Diaperfurs

[Dokid]

Okay so this isn't meant to be a rant, but it pertains to furries wearing diapers, whether they're the baby/cub sort or the adult furry, whatever. So I personally am strongly against the idea of furs wearing diapers; I find it totally weird at best, and objectionable to look at in all cases. I realize that's just me, and far be it from me to impose my views on others. If artists really want to post that sort of thing, and FA is cool with it, then fine. I'm just wondering if anyone can explain the surge of diaperfur art we've had recently. It used to be that I'd run into that kind of thing maybe a couple times in a week. Now I'm seeing it on a daily basis, and loads of it at that. I really don't enjoy it, but I've taken to blocking out artists who post that kind of material just so I personally don't have to see it, and yet after blocking out over 200, I'm still adding roughly 6-9 artists a day to the blocklist, and it's showing no signs of slowing down. So really, what's with that? It almost seems beyond the realm of coincidence now. Is it just a trend? Opinions?

well it depends on the kind of artist your watching... I mean I haven't noticed any. Maybe turn the filter for Tame or mature art on? I mean you can't really stop people from posting things (although sometimes I wish I could)

Also you must spend a lot of time online if it bothers you that much....

 

[Bipolar Bear]

To each his own, I guess.

Who're we to judge others for what they draw? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[PapayaShark]

As long as I don't have to see it or it is of underage characters involved in sexual content, I have no problems with it.

 

[Limbo]

Wat... I am glad I don't go to the main site =~=...
Diaper art makes me feel kind of awkward so I try not to go looking for it. Ah hah...

 

[Fallowfox]

Wat... I am glad I don't go to the main site =~=...
Diaper art makes me feel kind of awkward so I try not to go looking for it. Ah hah...

I go to the main site and I hardly see any.

 

[Limbo]

I go to the main site and I hardly see any.

I understand, it's just I ran across things I did not want to see (even with my filters set to NONESHALLPASS) and I decided main site is just not where I belong.

 

[KigRatel]

I go to the main site and I hardly see any.

Same here.

As many people have said, if it's not pornographic, then I don't give half a shit about these Nappyfurs. (FYI, Nappy is British English for Diaper)

 

[SirRob]

As many people have said, if it's not pornographic, then I don't give half a shit about these Nappyfurs. (FYI, Nappy is British English for Diaper)

But the same intent is there for a considerable amount of this sort of art.

 

[Streetcircus]

It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.

It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.

 

[KigRatel]

But the same intent is there for a considerable amount of this sort of art.

What do you mean the same inte- oh, right.

Well, if that's their intent and they don't make it obvious, then that's their problem, not mine. I'll leave them to deal with consequences and stay out of it, thanks. That's the only way I can remain ignorant, and thus, untraumatized, in such a situation.

 

[ArielMT]

It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.

It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.

Et tu, Freud? You seem to be sexualizing something that isn't necessarily sexual. Also, what does sexual retardation mean?

 

[Fallowfox]

It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.

It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.

I'm no diaperfur but I feel this is either cutting edge sarcasm or incredibly unfair.
-There's no guarantee all their members have a sexual interest or that those who do exclusively so.
-There's little ground to claim those who do are 'sexually retarded,' because they have a fetishism which you personally think is disgusting*; the only thing certain about sex is that everyone's into something that somebody else finds sinister and the only remedy to that is tollerance in the face of all harmless behaviour.

*For instance a slug is not intrinsically disgusting because you don't like slugs.

Et tu, Freud? You seem to be sexualizing something that isn't necessarily sexual. Also, what does sexual retardation mean?

I assume he thinks that since that specific fetishism- not that they're all fetishistic individuals- features aspects from childhood that it means the individuals who subscribe to it have failed to develope into adults.

However there exist other fetishisms which also feature aspects from childhood that the public find completely acceptable rather than sexually 'retarded', for example spankophiles.

 

[Shadow]

It's tasteless, immature, and a blatant indication that you had an impairment during your sexual development.

It's advertising that you're sexually retarded. It's not behavior that should be indulged in, and I will protest it if I see it.

Well that escalated quickly, especially since we were talking about it in general. You know, not making it sexual right away.

 

[ArielMT]

I assume he thinks that since that specific fetishism- not that they're all fetishistic individuals- features aspects from childhood that it means the individuals who subscribe to it have failed to develope into adults.

It's a pretty complicated thing, one that I'm trying not to pretend I fully understand. That noted, a lot of DL art I come across falls into one of three categories.

The most repulsive is, of course, the explicit sex in which the wearing and use of diapers for their intended purpose plays a key role. That, I just don't understand; not just what makes such a mind tick, but how it's physically possible, sort of like vore fetishism but less confined to pure imagination.

The second is the kink factor, identical in every way to other types of clothing fetishes, such as latex, business suits, or the culturally reinforced swimsuit kinks.

The third is not sexual at all, not in the least, and nor is it meant to be. The desire is simply to recapture some of the innocence of youth as a relaxing form of temporary escapism.

However there exist other fetishisms which also feature aspects from childhood that the public find completely acceptable rather than sexually 'retarded', for example spankophiles.

I don't pretend to understand that one, either. But hey, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Streetcircus]

I'm no diaperfur but I feel this is either cutting edge sarcasm or incredibly unfair.
-There's no guarantee all their members have a sexual interest or that those who do exclusively so.
-There's little ground to claim those who do are 'sexually retarded,' because they have a fetishism which you personally think is disgusting*; the only thing certain about sex is that everyone's into something that somebody else finds sinister and the only remedy to that is tollerance in the face of all harmless behaviour.

*For instance a slug is not intrinsically disgusting because you don't like slugs.

I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all. That just has not been my experience. I suppose it's possible, but do furries draw food because they like to eat, beds because they like to sleep, or stereo systems because they like music? Only very rarely.

As far as it being disgusting, you can argue that nothing is disgusting if any individual is not repulsed by it, but that's not how we come to understand the value of adjectives. We understand by relatives. If you want to explain what the word disgusting means, you would reference garbage. If you have experienced garbage, you would then understand what disgusting means, but only if your experiences with garbage have been unpleasant. Most people do not find rotting food and used tissues pleasant, so garbage is a standard.

I think most would consider an adult wearing an ugly bag for pleasure, that is meant to be pooped and peed in, and is designed for infants with limited physical capabilities, to be immature, irrational, unpleasant, and disgusting behavior. Enough to say that it is a standard. It's not just my own personal feelings, I'm deferring to the prevailing common logic.

 

[Fallowfox]

I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all. That just has not been my experience. I suppose it's possible, but do furries draw food because they like to eat, beds because they like to sleep, or stereo systems because they like music? Only very rarely.

As far as it being disgusting, you can argue that nothing is disgusting if any individual is not repulsed by it, but that's not how we come to understand the value of adjectives. We understand by relatives. If you want to explain what the word disgusting means, you would reference garbage. If you have experienced garbage, you would then understand what disgusting means, but only if your experiences with garbage have been unpleasant. Most people do not find rotting food and used tissues pleasant, so garbage is a standard.

I think most would consider an adult wearing an ugly bag for pleasure, that is meant to be pooped and peed in, and is designed for infants with limited physical capabilities, to be immature, irrational, unpleasant, and disgusting behavior. Enough to say that it is a standard. It's not just my own personal feelings, I'm deferring to the prevailing common logic.

Do furries draw furries because they like furries for reasons other than sexual? All the time. In any case, I'm going to touch on popularity in the next paragraph.

Many people would consider adults wearing diapers any of those following adjectives, but it doesn't make it intrinsically so or indicate that said individuals are retarded sexually or immature mentally, only that their interests are a minority behaviour. Appeal to popularity is a fallacy. [there goes democracy] In light of this, as long as nobody comes to any harm, I cultivate an open mind to other people's behaviour regardless of its attached popularity and take effort [at least try] not to typify groups by non inherent descriptions.

 

[ArielMT]

but do furries draw food because they like to eat,

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/2216781/ Also, a search for "food," searching by date, returned no result on the first page that was older than one day. Just sayin' that furries do draw stuff because they like it but don't get off to it. It's a poor analogy.

 

[Ikrit]

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/2216781/ Also, a search for "food," searching by date, returned no result on the first page that was older than one day. Just sayin' that furries do draw stuff because they like it but don't get off to it. It's a poor analogy.

still not as cool as cockwaffle, it has a syrup filling!
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/607086/ (NSFW-ish)

 

[SirRob]

I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all.

*Jawdrop* Are you seriously saying that?! That's like, highly offensive to every clean artist on FA. That's like... it's offensive to yourself, dude.

 

[Dokid]

I've never known furries to fixate on something enough to draw it without any sexual interest in it at all. That just has not been my experience. I suppose it's possible, but do furries draw food because they like to eat, beds because they like to sleep, or stereo systems because they like music? Only very rarely.

So if I draw a fish does that mean that I'm sexually attracted to it? Maybe I just like drawing fish all the time.

Your example is poor and you should re-word it or come up with a new one. I've seen plenty of clean artwork that is furry oriented where I highly doubt the artist created it simply because they're sexually attracted to the scene or whatever it is.

 

[MitchZer0]

Only little baby scrublet minecraft fans wear diapers

 

[Fallowfox]

*Jawdrop* Are you seriously saying that?! That's like, highly offensive to every clean artist on FA. That's like... it's offensive to yourself, dude.

He's the only artist who ever produces non sexual imagery, and everyone else is obsessed with sex naturally. x3

...I can perhaps see why somebody could be dooped into thinking that, since sometimes the 'newest' is almost entirely sexual and in general furries tend to think that other furries are more sexual than themselves- which is odd isn't it? Of course these impressions are entirely false.

 

[KingNow]

I don't mind diaperfurs, as long as they keep it to themselves.
The problem with that is the fact that they're furries, and furs have this unnatural lust for attention.

It's also really fucking creepy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafK6jT5pnE&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Streetcircus]

Do furries draw furries because they like furries for reasons other than sexual? All the time. In any case, I'm going to touch on popularity in the next paragraph.


Many people would consider adults wearing diapers any of those following adjectives, but it doesn't make it intrinsically so or indicate that said individuals are retarded sexually or immature mentally, only that their interests are a minority behaviour. Appeal to popularity is a fallacy. [there goes democracy] In light of this, as long as nobody comes to any harm, I cultivate an open mind to other people's behaviour regardless of its attached popularity and take effort [at least try] not to typify groups by non inherent descriptions.

Furries are a general interest, diapers are a very particular interest.

Art is about concept, and many things that people draw have an idea behind them that they want to express. What could anyone want to express concerning diapers? If there was some kind of meaning behind the drawing of diapers, that would be one thing, but these are fixations, and fixations are most often related to sexual desire.

As I said, there is nothing intrinsically disgusting about anything. It's all based on our experiences, but without relatives, the word disgusting would have no meaning. To understand the word, we reference things like diapers. Diapers are not intrinsically disgusting, but they are a standard because they are consistently found to be offensive by the functioning senses of a typical human being. It is so consistent, that you would be immediately dismissed as a lunatic if you admitted to liking diapers in any modern society.

There is the chance that the majority are wrong, but I have a rule for that: if you can't rationalize a behavior, it is probably wrong. Now, you define wrong as harmful to another person, but there are many examples of unfavorable qualities that don't actually cause harm to anyone: cowardice, promiscuity, vanity, immaturity, or awkwardness. Acting cowardly doesn't actually do harm to anyone, and it may even prevent harm from coming to you, but it isn't admirable, and everyone has the right to petition against what they don't approve of. Cowardice is, inherently, a negative characteristic.

So, while diaper drawers may not be doing harm to anyone, except culture, they can't rationalize it, and I can rationalize my disapproval. I have more than enough right to protest against it.

 

[Osiris the jackal]

I find it taboo as well, But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So as long as they keep to themselves and don't hurt anyone(Or the fandom ), I see no problem with them.