/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 369961)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 135211125523.png - (223.43KB , 666x918 , ritts_halloweenie.png )
369961 No. 369961
You know, I have to ask.

Why is Moot still banning this stuff? I mean, I get not wanting it on an SFW board, but furry drama is dead. The ban serves no purpose any longer, and every other major 'chan board changed their rules years ago.

Why the hold-out on Moot's part?
Expand all images
>> No. 369963
Tradition. Old times' sake. Not knowing any better.
In all honestly, bronies (the obnoxious post-Episode 3 on /co/ kind) seem to be the furries of this generation and stuff.

I mean, I'm not gonna complain about furries. Their obscure fetishes have been paying my (hypothetical) rent for three months now.
>> No. 369965
How come there aren't any tapir fursonas?
>> No. 369966
File 135211293752.jpg - (52.56KB , 516x700 , frootcake_uncommonanthrotapir.jpg )
There's a few nameless ones.
You know what's surprisingly rare in the furry community though?
Beavers. It seems like there'd be more but NOPE everyone's an otter.
>> No. 369967
1. Hard to make sexy (aka furries don't know tapirs are hung and those that like chubby creatures like -very- chubby creatures) or cute (furries hate imagination and effort)
2. Originality is frowned upon as trying too hard
3. Never been in a disney movie
4. Not a housepet or more exotic housepet relative (ignore their relation to horses)
5. Has a nose that goes way past it's lower lip, so they can't use the same 3 or 4 faces they always use

Most of these also apply to pangolin and other cool creatures.
>> No. 369968
Ok, what about Vampyroteuthis infernalis?

That strikes me as odd. If you're going to draw your own character, why not pick something different or cool?
>> No. 369970
People go with what they like and they like stuff they've seen. Rare and different animals don't get a lot of attention outside people actually interested in rare and different animals. Also, Furries tend to draw from the common mythology, so more Anubis and dog breeds than Sekhmets and addaxes. I can't speak for the whole fandom, and there are always exceptions to the rules.
>> No. 369971
File 135211592045.jpg - (60.45KB , 559x619 , furseiseki_filthy casual.jpg )
>> No. 369972
Harder to give those a hairdo?
>> No. 369974
File 135211887922.png?nsfw - (272.94KB , 600x475 , pinkpepper_pinup-f-tapir_picnic.png?nsfw )
>> No. 369976
File 135212727425.gif - (58.62KB , 658x335 , riversrunwithfurryblood.gif )
>> No. 369978
I assume the furry drama and a DNP list a mile long might be an issue here.
>> No. 369979
Honestly? I'd imagine the long standing ban is so the kinds of drama we originally saw never occurs again. Furries as individuals can be alright, but let them start going and the loudest and most wtf amongst them quickly raise their heads. It's not like it stops a furry thread from occurring in /b/ every now and again
>> No. 369982
I bet they can still get pretty riled up if you namedrop the wrong artist at the wrong time of day. It's probably like that with some fanbase or other across all the boards, though.

I've seen a pangolin turn out alright. Maybe artists can't be bothered with all the scales.
>> No. 369995
I think it's allowed on /b/, no?
>> No. 369997
insomuch as spitting is allowed at the O.K. Corral
>> No. 370000
There are no rules on /b/. But there are also no rules about what the mods can and can't delete/close/ban you for on /b/. So it just depends whether or not a mod feels like coming down on it or thinks it would be funny to do so.
>> No. 370002
>I bet they can still get pretty riled up if you namedrop the wrong artist at the wrong time of day. It's probably like that with some fanbase or other across all the boards, though.
Exactly. Most of the drama furries have is nothing new to 4chan. /co/ still has a bug up their ass about Yamino, and don't talk about... well a lot of people on /v/.
>> No. 370003
Also, have any of the other porn-exclusive boards on the other popular chans exploded with drama over furry? I'm seriously asking, I haven't heard of any.
>> No. 370007
I haven't seen much, but none of those chans are anywhere near as large as 4chan.
>> No. 370013
File 13521635207.png - (115.93KB , 212x270 , Mother of god.png )
Furries are horrible cretins and they deserve eternal hellfire.
/Inside joke

The sort of carpet bombing clusterfuckery anyone who utters the word "furry" while describing themselves is hit with is something I've never understood. I've seen people adamantly defend things like gay, lolicon, transexual, ect. and then turn right around and bash furries. Same person who's for equal rights and against discrimination and is accepting of people's beliefs suddenly turns into a giant crit hippo when someone says furry. What am I missing? Is this justified? Can such blatant stereotyping really be true? I've met mixed people from the fandom; some were morons, yes, but some were utterly normal people. Some just liked the aspect of it. Some didn't really care. Some this, some that, all of it what you would see in pretty much any fandom. Seeing as that's personal experience, I can't speak for every single person out there. But I can say there's enough of a niche to say that not every "Furry" is what they're made out to be. I think DasBoSchitt of all people says it the best in this video:

The BoSchitt Vlog: Broniesyoutube thumb
>> No. 370024
Furries hold a special place in the history of the internet for being the original "bring up shit that has nothing to do with the fucking topic at hand" posters.

Look, not all furries are generally bad people. If you think there's a wolf spirit inside of you or whatever fucking bullshit that helps you get it up at night, nobody really gives a fuck except who you're sticking it to, chum. Fursuits are weird and stupid and like humping baseball mascot costumes, but whatever some people shove soccer balls up their ass.

Furries used to have this thing where any conversation topic you were discussing, they would start discussing their fursona, or how the subject involved their fursona, or just how their fursona was going to initiate intercourse with the subject. And frankly, some of it was some real creeper shit. Not just "completely irrelevant to the topic at hand"; more like "this shit would get you locked up if anyone in an actual position of caring saw it motherfucker".

While it might have been only those abhorrent examples of humanity that drew notice, there were enough of them that they made an easy target. I believe Something Awful, back in the day, created an entire subforum for furries which saw rigorous use for about a month until Lowtax banned everyone who posted there and deleted the subforum. They called it the "Lolocaust" iirc.
>> No. 370026
Yeah that happened. And then moot, a goon at heart, decided to do his own version. Known as April Furs Day.
>> No. 370027
exactly. Furries are a weird question, all things told. On one hand you have the supreme right of speech; this belief that anything, no matter how ludicrous, obtuse, or obscene must be treated with due mediocrum of respect.

And on the other hand you have this aspect where furryism doesn't apply to anything outside of itself. It is a potential sexual orientation, but is frequently inhabited by dudes saying they are furry to bolster some kind of internal sexual monologue.

It's a strange argument, and difficult to broach because it is so polarizing.
>> No. 370034
File 135218775177.jpg - (38.77KB , 294x409 , terrorist.jpg )
>Furry is a sexual orientation
Jesus H Christopher what am I reading. Furry isn't a sex. It's like a... Race. Fetish.
The way I hurd it is that alot of furries tend to act like total dickmunchers, or at least the public ones. Like the steam profiles you stumble across that has an ASCII paw and who's top group is Furaffinity and has a furry avatar. That, combined with them being and/or sounding-acting like a 12 year old solidifies in the minds of biased people that all furries must be like that, just like how you see a guy teaching his kid Klingon and you think "All Trekkies must be like this". For every one of those there's probably at least 5 people who just dabble in and/or know of furry shit and just want to look at it and be left alone. It's just like every fandom out there; the loudest are heard the most. Stupid people get the spotlight more than well-content people because they actively seek it, and then set a standard that's superimposed on everyone related to this fandom. If there's any bronies here you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

#osama_spreading_glory_to_the_people #notdead #allhail #allah
>> No. 370046
>like humping baseball mascot costumes
that is my fetish.jpg

>On one hand you have the supreme right of speech; this belief that anything, no matter how ludicrous, obtuse, or obscene must be treated with due mediocrum of respect.
Maybe it's a right, but there's always the faggots that abuse the privilege, yeah. Like >>370034 said,
>If there's any bronies here you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
>> No. 370049
Still, the idea of a right is that it can be used improperly. It would be nice if no one did, but as long as its not interfering with anyone else's right to the same, they can say and act what they want.

The qualifier is that you don't have to respect it. At all. Don't censor, but if someone's being stupid, call them out on it. Hard.
>> No. 370061
File 135222768556.jpg - (76.40KB , 600x576 , rf contempt Terminator.jpg )
>furry drama is dead
Not if retarded assholes have anything to do about it. And there will always be retarded assholes. Proof? Any remotely furry thread on /co/ will be flooded with porn in a matter of minutes.
>> No. 370073
No, I distinctively remember the Animalympics thread being pretty porn-lacking.
Actually, hey!
You were there too!
>> No. 370078
eh, figured I might catch an earful from a lurking SJ'r or some shit, not the other way around.

>don't respect it
and that's just what happened. A lot of the original furries were at the "GUYS I JUST BUILT MY OWN HORSE VAGINA FLESHLIGHT" level of WTF and in that one sentence any respect they could've possibly ever earned flew out the window. It didn't help that the loudest were also the dumbest and most entertaining to mess with. I don't think anyone back in the day really claimed "I'm a sane furry" or "I just like it for the art"; everyone was too busy being horrified by the roving localized human disasters.
>> No. 370086
I see it differently. That would validate trolling, for instance, and that's how it's often abused. I don't care for the u.s.' "first ammendment" or whatever it's called, if someone doesn't have the common sense to know proper limits and doesn't have the respect for it, whoever's in the authority has the responsibility to step in and show them some limits.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the furry communities and stuff, but I've been on the MLP:FiM fandom from about the start, and I saw exactly where things started getting real shitty. At first it was on 4chan and the threads even had a bit of self regulation, even because they had to since mods over there mostly didn't give a shit, but in the focused sites, it got pretty obvious. From then on the more fucked up, the louder they got trying hard to validate their bullshit. Allowing ("loving and tolerating"?) stuff to be around to be "democratic" if the authorities/site owners/mods can help is the same as legitimizing and promoting it. That's how things escalate.
>> No. 370087
It's not about the U.S. "first amendment", it's about the fact that you can say and do practically anything here on the internet and there is no one telling you otherwise.

Common sense can be unbelievably lacking, especially if you have young, socially inexperienced people being dropped into realms that embrace all kinds of questionable sexual activities. Combine that with the fact that frequently the person most able to set the standards for a given community is a misanthrope with a BAN button, and that the classical furfags were whiny attention whores who just got all "help help I'm bein' repressed" whenever someone did hit the "Know your ass ain't 'sposed ta do dat" switch, and trolling was really inevitable.

Another thing that doesn't help is that a lot of Furries used to have "being furry" as really core to their belief structures, which made it almost impossible to tell them anything. Examined aempircally, a lot of furries can from somewhat poor backgrounds both economically and educationally. They frequently came from homes where their parents were arguably more fucked up than they were, and in some cases abusively fucked up.

IMHO, a fair number of the early furries likely adopted their furry identities as a means of exercising control over something in their lives, in this case their sexual identity, which can be a very powerful mental pillar if you think you're sexy as a hawk or something. A lot of them were very forthwith about it because they saw it as something to be proud of. For the rest of us, it was like someone walking into a party and screaming "I have the whips and chains I just need someone to grease my butthole". It didn't make sense to many and quite a few took as a cue to ridicule the fuck out of them because goddamn that shit will fly nowhere near anything of actual importance in the real world.
>> No. 370093
I don't have anything against anthros.

What bugs me are people who will only watch shows, read books, or watch cartoons with anthro characters, or who are very into drawing porn of every furry character, because it seems like you're more indulging a fetish than actually liking a series for its other merits. But I feel the same way with people who only like any character for their fetishistic potential.
>> No. 370100
>The qualifier is that you don't have to respect it. At all. Don't censor, but if someone's being stupid, call them out on it. Hard.

This is pretty much how I feel about it.

If a person is a furry, I don't give a fuck. But when they whine about people 'discriminating' against them, I can't help but think they're kind of an idiot. It's like, yeah, what the fuck did you expect to happen? If you have some bizarre sexual fetish, you keep it to yourself. That's just common sense and decency.

And I think the whole thing started because furries weren't just the first really big group on the internet to take their fetish to WTF levels, but because they were the first really big group on the internet to make their fetish into a lifestyle. You don't see chubby chasers hold conventions where they all hang out in fat-suits, after all.

Nowadays I think most people who hate furries hate them because they're just the type who shows hate for any fetish they think is weird, and/or because furries became really popular to hate. Neither of those are good reasons imo, and they aren't really why hate for furries started in the first place, but it's what seems to motivate most of the hate they get today. The hate just got carried over to new people over time, even if those people don't really know why the hate even started, and now they want to join in on it. That's just how people are.

I don't sympathize with furries at all though, because if people mock you for it (and I mean an actual identity you have, not on an anonymous image board), then you fucked up in the first place by even being open about it. I have plenty of weird fetishes but I keep them fucking private, unless I'm somewhere I know it's okay to talk about them.
>> No. 370140
File 135226008152.jpg - (50.28KB , 500x332 , 1350519943653.jpg )
Okay, I gotta get this out there.
Furry ≠ fetish
Furry ≠ sexuality
Furry = Fandom.
It's nothing like walking into a party with whips and chains, it's walking into a party and saying "I LIKE ANIME". People have anime personas. There's a whole section of porn dedicated to anime (Hentai). People obsess over it. There's a bunch of retards that make it look bad. It's essentially a different frequency of furry. But it never gets as much hate and in fact even gets massive support due to some twist of circumstance. Someone can be a furry and never look at the porn. They can be a furry and still look at normal porn. They can be a furry and still be an adjusted person. You can watch anime and not look at hentai. You can watch anime and not go to cons. You can draw anime and not interject your words with b-baka and tsunder. There's literally no difference between these two things except their content
>> No. 370150
File 135226092293.jpg - (14.74KB , 250x250 , 1348011976477.jpg )
>not looking at the porn

what the devil are they repping it for then
>> No. 370160
File 135226159895.jpg - (29.10KB , 400x300 , speak for me of board of pine.jpg )
It gives them something to identify with. Something to channel their more inner thoughts and opinions through a conduit of sorts. Providing a sense of comfort and security.
>> No. 370178
I know those types of furries exist, but they definitely seem like a minority. But I'm not part of the fandom, so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass like I usually do.
>> No. 370183
As someone who has the fetish and draws for the comunity, I can confirm what you say is true.
>> No. 370199
File 135226470391.png - (455.30KB , 740x416 , 134510861833.png )
>Draws porn
>Frequents porn communities
>Talks to people there purely for the porn
>"They must all be perverts."
I walked into a church today, that proves that everyone is Catholic.
They seem like a minority because they don't broadcast themselves. Apply it to real life. You probably don't think there's alot of Jewish people in your area but you can't know unless you start asking people. There aren't any porn-free furrycentric boards/sites that I can think of, which means you have to ask around. I've met gobs of people through steam who say they like furry stuff and have no outwards appearance of being a social reject or incapable of passing 4th grade grammar. You can't just look into a crowd and make a judgement, you have to interview the individual people. And the people not in the crowd. And the people nowhere near it.
Just like any fandom: Likeminded people coming together to talk about and create for their ship.
>> No. 370202
I admit I sort of envy furry artists. A lot of them make a lot of commission money, and both of my friends who do furry art are really good at drawing and coloring (I'm finally getting the hang of anatomy, but shading eludes me still). You can be really creative in making up a species, too.

I'm wondering as well what the association is between a lot of furries and bara art (as I am a fan of bara, one of those rare ladies who like it).
>> No. 370270
Expect me to be everywhere. Except when there is no signal.
>> No. 370293
Call me crazy, but I'd always liked to do a book about the history of furries. Going all the way back to the '70s/'80s animation industry and underground comic scene and then up to the First Internet Age of VCL and Geocities, eventually culminating in 4chan and MLP and whatnot.

I believe the majority of furry hate originated the same way pony hate does: People within the fandom not knowing when to hold back and annoying the hell out of people outside the fandom. In this case, furries posting their OCs and even porn in places where it wouldn't be appreciated, along with the special cases who start drama genocides wherever they turn. This lead to a mass banning effect that quarantined furries to their own forums and hangouts, helped by the fact that "furry" came to be a racial epithet on the Web, an inside joke amongst kids who've never actually seen macro-dick porn or multi-breasts.

Things cooled down as 4chan arrived and talking about weird cartoon porn became "acceptable" enough that dickgirls aren't completely off-limits to the general consciousness. Furry was and still is taboo, but more and more folks are recognizing that "big titted cartoon rabbits =/= bestiality fetish" and letting the sticks out of there asses. Few even acknowledge that some furries are more melodramatic than others, after seeing the same phenomenon in their own fandoms.
>> No. 370301
Do any of you think there'll be a date when furry may get on 4chan? Like a specific year or something?
>> No. 370307
another femanon here who's a fan of mild-to-moderate bara, though not to fullblown Chris Redfield levels
I think a lot of it has to do with body hair and the whole "bear" image that a lot of gay guys find really attractive, and some of it might also be due to taking the idea of a guy being an "animal in bed" to the natural conclusion

I might just be talking out of my ass though, because I don't personally know any furries and most of my friends who are gay cannot stand bara or other stuff in that vein
>> No. 370309
I think it depends. I'm female and more into bara and my ex, who's bi, was almost exclusively into bishounen, but I've also seen the exact opposite happen. We agreed we wished there was a happy medium between the two, though-- more realistic portrayals of gay couples, like bara, but with plots and romance like yaoi (just not the creepy non-con uguu constantly blushing type, ugh).

I think Chris can be attractive, just not when he's drawn with those giant Street Fighter forearms, because that weirds me out. Although I laughed when Conan O'Brien reviewed RE6 and commented that Chris was hot.

That makes sense, the whole animal-in-bed thing. I've seen even non-furries who love that, the biting and licking and being predatory aspect.
>> No. 370314
File 135235089897.jpg - (27.38KB , 335x459 , fJgx6.jpg )
>> No. 370345
So long as furries exist, they must be battled.
>> No. 370350
7chan was born in part to cleanse the world of furries, but they have done no such thing.
>> No. 370368
That site could benefit from more traffic.
>> No. 370369
Only, and ONLY if retards will stop posting fucked-up porn where it doesn't belong.
>> No. 370373
Yet, they always will, because they know fucked up porn dumps are cheap, easy ways to troll. Somebody will inevitably get their knickers in a bunch over futa, or vore, or S&M, or etc.
>> No. 370387

"unbanning" furry would just be a massive trolling opportunity. It's not like there isn't a furry thread there every time I look at /b/. But like creating a /fur/ board? I expect that would be short, horrifying, and intensely funny for all involved except whatever poor bastard they got to moderate that shit.
>> No. 370401
Would it really be so hard to not just get it out of everyone's system? Unban furry discussion as a concept in and of itself, give something like /d/ or something a place to post it as porn, let it have discussion in relevance to actual connected boards or just general discussion, and start flexing that sexy new batch of janitors and moderators to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow.

Yeah, it'd suck for a while, but can it be weighed as better or worse than the current path? I think that's why Moot doesn't want to change it the most, he's afraid the backlash will be too powerful to deal with. I don't think he really cares about actually hating furries anymore.
>> No. 370402
i admit to having a sort of trainwreck curiosity about the furries who treat it like their lifestyle, not their fetish. similarly curious about the people who live the 24/7 bdsm lifestyle - i can't parse the sort of mindset that takes what gets them off and then goes "yes this should be in all aspects of my life."
>> No. 370407
Personally, I don't really think so. The stigma against furries is more than just that of the lifestyle, it was really of the public behavior that so many brought to the forefront of every aspect of their lives.

You say it'll be fine, but the presence of the bronies really detracts from that idea. And the thing about it with furries is, it really comes back to that whole "you don't have to respect it" thing. Making it OK is personally distasteful to me, having been on the internet from around 1996 onward and really watching furries not just in 4chan but all over the web.

You're into hairy guys, chains and whips, ladyboys, whatever. It doesn't matter because those are the things you go off and you do in private or with a partner or maybe a few. But when you make that your public stance, the platform from which you base all judgements and biases, it's annoying. If gay people started off every sentence with "so I was getting fucked in the ass the other day", the novelty quickly wears thin.

Plus, a lot of furries were the kinds of life failures that just didn't merit emulation for any reason. The initial notion they carried, that somehow being part of this sub-culture made them special and unique snowflakes, lead basically to Chris Chan as a kind of penultimate example. It was the combination of these two aspects of most furries that greatly annoyed a lot of people across a lot of different forums, and creeped pretty much everyone out.

The hatred is kept alive because there is basically no reason to ever act like that. You say there are reasonable people living the furry lifestyle, and, while I can believe that, the thing is is that they don't really live their lives in such a way that everything is about being a furry. Nothing damaged the furries' reputation like they themselves did. To unban them would be to give the tacit okay to the behavior initially committed under their banner. That is not an "okay" I would ever give, nor is it one that m00t wants to revisit, methinks.
>> No. 370417
>they must all be

I guess you missed the part where he said minority. Every single Furry site I have found is at the very least 70 percentfilled with porn.
>> No. 370419
And that's the point. Most imageboard furries don't want to talk drama. They want to post porn. Making a /fur/ itself would focus drama there, but here's a different scenario.

/d/ gets the porn,
/b/ and /r9k/ get the drama if they want to talk about it.
And MAYBE /soc/ gets the meetups. Probably not.

Speaking as someone from /d/, most of us already have all the fetishes and borderline furry fascinations, and more importantly, most of us are for taking the porn. That's not just conjecture, every time they're asked they want it. The only issue is the burst of transition will suck. We had the same with Dmitrys and western porn. Dmitrys was allowed and for about a year, EVERY problem was placed on the western porn 'newfags'. And then, something interesting happened... people stopped whining. And now nearly every thread is a combination of western and eastern porn.

I'm not saying furry will have that same luxury, but /d/ would easily be able to manage it. We report troll and drama threads, not get involved. Yes, it may not be fun, but with the anger about every fetish thread getting clipped and trimmed to the point of becoming discussion and links to removed posts, it's probably worth the change.
>> No. 370425
File 135248800198.jpg - (44.63KB , 600x610 , Raccoon.jpg )
>If gay people started off every sentence with "so I was getting fucked in the ass the other day", the novelty quickly wears thin.

Double standard. Straight guys between the approximate ages of 15-50 preface every conversation with "so I was fucking my girlfriend/wife/prostitute the other day" even if its a complete lie. Sad to say it, but men of either orientation base much of their worth in their social circles with how much they are getting laid; they have to brag about their sexual conquests in order to keep their "cred". Same as rich people basing their worth on how much cash they have; so they preface every conversation talking about a luxury car they bought or what they did on their 50-foot yacht the other day.

Also, I say this on every furry board I come to whenever this topic comes up. The stereotype about furries being oversexualized perverts is completely true. But this is a truth about humans in general. If you allow any fandom free reign on a nsfw board, they're going to post porn. Humans tend to like porn, and lots of it, regardless of what type they prefer to look at.

Being homosexual, I REALLY don't like the "sexy screenshots" thread in /jam, but far be it for ME to impose my own preferences on what should or should not be allowed (I'd love there to be a similar thread with boys, but that would be ridiculous; it's majority rule, I realize that completely). My point is, the whole furry "drama" thing is just an excuse, whether realized or subconscious. You just don't want furries around because you don't like furry porn and don't want to see anything even suggesting of such. You come to this board expecting to see things you like and not see things you don't like, which is the entire reason you come here at all. Otherwise, you'd go to some other board.

In either case, furries don't generally create drama among themselves. There are occasional arguments on the merits/demerits of "cub" (rare because most boards that allow furry still disallow perceived-underage stuff) and sometimes nitpicky opinions about human/realistic genitals and whether canine anthros should be digitigrade or plantigrade and whether or not to have different/colored head hair on top of the existing fur, etc.. But for the most part, drama is created by non-furry trolls who come into the furry boards and talk about how terrible furries are. On a board like this, which is a little on the slow side and filled mostly with reasonable people, that wouldn't happen.

Personally, I don't give a crap either way. If there was a furry board, I would go there and talk about furry stuff and maybe post furry porn. If there was not, I will continue going to other furry boards. I just wanted to make a few points about the issue that I feel are being misunderstood or misrepresented.
>> No. 370431
>Sad to say it, but men of either orientation base much of their worth in their social circles with how much they are getting laid; they have to brag about their sexual conquests in order to keep their "cred".
>channers getting laid
>anyone believing
>> No. 370437
>double standard

except not really. We don't have to treat anyone who shoves their sexuality in other peoples' faces for any reason with any respect. Bros starting out every sentence with details of their sexual exploits is also be very annoying. The difference is that they don't; it may be core to them, core to what they do, but if they start off every sentence with some lurid sexual detail then they are quickly classified as douchebags and suitably mocked.

I don't really give a fuck about the porn. Some of it's hot, most of it is 110% WTF. But the thing is, if it stays in the 1 furry thread or to furry boards then it's fine, I don't care, I don't have to look at it. It is the insertion of furry porn, furry drama, or furry opinions into topics that have nothing to do with being a furry in any way shape or form, as well as the public displays of disturbing sexuality from people you'd never want to watch fuck anyway that really grew the furry hatred.

Gay, Straight, Bi, BDSM, wearing ones' sexuality on ones' sleeve for any kind of preference or fetish is ludicrous, dull, and displays a stunning lack of any kind of social graces. It is not bad that you have these preferences or enjoy the porn. That's fine, that's cool, that even jibs with *chan culture in a certain respect. It's when that behavior becomes your only talking point as a person, and a talking point that you can't help but bring up in other discussions, that people really lose respect for you.

Ask any femanon what the worst, creepiest, greasiest pickup line she ever had was and after her explanation you'll have a good understanding of what it was like dealing with these people on a day to day basis. A best, they were decently normal people who were far too open about how much and what kind of porn they looked at. At worst, they were potential sex offenders who were one public indecency charge away from a straight jacket.

It's about having the social graces to not force that lifestyle on others. The reputation furries currently have was earned entirely by proponents of the fandom, much like the bronies. The problem with it is much the same problem as a lot of the asexuality, pansexuality and similar groups; putting "asexual" on your profile page does not automatically grant you anything in terms of respect, general knowledge and intelligence, or even reasonable debate. It doesn't give you free reign to act however you see fit because it falls in line with the fandom. And if you just so happen to take your significant other out into the streets and start fucking them with a dragon dildo while wearing a fox suit, it does not protect you from ridicule and mockery.

Basically, if you think that you can just dump your porn into someone elses' lap in every time you talk to them and expect them to be okay with it, you are wrong. The reputation was earned by the furries and I see no trouble letting it stand as a reminder to all those that follow. It is not about shaming people for their sexual preferences, it's about the fact that these people have done things that should make them ashamed of themselves. It's a very fine line to walk but the difference is there.
>> No. 370438
You could always just ban the people who don't get that porn doesn't go on a NSFW board and let a porn board do what it wants.
>> No. 370440
File 135249661943.jpg - (71.57KB , 824x1000 , rf LOOK KITTY A WIZARD.jpg )
Oh look, a gay person derails thread!
>> No. 370443
Missing the point. It isn't about the porn. It's about the behavior. Do you want the porn? There are furry porn boards out there right now. Speaking as a long-time netizen? The necessity some people feel to inject their smut into every single aspect of their lives and then try and inject it into every single aspect of others' lives is hideously unattractive. It violates social mores, it violates other peoples' rights to their own attractions, it violates the posters' own dignity in quite a few cases.

Furries were really the first and most notorious of this. That's why the hatred is so widespread.
>> No. 370447
Twister pls
>> No. 370456
File 135250757385.jpg - (103.68KB , 601x599 , everyfurrytype.jpg )

You're so entirely full of it. Where does this deep-seated hatred of furries come from, for you personally? because I can tell as plain as day that you're ESPECIALLY incensed about the topic. Or are you just upset because your plain heterosexuality is boring compared to all the wtf crap everyone looks at on the internet, and you're feeling unappreciated?

You're as bad as the people going on about how ALL Muslims are all insane murdering extremists just based on the actions of a few. Yes, some terrorists are Muslims; but not all Muslims are terrorists. Islam is a BIT more complex and nuanced than Jihad. Do you want me to provide you with an extensive LIST of the different types of furries? I can do that, too. But for now, refer to the image I posted. There's some common types.

Also, for the billionth time, not all furries wear fursuits. In fact, most of them don't, because even cheap fursuits are EXPENSIVE AS HELL to make and most furries — like most people in general — are too poor for that. To say nothing of the fact that they're said to be uncomfortable and hot to wear (and darn near impossible to have sex in) and that most don't even like the idea. I'm sorry that you, like most everyone else it seems, get your entire knowledge base of "furry" from 4chan and that one episode of CSI, and then assume that's total reality. It's ridiculous, childish, and sad. Are you the kind of guy who watches those "Ancient Aliens" specials and assume it's fact just because it's on The History Channel?

By the way, I hear some ancestors of yours had slaves. Some of my African American friends think that you people totally earned your reputation for being racist scumbags, so they're coming over to lynch you tomorrow. Oh? It wasn't actually YOU who did those things? Sorry, can't help you man.

If you actually made up that all trolltastic nonsense just to cause "furry drama", you also proved my other point that such drama is caused by trolls. Thanks. I doubt you could be capable of thinking that far in advance; but I just thought I'd cover all my bases while I'm here.


I derailed a thread about furries by talking about furries? I really must be a wizard.
>> No. 370458
>comparing furries to muslims
omfg are you for real
>> No. 370469
File 135252247764.png - (136.80KB , 284x216 , 3f8727f50bb0abb6c4a138c00c08e341.png )
If you look in the toilet and you find shit what have you accomplished.

Stop looking at sites that are %70 porn and you'll stop finding people who are there for the porn.

Refer to
I said this already. Furry is not a fetish. It's a fandom. Furries aren't sex objects, they're fictional little people animals. Saying "furry" doesn't make a conversation about sex.

You two, here's a knife, fight to the death for my amusement. However the furry is somewhat right. From what I've seen furries don't make dramas by themselves. They're all well and content. People just stir up shit FOR them. Having furries on a board doesn't create intrinsic drama, it creates a possible catalyst for it. The reactant is a bored person with internet access. As for dumping your porn in other people's laps have a gander at a few fetish threads on bee. If it's gay, straight porn will be posted. If it's traps, people will tell them they're stupid. Nobody is to blame for this. No GROUP is to blame for this. Blaming furries for crossposting porn is like blaming brown people for terrorism. Al Qaeda is made of brown people, this doesn't make brown people terrorists. Furries shitpost, this doesn't make furries shitposters. It makes the INDIVIDUAL a shitposter/terrorist. That sort of canvas ideology is why so many people don't get along (See: Democrats and Republicans). There may be a higher amount of them in a certain fandom but it still doesn't make them ALL that way.

Not gonna get involved in the whole faeries versus jocks thing you two have fun.

See, look I compared furries to Muslims too.

Dear everloving spaghetti god please stop. You're acting like every stereotype ever. I'm not saying that to be mean, I even just got yo back on this post, just stop with the words you are forming. stoopospoptoptopstop
Also that list is %90 negative stereotypes and it pretty much back up what he's saying.
>> No. 370485
File 135256893686.png - (148.88KB , 330x386 , rf Kitty tries to hold back the laughs.png )
>> No. 370486
I think I like your method of thinking. Futa isn't a fetish, it's a fandom.

If someone happens to find futa porn when they look for futa art, that's a reflection on THEM.
>> No. 370491
when i was a little kid on the internet for the first time i came across furries and thought they must be the cool kids, because they were nice and a lot of them were good artists with cute animal characters. at nine or ten or whatever i was i kind of wanted to be accepted into their group but i couldn't get into the whole animal people and fursona thing at all, so i never did. maybe i dodged a bullet there.

the furries i know today though really are just people who... like to draw animal people characters and have an animal person character to represent themselves. the ones who draw furry porn do it because there's ridiculous amounts of $$$ to be made from the minority for which it truly is a fetish (although it's usually coupled with another fetish). that's kind of why furry as fetish is kind of questionable though, just because there's so often another fetish present in there, like babyfur shit or the muscle mountain thing, where that fetish is pretty obviously the thing that makes it "hot" to them and the character it's on just happens to be a fox dude. not that some furries aren't into beastiality or xenophilia, that's a real confirmed thing that is true, but i think they are just a small but particularly toxic subgroup.

why is there so much furry porn in general? probably because the furry fandom is composed mostly of young adults and it's huge. fandoms like that are almost invariably filled with porn because that's... just what fandom does. and let's be honest, most artists draw porn even if it's not going to see the light of day. doesn't matter what the subject is, usually just characters they are used to drawing, which happens to be anthropomorphic characters often enough in this circumstance.

also i don't really care what anyone's opinion on fursuits is, it takes some serious craftsmanship to be able to make some of those costumes. props to them
>> No. 370500

Exactly this. I agree with everything.

My biggest point is that furry isn't a type of porn; it's a type of character — that is, any character that has both human and animal traits, an anthropomorph. Any type of fetish or porn can be attached to the "base" of a furry character, but the base doesn't automatically have a pornographic element on its own (heck, it probably does not even have an primarily-defined gender). Any furry "fandom" you are familiar with will probably be a porn imageboard, and not representative of the whole concept of furry. Even Bugs Bunny is a furry character. That means if you watch Looney Toons and like Bugs, congratulations, you're technically a furry of one type. That doesn't mean you participate in the fandom or look at that kind of porn; it just means you like the "base" of what furry is all about.
>> No. 370510
File 13525886712.jpg - (25.73KB , 272x206 , 1351647530909.jpg )
Futa is necessarily about sex from the start. Women with penises. There isn't really anything nonsexual about that. You can't put that into a situation and fully expect it not to end up at sex in under a few posts. Furries are a group of peoplethings. You can interject them in, say, a children's show and it would take quite a stretch of reasoning to make it seem like it was about sex. Furries in general are not geared towards a certain direction; that is to mean, it can be literally anything. They're not giant tentacle monsters that are made up of penises and sustains itself by raping people. They ARE people(thingsanimals). You can have a furry and make it a totally agenderous asexual being with a job as a tax consultant who happens to be a catthing.

I guess what I'm saying is you can play madlibs with this. Replace furry with Asian. A normal Asian human person from the continent Asia. Would you say all the same things you say about furries if you had to use the word Asian instead? Asians are a fetish. It's a really stupid and awkward thing to go to a party and tell everyone you like Asians. It creeps me out when people say they're Asian.
Asians are people. Furries are, intrinsically, no different. There's nothing intrinsically sexual about Asians. Same with furries. It's what you do and think to them that shapes what they are.

This is... %90 true. You don't need a fursona to be part of the fandom. And a fursona isn't a sex object either. It's the same thing as a Naruto OC or Sherlock ect. (Putting that out there)

Don't be so harsh about it. Liking Looeny Toons doesn't make you a furry. In the same way someone can watch MLP and not be a Brony. If you like it enough to pursue it THEN you are. And it doesn't have to necessarily be a furry should it be anthropomorphic. Personally I believe that in order for something to be furry the person who created it has to say that it is. It can be an anthromorph and not a furry, like how you can be a human and not a Doctor Who character.
>> No. 370515
>but furry drama is dead
>people start talking about futa on day 2
>> No. 370521
That's not furry drama. That's futa bitching. And if you've ever been on /d/ or elsewhere, that shit goes down independent of furry all the time.
>> No. 370522
And if futa drama is equal to furry drama and it hasn't broken the board, either it's not a qualifier for why something should be banned and furry should be allowed, or it doesn't matter and then neither does furry drama.
>> No. 370527
I see some people really want to talk about futa.

Do you want to talk about it on /co/?
>> No. 370533
Fine. I'll play your game.

>Asians are necessarily about sex from the start. Asians with penises. There isn't really anything nonsexual about that. You can't put that into a situation and fully expect it not to end up at sex in under a few posts.
>> No. 370535
You're being an ass, but I agree with about half of your point.

If you have a character that is a futa, but they never engage in anything remotely sexual, you just like the idea of a chick with a dick as a character. If their penis never enters into any important story parts, it really just is being a fan rather than a fetish. It's just harder to convince people that wanting more stories involving women with penises is not for sexual gratification than wanting more stories starring funny animals.
>> No. 370536
I get the argument for furries not being a fetish, but honestly? For most furries it seems like a fetish.

it's like, you can like fat people but not have a fetish for them, but that doesn't mean that fat fetishists aren't fetishists.
>> No. 370537
That seems right. Furry has an absurd number of fetishists, but that still doesn't mean that there aren't people who enjoy it non-sexually. Or that there aren't people who enjoy it both ways.
>> No. 370538
Oh yeah, but that applies to ANY fetish, so that's really not an defense of furries in particular. If we say "No furries are not a fetish, they're a fandom" there really aren't any fetishes out there.
>> No. 370539
what don't you understand about "all furry fetishists are furries, but not all furries are fetishists"

it's really not that hard
>> No. 370540
That isn't the phrasing that most people have used.
Most people have said "Furry isn't a fetish, it's a fandom."
Not "Not all furries are fetishists."
Compare "Fat-lovers aren't fetishists" and "not all fat-lovers are fetishists." The first is clearly at least partially false. The second is true. Same applies to furries.
>> No. 370541
File 135262853663.png - (34.72KB , 1331x546 , Untitled.png )
Fandom is an umbrella term that allows for any type of interest while fetishism is a specific sub-type of interest. There's some weird overlapping bullshit, but nothing is really so clean.
>> No. 370542
The guys who claim that fat-admiration is pure as the driven snow, only occasionally tainted by the exceptional fetishists are also absolutely delusional.
>> No. 370543
Well yeah, "nothing is so clean" is my point. Fat-Admiration, or the Futa communities, or BDSM, or any fetish you pick has weird overlapping shit.
>> No. 370588
File 135266314176.gif?nsfw - (114.57KB , 800x762 , Tirrel_Penis.gif?nsfw )
People are still misusing terminology, and though I hate arguing semantics, I really can't stop myself. Sorry.

Fetish - Verb: To make sexual some thing that is not inherently sexual; to pervert, to corrupt.

Fetish - Noun: A non-sexual object or situation that one has a sexual attraction to, usually through correlation.

Bugs Bunny does not have a penis, but he does occasionally dress up as a woman, spontaneously grow breasts, and kiss Elmer Fudd. While it might be debatable whether the cartoon shorts are actually sexual, it's hard to find much of anything ALIVE created by humans that is not somewhat tinged by sexuality. Humans are ridiculously sexual, which is why I've mentioned a couple of times that furries being ridiculous perverts is not particularly special or odd.

Many things can be a fetish, some of them common and some of them not. Attraction to genitals and rear-ends is to be expected via biology; but attraction to breasts is quite unnatural — it's a mainstream fetish created by western society. The human breast is not a sexual organ, its only purpose is to feed young, so attraction to them on their own is a fetish.

However, saying all of furry is a fetish is incorrect. A drawing of anthropomorphic characters having intercourse is inherently sexual, designed to cause arousal in fact. If a person masturbates while looking at such an image, he is not engaging in fetishism. If he does so while looking at a SFW image, he IS. Masturbating while looking at a creature with both genitals and cat ears may later create a correlation, which could cause a fetish attraction to MERELY the cat ears, but that is not how most people work. Most people like dicks and/or boobs, regardless of what they're attached to.

Furry porn is not a fetish; it's porn: it's automatically sexual.

I understand this results in a bit of a paradox. Either everything attached to basic sexuality is a fetish, or virtually nothing is a fetish. My own way of looking at it is whether or not there is a sexual element attached at the time. A person into leather who has sex with a person wearing leather clothing is not participating in fetish behavior; a person into leather who has sex with an inanimate pile of leather clothing is. Thus, the attraction to leather is a fetish, but only on its own.

So furry can be a fetish, but only if it's completely non-sexual and someone is nonetheless sexually attracted to it or aroused by it. This isn't common.
>> No. 370593
god at this point you are being purposely obtuse, aren't you. a fandom for cartoon anthropomorphic animal characters isn't the same as bsdm or futa communities at all. you are being incredibly stupid. stop that.

the closest thing you are ever going to get to a non-fetishistic "futa" community is a community for actual mtf transgender people to talk to each other and that's barely applicable. bsdm communities that say it's "not a fetish" are those batshit ones where it's not just about sex for them, it's about sex and a whole lifestyle where you get people who think it's ok for doms to walk their subs like pets on leashes down the street.

with furries you have a large group of people who like to draw or play with animal characters who don't fetishize it at all in addition to a bunch of guys who are into it because they think it's hot/they think they are literally a wolf. it's not a case of reading playboy for the articles, it's a case of watching mlp so you can write about pinkie pie getting it on with fluttershy or whatever.
>> No. 370598
>Going through TVtropes Small Taxonomy Pools page
It's times like this I wish I could draw.
>> No. 370600
File 135266720484.jpg - (47.60KB , 383x250 , tenrec.jpg )
This is a thing.
>> No. 370609
File 135267068064.jpg - (100.66KB , 264x351 , 5.jpg )
You are all weird, terrible people.
>> No. 370610
File 135267134996.jpg - (29.32KB , 264x351 , 1309332542192.jpg )
>> No. 370611
>Humans are ridiculously sexual
This makes me want an example of a especially chaste species. Like maybe octopuses, who only mate near the end of their lives, or bees, where most of the population never mates at all and the queen is makes relatively few times compared to how many eggs she lays? Possibly some kinds of turtle/tortoise, since the females actually preserve sperm internally just so they don't have to bother with more sex later? Yeah, I'm going to guess that's about as chaste as it gets without reproducing asexually.
>> No. 370616
File 135267556164.jpg - (136.78KB , 500x333 , 437070391_3cb0b80324.jpg )
male salamanders deposit spermatophores, capsules of sperm on top of a gel, usually on twigs or leaves in ponds for a female to pick up with her butt if she feels like it. some salamander species have mating rituals where, in some cases, the male inserts his spermatophore in with his hand if the female is willing, but a lot of species just leave them wherever for wandering females to find and appraise. they don't even come back to check if anybody's taken it. they just don't give a fuck.

i think they probably win for having such a complete disinterest in sex that they have a way to have it without being anywhere near each other or doing anything that is remotely similar to mating behaviours
>> No. 370617
At least we aren't New Yorkers
>> No. 370619
File 135267619595.jpg - (70.58KB , 435x422 , 1344304196674.jpg )
Okay somewhere around the time I left last night and opened this tab today there was a cataclysmic explosion of BS and chittering. I parsed through some of it and read something about humans are inherently sexual and I have to say: Are you having sex right now. Are you thinking about sex, about to have sex or otherwise in some form of sexual situation. Now how often are you in those situations. We aren't inherently sexual in the same way a Swiss army knife isn't inherently a screwdriver.

Not even gonna on all the other hubub going down here. Just holy shit.
>> No. 370623
>furry drama is dead
I think this thread kind of disproves that, somewhat.
>> No. 370625
File 135268069439.jpg - (65.31KB , 425x500 , charles-barkley.jpg )
>this thread
>> No. 370641
I see heated discussion. Drama would be overrun mud-slinging back and forth about what this or that person did.
>> No. 370646
>I parsed through some of it and read something about humans are inherently sexual and I have to say: Are you having sex right now.
I parsed through some of your post and read something about how
other people can be dismissed through poor reading comprehension, and i have to say: Why do you think illiteracy is a good thing?
>> No. 370647
I think it all boils down to how serious you are with your sexual fetishes, what you deem as okay, and your perception of reality.

Like the other day, a friend said they hoped one day we could bioengineer catgirls to exist in real life, and own them as pets. I said I'd be against that, assuming they were more human than animal, and I'd be against purchasing something with human intelligence and keeping it around as a slave. Someone got very deeply hurt at that and said some people would love to be purchased and sold as slaves just to sit on others' laps and be petted and potentially engage in sex with their owners. I'm all for consensual BDSM, and I figure a catgirl with just ears and a tail would hypothetically be as furry as I'd want to get, but I can't stomach "owning" someone. I had an ex who was very supportive of humiliation and of someone walking a "slave" down the street on a leash, but that's farther than I would be able to go.
>> No. 370648
>> No. 370657
that doesn't have anything to do with furries, that has to do with you associating with bad people
>> No. 370659
Yeah, unfortunately, it does.

They are also furries but they frequently discuss or sometimes even draw things unrelated to furries. Depends on their mood. I don't hold the furry thing against them, unless they're photoshopping themselves out of photos and replacing them with MLP characters, but the slave thing I definitely do.
>> No. 370696

The average adult male thinks about sex twice per waking hour and masturbates twice per week. The average adult female thinks about sex once per hour and masturbates once per week.

If you ask any given person if they want to be drop whatever they are currently doing in order to have sex with an attractive person of their choice (or just cuddle naked, whatever), they will most likely say yes. Why wouldn't they? Sex is pretty awesome and humans love to be touched.

Humans are only slightly less sexually excitable than bonobos, but unfortunately are the most sexually REPRESSED species on the planet. That's probably a good thing given how terrible population growth is even considering that. If most every human got sex whenever he or she wanted it, the birthrate would skyrocket ridiculously.

I mean, seriously. Saying humans do not want sex constantly is like saying they do not want sugar constantly. It's built right into our biology, and only toned down by society. Up until very recently (geologically speaking) mammals were weasel-sized losers getting eaten by giant reptiles or giant birds. As a mostly prey species, the best survival technique was to have sex as often as possible. It takes millions of years of evolution to get rid of something like that, not just 2,000 years of civilization saying "No."
>> No. 370699
my bf is a furry and we had a surreal conversation about cat dicks earlier, i think we really bonded
>> No. 370700
Depends on the individual, though. On the other end of the spectrum you have people who are celibate, people who are too traumatized by something to have sex, and asexuals, all who may rarely think of sex or who might think about it but never act on it.
>> No. 370701

If there are personal details, feel free to leave them out, but I need to hear this conversation.
>> No. 370703
File 135278143976.png - (78.46KB , 503x1020 , catdick.png )
He then got weirded out and I made variety of hilarious pussy-themed puns.
>> No. 370705
is he rich

i gotta sell this guy some porn.
>> No. 370706
He's pretty tight with his money. Besides, I already draw stuff for him from time to time.
>> No. 370708
well there one less potential client.
>> No. 371499
File 135380523731.gif - (31.38KB , 1392x289 , well that solves that.gif )
All righty then.
>> No. 371507

Haha. Where you the one who just posted that?
>> No. 371510
Fucking hell moot.

If it's that simple why'd you make /mlp/? I love the show and understand bronies can't shut up sometimes, but I don't think it will have the lasting power of, say, Pokemon, and ponies are more or less synonymous with furries now anyways. Just make /mlp/ into /fur/ and stop acting like you know what you're doing.
>> No. 371513
You're trying to attribute reason and argument to things that just are, because they're to the preferences of a person that wants them a certain way. It needs no more logical reason than that.
>> No. 371517
4chan isn't moot's personal vBulletin messageboard. He relies on his audience to keep his advertising dollars afloat so he can have 4chan running in the first place. If a sizable portion of the userbase thinks it needs a board, either give it to them or explain why it's not worth the time to do so, even though you already kinda did make the board.

Saying "I don't want to make a furry board. That's the answer." isn't logic nor reason. It's a copout like 99% of all the threads on /q/.

I'm not even a damn furry but it think this is silly.
>> No. 371522
File 135383172427.png - (232.27KB , 1012x583 , 1353798687586.png )
>> No. 371529
>INNOCENT /v/ users
>also /v/ but no one raging
>actual video games
Ok I didn't know there was some kinda rivalry with /a/, but that's pushing it.
>> No. 371530
What I'm saying is it's not too different from a child trying to argue a parent in a corner about why they can't have a sugary snack. There may be good reason or validation for it, but "my house, my rules. What you going to do about it?"
He's not giving any reason other than his own preferences, and he doesn't need one. As evidenced by the fact his preferences control the site and forums therein.
>> No. 371531
Moe, bubbie, I loves ya, but the /v/ stuff is trolls. Always was. Nobody's stupid enough to think Video Games are the place for furry porn.
>> No. 371553

You guys, that is a parody of the Kelly Onion strips. It's not supposed to be a logical argument.
>> No. 371558
File 135389786935.jpg - (16.36KB , 346x305 , 1345788359132.jpg )
>He's not giving any reason other than his own preferences, and he doesn't need one.


I don't even give two shits if we never get a furry board. I'm not a furry and don't think 4chan would be worse off without one.

The point is the principle. All it takes is one common sense answer ("I don't want that furry drama shit on my already powder keg of a imageboard") and it would be fine. Actual logic for his actions rather than his lackadaisical "hands-off" authority that has ran 4chan into the ground over the past half decade because he's either lazy or if afraid of 4chan becoming another Something Awful.

Hell, even when Lowatx instituted hilarious horseshit bans on SA for petty shit, he at least gave some limp dick excuses. You can't have a forum as big as 4chan without some logical transparency. Saying "I don't feel like it, and it's my board" means moot doesn't give a shit about the people who made him a faggy counter-culture e-celebrity.
>> No. 371563
Except that A) no, he doesn't have to and doesn't owe you (or any of us) anything. B) furries make up a fractional amount of the user base.
>> No. 371565
Our traffic to 4chan pays for his server costs via ads and the like. Without us retards, moot wouldn't have success on the Internet and would likely not be able to leverage that notoriety towards other projects like he's been doing.

I'm not some entitled bastard asking for 1,000 paid mods to clean up every board. I just want moot to be accountable for his choices, however weak that accountability may be.

"It's his board and he doesn't have to do shit, so if don't like it then leave" is one of the most childish, counter-productive and self-destructive replies you can give about a product, and yes, 4chan is a product even if we're not paying for it.
>> No. 371567
if you call running the site on a shoestring budget with no real interest in his other endeavors "success".

He doesn't owe you and "if you don't like it, get out" was more or less the initial reaction to furries anyhow.
>> No. 371569
Would you please listen to yourself? That's the definition of entitlement, right there. And that's exactly what Moot does not owe you.
You are not entitled to a "legitimate" explanation (and in this case, your definition of legitimate is special and code) for doing or not doing anything with his website. He owes you nothing, not even in philosophy. You are a man who wanders onto a private property and eats fruit from a tree, not because it's a service, not because it's your right, not because you have a contract, not because you were given explicit permission. You are tolerated by the guy who owns the property, owns the tree, owns the fruit and owns the deed. You have no say nor power nor agency in the whole damned shebang.

He does not need to validate you or anybody else with a "real" reason why, beyond it's not what he wants. No more than you have the right to demand your neighbor have a lawn flamingo, and then demand a 'good' reason why they won't put one up. Just let it go.
>> No. 371574
4chan is dying anyway. Soon, moot will get a real job and sell the site off to some Russian millionaire who will pelt it with porn ads and popups.
>> No. 371582
Well to be fair, in many places the neighborhoods DEMAND you mow your lawn, keep the fence painted and on a regulated height etc.
>> No. 371589
File 135396123552.jpg - (17.41KB , 525x350 , 1331697669_Sad-Mitt-Romney.jpg )

I had a feeling you're one of those idiots. I'm just going to walk away from this argument, feel free to feel better about yourself or whatever.
>> No. 371591
You can't write someone off just for using the word entitled.
There are a lot of people who throw it around at every argument, but it is an actual thing people can be.
And you're being it.
>> No. 371594
File 135396728379.jpg - (8.74KB , 192x263 , bob.jpg )
Those are called Home Owners Associations, and that's because the HOA owns the property and the territory, you're just paying to live there. That's right, you're paying to agree to their rules. They make the rules, because they own the thing you're living in. You want to live there, you sign the specific rulesets that say you're pretty much their legal real estate bitch, and pay to be so, for as long as you want to live in their community.

You aren't Moot's HOA. You're a homeless squatter frolicing in his yard, making hats out of refuse and sleeping on old, musty stained mattresses. That is quite literally how much your opinion matters on what he should or must have in his yard for you. Your tolerated existence does not make you a shareholder, stakeholder or benefactor, and does not entitle you to any sort of authority on the goingson of the property. I'm bothering to comment on this because I think you seriously do not know the difference, and I hope the clarification and distinction will help you in other parts of your life.
>> No. 371595
Chill out, I'm not the guy you were discussing with. And actually, in my city the mayor's office regulates some of these stuff that are none of their fucking business ("code of postures" or something), on actual private, bought properties.

As for m00t creating a furry board or not, I honestly don't care. I don't even think there would be material for a whole board, as much or moreso than MLP. Threads about comics? There's /co/. Furry porn? /b/ (or /d/ with borderline furry like monster girls and centaurs etc) last time I saw it. Of course they could use better mods with some sense about board-related stuff, but if he doesn't want to get those, there are other chans. He probably only cared about the users from early 4chan or his new sites anyway.
>> No. 371642
>Gabe Newell buys 4chan
G.A.B.E.N.youtube thumb
>> No. 371652
Obligatory post in a furreh thread.
>> No. 371736
>> No. 371739

>> No. 371742
now... i'm not gonna bring up the old tired arguments for or against furries. i just wanted to say that i find this whole fursona business entirely fantastical as we are already animals. getting in touch with our animal nature without accessing more of our human animality is missing a beautiful aspect of what we already are. "choosing" or "discovering" your animal is about as serious to me as those folk who call themselves religiously Jedi. i can't tell you that you're not. i just don't buy it. please feel free to be offended by this post as this is entirely discriminatory.

that's all.

also, most of you annoy me as much as pocky-otaku-chans.
>> No. 371755
I never understood the point of such posts.
"look at how much I don't care for you".

>> No. 371758
I'd explain the point to you, but I really don't care.
>> No. 371771
Nail on the fucking head for me.

Gays are born gay. Transgenders are born with the wrong body for their brain.

There is no "Amoeba Furry". There isn't the full breadth of the animal kingdom represented in furrydom. Furries feel like it is them and that's what they're meant to be, but there isn't even any shaky research I could point to support that.

You talk about the lifestyle and that it's not a fetish but the thing is, BDSM is a lifestyle. And a fetish. And it's not something the practitioners parade around on the streets. Not everybody likes it, and BDSM people get that. They keep it on the down-low, they don't try to shove what they feel is arousing into your face.

Furries really feel the hate, and I can't deny that there is a spectacular element of hate to it, but at the same time I feel like furries themselves are partly to blame for the hate. You're not all bad people, obviously. But you're the only ones who get massively butthurt over peoples dislike of your fetish. And in the early internet days, you were the only ones trying to shove your sexuality down other peoples throats. The rest of us just went off and masturbated to whatever we felt was hot; gay, pedophilia, gore, BDSM, transvestites, whatever. Furries are the only ones to try and shove their sexuality down the rest of our throats, and that's why they're despised. But again, imho.
>> No. 371785

why does it has to represent anything?

i find anthros cool and interesting. they can be menacing, cute or hot or hell, all of the above.

they're a way to make a character more recognizable, more visually attractive and expressive and what not. they're an artistic choice first and foremost.

interpretating them as some sort of cult to animals is up to the stuck up douchebags that can't get over liking something superficial because they're superficial people themselves.
>> No. 371787
furry is to anthropomorphic as LARPing is to lord of the rings

i don't care if you LARP. i just have no interest in it so i don't want it pushed on me, okay? it's a choice and a hobby. i'm a sports fan. i wasn't actually born this way, and i'm not offended if someone thinks it's stupid, because it's pretty much illogical and nonsensical to be so into my local teams, but I am. it's not a big deal.

it's not a big deal.

it's not.
>> No. 371803
How do you explain to someone that being an otherkin/fictionkin/what have you is NOT the same thing as being gay or trans*, but in a way that won't provoke "but you're wrong, this is who I am, don't be like everyone else and judge me~"

I don't think fursonas are necessarily always created by people who identify as animals, though. I know a couple of people who wanted an online persona, but are self-concious or wanted anonymity of a sort. So they created a character that represents or stands in for them, but isn't necessarily them.
>> No. 371808
Trying to explain to someone that how they self-identify isn't valid in the real world is like trying to sand down wood. You grind a rough surface across them at high speeds and then varnish.
>> No. 371821
Those other fetishes only lay low while they're kept down. Once they even remotely think it's accepted, they're all over the fucking place. See: MLP fandom.

I've seen pedophiles complaining here about they're being sooo persecuted now on 4chan by the mods. Well, it's because they started pissing everyone else more than before and got the backlash for it, simple as that.
>> No. 371943
File 135449648239.png - (24.05KB , 76x132 , dfdfnfgfgng.png )

>Gays are born gay. Transgenders are born with the wrong body for their brain.
>> No. 371944
The reason I believe people are born gay (or straight, or asexual, or whatever) is because I've had people try to lead me away from certain behaviors "because you're not a lesbian, only lesbians do that". These things include having short hair, not having a huge shoe collection, not wearing revealing clothes, not liking romance movies, playing video games/reading comics, and having difficulty multitasking (yes, my father believes multitasking is an inate trait "real women" have and lesbians do not). If I can convince him we are born something and our tastes in media don't have anything to do with it, he'll back off and let people be themselves.
>> No. 371947
>By 18 months they have acquired significant gender role knowledge: For example, they stare longer at pictures of men putting on lipstick and women with hammers. Gradually, children use this developing gender knowledge to articulate gender preferences and self-identity. By one year, for example, Euro-American girls begin to prefer dolls over trucks, and vice versa for the boys. By three years, and in certain contexts, children prefer play partners of one sex or the other. And, importantly, in this same two- to three-year timeframe, children evidence a process of gender identity acquisition which can, itself, take two to three years, and proceeds by degree.

You're arguing matters of degree. "Born Gay" is perhaps not accurate but the developmental facilities are already there. 18 months is not enough to make any kind of informed decision about what you do or don't like from a sexual standpoint, but it manifests anyway.

The point is not that people are born gay or not, the point is that the neurological wiring is present. A woman's brain in a mans' body is odd, but it is within the capacity of our cerebellums.

Nobody has a "wolf brain", or a brain necessarily based on an animal, so far as we can tell. For one, the sizes and complexities are completely different. For another, there's a distinct lack of variety in terms of what the animal kingdom offers for "template brains" and what is actually displayed. If the genetic imprint of a distant ancestor is coming into play, why don't we see more platypus furries, for example?

Except this really isn't true. The BDSM scene has had one too many significant others who were distinctly (sometimes violently) against the idea of tying up or being tied up by someone. And that's in the bedroom, that's not out in a public forum.

The pedos never really tried to force their sexual wants down other peoples throats aside from shit-posting and mod-baiting, on 4chan at least. Once the words "I like fucking children" leave your mouth, generally that person is shunned and hated. But pedos were left mostly untouched by great wave of furry hate. It was only when the FBI had a few late night chats with m00t that the mods started to really focus the hate. 4chan is one of the last non"deep web" places that still sort of allows this kind of posting, so they're understandably miffed, but non of them ever said "my love of jailbait qualifies me as an expert on this topic" and meant it seriously, outside of talking about jailbait.

To the rest of us, it looks like a fetish. And that's all well and good and fine. But there is a grand canyon of difference between "this art is hot" and "I honestly believe I am a Cow". You cannot make that second statement in all earnestness and expect to be taken seriously.

Which, to their credit, was probably the one thing the MLP fandom didn't do.
>> No. 371948
Your father will not back off, because he knows it's not the truth. He does not care about the truth or biology, he cares only about what he wants to be true. What he thinks should be true. Those are all cultural things you cite, based on gender. Which is really about controlling the sexes.
>> No. 371950
> Nobody has a "wolf brain", or a brain necessarily based on an animal, so far as we can tell. For one, the sizes and complexities are completely different. For another, there's a distinct lack of variety in terms of what the animal kingdom offers for "template brains" and what is actually displayed. If the genetic imprint of a distant ancestor is coming into play, why don't we see more platypus furries, for example?
Well, we wouldn't see platypus furries because they're monotremes, they're only very distantly related to us. However we wouldn't see dogs or foxes or cats either because none of those are in our ancestral lineage. It's completely ludicrous on all fronts.

There are explanations for why people claim this, though. Namely shared psychosis--somebody comes into a community and shares this delusional belief that he is a literal wolf trapped in a human body with everyone else, and they start to adopt that belief despite otherwise being rational people. It's particularly effective if the group is socially isolated, tight-knit and has a "we should be tolerant of everyone" vibe. The people it is most effective against tend to find it difficult to interact with other people due to some psychological condition like autism or social anxiety disorder and as a result feel like animals understand them better than humans do, so it's easier to convince them that their souls are somehow different from other people. It's an explanation that makes sense, I guess, that if you feel like you identify more with cats than you do with humans maybe you are a cat in a spiritual sense. The rest get involved because of social pressure or because they were curious and they got in too deep but there is a definite undercurrent of insecurity and a need to be accepted by the group in any case. It's literally cult behaviour, but it's self-sustaining instead of reliant on a single leader.
>> No. 371952
>Nobody has a "wolf brain", or a brain necessarily based on an animal, so far as we can tell. For one, the sizes and complexities are completely different.
For another, wolf brains do not have the capacity to learn how to talk, type, or come up with subcultures to belong to. They're quite clever as animals go, and even have a lot of social intelligence that many other intelligent animals lack, but people who were actually "supposed to be wolves" would not be capable of feeling angst or recognizing the concept of dismorphia.
>> No. 371954
>but people who were actually "supposed to be wolves" would not be capable of feeling angst
I remember a documentary about a group of wolves, they used to pick on a female because she was weak or something. Once she died though, they started acting kinda depressed.

Kinda unrelated to the discussion, but I figured it was interesting to mention. Animals learn a lot of cause and effect, so why not how to type?
>> No. 371957
They weren't depressed because she died, they were unsettled because the pack order was out of wack without the bottom dog.

That being said, a few extraordinary animals can display grief quiet openly eg elephants. They're not ~edgy~ or cute though so no-one wants to be an elephant otherkin.
>> No. 371958
Angst and sadness aren't quite the same thing though. Some animals with more emotional/social intelligence are capable of sadness and grief, but angst is a different beast, because it requires knowledge of the existence of a future and the ability to extrapolate that the future is not going to be the one you want. Some animals can be sad that something they liked isn't there anymore, but we haven't found any other than humans that can feel stress over the fact that their future isn't likely to get any better than the present anytime soon, or whose sadness over something being gone comes partially from the fact that it reminds them that they and everyone else they care about is going to also die someday.
>> No. 372051
File 135474903745.jpg - (23.61KB , 458x352 , b35.jpg )
>> No. 372059
File 135476579083.jpg - (2.74KB , 101x127 , 1306488597786s.jpg )
Funny thing
He's on my friends list
>> No. 372074
File 135479042275.jpg - (51.46KB , 650x366 , QRuUg.jpg )
I would belittle you for that, but you're friends with Professor Genki.

I can't hope to top that, so I won't try. Have you seen the computer specs he claims to have? He says he has three 20 inch 16:10 monitors, yet all of his screenshots are 4:3. Teehee.
>> No. 372094
File 135483972014.jpg - (17.84KB , 250x265 , tumblr_mbl6zgkNMk1qfntg0.jpg )
He talks like
Every blue tinged red moon lunar eclipse. And it's always about cocks. Or Dungeons of Dreadmor.
>> No. 372170
Well, I can respect the latter. Dredmor is great fun.
>> No. 375119
>thread about Sabrina Online on /co/
>someone carts out the exterminatus meme shit
>everyone tells him to go away
>he tries again
>everyone tells him to go away again

>Guy on /d/ tries Exterminatus joke in a xenomorph thread
>people are actually angry at him
>eventually he throws a hissy fit about how furries have ruined /d/ and gets banned

>anti-furry is more reviled than furry

I like this change.
>> No. 375127
Was the thread the one where OP was asking for a pack of the comics? It was nice that someone delivered.
>> No. 375128
File 136349493251.png - (148.99KB , 575x1014 , the day exterminatus was told to fuck off.png )
I don't know, but here's what it was.
>> No. 375133
yeah its kind of played out when basically everyone not furry on 4chan are filthy heretical slaneeshi scum anyhow
>> No. 375155
One thing I don't understand is how people (LOADS of people) say that it's okay to hate on furries because they, back in the day, were really annoying on the internet and shoved their sexuality down people's throats and all that shit.

Even if that WERE a legitimate reason, why does that make it okay to hate ALL, modern furries?? You realize that is the exact same reason that some black people use to justify hate towards white people (because, centuries ago, some white people enslaved black people); and the same argument used by some to hate Germans (because of what the Nazis did).

I wasn't a furry when the internet was young. I've never trolled 4chan or the like. I've never shoved my sexuality down anyone's throat. The actions of people whose only connection to me is an indirect and nebulous similarity of preference should not color anyone's judgement of me. You're all just using it as an excuse — and a piss-poor excuse at that.
>> No. 375156
You said it yourself; it's a thing humans do. Not sure why you're surprised, though I understand the disappointment.
>> No. 375175
I'm only ever attracted to a non-human character (furry or otherwise) if I'm dating someone and it's their OC. I can't explain it. But then again, I find I make a lot of exceptions on what I'm attracted to as long as it's my significant other. Anyone else and I'd say no.
>> No. 375983
>/q/ thread about furry porn on /d/ actually convinces some of the anti-furries to change their minds
>promptly deleted
>> No. 376017
>/q/ thread about furry porn on /d/
>/q/ thread about furry porn on /d/
>/q/ thread about furry porn on /d/
>> No. 376021
File 136553462212.jpg?nsfw - (76.27KB , 708x566 , hilarious.jpg?nsfw )
>this thread
>> No. 376143
File 136572465979.jpg - (141.96KB , 866x784 , FOR NO RAISIN.jpg )

i prefer this one
>> No. 376614
So...no mention of how furries and otherkin/therians are two completely different subcultures? Also old thread is old.
>> No. 377490
You don't have to state the obvious.

Also, who's the bigger furfag? /v/ or /co/?
>> No. 377491
You don't have to state the obvious.

Also, who's the bigger furfag? /v/ or /co/?
>> No. 377494
/co/. BECAUSE talking animals are found in abundance in cartoons more than anywhere else, while video games are more populated by DUDES WITH GUNS.
>> No. 377501


/co/ has a higher rate of "i'm going to fuck that" kind of people

/v/ on the contrary, is by far a "i 'm gonna get that to fuck me"-dominant place.
>> No. 377524
I'll bet that in a few years, bronies will have the stigma of hate against them like furries do now. Their cultures are so similar it's uncanny.

I like the furry fetish, I am not a "furry". I fucking hate that term and anyone who identifies with it.
>> No. 377529
...Isn't this already the case? Otherwise /mlp/ wouldn't exist.
>> No. 377534
You do understand that it is not really a stable centered culture, right? Nationalist terrorists are technically indians, but do they represent the entire Indian culture?

No, because there isn't a fucking Indian culture.
>> No. 377536
Fine, get technical.

Communities. Happy?
>> No. 377541
I'm not sure there's even any kind of consensus on what "bronies" means now. /mlp/ hates the term because they parrot everything to late /co/ generals (so they hate everything that doesn't come from there), older MLP fans hate "bronies" but they think /mlp/ represents "bronies", everyone from outside /mlp/ and the like hates /mlp/, and /mlp/ probably hate themselves.
>> No. 377597
Brony has pretty much lost all its positive connotations. I don't see many people self-identifying as "bronies" anymore, and when somebody does use it, it's synonymous with "obnoxious, entitled, fedora-wearing male MLP fan you should stay at least 20 feet away from at all times."
>> No. 377599
Kinda funny, I had no problem admitting I watched MLP back when it was just a show for little girls. But now, with the brony association? Don't want anything to do with that.
>> No. 377600
What's truly embarrassing is seeing MLP be one of the most watched shows on Netflix.
>> No. 377624
Just about every furry I've ever interacted with had some sort of mental issue.

Some have autism or asperger's, others are dyslexic, some are just legally insane. And that...really bothers me.
>> No. 377626
While I admit it draws some of the most mentally unhealthy people I've ever met I have met a deal deal of people who enjoy furry things and weren't at all odd, so they are out there and I wouldn't say they are uncommon by any stretch of the imagination.
>> No. 377630
Not sure. I know people who use the term well enough as "MLP fans". These people mostly stay out of fandom politics and use the term widely, enjoy the pony-related games, etc. Maybe people care more about second meanings as they give more of a damn.
>> No. 377646
So wait, what you guys are saying is that some people are exclusively yiffers, and not actually interested in furry culture, while most others just like the way anthros look, and that's it?

That's how I feel myself. I like anthro art, but I wouldn't call myself a furry because I don't like it any more or less than any other style of art. But I'm not at all interested in it sexually, and I know many furries aren't, either.
>> No. 377662
>I like anthro art, but I wouldn't call myself a furry because I don't like it any more or less than any other style of art. But I'm not at all interested in it sexually

That pretty much describes me right there.
>> No. 377670
It's happening a lot. The rise of sites beyond Furaffinity, like e621 and other competition have spread out a 'post-furry' identity of just liking the porn or the characters and not wanting to engage in the community. Of course, 'yiff' is used more ironically than anything.

Anthrofag is the term I like. It doesn't roll off the tongue like furfag but it's more broad in the appeal of the fetish than an affinity for the fandom.
>> No. 377676
In my opinion, you're not a furry unless you start dressing up as one or you've created a furry persona that you believe is your 'true' self. If you don't do either of those things, you're just a person that likes art of anthropomorphic animals.
>> No. 377679
I really think the issue is more respecting peoples boundaries. Most people don't really care unless they become involved with the person. But the difference was, the "true believers" were more likely to role it out as their main identity, and that identity was very publicly about sex. It was not unlike an inappropriate come-on to a random stranger on the street, except in this case it was a bunch of people all over the internet who seemingly couldn't draw the fine line on sex.

"Post-furry" is an interesting concept, but I feel like it's just normal people who take an interest in the art and don't let it override their lives. There's plenty of stuff I've wanked to and still a lot in my personal collection that might give one pause (nothing too deep end though), but it's not my main identity, y'know? I'm not just what I fap to.
>> No. 377692
I'm sorry, and I hate to admit this, but I've always been into the furry fetish, only marginally interested in the art aspect of it.

I've never cared to make a fursona, or get into worldbuilding, etc. That's just me though.
>> No. 377711
>I hate to admit this
It's not that big a deal.
>> No. 377713
It is to me. I feel like one of them.
>> No. 377716
Don't. Unless you're a creep about it who must shove his fetish into every orifice of popular media, or someone who can't carry on a conversation for 5 minutes before spouting some creepy, all too personal, rhetoric that belongs in the bedroom with your close partner and not with people you just met, you're fine.
People with completely bizarre fetishes can live normal lives as long as they can keep it to themselves. Just takes a little self control.
>> No. 379034

Internet stupidity, depicted on 3 pages.
>> No. 379038
Thank you Warner and Disney, for creating a really hilarious generation.
>> No. 379046
File 137011439660.png - (678.75KB , 912x1424 , sonic-the-hedgehog-game-2.png )
And let's not forget Sega!
>> No. 379047
Am I the only one that detested that shit character design? My 7 year old sister knows you are supposed to draw eyes separately.
>> No. 379049
I hate both the connected Sonic eyes and the fact that all of their avian characters look like mammals. Actually, none of them look like the animal they're supposed to, save for Tails and the reptilian guy. I call it "Arthur syndrome". Arthur (the kids' book character) started off as an aardvark. Now, the majority of the characters don't look like any specific animal.
>> No. 379069
File 137016544763.jpg - (19.63KB , 531x478 , NB053.jpg )
It's funny, I didn't care much for Looney Tunes and only enjoyed a select few Disney movies. But I liked Sonic SatAM, all other versions suck and other cartoon animals that were supposedly notorious for creating furries. I think I ended up stuck somewhere in between. I'm not a furry, but I do like animal characters. And I will, occasionally, look at very well-drawn "anthro" porn, unless it's of Western toons. It might be a "NOO, MY CHILDHOOD!" reaction, I dunno. But I'm not into fursuits, fursonas, or anything else to do with the community. Not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but it's not for me.

It's an unusual style if you think too much about it, I guess, but it never bugged me. Are the eyes any weirder than the fact that he's blue, dressed in only gloves and shoes, and has spikes that look more like Yoshi's than those belonging to a real hedgehog?
>> No. 379123
File 13702323025.png - (452.95KB , 844x480 , rf Geronimo yeah right.png )
I don't know how long you've been around, or how much research you've done, but let me break it to you:


If you believe you must have some "fursona" or wear fursuits to be a "furry", you are missing a point here. This subculture is STILL in the making, and no one really has the authority on what makes one a furry. Those who claim they do, are all faggots. And dykes.

There are quite a lot of artists who draw animal characters once in a blue moon, but call themselves furries. Then there are those who draw such characters almost exclusively, but refuse to label themselves and distance themselves from "teh fandum".

To say that there is "one unified furry subculture" would be like saying there is "Indian culture" (when in fact India is a home to hundreds different cultures, many are hostile to each other).
>> No. 379137

This is true, actually. The inability to clearly define ‘furry’ in terms of an overall community or subculture makes it impossible to create a truly centralized ‘furry community’.

>> No. 379142
This could be said for literally any group, to be honest. Political, religious, any fandom...Even much longer-established ones. I have never seen one large group agree on everything universally.
>> No. 379144
However, if you are a spanish citizen, you are spanish. If you believe in Christ, you are a christian. If you refuse to eat meat, you are a vegetarian.

Some groups CAN define themselves.
>> No. 379148
Beyond that basic ethos, though, there's a lot of variation on what people consider part of that group's beliefs.
>> No. 379149
>However, if you are a spanish citizen, you are spanish. If you believe in Christ, you are a christian. If you refuse to eat meat, you are a vegetarian.

No, no, and no.

I have dual citizenship with America and the Netherlands, because my dad did that when I was little to ensure that — if some crazy draft system was put in place during my young adulthood — I could escape overseas and not have to go to war. But I would NOT ever call myself Dutch. That would be silly — I don't live there. Many immigrants/emigrants might feel the same way about their old/new countries.

Being a Christian implies a great deal of actions, such as prayer to God, attending church, and other things in the Christian way. One could believe that Jesus Christ was a real historical person, albeit not supernatural at all, and be an atheist. Muslims believe in Christ as an important prophet, but they would not appreciate being called Christian!

A person can refuse to eat some meat, or refuse to eat processed meat, or still eat fish/poultry, or still eat animal by-products, or eat eggs/milk/honey but no animal flesh, or any one of a bunch of different things that don't necessarily add up to a strict vegetarianism or might instead be veganism.

Yes, I am picking some serious nits here. But that is the point. A definition of a "furry" is usually a very broad one, was originally a very broad one. As in: a person with an interest or appreciation for anthropomorphic characters. These characters used to be called "funny animals", and the term "furry" was supposedly derived from that. It was only when the fursuiters and plushophiles and "yiff" bunch, and later lifestylers/otherkin attached themselves to this term that the rest tried to distance them from it. The definition only gets stricter when people who are otherwise part of the group want to avoid being associated with the wackos.

Case in point: "pro-life". I am pro-life. I approve of life! I don't really like dead things, and usually things should be kept from being dead. But then the term was taken over by people who think women should not have control of their own bodies, who put forth laws where a fertilized egg has the same rights as a grown human, that believe that embryos have souls. Basically, a bunch of wackos. So, because of that, I won't tell anyone I am "pro-life" as they might get THE WRONG IDEA.

It's the same with "furry". In essence, the term has become meaningless, as there are now sub-categories for every type of furry group one wants to be a part of. Nonetheless, the history of the word and overall familiarity with it means it can't just be done away with. It's a problem that has no answer.
>> No. 379155
>written by Sage Freehaven
I have some personal gripes with that guy.

And yet you have people who make documentaries on furries, and start them with words like "being a furry is about expressing yourself through a fursona".
>> No. 379179
To them, that's what being a furry means. To someone else, it might mean "I just like pictures of anthropomorphic characters, or I like playing games where everyone is a talking animal, but I don't identify as having a fursona or being an otherkin". To some, they just like furry porn, but aren't interested in worksafe stuff with anthros in it.

To be honest, I don't consider myself a furry at all, unless you consider liking cartoons and video games with anthro characters in them a furry thing, but I've toyed with the idea of making an animal mascot character. Not a fursona, just an artistic representation of myself as an animal, because I want to make small comics about my life, but I hate the idea of publicly showing people exactly what I look like, because I've been cyber-stalked.
>> No. 379184
Your case is a perfect example of >>379123
>> No. 379185
I never said there was any unified culture though. I was agreeing with you.
>> No. 379192

>I have some personal gripes with that guy.

Join the club. :3
>> No. 379194

How does making a documentary confer any sort of authority? There were documentaries made in the 1950's about homosexuals that started off saying stuff like: "being a homosexual is about expressing yourself through raping young boys."
>> No. 379195
File 137029787688.jpg - (29.61KB , 435x351 , laughing meth cooks.jpg )
>> No. 379209
File 137030523445.jpg - (87.43KB , 932x651 , 1368092322063.jpg )
>> No. 379213
What's the funneh jowk?

Am I missing something again?
>> No. 379216
When aren't you, really?
>> No. 379220

Psst. It’s a secret to everyone.

I’m Freehaven, yo.
>> No. 379233
File 137031699375.png - (126.05KB , 800x342 , lulz on guns.png )
Dammit, I can be slow sometimes.

I still got some gripes with you then. Which both of us can ignore cause I don't care by this point.
>> No. 379241
File 137032276231.gif - (143.15KB , 200x150 , _Animation_Tiny-Toons_151-1_Julie-Bruin-Bounce.gif )

Oh, now you can’t leave me hanging. Feel free to rip me a new one, even if everyone else has already beaten you to the punch (in one way or another) well before you got your claws in me.


If you don’t want to do it here, my Tumblr and email inboxes remain open. :)
>> No. 379242
Freehaven, we know you like getting people to insult you to sate your abuse fetish or w/e, but at least be subtle about it man.
>> No. 379247

Shhh. You can insult me later. Promise I'll even cry this time.

Srsly, I don’t have a fetish for abuse or whatever you wanna call it. I just genuinely wanna know what issues Twister has with me so we can settle things in a mature and rational fashion.

ANYWHO. To get this thread back on track before I derail it further too late: favorite furry artists?
>> No. 379254
File 137033166934.png - (18.65KB , 762x80 , comrades are smart.png )
I cannot stay mad at you for too long; the sense of pity overwhelms that eventually.
>> No. 379260
I like the guy who draws the things.
>> No. 379261
But seriously, gotta fucking love that gif. Those animators sure knew what they were doing.
>> No. 379264
File 137033900130.gif - (290.43KB , 200x150 , _Animation_Animaniacs_E54-03_02_For-The-Foot-Fetis.gif )

They always do.
>> No. 379277
A lot of the people who like my art are furries.

And yet I've maybe uploaded one ever drawing of an anthro character. Said picture isn't one of the ones they tend to favorite. I dunno.
>> No. 379295
Congratulations: you have observed the complexity of human nature. Just when you thought you got it all neatly organized in your head, life throws a million exceptions your way. The rules you spend many years organizing, get all messed up, leaving you with a headache.
>> No. 379359
>favorite furry artists

You asked...

The ones that draw very realistic male canines, like Blotch and Rukis.

The ones that draw male cub porn, because there is no end to my depravity. Wolfblade and Aogami were good before they got popular and started doing nothing but super-fetishy commissions and straight stuff. Edis Krad/Arkaid and Sparklemotion/Gloebis (will you guys stop changing your freaking names??) draw nice stuff, but the actual content and plots are sometimes way too screwed-up for my taste. Neoneon is good, but it seems everything must be related to marijuana with this guy... There are plenty out there, but I can't think of any more off the top of my head.
>> No. 379617
File 137077507580.jpg - (301.37KB , 634x632 , this is a female character so fap away.jpg )
All that talk about drama and pornography, and no one mentions the good stuff. No one mentioned Dreamkeepers. It's good. And it's stuff. Good stuff.
>> No. 379624
File 137080648466.jpg - (392.21KB , 1920x1080 , chatot.jpg )
I don't have any furry art of hers saved, unfortunately, but Shen is the only furry artist I really like or need. She only draws human porn. The dirtiest thing she's drawn furry-wise is a pinup. I have zero interest in furry porn, so I'm perfectly fine with that. Her drawings are gorgeous and fluid, and her colors are jaw-dropping.

Just making an observation, is all. No need to get snarky.
>> No. 379642
File 137083283564.png - (488.19KB , 929x1659 , 1261621456_furseiseki_attack-all-3-side-b.png )
Some of my favorite artists, for the record:

Max Blackrabbit ~ I love his anatomy work and his overall style in regards to faces and genitalia. He’s also improved a fair amount since I started watching him years ago.
Taskidog/Furseiseki ~ While he has an odd sense of humor, Taski draws tons of adorable critters that few artists can ‘out-cute’. Also: *paw*
Daigo ~ Another artist I watch because of his anatomy work, Daigo also manages to draw big girls that, despite their size and how they’d look in real life with those same proportions, I consider sexy.
Sublimate ~ Not so much a ‘furry’ artist as much as a ‘general’ artist, Sublimate has a unique style from anatomy, design, and coloring standpoints that meshes well with his desire to tell stories with his art (and his somewhat-twisted sense of humor).
Michael ‘Miu’ Vega ~ Best known for his work on ClubStripes, Miu draws perhaps the most loveable porn out of any artist I can name off the top of my head. (It might sound oxymoronish, but I can’t think of a better way to put it.)
Technicolor Pie ~ Cute art + excellent wit + a willingness to call people out on their bullshit (sometimes via her art) = awesome
Doug Winger ~ You can call this the ‘sentimental’ choice. Doug’s not the best artist in a lot of different fields, but I came across his stuff first when I ventured into furry, so I have a certain emotional attachment to it.
Ferris ~ I haven’t seen anything from him in years, but I have a similar emotional attachment to Ferris’ work as I do with Winger’s, and it helps that Ferris’ style blended excellent anatomy with a pencil-sketch style that no one has ever duplicated (and that includes the artists who actively tried to do so).
>> No. 379643
I was merely declaring a fact, with only 1.5% snark.

Her DA if she has one? That parrot pokeburd looks terrific.
>> No. 379646
No harm done. Sorry about that. Her dA is here:

>> No. 379652
>Miu draws perhaps the most loveable porn out of any artist I can name off the top of my head.
That's what I'd have said. If I remember right, he recently made some not-really-adorable though. :/
Mlp fandom, happens a lot. FUCK.
>> No. 379657
File 137087202452.gif - (27.98KB , 355x504 , twofoxes.gif )
I really liked Joe Rosales' art way back when. His works were always so sharp and clean and it, amongst others, inspired me to practice inking a hell of a lot. Thanks Joe.
>> No. 379713
File 137100022643.jpg - (202.06KB , 600x770 , instead you draw pr0n.jpg )
Might as well post this.
>> No. 379743
Porn has more dignity than that.
>> No. 379744
Depends on who's drawing the porn.

There are some artists who only draw porn without plot, and don't have any desire to draw anything else.
>> No. 379746
That's usually the most dignified kind.
>> No. 379747
Enh. It depends. I prefer plot sprinkled with porn.
>> No. 379749
Favorite Furry Artists:
Chris Goodwin
Thomas Blue

Even if I agree with this, it's still the most pretentious way that could be said.
>> No. 379781
File 137108594477.jpg?nsfw - (54.49KB , 900x571 , gnht030.jpg?nsfw )

This is why I like ClubStripes’ comics: they try to sprinkle some form of a story into the mix.

On the other hand, even their most ‘plotless’ images can sometimes become awesome on the basis of romance. (To wit: the attached image, which remains one of my favorite pics to come from ClubStripes to this day.)
>> No. 379844
5.5 years in the future, nope. Caturday threads are still banned on sight.
>> No. 379855
Except when they aren't. It depends.
>> No. 379873


>> No. 379936

making a parody of a living already buxom person, and making her into a bear?
>> No. 379966
File 137144120476.png - (46.42KB , 988x128 , why the furry fandom is terrible.png )
This belongs here.
>> No. 379974
Making it all bouncy in the right measure.

I never checked on the original person they parodied though, so color me interested.
>> No. 379977
It's the same person who provided her voice, Julie Brown.
>> No. 379992

I'm incapable of having any sort of porn without plot. In fact, I prefer most of my fiction to be like real life — sex isn't the entire point, but it's not as we're pretending sex isn't a large part of people's lives. It irritates me that putting ANY sexual content in a story supposedly makes it nothing but pornography.

In either case, I'll always take plot over porn, even if I want something to be porn. Even my masturbatory fantasies have plotlines, sometimes very long ones.

It's another reason why I like Rukis' stuff so much. You'd think a comic revolving around a sailor and a whore would be nothing but pornography (and many are quick to dismiss it as such without even looking at the first page) but it's not. Only a handful of pages out of over 100 have any sexual content, and half of those are extra pages only for the printed release.

Sex is a part of life, so it should be a part of fictional representations of life. Just not the biggest and most important part of it. That's not healthy for stories, or for people.
>> No. 380007
>Not making up stories and backgrounds for all the people in your porn
>> No. 380020
Is it weird that I feel attracted to male furries, but not actual human males? I've tried getting off to gay porn and I just can't. I'm bi and sub, somewhat feminine, like cocks and semi-masculine features...but I just can't feel attracted to male humans. Furries on the other hand completely override everything and I can get off to males easily.
>> No. 380124
Eh. Cartoons naturally kind of get around the "imperfections" of real life. We're willing to give them more leeway with what they do with physical features and imperfections because you're not actually looking at a "real" version of those imperfections, like a scar. Looking at male furries, that's probably more in your comfort zone than say, the typical male pornstar who looks like they could bench lift you/make you call them "Daddy" in prison.

Maybe you're projecting you own ideas of virility onto the furry males you watch; a little "self-insertion" in the classic sense. You do not identify with them because you want to fuck them, you identify because you want you to fuck like them.
>> No. 380538
File 13722794869.jpg - (387.10KB , 818x2282 , kemono games.jpg )
>> No. 380602
You've lost me.
>> No. 380606
File 137234930571.jpg?nsfw - (196.73KB , 1000x1500 , tail.jpg?nsfw )
Only acceptable furry tail.
>> No. 380609
Dr. Comet's been sticking with traditional pay services and the same sort of art since 2001. He's got a niche, but he's out of the spotlight he used to hold.

Team Shuffle was proposed to do five MLP anthologies, everyone hated the first one despite it making dosh, so while everyone else was chunking out their own Pony cash-in, Team Shuffle made more appraisal with the new Book of the Beast.

Kyouun RRR latches onto whatever wave is popular, and is never really good at it.

Mayoineko is almost unheard of outside of Japan and weeaboos, but has a much better following in those circles. Never quite gets as popular as its less talented peers however...

Manianima was dead in the water at the start, but halfway through started coming out strong with a larger range of fetishes, and has made some well-crafted bits. If only the really good parts would make it out of Japan someday...

Kemokko Lovers is the undisputed champ right about now. All kemono spectrum, the most artists involved, regularly updated, and no signs of slowing.
>> No. 387766
There was a thread on u18chan /d/ board (page 2 or 3?) about discussing this stuff. It's an interesting read IMO.

New question in the mix: when/how did you find out you liked furry?
>> No. 387824

I had a boyfriend in my senior year of high school who was a furry. He basically got me into it — or at least the porny and fetishy side of the whole deal.

Although, in hindsight, seeing how I spent a great deal of my childhood getting boners for Disney's Robin Hood among others, I should have figured it out on my own. Sort of like the whole "gay" thing.
>> No. 387827
I was 11 or 12 and browsing the internet for pokemon art when suddenly a Kanada appeared. A truly terrible transformation fetish artist, but it was a site for hosting galleries. So, I browsed around and the whole thing was really neat. Beast people were really fun back then.
>> No. 388031
Let me fly this conundrum and apologies if I offend what is the difference between "act" and "is" with this area of things. Say Lady in a "Catsuit" playing the cat I can get behind but one in a fursuit being the cat leaves me very unsure of things. I try to look into this on my own but keep running into Creepypasta level stuff that just makes me go "NOPE" and run in the other direction.
>> No. 388032
I would assume it's that the one playing at being a cat doesn't actually believe s/he is one.
>> No. 388034
File 138871520367.jpg - (66.72KB , 496x650 , Beach80b.jpg )

I blame Gadget. Also Minerva Mink. But chiefly Gadget.
>> No. 388036
Did develop a bit of RR fetish would get in for zip on Gadget. action.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post