartoon animals that made it unpalatable for you....
It does.
Combine that with the bestiality element and I'd just like to kick someone in the face.
Shadowfist's post seems pretty similar to the positions held by the few furries I know.
Ok, well that doesn't seem to be all that rational, but its entirely understandable. Personal opinion surely forms most of our reality ;-)
However, beyond the personal opinions of the posts here... it doesn't seem that there's any objective reason that furries would be more or less bad/troublesome/problematic/whatever than any other random weird fetish.
So before anyone takes this the wrong way... let me state clearly that I don't care what your personal opinions are, or what your opinion of furries are. I am not trying to say 'not rational therefore wrong". I'm really looking at my own opinion on this and trying to decide if there is some reason for it, or if its just another arbitrary brick in the wall of my BiP.
So far, it appears to be a brick for most of us, does anyone disagree? (and again, nothing wrong with picking and choosing which bricks to keep, if you want to have a wall ;-) ).
You fucked up my quote. Edit your post and fix it.
Also, invoking "objectivity" about this to support your own personal opinion is utter bullshit unless you have some hard evidence to cite.
Shadowfist's experience just supports my position that furries are closely associated with bestiality.
Sorry about that error, it was unintentional. It's fixed.
As for the second line, I meant objective as in outside of your opinion (like for example the stuff Shadowfist mentioned)... myself, I'm still trying to decide what my opinion is.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
I think most furries want to fuck animals but most are too afraid of the animal.
So they just pretend.
ETA: Your slur is despicable. Get fucked to death by a dolphin, shithead.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
I think most furries want to fuck animals but most are too afraid of the animal.
So they just pretend.
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you really are that full of shit. In any case, you have no understanding whatsoever of the topic at hand. You are full of prejudices that you are refusing to shed. I wonder why?
Anyway, you may be full of shit, but it's not fatal or permanent. Sit back and let all that shit out, take a big healthy dump, then reconsider your opinion based on actual evidence.
I suspect you have a great love of animals, and are offended by the thought of them being hurt. Rest assured that they are not being hurt. All the zoophiles I have met are timid, gentle people who would never harm any animal. I suspect you're having trouble with the idea than an animal could enjoy sexual relations with a human, because they cannot indicate consent. However, in my experience it's usually pretty easy to spot an abused animal, and I don't think that's the case here. Difficult to wrap your head around maybe, but its a funny old world, innit?
Also:
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:49:16 AM
And I do think furries are more likely to abuse animals or children than the general population.
Children? Where in the world did you get THAT from? Really, WTF?
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:57:46 AM
ETA: Your slur is despicable. Get fucked to death by a dolphin, shithead.
You seem to have added this later. I was only attempting to point out how absurd your prejudice is. Really, you seem to be seeing any self-described furry as a potential animal abuser, and that is just as absurd as seeing any homosexual as a potential child molester.
It is your slur that is despicable. I am merely trying to show you that.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:14:56 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:57:46 AM
ETA: Your slur is despicable. Get fucked to death by a dolphin, shithead.
You seem to have added this later. I was only attempting to point out how absurd your prejudice is. Really, you seem to be seeing any self-described furry as a potential animal abuser, and that is just as absurd as seeing any homosexual as a potential child molester.
It is your slur that is despicable. I am merely trying to show you that.
No, they are qualitatively different.
Most homosexuals don't go to great lengths to pretend to be children in order to have sex. Most relate to one another as adults.
Furries DO go to great lengths to pretend to be childish animals in order to have sex. Some even are outspoken animal fuckers that try to rationalize that the animal likes it.
Where have I heard a similar argument? Oh yeah, NAMBLA.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
That's definitely the easier choice.
Its also the choice with greater capacity for lulz.
Pfffft, Some furries do this, some furries do that.
Some heterosexual men are child molesters.
Conclusion: Heterosexual men are bad!
Your arguement is weak, and your hate is weak and comprised mostly of irrational fear.
You should consider becoming a Republican.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:34:30 AM
Pfffft, Some furries do this, some furries do that.
Some heterosexual men are child molesters.
Conclusion: Heterosexual men are bad!
Your arguement is weak, and your hate is weak and comprised mostly of irrational fear.
You should consider becoming a Republican.
My argument is that you are a dumbfuck that can't tell the difference between a transsexual and a furry.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 04:22:44 AM
Furries DO go to great lengths to pretend to be childish animals in order to have sex.
You really don't get it - you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong but you're not accepting it. You are slandering an entire community of which you know little to nothing. You are no different than the person that claims that homosexuals recruit young children.
I'm done trying to explain it to you though. You go right on being a bigot, if that's what makes you happy.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:32:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
That's definitely the easier choice.
Its also the choice with greater capacity for lulz.
Lulz away then, sugarpance. I accept your concession and declare victory.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:39:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:32:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
That's definitely the easier choice.
Its also the choice with greater capacity for lulz.
Lulz away then, sugarpance. I accept your concession and declare victory.
I've been laughing at you since you said you were serious. :lulz:
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:36:51 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 04:22:44 AM
Furries DO go to great lengths to pretend to be childish animals in order to have sex.
You really don't get it - you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong but you're not accepting it. You are slandering an entire community of which you know little to nothing. You are no different than the person that claims that homosexuals recruit young children.
I'm done trying to explain it to you though. You go right on being a bigot, if that's what makes you happy.
Quote from: ECHIf hating racists make me a bigot, then I am a bigot.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:40:33 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:39:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:32:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
That's definitely the easier choice.
Its also the choice with greater capacity for lulz.
Lulz away then, sugarpance. I accept your concession and declare victory.
I've been laughing at you since you said you were serious. :lulz:
First they laughed at the Jews.
I didn't give a shit ...Jews are funny!
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:46:27 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:40:33 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:39:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 04:32:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:36:31 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
I'd rather just call you an idiot for comparing furries with transsexuals.
That's definitely the easier choice.
Its also the choice with greater capacity for lulz.
Lulz away then, sugarpance. I accept your concession and declare victory.
I've been laughing at you since you said you were serious. :lulz:
First they laughed at the Jews.
I didn't give a shit ...Jews are funny!
No see, I'm not even laughing at furries. I'm laughing at your idiocy in comparing furries with transsexuals. I'm laughing at YOU. :lulz:
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:36:51 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 04:22:44 AM
Furries DO go to great lengths to pretend to be childish animals in order to have sex.
You really don't get it - you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong but you're not accepting it. You are slandering an entire community of which you know little to nothing. You are no different than the person that claims that homosexuals recruit young children.
I'm done trying to explain it to you though. You go right on being a bigot, if that's what makes you happy.
Actually I lied, I've got one more:
(http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/shadowfist23/1226465070moodyferret_rekhitsized.jpg)
"Childish animals." LOL!
QuoteNo see, I'm not even laughing at furries. I'm laughing at your idiocy in comparing furries with transsexuals. I'm laughing at YOU. :lulz:
And yet you still can't explain the difference.
One thinks they're something they biologically are not.
The other thinks they're something they biologically are not.
Same --> Same
Granted, some furries don't actually believe that they're some anthropomorphic animal inside
for realz, they just like dressing up like animals.
This is more analogous to cross-dressing.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:57:33 AM
QuoteNo see, I'm not even laughing at furries. I'm laughing at your idiocy in comparing furries with transsexuals. I'm laughing at YOU. :lulz:
And yet you still can't explain the difference.
One thinks they're something they biologically are not.
The other thinks they're something they biologically are not.
Same --> Same
Granted, some furries don't actually believe that they're some anthropomorphic animal inside for realz, they just like dressing up like animals.
This is more analogous to cross-dressing.
There is biological rational for transsexuals. There is absolutely no biological rational for furries.
And no, I am not gonna find the resources for you.
Even if there WASN'T any biological explanation for transsexuals, the two things are still entirely different because transsexuals keep their identification
within the same species.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:57:33 AM
Granted, some most furries don't actually believe that they're some anthropomorphic animal inside for realz, they just like dressing up like animals.
Fixed that for you. A common misconception.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:53:32 AM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:36:51 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 04:22:44 AM
Furries DO go to great lengths to pretend to be childish animals in order to have sex.
You really don't get it - you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong but you're not accepting it. You are slandering an entire community of which you know little to nothing. You are no different than the person that claims that homosexuals recruit young children.
I'm done trying to explain it to you though. You go right on being a bigot, if that's what makes you happy.
Actually I lied, I've got one more:
(http://d.furaffinity.net/art/moodyferret/1226465070.moodyferret_rekhitsized.jpg)
"Childish animals." LOL!
When adults get too invested in things intended for children (anthropomorphic
cartoons for fucks sake) there's probably something dysfunctional going on if not pathological.
For the record, I think most furries are harmless yet pathetic weirdos.
But, I think there is a larger proportion of animal abusers as well as child abusers in the furry demographic than you'd find in the general population.
People who torture animals are more likely to be violent and abusive towards human beings.
I don't think it's a leap of logic to say that people who sexually abuse animals are more likely to sexually abuse human beings.
If you have a larger proportion of bestiality shitnecks in the furry demographic, I doubt that abuse is limited strictly to animals.
It's the age-inappropriate theme that suggests this abuse would target children.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 05:50:08 AM
People who torture animals are more likely to be violent and abusive towards human beings.
The mere idea that anyone who calls themselves a furry would torture animals is beyond crazy, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of furries would know that. Seriously, the mind boggles. Again, the cartoon idea you have in your head of furries is utterly and completely wrong.
In case it wasn't clear enough though: the vast majority of furries loathe and despise 'zoophiles' much as you do.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 06:04:07 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 05:50:08 AM
People who torture animals are more likely to be violent and abusive towards human beings.
The mere idea that anyone who calls themselves a furry would torture animals is beyond crazy, and anyone with even a passing knowledge of furries would know that. Seriously, the mind boggles. Again, the cartoon idea you have in your head of furries is utterly and completely wrong.
In case it wasn't clear enough though: the vast majority of furries loathe and despise 'zoophiles' much as you do.
Do they yiff before or after denouncing zoophiles?
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:05:35 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:57:33 AM
QuoteNo see, I'm not even laughing at furries. I'm laughing at your idiocy in comparing furries with transsexuals. I'm laughing at YOU. :lulz:
And yet you still can't explain the difference.
One thinks they're something they biologically are not.
The other thinks they're something they biologically are not.
Same --> Same
Granted, some furries don't actually believe that they're some anthropomorphic animal inside for realz, they just like dressing up like animals.
This is more analogous to cross-dressing.
There is biological rational for transsexuals. There is absolutely no biological rational for furries.
And no, I am not gonna find the resources for you.
Even if there WASN'T any biological explanation for transsexuals, the two things are still entirely different because transsexuals keep their identification within the same species.
It's not necessary for you to find the resources. I am familiar enough with them.
All human fetuses are female for a certain period of time. In males, testosterone causes physical changes that are sometimes not fully expressed, specifically, you can have a male body and a female brain. Some women produce higher levels of testosterone that can androgenize the brain of the female fetus.
Or something like that.
There is no known or explored biological rational for furries
yet. But I think we can agree that the human species evolved from other species, and that we share a significant portion of our genome with other animals.
Also, countless other human cultures have had anthropomorphic animals as central figures in their cultures. It was also pretty damn common for people to dress up as animals for religious ceremonies, and for certain members of their society to take on an animal "familiar" as part of their own identity.
These behaviors are common enough in unrelated cultures, that it seems unlikely that there is
no biological basis.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 05:50:08 AM
When adults get too invested in things intended for children (anthropomorphic cartoons for fucks sake) there's probably something dysfunctional going on if not pathological.
So... adults.... who watch cartoons...... are pedophiles?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 06:57:02 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 05:50:08 AM
When adults get too invested in things intended for children (anthropomorphic cartoons for fucks sake) there's probably something dysfunctional going on if not pathological.
So... adults.... who watch cartoons...... are pedophiles?
I'm going to go ahead and eat my hat.
You're right, my hate wasn't strong on this.
I was wrong to argue furries are child abusers and animal rapists.
That was a bigoted thing to say and I apologize for it.
I have some things to critically examine about myself.
I always figured furry was probably more an aesthetic thing for most practitioners.
Some people like blondes, some brunettes. Some people like fishnets and suspenders and some prefer them with fake cat ears and whiskers.
Like anything else, it's taken to extremes on the fringes but think about this - playboy bunnies are, technically speaking, a mild form of furry and I'm sure as hell I wouldn't think twice about nailing one of those. :fap:
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:00:56 AM
You make it sound like it is something they choose , again, much like the religious fundamentalists try to make the claim that gays choose to be gay.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:40:38 AM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 03:00:28 AM
Your reading comprehension is shit. To reiterate, I don't like furries because they have to pretend to be animals to feel sexy. :vom:
Have to? Not in my experience - I have no clue where you even got that idea. Want to? Of course, that's what makes them furries.
But by all means, keep talking out of your ass.
You two go talk to each other.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:53:32 AM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:36:51 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 04:22:44 AM
Furries DO go to great lengths to pretend to be childish animals in order to have sex.
You really don't get it - you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to tell you that you're wrong but you're not accepting it. You are slandering an entire community of which you know little to nothing. You are no different than the person that claims that homosexuals recruit young children.
I'm done trying to explain it to you though. You go right on being a bigot, if that's what makes you happy.
Actually I lied, I've got one more:
(http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/shadowfist23/1226465070moodyferret_rekhitsized.jpg)
"Childish animals." LOL!
That...
thing...is incredibly childish.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 06:53:26 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 05:05:35 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 04:57:33 AM
QuoteNo see, I'm not even laughing at furries. I'm laughing at your idiocy in comparing furries with transsexuals. I'm laughing at YOU. :lulz:
And yet you still can't explain the difference.
One thinks they're something they biologically are not.
The other thinks they're something they biologically are not.
Same --> Same
Granted, some furries don't actually believe that they're some anthropomorphic animal inside for realz, they just like dressing up like animals.
This is more analogous to cross-dressing.
There is biological rational for transsexuals. There is absolutely no biological rational for furries.
And no, I am not gonna find the resources for you.
Even if there WASN'T any biological explanation for transsexuals, the two things are still entirely different because transsexuals keep their identification within the same species.
It's not necessary for you to find the resources. I am familiar enough with them.
All human fetuses are female for a certain period of time. In males, testosterone causes physical changes that are sometimes not fully expressed, specifically, you can have a male body and a female brain. Some women produce higher levels of testosterone that can androgenize the brain of the female fetus.
Or something like that.
There is no known or explored biological rational for furries yet. But I think we can agree that the human species evolved from other species, and that we share a significant portion of our genome with other animals.
Also, countless other human cultures have had anthropomorphic animals as central figures in their cultures. It was also pretty damn common for people to dress up as animals for religious ceremonies, and for certain members of their society to take on an animal "familiar" as part of their own identity.
These behaviors are common enough in unrelated cultures, that it seems unlikely that there is no biological basis.
.....and ceremonial use of animal figures is the same as people dressing up in fur suits and piling each other or thinking they are of another species....how?
I'm not even gonna touch the italicized statement. Someone else can explain to you why there is absolutely no evolutionary rational for humans to think they are other species, along with that lack of biological explanation. I've wasted my time enough with dumb fucking arguements in the last 24 hours.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 06:57:02 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 05:50:08 AM
When adults get too invested in things intended for children (anthropomorphic cartoons for fucks sake) there's probably something dysfunctional going on if not pathological.
So... adults.... who watch cartoons...... are pedophiles?
I'm going to go ahead and eat my hat.
You're right, my hate wasn't strong on this.
I was wrong to argue furries are child abusers and animal rapists.
That was a bigoted thing to say and I apologize for it.
I have some things to critically examine about myself.
Wow. Thank you for the apology. I'm sorry if I came across poorly myself.
In truth I probably should have kept the whole zoophile thing out of it, since it confuses and frightens people. The NAMBLA comparison is apt in that furries hate zoophiles because they make the whole furry community look bad, not unlike how gays view NAMBLA. Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated, but its a hard sell. I brought it up largely to weird people out in all honesty - and it's a rather odd subject I find somewhat interesting but pretty much never get to discuss.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 10:04:35 AM
That...thing...is incredibly childish.
I can only assume that your idea of what constitutes "childish" is significantly different than mine. Cuz yeah, that's not a word I'd associate with that image. At all. (which of course was why I posted it)
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:10:10 PM
.....and ceremonial use of animal figures is the same as people dressing up in fur suits and piling each other or thinking they are of another species....how?
I'm not even gonna touch the italicized statement. Someone else can explain to you why there is absolutely no evolutionary rational for humans to think they are other species, along with that lack of biological explanation. I've wasted my time enough with dumb fucking arguements in the last 24 hours.
You keep hammering on this, but it displays a basic misunderstanding of the furry subculture. I've met a small handful of people who think this way, and I've met a hell of a lot of furries. Fuck, I think I know more people who claim that they are really elves.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 12, 2008, 09:55:22 AM
I always figured furry was probably more an aesthetic thing for most practitioners.
Some people like blondes, some brunettes. Some people like fishnets and suspenders and some prefer them with fake cat ears and whiskers.
Like anything else, it's taken to extremes on the fringes but think about this - playboy bunnies are, technically speaking, a mild form of furry and I'm sure as hell I wouldn't think twice about nailing one of those. :fap:
Give yourself a cookie. You nailed it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 11:31:16 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 11, 2008, 10:15:51 PM
I remember seeing this website about a dude that had a sexual relationship with a dolphin, one time. he claimed that he would swim out into the ocean to meet his love, and they would have sex. he drew pictures and poetry and crap. I think he fantasized about dolphinpomorphizing himself in some of his 'art'....
would he be a furry? (since there is no fur involved)...
what if you dress up as a naked mole rat?....
Thanks, I now have a burning curiosity to see what someone dressed up as a naked mole rat would look like :argh!:
I'll have to look for pics; my oldest was a Naked Mole Rat for Halloween year before last.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:26:45 AM
Quote from: Regret on November 12, 2008, 12:31:51 AM
you just made my moral grounds for hating zoophiliacs soggy, fuck you!
I knew a guy who would pick up stray dogs, take them home, feed them, bathe them, brush them, trim them then fuck 'em (usually male dogs, so in the ass). He didn't have a good no-kill shelter near him so usually he'd return them where he found them afterwards. If he encountered these dogs again, they would bound up to him and lick him and generally behave as though they were very pleased to see him. So he said anyway, I didn't witness any of this, but I trusted people who did know him when they said it was true.
I've also met a few people who really love their dogs - a husky, just so the mental image is crystal clear :D
Finally, I've known people who fuck female horses. Apparently a horse has a rather higher body temperature than humans. Also, you'd think a human wang would be too small, but the one fellow (god damn he was cute, I'm totally glad I got to fool around with him) claimed the horse would in fact orgasm, it's whole body shuddering. He was quite effusive about the experience. And yes, a stepladder was involved (again, just making sure that mental image is crystal-clear for you).
I've known some weird people.
Never done anything like that myself, and have no interest, thank you.
ok, well, maybe i was curious about the horse thing.
When I was maybe 23 I found a zoophile newsgroup. Wow.
I read that newsgroup for months, constantly in a sort of awe for the sincerity of the poor fucks.
Yes, I did feel sorry for them. Many of them flat-out admitted an inability to bond with other humans, and not infrequently one of their animal companions would die, and they would spiral into the sort of grief usually reserved for the loss of a human lover.
Creeped me out bigtime, but I kept on reading it, because that kind of human trainwreck is addictive. Was useful for trolling, too.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 02:15:40 AM
Soooooo... you don't like furries because they have a personal avatar that isn't anything like themselves?
Dude. The future, especially the Internet of the future, is going to SUCK for you. Seriously. I'm going to stand over here and laugh at you now.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* Bahahahaha. heh. *wipes tear* That's precious, really. Should I get off your lawn now?
I have an affinity for people whose internal perception of their "real selves" is fairly consistent with the external appearance of their physical bodies.
I could claim that "inside" I am a 24-year-old blonde with a wasp-waist and big tits, but the reality is that my body is that of a 37-year-old mother of three with medium-ish boobs and an extra 15 pounds of fat.
See that blue moon-guy in my avatar? That's not me. That's a painting my housemate made on a wall. I am completely at home with that fact.
I am not a vampire, or a cat, or a dragon, or a dude, or a magical pony. Regardless of any fantasies, I am at home in my body. My body doesn't define who I am, but I still live in it and that's cool with me; it does its job pretty well and I like it. I don't feel the need to deny it and claim that what I "really" am is something completely different, and I find that I get along best with others who also don't need to claim that they are "really" something other than what the physical, empirical world perceives them to be. If a boy wants to love as a girl, and then proceeds to live as a girl, that totally works out with reality. IMO. However, if a boy wants to live as a magical dolphin with wings, reality is going to present an obstacle to that.
Which is why there are fetish groups for such things, and people with the same interests magnetize towards eachother. I can see vampire fetishes because I have one, I can see an affinity towards a feeling of being more of an animal, but it has to stay in the same species. Plus, that asian chick is hot, if that's furry, count me in.
Zoophilia is a bit over the top though.
Also
WHERE'S MY 10 FREE THETANS?!
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:53:32 AM
(http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/shadowfist23/1226465070moodyferret_rekhitsized.jpg)
"Childish animals." LOL!
There is really nothing about this that isn't funny.
I'm wondering what exactly he's drinking tharr.
Brandy, of course, because that's what MANLY horses drink, in the minds of children.
Personally I think furries are more like adult babies than they are like anything else. Pretending to be animals has a lot more in common with infantilism and the desire to be innocent and devoid of adult responsibility/worries than it does with, say, BDSM (which also has strong "helplessness" leanings, and abdication of power, as do many fetishes).
In most fetishes (fetishes is the wrong word here but I will use it anyway out of laziness and poor memory), IME, the "weaker" partner is almost always the one with the most power, as the "stronger" partner, the "top", must take complete responsibility for the satisfaction of both parties. It's an interesting dynamic. I don't know how that plays out with furries, but honestly I'm not that interested.
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:27:17 PM
Brandy, of course, because that's what MANLY horses drink, in the minds of children.
Personally I think furries are more like adult babies than they are like anything else. Pretending to be animals has a lot more in common with infantilism and the desire to be innocent and devoid of adult responsibility/worries than it does with, say, BDSM (which also has strong "helplessness" leanings, and abdication of power, as do many fetishes).
In most fetishes (fetishes is the wrong word here but I will use it anyway out of laziness and poor memory), IME, the "weaker" partner is almost always the one with the most power, as the "stronger" partner, the "top", must take complete responsibility for the satisfaction of both parties. It's an interesting dynamic. I don't know how that plays out with furries, but honestly I'm not that interested.
The word is kink.
The strict definition of a fetish is an object or symbol required for someone to reach orgasm or even become sexually stimulated.
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 03:40:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:27:17 PM
Brandy, of course, because that's what MANLY horses drink, in the minds of children.
Personally I think furries are more like adult babies than they are like anything else. Pretending to be animals has a lot more in common with infantilism and the desire to be innocent and devoid of adult responsibility/worries than it does with, say, BDSM (which also has strong "helplessness" leanings, and abdication of power, as do many fetishes).
In most fetishes (fetishes is the wrong word here but I will use it anyway out of laziness and poor memory), IME, the "weaker" partner is almost always the one with the most power, as the "stronger" partner, the "top", must take complete responsibility for the satisfaction of both parties. It's an interesting dynamic. I don't know how that plays out with furries, but honestly I'm not that interested.
The word is kink.
The strict definition of a fetish is an object or symbol required for someone to reach orgasm or even become sexually stimulated.
I don't really like the word "kink" because it is so mutable. There is actually another word which is more specific and accurate, but which I can't remember now.
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:18:22 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 04:53:32 AM
(http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq333/shadowfist23/1226465070moodyferret_rekhitsized.jpg)
"Childish animals." LOL!
There is really nothing about this that isn't funny.
That yellow banana hammock/codpiece is
killing me.
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:27:17 PM
Brandy, of course, because that's what MANLY horses drink, in the minds of children.
Personally I think furries are more like adult babies than they are like anything else. Pretending to be animals has a lot more in common with infantilism and the desire to be innocent and devoid of adult responsibility/worries than it does with, say, BDSM (which also has strong "helplessness" leanings, and abdication of power, as do many fetishes).
TITCM. Thread over. Let's stop talking about furries now.
Quote from: Suu on November 12, 2008, 04:01:03 PM
That yellow banana hammock/codpiece is killing me.
The nipple ring is also a nice touch...
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:10:23 PMIf a boy wants to love as a girl
I just noticed my own amusing typo in thar.
i thought it was an intentional play.....
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 04:06:34 PM
i thought it was an intentional play.....
Sometimes it is. ;)
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 12, 2008, 04:01:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:27:17 PM
Brandy, of course, because that's what MANLY horses drink, in the minds of children.
Personally I think furries are more like adult babies than they are like anything else. Pretending to be animals has a lot more in common with infantilism and the desire to be innocent and devoid of adult responsibility/worries than it does with, say, BDSM (which also has strong "helplessness" leanings, and abdication of power, as do many fetishes).
TITCM. Thread over. Let's stop talking about furries now.
I'm going to agree on all counts.
This thread is now about Gundam Sex!I bet it's very loud.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 05:50:08 AM
When adults get too invested in things intended for children (anthropomorphic cartoons for fucks sake) there's probably something dysfunctional going on if not pathological.
Cartoons are just for children? Where have you been the last few decades?
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 05:32:32 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on November 12, 2008, 04:01:59 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 03:27:17 PM
Brandy, of course, because that's what MANLY horses drink, in the minds of children.
Personally I think furries are more like adult babies than they are like anything else. Pretending to be animals has a lot more in common with infantilism and the desire to be innocent and devoid of adult responsibility/worries than it does with, say, BDSM (which also has strong "helplessness" leanings, and abdication of power, as do many fetishes).
TITCM. Thread over. Let's stop talking about furries now.
I'm going to agree on all counts.
This thread is now about Gundam Sex!
I bet it's very loud.
I don't really feel like searching the more NSFW imageboards, so here's a fox-woman mecha and a cat-girl mecha. Use your imagination.
(http://otonashi.akibakko-storage.net/image/78/44/4c8t.jpg)
(http://otonashi.akibakko-storage.net/image/de/29/4c8s.jpg)
(http://content.ytmnd.com/content/c/a/d/cadc8914d541f672cf6dd0f281664fad.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYUI8QmOpFg
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:10:10 PM
.....and ceremonial use of animal figures is the same as people dressing up in fur suits and piling each other or thinking they are of another species....how?
I'm not even gonna touch the italicized statement. Someone else can explain to you why there is absolutely no evolutionary rational for humans to think they are other species, along with that lack of biological explanation. I've wasted my time enough with dumb fucking arguements in the last 24 hours.
But Kai, you're forgetting that
Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny!!!!! \
:mullet:
Ok, NOW I'm trolling.
Furries in general don't bother me, just the people who pretend to be somebody from Sonic the Hedgehog, because its terribly unoriginal and uncreative. (The first couple people might have had some measure of creativity, but the next few hundred thousand sure don't.)
This also extends to people whose RP character's background amounts to "I am the last survivor of my tribe, which was slaughtered by a man in a black cloak/myrdraal/Uchiha Itachi/Stormtroopers/whatever the fuck the bad guys in Eragon were." It's not lame to pretend to be somebody/something else, it's lame to do it poorly.
Quote from: GA on November 12, 2008, 06:02:23 PM
Furries in general don't bother me, just the people who pretend to be somebody from Sonic the Hedgehog, because its terribly unoriginal and uncreative. (The first couple people might have had some measure of creativity, but the next few hundred thousand sure don't.)
This also extends to people whose RP character's background amounts to "I am the last survivor of my tribe, which was slaughtered by a man in a black cloak/myrdraal/Uchiha Itachi/Stormtroopers/whatever the fuck the bad guys in Eragon were." It's not lame to pretend to be somebody/something else, it's lame to do it poorly.
coincidentally this is my whole beef with Hayden Christensen
Embrace your fursona
/
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/avatar/anakinevilmoostach.jpg)
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 06:02:14 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 12, 2008, 12:10:10 PM
.....and ceremonial use of animal figures is the same as people dressing up in fur suits and piling each other or thinking they are of another species....how?
I'm not even gonna touch the italicized statement. Someone else can explain to you why there is absolutely no evolutionary rational for humans to think they are other species, along with that lack of biological explanation. I've wasted my time enough with dumb fucking arguements in the last 24 hours.
But Kai, you're forgetting that Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny!!!!!
\
:mullet:
Ok, NOW I'm trolling.
Actually, "Ontogeny selectively draws from Phylogeny" would be a more modern and apt saying.
That is, some aspects of a organisms ansestoral lineages can be found in the embryologic development, not completly, but in part.
Of course, you were just trolling anyway.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
Its not. Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
Its not. Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
Thread ovar.
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
Its not. Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
Ah, well that makes sense :)
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
Its not. Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
:potd:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 07:17:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
Its not. Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
Ah, well that makes sense :)
Average troll: "ha ha, furries are perverted animals fuckers."
Average furry: "Zomg I AM NOT stop fursecuting me! You are worse than a thousand Hitlers, you and your bigotry. I had you just like I hate my parents and one day you will ALL PAY! *swishes 17 fox tails, leaves thread*
Of course, you have to up the ante somewhat now, but the same basic logic applies.
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:37:49 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 07:17:32 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:07:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 10, 2008, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 10, 2008, 10:37:20 PM
Furries are into sexy animals because they don't have the social skills to make it with normal humans. Again, fuck em.
I thought that too... but some people that I know who label themselves as 'furry' seem to be no worse off than anyone else socially... some even apparently have relationshiops outside their furry fetish.
I guess that's the question... why is this fetish 'worse' than the others?
Its not. Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
Ah, well that makes sense :)
Average troll: "ha ha, furries are perverted animals fuckers."
Average furry: "Zomg I AM NOT stop fursecuting me! You are worse than a thousand Hitlers, you and your bigotry. I had you just like I hate my parents and one day you will ALL PAY! *swishes 17 fox tails, leaves thread*
Of course, you have to up the ante somewhat now, but the same basic logic applies.
:lulz:
Fursecution ITT.
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/fursecution.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on November 12, 2008, 07:07:13 PM
[...]
Its just they get very defensive about it, so it is fun to poke them with sticks.
Well said Cain.
Personally, I love sticks and I love poking people with them. Especially when they have big red buttons sticking out.
Lots of people called me an asshole for that irl.
You can now hear me giving a damn.
<insert cicadas>
LOL furries.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
I can only assume that your idea of what constitutes "childish" is significantly different than mine. Cuz yeah, that's not a word I'd associate with that image. At all. (which of course was why I posted it)
That thing is a child's conception of a manly-man-horse. Everything about it, from inception to execution, is hilariously bad. Even the fact that it's signed is just silly.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 09:22:20 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
I can only assume that your idea of what constitutes "childish" is significantly different than mine. Cuz yeah, that's not a word I'd associate with that image. At all. (which of course was why I posted it)
That thing is a child's conception of a manly-man-horse. Everything about it, from inception to execution, is hilariously bad. Even the fact that it's signed is just silly.
Gotta agree. Its not childish in the sense of child-like (which I think SF23 is confusing with what you are saying), but in the sense of being a childish conception, I'd have to agree. Anthropomorphic animals are a childish conception, full stop.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/200163594_26e7dd0c04.jpg?v=0)
Oh, and anyone who just likes the "art" needs to learn how to draw humans and get the fuck over himself.
And by human I mean human, not anime-people.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 12, 2008, 09:28:36 PM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/200163594_26e7dd0c04.jpg?v=0)
Man-boobs are accurate.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/bin/YouAgreeWithRushLimbaugh.jpg)
lol internet.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 09:29:14 PM
Oh, and anyone who just likes the "art" needs to learn how to draw humans and get the fuck over himself.
And by human I mean human, not anime-people.
Damn Straight! Badger's view of art, or it ain't art!
Y'know the funny thing is, i've always kinda viewed badger as a furry because of her handle....
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 09:29:14 PM
Oh, and anyone who just likes the "art" needs to learn how to draw humans and get the fuck over himself.
And by human I mean human, not anime-people.
Damn Straight! Badger's view of art, or it ain't art!
You know, art can't really be defined, but I know poorly-executed drawings when I see them.
Quote from: Nigel on November 12, 2008, 09:42:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 09:29:14 PM
Oh, and anyone who just likes the "art" needs to learn how to draw humans and get the fuck over himself.
And by human I mean human, not anime-people.
Damn Straight! Badger's view of art, or it ain't art!
You know, art can't really be defined, but I know poorly-executed drawings when I see them.
I agree, and I thought the horse dude was a pretty bad drawing. But then, I think most of what 'artists' call art is kinda crappy.
However, I don't think the anthropomorphic nature of the subject was the problem, nearly as much as the poor drawing skills of the individual.
I was willing to ignore furries until words like 'fursona' and 'fursecution' came up.
My biggest fear right now is that some furries will team up with historically deluded Wiccans and suggest that wearing animal artefacts as part of tribal shamanism was an early form of 'furry'.
OMG BURNING TIMES PART II!!
Mangrove - ever the optimist :lulz:
Quote from: Mangrove on November 12, 2008, 09:49:42 PM
I was willing to ignore furries until words like 'fursona' and 'fursecution' came up.
My biggest fear right now is that some furries will team up with historically deluded Wiccans and suggest that wearing animal artefacts as part of tribal shamanism was an early form of 'furry'.
OMG BURNING TIMES PART II!!
Someone better call MysticWicks!
I've never cared what anyone did as/with/to consenting adults in the privacy of their own place of choice. PRIVATE being the key word. I don't "get" the whole furry thing, then again, I don't "get" the S&M thing either.
I have to agree, if people are dressing up as Pooh or other children's characters, there are probably some "issues" there that need to be dealt with, however, if they're just doing their thing in a run of the mill forest creature costume, then let them go for it. It's not my place to decide if someone is whacked out cause they like to get it on in a costume. Though I have to think those damn costumes have to be really really hot and super sweaty and must be a fortuen to clean to keep them from stinking and that to me is just EWWW!
As for the art, I don't understand half of the art in the world. I mean they make sculpture from milk cartons and it's art. Someone glues a bunch of buttons to a lamp and it's art. It doesn't work for me.
What Suu and Fred draw, that is art. The clothes Suu creates, that to me is art. Nigel's beads, those are art. For me art is an expression of creativity. I may or may not like it, but I only have to buy or look at what I like right?
Just don't shove the furry thing, or the furry 'art' or anything like that in my face and I won't be a total bitch about how much I hate it and what a load of crap it is.... That's fair right?
Quote from: Mangrove on November 12, 2008, 09:49:42 PM
I was willing to ignore furries until words like 'fursona' and 'fursecution' came up.
My biggest fear right now is that some furries will team up with historically deluded Wiccans and suggest that wearing animal artefacts as part of tribal shamanism was an early form of 'furry'.
OMG BURNING TIMES PART II!!
:potd:
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated [by zoophiles having sex with animals], but its a hard sell.
What evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that harm has been perpetrated?
What species are compatible with humans that you know of?
If you know any, what are the behavioral cues to indicate willingness? How about unwillingness?
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 10:32:15 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated [by zoophiles having sex with animals], but its a hard sell.
What evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that harm has been perpetrated?
What species are compatible with humans that you know of?
If so, what are the behavioral cues to indicate willingness? How about unwillingness?
I didn't address this because personally I think anyone who has sex with an animal is just disgusting. It is a kind of abuse. There is no animal on this planet that has the mental capacity or verbal ability to come up to a human being and say "fuck me". There are reasons why some of the old laws about single men owning certain farm animals are still on the books.....
Quote from: Khara on November 12, 2008, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 10:32:15 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated [by zoophiles having sex with animals], but its a hard sell.
What evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that harm has been perpetrated?
What species are compatible with humans that you know of?
If so, what are the behavioral cues to indicate willingness? How about unwillingness?
I didn't address this because personally I think anyone who has sex with an animal is just disgusting. It is a kind of abuse. There is no animal on this planet that has the mental capacity or verbal ability to come up to a human being and say "fuck me". There are reasons why some of the old laws about single men owning certain farm animals are still on the books.....
Where did you get your degree in ethology?
Quote from: Khara on November 12, 2008, 10:35:27 PM
I didn't address this because personally I think anyone who has sex with an animal is just disgusting. It is a kind of abuse. There is no animal on this planet that has the mental capacity or verbal ability to come up to a human being and say "fuck me". There are reasons why some of the old laws about single men owning certain farm animals are still on the books.....
I saw a video of a donkey 'raping' some guy..... (not successfully, the guy was clothed)
I've heard stories about dolphins 'raping' people (apart from the 'King of the Hill' episode)
there's bestiality porn out there of women and animals (like dogs) and they definitelyl aren't forcing the animal.....
Quote from: Khara on November 12, 2008, 09:58:11 PM
I've never cared what anyone did as/with/to consenting adults in the privacy of their own place of choice. PRIVATE being the key word. I don't "get" the whole furry thing, then again, I don't "get" the S&M thing either.
I have to agree, if people are dressing up as Pooh or other children's characters, there are probably some "issues" there that need to be dealt with, however, if they're just doing their thing in a run of the mill forest creature costume, then let them go for it. It's not my place to decide if someone is whacked out cause they like to get it on in a costume. Though I have to think those damn costumes have to be really really hot and super sweaty and must be a fortuen to clean to keep them from stinking and that to me is just EWWW!
As for the art, I don't understand half of the art in the world. I mean they make sculpture from milk cartons and it's art. Someone glues a bunch of buttons to a lamp and it's art. It doesn't work for me.
What Suu and Fred draw, that is art. The clothes Suu creates, that to me is art. Nigel's beads, those are art. For me art is an expression of creativity. I may or may not like it, but I only have to buy or look at what I like right?
Just don't shove the furry thing, or the furry 'art' or anything like that in my face and I won't be a total bitch about how much I hate it and what a load of crap it is.... That's fair right?
I actually think it's pretty obnoxious for anyone to present their sexual practices and expect not to be made fun of. I mean, come on.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 10:50:49 PM
Quote from: Khara on November 12, 2008, 10:35:27 PM
I didn't address this because personally I think anyone who has sex with an animal is just disgusting. It is a kind of abuse. There is no animal on this planet that has the mental capacity or verbal ability to come up to a human being and say "fuck me". There are reasons why some of the old laws about single men owning certain farm animals are still on the books.....
I saw a video of a donkey 'raping' some guy..... (not successfully, the guy was clothed)
I've heard stories about dolphins 'raping' people (apart from the 'King of the Hill' episode)
there's bestiality porn out there of women and animals (like dogs) and they definitelyl aren't forcing the animal.....
Some guy was raped to death by a dolphin last year, actually.
I LOLed.
whoa! seriously?!
I thought it was more of a 'bump up against you with their pecker sticking out' kinda thing. Raped to death?
Link-o perhaps?
I just did a cursory search and didn't find it.
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Only Trusted Source
In their 2007 survey, Gerbasi et al examined what it meant to be a furry, and in doing so proposed a topology in which to categorise different "types" of furries. The largest group, at 38% of those surveyed, they described as being interested in furry fandom predominately as a "route to socializing with others who share common interests such as anthropomorphic art and costumes."[10] However they also identified furries who saw themselves as "other than human", and/or who desired to become more like the furry species which they identified with.[10] This distinction can be viewed in light of the findings of the larger Furry Survey, according to which a majority of furries consider themselves to be predominantly human, while about 6% do not consider themselves human at all.[11]
Differing approaches to sexuality have been a source of controversy and conflict in furry fandom.[citation needed] Examples of sexual aspects within furry fandom include erotic art and furry-themed cybersex.[43][44] The term "yiff" is most commonly used to indicate sexual activity or sexual material within the fandom—this applies to sexual activity and interaction within the subculture whether online (in the form of cybersex) or offline.[45][46] Many members of the furry community feel that the overly sexual component gives the rest of them a bad name, and may use the derogatory term "furvert" to describe such people. (See the following section for more details.)
The majority of furries report a non-judgmental attitude towards certain aspects of sexuality and a high tolerance for variety in sexual orientation and activity. 19-25% of the fandom members report homosexuality, 37-48% bisexuality, and 3-8% other forms of alternative sexual relationships. About 2% state an interest in zoophilia, and less than 1% an interest in plushophilia.[47][26] About half of the furry fans are estimated to be in a relationship, with 76% of those having a relationship with another furry.[47
2%...
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Only Trusted Source
The Kinsey reports claim that 40–60% of rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) had sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives, but some later writers consider these uncertain.[5] Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.[6]
In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of reported bestiality (both actual sexual contacts — 45% — and sexual fantasy — 30%) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10%) and psychiatric staff (15%).[7] 5.3% of the men surveyed by Crépault and Couture (1980) reported sometimes fantasizing about having sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.[8] 7.5% of 186 university students questioned in a 1982 study said they had sexually touched or had sexual intercourse with an animal.
I wonder if that counts a dog trying to hump your leg....
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Only Trusted Source
The common concept of animals as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior. Animals are, in the main, considered as sexual opportunists by science, rather than sexually naïve. Ethologists such as Desmond Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant masturbation and homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species sexual advances. Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is "not so very unusual" between animals of different species as it is between humans and animals, a view with which Kinsey (1948, 1953) concurs.[43] Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by Biruté Galdikas (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on primates):
While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not.
Here's a fun fact, Quetzalcoatl could toss his own salad.
(http://bis.ifc.unam.mx/DependenceReceptors/Quetzalcoatl1.jpg)
I think dolphins just drag people under the water and try to get it in until the person drown.
I don't know how often the dolphins succeed. The papers never say.
Quote from: stella on November 13, 2008, 12:15:37 AM
I think dolphins just drag people under the water and try to get it in until the person drown.
I don't know how often the dolphins succeed. The papers never say.
how does a dolphin drag something?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 12:33:29 AM
Quote from: stella on November 13, 2008, 12:15:37 AM
I think dolphins just drag people under the water and try to get it in until the person drown.
I don't know how often the dolphins succeed. The papers never say.
how does a dolphin drag something?
With its wang.
They have sharp pointy teeth.
[insert joke about black dolphins here]
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 12, 2008, 09:29:14 PM
Oh, and anyone who just likes the "art" needs to learn how to draw humans and get the fuck over himself.
And by human I mean human, not anime-people.
Damn Straight! Badger's view of art, or it ain't art!
Once again, eat my dick.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 09:38:21 PM
Y'know the funny thing is, i've always kinda viewed badger as a furry because of her handle....
You too.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 13, 2008, 01:17:57 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 12, 2008, 09:38:21 PM
Y'know the funny thing is, i've always kinda viewed badger as a furry because of her handle....
You too.
My handle seems like a furries name? :?
well, you do look like a hamster. :lulz:
and you do have a furry handlebar
Quote from: Khara on November 12, 2008, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 10:32:15 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated [by zoophiles having sex with animals], but its a hard sell.
What evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that harm has been perpetrated?
What species are compatible with humans that you know of?
If so, what are the behavioral cues to indicate willingness? How about unwillingness?
I didn't address this because personally I think anyone who has sex with an animal is just disgusting. It is a kind of abuse. There is no animal on this planet that has the mental capacity or verbal ability to come up to a human being and say "fuck me". There are reasons why some of the old laws about single men owning certain farm animals are still on the books.....
I have a hard time imagining that bestiality is any worse than what goes on in meat processing plants.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2008, 11:16:59 PM
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Only Trusted Source
In their 2007 survey, Gerbasi et al examined what it meant to be a furry, and in doing so proposed a topology in which to categorise different "types" of furries. The largest group, at 38% of those surveyed, they described as being interested in furry fandom predominately as a "route to socializing with others who share common interests such as anthropomorphic art and costumes."[10] However they also identified furries who saw themselves as "other than human", and/or who desired to become more like the furry species which they identified with.[10] This distinction can be viewed in light of the findings of the larger Furry Survey, according to which a majority of furries consider themselves to be predominantly human, while about 6% do not consider themselves human at all.[11]
Differing approaches to sexuality have been a source of controversy and conflict in furry fandom.[citation needed] Examples of sexual aspects within furry fandom include erotic art and furry-themed cybersex.[43][44] The term "yiff" is most commonly used to indicate sexual activity or sexual material within the fandom—this applies to sexual activity and interaction within the subculture whether online (in the form of cybersex) or offline.[45][46] Many members of the furry community feel that the overly sexual component gives the rest of them a bad name, and may use the derogatory term "furvert" to describe such people. (See the following section for more details.)
The majority of furries report a non-judgmental attitude towards certain aspects of sexuality and a high tolerance for variety in sexual orientation and activity. 19-25% of the fandom members report homosexuality, 37-48% bisexuality, and 3-8% other forms of alternative sexual relationships. About 2% state an interest in zoophilia, and less than 1% an interest in plushophilia.[47][26] About half of the furry fans are estimated to be in a relationship, with 76% of those having a relationship with another furry.[47
2%...
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Only Trusted Source
The Kinsey reports claim that 40–60% of rural teenagers (living on or near livestock farms) had sexual experience with an animal at some point in their lives, but some later writers consider these uncertain.[5] Anecdotally, Nancy Friday's 1973 book on female sexuality My Secret Garden comprised around 190 women's contributions; of these, some 8% volunteered a serious interest or active participation in zoosexual activity.[6]
In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of reported bestiality (both actual sexual contacts — 45% — and sexual fantasy — 30%) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10%) and psychiatric staff (15%).[7] 5.3% of the men surveyed by Crépault and Couture (1980) reported sometimes fantasizing about having sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse.[8] 7.5% of 186 university students questioned in a 1982 study said they had sexually touched or had sexual intercourse with an animal.
I wonder if that counts a dog trying to hump your leg....
Quote from: Wikipedia, The Only Trusted Source
The common concept of animals as heterosexual and only interested in their own species, is seen as scientifically inaccurate by researchers into animal behavior. Animals are, in the main, considered as sexual opportunists by science, rather than sexually naïve. Ethologists such as Desmond Morris who study animal behavior, as well as formal studies, have consistently documented significant masturbation and homosexuality in a wide range of animals, apparently freely chosen or in the presence of the opposite gender, as well as homosexual animal couples, homosexual raising of young, and cross-species sexual advances. Haeberle (1978) states that sexual intercourse is "not so very unusual" between animals of different species as it is between humans and animals, a view with which Kinsey (1948, 1953) concurs.[43] Peter Singer reports of one such incident witnessed by Biruté Galdikas (a notable ethologist considered by many the world's foremost authority on primates):
While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not.
Wikipedia has a well known Furry cabal (sometimes referred to as the Furluminati) who control and edit such entries as to present a favourable vision of themselves to the world.
But no seriously, I'm pretty sure the sysop on the furry related articles is a furry themself.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on November 13, 2008, 01:25:16 AM
well, you do look like a hamster. :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on November 13, 2008, 01:27:54 AM
and you do have a furry handlebar
Ah, well. OK.
It's not the name, though, is the important bit. :)
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
I just want to add my two cents here:
you seem to be a completely worthless shitpile who enjoys the company of horsefuckers.
please die in a fire, you sick sick fuck.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 03:35:01 AM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
I just want to add my two cents here:
you seem to be a completely worthless shitpile who enjoys the company of horsefuckers.
please die in a fire, you sick sick fuck.
TITCM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
One word: "Babyfur".
Furries are the arse end of kink. If that arse had a case of crabs. And polyps the size of apples.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 13, 2008, 03:46:30 AM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
One word: "Babyfur".
Furries are the arse end of kink. If that arse had a case of crabs. And polyps the size of apples. Covered in herpes sores. Herpes sores that spray AIDS everywhere. Not normal AIDS, airborne AIDS featuring leprosy.
Fixed!
Quote from: you guys are fucking up my chi on November 13, 2008, 07:45:45 AMNot normal AIDS, airborne AIDS featuring leprosy.
If this disease doesn't exist then it fucking well ought to :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: you guys are fucking up my chi on November 13, 2008, 07:45:45 AMNot normal AIDS, airborne AIDS featuring leprosy.
If this disease doesn't exist then it fucking well ought to :lulz:
It makes me think of "Snow Patrol Featuring Martha Wainwright" for some reason.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 10:43:56 PM
Quote from: Khara on November 12, 2008, 10:35:27 PM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 10:32:15 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated [by zoophiles having sex with animals], but its a hard sell.
What evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that harm has been perpetrated?
What species are compatible with humans that you know of?
If so, what are the behavioral cues to indicate willingness? How about unwillingness?
I didn't address this because personally I think anyone who has sex with an animal is just disgusting. It is a kind of abuse. There is no animal on this planet that has the mental capacity or verbal ability to come up to a human being and say "fuck me". There are reasons why some of the old laws about single men owning certain farm animals are still on the books.....
Where did you get your degree in ethology?
Snarkiness is but the first sign.....
Sorry Dr. Doolittle!
... but Kai, I thought you make drawings of them and "examine" their naughty parts just for Science, no????
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 13, 2008, 05:03:49 PM
... but Kai, I thought you make drawings of them and "examine" their naughty parts just for Science, no????
I've always been honest and upfront about being an entomophile.
I just don't anthropomorphism them like furries do.
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:06:56 PM
I've always been honest and upfront about being an entomophile.
I just don't anthropomorphism them like furries do.
have you ever read the Bondage Fairies comic series?
:fap:
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:06:56 PM
I've always been honest and upfront about being an entomophile.
I just don't anthropomorphism them like furries do.
have you ever read the Bondage Fairies comic series?
:fap:
:| Wtf are you on about?
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:19:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:06:56 PM
I've always been honest and upfront about being an entomophile.
I just don't anthropomorphism them like furries do.
have you ever read the Bondage Fairies comic series?
:fap:
:| Wtf are you on about?
Its a comic series about these saphic woodland fairies that are into BDSM and are the protectors of the creatures of the forrest (mostly focusing on insects) and theres lots of strange sex (including with the nonanthropomorphized insects)....strange stuff indeed, but worth checking out. can be found on torrents fairly readily.
I'm going to regret asking this but do the insects have little wangs or do they somehow mate with them using proper insect bits?
Ok... well this didn't go the way I had hoped, but I'll take what I can get.
I haven't seen anything here that indicates my bias against furries has any basis other than my personal preference (or peer pressure ;-) ) and apparently a misunderstanding of furry tendencies. So thanks. This has been very useful.
So I think I'll leave that brick in the wall, but at least I now know what its made of.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:31:31 PM
I'm going to regret asking this but do the insects have little wangs or do they somehow mate with them using proper insect bits?
hmmm.... it's been a while since i read them, but i seem to remember them not being unrealistic. dont some insects have sorta wangs?....
also theres a bunch of non traditional things that a fairy can apparently do with bugs like a stag beetle etc.....
I don't really remember the details, but this thread made me think of it...
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 05:26:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:19:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:06:56 PM
I've always been honest and upfront about being an entomophile.
I just don't anthropomorphism them like furries do.
have you ever read the Bondage Fairies comic series?
:fap:
:| Wtf are you on about?
Its a comic series about these saphic woodland fairies that are into BDSM and are the protectors of the creatures of the forrest (mostly focusing on insects) and theres lots of strange sex (including with the nonanthropomorphized insects)....strange stuff indeed, but worth checking out. can be found on torrents fairly readily.
And here I was thinking about some cute and tied up fairies that would engage in more or less consensual congress with normal humans.
:argh!:
Quote from: planeswalker on November 13, 2008, 05:37:22 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 05:26:22 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:19:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 13, 2008, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:06:56 PM
I've always been honest and upfront about being an entomophile.
I just don't anthropomorphism them like furries do.
have you ever read the Bondage Fairies comic series?
:fap:
:| Wtf are you on about?
Its a comic series about these saphic woodland fairies that are into BDSM and are the protectors of the creatures of the forrest (mostly focusing on insects) and theres lots of strange sex (including with the nonanthropomorphized insects)....strange stuff indeed, but worth checking out. can be found on torrents fairly readily.
And here I was thinking about some cute and tied up fairies that would engage in more or less consensual congress with normal humans.
:argh!:
I have a friend that was into Bondage Fairy stuff... she thought it was some of the most awesome erotica currently being published.
I thought it was weird.
Like pandora's box - I just had to lick it :argh!:
NSFW (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/intro/5/New-Bondage-Fairies-Nbf01_11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/pic9.htm&usg=__BjAh83SjOj4ZdjRPbZwIqOScYPk=&h=948&w=612&sz=224&hl=en&start=2&sig2=Eutbj0zX-ywmvVPnNnvzVg&um=1&tbnid=VeOF5KA_9_GGyM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=96&ei=QGccSeyXMpKwwQGBxsCsBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBondage%2BFairies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)
I don't do sex.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:51:42 PM
Like pandora's box - I just had to lick it :argh!:
NSFW (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/intro/5/New-Bondage-Fairies-Nbf01_11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/pic9.htm&usg=__BjAh83SjOj4ZdjRPbZwIqOScYPk=&h=948&w=612&sz=224&hl=en&start=2&sig2=Eutbj0zX-ywmvVPnNnvzVg&um=1&tbnid=VeOF5KA_9_GGyM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=96&ei=QGccSeyXMpKwwQGBxsCsBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBondage%2BFairies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)
:lulz: I can't stop laughing.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:31:31 PM
I'm going to regret asking this but do the insects have little wangs or do they somehow mate with them using proper insect bits?
I think we've had this discussion before.
Quote from: Kai on October 27, 2008, 09:35:10 PMNo, see, thats similar to gang rape. Traumatic insemination is similar to someone jamming a knife into the abdomen of a female bodied person, cutting into their uterus, and then penetrating in with your penis.
Bedbugs are insect gore.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:51:42 PM
Like pandora's box - I just had to lick it :argh!:
NSFW (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/intro/5/New-Bondage-Fairies-Nbf01_11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/pic9.htm&usg=__BjAh83SjOj4ZdjRPbZwIqOScYPk=&h=948&w=612&sz=224&hl=en&start=2&sig2=Eutbj0zX-ywmvVPnNnvzVg&um=1&tbnid=VeOF5KA_9_GGyM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=96&ei=QGccSeyXMpKwwQGBxsCsBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBondage%2BFairies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)
Ha HA! Molasses!
\
(http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z155/ironfistike/Sebben.jpg)
Quote from: planeswalker on November 13, 2008, 05:57:17 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:51:42 PM
Like pandora's box - I just had to lick it :argh!:
NSFW (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/intro/5/New-Bondage-Fairies-Nbf01_11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/pic9.htm&usg=__BjAh83SjOj4ZdjRPbZwIqOScYPk=&h=948&w=612&sz=224&hl=en&start=2&sig2=Eutbj0zX-ywmvVPnNnvzVg&um=1&tbnid=VeOF5KA_9_GGyM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=96&ei=QGccSeyXMpKwwQGBxsCsBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBondage%2BFairies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)
:lulz: I can't stop laughing.
I would laugh but unfortunately all I can think about is the person who sees this and gets a boner.
I don't feel I should be sharing my oxygen supply with that fucker :evilmad:
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 05:56:16 PM
I don't do sex.
:?
as in you are willfully asexual?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:31:31 PM
I'm going to regret asking this but do the insects have little wangs or do they somehow mate with them using proper insect bits?
http://www.mennoschilthuizen.org/PDF/pdf_18.pdf
I meant the insects in the cartoon insect pron.
Or does that tl:dr scientific mumbo jumbo tell me some insects actually have the same bits as us?
sure that's not the case but I'm no expert
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 06:26:44 PM
I meant the insects in the cartoon insect pron.
Or does that tl:dr scientific mumbo jumbo tell me some insects actually have the same bits as us?
sure that's not the case but I'm no expert
Insect genetalia works largely under the process that human genetalia works under: the male penetrates the females reproductive tract in some way to deposit sperm. That is where the two part and never meet again.
Externally, male insect genetalia is the most complex system of genetalia seen in any group of organisms.
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/ZLB/IMG_0513.jpg)
Those are some drawings I did of caddisfly male genetalia earlier this semester, just so I could learn the terminology.
I wasn't willing to look at the cartoon long enough to find out.
Quote from: Vene on November 13, 2008, 06:02:50 PMI think we've had this discussion before.
Quote from: Kai on October 27, 2008, 09:35:10 PMNo, see, thats similar to gang rape. Traumatic insemination is similar to someone jamming a knife into the abdomen of a female bodied person, cutting into their uterus, and then penetrating in with your penis.
Bedbugs are insect gore.
hey i remember that, i think Faust, posted a link to some horrible cartoon in which humans did this. i seem to recall the act was accompanied by the boy saying "Mom, I'm going to give you a gut-fucking."
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 03:35:01 AM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 03:52:33 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:38:05 AM
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 03:28:27 AM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on November 12, 2008, 03:06:15 AM
Nope. Dead serious.
Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
One is strongly associated with animal abuse, the other doesn't abuse anyone.
Fucktard.
Would you let a furry teach your children?
Would you let a furry fuck your dog?
Would you let a faggot fuck your child? Because you know, all furries fuck animals, and all faggots fuck children.
It's a widely believed fact!
PS: You are full of shit.
I just want to add my two cents here:
you seem to be a completely worthless shitpile who enjoys the company of horsefuckers.
please die in a fire, you sick sick fuck.
That kind of hatred all was struck me as useless and kind of tiring. Net apologized for the remark that prompted that comment from me, you'll note.
Elsewise, you seem to have the impression that I might care about your opinion in some manner. In my mind you have already shown yourself to be a close-minded bigot, so really I couldn't care less what you think. Well, that's not strictly speaking true - the fact is that I'm laughing at you, so hey, thanks for teh lulz.
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 13, 2008, 03:46:30 AM
One word: "Babyfur".
Furries are the arse end of kink. If that arse had a case of crabs. And polyps the size of apples.
Dude, that's like associating all people into bondage with people who tie up kids and rape them.
You seem to have built your hateful opinion based false premises that the information contained in this thread reasonably clearly refutes. I find it pretty pathetic that you're holding on to that prejudice anyway.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:02:09 PM
Elsewise, you seem to have the impression that I might care about your opinion in some manner. In my mind you have already shown yourself to be a close-minded bigot, so really I couldn't care less what you think. Well, that's not strictly speaking true - the fact is that I'm laughing at you, so hey, thanks for teh lulz.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
I've never understood the trend to say "I don't care what you think." By telling them that, aren't you acting in a way that indicates you DO care... I mean cause if you didn't care, wouldn't you just ignore the person?
Also, some furry took my horse on a romantic getaway for the weekend, so don't call me a fucking Paladin.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:30:24 PM
[quote author=The Good Reverend Roger link=topic=18415.msg612536#msg612536 date=1226547990
One word: "Babyfur".
Furries are the arse end of kink. If that arse had a case of crabs. And polyps the size of apples.
Dude, that's like associating all people into bondage with people who tie up kids and rape them.
You seem to have built your hateful opinion based false premises that the information contained in this thread reasonably clearly refutes. I find it pretty pathetic that you're holding on to that prejudice anyway.
[/quote]
:lulz: You just realized TGRR is hateful?
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:30:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 13, 2008, 03:46:30 AM
One word: "Babyfur".
Furries are the arse end of kink. If that arse had a case of crabs. And polyps the size of apples.
Dude, that's like associating all people into bondage with people who tie up kids and rape them.
You seem to have built your hateful opinion based false premises that the information contained in this thread reasonably clearly refutes. I find it pretty pathetic that you're holding on to that prejudice anyway.
wait, you mean the "information" provided by YOU, a self-confessed Furry?
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:02:09 PM
Elsewise, you seem to have the impression that I might care about your opinion in some manner. In my mind you have already shown yourself to be a close-minded bigot, so really I couldn't care less what you think. Well, that's not strictly speaking true - the fact is that I'm laughing at you, so hey, thanks for teh lulz.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
I've never understood the trend to say "I don't care what you think." By telling them that, aren't you acting in a way that indicates you DO care... I mean cause if you didn't care, wouldn't you just ignore the person?
Also, some furry took my horse on a romantic getaway for the weekend, so don't call me a fucking Paladin.
1) not if they're a furry and you just enjoy pushing their buttons.
2) so would you say he was "sowing his oats"?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 05:51:42 PM
Like pandora's box - I just had to lick it :argh!:
NSFW (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/intro/5/New-Bondage-Fairies-Nbf01_11.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newbondagefairies.net/pic9.htm&usg=__BjAh83SjOj4ZdjRPbZwIqOScYPk=&h=948&w=612&sz=224&hl=en&start=2&sig2=Eutbj0zX-ywmvVPnNnvzVg&um=1&tbnid=VeOF5KA_9_GGyM:&tbnh=148&tbnw=96&ei=QGccSeyXMpKwwQGBxsCsBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBondage%2BFairies%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)
The hell.
There are so many things about that which aren't hot, starting with the fairy's FACE.
Quote from: Net on November 12, 2008, 10:32:15 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 12, 2008, 01:54:02 PM
Personally I'm not convinced that there's harm being perpetrated [by zoophiles having sex with animals], but its a hard sell.
What evidence would be necessary to demonstrate that harm has been perpetrated?
What species are compatible with humans that you know of?
If you know any, what are the behavioral cues to indicate willingness? How about unwillingness?
*shrug* My opinions are based on the impressions of the 3 or 4 zoophiles I've ever met. The were pretty uniformly fairly timid people with a great gentleness.
As for willingness/unwillingness, I suspect anyone trying to have sex with an unwilling dog would have their balls ripped off by said dog - I'd bloody well hope they would, anyway.
My enthusiasm for researching the subject is pretty much nil though.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:30:24 PM
You seem to have built your hateful opinion based false premises that the information contained in this thread reasonably clearly refutes. I find it pretty pathetic that you're holding on to that prejudice anyway.
Shadowfurry, you are demonstrating ITT why I don't like furries.
Don't go dumping your kink into an unrelated forum and then expect nobody to make fun of you. If you want your kink to be "accepted" without mockery or outright revulsion, keep it on a kink board or a furry board or whatever. You have no logical reason to expect it to go over with hugs and smooches on a Discordian board, any more than I would expect my penchant for fucking guys in the ass with double-ended dildoes to go over without negativity on one of my bead boards.
For that matter, I have been richly (and expectedly) mocked for it here as well, which I found funny, because really. Just really. IT'S A FUCKING DISCORDIAN BOARD.
Now quit your ridiculous little furry whining, furfag.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
Have to agree with ECH.
While maybe not the lowest of the low, animal fuckers are way the fuck down there to me. Anyone who condones it is almost as sick as they are. Furries? Blech.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:36:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 09:31:57 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:02:09 PM
Elsewise, you seem to have the impression that I might care about your opinion in some manner. In my mind you have already shown yourself to be a close-minded bigot, so really I couldn't care less what you think. Well, that's not strictly speaking true - the fact is that I'm laughing at you, so hey, thanks for teh lulz.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
I've never understood the trend to say "I don't care what you think." By telling them that, aren't you acting in a way that indicates you DO care... I mean cause if you didn't care, wouldn't you just ignore the person?
Also, some furry took my horse on a romantic getaway for the weekend, so don't call me a fucking Paladin.
1) not if they're a furry and you just enjoy pushing their buttons.
So you still care what they think... as long as they think "DAMN, he poked me"... (I'll withhold obvious comments about "pushing the buttons" of furries... Freud can go suck a dick... or a horse's dick).
Quote
2) so would you say he was "sowing his oats"?
Euqine, Dine and Sixty-Nine?
Also, shadowfist... don't take the Furry stuff too personally. This board will find a reason to ridicule you... we find a reason for everyone. It's sort of like a welcome hug from a rabid orangutan.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 09:44:37 PM
It's sort of like a welcome hug from a rabid orangutan.
Maybe you should use an analogy that's less likely to turn him on.
Quote from: Vene on November 13, 2008, 09:48:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 09:44:37 PM
It's sort of like a welcome hug from a rabid orangutan.
Maybe you should use an analogy that's less likely to turn him on.
I like to tailor my analogies to fit my audience.
PD.COM - Like a bear hug from a rabid, horny orangutan
Here is a question....
Is it truly bigotry to hate someone for something they have control over?
I mean hating someone for their skin color, the religion they were born into, thier sexual orientation, that is bigotry right? The defination says....
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So is it bigotry to hate someone for things they CAN control and keep to the privacy of their own personal spaces??
yes.
It has already been established that I am a raging bigot for hating white supremacists, so for me hating furries is just another drop in the bucket.
Quote from: Khara on November 13, 2008, 09:54:07 PM
Here is a question....
Is it truly bigotry to hate someone for something they have control over?
I mean hating someone for their skin color, the religion they were born into, thier sexual orientation, that is bigotry right? The defination says....
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So is it bigotry to hate someone for things they CAN control and keep to the privacy of their own personal spaces??
No, the key aspect of bigotry lies in the bigot, not in the bigotee (which is not, in fact, a long thin beard).
a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesit's the devoted to your own opinion bit that gets you. As we have discussed on this forum before, prejudice is a fact of our pathetic monkey minds... a leftover GIGO from the ancient programs of human beings. We all make tentative judgements, all the time. When the homeless guy walks toward us, we assume he'll act like the last 50 homeless guys, we 'pre-judge' and assume he'll ask for change and be annoying till we kick him in the head.
If, however, he says "Nice weather, eh?" and then walks on... the bigot would still say "Ah, he's a homeless asshole, motherfucker!" and still kick him in the head. Now, this is not to be confused with the people that simply enjoy kicking homeless people in the head.
So, bigotry is holding onto a opinion about a group of people, NO MATTER what evidence may show up to contradict it.
Kicking Homeless people in the head for fun, is just recreation.
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2008, 09:41:51 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:30:24 PM
You seem to have built your hateful opinion based false premises that the information contained in this thread reasonably clearly refutes. I find it pretty pathetic that you're holding on to that prejudice anyway.
Shadowfurry, you are demonstrating ITT why I don't like furries.
Don't go dumping your kink into an unrelated forum and then expect nobody to make fun of you. If you want your kink to be "accepted" without mockery or outright revulsion, keep it on a kink board or a furry board or whatever. You have no logical reason to expect it to go over with hugs and smooches on a Discordian board, any more than I would expect my penchant for fucking guys in the ass with double-ended dildoes to go over without negativity on one of my bead boards.
For that matter, I have been richly (and expectedly) mocked for it here as well, which I found funny, because really. Just really. IT'S A FUCKING DISCORDIAN BOARD.
Now quit your ridiculous little furry whining, furfag.
Eh, someone brought up furries and I brought my experiences to the discussion; that's hardly 'dumping my kink into an unrelated forum.' Mine contributions are not the only information about furries in the thread either.
I barely qualify as a furry really.. I don't hang out in the community any more (though I have friends that do), I don't collect the art and I don't whack it to furry pr0n. But I'm new here, and testing out the boundaries a little - I was curious to see what tone the conversation would take, especially after bringing up something as taboo as zoophilia. I must admit I'd expected somewhat better from people claiming to be subverting the dominant paradigm. *shrug* I'm not exactly stunned though.
I'm not in to the insulting people for fun thing myself - I think its pretty childish really, and claiming you're 'enlightening' people is a pretty sad excuse. I'm not a big fan of hatred either; though I understand it works for some people I've never seen the point.
Overall I seem to have changed a few opinions so I'm reasonably happy with the results. As for the unreasoning hatered from some - Meh. Fuck 'em.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 10:09:32 PMAs for the unreasoning hatered from some - Meh. Fuck 'em.
I will assume that doesn't apply to me since I don't have a tail.
to date I have met only one interesting furry, the rest were a bunch of shallow boring insecure people who either attach meaningless terms to themselves in order to sound more interesting, or are forcibly regressing to a childlike state of escapism while closing off their perceptions of the world.
they are also, as a group, second only to satanists in their inability to take a joke at their expense.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 10:09:32 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 13, 2008, 09:41:51 PM
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 09:30:24 PM
You seem to have built your hateful opinion based false premises that the information contained in this thread reasonably clearly refutes. I find it pretty pathetic that you're holding on to that prejudice anyway.
Shadowfurry, you are demonstrating ITT why I don't like furries.
Don't go dumping your kink into an unrelated forum and then expect nobody to make fun of you. If you want your kink to be "accepted" without mockery or outright revulsion, keep it on a kink board or a furry board or whatever. You have no logical reason to expect it to go over with hugs and smooches on a Discordian board, any more than I would expect my penchant for fucking guys in the ass with double-ended dildoes to go over without negativity on one of my bead boards.
For that matter, I have been richly (and expectedly) mocked for it here as well, which I found funny, because really. Just really. IT'S A FUCKING DISCORDIAN BOARD.
Now quit your ridiculous little furry whining, furfag.
Eh, someone brought up furries and I brought my experiences to the discussion; that's hardly 'dumping my kink into an unrelated forum.' Mine contributions are not the only information about furries in the thread either.
I barely qualify as a furry really.. I don't hang out in the community any more (though I have friends that do), I don't collect the art and I don't whack it to furry pr0n. But I'm new here, and testing out the boundaries a little - I was curious to see what tone the conversation would take, especially after bringing up something as taboo as zoophilia. I must admit I'd expected somewhat better from people claiming to be subverting the dominant paradigm. *shrug* I'm not exactly stunned though.
I'm not in to the insulting people for fun thing myself - I think its pretty childish really, and claiming you're 'enlightening' people is a pretty sad excuse. I'm not a big fan of hatred either; though I understand it works for some people I've never seen the point.
Overall I seem to have changed a few opinions so I'm reasonably happy with the results. As for the unreasoning hatered from some - Meh. Fuck 'em.
Give hate a chance. It's just as intense as love. It's much easier to fall into. And it doesn't cost you an arm and a leg when it's over.
Beware rebound hate tho, it's never as satisfying.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 10:09:32 PM
Overall I seem to have changed a few opinions so I'm reasonably happy with the results. As for the unreasoning hatered from some - Meh. Fuck 'em.
I don't think you changed any opinions....
but i found the whole thing amusing... :lulz:
the topic obviously pushes buttons. :)
I am going to set up a reclining chair in this thread, because this is going to get GOOD.
I've found this thread to be educational. I feel like I have a better understanding now of why people fursecute.
I also suspect that it's the attraction to being in a persecuted group that attracts some furries.
Come for the lulz
Stay for the fursecution.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 13, 2008, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
Have to agree with ECH.
While maybe not the lowest of the low, animal fuckers are way the fuck down there to me. Anyone who condones it is almost as sick as they are. Furries? Blech.
What's so bad about fucking animals? Animals fuck animals. Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 10:09:32 PM
I'm not in to the insulting people for fun thing myself - I think its pretty childish really, and claiming you're 'enlightening' people is a pretty sad excuse.
Not into insulting people for fun? :cry:
I don't think anyone has claimed that they were insulting people for fun in order to "enlighten" them.
I still hate furries on the basis that most furries are whiny dipshits.
I don't hate zoophiles, but they do gross me out on a fundamental level. A "That's not my species" sort of level. Ew.
Quote from: GA on November 14, 2008, 12:59:05 AM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 13, 2008, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
Have to agree with ECH.
While maybe not the lowest of the low, animal fuckers are way the fuck down there to me. Anyone who condones it is almost as sick as they are. Furries? Blech.
What's so bad about fucking animals? Animals fuck animals. Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.
What's wrong with a cat fucking a ferret?
Well, why don't they, then?
Quote from: GA on November 14, 2008, 12:59:05 AM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 13, 2008, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
Have to agree with ECH.
While maybe not the lowest of the low, animal fuckers are way the fuck down there to me. Anyone who condones it is almost as sick as they are. Furries? Blech.
What's so bad about fucking animals? Animals fuck animals. Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.
What's so bad about eating your own faeces?
Well, why don't you, then?
o grandma what big teeth you have...
(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2001/redhoodmp9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2008, 02:34:37 AM
I don't think anyone has claimed that they were insulting people for fun in order to "enlighten" them.
I'd just like to go on record and state that I have only ever insulted people for fun in order to have fun.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 14, 2008, 02:40:14 AM
o grandma what big teeth you have...
(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2001/redhoodmp9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I wouldn't mind burying my dog in that.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 10:46:52 PM
they are also, as a group, second only to satanists in their inability to take a joke at their expense.
I'm completely ok with jokes about furries - damn I've met some people you'd be hard-pressed not to burst out laughing at. And/or run screaming from.
Mostly though I sought here to enlighten, since ignorance, especially hatred based on ignorance, irks me.
Amusingly, the reaction that I'm "being defensive" or whatnot reminded me a lot of the political discussions I'd been observing up until recently, where some Republitard would say something stupid about Obama and then react to people relating the correct facts of the mater by claiming they were "overreacting" and that they "had to defend The Messiah".
Is that in response to everyone, because I don't see anything furry as tangibal, its an unreal excape of fantasy with no meaning, nothing to be too concerned about.
I would wager that peoples negativity comes from the characteristics of the people they have encountered describing themselves as furries, having some of the worst characteristics of other communities, say gamers (elietism), gays (persecution/ backbiting and eleitism amounst their own), shallow commercialist materialism.
and of course the more pathetic of members with the escapist hatred of their own bodies displacing their upset in the form of needing to feel like something other then a human, which gives way to the perverts(laughable pornography that looks like it was drawn by rob liefield), and of course the fringes; pedophilia and bestiality.
Quote from: Faust on November 14, 2008, 01:18:02 PM
Is that in response to everyone, because I don't see anything furry as tangibal, its an unreal excape of fantasy with no meaning, nothing to be too concerned about.
I would wager that peoples negativity comes from the characteristics of the people they have encountered describing themselves as furries, having some of the worst characteristics of other communities, say gamers (elietism), gays and trannies (persecution/ backbiting and eleitism amounst their own), shallow commercialist materialism.
and of course the more pathetic of members with the escapist hatred of their own bodies displacing their upset in the form of needing to feel like something other then a human, which gives way to the perverts(laughable pornography that looks like it was drawn by rob liefield), and of course the fringes; pedophilia and bestiality.
Fixed, italics for additional information.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 14, 2008, 01:00:27 PM
I'm completely ok with jokes about furries - damn I've met some people you'd be hard-pressed not to burst out laughing at. And/or run screaming from.
Here's a hint, you're currently the butt of a joke.
Quote from: shadowfist23 on November 13, 2008, 10:09:32 PM
I was curious to see what tone the conversation would take, especially after bringing up something as taboo as zoophilia. I must admit I'd expected somewhat better from people claiming to be subverting the dominant paradigm. *shrug* I'm not exactly stunned though.
Oh yes! How
conformist of me to think that animal fucking is disgusting! Well my eyes are fucking open now! Thank god! Now I must work to being completely enlightened and learn to accept baby and kiddie fuckers too! It's just love anyway right? The baby didn't say "no" so it must mean it consents! Of course! Look at how fucking open-minded I am!
Quote from: Gentle Luminescence on November 14, 2008, 12:59:05 AM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 13, 2008, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 13, 2008, 09:23:23 PM
luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.
especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.
:lulz:
Have to agree with ECH.
While maybe not the lowest of the low, animal fuckers are way the fuck down there to me. Anyone who condones it is almost as sick as they are. Furries? Blech.
What's so bad about fucking animals? Animals fuck animals. Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.
How about it's just fucking disgusting? Can't find something to fuck within your own species? Not to steal on Nigel's statements, but why isn't the squirrel outside fucking that bird over there? Why doesn't my cat try to have sex with my boyfriend's brother's dog when they bring it over? They're playing with each other, so obviously they should want to fuck each other too, right? Oh fuck! My cat doesn't want to have sex with something outside of his own species. I better call the vet, there must be something wrong with him! I don't buy into the whole "consent" bullshit either. They don't say "no" and even if they just sit there, that says nothing. A child may not say no and just sit there while an adult molests them too.
And, well hamburgers are delicious. Not as good as a big juicy steak though. And uh, oh yea, eating food for sustinance is not having sex. We're all just animals? Well, wolves eat deer. Why aren't there massive deer and wolf orgies going on in the woods? Why aren't the bears hanging out in the rivers and streams jerking off with a fish on it's dick? They're all just animals! There must be something wrong with them!
Now... fucking a hamburger.....Rule 34 Go!
nsfw tags are NO FUN, yet a necessity.
NSFW - http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_park/photo_gallery/satanic-blood-orgy-108.jpg
There's a reason most of us a biologically designed to find bestiality disgusting. Contrary to popular belief, tho, it's got fuck all to do with natures moral code. Just for the record nature has no moral code - deal with it.
The reason most of us aren't attracted to animals is because it's fucking pointless. There will be no offspring and, for that reason, we have absolutely no business fucking them. Fucking was never designed to be a recreational activity, unlike snooker or pac man. Fucking is a biological imperative that most of us are instinctively compelled to indulge in. The compulsion is facilitated by making the experience pleasurable to us. This is accomplished by our bodies releasing a bunch of endorphins which get us high at the point of orgasm. Because of this mechanism the average human, or animal for that matter, upon maturing, will become something of a fuck junkie, addicted to the orgasm in much the same way as we're addicted to food and oxygen.
Strangely enough a percentage that's arguably approaching the majority of us, think it's okay to fuck a member of the same sex which, in the natural scheme of things, is equally fucking pointless. But, for the homosexual brigade is no less pleasurable - orgasm is still achieved, endorphins are still released.
I'm honestly (for once in my life) not trying to start a flame war here but I am aware I'm treading on thin ice so I guess I should make it very clear that I don't have a moral objection to gay sex. Would be kind of difficult for me since I'm pretty much completely devoid of morality but I do find it amusing that a lot of people who find pointless sex okay in sense, find it reprehensible in another.
I just happen to be a heterosexual male. I think I was born that way. While I couldn't give a flying fuck if the guy next door prefers big gay cowboy sex and I'd still chat away to him when we passed in the street (Hell if he had a case of lager in his hand I'd invite him in to watch the grand prix) I, personally feel kind of icky when I imagine having sex with him, as I'm sure he would if he were to picture having sex with a woman - that's just the way we're wired. However the thought of having sex with an animal doesn't make me feel any more or less icky it's all just icky, not-my-bag kinda stuff. I suspect this is because of the moral component I mentioned earlier.
Food for thought?
^THAT^
P3nT, that's why appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) is a logical fallacy. It's also why it's moronic to say
QuoteWhat's so bad about fucking animals? Animals fuck animals. Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.
as is
QuoteHow about it's just fucking disgusting? Can't find something to fuck within your own species? Not to steal on Nigel's statements, but why isn't the squirrel outside fucking that bird over there? Why doesn't my cat try to have sex with my boyfriend's brother's dog when they bring it over? They're playing with each other, so obviously they should want to fuck each other too, right? Oh fuck! My cat doesn't want to have sex with something outside of his own species. I better call the vet, there must be something wrong with him!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 03:27:55 PM
There's a reason most of us a biologically designed to find bestiality disgusting. Contrary to popular belief, tho, it's got fuck all to do with natures moral code. Just for the record nature has no moral code - deal with it.
The reason most of us aren't attracted to animals is because it's fucking pointless. There will be no offspring and, for that reason, we have absolutely no business fucking them. Fucking was never designed to be a recreational activity, unlike snooker or pac man. Fucking is a biological imperative that most of us are instinctively compelled to indulge in. The compulsion is facilitated by making the experience pleasurable to us. This is accomplished by our bodies releasing a bunch of endorphins which get us high at the point of orgasm. Because of this mechanism the average human, or animal for that matter, upon maturing, will become something of a fuck junkie, addicted to the orgasm in much the same way as we're addicted to food and oxygen.
Strangely enough a percentage that's arguably approaching the majority of us, think it's okay to fuck a member of the same sex which, in the natural scheme of things, is equally fucking pointless. But, for the homosexual brigade is no less pleasurable - orgasm is still achieved, endorphins are still released.
I'm honestly (for once in my life) not trying to start a flame war here but I am aware I'm treading on thin ice so I guess I should make it very clear that I don't have a moral objection to gay sex. Would be kind of difficult for me since I'm pretty much completely devoid of morality but I do find it amusing that a lot of people who find pointless sex okay in sense, find it reprehensible in another.
I just happen to be a heterosexual male. I think I was born that way. While I couldn't give a flying fuck if the guy next door prefers big gay cowboy sex and I'd still chat away to him when we passed in the street (Hell if he had a case of lager in his hand I'd invite him in to watch the grand prix) I, personally feel kind of icky when I imagine having sex with him, as I'm sure he would if he were to picture having sex with a woman - that's just the way we're wired. However the thought of having sex with an animal doesn't make me feel any more or less icky it's all just icky, not-my-bag kinda stuff. I suspect this is because of the moral component I mentioned earlier.
Food for thought?
I agree with a good deal of this, but feel the need to tack a moral point on the end regardless.
Homo-secks is perfectly fine, if biologically or evolutionarily "unnatural", because it is like hetreo-secks in that a certain level of consent is implied in any healthy sexual relationship.
Bestiality and the like is morally unjustified on those terms because of the distinct impossibility of consent.
My problem with animal fuckers comes not even from that, it comes from the bizarre ways they try to imply that consent, largely by anthropomorphising the animal.
Another problem I find with it is in the worldview of such people. I once watched a documentary on the subject, and one line from a horse fucker will stick with me to the grave, "I walked into the stable and saw it's pussy, and I thought 'Womans Pussy [which he had told us he found impossible to attain, but not undesirable], horses pussy.... PUSSY!'". This retardedly naive view of the world that tries to find the similarities in things and completely ignore even the most obvious differences is abhorrent to me.
Whilst I agree with the consent issue to a degree I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell if the horse was in some way distressed by it.
If it is then it's pretty cruel but I can imagine the horse either not really bothering one way or the other or perhaps even enjoying the stimulation.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:14:07 PM
Whilst I agree with the consent issue to a degree I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell if the horse was in some way distressed by it.
If it is then it's pretty cruel but I can imagine the horse either not really bothering one way or the other or perhaps even enjoying the stimulation.
It isn't about cruelty or otherwise to the animal in question.
It's about the mindset and thought processes of the person doing it.
what about stroking a cat then?
You do realise that when you stroke a cat and you get near the back and it's tail goes up that this is a totally sexual response right? Cat sex itself is actually very unpleasurable to the cat. That's why, to get his little barbed cock in there, the male cat has to grab the female in his teeth and hang on for grim death.
So is foreplay between a human and a non-consenting cat wrong?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:21:48 PM
what about stroking a cat then?
You do realise that when you stroke a cat and you get near the back and it's tail goes up that this is a totally sexual response right? Cat sex itself is actually very unpleasurable to the cat. That's why, to get his little barbed cock in there, the male cat has to grab the female in his teeth and hang on for grim death.
So is foreplay between a human and a non-consenting cat wrong?
It's about the mindest of the person doing it, P3nT.
A person stroking their cat and getting a sexual response from it (when they really are just stroking the cat) is not the same as sexing an animal and justifying it through the most tortuous and bizarre logic.
impossibility of consent?
what about when the animal is the initiator?
or even when the animal is the 'giver' rather than the receiver?
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.
Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?
Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.
I draw
my line in the sand far before that though.
Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find distasteful, not the act in and of itself.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
I see what you are getting at, P3nt, and while it is a valid point, it still doesn't seem right to me.
For example, I'll run with the cat thing, since I own a cat (well, now my mum does cause my housemates are allergic and my lease doesn't allow it, but nonetheless).
Generally, I scratch my cat behind the ears when I get in to say hi. If he wants more petting, he'll follow me, or push his head under my hand, or jump on my lap, or push his brush toward me or something. If he wants me to stop, he meows, leaves, or bats at my hand with a paw. The worst that happens when I pet him when he doesn't want is his hair gets a little disheveled.
If I were a dude, and I tried to fuck my cat, I'd split him in half. That's kind of a big deal. Just as I'd flip a shit on anyone I saw beating an animal, fucking an animal bothers me the same way.
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.
I draw my line in the sand far before that though.
Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find distasteful, not the act in and of itself.
I agree, most people do too but all I'm saying is that I can imagine a situation where there's fuck all wrong with it.
Weird tho, by my own definition. I wouldn't expect I'd want to hang out with a self confessed horse fucker.
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:29:10 PM
We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.
Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?
Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.
don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground. As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line. Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
what about the dead?
it's cool to fuck the dead, right?
Quote from: Cramulus on November 14, 2008, 05:39:07 PM
what about the dead?
it's cool to fuck the dead, right?
only if they initiate it.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:36:59 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:29:10 PM
We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.
Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?
Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.
don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground. As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line. Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......
Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.
Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.
The very fact that an animal is incapable of consent means that it is incapable of non-consent.
The consent issue is completely irrelevent.
The real issue here is one of cruelty or non-cruelty.
Compounded by our hysterical sense of "Ewwwwww!"
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:36:59 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:29:10 PM
We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.
Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?
Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.
don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground. As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line. Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......
Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.
Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.
Isn't assuming 'consent' sort of anthropomorphizing them as well?
I grew up in the country and honestly, animal sex is not usually about consent... that seems more like a nice thing we humans invented, because we decided that men and women were equals.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Which is why I'm trying to avoid a biological argument where it's not necessary.
My objections are largely based on social grounds, and if that makes me an asshole for not being forgiving enough of the freaks and fucktards who defend these practices, then so be it.
'consent' obviously has to be used in a pared down terminology here...
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Which is why I'm trying to avoid a biological argument where it's not necessary.
My objections are largely based on social grounds, and if that makes me an asshole for not being forgiving enough of the freaks and fucktards who defend these practices, then so be it.
Which brings me neatly back to the gay thing. Men might still not have the right to shag men if everyone had stuck to the idea that Icky=Wrong
Who knows what the future will bring.
You fucking zoophobic you :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:42:32 PM
The very fact that an animal is incapable of consent means that it is incapable of non-consent.
The consent issue is completely irrelevent
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:36:59 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:29:10 PM
We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.
Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?
Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.
don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground. As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line. Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......
Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.
Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.
Isn't assuming 'consent' sort of anthropomorphizing them as well?
I grew up in the country and honestly, animal sex is not usually about consent... that seems more like a nice thing we humans invented, because we decided that men and women were equals.
Consent is, in my view, the basis of ANY healthy sexual relationship. The inability to give "non-consent" is irrelevant, because the animal CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. A yes is a yes, a no is a no, a non-answer is a no.
so animals have unhealthy relationships?
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:46:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:42:32 PM
The very fact that an animal is incapable of consent means that it is incapable of non-consent.
The consent issue is completely irrelevent
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:40:50 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:36:59 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:29:10 PM
We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.
Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?
Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.
don't get me wrong, i'm not defending the screwing of animals. i was just pointing out that if consent is the primary argument against it, then you're not on stable ground. As is the same with pedophilia, we set an arbitrary line as determined by the majority of our society and declare it taboo to cross that line. Same with inter-species sex, i guess. Just a good bit further out on the wtf scale......
Consent is more black and white where animals are concerned. Any intelligence they have been attributed in studies is very low on the "human" scale (think the level of human toddlers, here), and the ability for abstract thought is almost completely unproven. Both of which would be essential for meaningful consent.
Just because an animal responds instinctively to stimulus, this does not necessarily constitute consent.
Isn't assuming 'consent' sort of anthropomorphizing them as well?
I grew up in the country and honestly, animal sex is not usually about consent... that seems more like a nice thing we humans invented, because we decided that men and women were equals.
Consent is, in my view, the basis of ANY healthy sexual relationship. The inability to give "non-consent" is irrelevant, because the animal CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. A yes is a yes, a no is a no, a non-answer is a no.
So then most sex between non-humans is non-consensual?
This really seems like one of those fine lines... if we were created as Above the animals, then obviously fucking them is wrong. If we're just a species of animal that happened to evolve a big brain... well, then its inter-species sex which happens commonly among animals, as does masturbation and homosexuality (and homosexual parents).
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:49:45 PM
so animals have unhealthy relationships?
Animals don't have relationships as we'd term it.
Animals have sexual instincts that have evolved over thousands of years and are particular to each species. Some of these instincts may have the appearance of a relationship (a single long term sexual partner in some species, for example) this does not make it a relationship as we see it. It's just response to instinct.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:52:16 PM
So then most sex between non-humans is non-consensual?
This really seems like one of those fine lines... if we were created as Above the animals, then obviously fucking them is wrong. If we're just a species of animal that happened to evolve a big brain... well, then its inter-species sex which happens commonly among animals, as does masturbation and homosexuality (and homosexual parents).
I never said we were "created as above the animals", I said that we have a complex set of values and intelligence (apparently. It doesn't seem to be on show in this thread) that makes us seperate from the animals.
We can over ride our instinct, animals cannot.
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:52:48 PM
Animals don't have relationships as we'd term it.
Animals have sexual instincts that have evolved over thousands of years and are particular to each species. Some of these instincts may have the appearance of a relationship (a single long term sexual partner in some species, for example) this does not make it a relationship as we see it. It's just response to instinct.
Can humans have sexual activities outside of a relationship, as you are terming it, without it being unhealthy?
I'm with Payne in all this.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:56:34 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:52:48 PM
Animals don't have relationships as we'd term it.
Animals have sexual instincts that have evolved over thousands of years and are particular to each species. Some of these instincts may have the appearance of a relationship (a single long term sexual partner in some species, for example) this does not make it a relationship as we see it. It's just response to instinct.
Can humans have sexual activities outside of a relationship, as you are terming it, without it being unhealthy?
I never said a relationship was essential.
I said that anthropomorphising animals to the point where their instincts are viewed as a relationship is wrong.
Consent is off the table! We have already established that animals are incapable of consent.
It is generally acceptable to do anything with an animal, right up to killing and eating the fucker, as long as the animal is not caused unnecessary distress. Now we can scientifically establish whether an animal is distressed. If the animal is caused no undue distress (I'm guessing we have to rule out cats and hamsters and the like) Then the only thing we're not allowed to do is fuck them. The reason for this is our weird-ass psychological neurosis about sex.
Just because it doesn't float my boat I am broadminded enough to except that some people like to do all sorts of things from gay buttsecks to tying each other up and pouring hot candle wax on the genitals. Even dressing up as winnie the poo and getting down and dirty.
Fucking a non distressed animal is as acceptable to me as any of the rest of it.
"Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder"
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on November 14, 2008, 05:57:25 PM
I'm with Payne in all this.
Wow. Thanks.
I was beginning to lose hope that there were any people left who can actually think at all in here.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:59:15 PM
Consent is off the table! We have already established that animals are incapable of consent.
It is generally acceptable to do anything with an animal, right up to killing and eating the fucker, as long as the animal is not caused unnecessary distress. Now we can scientifically establish whether an animal is distressed. If the animal is caused no undue distress (I'm guessing we have to rule out cats and hamsters and the like) Then the only thing we're not allowed to do is fuck them. The reason for this is our weird-ass psychological neurosis about sex.
Just because it doesn't float my boat I am broadminded enough to except that some people like to do all sorts of things from gay buttsecks to tying each other up and pouring hot candle wax on the genitals. Even dressing up as winnie the poo and getting down and dirty.
Fucking a non distressed animal is as acceptable to me as any of the rest of it.
"Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder"
And what I've been saying all along is that this has nothing to do with the animals welfare
at all.
What I find distasteful is the byzantine self-justification that animal fuckers indulge in.
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 06:00:57 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:59:15 PM
Consent is off the table! We have already established that animals are incapable of consent.
It is generally acceptable to do anything with an animal, right up to killing and eating the fucker, as long as the animal is not caused unnecessary distress. Now we can scientifically establish whether an animal is distressed. If the animal is caused no undue distress (I'm guessing we have to rule out cats and hamsters and the like) Then the only thing we're not allowed to do is fuck them. The reason for this is our weird-ass psychological neurosis about sex.
Just because it doesn't float my boat I am broadminded enough to except that some people like to do all sorts of things from gay buttsecks to tying each other up and pouring hot candle wax on the genitals. Even dressing up as winnie the poo and getting down and dirty.
Fucking a non distressed animal is as acceptable to me as any of the rest of it.
"Whatever you have to do to have a good time, let's get on with it, so long as it doesn't cause a murder"
And what I've been saying all along is that this has nothing to do with the animals welfare at all.
What I find distasteful is the byzantine self-justification that animal fuckers indulge in.
I agree... but I have that problem with 99.9% of humanity. The bastards justify everything they do, no matter how idiotic.
I've stated my case as exhaustively as I can, and tried to avoid the shifting of goalposts as much as possible.
If having this "sexual hangup" makes me an asshole, so be it.
I'm out of this thread.
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:58:41 PM
I never said a relationship was essential.
I said that anthropomorphising animals to the point where their instincts are viewed as a relationship is wrong.
ah, i c. that is different. I also think i, perhaps, am misinterpreting your use of the word 'wrong' to mean
intrinsically wrong, rather than against an arbitrary taboo we have set up as a society, or self-delusional...
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:59:35 PM
Wow. Thanks.
I was beginning to lose hope that there were any people left who can actually think at all in here.
don't get testy, now. :wink:
all in good fun. from my angle you're the one standing behind an arbitrary social norm (that i also defend for the sake of social cohesion) and implying that it is somehow based on
logic..... that's all i'm arguing against.
Okay I take it all back, I've seen the error of my ways. Sex is something that can only happen between a man and a lady, who love each other very much, with the lights off. :lulz:
Well I have the same sexual hangup... I sure as hell don't want to fuck animals. However, I don't think it's a cut and dried people who 'can actually think' kind of issue.
I think its a big ol brick in mosbunal of our Black Iron Prisons. I don't know that there's anything wrong with that. Some of us like our BiP, or at least some parts of it, some of us don't, some of us never tell ;-)
In all honesty, I think threads like this are a major reason why 'pd.com' and it's denizens are 'different' from the usual sort of people. I think I could point to pretty much all sides of this thread and say "See, that IS what "Think For Yourself, Schmuck" means. Not, THINK OPPOSITE OF SOCIETY, or THINK LIKE OTHER DISCORDIANS, or THINK DIFFERENT UNLESS THE SUBJECT IS UNCOMFORTABLE.
Payne, Pent, Shadowfist, all of you seem to be using your brains... that's pretty good IMO (I would say IMHO, but ya'll know me too well).
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 06:16:56 PM
Payne, Pent, Shadowfist, all of you seem to be using your brains... that's pretty good IMO
I can't 'actually think'. :cry:
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:59:35 PM
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on November 14, 2008, 05:57:25 PM
I'm with Payne in all this.
Wow. Thanks.
I was beginning to lose hope that there were any people left who can actually think at all in here.
No, I'd actually have to agree with you. While I hold to the essence of what I said before, my bad mood is pouring over and making my posts a lot angrier. You put it a lot more neatly.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 06:16:56 PM
Payne, Pent, Shadowfist, and Iptuousall of you seem to be using your brains... that's pretty good IMO
:lulz:
Basically what we have here is a bunch of "discordians" arguing against the right of a tiny minority to indulge in a "weird" practice for no other reason than it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions of what's right and proper and wholesome.
Careful with that conformity, thing it leads to very dark places indeed.
"So ya thought ya might like to go to the show.
To feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow.
I got me some bad news for you, Sunshine.
Pink isn't well, he stayed back at the hotel,
And he sent us along as a surrogate band.
We're gonna find out where you fans really stand.
Are there any queers in the theatre tonight?
Get 'em up against the wall. -- 'Get them!
And that one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me.
Get him up against the wall. -- 'Get Them!
And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a coon.
Who let all this riffraff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots!
If I had my way I'd have all of ya shot. "
Conformity, on rare occasion, occurs because one particular thing actually just works better than the other options.
Quote from: Eve on November 14, 2008, 07:16:39 PM
Conformity, on rare occasion, occurs because one particular thing actually just works better than the other options.
:D
Quote from: Faust on November 14, 2008, 01:18:02 PM
Is that in response to everyone, because I don't see anything furry as tangibal, its an unreal excape of fantasy with no meaning, nothing to be too concerned about.
I would wager that peoples negativity comes from the characteristics of the people they have encountered describing themselves as furries, having some of the worst characteristics of other communities, say gamers (elietism), gays (persecution/ backbiting and eleitism amounst their own), shallow commercialist materialism.
and of course the more pathetic of members with the escapist hatred of their own bodies displacing their upset in the form of needing to feel like something other then a human, which gives way to the perverts(laughable pornography that looks like it was drawn by rob liefield), and of course the fringes; pedophilia and bestiality.
Yep, this.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 14, 2008, 02:53:21 PM
Why aren't the bears hanging out in the rivers and streams jerking off with a fish on it's dick?
:lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:26:21 PM
impossibility of consent?
what about when the retarded person is the initiator?
or even when the retarded person is the 'giver' rather than the receiver?
Quote from: Iptuous on November 14, 2008, 05:26:21 PM
impossibility of consent?
what about when the child is the initiator?
or even when the child is the 'giver' rather than the receiver?
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.
I draw my line in the sand far before that though.
Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find distasteful, not the act in and of itself.
I am completely with Payne on this one. Shagging animals is not disgusting, but people who shag animals are.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 06:16:56 PM
Well I have the same sexual hangup... I sure as hell don't want to fuck animals. However, I don't think it's a cut and dried people who 'can actually think' kind of issue.
DUDE.
I think that what he was getting at is people's fucking retarded inability to follow the logic he was presenting without interjecting and then arguing with a bunch of crap HE WASN'T SAYING. It was getting really annoying to me, too.
Seriously, people, THINK about the words he's using, and try responding to THOSE WORDS.
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on November 14, 2008, 07:48:51 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.
I draw my line in the sand far before that though.
Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find distasteful, not the act in and of itself.
I am completely with Payne on this one. Shagging animals is not disgusting, but people who shag animals are.
Okay lets follow this one then.
How about a list of people who disgust you? If everyone jots down their own personal gross-outs I'll get the gas chambers ready.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 08:11:24 PM
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on November 14, 2008, 07:48:51 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.
I draw my line in the sand far before that though.
Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find distasteful, not the act in and of itself.
I am completely with Payne on this one. Shagging animals is not disgusting, but people who shag animals are.
Okay lets follow this one then.
How about a list of people who disgust you? If everyone jots down their own personal gross-outs I'll get the gas chambers ready.
George W Bush
WHAT? You're just mad I beat you to it!!!!!
Actually you just shot my whole argument to shit. Fuck it. Here's mine.
Cat owners
Fat people
People with annoying accents
Anyone who didn't see the first metallica tour in person.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 08:11:24 PM
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on November 14, 2008, 07:48:51 PM
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
From a purely objective point of view, that may be true.
I draw my line in the sand far before that though.
Shagging animals is wrong, but as I've been trying to say, it's the self-deluding justifications for it that I find distasteful, not the act in and of itself.
I am completely with Payne on this one. Shagging animals is not disgusting, but people who shag animals are.
Okay lets follow this one then.
How about a list of people who disgust you? If everyone jots down their own personal gross-outs I'll get the gas chambers ready.
You are confusing my right to hate with a desire to impose my hate on other people's lifestyles.
I'm confusing nothing, I just want to gas a bunch of people :lulz:
Oh. Well then, carry on!
I want to add those people who constsantly leave their grocery carts in line and run to "just grab this". You know the ones, they do half their shopping while nudging their cart forward each time they come by to dump crap in the basket.
THEY SHOULD ALL DIE!!!!!
Also, those retards at Goodwill who insist on talking to me while I'm just looking for a decent pair of gold stretch pants.
Quote from: Ten Ton Mantis on November 14, 2008, 08:55:53 PM
Also, those retards at Goodwill who insist on talking to me while I'm just looking for a decent pair of gold stretch pants.
EXCELLENT CHOICE!!!!
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Theres quite a bit of biological anti-interspecies stuff in insects. The main reason is the limited supply of eggs and sperm, as well as the short life span. That, and the genetalia of two different insects coming together has to fit JUST RIGHT or it won't work or will get stuck. That sort of thing is selected strongly against for obvious reasons. There are other mechanisms besides physical. Pheromones, for example, are species specific. Wingbeat frequency in mosquitoes is species specific.
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Theres quite a bit of biological anti-interspecies stuff in insects. The main reason is the limited supply of eggs and sperm, as well as the short life span. That, and the genetalia of two different insects coming together has to fit JUST RIGHT or it won't work or will get stuck. That sort of thing is selected strongly against for obvious reasons. There are other mechanisms besides physical. Pheromones, for example, are species specific. Wingbeat frequency in mosquitoes is species specific.
Yes, that is true... however, it doesn't really seem to be the case among mammals ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 09:39:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Theres quite a bit of biological anti-interspecies stuff in insects. The main reason is the limited supply of eggs and sperm, as well as the short life span. That, and the genetalia of two different insects coming together has to fit JUST RIGHT or it won't work or will get stuck. That sort of thing is selected strongly against for obvious reasons. There are other mechanisms besides physical. Pheromones, for example, are species specific. Wingbeat frequency in mosquitoes is species specific.
Yes, that is true... however, it doesn't really seem to be the case among mammals ;-)
NO SHIT! I would have to think the fear of getting it stuck would be a SERIOUS deterrent to other species shagging!!
Quote from: Khara on November 14, 2008, 09:43:08 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 09:39:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Theres quite a bit of biological anti-interspecies stuff in insects. The main reason is the limited supply of eggs and sperm, as well as the short life span. That, and the genetalia of two different insects coming together has to fit JUST RIGHT or it won't work or will get stuck. That sort of thing is selected strongly against for obvious reasons. There are other mechanisms besides physical. Pheromones, for example, are species specific. Wingbeat frequency in mosquitoes is species specific.
Yes, that is true... however, it doesn't really seem to be the case among mammals ;-)
NO SHIT! I would have to think the fear or getting it stuck would be a SERIOUS deterrent to other species shagging!!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 09:39:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Theres quite a bit of biological anti-interspecies stuff in insects. The main reason is the limited supply of eggs and sperm, as well as the short life span. That, and the genetalia of two different insects coming together has to fit JUST RIGHT or it won't work or will get stuck. That sort of thing is selected strongly against for obvious reasons. There are other mechanisms besides physical. Pheromones, for example, are species specific. Wingbeat frequency in mosquitoes is species specific.
Yes, that is true... however, it doesn't really seem to be the case among mammals ;-)
Mammals and other vertebrates have A) better visual senses and B) larger brains, so mating and reproduction tends to focus more on visual cues and behavior, rather than chemicals and genetalia. That works great until you get to humans who can rationalize around the basic sexual instinct.
Humans broke the sexual system, more or less.
HUMANS BROKE SEX!!!!!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
OFUK Sex Roont
\\
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/sistineGod.jpg)
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 09:45:50 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 09:39:43 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 09:34:22 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:37:49 PM
Well, from what I can ascertain, there isn't a biological anti-inter-species program. There appears to be a Social anti-inter-species program. Either way, I'm a fan of it though.
Based on what I've read due to this bizarre turn of a thread... it appears that sombunal animals have been documented fucking cross-species, and not only in cases of domination. In a number of cultures, its considered normal, and if Kinsey is right, almost half of the people that grow up in rural areas try it at least once.
I have no desire to fuck animals. I have no desire to hang out with someone while they fuck an animal, or listen to their rationale for fucking an animal... but, it still seems like a social thing, rather than a biological one, to me.
Theres quite a bit of biological anti-interspecies stuff in insects. The main reason is the limited supply of eggs and sperm, as well as the short life span. That, and the genetalia of two different insects coming together has to fit JUST RIGHT or it won't work or will get stuck. That sort of thing is selected strongly against for obvious reasons. There are other mechanisms besides physical. Pheromones, for example, are species specific. Wingbeat frequency in mosquitoes is species specific.
Yes, that is true... however, it doesn't really seem to be the case among mammals ;-)
Mammals and other vertebrates have A) better visual senses and B) larger brains, so mating and reproduction tends to focus more on visual cues and behavior, rather than chemicals and genetalia. That works great until you get to humans who can rationalize around the basic sexual instinct.
Humans broke the sexual system, more or less.
So are you saying they broke it by going cross-species, or broke it by making rules about what is and isn't ok?
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
:lulz:
/thread
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
This.
Once we started thinking about sex, and rationalizing sex, meaning making something intellectual out of it, instead of just working on instinctual cues and following them, we broke the sexual system.
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
This.
Once we started thinking about sex, and rationalizing sex, meaning making something intellectual out of it, instead of just working on instinctual cues and following them, we broke the sexual system.
Indeed... yet another thing humans fucked up (literally) by using their brains. And they say we're evolved.
D E V O
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 10:08:29 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
This.
Once we started thinking about sex, and rationalizing sex, meaning making something intellectual out of it, instead of just working on instinctual cues and following them, we broke the sexual system.
Indeed... yet another thing humans fucked up (literally) by using their brains. And they say we're evolved.
D E V O
wait wait WAIT. Don't jump the gun. I say we broke the system. I didn't attach any qualifier to that. Who says the old sexual system is perfect? There is nothing anywhere that says evolution has to go anywhere specific.
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:12:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 10:08:29 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 09:56:11 PM
Making an intellectual/spiritual pursuit out of the process of grunting like a pig for ten mins then firing some gloopy shit up a womans nether bits?
You do the math :lulz:
This.
Once we started thinking about sex, and rationalizing sex, meaning making something intellectual out of it, instead of just working on instinctual cues and following them, we broke the sexual system.
Indeed... yet another thing humans fucked up (literally) by using their brains. And they say we're evolved.
D E V O
wait wait WAIT. Don't jump the gun. I say we broke the system. I didn't attach any qualifier to that. Who says the old sexual system is perfect? There is nothing anywhere that says evolution has to go anywhere specific.
Darn, forgot I was talking to Kai...
<joke involving evolution>
Indeed... yet another thing humans fucked up (literally) by using their brains. And they say we're evolved.
</joke involving evolution>
;-)
Human sex, as I postulated earlier, is predominantly driven by the "euphoria incentive" - it feels nice at the time and then the orgasmic endorphin release is the icing on the cake.
Thing is the incentive is not only rewarded by sticking your dick in a woman. Sticking your dick in a man, warm apple pie or equivalent inter-species orifice will yield pretty much the same results.
Given that this is the case, each male will find his own personal preference of chosen orifice, in much the same way as we'd gravitate to a particular favourite food or music.
Some people like to eat really weird shit, some people like listening to really weird music and some people like fucking farm animals.
If no one or no thing is harmed or upset during this process I ask you again - what exactly is so empirically wrong about bestiality, beyond your own kneejerk reaction? It feels nice to pet a dog with your hand, I'm pretty sure if you got over the psychological aversion it'd feel nice to slip it one too.
Surely it couldn't be worse than fucking your own hand and I'll bet most of us have done that at one time or another.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:31:01 PM
Human sex, as I postulated earlier, is predominantly driven by the "euphoria incentive" - it feels nice at the time and then the orgasmic endorphin release is the icing on the cake.
Thing is the incentive is not only rewarded by sticking your dick in a woman. Sticking your dick in a man, warm apple pie or equivalent inter-species orifice will yield pretty much the same results.
Given that this is the case, each male will find his own personal preference of chosen orifice, in much the same way as we'd gravitate to a particular favourite food or music.
Some people like to eat really weird shit, some people like listening to really weird music and some people like fucking farm animals.
If no one or no thing is harmed or upset during this process I ask you again - what exactly is so empirically wrong about bestiality, beyond your own kneejerk reaction? It feels nice to pet a dog with your hand, I'm pretty sure if you got over the psychological aversion it'd feel nice to slip it one too.
Surely it couldn't be worse than fucking your own hand and I'll bet most of us have done that at one time or another.
The question is, where do you draw the line?
I've heard of men giving birth, but pies?
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:31:01 PM
Human sex, as I postulated earlier, is predominantly driven by the "euphoria incentive" - it feels nice at the time and then the orgasmic endorphin release is the icing on the cake.
Thing is the incentive is not only rewarded by sticking your dick in a woman. Sticking your dick in a man, warm apple pie or equivalent inter-species orifice will yield pretty much the same results.
Given that this is the case, each male will find his own personal preference of chosen orifice, in much the same way as we'd gravitate to a particular favourite food or music.
Some people like to eat really weird shit, some people like listening to really weird music and some people like fucking farm animals.
If no one or no thing is harmed or upset during this process I ask you again - what exactly is so empirically wrong about bestiality, beyond your own kneejerk reaction? It feels nice to pet a dog with your hand, I'm pretty sure if you got over the psychological aversion it'd feel nice to slip it one too.
Surely it couldn't be worse than fucking your own hand and I'll bet most of us have done that at one time or another.
The question is, where do you draw the line?
I suppose it depends on the "You" part of that and weather the 'line' is personal or one for everyone else to stay behind.
Exactly! That's my point, in a nutshell. I would personally draw the line at fucking reasonably attractive blonde women but it's not my right to draw the line for anyone else. As I've mentioned a few times already, I would condemn any act that causes suffering - rape, paedophillia, humping small rodents til they explode... etc but, in my opinion, anything else you want to do is your own fucking business.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:40:43 PM
Exactly! That's my point, in a nutshell. I would personally draw the line at fucking reasonably attractive blonde women but it's not my right to draw the line for anyone else. As I've mentioned a few times already, I would condemn any act that causes suffering - rape, paedophillia, humping small rodents til they explode... etc but, in my opinion, anything else you want to do is your own fucking business.
Mary Whitehouse saying this is fucked up. Just saying.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:40:43 PM
Exactly! That's my point, in a nutshell. I would personally draw the line at fucking reasonably attractive blonde women but it's not my right to draw the line for anyone else. As I've mentioned a few times already, I would condemn any act that causes suffering - rape, paedophillia, humping small rodents til they explode... etc but, in my opinion, anything else you want to do is your own fucking business.
So, how do you determine if it is rape then?
Woman screaming "get off me you swine!"
Animal? You seriously trying to tell me, as a biologist, that you wouldn't be able to tell if an animal was in distress?
I was trying to stay neutral for a bit but this whole conversation really bothers me so I'm backing out.
If I may intrude?
The reason beastiality is wrong is fuck you, thats why.
Cain,
master of subtle debate.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:54:28 PM
Woman screaming "get off me you swine!"
Animal? You seriously trying to tell me, as a biologist, that you wouldn't be able to tell if an animal was in distress?
Date rape and coercive rape are probably more common than violent rape... the woman doesn't scream or struggle, often because she's in a weird, fucked position (or really drunk/drugged/conditioned) and doesn't know what to do.
Children usually "consent" to being molested, because their molester is someone they love and trust... and also because, like animals, children have sexual feelings, which should not be exploited by adults.
From what I've read on the bestiality newsgroup, when human men penetrate animals, it's a similar situation of abuse of trust and/or power. This is, of course, only relevant if you're going to discuss the animal cruelty/ethical aspect of bestiality.
I honestly doubt that it's any more cruel to induce a dog or other animal to mount a human than it is cruel to masturbate a female cat in heat with a q-tip... but I think both are pretty fucking strange. Also, training dogs to mount humans presents other issues, such as dogs being conditioned to try to mount people who are crouched down or on all fours, including children (don't laugh, a neighborhood dog tried to mount me rather determinedly when I was 4 or 5, and it was really scary).
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:31:01 PM
Human sex, as I postulated earlier, is predominantly driven by the "euphoria incentive" - it feels nice at the time and then the orgasmic endorphin release is the icing on the cake.
Thing is the incentive is not only rewarded by sticking your dick in a woman. Sticking your dick in a man, warm apple pie or equivalent inter-species orifice will yield pretty much the same results.
Given that this is the case, each male will find his own personal preference of chosen orifice, in much the same way as we'd gravitate to a particular favourite food or music.
Some people like to eat really weird shit, some people like listening to really weird music and some people like fucking farm animals.
If no one or no thing is harmed or upset during this process I ask you again - what exactly is so empirically wrong about bestiality, beyond your own kneejerk reaction? It feels nice to pet a dog with your hand, I'm pretty sure if you got over the psychological aversion it'd feel nice to slip it one too.
Surely it couldn't be worse than fucking your own hand and I'll bet most of us have done that at one time or another.
The question is, where do you draw the line?
Isn't it wholly dependent on whether anyone finds out?
Quote from: pinecone on November 14, 2008, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:31:01 PM
Human sex, as I postulated earlier, is predominantly driven by the "euphoria incentive" - it feels nice at the time and then the orgasmic endorphin release is the icing on the cake.
Thing is the incentive is not only rewarded by sticking your dick in a woman. Sticking your dick in a man, warm apple pie or equivalent inter-species orifice will yield pretty much the same results.
Given that this is the case, each male will find his own personal preference of chosen orifice, in much the same way as we'd gravitate to a particular favourite food or music.
Some people like to eat really weird shit, some people like listening to really weird music and some people like fucking farm animals.
If no one or no thing is harmed or upset during this process I ask you again - what exactly is so empirically wrong about bestiality, beyond your own kneejerk reaction? It feels nice to pet a dog with your hand, I'm pretty sure if you got over the psychological aversion it'd feel nice to slip it one too.
Surely it couldn't be worse than fucking your own hand and I'll bet most of us have done that at one time or another.
The question is, where do you draw the line?
Isn't it wholly dependent on whether anyone finds out?
I can't play any more part in this conversation. It makes me feel sick.
Please don't ask me any more questions.
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 11:16:30 PM
If I may intrude?
The reason beastiality is wrong is fuck ewe, thats why.
Cain,
master of subtle debate.
ewe, that's gross
Quote from: pinecone on November 14, 2008, 11:45:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 14, 2008, 10:34:03 PM
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 10:31:01 PM
Human sex, as I postulated earlier, is predominantly driven by the "euphoria incentive" - it feels nice at the time and then the orgasmic endorphin release is the icing on the cake.
Thing is the incentive is not only rewarded by sticking your dick in a woman. Sticking your dick in a man, warm apple pie or equivalent inter-species orifice will yield pretty much the same results.
Given that this is the case, each male will find his own personal preference of chosen orifice, in much the same way as we'd gravitate to a particular favourite food or music.
Some people like to eat really weird shit, some people like listening to really weird music and some people like fucking farm animals.
If no one or no thing is harmed or upset during this process I ask you again - what exactly is so empirically wrong about bestiality, beyond your own kneejerk reaction? It feels nice to pet a dog with your hand, I'm pretty sure if you got over the psychological aversion it'd feel nice to slip it one too.
Surely it couldn't be worse than fucking your own hand and I'll bet most of us have done that at one time or another.
The question is, where do you draw the line?
Isn't it wholly dependent on whether anyone finds out?
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 11:16:30 PM
If I may intrude?
The reason beastiality is wrong is fuck you, thats why.
Cain,
master of subtle debate.
:mittens:
Moral reasoning over.
Definitely the most well grounded counter argument I've heard so far :lulz:
essentially, Cain is correct.
and i support that position.
:thanks:
Wish these PD spags would Yeah- we don't make fun of their
just STFU and leave us alone hand and dildo fetishes
\ /
(http://blog.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/graphics/food_xmas_card.jpg)
wtf is that riding the black sow?!
is it a meatball with a lemon for a head?
:?
Animals are animals. Humans are animals.
A chimp will fuck an orangutan if it gets the chance.
Don't fuck an "animal" if you don't want to, but your intellectual excuses for not doing so are simply that: intellectual excuses.
bonobo's are even worse.
Quote from: Captain Beerfart on November 16, 2008, 07:45:59 PM
Animals are animals. Humans are animals.
A chimp will fuck an orangutan if it gets the chance.
Don't fuck an "animal" if you don't want to, but your intellectual excuses for not doing so are simply that: intellectual excuses.
every action or decision you make in your life is an intellectual excuse, doesn't make anything more right or wrong. so thats not really the argument here.
Apparantly you "decide" to do something after you have done it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Neuroscience
Quote from: Regret on November 16, 2008, 11:59:48 PM
Apparantly you "decide" to do something after you have done it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Neuroscience
About a month ago, I read the opposite, that most of the actions you take are actually planned up to a minute before you even think about them.
Quote from: Captain Beerfart on November 16, 2008, 07:45:59 PM
Animals are animals. Humans are animals.
A chimp will fuck an orangutan if it gets the chance.
Don't fuck an "animal" if you don't want to, but your intellectual excuses for not doing so are simply that: intellectual excuses.
Right. So let's recap:
1. Furries are scum, and
2. Captain Beefheart wants to fuck animals.
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 05:28:11 PM
It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?
We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.
Animals don't have rights. Fuck them if you want to.
But don't get all weepy when you're ostracized to the point that the ONLY human interaction you get is when people call you kittyfucker.
Guys, we already settled the manner.
Quote from: Cain on November 14, 2008, 11:16:30 PM
If I may intrude?
The reason beastiality is wrong is fuck you, thats why.
Cain,
master of subtle debate.
HAY GUISE!
\
:boot:
/
I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2008, 01:07:05 AM
2. Captain Beefheart wants to fuck animals.
For $50, I'd gladly let Captain Beerfart get a blow job from my pitador retriever.
please PM me if you'd like to take me up on it.
Quote from: NlGEL on November 17, 2008, 01:42:22 AM
HAY GUISE!
\
:boot:
/
I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD!
Neither does anyone else.
\
:hosrie:
Quote from: NlGEL on November 17, 2008, 01:55:59 AM
Quote from: NlGEL on November 17, 2008, 01:42:22 AM
HAY GUISE!
\
:boot:
/
I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS THREAD!
Neither does anyone else.
\
:hosrie:
LETS GET THIS SHIT TO 33
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2008, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: Captain Beerfart on November 16, 2008, 07:45:59 PM
Animals are animals. Humans are animals.
A chimp will fuck an orangutan if it gets the chance.
Don't fuck an "animal" if you don't want to, but your intellectual excuses for not doing so are simply that: intellectual excuses.
Right. So let's recap:
1. Furries are scum, and
2. Captain Beefheart wants to fuck animals.
No, I'm in the "don't want to" camp. I just don't think its the end of the world.
Quote from: Captain Beerfart on November 17, 2008, 01:59:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 17, 2008, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: Captain Beerfart on November 16, 2008, 07:45:59 PM
Animals are animals. Humans are animals.
A chimp will fuck an orangutan if it gets the chance.
Don't fuck an "animal" if you don't want to, but your intellectual excuses for not doing so are simply that: intellectual excuses.
Right. So let's recap:
1. Furries are scum, and
2. Captain Beefheart wants to fuck animals.
No, I'm in the "don't want to" camp. I just don't think its the end of the world.
Okay, corrected recap:
1. Furries are scum, and
2. Captain Beefheart thinks fucking animals is an okay way for people to spend a slow Tuesday.
That'll do.
Quote from: Captain Beerfart on November 16, 2008, 07:45:59 PM
Animals are animals. Humans are animals.
Yeah but furries are neither.
Socrates is a mortal.
All furries are mortal.
Ergo, beastiality is morally acceptable because fucking animals is an inquiry into truth by limited creatures in a complex Universe.
Quote from: Iptuous on November 16, 2008, 06:25:06 PM
wtf is that riding the black sow?!
is it a meatball with a lemon for a head?
:?
Well, that's just one of the great mysteries that perhaps we shall never solve. That's what it looks like to me, though. I'm also concerned by the expression of sheer terror (or something) on the face of the turkey..
Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2008, 03:04:29 PM
Socrates is a mortal.
All furries are mortal.
Ergo, beastiality is morally acceptable because fucking animals is an inquiry into truth by limited creatures in a complex Universe.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2008, 03:04:29 PM
Socrates is a mortal.
All furries are mortal.
Ergo, beastiality is morally acceptable because fucking animals is an inquiry into truth by limited creatures in a complex Universe.
finally, now I can go sodomize camels with impunity.
Quote from: Faust on November 18, 2008, 01:13:56 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2008, 03:04:29 PM
Socrates is a mortal.
All furries are mortal.
Ergo, beastiality is morally acceptable because fucking animals is an inquiry into truth by limited creatures in a complex Universe.
finally, now I can go sodomize camels with impunity.
Your sig makes me want to wear nothing but womens underwear and steel toe boots and go batshit on a subway with a chainsaw.
Just thought I'd get around to mentioning that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 18, 2008, 03:22:25 AM
Quote from: Faust on November 18, 2008, 01:13:56 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2008, 03:04:29 PM
Socrates is a mortal.
All furries are mortal.
Ergo, beastiality is morally acceptable because fucking animals is an inquiry into truth by limited creatures in a complex Universe.
finally, now I can go sodomize camels with impunity.
Your sig makes me want to wear nothing but womens underwear and steel toe boots and go batshit on a subway with a chainsaw.
Just thought I'd get around to mentioning that.
:fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap:
Quote from: Cain on November 17, 2008, 03:04:29 PM
Socrates is a mortal.
All furries are mortal.
Ergo, beastiality is morally acceptable because fucking animals is an inquiry into truth by limited creatures in a complex Universe.
I need to make more arguments like this one.
Also, LOL FURRIES
:lulz: