Creative Commons license icon

Furries Are Being 'Cancelled' for 'Feral Porn Art' - This Is a Problem

Edited by Sonious as of Sun 17 Jul 2022 - 21:40
Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (19 votes)

About 2 years ago, I started to see a growing debate about 'feral' NSFW art, and it was mostly more calm. The first time was when FurryLife.online started to ban most feral furry pornography, which has sparked a lot of debate online here (in the comment section), Twitter, and some other online sites. In the discussions, there were a lot of folks defending it with a fair amount of logic, mainly explaining that human levels of intelligence creates a difference. There were also folks reasoning that many of such ferals being attractive were exactly the same reasoning why furry characters such as Nick Wilde would be considered attractive by many other furries, by the fact that they have animal parts.

After such drama emerged, it felt as if it was dying down, thankfully. However recently on about June 19th, a popular furry known as KaimTime has been publicly “exposed” after some furries found out that they had a “feral” focused NSFW Twitter account known as Feral Fawcet. As a result, angry furries accused the person of being into “zoophilia”. as well as many Twitter folks ending up doing the whole “if you support this, block me” style posts. There was even one popular YouTuber, Crying Blossom, who made a call-out video against KaimTime mainly for KaimTime having the separate Twitter feed with this art on it, and their response video defending their right to have this separate page and fantasy. All of this, likely because of a furry artist partly having an interest in having fantasies with anthropomorphic animals on all fours.

A growing puritan partition

After all of this, I realized that I've never seen such a backlash against the feral NSFW side of the fandom be this pronounced. Such attacks on fictional fantasies create a great deal of uncertainty and fear involving this fandom. I am already aware that this fandom has several problems involving politics and a couple of other things, but most of that usually settles down. Now I'm seeing something that might end up creating either a huge division, or worse, a significant side of the fandom to be completely outcasted and left in the dark. Maybe this is just me, but this ‘puritan' attitude of certain furries having a rise is quite frankly a horrible sign that this is the death of the fandom entirely.

Some might say this drama will die out like the burned fur thing did. However, this moral panic is a bit similar to what happened to NSFW 'cub' art, which ended up being taboo and later on becoming kinda like a death sentence for one's known reputation, depending on current image and where you are. Because of that, I worry 'feral' will be next, canceling thousands of furries, including myself, who happen to like something that isn't even any different than two-legged realistic fox heads with human 'shoulders' and two legs. I also don't believe that the 'cub' and 'feral' debate are even comparable because furry adults can consent. If one put the head of a child on an adult human body, that'd probably not be okay, but putting a animal head on a human body is okay? Seems a bit odd and hypocritical to me.

Either way, I worry this will be the end for so many folks like myself.

I honestly believe it can maybe be saved, but many popular furry creators and articles are going to have to stand up for it before it's too late. We need to spread a lot of logical and lawful criticism before a lot of those anti-feral people end up creating yet another blow for expression in this fandom. Late last year, one popular furry ended up defending it (NSFW, can't show) with a lot of logic and it got a lot of support, but this time I failed to see anywhere near as much support when this recent drama happened.

Why this is a Problem

I myself may be an unknown furry, but I still have the desire to spread here and while it's here, I might as well share some of the criticism here with separate points even though there may be more points showing the problem:

  • Point 1 | The reasoning why many anthropomorphic dogs and foxes are attractive is precisely because of the animal parts it has, with a mixture of human characteristic as well. This also ranges on a scale as well. The reasoning why someone would like a four-legged sapient fox are the exact same reasons as for those on two legs. If being into anthropomorphic feral NSFW makes one a zoophile, then all furries who is into NSFW two-legged furry characters are as well.
  • Point 2 | 'Zoophiles' might find the furry feral NSFW art interesting, but you can say the same goes for Zootopia porn, and many other two-legged furry porn. I believe there exist 'zoophila' furries who happen to like what many furries like involving non-feral art, and even the safe for work kind. So if we go against feral art porn out of fear that it will gateway them into the real thing, despite the lack of evidence of this, you go against all of it.
  • Point 3 | As for the possibility of creating a safe haven for zoophiles, one has to remember every furry (two legged or not) character has had that already. The real key is dealing with it separately. While my point still stands, I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though (I am not the biggest expert here), except that nobody should be breaking the law and that no one (zoophile or not) should be forbidden from enjoying lawful furry content especially since taking away such content might end up pushing many zoophiles to go after animals instead.
  • Point 4 | For those that say it's exactly like the cub thing (despite my stance on victimless fiction itself not being a real issue), it's not even the same as adult sapient furry characters that can consent. If these puritan folks really want to compare it so badly, then once again one would be banning two-legged dogs with realistic dog heads in NSFW situations entirely as well. If there was an adult body with a realistic child looking head, would those folks against feral NSFW fiction actually be fine with that?
  • Point 5 | Except for any art involving a victim, it's a fiction. To be against something that involves no victim is rather morally debatable. Because of this, going after people for enjoying victimless content would itself be argued as victimizing.

Furry porn in its nature was based on real animals. Even many nonexistent beings, such as dragons, are based on animals, such as reptiles. The main reasoning why someone would find an anthropomorphic animal attractive is precisely due to the 'animal' nature, but with humanity mixed in. This also clearly ranges (very humanoid, less humanoid but still on twos, and four-legged with human sapience), and the psychological reason why a lot of furries find four-legged anthropomorphic characters attractive is precisely the same reason, just on fours. There is no difference between a four-legged fox that has human sapience and emotion than that of a two-legged fox that stands on twos with the same thing. The only difference is the amount of legs, which is just another animal feature like having a paw is.

So, to the type of furries that think people like myself are into "zoophilia", then by that logic, any furry attractive to two-legged anthropomorphic animals are into "zoophilia" too. It's either both are zoophilia, or not. We should not be out-casting furries who really like anthropomorphic four-legged creatures. We should not be restricting the lawful freedom this fandom has in favor of the worst furries in this fandom. I really hope I'm just overreacting, but some of my fears sadly seem more realistic these days I think.

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (5 votes)

Thanks for submitting your piece and thoughts on the manner, since I had to edit this and have had a chance to read this, I'll do my normal leaving comments aside for a week and let others get in their thoughts.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (6 votes)

I wouldn't have published this one, lol

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

> If there was an adult body with a realistic child looking head, would those folks against feral NSFW fiction actually be fine with that?

If you've been following the Disney animation art style since the 90's, you could argue that Frozen characters are exactly that.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Noticed earlier the article was published. Thanks for publishing it! A few points I want to say:
The title is probably a bit over-dramatic (my fault really) as KaimTime has not been successfully "canceled" judging by him still having a lot of followers and activity, and "furries" was probably a bit less true as I only seen one person noticeably (to my subjective perspective) 'called out' for it. I guess it could be viewed with a prediction kind of mindset, assuming that makes sense.

"it's not even the same sapient adult furry character's consent." - I don't know if this is from editing or it was my fault but this does feel kinda odd looking at it. Perhaps "it's not even the same as adult sapient furry characters that can consent." or ending with "characters" is what I meant in mindset. Thoughts? I mean I'm the one who started the article but thought I asked about it anyway.

Despite the whole avoidance attitude of "zoophilia", I do want to be clear, if I wasn't, that I am not for witch-hunting against anyone (with or without such thing) enjoying lawful content in the furry fandom. If someone prefers less-realistic "animals" over the real thing then that's fine by me. I consider an example that is an issue is anyone (zoophiles or not) trying to use the fandom for the purpose of certain activities (e.g. animal abusive behavior).

There is also the open possibility of more points under 'Why this is a problem' that hasn't been written down.

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

You can always edit articles you authored after publishing for typos and things like that with the edit tab at the top of the story if you find any typo or other mistakes.

If you make larger conceptual or informational changes it is of good ethics to put a note of such edits in the header section of the article.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (12 votes)

Just admit you all want to fuck dogs and giving them human personalities is just a loophole like the "1000 year old witch" clause that loli/shota people use.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (4 votes)

I know a place that argued against a similar argument like that. Let me find it...

Argument: "But it's like the cub thing! It's also like the 1000 year old thing!"

Why those two arguments failed: The issue with minors is that they don't consent. The issue with animals is that they don't consent. It's solved with a being being an adult and is consensual. Not only that, but even with the "It's like the 1000 year old excuse" argument, then I'll tell you this: Do you really truly want to compare it? Would you freak out if an adult human body had a realistic or even somewhat cartoony child head on it? Yes? Then why would you be alright with an animal head on top of a human adult looking body then? Let that sink in!

Anthropomorphic animals by nature are animals, but with human characteristics added in some way. The preferences for many people is a scale, and there is no real difference between a human body with a wolf head on it than Nick Wilde, and neither is an unrealistic or somewhat realistic "feral" shaped being that has emotional human-like faces and/or is sapience. It's all within the anthropomorphic scale (as defined), and part of the reasoning why such anthropomorphic characters were attractive is because of the non-human features (animals) that exist with them.

Besides, even the cub thing is a bit debatable alone. Why? Because some cubs don't even look like real children. Some are entirely lacking of a child look where the only "child-like" is a fictional label. So I don't even think a person is truly a pedophile for that alone. There is literally an adult looking "cat" looking character that apparently is supposed to be a 'baby dragon'. There is also the 'fiction' argument but I'm putting that aside for this article."

____________

Besides Anon. I can't take your morals much seriously if you think talking, less realistic looking (if so), and sapient beings is just another zoophilia, but then turn around and prefer two-legged walking animals just because two legs. I got a feeling you didn't even read the article.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (7 votes)

Just admit you all want to fuck dogs...

A dog with human-level speech, intelligence and lifespan would no longer be a dog. It would be something else, although I wouldn't envy the courts that had to decide exactly what.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

That's your opinion buddy & nothing more. What I've noticed about NSFW furry art is it almost always either explicit pin-up poses of a single characters, or anthro characters having sex with other anthro characters. In the entire time I've been in the fandom (and we're talking 30 years & counting!) I think I've seen all of two pictures of a human & anthro having sex.

- Joe

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

Honestly as long as the animal has some form of sapience, especially human characteristics through facial expression, then it's another furry/anthro thing. I don't even see an issue with the concept of an adult human being happy with a sapient four-legged highly intellectual adult fox since there isn't anything wrong with two adult sapient beings enjoying each other.

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (5 votes)

I have been on the cusp of getting into the fandom and found this while looking at Redwall and just want to say this is driving me away again.
I am fine with most of the anthro porn and fetish works out there but I have to draw the line at this. I would say consent isn't involved, really; you don't have a personal connection to porn actresses, they're objectified. None of this art is real, but you should be concerned if you're fantasizing about having sex with feral furries. It's just... concerning. Same as if you were fantasizing about, I don't know, child vampires. Sure they're intelligent, but you're justifying it so you feel better about yourself.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

Oh, buddy, don't let weird fetish art scare you away!

Be smart, and let the fact that we're all smug assholes scare you away!

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

Maybe to better explain my view. If there was an intelligent animalistic creature in real life, then consent would make sex acceptable.
However, the person who is looking for feral porn is just justifying a paraphilia. The person is already attracted to animals and is looking for a way to make that acceptable.

I should also say I haven't seen much feral art, so I am imagining it's like Amaterasu from Okami.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Maybe to better explain my view. If there was an intelligent animalistic creature in real life, then consent would make sex acceptable.
However, the person who is looking for feral porn is just justifying a paraphilia. The person is already attracted to animals and is looking for a way to make that acceptable.

Yes, we're all aware of this.

It's a loophole, and people are using and abusing said hole, if you'll pardon the phrasing, but if you try to close the loophole you take out swaths of innocent (or at least, you know, not innocent but not innocent in a good way) stuff with it. So the loophole stays open. Wake me up when we catch a real dogfucker; until then, use a blocklist Half the reason sites like that use tags is for you those who want to avoid things as much as for people who want to find things. Though I suspect a lot of those complaining about it are half getting off to being morally superior to it despite they damn well know they had to look for it to find it. Hey, I spent a year on Portal of Evil back in 2000s, I've been there. It's fun. Just try to remember "bestiality is bad" is not actually a very brave moral stance, even if it is correct.

And, while we're here, paraphilia is not a bad word. Okay, mostly we're dealing with run of the mill cartoon fetishes, which is technically known as schediaphilia, and extends to all cartoon characters, human, animal, vegetable or mineral. The fact that these things are not real, and either can't or shouldn't be done in real life, is most of the appeal. A person who fetishizes cartoon animals is not the same thing as a person who likes real animals. There is overlap, but less than you might think.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (5 votes)

I don't know if I can quite comprehend what you're saying, but if I had to guess, you're probably talking about how "ferals" can cause people who are actually attractive to IRL animals to use such works as "fuel" to their paraphilia.

So I will try to give out three main points, two with the fact that "zoophilia" isn't an issue for the sake of it's meaning, but why it was concerning in the first place, that having thoughts in the head isn't itself 'an offense'. If you know what I mean by that and have a similar mindset for it alone then great.

Point 1:
Look, I don't really remember how many times the criticism toward that has been repeated, but we need to consider something too: What is zoophilia? Well, it contains multiple elements that many furries has but with one extra element; the preference to non-consensual animals, or at least not caring about it if that makes sense. If a zoophile happens to like anthropomorphic animals too, then I think they are only justifying the same exact elements non-zoos has. There is also the possibility some might be be a zoophile and like certain things not containing real-animals at all (e.g. anime women?) The real concern is that extra element. Oh and let's not forget the fact that two-legged anthros are also loved by many zoophiles if the story is true.

There is also the fact that no amount of evidence suggest that many cases of fictional art existing alone can really cause zoophiles to offend. There is even the sayings that taking away such less realistic outlets away would literally push more zoos into isolation and just go after IRL animals even further. I even heard one zoophile said (around a similar debate) that being into feral art made the person less interested into IRL animals. If this is true, then in that example likely, to be against all purely fictional NSFW feral art would clearly not only fail to render some kind of "better safe than nothing" element, it would render a "worse than nothing" element instead.

Point 2: I'm pretty sure an average person can tell the difference between a story of a human falling in love with a fully sapient four-legged anthro containing a clear message saying that they clearly like each other, then flat out putting a human together with a mindless goat.

Point 3: Also sorry I should probably just add this too even though I kinda explained it.
If alien dogs that looks like real dogs came in and were fully sapient and consensual, then the main concern for said paraphilia would likely be solved because now there exists animals that can consent. The paraphilia would be similar to heterosexuality where a full path to consent exists despite some human adults not consenting. So it's weird to be like "But it's still that in head, so it's wrong." despite the problem not much existing anymore. Sorry I added this one late, because I think I got reminded of some weird argument on Twitter involving some character from Lion King. LOL

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

"Just admit that everyone in your group does the thing I think they do so that my brain doesn't need to do any effort or analysis beyond what I'm comfortable with"

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Can't say I fully agree with all the positions or arguments made here but I do appreciate the overall thrust and it is concerning that there's a certain puritanism that some furs have. It's totally fine to not like cub or feral art (or any other sort) but it is not fine to say that no one else should like it. Cub never went away and I doubt feral art will either. If anything, this should spur furs to do even more feral artwork.

On a side note, I think any argument worrying about real life behaviours in a piece of art are misguided. The question here is purely about the artwork which is a separate issue to the ethics of any activity depicted.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

If it's alright to ask, what part do you not agree with? I ask in case there is a misunderstanding and that I could offer some more stuff from my side of the argument, but I won't expect you to agree with me.

I certainly am on the side that goes against harassing people for liking any art involving no victim. I even think that to take away certain fictional outlets, it would only result in bottling up urges as someone said somewhere, making the situation worse for some people. To take it all away and then expect the type of people that has the condition to get rid of the condition and/or get castrated is so unrealistic, that it's mind-boggling as to why anyone would think it is. Though for this article, I think the concern is that even though so much cub art didn't go away, it's still deadly to a person's reputation in more known areas, and I don't want the feral thing to become the next victim in this. Seeing how there is a bit of a backlash happening against a feral fan likely (I think there was mixed concern for this) for having a NSFW feral Twitter account is an example of what I'm concerned about, despite so much feral art likely still existing after that.

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (8 votes)

I see no mention of the Harkness test
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/harkness-test

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

"Why this is a problem": *mental gymnastics*

No really, why is it a problem though, this offers zero actual problems that exist outside of a debate club you made up and "people were angy on the internets again"

If you saw the shit Kaim was into, I dare you to put it in an art job portfolio or ask to be trusted to take care of someone's pet. It's pretty fucked up by extremely liberal standards whether or not someone is a diddler risk.

Maybe instead of saying "I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though" and finding a bunch of mental copes about straddling the line, start with a real problem like "how should we handle zoophiles" and then figure out what problem artists have with it.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (4 votes)

one of Kaim's fave artists on his alt is tagged "bestiality"

NSFW https://furry.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1835311

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (4 votes)

No really, why is it a problem though, this offers zero actual problems that exist outside of a debate club you made up and "people were angy on the internets again"

I believe some people's reasoning may be a bit different than some others.

If you saw the shit Kaim was into, I dare you to put it in an art job portfolio or ask to be trusted to take care of someone's pet. It's pretty fucked up by extremely liberal standards whether or not someone is a diddler risk.

You're not being realistic, nor clear. Being into "feral" furry art doesn't automatically equate into being into real-world animals. If you want to lean into being realistic on such a subject to use such a fear-based argument, then I think it would be more logical if it was about someone being into realistic and accurate deceptions of the real-world animals with accurate enough behavior, and that's just some lean as it's not 100% conclusive. Some people are into "ferals" that has less accurate features, including human-level emotions of intelligence, and many of such people prefer such features. There are also certain characters edited to have even less accurate features as a preference.
Now I will disclaim that I don't fully know everything about KaimTime, but I did saw a couple and it's not enough.

Maybe instead of saying "I won't say how zoophiles should be handled though" and finding a bunch of mental copes about straddling the line, start with a real problem like "how should we handle zoophiles" and then figure out what problem artists have with it.

I didn't want to go into detail with that a lot because I didn't want to get into a ridiculous heated debate and thinking about it now, it would also be a bit complicated. If you want a bit of a stance from me on this so bad then here I go:

There is no offense of an actual zoophile merely seeing and/or enjoying lawful art of anthropomorphic characters, and such a person is not getting closer to any real animal just by having internet access to certain content that isn't even about real animals. So unless the law says otherwise, there is no complicit to any bestiality activity from a certain furries having open access to certain art. I don't think I fully get why some people try to act like it's an offense by itself and then use such mindset to go after innocent furries because they didn't follow such a weird ass hive-mindset.

One concern I can see is when certain zoophiles are coming together and having contact with each other making certain discussions (e.g. talking about locations of where the offense will take place). This isn't even a feral art elusive issue either as it happens with two-legged furries too and/or some other places too. Though remember, this is about some. I don't think all people who has such a mental condition is planning a crime with it.

So how can furries deal with those that are using the place to discuss illegal activity for example? Well, we have certain policies, and there might be some other realistic way of dealing with it (it's a little hard to talk about this I think). Despite that, nothing in here seems to suggest blaming certain feral artwork because the more I think about it, it just feels like the wrong target.

one of Kaim's fave artists on his alt is tagged "bestiality"

It's quite possible a loose definition of bestiality can apply to anthropomorphic animals x humans as well.

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (5 votes)

Classic Diamond Man post... a few hundred words that mean nothing at all, and have those unique quirks that give him away every time

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Nah, as someone who has had experience with editing that persons work, just, nah.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Now I know that there are multiple Diamond Men, maybe having their own locations and bodies, but airing the same aimless word salad in the form of Flayrah articles

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

You know that, sometimes, you're gonna need to write an article size response with enough detail in order to criticize certain points, right? That especially usually goes when a debate goes heated. I've had some people misunderstand me so badly sometimes because I didn't do that.

Sometimes you can write enough fancy hard to understand words and organize them right to make it shorter without damaging the quality and size of the context, though sometimes I have trouble with that.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

You made up a debate club to cope about some fucked up things, while completely dodging a much more serious real life problem as if it doesn't matter.

The word for this detachment and coping is "parasocial."

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

If you really want to enter a serious debate here then I might not mind it, but I wish you can tell me preciously which commentary, or lack thereof, you were referring to. I already tried to address some serious topics in some of the comments here, including to that one Anon who was depending on the fallacious idea that somehow having a certain less realistic paraphilia in the head itself is somehow the problem (dodging the real problem already) by itself.

When I sometimes comment, I try to address to what, I believe was about the serious topic?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Your "debate" is absolutely terrible and you should feel terrible for inventing a "problem" that is just mental gymnastics

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Can you prove that it's terrible?

Why the hell are anti ferals here claiming these empty things and not even showing the so-called "real" problem?, Oh wait, I know why. They don't rely on evidence based research much. Puirtans loves making up baseless opinions and to use that to mess with people's harmless and non-threatening freedom. They like to believe their shitty opinion is 'correct' to the point that they usually prefer denying actual evidence.

Besides, I'm freaking sure a serious problem here is already being addressed and that problem is harassing people for something that is victimless. There was never an excuse to be doing that to people like KaimTime assuming what I know so far.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

Kero the Wolf, part of a ring of zoosadists who practiced sadistic rape, multilation, and murder of real animals, tried to use "just feral art fans" as an excuse to cover it up.

He was rightfully "canceled" (yet mysteriously still here, because canceling is a fake problem made up by people afraid of consequences).

Then Kero tried to come back under the cover of ... wait for it...

A "feral convention" run by zoophiles.
https://twitter.com/constaffwatch/status/1284268195877019650?lang=en

Tell me these lying eyes aren't seeing a real problem, while disgusting apologists pretend that that "canceling" is a real problem.

Scumbag.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (5 votes)

Terrible argument.

I am aware of some of the Kero the Wolf drama but nothing in your example proves that furry feral nature is an issue. Heck some of your comment sounds similar to the "A person who offended liked furry porn, so therefor furry porn is the problem entirally!" fallacy argument. Fear mongering trash I think. Remember the real bloody problem is more akin to an individual problem, not something a lot of people liked but isn't like kero or other bad people. Kero hiding behind some feral thing doesn't prove anything special here.

Also some animal abusers also went in non-feral or mostly non-feral conviction too I think.

Also the example concern here about the canceling thing was focused toward KaimTime who what I assumed so far, did nothing freaking wrong. Some artifical "consequences" are not justified. The guy who made this article was definitely focusing against a serious problem.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (4 votes)

Shut the fuck up, right now

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Lmao typical puritan response.

Nah, I refuse to be silenced from speaking the truth. Facts do not care about feelings and I hope to god that logic doesn't get replaced with mob outrage. As long as safe and legal, such feral artwork isn't wrong and nobody should be prevented from seeing it. Not even bad people (alone).

Also less related, but I meant to say convention, not conviction.

I know it's likely best to not not respond to idiotic comments like the one I'm replying to but I'm replying this way since sometimes I like pissing people off like you and that I hate mob outrage trying to get away with crap like that

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

Absolute fucking scumbag. You have chronic social problems and it's all your own fault.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

Your widdle feelings being hert doesn't prove I have "chronic social problems". I got a feeling you are a conservative. LOL

You failed to win the argument. Now get lost you f***ing diseased lunatic.

Also correction, I meant to use one not in the other comment here.

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (4 votes)

Lmao, being liberal/left doesn't mean being a morally bankrupt and personally toxic cunt such as yourself, who thinks "keyboard debate warrior" has any sway in real life. You're alegend in your own mind for making up a fake debate club to defend real animal rape behind euphemisms and edgelording

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (3 votes)

(too lazy to use phone)
LMAO, you think I'm defending animal rape, even though I never once defended anyone raping an animal.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those extremists who think that teaching children that gay people exist is "grooming".

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

You certainly defended Kero the Wolf as hard as you could, so yeah, you're defending animal rape and lying about it

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

The only "defense" I ever did involving that guy was just respecting him wanting, assuming any, to enjoy lawful content. That's it. There is nothing in here that defended him raping animals or any other bad activity with real animals, as far as I know. You have no f*cking right to lie to the public involving me.

Get proper therapy.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (3 votes)

And there is no defense of any other bad activity as far as I know too.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (4 votes)

Liar. Stop defending rapists

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

You're the liar. Also correction, I also meant to include that I was not defending anything bad that is even legal assuming so.

If you failed to find evidence that I was defending raping animals, then you don't have the right to tell the public that I do. I dare you to find something from me here and from anyone else here proving that I was.

I don't know if the elements is enough here, but either way libelous speech is not free speech.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (4 votes)

Diamond Man is a liar who defends rapists and keeps lying about it, news at 11

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

Thanks for the entertainment you mentally delusional freak.

Also thanks for re-enforcing the energy of hating puritins all over again. :)

You lost.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (4 votes)

For some dumb reason, there is a glitch preventing me from using my email address and another one as an anon so sadly I have to use this account. If other comments contains a kinda similar message below this hidden in the system, then please delete them.

It's bigots like you that are ruining this already ruined fandom. "Bah! Mah feeling are hurt! You must be diamond man, and your words mean nothing because I said so!" As for that message, you failed to even prove it wrong. You are just triggered. Lmao

People who supports dictating against what a furry does against them doing legal things in favor of puirtan TRASH are an example that is as bad as certain animal abusers. Fuck off. And fuck off anti-ferals.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Yeah, sorry about that - Flayrah's email was broken for a week or so due to a weird issue involving old versions of the executable files used to send it placed over a mount. Should be working now.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (3 votes)

l + ratio + no maidens + read a picture book + newer furries are born into hindsight on how shitty feral actually is because bitches like Zooier Than Thou and video essays about people that are actually fucking weird. Hey, like the dude above me with that harkness test. As long as the thing can say yes, you can. Also...consent is the hottest damn thing on the planet and otherwise, people are either leaning toward something healthily chaotic or are actually fucking insane. Goodnight tri-state area. I apologize if my newborn rebuttal fails to make a dent in your filthy aged mind.

Your rating: None Average: 3.3 (3 votes)

I am not ashamed to admit that ... I have no idea what the fuck this comment says.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

Attempted Translation below:

I, as a younger furry, have put the blame of the existence of zoophiles [such as Zooier than Thou/Kero the Wolf] on the concept of feral/feral as a genre.

I agree with the Harkness Test as consent is the most important thing.

Old people are perverts

Obviously if that attempted translation is accurate, we have to note that bestiality and its problems existed long before the fandom. I mean, it's in the Bible. And usually people don't have to make rules unless someone created a reason to make one... if you know what I mean.

I guess in that way... REALLY old people were quite perverted.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

I have updated the article twice (one for one small thing but another for some other things). Though to avoid misleading nature, I will state that I think this article was voted 11 times before such two updates was given. I don't agree with rating bombs due to outrage but I still feel obligated to avoid making it look like it was rated with the inclusion of the updates.

What was updated:
Adjusted a sentence in Point 4.
Deleted an editor note involving the career topic for certain cub related content.
Added extra context in Point 3 and an extra commentary later down the line within the same point.
Added Point 5.
Extra note right before points.

I think that's all I remembered. Apologized for missing anything else here.

I don't think I will often update the article for new points. If I feel like there needs to be another somewhat similar debate involving this topic, then maybe I will one day try to make a separate article for that. Though I feel a little discouraged due to certain mentally deluded freaks attacking good commentary here. Also one person further promoted harassment toward KaimTime with lunatic conspiracy attitude.

Added update here, adjusted the last sentence. Wasn't saying that the lunatic thing was a good commentary. Comment was rated two times before I tried updating this comment twice later today.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (6 votes)

the existence of inkbunny has been a disaster for the furry fandom

Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

I should donate to them again. Thanks for reminding me!

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

I will admit, I am blind to the whole "history" of beastiality. I just don't want to open that can of worms because...why the hell should it get to me like that? I just wanna keep goin the way i am in this stupid fandom. Watching all the bullshit from afar has me afraid enough that people can be that insane, you dumbass. I swear sometimes some of y'all need a good kick to the balls of reminding you it's just pretend...

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

Most young people are unaware of history and that there is always horrible people that you share the world with, but there are also good people you share the world with. Coming out of high school I certainly had some holes in that understanding, college filled some of those gaps, but I'm learning new things even to this day about just how horrible things in the past actually were.

For instance I was 36 years old when I learned of the Tusla massacre in "Black wallstreet", though I do remember learning in highschool about Kent State. So it's not like the school was being 100% rosy, but it did leave some things out. Also learning that the penultimate scene of Oh Brother Where Art Thou was a Black town being flooded two decades after its release was... something. Certainly made me understand why they hung on the scene for so long, and the song choice there.

Metaphor and subtilty usually are utilized in a lot of media of the era perhaps because we're now seeing what happens when you're not subtle.

So life is just trying to do better for oneself and other while being wary of the existence of the irremovable ills within society.

Unfortunately, one of the main tactics that bad people use, is to try and cast their sins onto good people. It's why the word groomer went from a word used to describe people who abuse by coaxing people into doing things against their best interest to a slandering word toward the existence of consenting adults. It helps cover for those doing the coaxing while attacking people who are not harming anyone, making the language used to bring attention to a problem a problem in and of itself.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

Idk where you're hanging out at, but I know for sure people aren't like that towards consenting adults. Hell, even as a teenage insult those people know what the hell it actually means.

Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

The article writer comes across as a naive innocent person who had just discovered the insanity that is Furry Twitter/YT Callout Culture, a phenomenon which is simultaneously bewildering, horrifying, and delightful to behold. I was like you 3-4 years ago. I've become inured to it as it has further metastasized and degenerated in the interim.

The only thing that really needs to be explained and emphasized about furors over fictional problematic porn is this: The delusional Twits roughly have as much power to harm and humiliate their targets as their targets choose to give them. Not being on Twitter at all is a great preemptive step, but if you are on there, either derisively laugh at your enemies or ignore them, depending on your circumstances and personality. Never block them. Never go private or delete things. Never explain yourself to them. Never, EVER apologize. Just troll them or ignore them (which is probably better if you are an artist or otherwise in business).

KaimTime never should have made a video explaining themselves because that implies that The Pitchfork Twit Brigade is a serious threat or wields power. What they should have done instead was laugh at them for conflating animals and bestiality with the sapient ferals that he gets off to evidently.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Really interesting comment.

I have often seen a bunch of furries try to create a somewhat movement against many cases of NSFW furry feral porn, and somewhat harassment toward some other members, but I have never seen a case this bad before. I don't know if this is related, but I also seen a less related Twitter post about someone liking Nala in a "perverted" way, complaining claiming that she is an animal, and the post gained over 100,000 likes. Though I don't know if that kind of post counts as Callout Culture against certain feral furries. YouTube would be great, but I've seen some similar drama rise through certain videos.

I often hate the 'political' thing in the furry fandom, but if there is a 'political' movement that is protecting our rights, including the right to enjoy something that isn't any different than most two-legged furry porn, then I'm generally much for it. I really wish big great furry creators would be brave enough to properly call out those puritan arguments by explaining that there is nothing wrong with perfectly legal and entirely victimless furry feral NSFW artwork.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.

About the author

Nerdy Raccoon Guyread storiescontact (login required)

    a Raccoon, interested in gaming

    I've read some places are open to some debates, so I joined assuming some are more open about it here.
    I do not rely on "mob mentality" much and prefer having my own thoughts in favor of science, good research, and psychology. Do not expect my opinions to be aligned with popular opinion in or outside of the furry fandom as I'm smart enough to know that popular belief isn't always right.