I think there's a reason they're discriminated against. NWS

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 7:35 pm

Hm... How can I respond to that?

Jaden · Post by **Jaden** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 8:15 pm

I really don't care to much about this either way but that picture combined with the rest sort of gives off a Jeffrey Dahmer vibe...

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:00 pm

What ticks me off is furries who claim that it's a sexual orientation. It's not. It's a fetish. There's a BIG difference. It's like someone who's turned on by feet saying that "feet" is their sexual orientation . . .

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:57 pm

It's an orientation if they actually do want to fuck animals, the real kind. At least I would think so. When I lived in a Florida there was an article in the paper about how a guy got caught raping cats or something.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:54 am

That slandering bunch of liars at the paper got it all wrong.

It was perfectly consentual! You should've seen the way that pussy was rubbing up against my leg, constantly purring - she was practically begging.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:27 pm

Possibly. But I still say wanting to fuck things that only exist in the imagination can't count. You can't take out a chipmunk/human hybrid out to dinner because it doesn't exist. And hopefully, never will.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:40 pm

I know. That's why Furry is only one under a list of porn I'm interested in, most of which can be found here.

The Scarlet Scorpion · Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:29 am

Amazing Grant wrote:That slandering bunch of liars at the paper got it all wrong.

It was perfectly consentual! You should've seen the way that pussy was rubbing up against my leg, constantly purring - she was practically begging.

That's like something out of a "Law & Order" episode from Hell.

Zeta wrote:Possibly. But I still say wanting to fuck things that only exist in the imagination can't count. You can't take out a chipmunk/human hybrid out to dinner because it doesn't exist. And hopefully, never will.

In the near future, there'll probably be the available technology to create chipmunk/human hybrids.

Almost makes me want to become a luddite.

On the subject of "Furries" (the perverted human kind, not the anthropomorphic kind), I think I gave up on "C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation" around the time they did a story with murderous furries. So many shades of wrong.

But seriously, in terms of perversions, would pedophilia/hebophilia qualify as fetishs, or orientations. Sure, they're perversions, through and through, but often times pedophiles and hebophiles are only attracted to children and teenagers, respectively -- so what do you guys and gals think?

And what about necrophilia?

Okay, I'll stop now... >_<

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:34 am

Technically, they're fetishes, not orientations. An orientation typically affects your ability to reproduce.
Straight is an orientation. Pedophile is a legal term that means you like the little ones a little bit too much. But you still technically are interested in reproduction.
Now, on the other hand, some people who are furries take it as their orientation and are totally disinterested in sex with other human beings. This affects their ability to reproduce, making it an orientation. I, however, look for a heartbeat. That is strictly in the interest of reproduction... or so I'm told.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:33 am

Pedophile is a legal term that means you like the little ones a little bit too much. But you still technically are interested in reproduction.

Because we all know that adult men can reproduce with prepubescent boys.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:19 pm

Pedophile is a legal term that means you're so completely fucked in the head it's not even remotely funny.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:39 pm

Be quiet, you'll hurt Silv's feelings.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:42 pm

If he didn't mistake you for an 8 year old girl when you put on your school girl outfit, you wouldn't care.

Post by **Green Gibbon!** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:44 pm

You're just jealous.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:55 pm

Shut up! What would you know!

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:56 pm

chriscaffee wrote:
Pedophile is a legal term that means you like the little ones a little bit too much. But you still technically are interested in reproduction.
Because we all know that adult men can reproduce with prepubescent boys.

Tu madre!

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 5:07 pm

"Su," not "Tu."

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:45 pm

In the near future, there'll probably be the available technology to create chipmunk/human hybrids.

Honestly, I would not mind a prehensile tail. Not because I think it's sexy or anything, but it would no doubt be useful to have another appendage. I've always thought humans got screwed over, evolution-wise - in that department.

Of course, if we're going down this path, I'd much prefer a cyborg arm with a bunch of different tools in it.

Wait, no I wouldn't. It would problably break down and fry my genitals during masturbation.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:47 pm

Why would you want a prehensile tail? So you could give yourself anal? And where would you fit it? Are you going to start cutting holes in all your underwear and pants?

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:56 pm

Well for one, so I could hold my drink/food while I type. Or for bringing in multiple groceries all at once. Or for dealing with the DS's annoying complicated control scheme that requires you to touch the middle screen while operating two seperate sets of buttons on either side.

Or I could use it as a belt, to keep my pants up.

And during nights when the moon was full, it would transform me into a monsterous alien baboon so that I could smite my enemies.

As you can see, there are many uses an extra appendage could provide.

The clothes thing would be sort of complicated, though.

Oh, ans for anal - I already have various household objects converted for such purposes. I don't need a tail to do that.

Locit · Post by **Locit** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:58 pm

"Su," not "Tu."

Huzzah for Spanish class! Anywho, I would like to take this opportunity to ask, once again: Stop Posting Furries, Please. PLEASE.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:55 pm

If we all had tails, then pants would already have holes, so it'd be no big deal.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:58 pm

I could type and use the mouse at the same time . . .

Or I could play videogames against myself.

Of course, in winter, I'd need an extra mitten - so it wouldn't be all good.

Actually, I'd settle for psychokinesis. Because that would essentially have the use of a tail - but without the trouble of having an extra body part to keep safe and warm.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:05 pm

Zeta wrote:Or I could play videogames against myself.

How could one tail replace two hands?

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:42 pm

Light Speed wrote:
Zeta wrote:Or I could play videogames against myself.
How could one tail replace two hands?

Maybe if it was done in the style of Tails?