Furry != Bestiality

Recommended Videos

10BIT

New member
Sep 14, 2008
349
0
0
Dana22 said:
TimeLord said:
Being a furry is not about sex.
Type in "Furry" in Google graphics search. Turn off filters. Browse. See two dogs in nazi uniforms with one giving a blowjob to the other. Yeah it isn't.

:D
Some Guy said:
Wearing gloves is not about sex
Type in 'gants hiver' (French for winter gloves)in Google graphics search. Turn off filters. See girl fisting two other girls in the first image. Yeah it isn't.

:D

TL;DR, Rule 34.

OT: Many people are intolerant of what they don't understand; many of these people enjoy being intolerant and so refuse to understand. There will always be haters, so don't get worked up when you see one. While I don't enjoy these anthropomorphic beings, I don't look down on anyone that does.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
ravensheart18 said:
Frungy said:
Furry is beastiality in the same way that your girlfriend dressing up in a schoolgirl uniform is pedophilia... it's not.
But that is a form of pedophilia. Why else would you want your gf to dress up like a little girl unless you were turned on by the idea of having sex with little girls?
You do realize that the term "schoolgirl" does not only refer to elementary/middle educational level females, right? Likely not, as the "schoolgirl" outfit is most commonly recognized to relate to a dress shirt, tie, vest, and short skirt set-up of the stereotyped "naughty girl" college student.


Those look like "little girls" to you, or something a normal "little girl" would wear, now?


OT: I'm not a furry myself, but I can see the legitimacy of furry fandom towards figures such as the Starfox characters or other vaguely humanoid looking, fur-coated animals. Then again, I'm hardly one you would call "sexually conservative", at that (as long as the two parties are consenting during sexual acts, whatever the flavor, I don't raise a fucking complaint).
 

Dystopia

New member
Jul 26, 2009
231
0
0
I studied anthropology at university; I have a degree in it.

It is horrifying to me that people are using it to describe their bestiality interests.
 

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
Rednog said:
Wait, wait, wait...back that train up!
Anthropomorphism does not equal half human half animal. Anthropomorphism is any non human thing whether living or not having human traits and or characteristics. From a majority of what I've seen in relation to furry art there is very little to link or to show that in fact many furies are indeed half human/human animal and evolved in some way or are genetically half-half for some reason. They are for all intensive purposes, genetically non-human. Yes there is art out there showing people transforming into furies but let's leave that for another debate.
For example the character you posted, Krystal. Now I admit I haven't played Starfox, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I highly doubt that there is any mention in her back story or during the game that she is indeed part human part animal genetically.

This is where you have to draw the fine line, being anthropomorphic means you can and are humanoid. They might look and act human, but they are definitely not human. Considering the basic definition of bestiality is is the practice of sex between humans and non-human animals, furries kind of fall into that category.


So...umm yea, while yes there are clear differences if you sit down and try to think why people like furies (it's sexualizing animals with human physical characteristics) you know there is a difference between liking that and a straight up animal.
Sorry to say it man, but people who call it bestiality are technically right.
You're splitting hairs on that whole half human or not spiel. They're fucking fictional characters for crying out loud, their back story is what we make of them.
Also, the further you look into the morality of bestiality the more you see that it's about consensual participants and the wrongness of interspecies sex (bestiality is just fucked).
Furries, being our own fictional characters are as previously stated half human and capable of god damned free thought to the level of standard humans, no less. We do have these kinda rules generally ingrained in our collective ideals about the fandom, it's not just me saying this.

Also, the phrase isn't "Intensive purposes", it's "intents and purposes".
Huge Disclaimer, the text gets garbled and I think I lost my mind half way through, but since I've invested the time I'm just going to post it anyways, if anyone bothers to read it maybe you can extract or boil down the point I'm trying to make.
Hmm, well there is a problem when it comes to splitting hairs.
Time Lord's argument, has your quote
Zeeky_Santos:
I hate the assumption made that Furries Love Animals.
We do not, we love Anthros, that is to say Animal-Human Hybrids, not fucking (in any sense of the word) animals.
Which by the definition of Anthropomorphic is in itself wrong. Like I stated in my first post, you can't say that anthropomorphic means half human half animal, because it simply does not. It is an animal with human characteristics. If you are simply basing the argument on this then yes it is in fact bestiality, because no matter what the characteristics of said non human animal, it is still an animal in the end of the day and not a half/half creature.

But like you addressed, sure you can make a furry character who's back story just happens to be that they were once human and got animal characteristics or that they in fact are some sort of human animal hybrid. Sure why not. But, then you are opening a whole new can of worms which leads to an endless fine slicing and dividing of the culture of furies.

The fine line ends up being that it just isn't human-human sex, and this is where we fall into problems. We are using terminology to discuss an issue of tastes of fictional things with terms used to describe non fictional things.
Now bear with me for a moment because I'm going to have to dive into some logic that can get convoluted. Bestiality is the physical act of having sex with an animal that isn't human. And the argument you're presenting is that since they are physically impossible characters that it cannot be considered bestiality because one can never have sex with these fictional characters. But that is walking a fine line between thoughts and intentions and desires. But with that how could you possibly condemn someone as a person to bestiality for liking Bolt?
Bolt can't exist. Sure he can have a real life counter part in a real dog, but Bolt clearly understands the world with human-like logic and intelligence. And who knows, maybe is some fictional world much later in life Bolt would be able to consent to something like sex because it isn't a far stretch in logic that he could actually understand it. Sure he is a bit naive about how the world works but he clearly has the capacity to think at the same level.
So it is kind of hard to buy the argument as to not call something like Bolt a furry, because under your definition, he kind of does fall into that category. Sure it might not be solid match to the stereotypical furry image but it does somewhat fit.

Oh god this whole train of logic/thought/etc is going to give me a migraine.
Don't get me wrong I'm not condemning furies, I honestly don't care what someone does in their own personal time. What I'm arguing is that you can't really boil down the whole problem to simple components. The whole issue with furries is that it is an extremely wide sub culture and it contains a vast array of ideals. And for a person looking in from the outside it becomes very hard to understand it. And when you try to defend it by breaking down the furry argument you have to understand that those who aren't in the subculture are going to try and understand it with the words and logic that is in their tool set from life.

When you stretch things into the fictional world you kind of have to bring the argument into a much longer and drawn out debate about theory and things that you will honestly never find a concrete answer to and it will pretty much be debated to the end of time.

Now if a furry did somehow exist in the real world, we would be able to make a simple and quick answer. But it doesn't and it is forever a discussion. Imo, it is just going to end up being a matter of people's personal opinions on the matter. You can't argue the morality of fictional things.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
smithy_2045 said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
Necromancist said:
An anthropomorphic animal, if they existed, would be capable of reasoning and would thus also be able to engage in consensual sexual activities like any other humanoid being.
This is perhaps the biggest yet most overlooked point that I've tried making when this argument crops up. Thank you for understanding it perfectly.
How does that make it any better?
Because the two main arguments against Bestiality (and henceforth ignorant knee jerks agaisnt furry) are the 'It's not Human' factor. Something I've discussed briefly in another post, many others have pointed out it's no different to your character sexing up an alien humanoid in mass effect except it's furrier than the other alien.

The other is consent. Bestiality being the fucking of animals that can (presumably) comprehend rape, but do not know how to say no.
With furries, being works of our fiction they are generally (99.99% accepted) as smart as humans; furries are able to consensually make these sorts of decisions. That's how it makes it 'any better'.

Now you'd better have more to say than 'How does it make it any better?' because that's all you've said. You have no argument.
A 10 year old girl could give her consent and it doesn't make it morally acceptable (in our societies at least)
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
Thyunda said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
Thyunda said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
Thyunda said:
Not really. I have the Escapist in the background. I flick between interesting-looking discussion topics that show up in that little sidebar on the right. I'm usually doing a few other things at the same time. I know for a fact that I'll be uncertain about watching a ten-minute video during an argument, never mind one approaching forty. So please, drop the assumption that people on the Escapist are just the people with nothing better to do. It's not a nice thing to say.
If I'm not mistaken, it's something you don't even have to watch, being a speech you can listen to it in the background if you're a busy man on the go-go.

Thyunda said:
TimeLord, no offence to him, feeling the need to refer his opponent to somebody else is pure laziness. Perhaps he felt he couldn't argue it himself, and that the person in the video could, but to call Rednog lazy for not wanting to give up thirty-seven minutes of his day to hear an argument that he could have read in two minutes is preposterous. If Rednog's lazy, TimeLord keeps a beer-cannon next to his bed.
That's just your opinion on the matter, I personally can't stand to read what could be read to me. I prefer to hear different perspectives and more elegantly phrased arguments.
I mean, I wouldn't quite feel the same about star wars if my only understanding of it was a hastily paraphrased rendition. I wouldn't quite believe someone avidly talking about their favourite game developer's latest news unless I actually had the official news. All the same I wouldn't want to hear about another man's views through a friend's paraphrasing. I'd need to hear it.
But whether you like to hear the real deal or read a paraphrase isn't on timelord, he doesn't read minds.
My argument's with you, not with TimeLord. TimeLord showed the video. Rednog rejected it. You stuck your oar in, now I'm hitting you with it.
Now I could have it on in the background, while doing other things, but then it becomes background noise that nobody takes in. If TimeLord really needed to use the man's words, why not quote him directly? What's wrong with him putting the effort into furthering his own argument? Your example of Star Wars is completely out of place. That's a film designed to entertain through its writing, story and visual effects. This is an argument with straight, pure and simple facts being presented.
And as for game developers' news...well, I rely on the Escapist for gaming news. Everything I hear about the gaming industry comes from here, not directly from the source. TimeLord isn't trying to say that this man's views are important because it's this man. It's not like he's trying to say Stephen Hawking did some analysis on the subject, and proved it to be TimeLord's argument.
Only then would I want to see evidence that it was indeed the scientist that said it. The subject of the video and the argument is the message the man had, not the identity.
The thing's a freaking documentary that uses the perspectives of multiple furries being interviewed about the fandom. It's not just about an argument, it's about an understanding. That is something that timelord certainly can't fit into a tiny space.
Forgive me for this, but to be completely honest, if a guy thinks furries are into bestiality, a documentary where furries tell him they aren't into bestiality is going to have no effect at all. If a man has a deep seated hatred of homosexuals, no amount of them will ever persuade him that it's okay to be gay. If TimeLord couldn't persuade Rednog on his own, then I'm sorry, but the viewpoints of a billion furries won't have any effect either.
Then perhaps any attempt to persuade him otherwise is an attempt nonetheless, no matter how lazy.
I mean, close mindedness is pretty much laziness. The unwillingness to accept a different concept is either laziness or pure strength of will. Frankly I'd prefer to be lazy in that situation.
I'd rather hear a furry tell me his opinion that present me with a video that showed other furries presenting their opinions. It's like that guy on the Fallout threads who would always just post that picture of completely irrelevant complaints. If you can't argue the point yourself, why are you contributing to the argument?
It's like my dad always said - if you want people to pay attention to what you have to say, pretend your father said it to you.






Furry-ism is all well and good till somebody fucks a prawn.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
The OP is actually mistaken. Bestiality is defined as sexual relations between a human and and animal, or put in a more useful sense between a human and a non-human. Cat Girl there is clearly non-human in much the same way a Human is not a Chimp in spite of the startling level of similarity in our respective genetic codes.

Just because these animals can talk and participate easily in human social circles does not detract from the fact that they are obviously non-human. This isn't really a slam against furries. Keep in mind that the literal interpretation of the word would also apply to say Mass Effect's Shepard having sexual relationships with any number of aliens.

Of course, if one reads the explicit letter of the definition, it does indeed say animal, but that is a problem of perspective more than anything. At the time the word was coined (several thousand years ago), the universe was neatly divided between Humans, Animals and Gods (who were nothing more than perfect and immortal humans who commanded some supernatural power) and as such the word applied to anything that was not a Person (seeing as gods rarely put out so much as they took advantage of).
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
Verlander said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
smithy_2045 said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
Necromancist said:
An anthropomorphic animal, if they existed, would be capable of reasoning and would thus also be able to engage in consensual sexual activities like any other humanoid being.
This is perhaps the biggest yet most overlooked point that I've tried making when this argument crops up. Thank you for understanding it perfectly.
How does that make it any better?
Because the two main arguments against Bestiality (and henceforth ignorant knee jerks agaisnt furry) are the 'It's not Human' factor. Something I've discussed briefly in another post, many others have pointed out it's no different to your character sexing up an alien humanoid in mass effect except it's furrier than the other alien.

The other is consent. Bestiality being the fucking of animals that can (presumably) comprehend rape, but do not know how to say no.
With furries, being works of our fiction they are generally (99.99% accepted) as smart as humans; furries are able to consensually make these sorts of decisions. That's how it makes it 'any better'.

Now you'd better have more to say than 'How does it make it any better?' because that's all you've said. You have no argument.
A 10 year old girl could give her consent and it doesn't make it morally acceptable (in our societies at least)
At that age the government has already established that as a minor she is not capable of making these decisions. In the fandom we've already established that furries are perfectly capable of this decision.
I guess that's my point though-these creatures don't exist, so your rules for what they are/aren't and what they can/cannot do, is completely your own opinion, and as valid as anyone elses, including those who think that it's bestiality and wrong
 

Sgt Doom

New member
Jan 30, 2009
566
0
0
Could we simply not have threads about furries at all? There's no threads for scat, BDSM or other fetishes, nor is there really any reason to.
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
To be honest I just wish I could understand it, I think that's the problem many people have with it; they fear what they don't understand. Ergo: I want to understand.

If you furries out there would stop being so damn defensive and take some time to explain things then maybe you'd get less hate from people, right now you're only making things worse for yourselves by presenting an easy target.
 

Fetzenfisch

New member
Sep 11, 2009
2,460
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
The OP is actually mistaken. Bestiality is defined as sexual relations between a human and and animal, or put in a more useful sense between a human and a non-human. Cat Girl there is clearly non-human in much the same way a Human is not a Chimp in spite of the startling level of similarity in our respective genetic codes.

Just because these animals can talk and participate easily in human social circles does not detract from the fact that they are obviously non-human. This isn't really a slam against furries. Keep in mind that the literal interpretation of the word would also apply to say Mass Effect's Shepard having sexual relationships with any number of aliens.

Of course, if one reads the explicit letter of the definition, it does indeed say animal, but that is a problem of perspective more than anything. At the time the word was coined (several thousand years ago), the universe was neatly divided between Humans, Animals and Gods (who were nothing more than perfect and immortal humans who commanded some supernatural power) and as such the word applied to anything that was not a Person (seeing as gods rarely put out so much as they took advantage of).
Thats what it is right. Plus the attractiveness of the anthropomorphic animals lies IN their animal resemblance not in their human features, so the arguments given here as defense are more than weak.
Not that i would care, they can make sweet love to their inkjet-printers if they want to, not my buisness.
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
smithy_2045 said:
Zeeky_Santos said:
Necromancist said:
An anthropomorphic animal, if they existed, would be capable of reasoning and would thus also be able to engage in consensual sexual activities like any other humanoid being.
This is perhaps the biggest yet most overlooked point that I've tried making when this argument crops up. Thank you for understanding it perfectly.
How does that make it any better?
Because the two main arguments against Bestiality (and henceforth ignorant knee jerks agaisnt furry) are the 'It's not Human' factor. Something I've discussed briefly in another post, many others have pointed out it's no different to your character sexing up an alien humanoid in mass effect except it's furrier than the other alien.

The other is consent. Bestiality being the fucking of animals that can (presumably) comprehend rape, but do not know how to say no.
With furries, being works of our fiction they are generally (99.99% accepted) as smart as humans; furries are able to consensually make these sorts of decisions. That's how it makes it 'any better'.

Now you'd better have more to say than 'How does it make it any better?' because that's all you've said. You have no argument.
See, the thing is, fucking an alien is wrong too. You just don't get the same self-righteous bullshit from those who want to fuck aliens as those who want to fuck humanoid animals.