/fur/ - Furry

>>82539

Anyone who kinkshames gets the rope, no exceptions. You do realize normalfags think YOU are a dogfucker, right?

No other rules are required.

>>82539

Seems like a good plan. Aside from the obvious hyperbole that some may take as endorsement of violence of course. Those fetishes are shit though

>>82557

>This community has and always will be an 18+ collective of social rejects, don't ever pretend otherwise

True, but some things are rejected even by them- see all the stuff Burned Furs were afraid would give the fandom an even worse reputation.

>it just shrinks your already small pool

Eh, quality over quantity. There's no point having more artists if the only thing they produce is mspaint-tier

>Furry should always be a hobby, never a lifestyle

This seems like something that you shouldn't have to tell people, but it seems like 80% of furries never got the memo- at least out of those that go to cons like the dramawhores they are.

>Stop calling them "original species", you're throwing random existing animal attributes into a blender, the result might be "creative" but it's not "original".

Least they aren't calling their weird hybrid anthros a shark and actually admit it's a sergal/yinglet/pokemon or whatever. Still, half of those are unneeded unless you're doing your own worldbuilding, otherwise it just screams special snowflake.

I've got another potential commandment as well:

IF YOU'RE DOING WORLDBUILDING, DON'T BE A LAZY CUNT THAT JUST SAYS "IT'S LITERALLY IRL BUT I'M A DOLPHIN NAO"

Excuse the /tg/-tier autism, but that really bothers me when people do that.

>>82572

post more foxes

>>82557

>>82559

*notices your Reddit repost*

0w0 what's this

my rules

1) no financial transactions ever.

2) clean segregation of porn and non-porn communities to at least the degree that anime and hentai are distinct

3) jump off sydney harbour bridg--- oh haha wait that's my suicide plan what's this doing here? THIS LIST IS OVER

>>82539

these rules wouldn't solve any of the meaningful problems that the fandom has. they're just picking a side in the petty factionalism of the fandom itself.

furries are overwhelmingly NPCs.

>>82557

a less empty list but still one that doesn't appreciate just how bad the situation is.

i don't want furry to be a trendy art community but 'just leave' is still the best advice i can offer for people who want creative anthropomorphic hobbyism.

also i object to 7 on the grounds that certain actions don't cause direct harm, but unleash economically harmful forces if left unchecked.

>As much as you might despise your peers, they have a HELL of a lot more in common with you than the "outsiders", so before you denounce them with a flood of vitriol, remember that it doesn't win you any points, it just shrinks your already small pool

this isn't true on imageboards and it definitely isn't true in furry. even people from my country who share my exact interests have such fundamentally different personality makeups that we're never going to get along. this only happens in the fandom, not the wider world. the insider-outsider dynamic is a meme and everyone's a furry 2k16. the continued persecution complex of a fandom increasingly widely accepted on economic grounds is tedious.

now if you don't mind i've got to look up the price of Qantas flights.

>>82557

>an art community about anthropomorphizing animals

ftfy

Like a lot of the others though.

>>82563

>DON'T BE A LAZY CUNT THAT JUST SAYS "IT'S LITERALLY IRL BUT I'M A DOLPHIN NAO"

Do people actually consider that worldbuilding?

I didn't think that even the people that do that themselves consider it legitimate worldbuilding.

>>82592

furry is a community for porn and for human ego, any anthropomorphic animals are purely incidental.

>>82577

Can't right now all my fox pics are too hi-res for the app. :(

>>82600

Imagine, the edgyptian dog god.

Now imagine an actually dog, but drawn.

Now imagins a real, breathing dog.

The difference between the first two is enough to not be total and utter degeneracy, but the closer you go from jacking off to dog god to just a drawn dog, is the closer you are to being an ACTUAL degenerate since you are jerking it to things that are practically a real life dog.

Tl;dr Ferals ruin the fandom, because we risk them becoming zoophiles, and feral is pretty much zoophile art, especially if it's a regular furry and a draw dog.

The Zoophilia percentage should be below the standard population percentage if we ever want to reverse the meme that. I believe it's <10% of Americans are zoophiles, but in the furry fandom, the percentage is around 10-15%.

That's FUCKING HORRIFYING.

If you take away the porn of a zoophile, or at least stop supporting artists that draw that shit, you actually help irl dog fuckers leave the community.

>>82607

I'd rather risk ferals fucking dogs because at least then they have to lower themselves to that state and most people can't go through with that.

>>82608

If you take away the porn of a zoophile you promote them living out their fantasies in real life, retard

>>82608

next thing you're going to be telling us is that we should ban cub art so that pedophiles will have no way to get off other than go to a playground and kidnap a kid. That mentality is a slippery slope to promoting underground tragedies.

>>82539

There's some good points here. I think a few of these commandments are a bit odd though. What's the deal with #9, for example? At what point does wearing clothing cause injury? I'd do without promoting drug use as well, as it's just as degenerate (and much more dangerous) than what's listed in points 1 and 2.

Lastly, feral and zoophilic/bestial art are two different things. Feral implies only an attraction to a type of body, and with the context of furry anthropomorphism, a creature with consciousness as well, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Zoophilia on the other hand is just sexual relations between a human and animal. Or even just an animal intended to be viewed in a paraphilic way. This is the clear distinction between the two: The feral has both traits of human and animal, not unlike the anthro.

>>82608

You... are aware that zoophilia is an attraction to animals period, right? Not specifically feral, nor the state of mind of a feral. Being attracted to anthros is still zoophilia, it doesn't matter that they have a human frame or mentality, you're still getting off to it SPECIFICALLY because of its animal head, animal tail, hands/feet, etc.

>>82631

t. Zoophile

>>82557

2 and 4 directly contradict each other. You can't expect any decent creativity from a community filled with nothing but losers fapping over cheap porn.

>>82629

It was more of a political thing, like that one time a furry wore a confederate themed suit and twitter furries lost their marbles.

Well, in the case of the feral still being sentient, isn't that a parallel to a 12 y.o. girl, but she's actually way smarter because she's been around for 5000 years?

>>82637

I think you're right, and I won't enact these on others, since all I can do is do what's good for me, and part of that is who I surround myself with. Thanks ^__^

>>82631

zoophile

n.

A person sexually attracted to animals

Are furries attracted to animals or animal-man hybrids? Does that matter? >>82631 and >>82608 I'd like your inputs.

>>82539

>no feral

>no cub

>effectively limiting the possibilities of Rule 34.

Yeah no. Piss off back to 4chan.

Get off your high horse too, you're still a sick fuck even with your standards.

furry is basically the underwhelming nature of the internet as a whole put into fandom form

1995: look it's a multinational computer network! make friends in australia! go into virtual reality! get instant news on your favourite things! collaborate with others on your hobby!

2018: look, it's porn and clickbait! get ignored by cliques or make enemies across the world! get into arguments about politics with children! monetize your hobby to the point where it's just another job!

the worst part is that it just reinforces my view that humans are the problem, the weak link. but i can't escape into anthropomorphic fiction because OH BOY MORE CASH AND PORN THAN AVN PORN EXPO

>>82687

>>82631 and I meant >>82637, what do you think of the lower half of >>82687?

>>82557

>4) This is a creative medium, so if the only contributions you have are bastardized renditions of an existing IP (aka OCs, AUs, and fanfiction), leave

What does this achieve? Your commandments as a whole is merely a set of opinions but this one bothers me. If you have no OCs then who do stories get written about or art drawn of? So every time I want to do a picture with a character in it I have to make a brand new never been used for a one off image?

The next thing is what's wrong with fanfiction? If anything could save current fandom, it's a shift away from art-only (and porn focused art) and into other mediums like writing and music but no fanfiction cuts out a lot of potential stories and along with the AU ban it will also reduce overall lifespan of your hypothetical fandom. You can write good fanfiction and sometimes it helps the writer or reader to have a framework to start from.

>>82698

>If you have no OCs then who do stories get written about or art drawn of?

If you have never created a character I have severe doubts about your ability to do a passable rendition of an existing character's character. (character character character character)

> So every time I want to do a picture with a character in it I have to make a brand new never been used for a one off image?

oh no, oh no the horror of having to sit down and draw a random dog.

>>82687

>Are furries attracted to animals or animal-man hybrids?

Depends on who you ask, but ultimately both are attracted to "animals" in some capacity. Personally I don't think it matters, which is why I brought it up when some anon was trying to saddle up his high horse and suggest we "rid the fandom of those gross people into animals".

>>82698

The point isn't you can never, in any capacity create content for or based on an IP, but that it should never be the full extent of your creative endeavors.

>>82705

They are both animals in some capacity. Let me ask you this: is a neko considered a furry?

Let's consider that someone is attracted to a neko. Does that means that they are attracted to animals?

What if the neko has not just ears, but the eyes as well. Does that mean that the person is attracted to animals?

As one adds one animals feature after another, slowly the human turns into a bipedal human / animal hybrid. If more animal traits are added, the more the entity will go from human to animal.

Let's continue our neko example. If 0 is human, and 1 is animal, we could say for example that neko lies somewhere in the middle, like 0.1.

0.1 - Neko

Nekos are just humans with mild or slight cat features. So let's see if we can fit the remaining numbers. These are my opinion:

NEKO SCALE

0 - Just a human

0.1 - Cat eyes

0.15 - added cat ears

0.2 - added cat teeth

0.25 - tail (semi permanent - disappears)

0.3 - tail (permanent - does not disappear)

0.4 - hands are paws

0.5 - partial fur (<25% Surface area)

0.6 - More fur ( 26-50%)

0.7 - chest and lower half appear cat like

0.8 - all extremities are now animal oriented (4 paws)

0.9 - it's just an animal, but standing

1.0 - It's just an animal

My questions are as follows:

1) What's the neko range?

2) What's the furry range?

3) What's the feral range?

4) What's the zoophile range?

>>82609

It’s not about taking it away from them. It’s about segregation. I don’t want borderline illegal stuff to appear in my feed. Where I am from zoophile depictions are outlawed for a reason. Not sure about the US.

>>82620

Bullshit. People like that should seek or be given therapy. That's the only moral way to reduce *underground tragedies*.

>>82707

You can't quantify this, because it's just a bunch of high-horse retards using their precious feelings to judge what sorts of things offend them. And like the stereotypical closeted homophobe, a lot of the time they're attracted to exactly what they are publicly deriding in the first place, but have developed a "rationality" (like "no homo") that separates them from those they hate.

It just comes down to meaningless labels and semantics. Are furries zoophiles? It doesn't fucking matter whether they are or not, because they don't have sex with IRL animals. Are furries into cub pedophiles? It doesn't fucking matter if they are or not, because they don't have sex with IRL children.

Really, this is almost entirely a problem for people in the USA. Because the entire country has SERIOUS issues with linguistic literalism, where what a thing SAYS is judged as more important and meaningful than what is DOES. I could get farther into that, but it would just prompt a political derail, so I'll resist.

>>82712

For almost all content, anthropomorphic characters age at the same rate as humans and have a similar lifespan. There are only a couple exceptions that I can think of, and they're only in scale, not proportion.

Fantastic Mr. Fox has the animals age faster than humans, but it's stated to be proportional: six fox years equals one human year, so while Ash is only chronologically 2-years-old, he's basically a prepubescent 12-year-old. How this actually works, re: going to school for only two years but still achieving a middle-school-level education, is never discussed.

In Mass Effect, the Salarians (bipedal humanoid amphibian-ish) only have a lifespan of around 40 years. This is kinda handwaved by them having a "fast metabolism" which supposedly makes them think faster and thus learn faster. There isn't any information on how fast they age through their lifespan, as in when they reach maturity. (In particular, sexual maturity is irrelevant because they don't have sex for pleasure nor experience any pair-bonding.) Occam's Razor, however, suggests it would be proportionally similar to humans.

>>82715

sperg harder

>>82709

>implying therapy has any established effect on pedophilia or any paraphilia

may as well tell them to castrate themselves lmao oh wait

>america

>>82764

U mad bro?

>>82831

If you’re into it solely for the human aspect then you’d just look at actual human porn/art

>>82838

It's okay if it's an alien.

>>82831

>implying it's not both