Nice game, but...

I find it difficult to imagine that if someone is having sex with a furry they're visualising an actual animal. It's too much of an abstraction.

"Who?"

You should be aware of the Kinsey reports before you start discussing what is "normal" in regards to sexuality. They will enlighten you.

"There is a "relative normal" and furries aren't even close."

Okay, let's discuss what's normal shall we?

The majority of the human species does not speak English (the figure is roughly 20%). Therefore, you and I and everyone reading this post is abnormal.

The majority of the human species does not have access to a computer or the internet. Therefore, you and I and everyone reading this post is abnormal.

What the HELL is this obsession with being "normal"? If you function well as a happy and healthy person, then great. Bollocks to being normal.

"If you can't really ever truly be happy/satisfied with yourself, there's definitely something that needs to be addressed."

We are talking about our avatars in a computer simulation. If you link your identity so seriously with how your avatar appears, then you might be the one that has something needing to be addressed.

I HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT A HUMAN WHO DRESSES UP AS A SMURF IN AN ONLINE SIMULATION. THEY MUST HAVE A FETISH FOR IT. THEY ARE ABNORMAL. LOL!!!!111oneoneone

"Oh and learn how to quote correctly."

These are quotation marks: "". You will find them commonly used in literature both fiction and non-fiction throughout the whole of the English-speaking world, and, in varying formats (for instance, the French use <>, in the rest of the world. You should be familiar with them, as they are the commonly-accepted method of denoting a quotation, and you will have encountered them all your life.

"" is the proper format. This little forum system is nothing more than a txtmsg-style shortcut, and it is one I don't feel I need. I know how to use your shortcut, but I prefer the "correct" system.

Musuko.

Furry yiffing is beasiality and thats all I'll ever see it as. I will also never see ageplay on SL with 2 adults, one in a child av, as anything other than pedophilia. Continue your beastiality..I don't care.


Its too much of an abstraction for me to not see furry sex as beastiality..we're all wired differently.

All I can say, is furries created "Yiff Theatre" Look it up in find. Keep a bottle of bleach nearby for your eyes.

Your point? I can almost guarentee there is some aspect of your life that someone else would find offensive. Like your need to reply to a thread and contribute nothing but an intolerant view that doesn't add to the discussion.

It's not homosexual sex, its on the 'down-low!'

Its not beastiality, its furries yiffing!

Perhaps, but I try to keep those offensive bits of my life private. I don't parade them in public then scream when others go WTF.

and another group who 'claims' to be so suprior, created the 'net' phenomena of 'goatse'.

yer argument is a non argument verbena its a straw man, invalid, and meaningless

and yet you just did. If you really chose to keep them private, you could have contributed something meaningful to the discussion rather than just spewing pointless intolerance.

Hey I can contribute meaningful things to discussions too, see!


Furries DO make some interestingly neat avatars. I've got about the hugest collection of Luskie avatars I know of.

HOWEVER, lots of furs do have a bad habit of parading thier wierdness in front of people, then complaining when the other people have a WTF moment. It starts a self-perpetuating cycle of percieved insults across the board, which has helped, over the time I've seen it, fracture the furry community away from the general SL population and into a secluded corner. Since the furs never seem to come out and get to know the normal population of SL, then the normal population of SL starts drawing conclusions on what they percieve. When those conclusions come into public forum, then you get the mass rush of "OMG we are not like that you haters", which only sounds like covering up.


There that's my meaningful contribution!

Which is great and very helpful to the discussion, however its what you chose to lead with. I'm sure everyone on the board can probably contribute something meanginful to any given conversation, however its how they actually choose to post is what counts.


You still haven't shown any logical connection to give meaning to that statement. You have taken the time though to show you have an uneducated position. Let me make the logical connectionf or you:
1. Bestiality - Sexual relations between a human and an animal. [dictionary.com]
2. This act requires a human participant and an animal participant
3. Animal - # An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
# A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.
4. You make an assumption that the individuals involved take on animal characteristics or become animals to give you your animal component from the first definition.
5. Both participants take on the qualities you would indicate that make them animals.
6. Both parties embody the "animal" so you have a choice at this point:
a - you can take the logic that both are animals and thus not engaged in bestiality
b - you can take the logic that both are humans roleplaying animals and thus "acting". If someone plays the part of a murderer in a play, you don't arrest them in real life.
c - make stuff up and pretend one is a human and one is an animal because there is no logical point to base your belief on.

It's called posting before Coffee. Never post before Coffee. Catch me in game Jinsar, I'd love to continue the conversation without cluttering up the forums any more.

Jinsar for the win. Thank you for explaining so clearly.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that it will get filtered out by their idiot armour.

Musuko.

1. Bestiality - Sexual relations between a human and an animal. [dictionary.com]
2. This act requires a human participant and an animal participant
3. Animal - # An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
# A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.
4. You make an assumption that the individuals involved take on animal characteristics or become animals to give you your animal component from the first definition.
5. Both participants take on the qualities of both humans and animals and thus qualify as both.
6. Both parties embody the "animal" and the "human" so you have a choice at this point:
a - you can take the illogic that both are animals and thus not engaged in bestiality
b - you can take the illogic that both are humans roleplaying animals and thus "acting". If someone plays the part of a murderer in a play, you don't arrest them in real life.
c - See the truth that both are animal and human, and thus its beastiality.

Case in point: I see furries as both animal and human. Noth seperate nor either. Both. Trying to force me to accept them as seperate is like saying all furs on sl have to accept the furry avatar is a costume. Some consider it their skin...


Let your idiot armor shine Jinsar.

edit: lets apply the same to the 'down low'

1. Homosexual sex - Sexual relations between a male and a male
2. This act requires two male participants
3. You make an assumption that the individuals involved take on female or nonexistent characteristics
5. Both participants take on the qualities you would indicate that make them nonexistent or female.
6. Both parties embody the "female" so you have a choice at this point:
a - you can take the logic that both are females and/or nonexistent at some point and thus not engaged in homosexuality
b -make stuff up and pretend its not two males participating in sex, and thus because they say they are straight are not engaged in homosexuality

You've made no logical connection.
If you assume that one pretending the other is an animal is valid you have to also assume their pretending they are an animal is valid as well, and again you can't have both a human and an animal involved in that equation. You don't get to pick and choose which part of a equation you want to believe simply to try and make something else seem true. Your own logic defeats you:
"Both participants take on the qualities of both humans and animals and thus qualify as both."

The definition of bestiality leaves no room for one of the participants to be a human/animal hybrid. By defining each as both, you've ruined your definition because it can quite easily be seen as two humans having sex, or two animals having sex. or simply two individuals roleplaying or acting. You're choosing a very narrow interpretation that doesn't even follow your own logic.

If you wanted to really follow your logic, you could say anyone that engages in rough, passionate sex in real life could be engaged as engaging in bestiality as that type of behaviour could be interpreted as "bestial". You can obviously see how flawed that is. You've shown no logic that could indicate that one participant is an animal and the other is a human.


As for the homosexual part, I've taken no stance on that.

No, you have made no logical connection.

blending human and animal during sex, in any degree or percentage is beastiality.

My interpretation follows perfectly through with my logic, keep shining on!

Rough sex isn't beasiality thats an illogical connection..if both participants are fully human.

yeah, see, applying YOUR definition of what 'x' is ontop of someone else who has never heard of you or really cares what you say/think, and then judging their own internal mental state based on what YOU think, thats *ALWAYS* been a good idea.

Bestiality is when a human has sex with an animal. The term has no meaning when applied to furries, because it rests on a dichotomy between human and animal, which just doesn't exist when considering furries, quite apart from the fact that they only exist in pixel form anyway. You can't be both under the definition of bestiality, you're either one or the other.

Oh, and having gay sex doesn't mean somebody is gay, any more than having straight sex means somebody is straight (if it did there would be . Regularly having homosexual sex, and not heterosexual sex, is likely to be a good indication that somebody is gay no matter what they say, but it's not a matter of behaviour, rather of drives.

*ahem*
1. Bestiality - Sex occuring between a human and an animal
2. Animal - # A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.
they don't need to actually be an animal to fit the dictionary definition of "animal".
If rough passionate sex is seen by some as "bestial" as some do, it precisely fits the definition of bestiality.

You are the one presenting the case that yiffing is bestiality so you need to present the proof and you've failed to do so. The definition clearly defines what bestiality is, and it is not defined as "an animal/human hybrid having sex with another animal/human hybrid" You need a human on one side and an animal on the other. If you have two equal individuals on both side you have no bestiality.

Are you saying that people engaging in homosexual sex are taking on female qualities? If so, I really don't think that's true, and it's a rather crass stereotype.

Did I mention that I loathe Dictionary Nazis who may overlook nuances in the way things are defined?

Within furry webcomics and fiction, "beast" or "animal" includes the concept that the creature is lacking in sentience and personhood. As such, to call a furry an "animal" is an insult.

In real life, no animal possesses sentience or personhood (at least, in the eyes of most people, save a pet's owner). Therefore the dictionary definitions of animal or beast stands without exception, and defining bestiality is less of a nuisance as well.

In SL, however, there is a fictional class of being known as "Furry", a variety of beings possessed of some physical features of an animal, but the basic sentience and soul of a person or human. As such, they are not covered in the dictionary meaning of animal or beast or human, because the dictionary is primarily concerned with real life meaning, and only define the fictional whenever there is no real life equivalent.

Now for the practical upshot. You can only argue "yiff=bestiality" if you hold to the following:

1) It involves a non-furry human and a furry. Is this a normal practice?

2) The furry is being viewed by those involved as animal first, and not as a person. I doubt most yiffers are thinking this, but I don't know.


Once again, I've a low tolerance for yiff, just a little less than non-furry sex between 2 human avatars. It's not something I hunt out, and I am prone to walk out where I see it.

I have zero tolerance for bestiality, pedophilia, or any sexual activity not between either 2 consenting 'sentient' adults, or two non-sentient creatures of similar type.

And yet furry art is so popular, just look a Disney they probaly won't be where they are if it wasn't for a little 'furry' mouse. Furries are every where weither you know it or not, teddy bears are a form of a furry, they have been used in cartoons lots of time (ie. bugs bunny).

And all this talk about sex....well you can not escape it, it is every where in every nok and cranny. One must just deal with it.

Blah blah blah, definitions this, definitions that. The point is: furries are freaks.

sourceNote the "person OR animal" part--so it doesn't matter if the furreaks are persons OR animals OR persons acting as animals OR WHATEVER! They're all still freaks.

You're rather leaving yourself open there, you know.

I'm just saying.

<shrug>

Gee, do we hafta? You'll only look like that much more of an idiot...

Try to stay in context with what we're discussing, Musuko--furries (in case you "forgot"; specifically, people role-playing as furries (which is perhaps .00001% of the global population--quite ABNORMAL relative to your piddly stats).

Who's to truly know if one is really happy and healthy? Besides, what's "happy and healthy" to one person may not be the same to another person.

How can remaining true to onself online be cause for thinking there is some underlying psychological issue? Perhaps you'll want to go take a basic psychology class and get a clue about human behavior. Take an abnormal psych class, too, to learn about YOUR apparent behavior. <eyeroll>

I mention and explain that in another thread (do a search as I don't feel like referencing it for you).

However, your system is NOT correct--and it makes following your replies annoying. I admit this forum software's quote system could use some improvement (like buttons to automatically insert "" tags) but it's not that hard to copy-and-paste it. I simply won't feel like replying to you if you don't feel like you want to follow forum posting etiquette.

No shit?