SH:UG

[chriscaffee]

I never said I found it horrifying. I was asking why so many other people here did. I mean, whenever Baba posts something he gets a worse reaction then if Del posted cock.

[Segaholic2]

The penis is a normal human body part.

There is nothing normal or natural about furries.

[Baba O'Reily]

Ah. So we're adopting a 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy.

[Spazz]

Baba, isn't there a difference between "furries" and "yiff" lovers? I though furries were just people who have interest in quad/anthromorphic animals. "Yiff" is where the sexual part comes in, right?

[Baba O'Reily]

Yes. And while I may joke about crossing the boundry between the two, I don't find the pictures erotic.
And then there's the whole bestiality aspect, so people assume I want to fuck a dog.
And typically, 'yiff' is the variety that go out in the fursuits.

[Grant]

When you put on an animal costume hoping to score, your life has pretty much hit a brick wall.

[Light Speed]

Then the damn wall fell on you.

[Zeta]

I never said I found it horrifying. I was asking why so many other people here did. I mean, whenever Baba posts something he gets a worse reaction then if Del posted cock.

Well, because if you're straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or even a pedophile - your preference exists somewhere within the realm of attainable reality.

When you start lusting after fantastic amalgamations of flesh that Should Not Be - not only are you leaning towards bestiality - you have a "sexual preference' towards a group of creatures that does not exist. There's something very wrong with that. I mean, it seems like they just invent a new sexual orientation in order to be part of a community that considers themselves a minority. It's more than a little twisted. And a little offensive to people who want to screw things that actually . .. . EXIST.

Keep in mind, I don't support pedophiles in the least. While I don't think they should be drug out into the street and shot - I certainly don't tolerate them screwing little kids. They're just going to have to keep it in their pants till someone's able to create humanoid sex robots. Or screw 18-year olds that look young. Or something.

Anyways, my point is that at least with the other orientations - their objects of affection have some basis in this plane of reality. Heck, even bestialism makes more sense than the yiffers.

Yiffers . . . don't, really have their heads on straight. Especially the ones who believe that they're duck-billed platypuses trapped in a human body. I mean, a gay or bisexual has some chance at living a happy life. They might face discrimination - but they can still find a mate in another human being.

Yiffers don't really have that chance.

I dunno. It's hard to put why they creep me out so much in words without sounding like a dumbass. But I tried.

[Grant]

I'm surprised that you put yiffers below even pedophiles.

Pedophiles, I would think, are among the very worst the human race has to offer. Yiffers are merely sad, lonely little losers that masturbate to animal drawings (or, in a pinch, a household pet).

It may technically have less basis in attainable reality, but pedophiles actually hurt people. Yiffers don't.

[Dunjohn]

He's not ranking them. He's saying that yiffers lust after something that doesn't exist which just makes them sad cases.

Incidently, this is the first time I've ever seen and/or used the term, "yiffer." Go me!

[Spazz]

I'm with Grant here. Pedophiles are pretty much in the "scum of the earth" category; hurting innocent children.. "Yiffers" are merely dreamers.

[Grant]

He's not ranking them. He's saying that yiffers lust after something that doesn't exist which just makes them sad cases.

I don't think Zeta was creating a list and ranking them, no, but he did seem to imply (to me, anyway) that yiffers are the worst of the sexual preferences, and that at least pedophilia and bestiality "make sense."

I was simply pointing out that although yiffers are a bit strange, at least they don't hurt anyone.

[Zeta]

All I'm saying is that the desires of a pedophile or a beastialist are still more "valid" and concrete than a yiffer. Not that yiffers are worse or more dangerous. I know that pedos and animal-fuckers cause a lot of harm, but they're still more in this "world" than yiffers - speaking about their thought processes, not their actions.

So I think that furriers are harmless in practice, but CAN be more fucked up in the mind. Pedophiles who actually screw kids are more horrible and dangerous, though, even if they're not as coo-coo nuts crazy as some yiffers.

[Popcorn]

All I'm saying is that the desires of a pedophile or a beastialist are still more "valid" and concrete than a yiffer. Not that yiffers are worse or more dangerous. I know that pedos and animal-fuckers cause a lot of harm, but they're still more in this "world" than yiffers - speaking about their thought processes, not their actions.

So I think that furriers are harmless in practice, but CAN be more fucked up in the mind. Pedophiles who actually screw kids are more horrible and dangerous, though, even if they're not as coo-coo nuts crazy as some yiffers.

Uhh, I rather think that you're treading somewhat risky ground in attempting to define what's a "valid" sexual desire or not. As a gay dude, I would've thought you of all people here would be best able to understand the non-definable edges of human sexuality and how it tends to go all over the place at a moment's notice.

I don't think paeodophiles are the scum of the earth, either; I think they just have highly unfortunate sexual preferences.

[Spazz]

I meant they're scum if they act upon those urges.

[Esrever]

Agreed.

As for Furries, what exactly is more "unnatural" about a drawing of chick with cat hands and ears than, say, a drawing of a chick with gigantic eyeballs and legs longer than the entire rest of her body? In both cases you're lusting after a "creature" that does not exist in the real world.

It's just another aesthetic twist that some people enjoy, only a couple of degrees further removed from real people than any of the toon porn the vast majority of you guys seem to enjoy without guilt. I don't think enjoying erotic furry art is the same thing as wanting to fuck a farm animal, just as enjoying sci-fi cyberborg chicks in Heavy Metal is not the same thing as wanting to do both slots of your household toaster.

[Zeta]

Uhh, I rather think that you're treading somewhat risky ground in attempting to define what's a "valid" sexual desire or not. As a gay dude, I would've thought you of all people here would be best able to understand the non-definable edges of human sexuality and how it tends to go all over the place at a moment's notice.

That's actually why I'm critical of furries. I often get the feeling that they're just making it up so that they can be part of a minority. Especially the weird ones who talk about furry/otherkin/yiffer's "rights". It's kind of insulting to others with sexual preferences that you can act upon.




It may be a little hypocritical, but let me draw you a picture . . .


You know those white boys from middle-suburbia who come from good homes who like to pretend they're black? How they act like they were raised in the ghetto and and understand how it feels to deal with thousands of years of black opression and slavery? The "wiggers"?




Well, to me it feels like wiggers are to actual blacks as yiffers are to gays. Now do you understand a bit better about where I'm coming from?

It feels like they're sad little people who made up a minority for themselves. And as a part of an actual minority, I find that a wee bit insulting.

[Double-S-]

Which are more retarded, wiggers or yiffs? It's debatable.

[Spazz]

Well, to me it feels like wiggers are to actual blacks as yiffers are to gays. Now do you understand a bit better about where I'm coming from?

It feels like they're sad little people who made up a minority for themselves. And as a part of an actual minority, I find that a wee bit insulting.

I see what you're saying, but I seriously doubt that's the case. I doubt that they purposely made themself a minority on their own. Everyone in the world wants to be happy and accepted. Just like gays have been discriminated into a minority, so have "yiffers," but not in the same <i>way</i> as gays/pedos/etc. has, only because what they desire doesn't quite exist. This is why you can't completely compare gays and yiffers. They're in two different areas. Gays/pedos/etc. are discriminated in an area where what they desire exists, and "yiffers" are discriminated in an area where what they desire is nonexistant.

[Baba O'Reily]

You know, you seem to classify furries as people who only want to have sexual relationships with fucked up drawings.
As you'll notice looking over my posts, you'll see that my tastes are not limited to anthromorphs.
In fact, it's probably one of the smallest, if it even is, desires in my heart. However, go on, I find this debate interesting as hell.

[Spazz]

You know, you seem to classify furries as people who only want to have sexual relationships with fucked up drawings.

If by "you," you mean me, then find in my post where I said <b>furries</b> want to have sex with nonexistant desires.

[Esrever]

It may be a little hypocritical, but . . .

Uh yeah, it really is. Good call.

Just because you can come up with a reason why your sexual interests are more "logical" or "real" than someone elses doesn't mean you get to write them off as a bunch of insincere poseurs. People like what they like... whatever causes it is not concious decision making or rational thinking, it's impulse shaped by factors beyond outside of their control, be it biology or experience or any combination of both. I would have thought that you of all people would have got that.

Poseur gays? Give me a break, man.

[Popcorn]

That's actually why I'm critical of furries. I often get the feeling that they're just making it up so that they can be part of a minority. Especially the weird ones who talk about furry/otherkin/yiffer's "rights". It's kind of insulting to others with sexual preferences that you can act upon.

So, uh, why do you think they're 'making it up'? That seems like an awfully bizarre thing to believe. And I don't see how the 'attainability' factor has any influence on the 'validity' of any sexual orientation or fantasy.

[CM August]

To reiterate what was said by Baba O'Reily - what IS the definition of "yiffers/furries?" Is it those who are completely uninterested in ordinary humans, or is it simply anybody who's aroused by a voluptuous anthromorph as much as a voluptuous human? Both exist, of course, but the line between the two is blurred. From what i've read even in just this topic, there isn't a solid definition. If that's the case, I guess my question was more rhetorical than anything.

[Spazz]

A <i>furry</i> is in the broadest definition, someone who finds the idea of anthropomorphic (humanlike) animals, in art, fiction, cartoons, costume, or other media, to be an appealing one. Furries are an extremely diverse group and no one furry may possess all, or any, of the traits typically associated with the group; furries can range from people who are fans of old Warner Bros. and Disney cartoons; people who enjoy portraying anthropomorphic animals in art; people who enjoy imagining what a future, past or alternative world might be like if humans were replaced with or accompanied by anthropomorphic animals; and people who like wearing costume tails, ears and/or animal mascot costumes, to those who feel spiritual connections to animals or to the animal form; those who admire the beauty, power, speed or grace of of the animal form; those who believe they have empathy with or can communicate with animals, for example people who work with them; people who have a great deal of respect for animal welfare.

<i>"Yiffers"</i> are those who do enjoy the erotic/adult side of furry, like those who participate in any other sexual fetish or behaviour, almost always harmless in their indulgence of their fantasies, which usually involves erotic art and roleplay, and may involve consenting activities with fellow adults while in costume.

<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... Excerpt</a>