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

Your opinions on the connection between kinks and cartoons?

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I mainly take issue with the word "error," as I believe it automatically inspires contempt and incuriosity.

Just because we can't discern the adaptive purpose behind something offhand doesn't make it wrong, bad, or pointless.

My friend also pointed out that during periods of stability, systems will lean towards homogeneity, but during periods of upheaval or change, we'll begin to see a turn towards heterogeneity, as if nature is throwing things at the wall to see what "sticks."

A trait that doesn't seem immediately adaptive for an individual in isolation may actually prove useful or adaptive for the larger group, and/or may provide that individual with a unique edge during a period of great change, stress, or scarcity.

In this vein, even fetishes and kinks may serve an adaptive purpose that may not be immediately apparent, and we should remain open to that possibility.

I'd additionally argue that fetishes aren't purely or solely about sex, as I've chatted with many people who've insisted that sex is only a secondary or tertiary motivation for indulging in a given kink or participating in a kink community. With a lot of kinks, sexual arousal seems to become inexorably intertwined with other emotions like love, fear, embarrassment, and empowerment.

Well, it's language from the 1990's, so it grates on modern ears.
I'm not sure whether finding a synonym for it that would be better received by non-scientists would be helpful- because primary literature isn't intended to be read by non-scientists. You could change error to 'abnormality', or 'deviation', but these terms would also be likely to cause offence, in spite of being more neutral in their literal meaning.
For researchers 'error' works well enough- because it outlines the problem 'How do we explain the origin of sexual interests for things that are seemingly irrelevant to or even present an obstacle to reproduction?' and 'Can this be explained as part of the mechanism that constructs 'normal' human libido?'

I also think that we should try to avoid seeking direct adaptive explanations for sexual fetishes or gender identities. I sense that some people perceive an adaptive explanation of those traits as a form of validation, as if they are necessary in order to underpin the worth of individuals who have those traits- and I think we should actually attack that idea because it is irrelevant to morality, rather than seek out adaptive explanations that we may end up having emotional difficulty abandoning if evidence emerges to show they are not true.

There are obvious adaptive explanations for male sexual interest in girls who are underage but fertile, for example, while there isn't an overall scientific consensus on an adaptive explanation for male homosexuality...and many of the existing adaptive explanations for why some of us are gay are perceived as offensive (for example the 'sneaky male' hypothesis).

I am not sure I agree with your friend's idea that 'instability creates heterogeneity in animals' is generally true, more clarity and specificity about what this means might be necessary. The way you phrased it sounds teleological to me- I am cautious of explanations of natural phenomena that require us to anthropomorphise nature, because appealing to an anthropomorphic analogy sometimes indicates there isn't actually a convincing mechanistic explanation.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
Even more just the term by itself grating on my nerves, the stuff I've come across that's been written in ETLE's name (so to speak) has been really shitty, exploitative and dismissive from my point of view, whether the subjects in question were trans folks, furries, or others. So, that's left an overall bad taste in my mouth, I admit, because these are the populations I'm especially protective of!

Last time I tried to do a lit review on fetishes and kinks myself just for fun, I unfortunately came across a lot of cringey and tone-deaf (from my point of view) papers that also failed to shed meaningful light on the origins of the kinks in question. That was frustrating.

I am not sure I agree with your friend's idea that 'instability creates heterogeneity in animals' is generally true, more clarity and specificity about what this means might be necessary. The way you phrased it sounds teleological to me- I am cautious of explanations of natural phenomena that require us to anthropomorphise nature, because appealing to an anthropomorphic analogy sometimes indicates there isn't actually a convincing mechanistic explanation.

Fair enough! And some of the things my friend mentioned over lunch certainly aren't within my wheelhouse--I thought he threw out a couple of intriguing ideas worth playing with, at least. I may also be the one adding the extra anthropomorphism to his explanation in order to parse and explain it here.

For researchers 'error' works well enough- because it outlines the problem 'How do we explain the origin of sexual interests for things that are seemingly irrelevant to or even present an obstacle to reproduction?' and 'Can this be explained as part of the mechanism that constructs 'normal' human libido?'

It's a fair question, but the word seemingly is important there, I reckon, because assuming that kinks necessarily present an obstacle to reproduction can send you down the wrong path.

I also think that we should try to avoid seeking direct adaptive explanations for sexual fetishes or gender identities. I sense that some people perceive an adaptive explanation of those traits as a form of validation, as if they are necessary in order to underpin the worth of individuals who have those traits- and I think we should actually attack that idea because it is irrelevant to morality, rather than seek out adaptive explanations that we may end up having emotional difficulty abandoning if evidence emerges to show they are not true.

It's hard to escape the tendency to confuse, conflate, or equate "naturalness" with "goodness." Even those of us who should know better still slip into it! See also: the tendency to equate "normalcy" with "goodness." That one pisses me off more.

In any case, I've noticed that people's fetishes and kinks often seem to revolve around things that are associated with emotionally-charged memories, whether good or bad---but, then, this raises the question of why every emotionally-charged memory or strong emotion doesn't just evolve into a kink, and why a lot of people have emotionally-charged memories, but don't have corresponding kinks.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Even more just the term by itself grating on my nerves, the stuff I've come across that's been written in ETLE's name (so to speak) has been really shitty, exploitative and dismissive from my point of view, whether the subjects in question were trans folks, furries, or others. So, that's left an overall bad taste in my mouth, I admit, because these are the populations I'm especially protective of!

Last time I tried to do a lit review on fetishes and kinks myself just for fun, I unfortunately came across a lot of cringey and tone-deaf (from my point of view) papers that also failed to shed meaningful light on the origins of the kinks in question. That was frustrating.



Fair enough! And some of the things my friend mentioned over lunch certainly aren't within my wheelhouse--I thought he threw out a couple of intriguing ideas worth playing with, at least. I may also be the one adding the extra anthropomorphism to his explanation in order to parse and explain it here.



It's a fair question, but the word seemingly is important there, I reckon, because assuming that kinks necessarily present an obstacle to reproduction can send you down the wrong path.



It's hard to escape the tendency to confuse, conflate, or equate "naturalness" with "goodness." Even those of us who should know better still slip into it! See also: the tendency to equate "normalcy" with "goodness." That one pisses me off more.

In any case, I've noticed that people's fetishes and kinks often seem to revolve around things that are associated with emotionally-charged memories, whether good or bad---but, then, this raises the question of why every emotionally-charged memory or strong emotion doesn't just evolve into a kink, and why a lot of people have emotionally-charged memories, but don't have corresponding kinks.

I'm open to somebody finding an explanation for fetishes that explains them as reproductively relevant. The same explanation needs to include sexual fixations that are not directly 'adaptive' too though, in order to be a comprehensive theory. If we want to say that *all* fetishes are directly adaptive...do we have any evidence for that? It's probably best to assume that some are and some are not.
ETLE works in this regard, because when the erotic target is reproductively fit members of the opposite sex, it is very useful to be able to find identifiers for this target- such as a man who is attracted to women developing a sexual interest in women's lingerie.
In this context a fetish that is seemingly irrelevant to reproduction, such as cross-dressing, can be explained as a modification of that usual process, except the target has been inverted, so the man also develops an interest in wearing women's lingerie himself.

That is a viable 'evolutionarily stable strategy' because, although the fetish for cross-dressing may not increase the man's chances of reproduction, it is not very likely to reduce his chances either- and under normal circumstances if a set of genes is encouraging men to fixate erotically on the opposite sex, then that justifies those genes' persistent survival- even if sometimes they produce sexual fixations that are not beneficial to reproduction.

My suspicion for why fetishes are usually associated with humiliation is that a strong social structure exists in our society that enforces the notion that nudity and sex are private things, and that their exposure is humiliating. A child's formative experiences as their libido develops are likely to include embarrassment- such as being discovered looking at women's shoes, or even the experience of accidental sexual stimulation, for example during a punishment or while cuddling a soft toy.
Many of the proposed 'target inversions' like autopaedophilia are accompanied by an interest in being treated like a child- which is embarrassing.

So the fact that many men might enjoy being told they are 'naughty little boys,' (note how recurrent this theme of infantalism is in humiliation play), could reflect the fact that a large number of adults have autopaedophillic components in their sexuality.

That's just one of a long list of possible explanations though, and as far as I know nobody's managed to produce a definitive study. I think we *would* be able to investigate some of these questions by scraping a thousand pornographic submissions from fur affinity, recording which fetishes are present, and then looking at the covariance structure. If target inversions exist, we might expect that people with 1 target inversion are likely to have a second or third; we might expect pornography that depicts adults being forced to wear diapers to be increasingly likely to also involve other speculated inversions like cross dressing, for example.

Making and interrogating that dataset would probably require a year of dedicated work, so I keep thinking about doing it, but then not bothering. I'm an arctic biologist, rather than a sex researcher as well, so the amount of time necessary to become familiar with the literature would undermine my actual work. :[
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
That is a viable 'evolutionarily stable strategy' because, although the fetish for cross-dressing may not increase the man's chances of reproduction, it is not very likely to reduce his chances either- and under normal circumstances if a set of genes is encouraging men to fixate erotically on the opposite sex, then that justifies those genes' persistent survival- even if sometimes they produce sexual fixations that are not beneficial to reproduction.

It also occur to me that some fetishes may allow the individual to bypass the fierce sexual competition in the larger sphere, in favor of carving out a small, unique, and ultimately, successful niche.

My suspicion for why fetishes are usually associated with humiliation is that a strong social structure exists in our society that enforces the notion that nudity and sex are private things, and that their exposure is humiliating. A child's formative experiences as their libido develops are likely to include embarrassment- such as being discovered looking at women's shoes, or even the experience of accidental sexual stimulation, for example during a punishment or while cuddling a soft toy. Many of the proposed 'target inversions' like autopaedophilia are accompanied by an interest in being treated like a child- which is embarrassing.

So the fact that many men might enjoy being told they are 'naughty little boys,' (note how recurrent this theme of infantalism is in humiliation play), could reflect the fact that a large number of adults have autopaedophillic components in their sexuality.

Makes sense! And/or, people cope with or make sense of humiliation, shame, or pain by converting it into arousal, potentially.
 
There are so many reasons for me to like yiff and hentai I guess I could make a list to sum up my reasons.

1. It's not real
In animated pornography there are no actual people involved so it can be very extreme without me feeling bad about it. Also they tend to not take harm from things that would harm you in real life. Since it's so obviously unreal it do not affect your understanding of reality either because your mind knows that cartoons are entertainment that is extremely far from reality.

2. There are no limits
In the cartoon universe everything is possible, there is magic, there is monsters and other things that are hard to illustrate in real life pornography. The art is not made by some porn company, it is made by artist with their own fantasies who make amazing things like art of sex in a magical forest and stuff.

3. You can be there at the same time as you're not
I do have some erotic images of my character. I that way I can sort of set my self in sexual situations without actually being there and taking a risk and i can also make my self sort of explore my own fantasies in a way that cannot harm me.

I do like yiff over hentai and other cartoon styles because for me the different animals represent different sorts of people like the you have the big bad wolf who is probably kinky and stuff and then there is the cuddly cat and the sly and sexy fox. I guess it is important to say that the oldest cartoons were not for kids and were often very sexual. Art have always been a more acceptable way of expressing sexual desires, there has always been nude and sexual art.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
It also occur to me that some fetishes may allow the individual to bypass the fierce sexual competition in the larger sphere, in favor of carving out a small, unique, and ultimately, successful niche.

That's a pretty interesting idea. The fact that male fetishists outnumber female fetishists could also mean that reproductive competition in males is increased, compared to the general population, under a scenario of assortative mating.

Perhaps you could argue that men with un-realistic sexual expectations are more likely to covertly seek extra sex outside of their normal relationships, in the hope of finding satisfaction, so a libido which is full of sexual desires that cannot be easily satisfied makes a philandering male more likely to have lots of illegitimate offspring.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
It occurred to me that if everyone else in your cohort is fighting over slender, athletic, statuesque blondes or what have you, you can carve out a nice little niche for yourself if your preference is for fat people or amputees.

Just found these while searching about a hypothesis I vaguely remembered about foot fetishism, submitted for your approval:

www.livescience.com: Why Do People Have Foot Fetishes?
www.nature.com: Relative prevalence of different fetishes
www.psychologytoday.com: In Feet First

The fact that male fetishists outnumber female fetishists could also mean that reproductive competition in males is increased, compared to the general population, under a scenario of assortative mating.

Yep yep!

Fallowfox said:
Perhaps you could argue that men with un-realistic sexual expectations are more likely to covertly seek extra sex outside of their normal relationships, in the hope of finding satisfaction, so a libido which is full of sexual desires that cannot be easily satisfied makes a philandering male more likely to have lots of illegitimate offspring.

Potentially! It would depend on the nature and intensity of the fetish, of course, and whether the person was having any difficulty with quote-unquote "normal" vanilla-ish relationships or sexual encounters generally.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
It occurred to me that if everyone else in your cohort is fighting over slender, athletic, statuesque blondes or what have you, you can carve out a nice little niche for yourself if your preference is for fat people or amputees.

Just found these while searching about a hypothesis I vaguely remembered about foot fetishism, submitted for your approval:

www.livescience.com: Why Do People Have Foot Fetishes?
www.nature.com: Relative prevalence of different fetishes
www.psychologytoday.com: In Feet First



Yep yep!



Potentially! It would depend on the nature and intensity of the fetish, of course, and whether the person was having any difficulty with quote-unquote "normal" vanilla-ish relationships or sexual encounters generally.

The 'balloons and smoking' combination surprised me, as did the existence of a pace maker fetish.

and the article about people with amputated limbs experiencing phantom sensations of orgasm *in those missing limbs*.
 

Faexie

Rara for short :)
Some people even have fetishes that are related to trauma that they experienced in their life.

The main theory about it is that recreating the traumatic event in a context where the victim has total control and is "abused" by a person they feel safe with, with the added sexual stimulation to add pleasure, is therapeutic.

This is supported by the fact that some people who went through trauma have a tendency to put themselves in similar situations on purpose.
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
Righto!

In line with one of my previous comments about fetishes helping people to cope with a humiliating, shameful, or upsetting memory or event, fetishes can absolutely help people to take back their own power by effectively "rewriting"/reenacting a traumatic experience.
 

TrishaCat

The Iron Masked Cat in the FAF
Reading up above, the usage of "autopedophilia" grosses me out having known a lot of people with ABDL, paraphillic infantalism, DDLG, and other similar fetishes. It feels like its implying such people are attracted to children, which I know people in those communities are frustrated as it is being mistaken as
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Reading up above, the usage of "autopedophilia" grosses me out having known a lot of people with ABDL, paraphillic infantalism, DDLG, and other similar fetishes. It feels like its implying such people are attracted to children, which I know people in those communities are frustrated as it is being mistaken as

The term means that they're attracted to the notion of inhabiting the role of children, not that they have a latent attraction to real children.
The authors' comments in the papers linked in this thread are broadly that this shouldn't be treated as harmful, that efforts to 'treat' it as a condition are not advised and that people with that sort of fetish are best served by self acceptance.

This is an example of how academic language can be misinterpreted, I suppose.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Apologies, but I have to post this here:

D5jrg_nX4AAkZh1.jpg
 

Filter

ɹǝʇlᴉℲ
Maybe for some people, some of the time. Maybe even most... who knows? I wouldn't paint with a broad a brush on this one, however, because getting it wrong is especially cringe-worthy. I'm not going to pretend to know why people have particular fetishes. Few probably even even know why themselves.
 

Sam Wamm

I'm a goat plushie
a lot of cartoonists in the industry in general seem to be into some pretty nasty stuff i find.

i think it's always been a bit that way.

probably frustrated that they're in a job where they can't express their true feelings because they are marketted to children.

for that reason i think a lot of people like to see what they can get away with in the medium whilst staying child-friendly.

this of course on young impressionable minds that are soon to be teenagers and have rampant hormones obviously blurs the line between cartoon and adult content.

a lot of people have their favorite characters and then as they hit their teens the feelings towards them morph.

i guess that's a natural thing as the people we would be associating with normally would be our own age group and when we start to get the mood then they would be too like kinda synchronizing the fertility for maximum output.

don't forget that nature has had a long time to tailor that to get it right.

as sentient life we really should know where the line should be drawn between kiddie and adult content but of course people will be people.

this world is going down the toilet and kids are exposed to things they shouldn't at an early age via the internet so much that it's now commonplace.

either we have to adapt to the times or take the moral high ground and as people we have different opinions and stances on that so no-one can agree.

but that's the beauty of civilization, we're all just one big agar dish of flailing lifeforms going our own way making somewhat progress in a direction.
 
Top