Mister Sunshine (sunshinegod) wrote in trichology,
Mister Sunshine

For the furry defenders

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
I haven't seen any pictures there that arent-

a) Art. These aren't photographs.
b) Either an anthromorphic or completely fictional character. This isn't even art of real animals.

Also, what kind of art, fatnasy or porn gets a person off, does not define what they would ACTUALLY do, so even if this was photographs/art of real animals, that would hardly be conclusive.

Not to mention that there are plenty of furries who don't like yiff art. Not that you'll acknowledge their existance, but I always was one for hopeless cases.
Who cares if they're photographs or not? It's still a representation of an animal designed for slime to get off on.

So making it "not a real animal" makes it better somehow? Explain how making the dog walk on two legs instead of four makes it acceptable as a lust object. You're still lusting after a dog.

Funny thing about your claims about porn and what they'd really do. Pedophiles collect child porn. People who don't rape children or lust after them do not. Same deal with these slime you're defending.

If there are so many furries who dislike this "art," why haven't furries purged their ranks of the supposedly small minority that pull this stuff? Explain.
Of course. A person with a boyfriend must automatically find ALL men attractive, regardless of age, height, weight, and other physical attributes. If they are wanking off to anthro animals, then they obviously do not find non-anthro animals nearly as attractive.

Difference: Child porn is illegal. A drawing of an anthromorphic animal is not.

why haven't furries purged their ranks of the supposedly small minority that pull this stuff? Explain.
Because they are not bigotted enough to try and enforce their own personal tastes and morals on other people within the bounds of the law.
Your "profile" proves you have your head so far up your ass you can see out your mouth.

"Name: Selene
Gender: Female
Marital Status: Mated, poly, technically available, not specifically looking.
Sexuality: Lesbian side of bi.
Age: Physically this body is 18. I myself am a disincarnate spirit aged 128. I won't try to hide what I physically am, but nor will I try to hide my life, my memories, my being."

You are part of the problem, people pretending to be something nonhuman to make up for their worthlessness.

First off, even if an individual furry wants to fuck animals, that does not mean the group is filled with zoophiles.

http://us.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Doug-Winger/Wuff05.jpg: Does that look like an animal to you? It looks like a complete fantasy image to me. Doug Winger is an individual furry artist who draws off-the-wall erotic images ("spooge" is the term usually associated with his work). He's got some much more "filthy" pictures than this one, you really didn't look that hard.

http://www.furnation.com/Louie/tcatcomic/page05.htm: I haven't hear of Louie Furrywolfy before, but he appears to be a furry artist. This is a drawing of a homoerotic encounter between two characters from the Thundercats cartoon (Tigra and Bengali). The human sexual characteristics (both primary and secondary) have been accentuated at the expense of some of the animal characteristics in the original characters. I've seen "normal" homoerotic art that looks far less human than these two guys. This is plain homoerotic art with a "twist" of using characters the viewer would know but not expect in this situation. This type of art (or story) is common in many fandoms, in fact the practice became popular in the 70's with trekkie "slash", initially homoerotic stories & art starring Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock.

http://www.agnph.com/gallery/: Not furries, at all. These guys just have nothing to do with the furries, and they're not doing "furry art" (erotic or otherwise).

http://www.agnph.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0: Not only is this from the site of non-furry art, but it's not even anthropomorphic. It's an animation of two pokemon having animal sex. It's not even remotely on topic.
Wow. That's some very nice backpedaling.

The fact remains, you have furries lusting after animals. No matter how you slice it, it comes down to wannabe-bestiality.

Tell me, if so many furries are against this stuff, why do they allow it to exist? Why hasn't there been a purge?
Where's the backpedaling? Only one of your examples were furry art. If you were wise, you would have picked up on that one example which slipped through...

- M.


13 years ago


13 years ago


13 years ago

Wow. That's some very nice backpedaling.

Where is the backpedaling? I never claimed that these images didn't exist. Specifically, here are my claims regarding this context:

  1. Most slurs against furries (especially including the zoophilia charge) are stereotyping. They might be true for a small number of furries, but by no means indicative of the group as a whole. I met an young african-american boy who sells drugs, carries a gun, has a very disrespectful "urban" attitude, and runs with a gang that encourages violent crime. This does not make all blacks "gangstas", even though some misguided people believe all of them are.
  2. Most furries, even those interested in furry erotic art, are interested in the concept of "furries" for primaraly non-sexual reasons.
  3. Most furries, even those aroused by furry erotic art, are aroused by normal sexual response to the human sexual aspects of the image or encounter. Very few are specifically seeking the animal or anthropomorphic nature of the erotic image.

The fact remains, you have furries lusting after animals. No matter how you slice it, it comes down to wannabe-bestiality.

That's stereotyping, just because you find some erotic furry artists, and some furries who are aroused by the erotic furry art, doesn't mean that people aren't aroused for reasons other than the wolf ears and tail, and doesn't mean that most furries enjoy this stuff.

Just so you don't say I'm backpedaling later, the same thing goes for the online sexual roleplay that also happens in the furry community (which you failed to even notice to bolster your weak arguments).

Tell me, if so many furries are against this stuff, why do they allow it to exist? Why hasn't there been a purge?

Because even the few that are specifically aroused by the animal nature of the image are are doing nothing wrong, they are just creating or enjoying an image that appeals to them.

In fact, there have been attempts at purges. They generally fail because not enough furries care one way or another whether or not these artists continue, and because these artists and their fans just aren't doing anything wrong here.

Incidentally, if I look in the ads in the back of Hustler or any of the other less-classy erotic mens magazines, I find plenty of ads claiming to sell videos of real live beastiality, and "young" girls, and plenty of other taboo topics. Should I claim that all heterosexual males are zoophiliacs and pedophiliacs because these filmmakers haven't been purged?

Clearly heterosexual men are buying this "filth". But the only purging I see here is of the ones that are actually illegal.

Thank you for that. That was a remarkably good counter to the OP. The only thing that slipped through was the first example: Doug Winger.

That is furry porn. It's those sorts of images that are associated strongly with the fandom. You either have to say that this is an extreme example of one individual who does things which aren't representative of furries (despite the fact that it is), or that this guy isn't a furry artist (despite the fact that it is).

It's just wrong, pure and simple.

(That said, I'm anti-porn of any type...)

- M.
It's ALL indicative of furries and the shit they are. Why are you claiming to be anti-furry yet defending them?


13 years ago

Doug Winger is not only a furry artist, but he is one of the "names" in erotic furry art. I certainly can't deny he's in the community, or that people buy his stuff.

I also can't really get inside the heads of people who buy his stuff to say why, but I can make some attempt.

First off, his work is really over the top, he draws very exagerated human and animal features. I'm sure some people are buying his work just for the freak factor alone.

Secondly, he predominately draws characters quite well endowed in their human sexual characteristics. Hir breasts are larger than her head, hir penis (human penis I might add, the character is lupine, a werewolf in particular, and wolf penises just aren't shaped like that) is larger than hir arm. Many people both in and out of the furry community are very much sexually attracted by large breasts and/or penises, and that's what they seek out.

Thirdly, he predominately draws hermaphroditic characters (both male and female sexual characteristics). This is another popular category of non-furry erotica ("chicks with dicks"). I'm sure some people are seeking him out specifically because of the hermaphrodites.

I consider it indicative that the character isn't more lupine. If zoophilia was the goal here, the penis would be shaped very differently, hir legs would be shaped differently, and hir face would be much more lupine. The erotic characteristics seem more geared towards making sure the viewers brain can register the character as sexually human than sexually animal.

Now, before you find it and say I was holding out on you, there is art (including a few pieces of Doug's art) that appears exactly as I describe, but the erotic animalian stuff is far far less popular than the erotic art that's predominately focused on the human sexual characteristics.

It's just wrong, pure and simple. (That said, I'm anti-porn of any type...)

So, does the existence and popularity of Hustler's magazine line (including Barely Legal and Taboo) mean that heterosexual men are all pedophiliac, sadistic, scatophiliac freaks? Because some men are most certainly buying those works.
Not furry? Explain this: http://www.agnph.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=169&pos=0

I love how a furry gallery showing animals fucking is somehow not relevant, even though it PROVES these fuckups are into animal sex. Nice logic there. Go back to furcadia with the other dogfuckers.

Furries. You lied, in a feeble attempt to claim furries aren't into this filth.

Trying to claim stuff isn't furry when it proves me right, eh? Pathetic.
Not furry? Explain this: http://www.agnph.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=169&pos=0

Not furry. In fact, most anthropomorphic erotic art is both produced and consumed by people outside the furry community, by people who don't consider themselves "furries".

The two most successful artists of anthropomorphic erotic art that I know of, Reed Waller and Joshua Quagmire, aren't in the furry community, don't go to furry events, and predominately market and sell their work to non-furries. Reed Waller mostly markets his stuff to comic book fans. I found Quagmire's stuff marketed in a perfectly conventional strip joint/adult video store in Las Vegas. Ironically, due to the nature of their work, each would probably be even more successful if they dropped where they market now and market in the other guys spots (Reed Waller is much more hardcore porn, while Joshua Quagmire spends more time on story and doesn't do hardcore porn).

Trying to claim stuff isn't furry when it proves me right, eh? Pathetic.
Even if it was furry, it would fail to prove you right.
I thinkt the whole thing is strange, just like I think 'fat porn models' are strange. Whatever puts the wind in your sails though.

Just because person X that belongs to group A likes something doesn't mean that person Y who also belongs to group A likes the same things.
You should keep something in mind: not everyone in a subculture has the same interests. Some furries do lust after animals, some don't. And all to different degrees. Some furs are completely, adamantly against it and find the thought of it immoral and disgusting, not to mention abusive to animals. And, there are others who are absolutely, irrevocably nuts about the idea of sharing intimacy with animals. And, there is everything in between as well.

On the first link, I hardly think Shi looks anything like any animal I've ever seen, so I don't really see how there'd be a connection between Hir and zoophilia. (Or have YOU ever seen a pink hermaphrodite wolf-thing?) I mean, seriously now, let's not lower our general common sense here. What animal does Shi REALLY remind you of?

The second link is just strange. It doesn't really make me think that the artist wants to fuck animals, but rather has a slightly disturbing fascination/obsession/lust for Thundercats.

The last link is, well, come on, really. I KNOW there is much better material out there that would promote your case, you REALLY don't need to sink to the lows of PaintBBS and Oekaki.
And, as with the first link, it doesn't remind me much of any real animal I've ever seen.

I don't see why you waste your time and your efforts by digging around for stuff like that when it's EASY to find stuff that actually, unquestionably promotes your claims.
(In other words: Get evidence that's actually somewhat relevant, as there is PLENTY of it, and not just, well, disturbing or artistically embarassing.)