Who hates it when we furries and bronies are called zoophiles?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Egon1982, May 18, 2017.

  1. Egon1982

    Egon1982 Member

    I hate it when they think we would rape our pets or horses! i would never wanna bone my mom and stepdad's Pomeranian or their cat, no way.

    It's just that 5 years ago some jerkoff from Boise Idaho who claimed to be a furry who wore a dog suit just boned his cat for a month then got arrested, he really did harm to the fandom but we furries and bronies distance ourselves away from him just like the way GLBT people distance themselves from NAMBLA.
  2. Crimson_Steel17

    Crimson_Steel17 The night is my solace; the day is my prime

    I just look past it- reacting is most of what perpetuates the stigma about the fandom. Yes- we're dreamers, artists, neighbors, thinkers, and doers. However, if the mainstream media can get a rise out of us by portraying our collective interest as a "fetish" and by labeling us as "zoophiles" and "furfags," then it WILL continue. In the meantime, the best reaction is NO reaction
    katalistik likes this.
  3. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru 100% Weaponized Autism

    I hate it when shit that's been buried for years gets dug up by morons. Let the fucking past stay buried, mate.

    What morons want to think of me I give zero fucks about. They are free to think whatever they wish, even if it's completely wrong.
  4. Kit H. Ruppell

    Kit H. Ruppell Exterminieren! Exterminieren!

    As long as we tolerate the presence of actual zoophiles in the fandom, we're just reaping what we've sown. By the way, the number of watchers of zoophile groups on FA dwarfs that of conservation and animal welfare groups. Something to think about.
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
  5. Egon1982

    Egon1982 Member

    But do you think that certain boise idaho guy who molested his cat in his dog fursuit is a total bad example of the fandom to mislead people? we need to make the mainstream media understand this to distance ourselves from that sicko and CSI and all that as we are all like anime fans, Star Wars fans, Trekkies and fandoms for all geek cultures are equal.
  6. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    I think the depiction we provide to the internet is much more guilty than any news story that has been created. The sexual artwork on websites or the videos created of the more peculiar furries are pretty weird, so it's only natural that people make fun of us.

    Anyways no, I really don't care if someone is ignorant nor do I understand why anyone should care. As long as you either keep it private or only tell friends and only with information accurate to yourself, then there's nothing to worry about.
    Pipistrele, Activoid and Simo like this.
  7. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru 100% Weaponized Autism

    He is only one person. He does not represent the Furry fandom, nor is the fandom a community. We do not have any rules, governing body, ethics or morals to follow. In order to be able to kick ANYONE out, we need a ruling/governing body, people with actual power in the fandom, rules/laws, people who enforce those rules/laws, an official rule-/lawbook and to find out who is actually a "member". No fandom have either of those. I do not know of ANY fandom that have any of that. If at ANY point a fandom gains any of those items, it's no longer a fandom. It's a cult. The only thing required to be a Furry is to call yourself one, same with ANY other fandom.

    Yes, he's a piece of shit. He's an animal abuser, and should be treated accordingly as per the law. But what's more important? Condemning his actions and disassociating yourself with this animal abusing lunatic, or pulling the victim card?

    Again you bring up shit that happened years ago. Shit that was already dead and buried. You seem to have a knack for pulling up long-dead topics from their graves. I recommend you stop it.

    Being a FAN of something doesn't mean we are similar in any way, shape or form. Being a Furry is no different than being a Trekkie, Star Wars fan, car fan, etc. The Furry fandom is not special in any way, shape or form.

    The only thing we CAN do is tolerate them.

    However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn their behaviour and actions. The only thing we CAN do is say "I am not interested in being associated with deranged individuals, and I condemn your behaviour/actions".
    katalistik and lupi900 like this.
  8. Egon1982

    Egon1982 Member

    Not special? what about anime fans? or bronies?
  9. Crimson_Steel17

    Crimson_Steel17 The night is my solace; the day is my prime

    See, this is an interesting point... however, of all the art on FA, it's estimated that only 30% is actually Pr0ns...
  10. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru 100% Weaponized Autism

    NOT special. It's a fandom, not a rare and unique state of being, item, illness or disease. NO fandom is special. I will not treat any fandom as if it's special, just because I consider myself a member of it.

    If Furries were one per BILLION people there's a tiny chance I might, just might, be more inclined to calling Furries special. Just might.

    Let dead and buried topics stay dead.
  11. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    From my understanding, that percentage is based off the stuff that is tagged as being NSFW, so this does not include all controversial artwork, or even all actual NSFW artwork. Also, FA is not representative of all artwork everywhere - what about InkBunny, DeviantArt and e621?

    That aside though, the percentage of news stories that relate to furries is surely abysmal and I am almost certain that they have a smaller audience than videos from media sites like Youtube or Twitter. Anyways, I think most peoples perception of what a furry is probably originates from either some kind of Youtube video (cringe compilations in particular) or word of mouth rather than a news story of a rapist who happens to be a furry.

    The way I found out about furries was through people some Youtube video, not through some story on the news and in fact, I've yet to see any news story about furries without someone directing me to it beforehand. Then even when I do see furries in the news, it's not always a bad portrayal (see Aberguine)
    Crimson_Steel17 likes this.
  12. Crimson_Steel17

    Crimson_Steel17 The night is my solace; the day is my prime

    Even more fair and interesting points. I'm not going to lie, and say that I like to use the statistic on the contents of FA because it's really the only one I can remember at times... however, it's also worth pointing out that YouTube is a form of social media, and is not subject to FCC Regulations regarding portrayal of character that the mainstream media is subject to; in essence, you can say whatever you want with near impunity. It's a known phenomenon that Content Creators occasionally forget that their opinion holds an actual value, and say whatever they want- this isn't an excuse OR an explanation, but rather might begin to shed some light on the backstory of how furries (and bronies) came to be seen in a negative light. I don't necessarily agree with it, but at the same time I don't run those channels and I'm also openly against the idea of the YouTube Heroes program...

    But I digress... my earlier statement is still what I'm sticking with, as a fair chunk of how we're seen IS in our control. Maybe not all of it, but definitely a sizable portion of our public image. Maybe Kage has a point after all...
  13. You call zoophiles animal rapists, but at the same time whine when furries are called zoophiles? This is so ironic
    Activoid likes this.
  14. PencilBrain

    PencilBrain Squishy Butt

    Its the same people that think all furries are delusional otherkin. Let em think what they want. Why get mad about it if it isnt true.
  15. Egon1982

    Egon1982 Member

    All fandoms have porn even anime fans to Whovians
  16. WolfNightV4X1

    WolfNightV4X1 King of Kawaii; That Token Femboy

    This bothered me when I was new to the fandom. I was so worried about our perception of how we really like humanized animals and yiff, and how it might seem like we're attracted to animals because we look at knot porn or something. Now I'm a veteran and I'm all like "lmao yeah we're all gross dogfuckers fear us", but no seriously, that's a dead beaten dead horse to infinity, furries still exist and 90% aren't dogophiles. If people still say that then they've been wrong for years, and here I am not telling everyone I'm a furry who doesn't get the furrydom. I just like it for what it is

    I dont really think I had to explain but for people who dont see an issue with zoophilia, i.e, some people in the fandom...there's a very, very distinct reason for it. The main fact being animals cant consent. "But they communicate through body language" "Male dogs have a sex drive and fuck what they want to".

    Dogs dont verbally communicate, this means they LEGALLY cant protect themselves from rape, sure maybe fido humped your leg and you interpreted that as him wanting some, but just because one person listened to their dog (and most people coax that behavior out of them and train them more past it), doesnt mean another person wont stick their junk into a dog's anus and call it consent.

    You know how adults cant have sex with minors under 18? Teenagers can have sex, and some can consent to have it with older people. However, the chance of an over-18 manipulating an under-18 is far greater than those who consent, the 18-cap is a rule of necessity.

    Zoophilia is rape, period. Furries who condone zoophilia are condoning a form of rape.
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
  17. FluffyShutterbug

    FluffyShutterbug A Foxy Femboy Photographer

    I feel your pain..... One of my older friends kept on joking that I was in bestiality because I liked anthro characters. Although it was a joke, it started to sting after a while....
  18. TomVaporeon

    TomVaporeon Actually a birb

    I'm completely fine with it directed towards me as a joke or insult. Though I wasn't a big fan of when my friends were explaining what furry was to someone who didn't know by starting off with "So you know zoophilia..."
  19. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    I'll mention that I'm not actually into beastiality myself.


    I don't think it's fair to be so non-excludable with calling zoophila rape. A lot of the time zoophilia just ends up taking the form of artwork, and I think this is objectively harmless. It's similar to cub art, which is arguably distasteful depending on who you're talking to, and conjures up images of pedophilia, but does no harm in of itself. We have to remember that these people don't choose to have such kinks and if they only use artwork to fullfill their fantasies (in a coping sort of way) without actually causing harm, then it's not necessarily so bad. This in mind, just like with people who are genuinely pedophiles, I won't judge until they show intent to do harm.

    I think you actually may have been talking about the act of having sex with animals rather than the people themselves, so I'm probably being pedantic here, but I still think that it's important to mention that not all of them are baddies (well, if you consider it a bad thing).

    Probably a very controversial opinion, but I don't think that beastiality should be considered rape. If killing animals is not considered murder, then I don't see why sex with an animal should be considered rape. Similarly, castration is considered cruel for humans, yet we neuter animals all the time. This in mind, where is the arbitrary boundary set for animal cruelty - why should sex be disallowed but not killing and chopping off sexual organs? The inability to consent argument seems silly since I doubt animals consent to any of the above things either. Anyways, to sum up my view on it, I think that it's fine so long as disease isn't spread and the relationship isn't abusive - which yes, is possible.
  20. WolfNightV4X1

    WolfNightV4X1 King of Kawaii; That Token Femboy

    For what it's worth, I was mainly referring to zoophilia taken outside the context of art, people who take their interests into the real world.

    "Castration" and sex are two different things, one is for pleasure and gratification, the other is a result of overpopulation of domestic animals which will end up dying if there isnt a way to keep their numbers below the range. It's a painless procedure not intended for any purpose except the overall health of a population. I actually havent had my dogs neautered/spayed myself because it wasnt necessary given the circumstance (they dont run off from home).

    There's too much leeway for being able to take advantage or of an animal or manipulating them and can lead to abuse. It's not healthy and in the same way we should theoretically take away the age of consent laws for pubescent teenagers, tell me that's a good idea.
    Lcs and Activoid like this.
  21. Activoid

    Activoid Ace Artist

    In response to @Lcs 's recent comment:
    There's 5 different sources of ethical standards: utilitarian, rights, fairness/justice, common good, and virtue. So on the subject of comparing "bestiality = rape" when "killing =/= murder", it's worth mentioning that you're trying to compare the ethical conclusions for two different ethical justifications. Apples and oranges, basically. But let's clear things up. So for each of those five ethical standards considered, determining right from wrong, ethical vs unethical, depends on the answers to these 5 questions:

    1) Which option will result in the most good, and do the least amount of harm? (Utilitarian)
    2) Which option ensures that everyone's rights are considered and respected? (Rights)
    3) Which option best serves the community, or as many as possible, as opposed to just one entity, or only a handful of people? (Common Good)
    4) Which option will treat everyone with equality, equity, respect, and fairness? (Justice)
    5) Which option will ensure I act as the ideal person I wish to be, or that my community/culture/religion wishes me to be? (Virtue)

    Killing animals for food and resources comes from a solely Utilitarian standpoint. Animals kill other animals, and we don't refer to a puma killing a deer as murder. However, we refer to chimpanzees killing other chimpanzees as murder; in this instance, murder is an act of aggression against one's own kind. It's an act of being traitor to the survival of one's own species. Additionally, most human cultures and laws also do not classify killing other humans in self-defense as murder, or classify chimpanzees murdering chimpanzees as a punishable criminal offense under human law, because it would not be useful to do so and the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits.

    If approached from the Rights standpoint, it is argued by many that while animals do not have the same legal rights as humans, they should still be respected as living creatures; but then the definition of "respect" becomes grey, as some people interpret that to mean "no killing sentient creatures whatsoever", and others will say that a swift and painless death preceded by a well-fed and well-groomed life on an open farm is respectful. Your mileage may vary. But murder of another human is taking away their right to live; animals are not granted with the inherent "right to life", which is an entirely human social construct (nature does not grant a "right to life" for anything), and that right is administered and withdrawn by human society as it sees fit. And so you can't take away rights that they don't already have.

    From the Common Good standpoint, many people love to eat animals, and people who own carnivorous pets such as cats and dogs that require a diet of meat to survive. So killing chickens, cows, pigs, and other domesticated livestock benefits millions of people, despite the loss of life. But if someone is hunting just for fun, that is for their own selfish benefit and enjoyment, at the cost of a suffering animal. When humans of an impoverished country want a selfish dictator overthrown, and they plot for his death, the common good and potential benefits outweighs the cost of killing the dictator, and as such is not classified as murder.

    From the Justice standpoint, some animal rights activists would argue that animals should be treated equally to humans, while others such as PETA believe that they should live independently of humans with no interaction whatsoever. Again, your mileage may vary depending on your definitions of "justice" and "equality", which are super subjective and vague terms when it comes to actually providing concrete results.

    And lastly is Virtue. It may be against your community rules, culture, or religion to kill anything whatsoever, or perhaps only a few animals such as cows, dogs, or cats are off-limits. This is just based entirely on upbringing and tradition. Or perhaps your culture requires you to go out and kill a lion to become a man. Virtue is probably the most subjective form of ethical decision making of them all. Most major cultures and religions tend to have this common agreement that killing your fellow humans is punishable, but killing animals is acceptable.

    So now that we covered killing vs. murder, go back and notice how in every instance there is a different result as to whether something is considered ethical or not, whether or not something is considered killing or murder, and why. Now apply the same logic to bestiality and why it might not be the exact same crime as rape, but might be classified as such under the Rights standpoints and Virtue standpoints, and still falls under the "unethical" categories on the other three potential justifications. And also look at the topic of human castration vs. animal neutering/spaying under that lens to see how they compare.
  22. Activoid

    Activoid Ace Artist

    Also as for the OP's original question: "Who hates it when we furries and bronies are called zoophiles?"

    That depends entirely on whether or not the person in question is indeed a zoophile. While I think generalization is unfair, there's more than enough people in the fandom and plenty of art on the internet to give the public plenty of fodder to work with when they come up with that idea. For most people, there's a very thin line between wanting to screw a pony, and wanting to screw a cartoon pony. So I can understand their perspective.

    Society seems to have broadened the term "zoophile" to mean "someone who wants to bone animals or fantasizes about boning animals". And to be fair, that was the definition I was always familiar with. I just googled "define zoophilia" after typing that and it says that it's about an erotic fixation with sexual contact with animals, whether real or imaginary. It doesn't specify solely real animals. It doesn't specify that you absolutely have to act on your urges. It doesn't say you have to have intercourse with a real life animal. So I mean, by the textbook definition it's still zoophilia, but I think there's a vague grey area that comes in because furries are generally anthropomorphic and are more like humans than animals.

    Can't say the same about cartoon ponies, though. They have four legs, sorry fam. LOL.

    Maybe the world would be a better place if people just admitted they had really kinky fetishes, instead of trying to do mental gymnastics over not being zoophiles. Just admit you're a zoophile, keep it to yourself, and move on. You'll feel better.
    Pipistrele likes this.
  23. Lcs

    Lcs Well-Known Member

    That actually helped a lot, so thanks. It just seemed like boundaries were being set arbitrarily, but I suppose that wasn't very thought out now that I look back at it.

    That said, it still seems to me as if zoophilia isn't inherently bad since it doesn't always involve sex, and even when it does, the animal won't be hurt if the human follows certain rules. This is where @WolfNightV4X1's argument comes in of it being easy for people to take advantage of the animal, so I suppose it would probably have to be determined whether the abusive ones are the exception or the rule.

    Anyways, there are studies that suggest that animals can enjoy intimate relationships and have sex for fun, not just for reproduction. This in mind, it's not an entirely one-sided exchange.
    Arcturus Maple likes this.
  24. Troj

    Troj Well-Known Member

    On the topic of zoophilia and bestiality, my elevator speech is typically that animals cannot offer unambigious and uncoerced informed consent, and so the ethical choice is to err on the side of not fucking them. The burden is on zoophiles to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they haven't just misinterpreted the animal's signals, and that the animal isn't just acting out of love, obedience, conditioning, or fear--and generally, they just can't meet that basic moral standard.

    We also need to remember not to project our human hang-ups, values, and assumptions about sex onto animals. They don't understand and experience sex the way we do. As far as we know, the concept of modesty isn't on their radar, and they don't experience embarrassment or shame--but, they still experience fear, sadness, confusion, loneliness, and physical and emotional pain. Even if an animal can't grok the abstract idea of "sexual violation," we should still avoid causing them needless emotional or physical pain.
    WolfNightV4X1 and Activoid like this.
  25. Mr. Fox

    Mr. Fox Well-Known Member

    Well, they're not entirely wrong.

Share This Page