• 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?

Frank Gulotta

Send us your floppy
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.
Wouldn't every kind of furry art that's not 100% realistic count as teratophilia by that logic then?
 

Smityyyy

Well-Known Member
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.

Personally, feral is just unattractive to me. So honestly, I can’t say I really care what happens with it. Just arguing from a neutral standpoint.

I agree with you, though — especially on the loli/shota bit. However, I have to ask what the line with any furry porn is then. Is hyperrealistic anthro art zoophilic? And on that same topic, does liking vore make one a cannibal/attracted to cannibalism?

I think this is a complicated question to ask and almost nobody can set any hard lines, in my opinion. If we target feral as zoophilia then by that logic any hyperrealistic anthros have to go too. And then where do we draw the “realistic” line at? Aren’t both forms of art still depicting an animal? Couldn’t you also argue that you’re just circumventing the “zoophilia” label by making hyperrealistic anthro bipeds knowing that people are only targeting ferals as being too animalistic?

I don’t know. Generally speaking, I think porn is porn. It’s not my job to be a moral crusader. If we really think about it, a lot of porn out there toes the line of ethical/legal. Feral is definitely not the worst out there. I just feel like, there will always be some sort of porn to nitpick, at the end of the day.
 

Foxridley

A fox named Ridley
Personally, feral is just unattractive to me. So honestly, I can’t say I really care what happens with it. Just arguing from a neutral standpoint.

I agree with you, though — especially on the loli/shota bit. However, I have to ask what the line with any furry porn is then. Is hyperrealistic anthro art zoophilic? And on that same topic, does liking vore make one a cannibal/attracted to cannibalism?

I think this is a complicated question to ask and almost nobody can set any hard lines, in my opinion. If we target feral as zoophilia then by that logic any hyperrealistic anthros have to go too. And then where do we draw the “realistic” line at? Aren’t both forms of art still depicting an animal? Couldn’t you also argue that you’re just circumventing the “zoophilia” label by making hyperrealistic anthro bipeds knowing that people are only targeting ferals as being too animalistic?

I don’t know. Generally speaking, I think porn is porn. It’s not my job to be a moral crusader. If we really think about it, a lot of porn out there toes the line of ethical/legal. Feral is definitely not the worst out there. I just feel like, there will always be some sort of porn to nitpick, at the end of the day.
I think the difference here is that, with anthros, the sexualized traits are often based on human anatomy. I mean, minus the face and tail, Lola Bunny could easily pass for a cartoon human.
 

Smityyyy

Well-Known Member
I think the difference here is that, with anthros, the sexualized traits are often based on human anatomy. I mean, minus the face and tail, Lola Bunny could easily pass for a cartoon human.
Totally get what you’re saying, but again, why target only feral — regardless of how toonish/humanoid they are — but not highly realistic anthros?

Playing devil’s advocate here (btw Kenket’s art is amazing but VERY realistic) what about this art is more humanoid than a cartoon feral? I mean, when porn of characters in this style is posted, nobody bats an eye. Hence, like I said in my post, it’s hard to draw the line because you’d probably need to do away with “accepted” stuff too.

4F955C5C-9C22-4E64-A210-D11AFE0B4D85.jpeg
 

Oatmealkitty

New Member
I remember a few years ago some furry social media website with some grade-F beef against 'feral furries' decided to pull a stupid and ban furries/artwork depicting ferals, sfw or not.

What website was that again?
Are they still active?
Are they still pulling this bs?
It was called furry online or something and it of course died. Their stupid ass rule didn't make sense because they allowed mlp and Pokemon porn.

That and the site was awful and too bland.
 
Last edited:

Oatmealkitty

New Member
I think the difference here is that, with anthros, the sexualized traits are often based on human anatomy. I mean, minus the face and tail, Lola Bunny could easily pass for a cartoon human.
I've seen anthro with animal dicks and vagina. Not very human imo. And then at that, not all anthro have stick legs.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
Wouldn't every kind of furry art that's not 100% realistic count as teratophilia by that logic then?

Hmmmmm-maybeeeee? I'm guessing it really depends on nuance on that front.
I think that @Foxridley makes an excellent point that basically approaches this topic though...

I think the difference here is that, with anthros, the sexualized traits are often based on human anatomy. I mean, minus the face and tail, Lola Bunny could easily pass for a cartoon human.

So by extension, I'd have to say no - not every single unrealistic depiction counts due to the fact that there's a major difference between human features and inhuman ones.

I've seen anthro with animal dicks and vagina. Not very human imo. And then at that, not all anthro have stick legs.

I'm willing to bet this falls under Teratophilia but only under the context of the anatomy being alien and unfamiliar and not when it's explicitly and directly modeled after a real life animal's. The amount of wolf anthros with dragon dicks is rather amusing - and I personally think there's nothing wrong with that.
 

Foxridley

A fox named Ridley
Hmmmmm-maybeeeee? I'm guessing it really depends on nuance on that front.
I think that @Foxridley makes an excellent point that basically approaches this topic though...



So by extension, I'd have to say no - not every single unrealistic depiction counts due to the fact that there's a major difference between human features and inhuman ones.



I'm willing to bet this falls under Teratophilia but only under the context of the anatomy being alien and unfamiliar and not when it's explicitly and directly modeled after a real life animal's. The amount of wolf anthros with dragon dicks is rather amusing - and I personally think there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not quite sure where you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
For me, it basically comes down to a) the Harkness Test and b) the power dynamic.

If a being has human-like intelligence, the ability to communicate, the ability to freely offer or withdraw informed consent, and has reached sexual maturity for its species, it's a green light!

From there, I'm personally upset by exploitation, coercion, and abuse perpetrated by humans towards animals, adults towards children, and authority figures (e.g., cops, employers, and teachers) towards people over whom they have authority. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with stories where characters overpower or hurt each other, or, especially, where underdogs turn the tables on some usually-more-powerful party.
 

zigmenthotep

An immoral and reprehensible piece of trash.
It seems like everyone here is caught up in arguing if feral is or is not zoophilia (which I'm not going to get into because I don't care, but yes, it is the 9000-year-old dragon argument) and not why it's an issue.

Furries get blanket-labeled as zoophiles by large sections of society. Wanting to publicly distance yourself and the community from anything that looks even a little like zoophilia is a completely understandable desire. Especially understandable when there is a literal zoo pride element to the fandom actively making it worse.
 

Rimna

Well-known Monkey
I love how a question about the name of a furry website turns to a discussion if anthro art makes one a zoophile, speaking and thinking on behalf of people who consume such art :cool:
 
L

LameFox

Guest
It seems like everyone here is caught up in arguing if feral is or is not zoophilia (which I'm not going to get into because I don't care, but yes, it is the 9000-year-old dragon argument) and not why it's an issue.

Furries get blanket-labeled as zoophiles by large sections of society. Wanting to publicly distance yourself and the community from anything that looks even a little like zoophilia is a completely understandable desire. Especially understandable when there is a literal zoo pride element to the fandom actively making it worse.
tbh the fact that so many people recently associated anthros with zoophilia makes me more wary of fussing about the visual details of ferals precisely because I know people can always decide being vertical isn't enough either. Seems like furries now forget (or weren't around to notice?) how bad their rep was before, because lately I'd say furries/anthro are a lot more socially acceptable than they used to be.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
tbh the fact that so many people recently associated anthros with zoophilia makes me more wary of fussing about the visual details of ferals precisely because I know people can always decide being vertical isn't enough either. Seems like furries now forget (or weren't around to notice?) how bad their rep was before, because lately I'd say furries/anthro are a lot more socially acceptable than they used to be.
I had a classmate leave an anonymous comment on an art post I made on a side LiveJournal account going “oh hurr so you’re drawing bestiality now huh?” and trying to convince a few other classmates that I was into bestiality and telling my boyfriend at the time about my adult art as though he wasn’t also furry. (She also misidentified the species and color of the characters in the art so he and I had a good laugh when he told me about it.) This was absolutely, unmistakably anthro work, she was just being nasty. Her knowing a couple girls he’d previously been involved with, who didn’t care for me, was likely also a factor.

This was 15+ years ago and she’s by far the worst reaction I’ve ever gotten. Most people don’t give as many fucks as some furries give them credit for. The ones that do give all the fucks aren’t going to care about splitting hairs like “but it walks upright like a human and has giant anime tits!”
 
Last edited:

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I'm not quite sure where you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Agreeing. Sorry for the confusion, I am/was a little jet-lagged during writing.
Lots of travel atm. x3

there is a literal zoo pride element to the fandom actively making it worse.

Pardon me but-...what?

For me, it basically comes down to a) the Harkness Test and b) the power dynamic.

If a being has human-like intelligence, the ability to communicate, the ability to freely offer or withdraw informed consent, and has reached sexual maturity for its species, it's a green light!

From there, I'm personally upset by exploitation, coercion, and abuse perpetrated by humans towards animals, adults towards children, and authority figures (e.g., cops, employers, and teachers) towards people over whom they have authority. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with stories where characters overpower or hurt each other, or, especially, where underdogs turn the tables on some usually-more-powerful party.

I think that Troj also makes a wonderful statement.
S.S.C and all that good stuff.

I'd also like to put forth the wonderful term: "Autochorissexual/Aegosexual".

Some people just like to get off to imagery; but find the experience of irl not at all appealing. You see a lot of people who think they are into things like, say, watersports or scat do it in real life and then promptly decide that no, they in fact did not like it one bit. It's theorized that this winds up being an effect from either too much porn consumption (*so the person goes to more and more extremes to get off) or due to another more accurate kink that they later discover. This isn't in regards to Beastiality btw, but specifically in regards to Furries who find mythical beasts or otherwise unrealistic creatures (like a centaur or a toony lion king model) appealing. I just think that recognizing where lines are drawn, why they're drawn, and the psychological workings behind it are relatively important in a discussion like this.

Albeit as off-the-rails as it has gotten.

Playing devil’s advocate here (btw Kenket’s art is amazing but VERY realistic) what about this art is more humanoid than a cartoon feral? I mean, when porn of characters in this style is posted, nobody bats an eye. Hence, like I said in my post, it’s hard to draw the line because you’d probably need to do away with “accepted” stuff too.

Firstly, that art is STUNNING.
But I gotta be honest, up until this thread I was under the impression that no one cared about anthros and their parts in general. :/
 
Last edited:
L

LameFox

Guest
I'd be hesitant to even label that as anything unusual—it honestly seems pretty standard and intuitive to me that you can like the idea of something without liking it in reality. If you subtract sex from it that probably covers the majority of entertainment media.
 

Smityyyy

Well-Known Member
Firstly, that art is STUNNING.
But I gotta be honest, up until this thread I was under the impression that no one cared about anthros and their parts in general. :/

The furry fandom is constantly full of infighting about stuff like this tbh. Personally, I don’t like hyperrealistic art and I don’t like ferals. However, I can’t say I see a huge problem with those that do.
—————

And like others have said in this thread — most people outside of this fandom don’t distinguish between ferals and anthros. Like someone else said, splitting hairs isn’t very useful.

And to those who keep continuously making the argument about liking anthros for the ‘human features’ and that’s why they’re ‘different’ from ferals I just have to ask — why look at anthro porn then if it’s for the ‘human’ features? Why aren’t you just looking at human porn? The answer, of course, is because they do like some of the animal features for one of many reasons; although, I don’t think that it’s for zoophilic reasons most of the time. I don’t think it’s useful to pretend that anthros are 100% humanoid and that’s why they look at them because by that logic then shouldn’t you just be avoiding any animalistic parts at all?

I guess my main point is this — either all furry art is sussy or most of it isn’t. If one can’t even identify the differences in most of the styles and types, there’s little utility in drawing arbitrary lines while using very shaky logic to defend those lines.
 

Foxridley

A fox named Ridley
The furry fandom is constantly full of infighting about stuff like this tbh. Personally, I don’t like hyperrealistic art and I don’t like ferals. However, I can’t say I see a huge problem with those that do.
—————

And like others have said in this thread — most people outside of this fandom don’t distinguish between ferals and anthros. Like someone else said, splitting hairs isn’t very useful.

And to those who keep continuously making the argument about liking anthros for the ‘human features’ and that’s why they’re ‘different’ from ferals I just have to ask — why look at anthro porn then if it’s for the ‘human’ features? Why aren’t you just looking at human porn? The answer, of course, is because they do like some of the animal features for one of many reasons; although, I don’t think that it’s for zoophilic reasons most of the time. I don’t think it’s useful to pretend that anthros are 100% humanoid and that’s why they look at them because by that logic then shouldn’t you just be avoiding any animalistic parts at all?

I guess my main point is this — either all furry art is sussy or most of it isn’t. If one can’t even identify the differences in most of the styles and types, there’s little utility in drawing arbitrary lines while using very shaky logic to defend those lines.
Okay, I think I understand your position better here. Liking the animal feature certainly is a large part of what furries like, and why they don't just go for human porn. But the human part is important as well; they are not mutually exclusive. So I guess, for most anthro porn, the appeal is lost if you remove either the human traits or the animal traits.

Though you could probably draw arbitrary lines anywhere on that spectrum, based on what I've seen in Artists' TOS.

-----------------------
Not sure why I'm throwing my hat in this ring since my interests are purely SFW.
 

Smityyyy

Well-Known Member
Okay, I think I understand your position better here. Liking the animal feature certainly is a large part of what furries like, and why they don't just go for human porn. But the human part is important as well; they are not mutually exclusive. So I guess, for most anthro porn, the appeal is lost if you remove either the human traits or the animal traits.

Though you could probably draw arbitrary lines anywhere on that spectrum, based on what I've seen in Artists' TOS.

-----------------------
Not sure why I'm throwing my hat in this ring since my interests are purely SFW.

Glad I could clarify — I think my initial wording may have been a tad confusing. I also agree with you, it’s certainly not a 100% on either side sort of thing. I also agree lines can be drawn but that’s purely based on personal preference imo.

For me, I dislike hyperrealism and any NSFW of ferals (sfw is fine) and that’s perfectly okay. I am sure many agree with my lines while many disagree.

It’s just hard to be the moral police at the end of the day. I think we would also see a lot less vitriol in the community as a whole if we could more easily blacklist.
 

Scootie

Active Member
I actually remember this, I was there when this occurred. Long story short, it was that time of the year people mentioned being tired of FA being the only relevant furry site to use and then furry life, a small site at the time had came into relevance. So a bunch of new folk just flooded on in and because of the people who had already been established on the site before more rules could be made in place, a lot of complaints came in real fast and hard, especially when the site dev was recovering at the hospital at the time of the mass influx of users swelled.

Many SFW artists and furries had bitched out the moderation staff that was very small during this time, so FLO had to quickly try to get new moderation on to try to wrangle things as best they could, so a vote went out about what to do about feral art on the site because the site had filters for users to keep certain tags off their feeds, only issue was users who had already been posting content on the site did not use tags, so NSFW content slipped right into folks feed anyway. This sparked a lot of outrage threads across the FLO forums, many SFW artist just wanted NSFW art removed outright compared to the thread going into semantics about feral artwork. FLO and the new staff came to the decision that they had to dock feral art from the site entirely to appease the massive userbase that flooded in.

... All at the double standard that pokemon/digimon NSFW content was completely fine because their fantasy creatures. The choice really didn't help quell or satisfy anyone and things just really fell through for FLO, their still out there, just as a separate instance now entirely, a smaller type of server since they really had to downsize after all that happened. Generally it was a real mess and this seems to always happen when people go around looking for alternatives to FA that's more modernized.
 

Smityyyy

Well-Known Member
Generally it was a real mess and this seems to always happen when people go around looking for alternatives to FA that's more modernized.
I honestly wonder why there aren’t bigger, more modern alternatives. I’ve been in this fandom for several years and have seen quite a few alternative sites come and go. None of which ever reached the popularity of FA and its sister sites. Some still persist today but are relatively stagnant in comparison, in terms of activity.

Maybe just not enough funding? I imagine it’s also hard to run a large platform. I don’t dislike FA but I do wish we had more “modern” alternatives.
 

Scootie

Active Member
I honestly wonder why there aren’t bigger, more modern alternatives. I’ve been in this fandom for several years and have seen quite a few alternative sites come and go. None of which ever reached the popularity of FA and its sister sites. Some still persist today but are relatively stagnant in comparison, in terms of activity.

Maybe just not enough funding? I imagine it’s also hard to run a large platform. I don’t dislike FA but I do wish we had more “modern” alternatives.
Funding is one thing, but the lack of grassroots for new alternatives to exist is another factor that comes into play, new sites always end up somehow how getting embroiled with controversy because of the history of the developer or site staff, new users come in asking to take the wheel from a small circle of people who have already settled in for years easily stripping away years of what built up over that time frame.

I can generally say, that while it isn't everyone, furries tend to be their own worst enemy when it comes to wanting a new alternative and ruining it when there is one. Furaffinity has very strong grassroots, it's already hard for content creators and influencers to just simply move to a new site, while yes it actually should be easy, if they move, their customers and viewer base will move along with them, but it comes at the cost of starting over in a new place. Some folks are very attached to the numbers they have and moving to a new place is definitely a chore that not many are willing to take the time to go through unless they don't really have a choice but to do so.

So as I see it, FA messes up big time, people bitch and moan to move over to a new site that's there, mess up that site and then either come back to FA or stay on twitter. No one truly leaves FA.
XL lol.jpg
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
I'm all for giving the puriteens their own community and sealing them inside.
 
Top