Furry Fandom and Drama General

[Corn Flakes]

I'm sorry but if you've been following the fandom for years you'd know how surface level this take is. I'm not saying you're wrong, but its a little more complicated than that, and the dog fucking thing is blown way out of proportion (twitter isn't a good metric to measure the fandom by). Your random furry is way way more likely to be a pedo or sex pest than a dog fucker.


Check this out:

Obviously E6 isn't going to contain every furry image in existence, nor will every image be 100% (damn near, the 'tism is strong there) accurately tagged, and maybe some of the images contain both, but its a really good starting metric to show just how mixed the community is. I believe its more of an aesthetic choice rather than an indicator of whether or not someone is a dog fucker. It's much less than a redflag and more Internet autism/escapism than anything.

If you're wondering about the Feral/Anthro tags:

Its a little harder to judge since feral characters are technically considered anthropomorphic by definition.

Did you read my post?

Seriously, I'm not throwing shade. Did you read the post?

Specifically, this part:

[...] crucially, other furries make very little effort to eject these freaks from their circles.

I wasn't accusing furries of all being dogfuckers. Or even a majority dogfucker. I was making an argument that their lack of any kind of serious response to the admitted dogfuckers, rapists and/or kiddy diddlers within their fandom for fear of being seen as "non-inclusive" is fucking deplorable. Every time there's a convention we get plenty of reports of people accusing each other of sexual misconduct, not to mention the rapes and underage sex (with adult partners) in room parties, and most furries just treat it as a fact of life. I'm not even talking about the industrial-scale grooming going on in furry discords and other communities, either, just talking about those that literally call themselves zoophiles and pedos, and who either get treated as minor pests, "quirky" individuals, or are willfully ignored.

Also, trying to differentiate between pedo, sex-pest or dogfucker is burying the fucking lead. These people all belong on a cross, I don't care which crime is worse, and trying to argue one is more prevalent than the other like it makes a difference is the cope I was talking about.

 

[Racoober]

Did you read my post?

Seriously, I'm not throwing shade. Did you read the post?

Specifically, this part:

Sorry it was more of a reply to the conversation at large rather than you specifically.
I don't disagree with you

 

[Cat Phuckers]

their lack of any kind of serious response to the admitted dogfuckers, rapists and/or kiddy diddlers within their fandom for fear of being seen as "non-inclusive" is fucking deplorable.

But does anybody in the fandom actually believe stated reasons such as this? I'd love some input from furries who have been around other furries who talk about the supposed "non-inclusivity" of pedophiles/zoophiles being a problem. Are these people just pussies afraid of hurting the feelings of other "sexual minorities" and looking like hypocrites to their fellow furries for having boundaries, or is there more to it?

 

[Corn Flakes]

But does anybody in the fandom actually believe stated reasons such as this? I'd love some input from furries who have been around other furries who talk about the supposed "non-inclusivity" of pedophiles/zoophiles being a problem. Are these people just pussies afraid of hurting the feelings of other "sexual minorities" and looking like hypocrites to their fellow furries for having boundaries, or is there more to it?

Back in the early 00s I think it was just a matter of nobody wanting to rock the boat because the "communities" were small and pretty segmented, and being kicked out of your local group meant you had very few people you could interact with. Social media wasn't a thing back then, finding new people took more effort than it does now.

These days, though? From the furries I know, I don't think they truly believe it. I get a feeling a lot (maybe even most) of them know this shit is wrong. But their communities have been marinating in a mix of Current Year purity spiral politics and that original "don't rock the boat" attitude for a long time. Nobody wants to be the first one to stand up and risk getting dogpiled. Because furries have fostered this "out and proud!" philosophy so intensely, the loudest people in the community, the people who have the ability to direct the most collective abuse, aren't normal people who are respected for their works. They're mostly sociopaths. You know, the clout-chasers that made it big (whether by attaching themselves to previously famous furries, or by commissioning expensive/popular artists) and who will not take anyone criticizing their kinks or their friends.

Or at least that's the fear I get from these people. The fear that if they're the first to speak up they'll just be left high and dry by the people who would otherwise agree with them, while the rabid "you're so *phobic!" and "HOW DARE YOU SAY MY KINK IS BAD?!" crowd tear their social lives to pieces. It's really fucking stupid, but they get very anxious about their internet "friends" turning on them if they say the wrong thing.

Also how come Spongebob isn't considered a furry show? Sea sponges, starfish, squids and crabs are all animals, and they're anthropomorphic.

Beats me. I guess furries just didn't "claim" it as such.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

Sex is sweaty and nasty. Furry porn is soft and inoffensive. You'll see two cougar/panther jocks sitting in a club with tank tops and no pants, stiff as a board, and do some cliche catcalling. Imagine that being real humans: Unappealing and idiotic. But they're not; they're hot furry studs. Suddenly it's okay. Furry shit is a groom-like pathway to drag normal people into things they wouldn't ever imagine had they not spent their teens online.

Son, I wish this were true.

People are replying that furry porn 'isn't soft/inoffensive', but they're misinterpreting what 'soft' means here: Drawn pornography allows a fetish and it's associated acts to be considered in the abstract without the often unsightly limitations of reality coming into play. For example, anal and related acts —Ex. the proliferation of the ass eating meme— have become semi-normalized, but how many people actually want to actually do these things? Filmed pornography can omit the messy and arduous prep (you know, like flushing all of the shit out of the bowels) neither does it need to mention the risks, and a cartoon can go even further; it can present the act in any way it pleases. It's just another hole! There's no poop in there, just pleasure! Growing interest in transexuals is much the same, they can be presented as a women (with a penis) when in reality they're more like a man (with falsies.)

Porn is in fact very much 'soft' in that it can present an act without any of it's associated mess and discomfort, thus normalizing it —or at least a representation of it.

Also how come Spongebob isn't considered a furry show? Sea sponges, starfish, squids and crabs are all animals, and they're anthropomorphic.

Erm... sandycheeksvacuumballs.png need I remind you?

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Son, I wish this were true.
I think some of it is and I think the thing you described, where young boys are groomed with cartoon huskies that show horniness or flirting, but don't show the realities of adult sexual relationships, certainly happens. But there's plenty of furry porn that depicts the hardest, most offensive shit you can think of. There's furry stuff that depicts things I think I literally couldn't think of if I didn't see it depicted.

Porn addictions escalate. When pedophilia and rape get boring to you, you need to break another taboo and cause more pain to get the same high, so you start eyeing Lassie.
There are cases of men who get caught with child abuse porn, who started out with "regular" porn but had to seek out "harder" material over time and sacrificed themselves and their families to an addiction doom loop.
Escalation is how you end up with those long, god-has-forsaken-us lists of horrors of FA.
Also how come Spongebob isn't considered a furry show? Sea sponges, starfish, squids and crabs are all animals, and they're anthropomorphic.

I hate to defend porn addicts but what you're describing is ackshually exceedingly rare. I have no statistics to defend myself but from the one porn addiction study I read, less than like 5% of porn addicts ever got into child porn as a result of their addiction. It went into the direction of more extreme porn (think snuff and dicknipples), not child porn. Now this part is anecdotal based on like 20 years of fando observations: For furries, definitely they start gravitating towards cub porn more oft than not seeing how many extreme furry fetishists have cub in their favs. For weeb porn addicts, they gravitate towards lolishota. But non weebs/furries don't seem to gravitate towards child porn (based on that study I had read). Maybe it's because shota and cub are normalized under the fiction aspect.

 

[Stratovorious]

I hate to defend porn addicts but what you're describing is ackshually exceedingly rare. I have no statistics to defend myself but from the one porn addiction study I read, less than like 5% of porn addicts ever got into child porn as a result of their addiction. It went into the direction of more extreme porn (think snuff and dicknipples), not child porn. Now this part is anecdotal based on like 20 years of fando observations: For furries, definitely they start gravitating towards cub porn more oft than not seeing how many extreme furry fetishists have cub in their favs. For weeb porn addicts, they gravitate towards lolishota. But non weebs/furries don't seem to gravitate towards child porn (based on that study I had read). Maybe it's because shota and cub are normalized under the fiction aspect.

Just to point out: sex addiction and porn addiction aren't real, according to science.

This is because the word "addiction" has a very narrow clinical definition, and the way the human brain processes sexual behavior doesn't permit addiction on a chemical level.

You can still call them compulsive coomers tho

 

[Corn Flakes]

I hate to defend porn addicts but what you're describing is ackshually exceedingly rare. I have no statistics to defend myself but from the one porn addiction study I read, less than like 5% of porn addicts ever got into child porn as a result of their addiction. It went into the direction of more extreme porn (think snuff and dicknipples), not child porn. Now this part is anecdotal based on like 20 years of fando observations: For furries, definitely they start gravitating towards cub porn more oft than not seeing how many extreme furry fetishists have cub in their favs. For weeb porn addicts, they gravitate towards lolishota. But non weebs/furries don't seem to gravitate towards child porn (based on that study I had read). Maybe it's because shota and cub are normalized under the fiction aspect.

Lolisho and cub are their own paraphilias, separate from pedophilia but often comorbid. The simplest way to put it is that not every lolicon or cub fan will have CP in their spank bank, but every pedophile will. Likewise, not every pedophile will have fictional content like lolicon or cub in their stashes, but a lot of them do.

That's all to say, people will fall down the slope when it comes to desensitization to porn and chasing the dragon with more and more extreme versions of their kink in different ways. It depends on the paraphilias the person is afflicted with. Someone who started out jacking off to heterosexual missionary sex and then did the long march through kinks until they ended up on cheese pizza likely harbored pedophilic tendencies to begin with. You could argue that the constant exposition to harder and harder stimuli and peer pressure makes it much easier to break down pre-existing moral barriers, but in the long run you just can't "fake" attraction to something you're not naturally attracted to. You can jack off to it, but at that point it's not the visual stimulus that's doing it for you, it's the mechanical action.

 

[Law]

For example, anal and related acts —Ex. the proliferation of the ass eating meme— have become semi-normalized, but how many people actually want to actually do these things?

One of the key parts of the radical feminist critique of pornography is that it acts as "propaganda and instruction manual."
I think you raise several good points about porn and obscuring the reality of the acts it depicts, making them seem more palatable and effectively normalizing them. That's the propaganda aspect, in my opinion.
I think that we also can't overlook the "instruction manual" aspect. How many people "actually want to do those things"? Probably more than if they weren't furiously masturbating to terabytes of pornography of "those things" and endlessly discussing "those things" on Telegram.

I have no statistics to defend myself but from the one porn addiction study I read, less than like 5% of porn addicts ever got into child porn as a result of their addiction.

5% is still way too damn high.

but in the long run you just can't "fake" attraction to something you're not naturally attracted to

This is part of why I find furries so confounding. How can people naturally be attracted to stuff that doesn't exist, like dragons? My theory is if you wank to pictures of dragons for long enough, you will eventually train yourself to get aroused when you see a picture of a dragon.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

in the long run you just can't "fake" attraction to something you're not naturally attracted to.

there was a study thhat shows you could pavlov dog a man into becoming sexually attracted to boots. i read it but it seems to be nuked from the internet. here's a place talking about its existence tho https://gizmodo.com/pavlovs-pervs-1500110923
plus every works cited listed at the bottom https://www.conallmacc.com/pdf/Pfaus2020.pdf

i'll look through Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex to see if they actually have it in there
edit
ediw two FOUND THE STUDY https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03393736

 

[Law]

there was a study thhat shows you could pavlov dog a man into becoming sexually attracted to boots.

I feel like this is the only logical explanation for some of the horrors we see documented on this fine website.

 

[Murry Loon]

Just to point out: sex addiction and porn addiction aren't real, according to science.

>according to science
>psychology today
lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

science is a methodology for finding truth. it 'says' fuck all. scientific journals are for-profit organizations & reflect the values of whoever can generate the most revenue for them. do a few one-off studies with novel findings on a hot-button issue & watch the cash flow. see: all of troonery.

the scientific method is pretty great. pop science journalism is a fucking cancer. psychology is one of the most dubious fields to make a claim to being a scientific practice & is almost always a reflection of a set of cultural values rather than an empirically observable truth. 'psychology today', meanwhile, is a publication seen as bullshit even by those who affirm the validity of psychology.

 

[Noebel]

I feel like this is the only logical explanation for some of the horrors we see documented on this fine website.

No, it's worse. Boots are a normal thing that exists. You can't pavlov-train people on something that doesn't exist. That means somebody somewhere came up with a concept of dick-nipples out of their own brain and got a boner. And after some time, another great thinker looked at it and said to himself: "Nah, it ain't it. But what if they were shitting?"

 

[AnOminous]

If you're wondering about the Feral/Anthro tags:

Its a little harder to judge since feral characters are technically considered anthropomorphic by definition.

I wonder how much of the feral tag is stuff like ponies instead of literal bork bork dogs that can't talk and have animal level intelligence.

This is part of why I find furries so confounding. How can people naturally be attracted to stuff that doesn't exist, like dragons? My theory is if you wank to pictures of dragons for long enough, you will eventually train yourself to get aroused when you see a picture of a dragon.

There are plenty of people out there who have so little likelihood of having sex with another human (or even an actual animal) that it's just about as likely they get to fuck a dragon.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

No, it's worse. Boots are a normal thing that exists. You can't pavlov-train people on something that doesn't exist. That means somebody somewhere came up with a concept of dick-nipples out of their own brain and got a boner. And after some time, another great thinker looked at it and said to himself: "Nah, it ain't it. But what if they were shitting?"

Being able to visualize a dicknipple with photorealistic shading and then rotate it in your head is pretty aryan tbh. The mind of a white man is so powerful as to be able to contain what is, what could be and even what could never be. Mark another one down for the good guys.

 

[TroonsDid911]

I wonder how much of the feral tag is stuff like ponies instead of literal bork bork dogs that can't talk and have animal level intelligence.

There are plenty of people out there who have so little likelihood of having sex with another human (or even an actual animal) that it's just about as likely they get to fuck a dragon.

The thing about dragons is that they still have animal characteristics to them. There seems to be some underlying desire to fuck something other then a human being behind zoophiles and furries.

Something doesn't have to be real for it to be sexually attractive to someone, it doesn't even need to make sense. If it tickles something in their brain or if they think about it in a way that associates it with sexual gratification then it will become a fetish. Thats how people get attracted to weird shit that makes no sense like gas pedals or inflation.

TL;DR

is the answer

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

Just to point out: sex addiction and porn addiction aren't real, according to science.

This is because the word "addiction" has a very narrow clinical definition, and the way the human brain processes sexual behavior doesn't permit addiction on a chemical level.

You can still call them compulsive coomers tho

psychology doesnt overrule neuroscience. neuroscience has shown porn addiction is similar to any other addiction in that the brain physicaly changes. people with porn addiction arent addicted to the porn because they like masturbating to it. theyre addicted because they're using it as a bad coping mechanism for their problems in life. sad? porn. stressed at work? porn. issues with your spouse? porn. it can make it to the point where you can't get a boner without the porn and your own spouse no longer gets you off. That's porn addiction. Lot of coomers aren't actually porn addicted, they're just heavy consoomers of porn. It's the people who are struggling with life and using porn to cope with it and it's interfering with their day-to-day life that are the addicts.

Porn use destroys your grey matter, specifically your decision making part of the reward system. making it even HARDER to cope healthily. Making you more dependent on the porn. Making you addicted. it also wears out your reward (dopamine) over time, meaning you have to consume more or more extreme/novel to get the same effects.

"Instead of turning to a romantic partner for sexual gratification or fulfillment, habituated porn users instinctively reach for their phones and laptops when desire comes calling. Furthermore, unnaturally strong explosions of reward and pleasure evoke unnaturally strong degrees of habituation in the brain. “Pornography satisfies every one of the prerequisites for neuroplastic change. When pornographers boast that they are pushing the envelope by introducing new, harder themes, what they don’t say is that they must, because their customers are building up a tolerance to the content.”
Porn scenes, like addictive substances, are hyper-stimulating triggers that lead to unnaturally high levels of dopamine secretion. This can damage the dopamine reward system and leave it unresponsive to natural sources of pleasure. This is why users begin to experience difficulty in achieving arousal with a physical partner." https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-pornography-brain-15354/
"The desensitization of our reward circuitry sets the stage for sexual dysfunctions to develop, but the repercussions don’t end there. Studies show that changes in the transmission of dopamine can facilitate depression and anxiety. In agreement with this observation, porn consumers report greater depressive symptoms, lower quality of life and poorer mental health compared to those who don’t watch porn."

and your psychologists say it doesn't permit addiction on a chemical level laaaaaaaaawl

 

[Whatevermancer]

Porn use destroys your grey matter, specifically your decision making part of the reward system. making it even HARDER to cope healthily. Making you more dependent on the porn. Making you addicted. it also wears out your reward (dopamine) over time, meaning you have to consume more or more extreme/novel to get the same effects.

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on porn, when it's not porn, but masturbation that brings you pleasure. Shouldn't it be called "masturbation addiction"?

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

I don't know why everyone is so hung up on porn, when it's not porn, but masturbation that brings you pleasure. Shouldn't it be called "masturbation addiction"?

Porn scenes, like addictive substances, are hyper-stimulating triggers that lead to unnaturally high levels of dopamine secretion. This can damage the dopamine reward system and leave it unresponsive to natural sources of pleasure. This is why users begin to experience difficulty in achieving arousal with a physical partner." https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-pornography-brain-15354/

The sight of porn activates the pleasure center before the masturbation. In porn addicted individuals, you can't masturbate to completion without the sight of porn. They can't get off from having sex with their spouse (when they could before). And sex is much better in feeling than masturbation. They can't get off without looking AT PORN. IT'S A PORN ADDICTION. Porn addicted individuals aren't feeling horney when they masturbate. They're feeling stressed, depressed, unhappy, etc. . Masturbating alone doesn't make them feel better. It's specifically coming to porn that makes them feel better, hence why it's an addiction. becuase it's an unhealthy coping mechanism.

the science behind it being the porn being the addiction is in that article: "Following a similar line of inquiry, researchers at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, Germany, found that higher porn use correlated with less brain activation in response to conventional pornographic imagery. This explains why users tend to graduate to more extreme and unconventional forms of porn." That follows the same trend of addiction. If masturbation were the addiction, you'd be wanting to have sex because it feels better than masturbation! But people who are porn addicts can't complete in their spouse!

 

[Noebel]

porn addicted individuals

And how many people amongst all porn consumers fap themselves to this state?