Please sarcasm, please sarcasm...
Attraction to Anthros - Is this Unusual?
- Thread starter NightWolf20
- Start date
Ricky
Well-Known Member
Kit H. Ruppell
Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
We know, and it's a significant part of the problem here.
Last edited:
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
On the contrary the definitions of fetishism necessitate abnoraml forms of attraction, but do not necessitate fixation. Fixation is merely expressed as one possibility.
In a similar way scotsmen are by necessity of scottish nationality or decent but do not have to wear kilts. Wearing kilts is just one aspect of stereotypical scottishness.
There is plenty of reason; loads of people think furry porn is absolutely gross. Attraction obviously isn't about how rational or morally acceptable the subjectmatter is.
I conjecture there is no 'worse kind of organism', there are just organisms. Slugs and intestinal worms are not inherently disgusting or bad, for instance. If you place confidence in rationality show some and realise that whether or not somebody's sexual habits can currently be rationalised to agree with your personal taste provides no grounds to judge other people's personalities or try to suggest they are parasites.
Streetcircus
Member
Again, an abnormal degree of dependency, not abnormal in the sense that the attraction isn't common.
Nowhere does it say that an attraction to something considered abnormal is a fetish. It's just not there.
I'm guessing you think I'm making a no true Scotsman argument because I said that mature people do not indulge in fetishes, but I have so much to say on that subject that it would probably require another thread to even get into it. In summary, rational thought is superior to compulsion in every way, and our compulsions are developed as our brains are. If you have acquired a mindless attraction to something others find abrasive, it was most likely because of something damaging to your mental health as a child, and to lose the acceptance of other human beings in favor of meaningless pleasure is just bad judgement.
Loads of people think that the amount of fetishes in furry porn is gross, that nerds trying to act cute is gross, and that dragons wearing glasses while getting ass-banged by a whale with a hyper dick is gross, but that's more of a dislike of the individuals who make up the furry fandom, not a distaste for the concept of anthros. Dr. Comet has gained massive popularity outside of the fandom because a lot of his art is tasteful and fetish-free. I would say roughly five percent of furry porn isn't absolutely fucked up; it's no wonder that most people think it's gross when I can only stand a small portion of it.
Also, don't kid yourself, human beings have philosophy and in-door plumbing; we are more worthy of life because of our contributions and our compassion. Understanding existence is more important than just existing, and parasites are just impediments to our human progress. Nature-nuthugging in the furry fandom isn't cute anymore.
That is offensive. Human beings are undoubtedly more intelligent than most (if not all) other animals, but that by no means makes us more worthy of anything. You clearly submit to an anthropocentric worldview. Every animal plays a part in its ecosystem. Just because the deer in the woods doesn't understand what life is the way we do doesn't make it 'below' us.
It's kind of funny (read: completely hilarious) that you talk about the compassion of humanity and immediately dismiss parasites, and apparently any nonhuman animal as not worthy enough to live. I suppose if a more advanced race of aliens were to come along us pitiful humans would have to be put out to pasture hm?
Ricky
Well-Known Member
Most people are into weird shit. Generally if they don't act on it, that's because their partner isn't into it or more commonly in my experience they are afraid of what their partner would think. I know people into ab/dl for example that haven't let their partner of many years know because they are afraid of what he/she would think. That's not a sign of maturity pal, that's a sign of fear.
When people can't find satisfaction on a regular basis they seem to turn to fetishes. When it's art, people seem to get bored of things after a while and the stuff they are into just becomes more and more bizarre. I think that's the reason for all the weird fetish porn; it's a self-perpetuating masturbatory thing and doesn't really translate to real life. One could argue this displays a certain level of immaturity but I'm not one to complain about art.
That actually makes a lot of sense to me. Never thought about it before. With boredom the tastes change over time, man I feel like a dingus for not figuring that out.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Deliberately seeking out furry images to get sweaty over or the like is in fact an abnormal degree, as it is a minority interest.
Having a fetish does not mean you are deprived of rational thought or ruled by compulsion in your personality. 'even the wisest men enjoy a little nonsense now and then,'.
Personally I don't choose to shun or decide what other people's personalities are on the premise of the sexual kinks they may or may not have, or assume everyone who has a fetish I don't share must be mentally ill in some sense.
You're correct that many individuals are detered from yiff because of exogenous or superfluous qualities but a large number of people still do not find animal-people arousing at all, if not incredibly creepy.
Oh brother. ._. this is now tangential, but let's persue it doggedly anyway. Puppies are not inherently cute, mosquitos are not intrinsically bad guys. These are generally held human responses, that do not reflect any intrinsic value of natural forms, but the relationship humans have with them. That's a matter of epistemology; if we were to turn to parastic bacteria and ask 'who has the greatest right to life?' the survival of their species long past the doom of ours might answer the question.
Last edited:
Ricky
Well-Known Member
I don't know about that. I think it depends on the art.
If it's more feral characters then yeah; most people wouldn't find that hot. I bet most straight guys would think Lola Bunny is hot because she has most of the characteristics that would be considered attractive for a female and has a human form.
I know I've said this before but I have had some female pinup type art on my walls for a while and got a bunch of comments from guys like that.
I don't think it's the anthro art that people find weird, just all the fetishes and the fact that 90% of it is gay.
Kit H. Ruppell
Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
It's like we're being visited by the ghost of Descartes, the Father of Modern Animal Abuse.
Funny how for all of Streetcircus' appeals to 'higher thinking' to justify his claims, the points he's trying to make stem from primitive reasoning.
ADF
Member
I must admit the erotic subtlety of a suggestive pose has been lost with a lot of furries. I take a peep in the lizard section and there is vore, beheading, double dicked herms, latex bondage, exaggerated scale breasts and genitals and that's just the first page! I admit I enjoy some exotic themes (though none of the above), but if you just want to check for a nice pin up; you've got to wade through a lot of heavy fetish material to find one. So even if someone was willing to recognise "each to their own" and not judge a furry for having a taste for anthro animal creatures, there is always that element of taking it to the 'next level' of shock porn that makes even the most open minded pressured to judge furries.
Frankly I wish we could enable/disable different categories on FA, a sort of filter options where each type has its own tick box. So you could get your preferred themes and block out the rest.
Last edited:
Ricky
Well-Known Member
DON'T ARGUE WITH THE BIBLE, MOTHAFUCKA
We could learn some things from it, like how to treat women :V
You can filter out tags on Inkbunny...
Streetcircus
Member
Any porn that is drawn or animated is a minority interest, but it isn't the fact that's it's drawn that is arousing to people: it's heightened reality. There is nothing fetishistic about idealizing sex. The human body is not arousing in every way. Anthropomorphic characters have no flaws, and everything that is preferable in other animals that we know exist. Why would you fantasize about dangling labias, hairy butt cracks, blemished skin, and shriveled ears if you can fantasize something better than human?
You may not shun others for trying to act cute when they're really just awkward nerds, collecting massive amounts of pregnant porn, or obsessing over trivial things, but most people do; and for good reason: it's not pleasant to see, it shows a lack of self-awareness, and it indicates that you have very poor taste. Society encourages favorable behavior, and discourages unfavorable behavior. It's important for cultural progress that we don't allow the bruised apples to spoil the whole bunch. If you had a normal sexual development, it will show in your ability to control your impulses and not become fixated with senseless things. Let's have that if we can.
As the concept of cute would not exist without our minds to comprehend it, I would say that whatever we think is cute, is - intrinsically. Also, if parasitic organisms survive past our extinction, it's because we didn't decide to wipe them out on a whim. Our intellect is the most beneficial survival ability, and it is beneficial for every other organism to not be on bad terms with us. That would reduce their chances of survival pretty significantly.
Ricky
Well-Known Member
You can draw human-like characters and get the same effect (i.e. Anime).
That's not how fetishes work. If it were, we would know how fetishes work =P
Fetishes don't stem from "abnormal sexual development." They are a normal part of human sexuality.
As for the art though, well yeah. I already said what I thought about that.
Personally, I pretty much lost interest in porn once I was getting laid on a normal basis. unless I am on amphetamines
Streetcircus
Member
At least some fetishes are definitely a result of childhood trauma. We know that sexual abuse as a child can cause fixative sexual behavior. All I know is that I don't have any fetishes, and I think I could not have had a healthier and more normal childhood. I was socially acceptable, loved, and happy. I wonder if any vore fetishists can say that. Probably not, though.
Ricky
Well-Known Member
FreedomXJustice
Ma~X~aS
...Humans.
ADF
Member
Except the whole animal people thing of course.
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Idealised people don't have tails and fangs, generally speaking...well it depends on who is doing the idealising, doesn't it?
The fetishists I know aren't awkward nerds and are as aware of themselves as much as anybody else- perhaps more so than people who pretend they're normal to themselves for fear of not fitting in. I don't care if seeing them have sex would turn me off; I don't really plan on spying on their bedrooms.
A fetishless sexuality is not inherently superior or indeed indicative of supreme mental health, can we please establish that?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the way people see the universe inside their heads after their brains have done extensive processing, is not the same universe that exists externally. Outside of our heads there are lots of non-human creatures and even inanimate objects that humans erroneously label as cute, these objects are not intrinsically anything more than objects- cute is a label we attribute to them. Similarly Organisms do not carry anthropomorphised emotional characters by virtue of their existance; we attribute those adjectives to them.
Humans value human life above most other forms of life, it does not mean that human life is 'inherently more valuable' than standard.
@Ricky, yes you mentioned that previously. We should perhaps propone some controls: many individuals might also not find bondage material objectionable even if they do not claim a fetishistic interest, so there is some ambiguity here. Never the less worth some thought.
*At least some fetishistic behaviours stem from childhood experiences that may or may not have been traumatic experiences. Perhaps a strange sexualisation of cartoon characters. ;3
This is verging into freudian analysis though [much of which is batwazzedry]. I will conclude by saying that just because some people attribute some sexual deviations to childhood trauma it does not mean that all sexual deviations you come across are a result of childhood trauma.
One strange paradox for you to consider is that comments on the 'spankedfurs' group reveal few were beaten as children, which is the polar opposite of your assertion's prediction.
Last edited:
Ricky
Well-Known Member
You're going to hate me, but I don't really consider BDSM a fetish. (though there can be leather or rubber fetishes)
I understand what you're getting at here though, and yeah -- that's seen as pretty normal these days.
I see BDSM as a play on the innate human desire for dominance or submission.
You could stretch a lot of things this way, which is why I don't see a lot of fetishes as that strange.
Streetcircus
Member
The vampire craze would suggest that fangs can be considered pretty desirable.
I'm cautious about accepting a furry's word as proof that someone is not awkward and does not lack self-awareness. Furries are the most awkward group of people on the planet, and may not be the most capable of judging self-awareness. I can't say that the socially adept friends that I have definitely do not have fetishes, but they seem to react to the topic of fetishes the same way: with disgusted amusement. Maybe I just don't know many fetishists, but I've never seen fetishistic behavior brought up in conversation without everyone responding as if it's shameful and childish.
Then, there is my own observations. I wouldn't say that posting crude drawings of your uncommon sexual desires all over the internet is in the best taste, but it's a reoccurring phenomenon. I think, for every popular female character in fiction, there is a crude drawing of them pregnant, obese, and tied up everywhere that can be posted. It's never really enough for them to just practice it in the bedroom. How can it be; are they going to find a perfect partner to go along with it to their satisfaction? Most likely, not. They have to satiate their urges somehow, so they involve unassociated communities like this one in their activities. You don't have to spy on them for them to expose every seedy thought that enters their consciousness, they'll make a crude drawing of it and make sure it's on a popular website for your viewing pleasure.
Real Sex on HBO is another opportunity for me to to see what admitted fetishists are like, and though they may be the more extreme and open representations of the fetish, they're absolutely the most childish and immature people I have ever witnessed. They are more intensely absorbed in the fetish, and that may support my belief that fetishes are a result of damaged mental health. Of course, there is not enough research to confirm Sigmund Freud's theories about how fetishes develop, but that doesn't mean their wrong. In fact, in some cases, his theories are definitely correct. Logically, we can assume that it's possible that all fetishes are a result of less significant trauma, like confusion or emotional conflict - nothing good, to say the least. Like I said, I don't know your friends, but the fetishists I do know of certainly seem very confused to me.
As far as how we view the universe, what people see in their heads is what exists. We see it the way we do because we experienced it the best way you can: with sentient intelligence. If we feel compassion and sympathy for anything, living or inanimate, that we characterize as vulnerable, innocent, and non-threatening, then it is cute because our perception of nature is a natural evolution.
I just don't agree with any of this. I don't think humans have an innate desire to dominate or submit, I think they have a gay, furry, bondage desire to assign formulaic roles during sex. The dom/sub stuff annoys me to no end.
Last edited:
Ricky
Well-Known Member
No they aren't; scientists are.
Have you ever worked in research? :V
Look at almost every heterosexual couple in existence.
Of course it's innate.
Most males try to be dominant and most females tend to be submissive and seek out a dominant male (obvious evolutionary implications).
This isn't true all the time, but it's prevalent enough I feel confident using the word "innate."
wat
Fallowfox
Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Whilst domination and submission are innate parts of sex- principally manifested in dimorphism between the two sexes- sexual deviations based off of that behaviour are still fetishistic.
@ Streetcircus. ._. really now? My assessment of other individuals is flawed because I like fluffy folk? I might add that I don't openly chat about sexual deviation with my friends; I came to know some of them were fetishists because they revealed their interests by accident or sought confidence in me.
So, why would people who are fetishists themselves or comfortable with other people being fetishists feign disgust when the topic comes into public discussion? Embarrassment and social conformity, with a hash of psychological projection. Perhaps one reason why very loud homophobes are significantly more likely to be homosexual themselves.
...so sexual deviation is unacceptable and must be viewed as a mental illness because some of us stumble across drawings we don't like on the internet? Pfft.
Here's an alternative hypothesis: People who are casted towards the social fringe, possible because of trauma, are less likely to obey social taboos such as keeping their mouths shut about their sexual fantasies.
;3
'as far as what we see in our minds, what we see in our minds is what we see in our minds,'...how enlightening. x3
Look, a human things a rose is sweet whereas a fly would prefer horse poo. Neither roses or horse poo are inherently good or bad smelling- the two organisms live life in different ecological niches that demand different viewpoints. There aren't inherent emotional values in nature, the universe is not anthropmorphic.
@ Streetcircus. ._. really now? My assessment of other individuals is flawed because I like fluffy folk? I might add that I don't openly chat about sexual deviation with my friends; I came to know some of them were fetishists because they revealed their interests by accident or sought confidence in me.
So, why would people who are fetishists themselves or comfortable with other people being fetishists feign disgust when the topic comes into public discussion? Embarrassment and social conformity, with a hash of psychological projection. Perhaps one reason why very loud homophobes are significantly more likely to be homosexual themselves.
...so sexual deviation is unacceptable and must be viewed as a mental illness because some of us stumble across drawings we don't like on the internet? Pfft.
Here's an alternative hypothesis: People who are casted towards the social fringe, possible because of trauma, are less likely to obey social taboos such as keeping their mouths shut about their sexual fantasies.
;3
'as far as what we see in our minds, what we see in our minds is what we see in our minds,'...how enlightening. x3
Look, a human things a rose is sweet whereas a fly would prefer horse poo. Neither roses or horse poo are inherently good or bad smelling- the two organisms live life in different ecological niches that demand different viewpoints. There aren't inherent emotional values in nature, the universe is not anthropmorphic.
Streetcircus
Member
Been busy, but I just wanted to make a quick few points.
Furries tend to be overly-accepting. The reason they are is because people who accept anything and everything need others to be that way to be accepted themselves. Furries need others to be extremely tolerant or they won't be tolerated at all. That's because of their lack of social grace, which includes being openly fetishistic.
I think most people are just genuinely disgusted with fetishes, like I am. I find it easier to believe that most people accept that fetishes are obsessive behavior, as the official definitions suggest, and that obsessions are a result of emotional conflict, rather than believe that everyone is just playing a big mean game of pretend. Very loud homophobes are just insecure people, but there are many times more people who are accepting of gays while quietly feeling that men kissing and getting plowed in the butt is vomit inducing.
I think about it this way: let's take an extreme example of a social taboo, like exposing your genitals to children. The consequence of that behavior can lead to serious psychological damage for the child, and the appropriate punishment is imprisonment and a lifelong branding as a sex offender. As you dial back the severity of the offense, the reaction to the offense should also be less severe, but not dissimilar. The nature of indulging in a fetish is of the same ilk as exhibitionism or some other kind of senseless, harmful sexual behavior. It's only natural that people have a similar, albeit less severe, response.
I have to say again, flies eat poop, then they spread the bacteria around, which causes diseases and sickness. We evolved, naturally, the superior ability to determine that poop is threatening to our health. We are much more advanced than flies, so the capabilities we have developed are favorable to what less evolved beings have acquired, especially when it comes to our cognitive abilities. If we have evolved a certain emotional response to poop or roses, it was a cognitive benefit that has allowed our species to surpass every other on the food chain without being more physically dangerous, and no other species has leapfrogged another without being more physically dangerous or having more offspring.