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

So.. what happened to that one furry site that tried to ban feral furry artwork?

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
I can't remember the name but I think I heard about it. Was it the one people went to when FAF was offline?
I think the site went under, if I remember correctly.
 

SolDirix

Pixel fuzz
I think the site went under, if I remember correctly.
external-content.duckduckgo.com.gif
 

Smityyyy

Racc Man
I don’t understand why people care so much about feral. Is there such a huge difference between an anthropomorphic animal on two legs vs four legs vs eight legs? Do centaurs count? What if the anthro is very realistic looking while the feral is extremely toonish. Dunno, furries losing their shit over feral while actively consuming anthro porn always felt like a defensive cope.

Obviously I’m not talking about literal depictions of hyperrealistic feral animals. However, a character walking on four legs doesn’t immediately make it somehow morally worse than a character walking on two. Just feels like a weird cherry-pick.

I’m not surprised a site that did that went under. Hard to even define what ‘feral’ is anyhow.
 

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
losing their shit over feral while actively consuming anthro porn always felt like a defensive cope.

Exactly.

When I learned about the fandom, I was confused. Then when I learned about people labeling ferals as zoophiles, I got even MORE confused.
"If you were worried about people being zoo's because of their animal-like characteristics, why aren't you looking at human porn???" was my first thought.
 

SolDirix

Pixel fuzz
Exactly.

When I learned about the fandom, I was confused. Then when I learned about people labeling ferals as zoophiles, I got even MORE confused.
"If you were worried about people being zoo's because of their animal-like characteristics, why aren't you looking at human porn???" was my first thought.
There are two kinds of people in the world.
Those that understand the Harkness Test.
Those who do not.
 

Punji

Daedric Prince of Secrets
That sounds dumb. If someone did an oil painting of his cat that would be against the rules?

Silly. No wonder the site went down if they want to enforce such a pointless arbitrary rule.
 

Smityyyy

Racc Man
Exactly.

When I learned about the fandom, I was confused. Then when I learned about people labeling ferals as zoophiles, I got even MORE confused.
"If you were worried about people being zoo's because of their animal-like characteristics, why aren't you looking at human porn???" was my first thought.

Sometimes I think it’s a little bit of insecurity. If they have a ‘worse’ type of porn to point to, then their habit of looking at porn with animalistic characteristics isn’t ‘bad’ because there’s a form of it that has slightly more animalistic traits.

Just feels like a weird projection scenario. Agree with ya wholeheartedly. If it’s ‘zoophilic’ to look at characters that are animalistic then why are you looking at any furry porn? The differences between toony ferals and toony anthros is marginal and honestly hard to clearly define.
 

LameFox

Well-Known Member
It wasn't so much what they banned IMO as how they banned it. To begin with it was just this kind of tiny furry site with a tagging system, a few mandatory tags, and the idea was that you'd block stuff you didn't want to see. Just a kind of average 'what if FA but not 15 years behind the curve' site.

Somewhere along the way it started to trend and suddenly loads of people were joining it, and as usual it drew a lot of people who basically wanted FA but without the thing that personally offends them. Since the site was still in beta and open for changes there was a whole lot of arguing over where to draw lines regarding these things, and one of the big ones was feral porn. They had a poll with a few different options and ultimately settled on this kind of half-and-half approach which, critically, didn't please either side and (in my view anyway) created a whole lot of uncertainty around the site. Some people were afraid it wouldn't ban the thing they personally wanted banned, others were worried they'd invest time and effort only to have it ban what they were posting.

At the same time they disabled registrations for ages because the site wasn't coping with the influx of attention. So basically a lot of people on both sides left, nobody else could actually join, and by the time the restriction was lifted the momentum had died and it was so inactive it wasn't even really worth posting on anymore. My take away from this is that if you want to make a furry art site, think up some rules you like first and fucking stick with them.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
I mean isn't NSFW feral literally zoophilia?
To a teenager, perhaps.

The funny thing about such platforms is that the types of people who create and populate them thrive on outrage. In the absence of an easy scapegoat, they invariably turn on each other and burn down the whole thing. We saw this with FLO, we saw it with Project FurFur, and we will see it again.
 

Smityyyy

Racc Man
I mean isn't NSFW feral literally zoophilia?

Inherently, no more so than anthro porn.

Sure, it could definitely be. Usually, though, it’s literally the same as any anthro porn — the difference being that one form is bipedal and the other is quadrupedal. If we’re being honest, having an anthro (bipedal) character of yours be depicted as a quadruped all with the same characteristics, consciousness, and design wouldn’t suddenly make it zoophilia.

Doesn’t make sense to paint all of this stuff with a broad brush. It’s also sort of hard to define ‘feral’ anyhow. Drawing arbitrary lines on slightly different styles to make anthro porn feel less ‘wrong’ to consume is kind of a massive cope. That’s just my take, though.
 

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
Inherently, no more so than anthro porn.

Sure, it could definitely be. Usually, though, it’s literally the same as any anthro porn — the difference being that one form is bipedal and the other is quadrupedal. If we’re being honest, having an anthro (bipedal) character of yours be depicted as a quadruped all with the same characteristics, consciousness, and design wouldn’t suddenly make it zoophilia.

Doesn’t make sense to paint all of this stuff with a broad brush. It’s also sort of hard to define ‘feral’ anyhow. Drawing arbitrary lines on slightly different styles to make anthro porn feel less ‘wrong’ to consume is kind of a massive cope. That’s just my take, though.

To a teenager, perhaps.

The funny thing about such platforms is that the types of people who create and populate them thrive on outrage. In the absence of an easy scapegoat, they invariably turn on each other and burn down the whole thing. We saw this with FLO, we saw it with Project FurFur, and we will see it again.

Okay but that's kind of the exact same argument as the 9000 year old witch that just happens to look like a little girl, whereas a human torso arms and legs are well, human torso arms and legs

There is a line somewhere everywhere so I guess everyone chooses to put it where it arranges them, just my two cents
 

LameFox

Well-Known Member
This already rehashes some of the things said on that site lol. A lot of those commenting seemed to think that people are just using ferals as an excuse to sexualize animals, but if you accept that then you also have to account for the fact that not all 'feral' species are even real animals at all and so nobody could possibly be trying to screw them IRL, and that is broadly how it ended up in a kind of no-win compromise banning some but not others.

FWIW I think that in fiction you will always get a blend of people who really wish they could live it out, and those who only enjoy it in the understanding that it's not real, and there's probably no hope of realistically targeting one and not the other. Why I think people in these situations should just pick the rules they feel like having on their site and let users join or not as suits them.
 

Judge Spear

Well-Known Member
The place didn't go under because they banned feral smut. It went under for the same reasons Mastodon, Weasyl, PillowFort, new SheezyArt, FN, and all these other garbage art upstarts either lost relevance or failed (and how I foresee Buzzly to collapse). Just general incompetence, no commitment, and lack of appeal on an overcentralized modern Internet.

Okay but that's kind of the exact same argument as the 9000 year old witch that just happens to look like a little girl, whereas a human torso arms and legs are well, human torso arms and legs

There is a line somewhere everywhere so I guess everyone chooses to put it where it arranges them, just my two cents

I always find it interesting that when it comes to disallowing feral, suddenly there isn't a distinction between anthro and feral porn. Despite the fact that there's two clearly understood, separate designations in the first place. It doesn't make people zoophiles the same way loli doesn't make people a pedo, but you can understand why platforms would want to distance themselves from such work. Particularly with the shit rep furries get. Granted banning a kind of smut is not going to remedy that.

And I can't say I blame them.
 

LameFox

Well-Known Member
This happened way, way faster than the slow decline to irrelevance those sites face(d). It's one thing to not attract enough users to be viable in the long term and another to simultaneously drive them away and bar new ones from arriving.
 

Judge Spear

Well-Known Member
This happened way, way faster than the slow decline to irrelevance those sites face(d). It's one thing to not attract enough users to be viable in the long term and another to simultaneously drive them away and bar new ones from arriving.
Faster than 3 months? Because that's the record time for the list I provided (lol SheezyArt).
 

Chomby

Taking a break from the forums. See ya.
Yeah that site was Furry Life Online and I was also wondering where it went out of curiosity. I joined during the time everyone was joining due to FAF being down for months and I quickly realized how toxic the userbase was. I remember the big arguments were about feral artwork being allowed, otherkins, and centrists (basically centrists were being labeled as bigots). I deleted my account there like a week after making it because there was so much vitriol on the forums and I couldn't stand it.

To be clear, I'm not an otherkin, centrist, or into feral stuff, but the hate/bullying alone just made me feel upset every time I visited the site. Good riddance.
 

Chomby

Taking a break from the forums. See ya.
I don’t understand why people care so much about feral. Is there such a huge difference between an anthropomorphic animal on two legs vs four legs vs eight legs? Do centaurs count? What if the anthro is very realistic looking while the feral is extremely toonish. Dunno, furries losing their shit over feral while actively consuming anthro porn always felt like a defensive cope.

Obviously I’m not talking about literal depictions of hyperrealistic feral animals. However, a character walking on four legs doesn’t immediately make it somehow morally worse than a character walking on two. Just feels like a weird cherry-pick.

I’m not surprised a site that did that went under. Hard to even define what ‘feral’ is anyhow.

Okay but that's kind of the exact same argument as the 9000 year old witch that just happens to look like a little girl, whereas a human torso arms and legs are well, human torso arms and legs

There is a line somewhere everywhere so I guess everyone chooses to put it where it arranges them, just my two cents

I agree with both of these stances so I'm very on the fence right now.

Edit: Liking feral doesn't automatically mean one is a zoophile, but at the same time, the possibility that they are one makes me uncomfortable. You can just have people who happen to find Balto and/or Mufasa hot but yet have people who use feral works to promote zoophilia.

I am completely against loli/shotacon (it's pedophilic) but I don't know if I should apply a similar stance against feral work.
 
Last edited:

LameFox

Well-Known Member
Faster than 3 months? Because that's the record time for the list I provided (lol SheezyArt).
I'd say the big drop when that poll and the registration lock occurred only took a couple weeks? They basically blunted all the momentum it was building so it never even managed to get to the level of popularity that sites like FN and Weasyl had for a while before they slowly bled users.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
Okay but that's kind of the exact same argument as the 9000 year old witch that just happens to look like a little girl, whereas a human torso arms and legs are well, human torso arms and legs

There is a line somewhere everywhere so I guess everyone chooses to put it where it arranges them, just my two cents

I dunno about that. If you're attracted to something that looks exactly like a 12 year old - no matter how old the thing says it is, - you're still attracted to the 12 year old features, which absolutely makes you a pedo no matter what. However, if you're attracted to a dragon or a mythical wolf monster, I don't think that means you'd wanna fuck the geico gecko or your neighbor's chihuahua. In my opinion, if it's hyperrealistic or based on a literal animal with no mythical properties then it ranges from questionable to absolutely Zoo-related. However, I don't think if Jimmibob wants to fuck a sentient mythical dragon with six legs or a wolf with horns and wings who can solve universal awareness is a necessarily zoophile-label. Maybe Teratophilia at best. There's a reason the term "Monster Fucker" exists, after all. Seeing it all on the same level does seem rather narrow, so I'm forced to agree with @Kit H. Ruppell.

Anyway, what was that Furry site called? I'm not seeing it in the posts but I might just be sleepy.

Liking feral doesn't automatically mean one is a zoophile, but at the same time, the possibility that they are one makes me uncomfortable. You can just have people who happen to find Balto and/or Mufasa hot but yet have people who use feral works to promote zoophilia.

I also agree with this. For example...

People who think Kovu is attractive

a25647fd891ae0139c8f02024607754a.jpg


usually do so because he exhibits "human" features (*which by extension could be considered mythical since it's very toony and unrealistic) and he has a conscious human personality/mind, human-like hair/mane, human eyes, human-ish mouth, an actual speaking voice, fur at the face that makes it appear more rounded and less animal to accentuate the human expressions he makes, eyebrows, and so on.

Yet they wouldn't want to, say, go after this...
6463c8e90113c7333b45fec0f23f36ec2afe7986_hq.jpg

(artist unknown)

Since it lacks all of the features that attracted most non-zoo Furs to begin with.
Unless you're secretly a real life lioness in a human trench coat....but I doubt that, lol

You can tell that there's more than just a difference in art style; the lion on the bottom lacks all humanizing and, by extension, "fantasy" elements that make it sentient and less animalistic. I think that this is the most specific example of what would and wouldn't count as Zoophilia since it deals with a lion by itself, while still attributing a lot of fantasy and toony elements to it...but I guess everyone has their own lines in the sand. I've certainly seem some worse examples on FA. >->
 
Last edited:

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I feel like sexual attraction to real-life lions is probably a short lived problem...

Golly gee, no wonder I couldn't find any real life examples!
Darn Lions, eating all my data sources. DX
But in reality I'd say problem solved ~
 
Top