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

What are Babyfurs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Overall I don't care at all if someone has a fetish for wearing diapers, because that's not hurting anybody.

The other discussions which are going on are a bit of a tangled mess.


The study you chose is based on self-reported data from users on the internet, so interpretation of the results has to be tentative because the data gathering process may not have excluded trolls.

I think the important part of your study is that 'aggregate sex drive' is said to have no predictive link with abusive behaviour?

The paper's discussion is a bit more nuanced than this though, because they say that aggregate sex drive is predictive of the probability of viewing abusive pornography and that, in turn, this is predictive of actually undertaking abuse.

They say that it is unclear whether sex drive motivates this pornography use, or if it is the other way around, so you should bare in mind that 'aggregate sex drive' is not the same variable as 'viewing abusive pornography' and that this paper doesn't determine whether the relationship between pornography consumption and real life abuse is causal.

Are you sure this paper shows what you think it does?
 
Last edited:

scet

Member
So far no one has hurt any one with any of the intrests under discussion

If some one takes it to far and dose hurt some one less, than that's clearly a bad thing and should be stoped or prevented

But you can't really make a sound argument that anything in this discussion is pure evil and should never be enjoyed be anyone for any reason
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
So far no one has hurt any one with any of the intrests under discussion

If some one takes it to far and dose hurt some one less, than that's clearly a bad thing and should be stoped or prevented

But you can't really make a sound argument that anything in this discussion is pure evil and should never be enjoyed be anyone for any reason

Sexual drawings of minors may sometimes be derived from photographs of abuse, and they may well also motivate real abuse in some individuals, so those really could hurt people.

I think it is important to differentiate between people who have a fetish for adults wearing diapers, and people who are sexually interested in children.
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
The other discussions which are going on are a bit of a tangled mess.

Questions with definitive answers usually don't make good discussions.

But you can't really make a sound argument that anything in this discussion is pure evil and should never be enjoyed be anyone for any reason

Tell that to The Fundies :V

teaparty2.jpg
protest.jpg
davidworonieckiwithsign-jpg.10747
 

Attachments

  • DavidWoronieckiWithSign.jpg
    DavidWoronieckiWithSign.jpg
    27.5 KB · Views: 181

Ricky

Well-Known Member
Sexual drawings of minors may sometimes be derived from photographs of abuse, and they may well also motivate real abuse in some individuals, so those really could hurt people.

[citation needed]

I think it is important to differentiate between people who have a fetish for adults wearing diapers, and people who are sexually interested in children.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what some person you don't know might be thinking :V

(or what they do to get off, and why)
 

scet

Member
I'm still getting that "video games make people murders" vibe like hollow arguments based of assumptions
 

Somnium

The Sparklewolf
Banned
can i ask one very inappropriate question?

what do you think about real pedophilia? i better keep my opinion to myself
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
[citation needed]



I think there are more important things to worry about than what some person you don't know might be thinking :V

(or what they do to get off, and why)

The first claim, that sexual drawings may be derived from photos, doesn't need substantiation.
The second claim, that consumption of abusive pornography could motive abuse, is exploded in the paper that you sited, in its discussion section. They fail to conclude either way, and state that while there's definitely an association, they can't be sure whether a liability to abuse children motivates the consumption of abusive pornography, or if the consumption of abusive pornography increases the liability to abuse children in susceptible individuals.

I'm still getting that "video games make people murders" vibe like hollow arguments based of assumptions

It's already apparent that violent video games don't motivate an increase in violent behaviour, but maybe this knowledge can't be applied to the general case.

For instance, it is possible that the consumption of sexual media is different.

My suspicion is that abusers would be abusive whether or not they were able to consume abusive pornography, but that's just my pet theory- so I have to say I don't know.
 

scet

Member
I personally made my opinion clear a few pages back about that and I was shut down pretty fast ... so Oh well
 

scet

Member
The first claim, that sexual drawings may be derived from photos, doesn't need substantiation.
The second claim, that consumption of abusive pornography could motive abuse, is exploded in the paper that you sited, in its discussion section. They fail to conclude either way, and state that while there's definitely an association, they can't be sure whether a liability to abuse children motivates the consumption of abusive pornography, or if the consumption of abusive pornography increases the liability to abuse children in susceptible individuals.

You Kinda just said "1 I don't need prof cause everything can be anything, 2 I found my prof in your prof that said there no prof to prove abyhting "

That's how I read that just saying, sorry
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
I've lost track of the ultimate goal of this conversation
what's trying to be proven again? :?

Because I've lost track, I'mma step back a few stages and go back to what I meant to say; babyfurs seem to come in one a select few categories: those who infantilise themselves, and those who want to wear diapers.

The first don't seem to seperate truth from fiction, and the second aren't any different to wearing a gimp suit or any other fetish material in public. If it's not a fetish thang, then it's a mockery of the people who really need 'em, making it kinda like using a wheelchair while you've got working legs.

Sure, my personal fandom of sexualising Pokemon is weird but that weirdness doesn't seem to extend into reality in the same way as the ABDL stuff.

You Kinda just said "1 I don't need prof cause everything can be anything, 2 I found my prof in your prof that said there no prof to prove abyhting "

That's how I read that just saying, sorry

Fallow's quite a self-sure fellow simply because in this case, he's right: he was asked to explain his reasoning, and he's provided his evidence. It's a debate thing rather than a conversation thing.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
You Kinda just said "1 I don't need prof cause everything can be anything, 2 I found my prof in your prof that said there no prof to prove abyhting "

That's how I read that just saying, sorry

I genuinely do get confused by the large number of people who post papers to prove their perspectives, only to discover that the paper they chose is either irrelevant to their argument or actually states the opposite.

It makes me wonder how many people actually bother to read the content they cite.
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
The study you chose is based on self-reported data from users on the internet, so interpretation of the results has to be tentative because the data gathering process may not have excluded trolls.

Yeah, and the same could go for any study that might have excluded xyz factor.

Like I said, there are plenty more related studies and you can go to www.pubmed.org if you want to look them up.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Yeah, and the same could go for any study that might have excluded xyz factor.

Like I said, there are plenty more related studies and you can go to www.pubmed.org if you want to look them up.

The study you cited actually refers to other studies which do find that child pornography consumption correlates with actual abusive convictions. The study also admits that it can't determine whether this is causal.

To my knowledge, nobody has answered that particular question.
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
The first claim, that sexual drawings may be derived from photos, doesn't need substantiation.

Yeah it does. One could ASSUME it has happened at least once and *maybe* not make an ass out of U and ME :V

To show any significance you need NUMBERS.

They fail to conclude either way, and state that while there's definitely an association, they can't be sure whether a liability to abuse children motivates the consumption of abusive pornography, or if the consumption of abusive pornography increases the liability to abuse children in susceptible individuals.

Um... Nobody said that there won't be a correlation between child molestors and child porn. That should fall into the "no shit" category which is why it's simply assumed in the paper. People who abuse children are obviously into children. What preference of porn do you THINK they should have? :V

The paper investigated if viewing the content led to an increased probability of those acts taking place. Of course they didn't assert any conclusion could be made for certain. They are scientists. This parallels the quote in my previous response; you could really say that any such study excludes some factor, since every factor in a stochastic system such as this will never be accounted for. The study would never end!

This is why there are multiple studies done on the same subject (which you are free to look up by the way, if you would like to provide any substance to go along with the arguments you try to make).

It's already apparent that violent video games don't motivate an increase in violent behaviour, but maybe this knowledge can't be applied to the general case.

It is as good as any evidence. As you claim, someone could say "maybe it's different in some way."

That isn't a substantial comment unless you either show or provide evidence to back it up.

I personally made my opinion clear a few pages back about that and I was shut down pretty fast ... so Oh well

Personally, I agreed with you and so I didn't have anything else to add.

The Fundies part was a joke though. I'm sure they *would* try to argue it's wrong, but nobody believes them in the first place :D

can i ask one very inappropriate question?

what do you think about real pedophilia? i better keep my opinion to myself

I do not think it is an inappropriate comment.

I think the act of molestation is wrong and should be illegal along with child pornography.

Technically, paedophilia describes the paraphilia and not an act.

It is an act that is "wrong" and should be punished, not a thought.

I've lost track of the ultimate goal of this conversation
what's trying to be proven again? :?

Yes, it is moving pretty fast.

There isn't a single "goal" however. It's a conversation and changes all the time.

You will only find a common theme.

Fallow's quite a self-sure fellow simply because in this case, he's right: he was asked to explain his reasoning, and he's provided his evidence. It's a debate thing rather than a conversation thing.

No, but it seems you support the argument so it's not a surprise you gave an ad hominem comment.

I provided evidence in the form of scientific studies. He didn't provide anything aside from opinions and anecdotal assertions about what he read.

That isn't evidence.

I genuinely do get confused by the large number of people who post papers to prove their perspectives, only to discover that the paper they chose is either irrelevant to their argument or actually states the opposite.

The problem is that you don't understand how science works.

Scientists don't claim to know anything for sure unless it has been proven without any doubt.

Hell, EVOLUTION is still considered a theory. Maybe that outta tell you something :rolleyes:

The study you cited actually refers to other studies which do find that child pornography consumption correlates with actual abusive convictions.

I already explained this. Hopefully you can see where without me pointing out the obvious.
 
Last edited:

scet

Member
can i ask one very inappropriate question?

what do you think about real pedophilia? i better keep my opinion to myself

I think sexual activities should only be shared with other consenting adults. A being of a human adult mature mental state who understands the meaning of sexual consent.

So children, real world animals, and some disabled people should just be left out of anything about sex. If they can't say yes, or don't understand what yes means, than that means no

This is just my toughts but seem logical. So as far as physical bodies envoled, if one day other animals reach our level of awareness or people can use a computer to turn there bodies back to a younger stage of there life and they remain as mentally aware and mature as their adult sleves. At that point yes some cases of bestiality and pedo will be perfectly ok. Right now though we can only play pretend.

I was shut down because I felt the only spereation was consent and so people get into a fuss
 

Somnium

The Sparklewolf
Banned
idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
>>accused me of making assumption
>>very next comment is about how an assumption is warranted

The paper you chose to cite did not address the question you wanted to answer @Ricky . Maybe some other paper does, but I am as yet unaware of it. This isn't about there being 'uncontrolled variables' and a request for 'unending research'; the problem was simply that you chose to cite an irrelevant paper. :s

Unfortunately...I get the feeling that you didn't actually read the paper any further than the abstract; you should read its discussion.

idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing

Jesus fucking Christ...
 

scet

Member
idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing

You see people are complicated, and tiny people are more complicated cause of lack of understand and difficulty with comunication among the big one and the little ones.

All people are different and some have personalities that come with triggers and that are all unique, children can't tell adult what we'll traumatize them. And adults are kinda stupid too not understanding kids are all different just like adults.

One thing might be to much for kid A but kid B would benefit from it. Tbh no child should be forced into an adult situation cause any kid could have an undiscovered trigger to anything. This rages from, no child should be put into a sexual invorment, all the way to, no child should be force to face the complicity loneliness with no one close or loving to comfort them.

These are really horrible places to put kids into



(Side note)
After a lot of self discovery and thought about my personality I think as a kid I would have been really hurt if I lost a family member to early death. My first experience with death at 19 was nearly tramatizing even thought it was an elderly relative out of state. If I had to face that we'll I was younger I'd be pretty unstable and have more trust issues and maybe like abandonedment problems. But I was more mature when I first faced it.

Buuuuut upon self ivestigations of my triggers and sensitivities I could probably have handled a sexual interaction very early. I was a late bloomer but if some one close like my father had done anything with me I would have probably gotten into it and sexual matured faster and develop and understanding of love and it's expressions with an open mind to how I see relationships that it has taken me years to make sence of on my own

Um ...

I'm just saying you can't tell what kids can handle so technically everything is wrong and inappropriate before you know what they can understand
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
>>accused me of making assumption
>>very next comment is about how an assumption is warranted

>>doesn't provide any context or substance, as usual

The paper you chose to cite did not address the question you wanted to answer @Ricky . Maybe some other paper does, but I am as yet unaware of it. This isn't about there being 'uncontrolled variables' and a request for 'unending research'; the problem was simply that you chose to cite an irrelevant paper. :s

Stop repeating yourself. I already addressed this.

If there is a point of contention, address it directly and feel free to provide evidence.

The only things you have brought to the table are nebulous and undirected anecdotes and ad hominem attack.

(see the Latin etimology of anecdote if you don't get it, it comes from not published)

Unfortunately...I get the feeling that you didn't actually read the paper any further than the abstract; you should read its discussion.

Unfortunately...I get the feeling you didn't read anything aside from the paper I provided that you skimmed through and didn't understand :V

I was shut down because I felt the only spereation was consent and so people get into a fuss

In that case, I'd say consent only applies to acts of abuse.

I agree that consenting adults should be free to do what they want together.

idk, it's kinda ok and perfectly legal for parents to throw their children into a foster home, but if an adult touches child's private parts then you know what happens. imo the former is much more traumatizing

There are studies that back that up, as well. Inb4 fallowfox

I'm just saying you can't tell what kids can handle so technically everything is wrong and inappropriate before you know what they can understand

Yeah, and this is why it's important to define some boundaries. What degree of trauma isn't necessarily the determining question, but rather is the child being taken advantage of. There are blurry parts like two people who are 17 and 18 doing things in a state where it's illegal. Romeo and Juliet laws in some states mitigate this, but IMO it also matters how mature the younger person is. Some 16 year olds are quite mature and would speak up or do something about it if they need. On the other hand, I've met people in their 20's who weren't even mature enough yet to feel like you aren't taking advantage of them if you were ever in such a position.

That's where I stand from an ethical perspective, but because of these gray areas in defining boundaries, the debate will likely never end. It's hard to show something like maturity, so the laws use age instead.
 
Last edited:

scet

Member
Yeah that's what I mean if they don't concent it's aduse, if they do than you can do anything you want
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top