Furries Are Being 'Cancelled' for 'Feral Porn Art' - This Is a Problem
About 2 years ago, I started to see a growing debate about 'feral' NSFW art, and it was mostly more calm. The first time was when FurryLife.online started to ban most feral furry pornography, which has sparked a lot of debate online here (in the comment section), Twitter, and some other online sites. In the discussions, there were a lot of folks defending it with a fair amount of logic, mainly explaining that human levels of intelligence creates a difference. There were also folks reasoning that many of such ferals being attractive were exactly the same reasoning why furry characters such as Nick Wilde would be considered attractive by many other furries, by the fact that they have animal parts.
After such drama emerged, it felt as if it was dying down, thankfully. However recently on about June 19th, a popular furry known as KaimTime has been publicly “exposed” after some furries found out that they had a “feral” focused NSFW Twitter account known as Feral Fawcet. As a result, angry furries accused the person of being into “zoophilia”. as well as many Twitter folks ending up doing the whole “if you support this, block me” style posts. There was even one popular YouTuber, Crying Blossom, who made a call-out video against KaimTime mainly for KaimTime having the separate Twitter feed with this art on it, and their response video defending their right to have this separate page and fantasy. All of this, likely because of a furry artist partly having an interest in having fantasies with anthropomorphic animals on all fours.
A growing puritan partition
After all of this, I realized that I've never seen such a backlash against the feral NSFW side of the fandom be this pronounced. Such attacks on fictional fantasies create a great deal of uncertainty and fear involving this fandom. I am already aware that this fandom has several problems involving politics and a couple of other things, but most of that usually settles down. Now I'm seeing something that might end up creating either a huge division, or worse, a significant side of the fandom to be completely outcasted and left in the dark. Maybe this is just me, but this ‘puritan' attitude of certain furries having a rise is quite frankly a horrible sign that this is the death of the fandom entirely.
Some might say this drama will die out like the burned fur thing did. However, this moral panic is a bit similar to what happened to NSFW 'cub' art, which ended up being taboo and later on becoming kinda like a death sentence for one's known reputation, depending on current image and where you are. Because of that, I worry 'feral' will be next, canceling thousands of furries, including myself, who happen to like something that isn't even any different than two-legged realistic fox heads with human 'shoulders' and two legs. I also don't believe that the 'cub' and 'feral' debate are even comparable because furry adults can consent. If one put the head of a child on an adult human body, that'd probably not be okay, but putting a animal head on a human body is okay? Seems a bit odd and hypocritical to me.
Either way, I worry this will be the end for so many folks like myself.
I honestly believe it can maybe be saved, but many popular furry creators and articles are going to have to stand up for it before it's too late. We need to spread a lot of logical and lawful criticism before a lot of those anti-feral people end up creating yet another blow for expression in this fandom. Late last year, one popular furry ended up defending it (NSFW, can't show) with a lot of logic and it got a lot of support, but this time I failed to see anywhere near as much support when this recent drama happened.
Why this is a Problem
I myself may be an unknown furry, but I still have the desire to spread here and while it's here, I might as well share some of the criticism here with separate points even though there may be more points showing the problem:
- Point 1 | The reasoning why many anthropomorphic dogs and foxes are attractive is precisely because of the animal parts it has, with a mixture of human characteristic as well. This also ranges on a scale as well. The reasoning why someone would like a four-legged sapient fox are the exact same reasons as for those on two legs. If being into anthropomorphic feral NSFW makes one a zoophile, then all furries who is into NSFW two-legged furry characters are as well.
- Point 2 | 'Zoophiles' might find the furry feral NSFW art interesting, but you can say the same goes for Zootopia porn, and many other two-legged furry porn. I believe there exist 'zoophila' furries who happen to like what many furries like involving non-feral art, and even the safe for work kind. So if we go against feral art porn out of fear that it will gateway them into the real thing, despite the lack of evidence of this, you go against all of it.
- Point 3 | As for the possibility of creating a safe haven for zoophiles, one has to remember every furry (two legged or not) character has had that already. The real key is dealing with it separately. While my point still stands, I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though (I am not the biggest expert here), except that nobody should be breaking the law and that no one (zoophile or not) should be forbidden from enjoying lawful furry content especially since taking away such content might end up pushing many zoophiles to go after animals instead.
- Point 4 | For those that say it's exactly like the cub thing (despite my stance on victimless fiction itself not being a real issue), it's not even the same as adult sapient furry characters that can consent. If these puritan folks really want to compare it so badly, then once again one would be banning two-legged dogs with realistic dog heads in NSFW situations entirely as well. If there was an adult body with a realistic child looking head, would those folks against feral NSFW fiction actually be fine with that?
- Point 5 | Except for any art involving a victim, it's a fiction. To be against something that involves no victim is rather morally debatable. Because of this, going after people for enjoying victimless content would itself be argued as victimizing.
Furry porn in its nature was based on real animals. Even many nonexistent beings, such as dragons, are based on animals, such as reptiles. The main reasoning why someone would find an anthropomorphic animal attractive is precisely due to the 'animal' nature, but with humanity mixed in. This also clearly ranges (very humanoid, less humanoid but still on twos, and four-legged with human sapience), and the psychological reason why a lot of furries find four-legged anthropomorphic characters attractive is precisely the same reason, just on fours. There is no difference between a four-legged fox that has human sapience and emotion than that of a two-legged fox that stands on twos with the same thing. The only difference is the amount of legs, which is just another animal feature like having a paw is.
So, to the type of furries that think people like myself are into "zoophilia", then by that logic, any furry attractive to two-legged anthropomorphic animals are into "zoophilia" too. It's either both are zoophilia, or not. We should not be out-casting furries who really like anthropomorphic four-legged creatures. We should not be restricting the lawful freedom this fandom has in favor of the worst furries in this fandom. I really hope I'm just overreacting, but some of my fears sadly seem more realistic these days I think.
About the author
Nerdy Raccoon Guy — read stories — contact (login required)a Raccoon, interested in gaming
I've read some places are open to some debates, so I joined assuming some are more open about it here.
I do not rely on "mob mentality" much and prefer having my own thoughts in favor of science, good research, and psychology. Do not expect my opinions to be aligned with popular opinion in or outside of the furry fandom as I'm smart enough to know that popular belief isn't always right.
Comments
Thanks for submitting your piece and thoughts on the manner, since I had to edit this and have had a chance to read this, I'll do my normal leaving comments aside for a week and let others get in their thoughts.
I wouldn't have published this one, lol
> If there was an adult body with a realistic child looking head, would those folks against feral NSFW fiction actually be fine with that?
If you've been following the Disney animation art style since the 90's, you could argue that Frozen characters are exactly that.
Noticed earlier the article was published. Thanks for publishing it! A few points I want to say:
The title is probably a bit over-dramatic (my fault really) as KaimTime has not been successfully "canceled" judging by him still having a lot of followers and activity, and "furries" was probably a bit less true as I only seen one person noticeably (to my subjective perspective) 'called out' for it. I guess it could be viewed with a prediction kind of mindset, assuming that makes sense.
"it's not even the same sapient adult furry character's consent." - I don't know if this is from editing or it was my fault but this does feel kinda odd looking at it. Perhaps "it's not even the same as adult sapient furry characters that can consent." or ending with "characters" is what I meant in mindset. Thoughts? I mean I'm the one who started the article but thought I asked about it anyway.
Despite the whole avoidance attitude of "zoophilia", I do want to be clear, if I wasn't, that I am not for witch-hunting against anyone (with or without such thing) enjoying lawful content in the furry fandom. If someone prefers less-realistic "animals" over the real thing then that's fine by me. I consider an example that is an issue is anyone (zoophiles or not) trying to use the fandom for the purpose of certain activities (e.g. animal abusive behavior).
There is also the open possibility of more points under 'Why this is a problem' that hasn't been written down.
You can always edit articles you authored after publishing for typos and things like that with the edit tab at the top of the story if you find any typo or other mistakes.
If you make larger conceptual or informational changes it is of good ethics to put a note of such edits in the header section of the article.
Just admit you all want to fuck dogs and giving them human personalities is just a loophole like the "1000 year old witch" clause that loli/shota people use.
I know a place that argued against a similar argument like that. Let me find it...
Argument: "But it's like the cub thing! It's also like the 1000 year old thing!"
Why those two arguments failed: The issue with minors is that they don't consent. The issue with animals is that they don't consent. It's solved with a being being an adult and is consensual. Not only that, but even with the "It's like the 1000 year old excuse" argument, then I'll tell you this: Do you really truly want to compare it? Would you freak out if an adult human body had a realistic or even somewhat cartoony child head on it? Yes? Then why would you be alright with an animal head on top of a human adult looking body then? Let that sink in!
Anthropomorphic animals by nature are animals, but with human characteristics added in some way. The preferences for many people is a scale, and there is no real difference between a human body with a wolf head on it than Nick Wilde, and neither is an unrealistic or somewhat realistic "feral" shaped being that has emotional human-like faces and/or is sapience. It's all within the anthropomorphic scale (as defined), and part of the reasoning why such anthropomorphic characters were attractive is because of the non-human features (animals) that exist with them.
Besides, even the cub thing is a bit debatable alone. Why? Because some cubs don't even look like real children. Some are entirely lacking of a child look where the only "child-like" is a fictional label. So I don't even think a person is truly a pedophile for that alone. There is literally an adult looking "cat" looking character that apparently is supposed to be a 'baby dragon'. There is also the 'fiction' argument but I'm putting that aside for this article."
____________
Besides Anon. I can't take your morals much seriously if you think talking, less realistic looking (if so), and sapient beings is just another zoophilia, but then turn around and prefer two-legged walking animals just because two legs. I got a feeling you didn't even read the article.
Just admit you all want to fuck dogs...
A dog with human-level speech, intelligence and lifespan would no longer be a dog. It would be something else, although I wouldn't envy the courts that had to decide exactly what.
That's your opinion buddy & nothing more. What I've noticed about NSFW furry art is it almost always either explicit pin-up poses of a single characters, or anthro characters having sex with other anthro characters. In the entire time I've been in the fandom (and we're talking 30 years & counting!) I think I've seen all of two pictures of a human & anthro having sex.
- Joe
Honestly as long as the animal has some form of sapience, especially human characteristics through facial expression, then it's another furry/anthro thing. I don't even see an issue with the concept of an adult human being happy with a sapient four-legged highly intellectual adult fox since there isn't anything wrong with two adult sapient beings enjoying each other.
I have been on the cusp of getting into the fandom and found this while looking at Redwall and just want to say this is driving me away again.
I am fine with most of the anthro porn and fetish works out there but I have to draw the line at this. I would say consent isn't involved, really; you don't have a personal connection to porn actresses, they're objectified. None of this art is real, but you should be concerned if you're fantasizing about having sex with feral furries. It's just... concerning. Same as if you were fantasizing about, I don't know, child vampires. Sure they're intelligent, but you're justifying it so you feel better about yourself.
Oh, buddy, don't let weird fetish art scare you away!
Be smart, and let the fact that we're all smug assholes scare you away!
Maybe to better explain my view. If there was an intelligent animalistic creature in real life, then consent would make sex acceptable.
However, the person who is looking for feral porn is just justifying a paraphilia. The person is already attracted to animals and is looking for a way to make that acceptable.
I should also say I haven't seen much feral art, so I am imagining it's like Amaterasu from Okami.
Yes, we're all aware of this.
It's a loophole, and people are using and abusing said hole, if you'll pardon the phrasing, but if you try to close the loophole you take out swaths of innocent (or at least, you know, not innocent but not innocent in a good way) stuff with it. So the loophole stays open. Wake me up when we catch a real dogfucker; until then, use a blocklist Half the reason sites like that use tags is for you those who want to avoid things as much as for people who want to find things. Though I suspect a lot of those complaining about it are half getting off to being morally superior to it despite they damn well know they had to look for it to find it. Hey, I spent a year on Portal of Evil back in 2000s, I've been there. It's fun. Just try to remember "bestiality is bad" is not actually a very brave moral stance, even if it is correct.
And, while we're here, paraphilia is not a bad word. Okay, mostly we're dealing with run of the mill cartoon fetishes, which is technically known as schediaphilia, and extends to all cartoon characters, human, animal, vegetable or mineral. The fact that these things are not real, and either can't or shouldn't be done in real life, is most of the appeal. A person who fetishizes cartoon animals is not the same thing as a person who likes real animals. There is overlap, but less than you might think.
I don't know if I can quite comprehend what you're saying, but if I had to guess, you're probably talking about how "ferals" can cause people who are actually attractive to IRL animals to use such works as "fuel" to their paraphilia.
So I will try to give out three main points, two with the fact that "zoophilia" isn't an issue for the sake of it's meaning, but why it was concerning in the first place, that having thoughts in the head isn't itself 'an offense'. If you know what I mean by that and have a similar mindset for it alone then great.
Point 1:
Look, I don't really remember how many times the criticism toward that has been repeated, but we need to consider something too: What is zoophilia? Well, it contains multiple elements that many furries has but with one extra element; the preference to non-consensual animals, or at least not caring about it if that makes sense. If a zoophile happens to like anthropomorphic animals too, then I think they are only justifying the same exact elements non-zoos has. There is also the possibility some might be be a zoophile and like certain things not containing real-animals at all (e.g. anime women?) The real concern is that extra element. Oh and let's not forget the fact that two-legged anthros are also loved by many zoophiles if the story is true.
There is also the fact that no amount of evidence suggest that many cases of fictional art existing alone can really cause zoophiles to offend. There is even the sayings that taking away such less realistic outlets away would literally push more zoos into isolation and just go after IRL animals even further. I even heard one zoophile said (around a similar debate) that being into feral art made the person less interested into IRL animals. If this is true, then in that example likely, to be against all purely fictional NSFW feral art would clearly not only fail to render some kind of "better safe than nothing" element, it would render a "worse than nothing" element instead.
Point 2: I'm pretty sure an average person can tell the difference between a story of a human falling in love with a fully sapient four-legged anthro containing a clear message saying that they clearly like each other, then flat out putting a human together with a mindless goat.
Point 3: Also sorry I should probably just add this too even though I kinda explained it.
If alien dogs that looks like real dogs came in and were fully sapient and consensual, then the main concern for said paraphilia would likely be solved because now there exists animals that can consent. The paraphilia would be similar to heterosexuality where a full path to consent exists despite some human adults not consenting. So it's weird to be like "But it's still that in head, so it's wrong." despite the problem not much existing anymore. Sorry I added this one late, because I think I got reminded of some weird argument on Twitter involving some character from Lion King. LOL
"Just admit that everyone in your group does the thing I think they do so that my brain doesn't need to do any effort or analysis beyond what I'm comfortable with"
Can't say I fully agree with all the positions or arguments made here but I do appreciate the overall thrust and it is concerning that there's a certain puritanism that some furs have. It's totally fine to not like cub or feral art (or any other sort) but it is not fine to say that no one else should like it. Cub never went away and I doubt feral art will either. If anything, this should spur furs to do even more feral artwork.
On a side note, I think any argument worrying about real life behaviours in a piece of art are misguided. The question here is purely about the artwork which is a separate issue to the ethics of any activity depicted.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
If it's alright to ask, what part do you not agree with? I ask in case there is a misunderstanding and that I could offer some more stuff from my side of the argument, but I won't expect you to agree with me.
I certainly am on the side that goes against harassing people for liking any art involving no victim. I even think that to take away certain fictional outlets, it would only result in bottling up urges as someone said somewhere, making the situation worse for some people. To take it all away and then expect the type of people that has the condition to get rid of the condition and/or get castrated is so unrealistic, that it's mind-boggling as to why anyone would think it is. Though for this article, I think the concern is that even though so much cub art didn't go away, it's still deadly to a person's reputation in more known areas, and I don't want the feral thing to become the next victim in this. Seeing how there is a bit of a backlash happening against a feral fan likely (I think there was mixed concern for this) for having a NSFW feral Twitter account is an example of what I'm concerned about, despite so much feral art likely still existing after that.
I see no mention of the Harkness test
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/harkness-test
"Why this is a problem": *mental gymnastics*
No really, why is it a problem though, this offers zero actual problems that exist outside of a debate club you made up and "people were angy on the internets again"
If you saw the shit Kaim was into, I dare you to put it in an art job portfolio or ask to be trusted to take care of someone's pet. It's pretty fucked up by extremely liberal standards whether or not someone is a diddler risk.
Maybe instead of saying "I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though" and finding a bunch of mental copes about straddling the line, start with a real problem like "how should we handle zoophiles" and then figure out what problem artists have with it.
one of Kaim's fave artists on his alt is tagged "bestiality"
NSFW https://furry.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1835311
I believe some people's reasoning may be a bit different than some others.
You're not being realistic, nor clear. Being into "feral" furry art doesn't automatically equate into being into real-world animals. If you want to lean into being realistic on such a subject to use such a fear-based argument, then I think it would be more logical if it was about someone being into realistic and accurate deceptions of the real-world animals with accurate enough behavior, and that's just some lean as it's not 100% conclusive. Some people are into "ferals" that has less accurate features, including human-level emotions of intelligence, and many of such people prefer such features. There are also certain characters edited to have even less accurate features as a preference.
Now I will disclaim that I don't fully know everything about KaimTime, but I did saw a couple and it's not enough.
I didn't want to go into detail with that a lot because I didn't want to get into a ridiculous heated debate and thinking about it now, it would also be a bit complicated. If you want a bit of a stance from me on this so bad then here I go:
There is no offense of an actual zoophile merely seeing and/or enjoying lawful art of anthropomorphic characters, and such a person is not getting closer to any real animal just by having internet access to certain content that isn't even about real animals. So unless the law says otherwise, there is no complicit to any bestiality activity from a certain furries having open access to certain art. I don't think I fully get why some people try to act like it's an offense by itself and then use such mindset to go after innocent furries because they didn't follow such a weird ass hive-mindset.
One concern I can see is when certain zoophiles are coming together and having contact with each other making certain discussions (e.g. talking about locations of where the offense will take place). This isn't even a feral art elusive issue either as it happens with two-legged furries too and/or some other places too. Though remember, this is about some. I don't think all people who has such a mental condition is planning a crime with it.
So how can furries deal with those that are using the place to discuss illegal activity for example? Well, we have certain policies, and there might be some other realistic way of dealing with it (it's a little hard to talk about this I think). Despite that, nothing in here seems to suggest blaming certain feral artwork because the more I think about it, it just feels like the wrong target.
It's quite possible a loose definition of bestiality can apply to anthropomorphic animals x humans as well.
Classic Diamond Man post... a few hundred words that mean nothing at all, and have those unique quirks that give him away every time
Nah, as someone who has had experience with editing that persons work, just, nah.
Now I know that there are multiple Diamond Men, maybe having their own locations and bodies, but airing the same aimless word salad in the form of Flayrah articles
You know that, sometimes, you're gonna need to write an article size response with enough detail in order to criticize certain points, right? That especially usually goes when a debate goes heated. I've had some people misunderstand me so badly sometimes because I didn't do that.
Sometimes you can write enough fancy hard to understand words and organize them right to make it shorter without damaging the quality and size of the context, though sometimes I have trouble with that.
You made up a debate club to cope about some fucked up things, while completely dodging a much more serious real life problem as if it doesn't matter.
The word for this detachment and coping is "parasocial."
If you really want to enter a serious debate here then I might not mind it, but I wish you can tell me preciously which commentary, or lack thereof, you were referring to. I already tried to address some serious topics in some of the comments here, including to that one Anon who was depending on the fallacious idea that somehow having a certain less realistic paraphilia in the head itself is somehow the problem (dodging the real problem already) by itself.
When I sometimes comment, I try to address to what, I believe was about the serious topic?
Your "debate" is absolutely terrible and you should feel terrible for inventing a "problem" that is just mental gymnastics
Can you prove that it's terrible?
Why the hell are anti ferals here claiming these empty things and not even showing the so-called "real" problem?, Oh wait, I know why. They don't rely on evidence based research much. Puirtans loves making up baseless opinions and to use that to mess with people's harmless and non-threatening freedom. They like to believe their shitty opinion is 'correct' to the point that they usually prefer denying actual evidence.
Besides, I'm freaking sure a serious problem here is already being addressed and that problem is harassing people for something that is victimless. There was never an excuse to be doing that to people like KaimTime assuming what I know so far.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Kero the Wolf, part of a ring of zoosadists who practiced sadistic rape, multilation, and murder of real animals, tried to use "just feral art fans" as an excuse to cover it up.
He was rightfully "canceled" (yet mysteriously still here, because canceling is a fake problem made up by people afraid of consequences).
Then Kero tried to come back under the cover of ... wait for it...
A "feral convention" run by zoophiles.
https://twitter.com/constaffwatch/status/1284268195877019650?lang=en
Tell me these lying eyes aren't seeing a real problem, while disgusting apologists pretend that that "canceling" is a real problem.
Scumbag.
Terrible argument.
I am aware of some of the Kero the Wolf drama but nothing in your example proves that furry feral nature is an issue. Heck some of your comment sounds similar to the "A person who offended liked furry porn, so therefor furry porn is the problem entirally!" fallacy argument. Fear mongering trash I think. Remember the real bloody problem is more akin to an individual problem, not something a lot of people liked but isn't like kero or other bad people. Kero hiding behind some feral thing doesn't prove anything special here.
Also some animal abusers also went in non-feral or mostly non-feral conviction too I think.
Also the example concern here about the canceling thing was focused toward KaimTime who what I assumed so far, did nothing freaking wrong. Some artifical "consequences" are not justified. The guy who made this article was definitely focusing against a serious problem.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Shut the fuck up, right now
Lmao typical puritan response.
Nah, I refuse to be silenced from speaking the truth. Facts do not care about feelings and I hope to god that logic doesn't get replaced with mob outrage. As long as safe and legal, such feral artwork isn't wrong and nobody should be prevented from seeing it. Not even bad people (alone).
Also less related, but I meant to say convention, not conviction.
I know it's likely best to not not respond to idiotic comments like the one I'm replying to but I'm replying this way since sometimes I like pissing people off like you and that I hate mob outrage trying to get away with crap like that
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Absolute fucking scumbag. You have chronic social problems and it's all your own fault.
Your widdle feelings being hert doesn't prove I have "chronic social problems". I got a feeling you are a conservative. LOL
You failed to win the argument. Now get lost you f***ing diseased lunatic.
Also correction, I meant to use one not in the other comment here.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Lmao, being liberal/left doesn't mean being a morally bankrupt and personally toxic cunt such as yourself, who thinks "keyboard debate warrior" has any sway in real life. You're alegend in your own mind for making up a fake debate club to defend real animal rape behind euphemisms and edgelording
(too lazy to use phone)
LMAO, you think I'm defending animal rape, even though I never once defended anyone raping an animal.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those extremists who think that teaching children that gay people exist is "grooming".
You certainly defended Kero the Wolf as hard as you could, so yeah, you're defending animal rape and lying about it
The only "defense" I ever did involving that guy was just respecting him wanting, assuming any, to enjoy lawful content. That's it. There is nothing in here that defended him raping animals or any other bad activity with real animals, as far as I know. You have no f*cking right to lie to the public involving me.
Get proper therapy.
And there is no defense of any other bad activity as far as I know too.
Liar. Stop defending rapists
You're the liar. Also correction, I also meant to include that I was not defending anything bad that is even legal assuming so.
If you failed to find evidence that I was defending raping animals, then you don't have the right to tell the public that I do. I dare you to find something from me here and from anyone else here proving that I was.
I don't know if the elements is enough here, but either way libelous speech is not free speech.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Diamond Man is a liar who defends rapists and keeps lying about it, news at 11
Thanks for the entertainment you mentally delusional freak.
Also thanks for re-enforcing the energy of hating puritins all over again. :)
You lost.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
For some dumb reason, there is a glitch preventing me from using my email address and another one as an anon so sadly I have to use this account. If other comments contains a kinda similar message below this hidden in the system, then please delete them.
It's bigots like you that are ruining this already ruined fandom. "Bah! Mah feeling are hurt! You must be diamond man, and your words mean nothing because I said so!" As for that message, you failed to even prove it wrong. You are just triggered. Lmao
People who supports dictating against what a furry does against them doing legal things in favor of puirtan TRASH are an example that is as bad as certain animal abusers. Fuck off. And fuck off anti-ferals.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Yeah, sorry about that - Flayrah's email was broken for a week or so due to a weird issue involving old versions of the executable files used to send it placed over a mount. Should be working now.
l + ratio + no maidens + read a picture book + newer furries are born into hindsight on how shitty feral actually is because bitches like Zooier Than Thou and video essays about people that are actually fucking weird. Hey, like the dude above me with that harkness test. As long as the thing can say yes, you can. Also...consent is the hottest damn thing on the planet and otherwise, people are either leaning toward something healthily chaotic or are actually fucking insane. Goodnight tri-state area. I apologize if my newborn rebuttal fails to make a dent in your filthy aged mind.
I am not ashamed to admit that ... I have no idea what the fuck this comment says.
Attempted Translation below:
Obviously if that attempted translation is accurate, we have to note that bestiality and its problems existed long before the fandom. I mean, it's in the Bible. And usually people don't have to make rules unless someone created a reason to make one... if you know what I mean.
I guess in that way... REALLY old people were quite perverted.
I have updated the article twice (one for one small thing but another for some other things). Though to avoid misleading nature, I will state that I think this article was voted 11 times before such two updates was given. I don't agree with rating bombs due to outrage but I still feel obligated to avoid making it look like it was rated with the inclusion of the updates.
What was updated:
Adjusted a sentence in Point 4.
Deleted an editor note involving the career topic for certain cub related content.
Added extra context in Point 3 and an extra commentary later down the line within the same point.
Added Point 5.
Extra note right before points.
I think that's all I remembered. Apologized for missing anything else here.
I don't think I will often update the article for new points. If I feel like there needs to be another somewhat similar debate involving this topic, then maybe I will one day try to make a separate article for that. Though I feel a little discouraged due to certain mentally deluded freaks attacking good commentary here. Also one person further promoted harassment toward KaimTime with lunatic conspiracy attitude.
Added update here, adjusted the last sentence. Wasn't saying that the lunatic thing was a good commentary. Comment was rated two times before I tried updating this comment twice later today.
the existence of inkbunny has been a disaster for the furry fandom
I should donate to them again. Thanks for reminding me!
What's with all the pedo accusations on your fa
I will admit, I am blind to the whole "history" of beastiality. I just don't want to open that can of worms because...why the hell should it get to me like that? I just wanna keep goin the way i am in this stupid fandom. Watching all the bullshit from afar has me afraid enough that people can be that insane, you dumbass. I swear sometimes some of y'all need a good kick to the balls of reminding you it's just pretend...
Most young people are unaware of history and that there is always horrible people that you share the world with, but there are also good people you share the world with. Coming out of high school I certainly had some holes in that understanding, college filled some of those gaps, but I'm learning new things even to this day about just how horrible things in the past actually were.
For instance I was 36 years old when I learned of the Tusla massacre in "Black wallstreet", though I do remember learning in highschool about Kent State. So it's not like the school was being 100% rosy, but it did leave some things out. Also learning that the penultimate scene of Oh Brother Where Art Thou was a Black town being flooded two decades after its release was... something. Certainly made me understand why they hung on the scene for so long, and the song choice there.
Metaphor and subtilty usually are utilized in a lot of media of the era perhaps because we're now seeing what happens when you're not subtle.
So life is just trying to do better for oneself and other while being wary of the existence of the irremovable ills within society.
Unfortunately, one of the main tactics that bad people use, is to try and cast their sins onto good people. It's why the word groomer went from a word used to describe people who abuse by coaxing people into doing things against their best interest to a slandering word toward the existence of consenting adults. It helps cover for those doing the coaxing while attacking people who are not harming anyone, making the language used to bring attention to a problem a problem in and of itself.
Idk where you're hanging out at, but I know for sure people aren't like that towards consenting adults. Hell, even as a teenage insult those people know what the hell it actually means.
The article writer comes across as a naive innocent person who had just discovered the insanity that is Furry Twitter/YT Callout Culture, a phenomenon which is simultaneously bewildering, horrifying, and delightful to behold. I was like you 3-4 years ago. I've become inured to it as it has further metastasized and degenerated in the interim.
The only thing that really needs to be explained and emphasized about furors over fictional problematic porn is this: The delusional Twits roughly have as much power to harm and humiliate their targets as their targets choose to give them. Not being on Twitter at all is a great preemptive step, but if you are on there, either derisively laugh at your enemies or ignore them, depending on your circumstances and personality. Never block them. Never go private or delete things. Never explain yourself to them. Never, EVER apologize. Just troll them or ignore them (which is probably better if you are an artist or otherwise in business).
KaimTime never should have made a video explaining themselves because that implies that The Pitchfork Twit Brigade is a serious threat or wields power. What they should have done instead was laugh at them for conflating animals and bestiality with the sapient ferals that he gets off to evidently.
Really interesting comment.
I have often seen a bunch of furries try to create a somewhat movement against many cases of NSFW furry feral porn, and somewhat harassment toward some other members, but I have never seen a case this bad before. I don't know if this is related, but I also seen a less related Twitter post about someone liking Nala in a "perverted" way, complaining claiming that she is an animal, and the post gained over 100,000 likes. Though I don't know if that kind of post counts as Callout Culture against certain feral furries. YouTube would be great, but I've seen some similar drama rise through certain videos.
I often hate the 'political' thing in the furry fandom, but if there is a 'political' movement that is protecting our rights, including the right to enjoy something that isn't any different than most two-legged furry porn, then I'm generally much for it. I really wish big great furry creators would be brave enough to properly call out those puritan arguments by explaining that there is nothing wrong with perfectly legal and entirely victimless furry feral NSFW artwork.
"really interesting" that the person you are replying to, Christian Crawford, is "supportive of the notion of pederasty" https://archive.ph/bTy09
Also interesting that an avowed pedo defender is the one telling you that callout culture is a fake problem while you trade mutual appreciation on your dogshit apologism article.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The fact that you like to immediately dig out people like that (probably to be used as a fallacy against this article), give out full names like that, lie about at least one person (looking back at some drama that happened here another time), and then show signs against people enjoying victimless fictional fun just shows how much of a predator you really are yourself. I don't really know why you have such an obsessive nature against this article. You've been obsessed with me for quite a while now that it's a bit concerning.
By the way, I don't care whether it's true or not that the person is hebephilia when it comes to this topic, as it doesn't change the debate here. Whatever the condition he may or may not have is a separate topic.
Quoting a fucking coward who hides behind a screen name to defend child molesting:
"the person is hebephilia"
Person A: "You agreed with his point that 2+2=4! He's a pedophile!"
Person B: "Uhh, it still doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4. I agree with his point on that alone."
Person A: "You're defending child raping!!!!!"
Person B: "I didn't defend anyone raping a child.
Person A: "Liar!"
Curious what lies you're gonna tell the public once you figure out I'm against the death penalty.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Your entire article is about apologism for zoophiles under cover of "feral art" that is LITERALLY TAGGED BESTIALITY, turning a blind eye to the real problem, and calling canceling a "problem" when it's a fake problem that means nothing
Not about fucking math OH MY GOD YOU'RE SUCH A DISINGENUOUS PIECE OF SHIT
Now here's a literal pederast telling you that canceling isn't a problem, and you're having a little mutual jack-off session of agreement with him while playing coy about what he represents
You couldn't debate a kindergartener, let alone convince a normal person that you're safe to allow near children or pets, you filthy liar.
I assume your brain is still going to be turned off when reading this, but I might as well say this for anyone else reading this:
This article is mainly about defending certain anthropomorphic animal victimless art but on fours, and is about calling out outrage furry culture that publicly harasses certain people like KaimTime mainly for what I assume is enjoying furry content the furry puritans do not agree with. That's what this article is more about. It is irreverent saying a zoophile likes it too, especially since there are zoophiles that enjoys many cases of modern two-legged certain furry NSFW art too.
The closest of a "defense" I can really think of when it comes too zoophiles is simply somewhat respecting their right to enjoy legal unrealistic fiction that isn't even the same thing, and also out of care believing that taking away less realistic outlets contributes to animal abusive behavior (also to be used against the annoyance possible rise of outrage furry culture going against four-legged victimless anthros). That's all I can think of. Also a random tag on a fictional character isn't proving anything here.
You want to prove that you care about real animals so bad? Then please stop wasting your time arguing with a random furry defending certain anthropomorphic FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. Why don't you join the police if you can and go after criminals who actually are abusing animals? Endlessly lying about people and saying others are lying without proof isn't helping your case.
As I said, you couldn't debate a kindergartener, let alone convince a normal person that you're safe to allow near children or pets, you filthy liar.
Your entire defense for zoophiles depends on a rickety mental obstacle course riddled with land mines of mind-melting ignorance like "I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though" ...
and yet showing ZERO EVIDENCE that "canceling" is a real problem...
while a literal pederast told you THE SAME THING HAHAHAHA
And you suck fucking balls at it, yourself. Your comments could not suck more balls if they were literally a mouth, full of balls, going "phphphphph".
I mean, seriously, you picked as your topic of choice "bestiality is bad" and your self chosen opponent is *checks notes* fucking Diamond Man (and maybe a sockpuppet account? I don't think we ever cleared that up.). This isn't low hanging fruit. This shit is fucking on the ground. And, I gotta tell ya, man, you're losing.
You're just screeching at him "YOU FUCK DOGS, SMALL CHILDREN, AND ALSO SMALL DOGS, DON'T YOU!?!?!?!?" and he's all like, "uh, no". And, I got hand it to the stupid fucker, that's actually a pretty good counter to your screeching. But you've kept at it for literally a month now, and, Jesus Christ, dude, get a life. Holy shit. To go back to the thing I got you blockquoted up there in, you yourself say he's not very good at debating. So drop the mic on him and get the fuck out, already!
But you can't because you suck.
Also, stop inlining links to fucking cub and bestiality porn into the fucking comments section, what the fuck is wrong with you?
They got the most mediocre writer on the cub-porn-powered pedobunny owner's site to complain about bestality and cub porn. On an article written to defend it. Which names a "problem" in the title without showing any problem except people being mad on the net, which is like saying that water is wet.
They owned you so hard, you should ask master's permission next time you want to post.
Are you talking about that anthro on anthro picture or whatever it was with that one tag? XD
I guess I must of missed the cub thing unless it was in the same picture or something like that.
Personally I don't think he should of shown or linked to any porn. I mean come on, isn't this place non-age restricted? It needs to be removed now that I think about it.
I don't think there was any proof that I'm the same as Diamond Man, but I can sort of understand why some might think that.
Well, while we're here, is this the comment that got me the stalker who has been one-starring every comment I've made for the past year, regardless of context? I've been wondering.
And they're pretty fast on it might I add.
Okay there are some points I wanna address.
“The reasoning why many anthropomorphic dogs and foxes are attractive is precisely because of the animal parts it has,”
“Furry porn in its nature was based on real animals.”
so basically you are saying all forms of furry NSFW are zoophilia.
Just throwing this out there but both the ICD and DSM recognize zoophilia as a mental disorder.
“won't say how zoophiles should be handled though (I am not the biggest expert here), except that nobody should be breaking the law and that no one (zoophile or not) should be forbidden from enjoying lawful furry content especially since taking away such content might end up pushing many zoophiles to go after animals instead.” that sounds like saying banning Lolicon would led pedos to go after children.
“Except for any art involving a victim, it's a fiction.”
I kinda agree with this point. It’s fiction, just because you like playing violent video games doesn’t mean you want to commit violence in real life.
Also I disagree regarding your stance that liking NSFW furry art (that involves standing on two legs) is like NSFW feral art.
For example Lola bunny doesn’t look like or act like a bunny in any way. Lola looks so far off from a bunny it’s some can say she’s merely just a very stylized and cartoony human being.
This can also go for thundercats, zootopia, and etc.
That's one of the options. The other option is that it's all not, as long as there is some form of human characteristic such as human-level sapience or another kind of characteristic that doesn't make them 'animals' anymore.
Involving the rest of your comment:
I don't think zoophilia was itself classified as an illness in the DSM? I don't know about the ICD but I don't think DSMV said it was. Not that I'm saying that it's best to remain attracted to real animals, just wanted to point this out.
Well, yeah. There is a saying that taking away victimless outlets will result in bottling up the urges thus increasing the risk for IRL children, and that has never been debunked as far as I know. Banning fiction, which could even be used as a way to change the preference (as I heard) is unlikely going to save children. It's even much worse for involving zoophiles, especially content that looks less realistic. I heard a zoophile became less interested into IRL animals because of feral art.
This can also go for thundercats, zootopia, and etc.
That's partly been talked about actually.
https://multiversefeeling.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-anti-furry-feral-arguments-fa...
Note: Not mine.
There is no difference than finding a character like Nick Wilde attractive. The psychological reasoning to prefer him are exactly the same (except for instead of legs, it involves another thing). People prefer him for his non-human self, his overall animal body, but mixed with human characteristics in some way. This exactly exists for preferring characters like Balto, the wolf from Okami (well, that might depend why more), and some other ones. There are even "ferals" that look way less like an animal so much that even characters like Nick Wilde looks closer to one than them. Sapient ferals is another form of furry genre.
Yes zoophilia is in the DSM and the ICD. Also Nick Wilde doesn’t even look like a fox and almost doesn’t act an fox. I can side with some of your stances on human and animal mixture.
Link? Just for the sake of proof here.
Neither does Balto, any Pokemon, any of the mane 6, Lion King characters, Okami Amaterasu, and many other ones.
Hey Nerdy Diamond Guy I need to ask an expert
Is this zoophilia? https://furry.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1835311
Stop sending links to pornography. It also shows how hypocritical you are when you promote stuff you swore to destroy. And for f*** sake, do you really feel proud of yourself posting something that minors might find? This isn't an 18+ only website. Your obsession with me is sad.
Also that doesn't look like a real animal. It just looks like something you see from Zootopia but on fours. It's basically just anthro on anthro, unless that character isn't sapience and looks realistic.
Also I feel obligated to argue to anyone that such comment should be removed due to the issue involving minors...
WHY ARE YOU SUCH A PURITAN AND TRYING TO DESTROY MY LAWFUL FREEDOM YOU HYPOCRITE
Also is this one zoophilia or is it lawful?
https://furry.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3399626
Oops, I guess I forgot to quote box "This can also go for thundercats, zootopia, and etc.". My bad.
I'm old enough to remember even the 2005-2010 furry-zoophilia internet battles and feral was seldom an element in furry zoophilia back then.
It was quite common for imageboards to post furry content alongside zoophilic content, many of these posters were 14-17 year olds who genuinely thought zoophilia was a sexuality and made it into some kind of furry identity.
I don't remember these people ever really focusing much on feral porn, in fact feral was pretty SFW back then.
There used to be a zoophile site called BeastForum with 1-2million users and the furry section was 80% of the posts on the site. Many of those zoophile furries were curious about zoophilia and saw anthro as somehow "better" in how it helped them avoid their urges. This resulted in the "non-performing" zoophile identity, but it's very hard to say how often these people consume zoophile porn or actually find themselves actually committing bestiality. It does seem like these people were exposed to it at a young age and somehow feel like they're "fighting" against their zoophilic urges.
So there's definitely some kind of idea in a lot of furries' heads that they feel afraid they or the fandom will regress to actually accepting bestiality. A lot of this conception comes from ex-zoophile type furries to begin with, it's just reactionaries have picked up on the idea that it is a slippery slope.
Now there's certainly a majority of Discord and Telegram groups that even claim to police against real life bestiality content while having zoophile-identified moderators and users. So naturally seeing this openness people question feral furs' connection to bestiality. But the active zoophile-identified members of those groups are a vocal minority as far as I've investigated. It's just zoophiles are trying to use feral as a vehicle to create a zoo-friendly topic place in the fandom.
Now sites like Zooville focus upon feral but also the emphasis on furry is far less because being into anthro furry porn is so generic these days, no doubt. Zooville is a much smaller site and a much smaller sample, though. Just as I said prior, BeastForum was far bigger, had a huge anthro-emphasis and focused on anthros rather than ferals, seeing "anthro fursonas" as if a reflection of themselves. This upholds the idea that zoophile furries are more likely to have an anthro-fursona with an interest in feral porn rather than feral-fursona users with an interest in feral porn. So it's really anthro-on-feral that's the zooey porn not feral on feral for example.
As such, the majority of furry zoophiles are in fact with anthro fursonas and tend to prefer actual ferals to human-minded ferals. Though of course there are a few psychotic ones that can't tell the difference between human-minded ferals and actual animals, those people tend to live on the porn boorus or social media and consume feral and anthro equally as visual content. You can see this also massively on social media like Twitter and Facebook where anthro-fursona furry accounts use the zeta symbol or Z letter to flag that they are zoophiles. Some even try apologism to say that "zoophilia" and "bestiality" is different, either that one is loving sex or one is only attraction. The words zoophilia and bestiality is used so interchangeably that by saying zoophilia is attraction-only, they are enabling those who see zoophilia as the practice to advertise and promote bestiality.
Ferals are a minority who are unfortunately caught up in this stereotype, since a majority of feral furs pursuit human-like behaviours in ferals while zoophiles tend to pursuit just porn of animals. Feral was more used in SFW contexts than NSFW ones, e.g. on deviantArt young furries in the sparkledog era expressing their "feral" version of their fursona. So the feral NSFW movement was something that was easy to miscontrue and warp by the zoophile movement. This has created a split of particularly non-zoo cute-centric disney-ish rp-oriented "feral" art/porn and the contamination of bestial-centric zooey corruptions of the idea of what feral is. The negative consequence of this is ordinary feral artists drawing more neotenic and semianthro art to distance themselves from the zoophile movement, tending to more cub/chibi-like proportions (e.g. mlp, eeveelutions and disney). Since the fandom already has a fascination with neoteny, the cub-ification of the feral movement has become more rewarding than the zooey invasion of it, and apparently hyping canon makes such cub-likeness acceptable. It's so canonical now that often we don't even need to post it outside of anti-cub sites or use such tags because it's not even seen as cub anymore, but rather "cute critters" even if when we literally are referencing fetuses.
So now feral is a soup of mostly-canonical cub/cub-like porn and the occasional beast porn, with sparkledogs managing to not get cancelled through their expressive clearly-unrealistic use of colours on slightly less cubby feral art. So not only has the zoophile movement managed to get people to cancel the majority of adult feral artists, but has made it into pedo-fodder. Don't believe me? Browse the popular furry boorus like e621 for "feral" (without blacklists enabled) and see how the content suddenly changed around 2019 during the initial mass-cancelling of feral artists. I'm an artist myself and I'm literally doing this myself, like many friends, because we'd rather draw neotenic feral than be cancelled and lose business for the negative association of being classed a zoophile. The fandom has safeplaces and economy for cub and cub feral, but for feral it's dwindling. I can blame zoophiles as much as zoo-cancellers mistargeting ferals.
From what I've seen a majority of zoos and their sites define "feral" as "a non-anthropomorphic animal character".
Whereas the average non-zoo feral tends to say that a feral is "an animal character that is less overall anthropomorphic but has the expressions and/or mental sapience of a human being". On e621, searching "feral" brings up mostly this, but on occasion you will see less sapient-looking animals, much of which is anthro x feral or human x feral. I recall non-sapient animals being called "beast" not "feral" in the early times of the furry fandom, yet these days beast and feral characters are thrown into the same bag which is very bad for innocent feral fans.
So the concept of feral is a stolen one when it comes to zoophilia. For zoos the emphasis is more on drawing an animal in porn rather than specifically expressing a higher order of character that is more than just an animal. Being interested in sapient animals does not make you a zoophile, it makes you more like an anthro-zoophile, which is essentially what all furries are. Ferals are not supposed to be animals per se, they're zoomorphised humans and are equally anthro (human) as they are zoo (animal). The distinction between feral and a normal animal must be separated, especially since ferals often have modified or transformative anatomy, especially in animated/cartoon art styles.
LMAO you said Beastforum was "huge anthro-emphasis and focused on anthros rather than ferals" and it's very hard to say how often these people consume zoophile porn
It was
Literally
a site full of animal rape that wasn't "anthro" that the site was made to gather and sell to subscribers
It was a full-on animal rape business
Are you blind or just lying LMAO
The zoomers have single-handedly brought this fandom to it's knees through hashtag popularization and normalization of the furry community into the general public.
Now everyone is trying to put up a bogus facade on what's ok and what isn't, despite numerous real-world issues like women's rights, child's hunger, gay marriage, minority inequality etc.
Now instead of actually fighting real world issues, we're primarily concerned with cancelling someone for fantasy art that doesn't align with one's own preferences. It's a fucking shame this fandom has been flushed down the toilet.
While I agree that a lot of this drama gets out of hand at times, I don't think it's particularly right to generalize zoomers given a lot of other people - including zoomer furries - simply don't engage in it.
okay, zoomer
Thanks but I'm actually not. I'm a Millennial like you and I also get pretty annoyed by the influx of young armchair sexologists in the fandom who often aren't even old enough to have completed sex-ed. Just putting it out there because it's not necessarily zoomer furries in general in case it's read that way.
Well, on one hand, I do think maybe the "zoomers" are a bit more annoying this time around, but I don't think that's entirely their fault. Like, there was a movement for quite a few years to just straight up ban minors from furry conventions, and obviously this targeted "zoomers". I mean, I was against this because "we're not sex perverts" and also "we are sex perverts, no kids allowed" were common stances held by a lot of furries who just apparently did not see the very obvious contradiction here (obvious caveat that Megaplex in Florida gets a pass because their hand was forced), but it also turned out to have the, in hindsight, obvious consequence of telling a lot of kids that "we don't like you and want you to go away", and now we're surprised when these kids internalized this message and don't like us now. Like, they're kind of being assholes about it, but we were kind of assholes to them first, so, like, I mean, to fold the other subthread into it, is really that surprising they're one-starring all of our comments, metaphorically speaking? (This is not an apology to Colin or whoever it is, by the way; that guy's an asshole.)
We're all so worried about gatekeeping, but failed to notice we were gatekeeping an entire generation. It's understandable they're a bit pissy about it.
That is a strong ending to this comment, and I should stop there, but, yeah, right, I'd also like to say their is a bit of stigma around kids "growing out" of the fandom. Like, the Juggalo's daughter is a prime example; I think she got bored with it and got out, and I think that's okay. Like, I think the vast majority of furries are just kids who are experimenting with a fun hobby, and, yeah, they often take it too seriously because they're kids, and then they grow up and realize, eh, it's not that important or fun for them anymore, and maybe they wasted a bit too much of their parents' money and/or time on that partial fursuit, but, oh, well. I think a problem is that a lot of adults still take it a bit too seriously; I mean, if you're making furry part of your identity, that's fine, but I think we need a bit more understanding of people who don't.
I do feel there is a lot of gatekeeping in furry against "casual" fans. And I think one thing that the younger generation doesn't understand is how nasty the Internet in general was to furries just a generation ago. I think a lot of furries of our generation are still kind of on a war footing, never mind that war's both mostly over and we mostly won. I mean, the Megaplex thing kind of tells us, okay, it's not over over, but actually most people are okay with furry, maybe even kind of like us and/or it now, and the loud annoying assholes who don't are, sure, loud and annoying assholes, but not actually existential threats. Like, a decade ago, the reaction from most non-furries who were aware of furries to, say, the fucking litterbox thing would've been, "haha, that's funny because fuck furries" but the reaction at the time from people who were aware of furries was "haha, that's funny because furries don't do that". I mean, there was still a danger there, because there are still a lot of people who don't know what furries are, but once again, that's a smaller and smaller group people as time goes on. And I think this is part of the "everyone not a furry hates furries" mindset, but there is still a need to remind people you can have non-furry friends. In fact it's probably a good idea to have them, because you kind of get tunnel vision without it.
Anyway, so I guess to the kids, bear with the olds, it kind of sounds stupid to say out loud they're suffering PTSD from some old Internet slapfights, but, actually, kind of yeah, also they don't get to town very often. To the adults, bear with the kids, they're kids, also we haven't actually been that nice and welcoming to them as we think we have.
Meanwhile, most of us from over the pond think it's kinda weird that you would have kids around to start with.
It's not a generational thing; that generation will be older eventually and at that time they will be welcome. But the risk to having them around while they're underage is high.
Yeah, mama bears are kind of very protective of their young. So it's best to not have them around for their sake. Especially if they're being sneaky around it and 'closeted' with their guardians.
On the other hand, if the mom wants to join in on the (general audience) activities, the government should not be judging when she brings her kid along.
It is weird.. About 20 years ago, minors were not welcome and really young ones were put into a "daycare" sort of facility. We didn't have teenagers running around interacting with a mostly adult audience. The dealer's dens and artist alley's have always been full of material that's intended for adults. room parties have always been full of booze, sometimes illicit substances.
Conventions then were geared towards adults. We knew what we were, and the only people who challenged our identity were people that for some reason wanted the world to know that they were a fox deep down inside...
Now that we're in mainstream media constantly, everyone wants to join in. We've had to shift our behaviorisms and the way we meet to accommodate teenagers. Now it seems like every other week I get a drama story on my twitter timeline about some grooming incident or something or another. Really kinda sick of it. That's why I blame the zoomer generation. Even then, it's not all their fault.
Yeah, we played defense a lot. Furry is much different in 2023 than what it was in 2003. Crush Yiff Destroy, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc were all very prominent. We were put in the limelight on television.. Tyra Banks, CSI etc. We didn't have this "super cuddly friendly" front that we have now.
I much preferred the fandom to be limited to adults. Just look at our art websites. Most of our material is GEARED for adults. It disturbs me greatly when I join discord servers that have a blend of adults and teenagers chatting with eachother. It's highly irresponsible and a farcry from our societal norms back in the IRC days. It really do be a bunch of tip-toeing now.
This is exactly the kind of behaviour I'm talking about, Green Reaper and (new?) anon (Sonious isn't, not griping at him
today). Literally, once again, gatekeeping.What do you think you were fighting for? Okay, okay, you used "played defense", which is not exactly the same thing as "fighting for", but why did you think you needed to defend yourself against accusations from CYD, ED, etc.? The whole purpose of the exercise is so the next generation of furries wouldn't have to. That's what I mean when I say we won. "Everyone wanting to join in" was the end goal.
So you had to "shift your behaviorisms". That's called growing up. You want to keep the kids out so you can keep getting drunk and sharing porn without consequence; I mean, thanks for the honesty, but when you actually put it out there like that, it kind of sounds, well, sad. Like, and, okay, now I am going to be mean again, but a lot of you guys sound like you're the cartoon of a middle-aged man with the combover at the club pulling out his disco moves (which is itself, admittedly, an image about 3 to 4 decades old now). But it's kind worse, because you're not just an old guy desperately holding on to their misspent youth; you're an old guy desperately holding on to your misspent youth while simultaneously trying to keep the actual youth from living theirs.
And it's not like there weren't weird groomers back in the day, Jesus Christ. Or teenagers in adult areas; good lord, the adult section of FurryMUCK was run by a 15 year old for a while. When I saw him live, 2 the Ranting Griffin literally had a bit about accidentally spraying a child in his audience with alcohol while simulating a sex act on stage; during the same performance, his opening act got embarrassed and apologized for his dead baby joke to the parent of the infant in the front row. I was there back in the day, too. Not only do I remember there were always kids, I was one of the kids present.
I don't know about Europe and Green Reaper (makes me proud to be an American), but you did say your "tiptoeing" around the kids, which means, once again, you're "growing up", but this time, I mean it as a compliment. Maybe people were "tiptoeing" around you when you were a kid, and you just didn't realize it. Probably, actually. I mean, you're an anon, I have no idea your actual age, obviously, even if you are the original "millennial" poster, still. But, we're going to assume we're about the same age, because, sure, why not. Makes it easier. From my perspective, I guess Twitter bullshit doesn't bother me now because I was in the thick of the Portal of Evil/Crush!Yiff!Destroy! shit, and on one hand, it does suck how some things don't change. But, on the other hand, some things do change.
And I can understand conflicted feelings about this change. Like, I remember reading about a Doctor Who fan visiting they're old grade school and seeing a kid's art and craft Dalek, and remembering that, when he attended that school, they would've gotten beaten up for that. And their feelings were very conflicted, because they wanted to be happy things were better, but they admitted they mostly just felt jealousy.
To end on a more positive note, as another aging hipster once put it, "Right now, we've got freedom and responsibility. It's a very groovy time."
I much appreciate that things have changed for the better in terms of our public image, but I still believe furry is a primarily adult subculture that should be left to adults. Spaces should be separated for the safety of our younger generation.
Adults shouldn’t be mingling with minors period, and I feel like you left that entire bit out on purpose.
But I don't think the complainers are arguing about that, either. (Also, I disagree with the statement "adults shouldn't be mingling with minors", but that's a pretty strong statement, so I don't think we're gonna change each other's minds there, so now I kind of am avoiding it, but it just feels too cynical.)
On one hand, I'll sorta-semi accept the primary audience of furry conventions is "adults", but I'll still argue we're too old. Like, 18-25 seems the right age; after that, you're kinda starting to Disco Dan a bit. Which is definitely, I'm out, but also, I believe, you're out. If you're old enough to still be bitching about Crush!Yiff!Destroy!, you're too old for the really good room parties at ... wherever. And, once again, this is just straight up gatekeeping; you're the one kicking people out. Oh, you have your reasons, people always do, but the fact still remains that you are the one telling people they don't belong here.
Okay, I did just say "you're out", so I am doing it to, but in my defence I also did exclude myself, and to be fair, this is just what I said in my original really long post; there's a bit of a stigma about "growing out" of the fandom. I mean, honestly, have you considered that you can just leave? If you're not having fun anymore, why put yourself through it? Like, if all you really want is some porn and fucking alcohol, like, you don't need furry conventions for that. You barely need furry sites; fuck, one of my little furry vices is porn games (btw, the end of Flash has been devastating ... but that's really off topic, sorry), and, honestly, at this point, if I want straight or female-focused stuff, I get better furry stuff from nominally non-furry publishers. Do I sit around and complain about the gays? No, they fought hard to get to be this gay, good for them, I'll go where I need to go to get what I want. If it's actual furries, great; if not, also great! Who cares?
I understand you probably have a network of friends which will be hard to untangle, and for all I know you're also an artist or are somehow also financially entangled, so it really isn't that easy, but if some aspect of furry today isn't doing it for you, maybe it's time to try something else? Yeah, you apparently liked the sleezy smut and booze atmosphere; I didn't. You apparently don't like the clean and family-friendly look; I kinda do (the porn games notwithstanding). And you don't get to pull the "well, I was here first" bit, because, well, you weren't. I mean, it's not just zoomers; even the guys who want to "keep furry weird" *rolls eyes* don't even all agree what the fuck "weird" even means.
I say you "apparently" liked/disliked things because you never actually professed a preference, just kind of pointed out that's the way it was like that's self-evident proof that that's the way it should be, but, no, it isn't. I mean, I didn't say where I saw 2; that was Oklacon. You know, the convention that got shut down because of the drunken public sex? If you want to party, okay, but also realize, even without minors, there are going to be consequences. At the very least, don't hold your booze-y con at a venue that explicitly bans alcohol; I guarantee you non-furries lost their jobs over Oklacon.
I'm kind of trying to "both sides" this thing (despite the fact you're not supposed to do that), but I really think that, yes, you're kind of in the wrong here. If you don't want to hang out with kids, don't; but why you gotta not let them have their own things? If you're going to gatekeep someone, gatekeep yourself.
Been to several Oklacon’s myself. Truth be told I don’t participate in the IRL aspect or the fandom because yes, too old. I just run my patreon, draw the smut, please the fans.
Do I miss attending conventions, maybe a little. I’m sure a ton of my fans would love to meet me, but I digress.. I share the same opinion as you about when it’s time to hand in your furry card, and the youth certainly do run the show. Maybe a little bit of me wishes I could do Further Confusion 2005 again.
"The youth certainly do run the show" - and that's how it should be! Furry is here for good and thank God will not die out with us greymuzzles who helped birth it. I'll have to read your earlier comments & learn why you're reluctant to go to cons anymore when obviously part of you would still very much like to. I love going to them & seeing how "the kids" are making furry their own!
- Joe
Okay, first off, did "mark as spam" the double post (shit happens), kept this one because it's the one Joe replied to, and that would've got folded up too. Maybe Green Reaper'll get bored and thread it correctly; maybe not. Not a big deal.
But, main point, I think I better take my own advice and, if not exactly "drop the mic", at least quit while I'm, uh, not behind, anyway. It was nice to have an actual adult conversation with adults actually acting like adults for once, so that's a point in your argument's favor, I guess, but I think the real point is this fandom is big enough for the both of us. And also other people! And if you ever need some place to gripe about something, well, it would be more than a little hypocritical of me to say Flayrah's comment sections are off limits. That's what we're here for! [Editor's Note: That is not actually what we're here for.] Maybe pick a more recent story, next time, though!
Well, I will bid you adieu, goodnight, and, uh, good luck, I guess.
I appreciate your well thought out responses. Maybe one day I’ll show my old ass and bring some stuff to sell in the Artist Alley. Until then, have a good one. ;)
I Love Animal Dick
Yall Are Very Talented Individuals
Post new comment