• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

RANT: Stop oversexualizing your fursonas; treat them like characters.

Status
Not open for further replies.

redhusky

Emperor of Floof! King of the Rats and Spamlord!
I think almost 80% more is a lot, especially when we're talking about things that were thrown around like "this fandom is inherently sexual"

even if we factor in 10% mis-tagged/sfw fetish stuff (which I think is a lot) you'd still be at 68/32 for SFW content, and I think that's a large margin.
"this fandom is inherently sexual"Reminds of back in the 90's and early 2000's when anime was really starting to get mainstream. People pointed out that "hentai" existed and "pearl clutchey" types kept acting like most of it was hentai and people who actually enjoyed the media were like "Wut?"

The issue that I have with saying things are "mature content" as a metric for "sexual content" is that not everything that is rated mature is sexually explicit. It could just be violent, lewd, racially charged, or even the artist themselves might find it a bit "too much" for personal reasons. Remember link the The Belfry Archive, there is a lot of Ns and V's but very few X's in comparison.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
The issue that I have with saying things are "mature content" as a metric for "sexual content" is that not everything that is rated mature is sexually explicit.

I agree with you almost completely however I've seen a lot of Adult content put into Mature and vice versa on FA so excuse me for combining the two in regards to search related math experiments.

"this fandom is inherently sexual"

I'm always 50/50 on this statement myself.

On the one hand, the furry community is extremely open about its sexuality, kinks, and is quite expressive in its art due to its anonymity but on the other hand...is every animal or anthro based art considered furry?

Because if so anthro sex takes up a large margin. Or is furry art only furry art when the artist is a furry...?

(This is where things get even MORE tricky for statistics. It's enough to give any creature a headache.)

If so, furry identifying artists and art commissioners - I'm willing to bet, - are likely to have sexual art to some capacity. Very few of them are "clean", especially on FA. Though this is just based on personal experience in the fandom and not any scientific proof or data.

Not every fandom is as open about their kinks and sexual fantasies as the furry fandom, and because of that, it can and will be brought up time and time again. Both by community members and outsiders alike. This obviously doesn't put any blame or shame on sex pieces because - as said prior - everyone gets horny. But it does mean that anthro sex art of nearly anything is, arguably, easier to find by accident (imo) than "normal" sexual fandom art.
 

Jackpot Raccuki

Fucking Racon
I mean, fursonas are meant to be how you represent yourself online.
So if you wanna represent yourself as a horny and overly sexualized anthro, go ahead.
Just know that I already called the cops;
 

redhusky

Emperor of Floof! King of the Rats and Spamlord!
everyone gets horny.
This is my new shut down phrase for this topic.

I suppose we can only talk about personal experience atm. For me, 9/10 of the furs that I know enjoy lewd to x rated but they keep it to themselves and their work is "clean" the other 1/10 does post such content but they are fully aware of any and all stigma and the attention it brings and they make it their business to follow the rules of the site they are on. The thing is that more "eyeballs" go onto them and I think that's what's causing all of this.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
This is my new shut down phrase for this topic.

I suppose we can only talk about personal experience atm. For me, 9/10 of the furs that I know enjoy lewd to x rated but they keep it to themselves and their work is "clean" the other 1/10 does post such content but they are fully aware of any and all stigma and the attention it brings and they make it their business to follow the rules of the site they are on. The thing is that more "eyeballs" go onto them and I think that's what's causing all of this.

Yeah this tends to be the logic everyone, or most people anyway, agrees upon in the end.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage

ConorHyena

nazi hunter
I'm always 50/50 on this statement myself.

On the one hand, the furry community is extremely open about its sexuality, kinks, and is quite expressive in its art due to its anonymity but on the other hand...is every animal or anthro based art considered furry?

Because if so anthro sex takes up a large margin. Or is furry art only furry art when the artist is a furry...?


If so, furry identifying artists and art commissioners - I'm willing to bet, - are likely to have sexual art to some capacity. Very few of them are "clean", especially on FA. Though this is just based on personal experience in the fandom and not any scientific proof or data.

Okay so forgive me if I'm going to ask for clarification - but what do you mean by animal or anthro based art considered furry and if this being the case anthro sex taking up a large margin?

The numbers again tell us that the majority of FA uploads (which are almost exclusively furry themed, be it feral or anthro) are SFW.

Even so, the fact that people have SFW and NSFW at the same time would contradict the OP's expression that sexual art is shallow - for a lot of furries it is, according to your experience, part of their character (Like sex is part of each of our lives in some way or other without making us shallow)
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
Okay so forgive me if I'm going to ask for clarification - but what do you mean by animal or anthro based art considered furry and if this being the case anthro sex taking up a large margin?

The numbers again tell us that the majority of FA uploads (which are almost exclusively furry themed, be it feral or anthro) are SFW.

Even so, the fact that people have SFW and NSFW at the same time would contradict the OP's expression that sexual art is shallow - for a lot of furries it is, according to your experience, part of their character (Like sex is part of each of our lives in some way or other without making us shallow)

At this point Conor, I have absolutely no idea anymore. I feel like a news journalist typing on a type writer analyzing articles with one too many cigarettes. It all doesn't add up - what I see versus numbers. Something's gotta be off, and yet, they're right there. Maybe I'm just sensitive. *shrugs*

In regards to the based on argument it's kind of like saying, "There's more SFW art of dragons than NSFW" - and yes, because dragons are mythical creatures that have inspired artists for decades. However, would any of that be considered Furry since it wasn't made with a Furry audience in mind? Probably not.

I just fell into a rabbit hole of technicalities due to sleepiness I presume. Similar to how I might view any fetish art as Mature or NSFW but a lot of fetish art is seen as General so long as it isn't showing privates. Which I personally just can't agree with, and feel that it most definitely ruins the numbers. Even if they are still higher, there's just so much head-tilting "this is clearly a fetish" art that a kid really has no business seeing, and it is most certainly not General or Wholesome or even in most cases creative (though that last one will surely offend some kinksters). I'm sorry but your blobs all look the same to me, and often have the same backgrounds too. Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent here, point is...

I think that the results are hard to calculate with such a flawed system, and i also think there's a lot of human art and fandom art on FA unrelated to anthros so that just takes a whole other direction with the "Does it count in the analysis if it isn't furry based?" And-well...

I need coffee lol
 

ConorHyena

nazi hunter
At this point Conor, I have absolutely no idea anymore. I feel like a news journalist typing on a type writer analyzing articles with one too many cigarettes. It all doesn't add up - what I see versus numbers. Something's gotta be off, and yet, they're right there. Maybe I'm just sensitive. *shrugs*

In regards to the based on argument it's kind of like saying, "There's more SFW art of dragons than NSFW" - and yes, because dragons are mythical creatures that have inspired artists for decades. However, would any of that be considered Furry since it wasn't made with a Furry audience in mind? Probably not.

I think that the results are hard to calculate with such a flawed system, and i also think there's a lot of human art and fandom art on FA unrelated to anthros so that just takes a whole other direction with the "Does it count in the analysis if it isn't furry based?" And-well...

I need coffee lol

I don't disagree with the aspect that FA has a labeling issue, I've made that clear in the respective thread too. And even if there's 10% mislabeled art that is still a lot.

However, I think what you're describing is actually confirmation bias/anecdotal vs statistical evidence. Sometimes our perception tricks us like that, making us see what we expect to see.

The percentage of human art on FA is relatively low, and since we're using FA as a starting point for our data analysis the medival art of dragons is immaterial, it's not on FA.

I think, perosnally, that a lot of people go on FA with the opinion "furries are sexual" and then fall into the trap of confirmation bias (because there is sexual content, but it's not the majority) and we get threads like this.

*makes coffee for you*
 

OvineTanuki

Certified Moron
Protip: If you really want to have a discussion don't poison the well. See this sentence? This passive-aggressiveness taint's the rest of the post because from here on sound like your speaking down to us even if you didn't mean to.


FA already has filters for both fetishes and content ratings. If people aren't using the then report them.
DA used to have a proper anthro section with more filters but the admins, notably Jark you guy remember that Jark nonsense, personally disliked the genre, along with many others, and "crammed" it together.


You are correct, most anthro art is SFW. I've been part of the online fandom since 1996 and this type of conversation comes up every so often and the answer to it is always: Stop looking at the NSFW content and use the filters that are already there for you to use. And the NSFW content is just what gets all the attention so stop making it an issue. ANNNND don't try to cheat and lump lewds in with the outright X rated content!

I'll admit I was kinda salty when I made that post, but that was directed at people just making one or two-word jabs and not offering anything else. A little snarkiness never killed anyone but just an insult and nothing else doesn't add anything.

I promise I'm not looking for sexual content lmao If the SFW filter actually worked half of the time I wouldn't feel the need to complain. Maybe my idea of SFW is a bit stricter than most, but fetish content slipping past the filter on a technicality has always been my biggest issue with the filter. Since it technically doesn't break the rules I can't report them. Not to mention all of the mature art with a couple a black bars slapped on it so it can be posted under the General section, once again subverting it on a technicality. My problem was with the way the filter itself works, not how people tag. Should've made that clear, my bad.

I'm not a prude by any means, I'm cool with porn and fetishes, it'd just be nice to have it filtered. Maybe I'm asking for too much but still.
 
D

Deleted member 111470

Guest
Honestly, I thought that this was one of those cases where someone makes an account just to piss people off, which is why my response was short and vague, but now I want to add more, since the OP returned to apologize for any misunderstandings.

I still completely disagree with the statement that nsfw characters are bland, and that they have no depth, meaning or development. This sounds like something someone says when they've never met the people they are talking about. I know people who have a significant amount of nsfw artwork, where their characters have interesting and detailed backstories.

But then, I can only speak for myself. I am not going to name names and point fingers. I don't care what the outsider's perception of the fandom is. People will see what they want to see. If they truly cared, then they'd do their research. It is not my job to convince them of anything.

And speaking for myself, I can say this: lately, I've been writing only NSFW content and commissioning only NSFW drawings of my character. Why? First, because I love it, and second - because I live in a country where the LGBT minority has no protection and no rights, and is often the victim of violence and in some extreme cases - murder. I can never experience the things that I write about, and the things that I commission. I can never talk about them freely, with another person face to face. Which is why this is something that helps me cope with that.

My character doesn't just represent some hot anthro boi - he represents ideas, ideals, my desire for absolute freedom. He represents something I cannot have. And calling that shallow and devoid of meaning, emotions, feeling, depth... well, that's straight up wrong.
 

Aiai

Member
I agree with Rimna. In many many countries LGBT+/disabled/women/racial minorites/others have their sexuality repressed, shamed, or outright criminalized and persecuted. Using fursonas or art in general to express, enjoy, or take control of their sexuality is not only a normal and healthy response, it is an absolutely critical outlet.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
As for the proportion of FA submissions that’s General/Mature/Adult, there’s always this: www.furaffinity.net: FA submission map 2010-04-29 by Yak
The data is about 10 years old at this point, but it doesn’t appear the proportion of NSFW work was shifting significantly over time, so it should still be sufficient to give a general idea. This comment breaks it down into actual numbers; excluding the deleted submissions the proportion is very roughly 2/3 SFW and 1/3 NSFW.

I know, there's a lot to be triggered over this thread but there comes a time where you have to be the bigger person and be respectful.
Um... using “triggered” in that manner isn’t exactly demonstrating how to “be the bigger person and be respectful.” Could you please not? Because it’s basically making light of people with legitimate mental and physical ailments that are set off by specific stimuli (triggers).
 

redhusky

Emperor of Floof! King of the Rats and Spamlord!
As for the proportion of FA submissions that’s General/Mature/Adult, there’s always this: www.furaffinity.net: FA submission map 2010-04-29 by Yak
The data is about 10 years old at this point, but it doesn’t appear the proportion of NSFW work was shifting significantly over time, so it should still be sufficient to give a general idea. This comment breaks it down into actual numbers; excluding the deleted submissions the proportion is very roughly 2/3 SFW and 1/3 NSFW.


Um... using “triggered” in that manner isn’t exactly demonstrating how to “be the bigger person and be respectful.” Could you please not? Because it’s basically making light of people with legitimate mental and physical ailments that are set off by specific stimuli (triggers).
It's a normal turn of phrase and nothing is meant by it.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
It's a normal turn of phrase and nothing is meant by it.
It’s definitely not; it’s a semi-technical term that was co-opted by “edgy” assholes to mock “SJWs” objecting to their bigotry. Using it in that manner is harmful in that it makes light of something that’s a serious issue for the people suffering from conditions associated with triggers, which can cause real harm.

I’m not saying you meant harm by it, but brushing it off as “turn of phrase” is ignoring the reality of how it ended up in common use by people with nothing better to do than be assholes on the Internet.
 

redhusky

Emperor of Floof! King of the Rats and Spamlord!
It’s definitely not; it’s a semi-technical term that was co-opted by “edgy” assholes to mock “SJWs” objecting to their bigotry. Using it in that manner is harmful in that it makes light of something that’s a serious issue for the people suffering from conditions associated with triggers, which can cause real harm.

I’m not saying you meant harm by it, but brushing it off as “turn of phrase” is ignoring the reality of how it ended up in common use by people with nothing better to do than be assholes on the Internet.
No, it's a normal turn a of phrase and nothing is meant by it. It's used when something is said that can potentially rile you up or push "those" buttons that can cause someone to react angrily or with varying degrees of annoyance.
 

Jaredthefox92

Well-Known Member
Sometimes a backstory isn't a good thing anyway.

I remember roleplaying with one furry and then he says his fursona killed his mother.

Like...woah now.

Actually, there are no bad characters, only bad writers. The backstory is good if you can actually pull it off. In my story the villains have a lot of family values, they're scum to other people but then they sit down at the dinner table and have nice 'evil is one big happy family' bonding.
 

redhusky

Emperor of Floof! King of the Rats and Spamlord!
Actually, there are no bad characters, only bad writers. The backstory is good if you can actually pull it off. In my story the villains have a lot of family values, they're scum to other people but then they sit down at the dinner table and have nice 'evil is one big happy family' bonding.
So are the good ones cat ladies in your story?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top