Furry != Bestiality

[Moriarty70]

Thought I'd look at the source thread in a different light.

I think the reason people were equating him as a furry was due to a limited knowlegde of what a furry is. They see Bolt with human eyes and a personality/reasoning skills roughly equal to an adult and figure that's enough to qualify him.

My personal take is that furrism (I'm going with -ism) an interesting quirk and in no way a hint as to what the person is like otherwise.

 

[Spark Ignition]

Unfortunate quote if you're in the 'furries aren't into bestiality' camp I'm afraid Cingal... The ancient egyptians were into all kinds of bestiality and apparently 'mastered the art of coitus with a crocodile'.

I'm just sayin'.

It's not Egyptian.

It's "The Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel" it is dated at being over 32,000 years old and is believe to be the oldest known depiction of an anthropomorphic creature.

The point was, "Humanity's interest has been around for a long time.".

oh beg parson then. I only briefly glanced at it and assumed by the style it was egyptian.

 

[Gigano]

...
That is also ONE of the functions and ideas behind the fursuit. Not always, but there are some people who do enjoy wearing suits to have sex. Nothing wrong with that, imho.
-Tabs<3-

Well, where there's a will there's a way Most certainly nothing wrong with it, as long as they contain consenting adults it's all a part of harmless plurality. Can't say I'd particularly enjoy romancing someone with a tail, but it'll never bother me in the least that others do.

...
o hai there, you seem like an interesting person!, i like you a lot!, and you said all that in such a timely and beautifull manner

thank you for existing!!!

Glad you appreciate my stance, but you should really be thanking this guy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill] for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle]. All I did was make it my own in all matters of forceful governance and ethical condemnation.

But thanks!

 

[Sevre]

All I've learnt form this thread is that the escapist is literally full of furries.....

Hey I was surprised too.

But hey kids, whatever you're into, as long as it's consensual and not illegal it doesn't matter to me.

However, whether you define Furry as a fetish or a subculture, you shouldn't judge a person for it.

Just a question pertaining to what happens in your advent. Are you all out of tea yet? Would you like a refill?

I've just finished my 4th cup there.....when I run out of tea, it means I've found a troll.

 

[similar.squirrel]

It's not bestiality. It's quite unnerving for other reasons, however.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

To use your own argument against you. Comparing that furries identify more with anthropomorphic animals to transexuals identify more to people of the other sex is like saying people who are attracted to animals are like people attracted to the same sex. I'm not saying any of this is wrong, I just feel like it's not a very strong argument.

I...
What you have just said makes no sense. Whatsoever.

Or maybe I just need sleep. I think I am going to go do that.

 

[Sensenmann]

Edit. forget my post. I posted some stuff, found out about what furries were (I previously understood it by the misconceptions), posted some other stuff, it contradicted my post and then I thought "fk it".

Anyway, thanks for the knowledge and dispelling of misconceptions

 

[Demongeneral109]

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.

I would argue that a good number of furries enjoy humans with animal-type characteristics more than the other way around. I would also argue that while either way does fit the by-the-letter definition of bestiality, the spirit of the word is more provocative of creatures that have few, if any human characteristics. Krystal, for instance, is of approximately humanoid appearance, with human female sexual characteristics. Also, she acts and communicates in the same way as humans. Which differentiates it from the spirit of the definition of beastiality.
an example, fantasizing about a cat is beastiality( sexually just to use the most known example of furries) fantasizing about a human woman with cat ears and tail is not bestiality. If anyone more involved in the furry community wants to expound more on the different degrees of furryism wants to fill me in more, i'm not too much f a furry, so someone needs to help me clarify this. thanks!

EDIT: it appears from reading the rest of this thread, i'm more of a furry than I thought... still add additional info if you can, inquiring minds need to know!

 

[Demongeneral109]

I take issue with a good deal of the furry community, and this thread is an example of why: because I don't need to know. When is my lack of understanding of your hobbies going to negatively impact either of us in any meaningful way? What are we preventing, here? Someone on the internet trolling you by saying "you fuck dogs"? If your hobbies earn you grief from the rest of the world, I ask you, which of the following would be the best course of action?

A) Insist on telling everyone, regardless of lack of solicitation or interest, about stuff they didn't care about (and likely still don't) until you decided they need to know.
or
B) Stop telling people.

You know what I like to do? Shooting sports. Shotguns, rifles, pistols, and everything in between. Many common misconceptions include "you're a redneck", "you're waiting for an excuse to murder someone", "you must have a small penis", "you're paranoid and dangerous", and "you are obsessed with violence". Obviously, these do not apply to the majority of people who enjoy shooting sports, but I don't start threads trying to justify my predilection for firearms, despite the fact that I think they're some of the most interesting things in the entire world and identify myself as a "shooter". I simply decide not to throw it in peoples' faces, and discuss it only with people that I am assured are on the same page as me or people that are curious to know more after I'm reasonably certain they'd be comfortable with me broaching the subject, so I don't have to go through the miserable process of having to edify the uninformed about my hobbies.

It's really easy. When people ask what my hobbies are, I give them a few standard-but-applicable answers, then try to feel them out for any signs of common interest. If yes, hooray, let's talk guns. If not, let's talk about something else so you don't have to know that I'm capable of killing you with a single bullet at impressive distances, which is an alienating and disturbing concept to people who aren't in the know, which causes them to draw unflattering conclusions about me; because of this, everyone is better off if others remain unburdened by my desire to wax pedantic about things they never wanted to know about.

I think part of the reason gun enthusiasts/hunters don't adamantly defend themselves is because the argument is being made by various organziations like the stupidly powerful NRA, everyone knows the arguments for both sides. Furries, on the other-hand ass attacked without any understanding of the community of culture. In hunting, only the individual is insulted most of the time, which most people can shrug off. For furries, the interest/culture itself is attacked, and people defend their ideals, hobbies, and passions more heavily than themselves

 

[HT_Black]

Eh, all I really know about furries is that they have a really nice series of articles over on Encyclopedia Dramatica; that any thread/page/what-have-you about them will invariably be long and entertaining; and that, from time to time, they produce some of the most shocking, eye-raping, mind-boggling, vomit-inducing images on the internet. Of course, seeing as society today is so jaded, it's nice to know that there's still things out there which can perturb me.

Is that the answer to the question I'm going to infer you were asking?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Secondly fur suiting is...strange. plane and simple. asking someone to accept that without being judgemental is actually asking a bit.

I understand that. I myself am not into the whole fursuiting malarky but the problem is that a lot of people only see that side of the furry community. I accept that nothing will probably change. But if I can educate one person then I will deem this thread a success!

Speaking as a non-furry, I too see this minority of the fandom frequently highlighted. Whenever I say "that's not all there is to the fandom" I'm labeled as a furry myself.

Whatever, my furry friends and I just shrug it off. As for the thread linked to in the OP... ew.

I have no say in what the fandom deems is furry but from what my friends have shown me it is not furry in my eyes.

I hope this thread lives long and helps spread the word.

[sub]My one furry friend is a gifted artist that I sometimes write comics for. I might be a little more educated than the usual bystander.[/sub]

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

I think part of the reason gun enthusiasts/hunters don't adamantly defend themselves is because the argument is being made by various organziations like the stupidly powerful NRA, everyone knows the arguments for both sides. Furries, on the other-hand ass attacked without any understanding of the community of culture. In hunting, only the individual is insulted most of the time, which most people can shrug off. For furries, the interest/culture itself is attacked, and people defend their ideals, hobbies, and passions more heavily than themselves

You clearly don't follow the gun-related threads on this site, where entire continents show up to boo and hiss at the insecure, bloodthirsty Americans and their blued-steel penis extensions, where the very legitimacy of owning a firearm is both called into question and mocked. If everyone supposedly understands the arguments for both sides of gun ownership, then a startling percentage of them willfully ignore the reasonable arguments in favor so that they can shit all over it, which is arguably worse than simply not knowing. Furthermore, the NRA is a lobbying group, not a PR firm for gun owners; their job is to influence the government on issues that pertain to firearms, and catering to the interests of firearm aficionados who are already fully invested in the idea of regularly owning and operating small arms; if one drives around with an NRA sticker on their vehicle, the majority of people would be surprised to see you step out with a full set of teeth, because choosing to openly associate yourself with them will lead people to consider you a bible-belt hick that bursts into Glenn Beck-esque tears every time they remember the president is black. The comparison is perfectly congruent, furries are not too special to suck it up and stop pretending that peoples' rejection of that which furries force into their consciousness is persecution.

 

[Jumplion]

*as usual, I'm late to the party, but I want to put my opinion out there anyhow*

I've dabbled into furry fandom, and I still find some aspects of it enjoyable to an extent, but personally I wouldn't call myself a "furry" no matter the definition. I just like all sorts of style, I'm not really one for a specific style. I love certain animes, does that make me an otaku? I absolutely love animation in general, Pixar and certain Dreamworks movies are among my favorites, does that make me some sort of man-child?

But that's just me. Other people tend to associate "furries" with sex and bestiality, which, as the OP points out, are not the same thing. It's the difference between loving fruit, and being a fruit-fucker (though that analogy still doesn't do it justice).

Of course, the fact that the furry fandom has some pretty dark, nasty subcultures to it doesn't really help, but the same could be said for other popular cultures as well. Still, when things like *ahem*, erm [sub]vore, cub, body "modification" seriously, don't google that stuff if you don't know what they are[/sub] and such are seen as prevalent in the furry community it doesn't really help their image, and the community itself seems to get a little too sensitive when these issues pop up and they have trouble defining what "furry" is anyway.

Things will certainly change someday, no doubt about it, but unfortunately misinformation and misunderstandings are much too common to rid the problem overnight. That and, a random thought in my head popped up, there's no good furry comics. Seriously, the ones out right now are friggin' fetish fuel comics, nothing more.

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

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.

Please for the love of good just watch the damn video, heres a link: http://vimeo.com/17995012
Now this is for everyone out there who thinks furries resemble to bestiality.
They do NOT. I'm not one myself but have a few friends who are and i certainly see their logic. They are people who feel the need to find their own 'family', ones who they can always lean on and go for support. Similarly; they go to their "pack"/group of their friends, when they are having troubles.
It's a group of very friendly open minded people who feel like they can connect to a animal that resembles to them and sometimes create their furry counterpart and dressup as them if they so choose.
There are some other certain 'furries' who do have sex with other furries, probably because they have a fetish or it turns them on...I don't know what they think, but its only those certain individuals. Normal furries do NOT go around fucking each other and the media takes pictures and reports on the ones that do make out with each other and frame all the furry community that they do, just for a news story on a slow news day.
It's just how the media can take a few shots and go around telling everyone how furries are just a sex group for people with animal fetishes.
My friend who is a furry clearly states that he and his friends are the usual normal ones that, and i have discussed the issue with him about what we're talking about now, he replied that furries who would do bestiality would have been kicked out of the 'club' because of what they've done but haven't yet because they wouldn't kick another member out because it's just what they wouldn't to one another.
My furry friends take interest in drawing half human-half animal anime characters because it interests them.
They act like everyone else most of the time and its all around the world with people who are also proud furries, all with different religion, language but we are all just human after all.
My friend also mentioned that if he was to F*** a furry it would be a HUMAN with ANIMAL characteristics not the other way around.

I can very well certainly see where he's going with this can you?
....Except for the last sentence, that's was just some random stuff he said i should put in to correct some of the people out there who think the opposite.

P.S. The user above my comment also has some good statements that he/she made.

 

[Daedalus1942]

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)

Being a furry is not about sex. I should know, I am one.
People assume sexualisation because of the media portrayed around furries.

Deviant art doesn't do anything to help my argument either....

But seriously. Watch this;

http://vimeo.com/17995012

The guy near the end explains my entire argument.

Ok, first off, not to sound like a dick, but I'm not about to go jump into a 37 minute video or accept blindly that it will somehow/somewhere have some sort of counter to my whole argument. Seriously, I'm not a fan of someone taking a tiny snippet of someone's argument, saying they disagree with it and thus saying it's somehow negating the rest of the argument. It doesn't.
Really sorry, but unless there is more to the arguing against my point I'm not about to go spend half an hour watching a video, that I'm pretty sure won't counter my argument about the definition you're trying to convince people to believe.

You're saying you're going to deny a person's argument because you can't be assed to even know what the fuck their argument is?

You do realise that voids any opinion you might have in any future argument on the subject right? You understand that you have made all your arguments invalid? Yes?

No. Refusing to sit and watch a thirty-six minute video does not void his arguments. TimeLord could have easily stated his argument through typing. If he can't be arsed to type his argument, Rednog shouldn't be expected to be arsed to go find it.

Rule of thumb. If you're hanging out on the escapist, you clearly have time on your hands. Refusing to learn with deeper knowledge something that Timelord felt needed to be expressed by another, more skilled speaker is just pure laziness.

Thirty six minutes is too much. Don't pretend it isn't. Even in bandwidth terms its not worth it.

You would rather make your argument uninformed? That video explains the stigmas of the community, has interviews with different people about being furries and generally explains the idea of furries to an ignorant 3rd party.

Jesus christ dude. You guys tout out the word ignorant so often in this thread as though its a checkmate. Do I want to watch a 36 minute movie about something I don't want to know about (but already have a basic grasp of)? Just so I (might) be slightly more informed on the matter so I can argue over the definition of words (which you're already clearly wrong about)? I don't need to watch a 36 minute piece of bias, I own a dictionary (also, google define).

Unfortunate quote if you're in the 'furries aren't into bestiality' camp I'm afraid Cingal... The ancient egyptians were into all kinds of bestiality and apparently 'mastered the art of coitus with a crocodile'.

I'm just sayin'.

It's not Egyptian.

It's "The Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel" it is dated at being over 32,000 years old and is believe to be the oldest known depiction of an anthropomorphic creature.

The point was, "Humanity's interest has been around for a long time.".

I've never seen any proof that it was for sexual reasons. More likely to be with religious worship, seeing as the Jewish gods (and Egyptian gods) to my understanding were half human half animal. (Referring to something Ravensheart posted a while back. Obviously times have changed).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, you're wrong on pretty much all accounts in that post.

Nice way to open the post there. Looking forward to a thorough reply, proving me wrong.

First of all furries are constantly persecuted against online.
Even if they don't make it well known.

I chuckled. Good joke. Even if they don't make it well known? What is "well known"? If they don't make it known at all, which is completely an option, then they will not be persecuted. How do I know this? I've never once been accused, treated like one, and so forth. I'm not a furry however, but I appear to everyone the same as someone who is one and doesn't let it be known. Huge logical gap in your post.

Secondly, persecuted against online? HAHAHA. Go outside. Better yet, wipe the tears off your keyboard and realise that EVERYONE is persecuted against online. Theres not a person in the world who can spend time interacting with people on the web and not be bullied to an extent.

Sadly. So far I've been let down by your post. You started out so self-assured.

I'm not furry myself, but I had a picture of Bunnie Rabbot (from the Sonic the Hedgehog universe) as my msn display picture and within about 10 minutes I had people on my msn list calling me sick twisted and a pervert. You are wrong on this account.

I am wrong on this account? Your weak, anecdote of victimisation does not convince me of anything. Perhaps you should get better friends. I know people who've had cartoon animals as their display pictures, and have had them myself, and they've never once been accused of such things. An exception to the rule proves its not a rule. You're wrong on this account.

Secondly, most furries aren't even into the sexual "yiff" stuff, and they are furry simply because they desire to be in an animalistic body (not that disimilar from my own gender dysphoria). Some are into the sexualised stuff sure, but that's not primarily "furry".
That is a fetish they have. Even this fetish though is not even close to beastiality.

Yes it is. It is close to fantasising about bestiality and 'yiffing', as you put it, is closer to beastiality than (most) alternative fetishes. What is this nonsense?

Can I please see the statistical proof that this vague 'most' are not into it. What I'd like even more is,can I see how this relates to my post at all?

They fantasize about something that can not possibly exist, it is an intellectial property of someone's creation, therefore your opinions and biased closed-minded assumptions can not touch it.

You're trying very hard here to sound intellectually superior. Fair enough.

Calling me close-minded, based on one post, and in such a smug-self assured (see:close minded) post is absolutely hilarious. You sound bigoted to me. What does the fact that it's intellectual property have to do with anything? Why would I want to touch it? I'm not suggesting we should impeach your rights to wank over cartoons. Maybe you couldn't hear what I was saying from the top of your highhorse.

The depiction within the art is not a real living, breathing thing.
I have NEVER met a furry (and I have several furry friends) who are into beastiality, most of them are repulsed by the idea.

Good for you. Except they are into bestiality because they're slapping it to 'beasts'. Hard to spot, I know. I am also fully aware the depictions are not real things, I wasn't born yesterday. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to invent to argue against, but it doesn't even resemble mine.

Most of the time furries don't even get a sexual pleasure out of it, it's merely their desired body type and they feel only feel comfortable roleplaying as an Anthropomorph.

This is where you exit the "frustrating to talk to" land, and fall into the "it's not even funny anymore" hole. I don't know why you wanted to bring up your gender issues but I'll leave those alone. Its up to you and has nothing to do with this, really, no matter how badly you wish to shoehorn it in (no doubt trying to earn my disapproval, which you do not). They do get a sexual pleasure out of it. That's why they yiff, that's why they look at the pictures. I honestly don't know how else to explain to you that they do. Its a fetish. That means they derive pleasure from it. Whether its their choice or not.

Furries unfortunately do not have the same liberties as we haven't quite cracked the human genome and discovered how to alter genes or species.
You are just wrong, on every single point you have made in your post.
Your argument is completely null and void, and I'm off to sleep now.
-Tabs<3-

I crossed out the bit that really just raises ethical and logical dilemmas. No offence.

Here you are, again, saying that I'm wrong on every point. What a shame you didn't address anything I said in my post with anything but lame and obviously incorrect anecdotes.

My argument is not null and void. Saying so is condescending to the point of being pitiable. I think I've shown that your argument was foolish and unsubstantiated. As well as a major strawman. I look forward to your response, hopefully it'll be more comprehensible.

You are completely wrong. I severely doubt you have ANY friends that are furries so then you're ignorant, and uninformed on the whole subject with no clue of anything to do with the furry culture.
You don't understand the mentality behind it and you're so biased that no proof of anything I say or produce will change your mind. I'm wasting my time and I really don't give a shit about arguing with someone as closed-minded as you. Thank you, and goodnight.
-Tabs<3-

 

[Daedalus1942]

snip

You are completely wrong. I severely doubt you have ANY friends that are furries so then you're ignorant, and uninformed on the whole subject with no clue of anything to do with the furry culture.
You don't understand the mentality behind it and you're so biased that no proof of anything I say or produce will change your mind. I'm wasting my time and I really don't give a shit about arguing with someone as closed-minded as you. Thank you, and goodnight.
-Tabs<3-

You've provided no proof, and made only childish use of rhetoric to "change my mind".

You call me close-minded, and yet you're the one refusing to discuss, refusing to examine your stand and making assumptions about me. This is hypocritical. I doubt you even read either of my posts.

If you had any ability to understand what I write you would see that a knowledge of the "furry culture" is completely unnecessary. Knowledge of it, having friends within it and wanting so badly to defend it; creates a bias of its own. You're blinded.

I'll just assume, as you're making assumptions now, that you know you're wrong and that's why all you have to say is "You're completely wrong".

Thanks for the goodnight. I'll wish you one when you make even a fleeting effort to engage me.

I'm refusing to discuss anything with you because you're clearly of the frame of mind that furry = beastiality.
You don't seem to understand there are different types. Some enjoy the sexualised "yiff" that's their business, I don't judge them (unlike you).
For the majority of furries you meet (well YOU won't, but you get my point) are not even into the sexualised stuff. They merely feel comfortable rping or acting like anthropomorphic animal. There's no law against that. They are wired that way from birth. It's really no different from my own gender dysphoria. Making assumptions? How is it farfetched to believe if you clearly think furries are wrong and into beastiality, then there's a pretty safe bet you aren't friends with one (that you know about anyway).
Also, I appreciate the line about me supposedly "wanking to cartoon animals" despite previously stating I myself am not furry, just have alot of furry friends.
I'm trying to remain civilised and objective, but boy.. you are making it really really difficult.
-Tabs<3-

 

[TimeLord]

Most of the time furries don't even get a sexual pleasure out of it, it's merely their desired body type and they feel only feel comfortable roleplaying as an Anthropomorph.

This is where you exit the "frustrating to talk to" land, and fall into the "it's not even funny anymore" hole. I don't know why you wanted to bring up your gender issues but I'll leave those alone. Its up to you and has nothing to do with this, really, no matter how badly you wish to shoehorn it in (no doubt trying to earn my disapproval, which you do not). They do get a sexual pleasure out of it. That's why they yiff, that's why they look at the pictures. I honestly don't know how else to explain to you that they do. Its a fetish. That means they derive pleasure from it. Whether its their choice or not.

This is exactly the kind of ignorance about the Furry community that I specifically wrote this thread for.
I am a furry. I do not get any sexual pleasure at all from either the community, the thought of human-animal hybrids, or the kind of pictures that turn up on DeviantArt. In the Furry User Group on this site there are 190 members. NONE of them post sexually suggestive writing or images to my knowledge. That is a very small part of a wider community. I am not saying people like that don't exist. Of course they do. There are a wide variety of people in this world attracted to a wide variety of different and diverse things.