Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

Now, a couple of days back Rankin expressed disbelief that Nicol Firefox should be a member of this forum:

How come ?Nicol Firefox?, The Cub central Pedo pr0n master is a member of this fair forum?!

It's probably fake, like this lolleriffic post.

BUT.... I think it might be for real! You see, I was peeking in the referrer log and I saw some folk had come from a Yahoo Group called "Toon Kids Sanctuary" (yes, yes, it's exactly what you think - it's subtitled "Group for Adult pictures of little toons"), so of course I had to go and see what the heck they were saying about us, and found this treasure trove:

don't be too particular to Nicol. He does his best. There are a lot of idiots in internet who dream to destroy his site and invent different ways to do it. CYD for example. So such caution is important. He is our VIP guest and I am glad to see him here. Cub central is a great place. Let it be.

"CYD for example." Oh, you guys know about this place! I thought a lot of people where oblivious to this site for some reason or another, I think this is the first post that I've ever read anything about it in a yahoo group, They seem to have a impressive number of lackeys working for them, well I say BAH! to that place!! A 1000 curses to those whom made the site and 1000 more curses on their brethren. But seriously, it just seemed for a while that everyone hadn't a clue on what's being shoved out there, Idealy my ideas have changed hence this recent post seeing that people in fact know whats going down at that place.

"Its good to know that people know what should be known"

And, pricelessly, this one:

More like "I suspect some of them are here, because they're hypocrites", I should think. Back in the day of Burned Fur I knew several BF members who were secretly zoophiles and pedophiles, odd as that may sound. People with the most to prove to the world are generally the biggest loudmouths--they are compelled to publicly attack those who share in their own desires, to reduce their cognitive dissonance. That kind of motivation is remarkably powerful, perhaps the most powerful human motive that exists, short of self-preservation.

Trickster

Yes! The Trickster!

And then of course we have the usual gonzo misapprehensions:

> what? what are you talking about? seriously i got no idea what
"they" are :-/
> whats a CYD member? :-/

That are people without lifes who spend their time to try and shut
down sites and groups with furry erotica.

im lost for words didnt know there were such assholes on the web that have nothing better to do then shut down yahoo groups , let people get turned on by what they like , how would they like it if we said they couldnt view normal porn or what the heck those fuckers at CYD enjoy,

And - hooray! - a call to action!

Idea!!! lets turn the tables on CYD, really, i've had about enough of them, I'm sure you guys have also had your fill of their hateful speech, lets crush CYD, seriously, the world can do without such a place, I'm sure that in a mass group effort it might be possible to drive them off the cliff of the internet, it'll be like breaveheart but the violence will be our words and our liberty and victory will be the siience of CYD.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

Now, a couple of days back Rankin expressed disbelief that Nicol Firefox should be a member of this forum:

... drive them off the cliff of the internet, it'll be like breaveheart but the violence will be our words and our liberty and victory will be the siience of CYD.

I still don't know if it's legit or not; I mean, the standard furry is as capable of being subtle as, eh, Keller. I highly doubt that Nicol, of whom I know nothing but conjecture, would be too interested in CYD. We have no little boys here.

I seriously wonder how one might drive us to dive into the soup like lemmings whost they continue their path of righteousness; and brilliant prose of diapers and various bodily functions.

Michael Hirtes · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 519

Trickster

Yes! The Trickster!

Who? Need input.

Idea!!! lets turn the tables on CYD, really, i've had about enough of them, I'm sure you guys have also had your fill of their hateful speech, lets crush CYD, seriously, the world can do without such a place, I'm sure that in a mass group effort it might be possible to drive them off the cliff of the internet, it'll be like breaveheart but the violence will be our words and our liberty and victory will be the siience of CYD.

HAR HAR HAR! The pedofurs have declared a jihad on CYD. Booyeah! Bring it on, chickenhawks.

For those pedos who are lurking here at CYD, we laugh at your arsenal consisting of words and we LAUGH at your "liberty" & your hope of victory from our "siience". (Yeah, I hate grammar nazis, but between "breaveheart" and "sciience" I couldn't help myself).

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

Trickster

Yes! The Trickster!

Who? Need input.

Have a look at Trickster's photo first, then go read this Portal of Evil thread.

Michael Hirtes · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 519

Trickster

Yes! The Trickster!

Who? Need input.

Have a look at Trickster's photo first, then go read this Portal of Evil thread.

Well what do you know? MY dick just dissapeared too.

FROM THE HORROR!

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

:roll: Why is it always the first thing they say practically....that if someone says 'I don't like this' loudly then they must be into it...Pedophilia disgusts me...

Hateful speech? oh...someone direct this guy at a dictionary with the word hypocrite in it..god really he/she/whatever has no clue about free speech...CYD isn't illegal and cub art is barely legal as is...most of the time it does go down for illegality...

It is silly...I have no objections to anthro erotica really....cept the sick stuff but it's nice to know I am trying to get all these groups shut down...really I didn't know...and me modding one of them and all.....

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

For our cub-fetishist friends dropping by:

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

God, POE are really harsh sometimes. I just read that thread on Trickster.
Alot of men go through surgery if they feel theyve been born in the wrong gendre's body and I don't think its something that should be laughed at like that at all.

It seems that this yahoo group (which doesnt exist in the link that was given, by the way), has got the wrong end of the stick. Has CYD ever shut down any site?

cub/underage furry art sounds sick to me, but y'know, 'if it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's okay'. I don't wanna see it, but as long as it doesnt go any further than that, people should be able to draw and look at what they want to.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

cub/underage furry art sounds sick to me, but y'know, 'if it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's okay'. I don't wanna see it, but as long as it doesnt go any further than that, people should be able to draw and look at what they want to.

That is totally the wrong attitude.

It seems that this yahoo group (which doesnt exist in the link that was given, by the way), has got the wrong end of the stick. Has CYD ever shut down any site?

Thats why its funny,
between these guys and Naylor's group this shit is hilarious

No one from this site has ever done anything to anyone.
At least not FROM the site

Im on several Yahoo groups, UseNet A.F.F and sometimes Furnet IRC/EsperNet
But I was there anyway

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

cub/underage furry art sounds sick to me, but y'know, 'if it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's okay'.

Wrong answer.

These people should be seeking professional help. But instead they actively encourage this kind of sickness.

Genghis · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 186

It seems that this yahoo group (which doesnt exist in the link that was given, by the way), has got the wrong end of the stick. Has CYD ever shut down any site?

Nope, and that's the funny thing - while there are plenty of furry newsgroups and sites who talk constantly about PoE, CYD and the like trying to shut down sites, I can't think of a single instance where that has truly been the case.

Furries mailbombing people's ISPs and hosts because they said something mean, however, is a far more common occurance. Just ask the guy who runs furie4jesus...

Paul · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Feb 2004 Posts: 138

cub/underage furry art sounds sick to me, but y'know, 'if it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's okay'. I don't wanna see it, but as long as it doesnt go any further than that, people should be able to draw and look at what they want to.

Allow me to expand a bit on mouse's and Sulaco's posts - Charisma, when pedophiles tell each other that their particular predilections are quite all right, they become a potential threat to real live children. This is no less the case when they share drawings of pedophilic sexual acts - they're justifying their desires; they're telling each other: It's OK. It isn't. The only way to approach pedophilia is to tell the pedophiles: THIS IS WRONG. Allowing them to look at pictures, even drawings, of pedophilic sexual acts, will give them the impression that their desires somehow aren't that wrong. I'm not claiming that they'll necessarily run out in the streets and try to molest a child, but they'll be nudged just a little further away from NOT doing it. As Sulaco wrote, they should seek help, not encouragement, which is what cub/underage furry art is.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

I highly doubt that Nicol, of whom I know nothing but conjecture, would be too interested in CYD. We have no little boys here.

Oh, I just enjoy reading about myself and pretending that I'm half as interesting as some people seem to think I am. :)

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

cub/underage furry art sounds sick to me, but y'know, 'if it doesn't hurt anybody, then it's okay'. I don't wanna see it, but as long as it doesnt go any further than that, people should be able to draw and look at what they want to.

Allow me to expand a bit on mouse's and Sulaco's posts - Charisma, when pedophiles tell each other that their particular predilections are quite all right, they become a potential threat to real live children. This is no less the case when they share drawings of pedophilic sexual acts - they're justifying their desires; they're telling each other: It's OK. It isn't. The only way to approach pedophilia is to tell the pedophiles: THIS IS WRONG. Allowing them to look at pictures, even drawings, of pedophilic sexual acts, will give them the impression that their desires somehow aren't that wrong. I'm not claiming that they'll necessarily run out in the streets and try to molest a child, but they'll be nudged just a little further away from NOT doing it. As Sulaco wrote, they should seek help, not encouragement, which is what cub/underage furry art is.

But what Caveats do these people At Cubcentral and so on attach to their websites and activites thereof?

Do they castigate each other, reminding themselves that Real life paedophilia is damaging and wrong, and exhorting people to remember that this is only fantasy?

Or do they truly try to justify it to each other and make excuses?

If the latter, It is very damageing and wrong yes, But what if it is the former?

What do or would Psychiatrists and Psychologists or whoever is qualified to and does, deal with people who are sexually attracted to and/or commit crimes against children say about it?

If such people as who are experienced with dealing with these kinds of people and how they work, say that it’s bad, or not and one can judge them as not spouting rubbish (as I understand many Psychologists are want to do sometimes) then that would seem to be the crux of it.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

Oh, I just enjoy reading about myself and pretending that I'm half as interesting as some people seem to think I am. :)

THE PLOT THICKENS, LIKE SO MUCH WEEK (WEAK?) OLD GRAAVY!

Just as an observation, I don't recall registration being required to read; merely to post.

YOU MAY HAVE WON THIS TIME, MITCH - BUT I'LL GET YOU, AND YOUR LITTLE DOGGY TOO!

Ignore me, I get really fucking odd when I get migranes.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

In further "news" the Group hasn't disappeared, it's just changed its name. And this IMPORTANT MESSAGE now appears on the front page:

YOU MUST NOT MENTION THE URL'S OF "ANTI" SITES,
DOING SO WILL RESULT IN A BAN! THEY KEEP REFERRAL
LOGS AND ARE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHICH SITES VIEWERS
CAME FROM.

In the recent conversation about CYD, someone posted the link to
their forum. Because of this they were able to find our group in
their referal logs. I have deleted the most recent members in hopes
of removing the pests from this group. Also as a precautionary step,
I have changed the URLs of this group and all sub-groups.

Many thanks to the anonymous "Furry Insider" who brought me this update BTW. :lol:

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

In further "news" the Group hasn't disappeared, it's just changed its name. And this IMPORTANT MESSAGE now appears on the front page:

YOU MUST NOT MENTION THE URL'S OF "ANTI" SITES,
DOING SO WILL RESULT IN A BAN! THEY KEEP REFERRAL
LOGS AND ARE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHICH SITES VIEWERS
CAME FROM.

In the recent conversation about CYD, someone posted the link to
their forum. Because of this they were able to find our group in
their referal logs. I have deleted the most recent members in hopes
of removing the pests from this group. Also as a precautionary step,
I have changed the URLs of this group and all sub-groups.

Many thanks to the anonymous "Furry Insider" who brought me this update BTW. :lol:

You should have the "furry insider" keep giving you the URLs as they change and keep posting them here and we can share them with POE and SA and they can keep changing their group URLs until they totally self destruct.

Michael Hirtes · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 519

In further "news" the Group hasn't disappeared, it's just changed its name. And this IMPORTANT MESSAGE now appears on the front page:

YOU MUST NOT MENTION THE URL'S OF "ANTI" SITES,
DOING SO WILL RESULT IN A BAN! THEY KEEP REFERRAL
LOGS AND ARE ABLE TO FIND OUT WHICH SITES VIEWERS
CAME FROM.

In the recent conversation about CYD, someone posted the link to
their forum. Because of this they were able to find our group in
their referal logs. I have deleted the most recent members in hopes
of removing the pests from this group. Also as a precautionary step,
I have changed the URLs of this group and all sub-groups.

Many thanks to the anonymous "Furry Insider" who brought me this update BTW. :lol:

ButButBut......I thought that the tactic they were gonna use against us will be their words and their liberty and victory will be our silence?

Instead, it's just degenerated into some sort of Stalinist purge and threats of banination? Sheesh!

This is just plain too sad for even me to take pleasure out of observing.

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

Do they castigate each other, reminding themselves that Real life paedophilia is damaging and wrong, and exhorting people to remember that this is only fantasy?

Or do they truly try to justify it to each other and make excuses?

If the latter, It is very damageing and wrong yes, But what if it is the former?

Precisely.
People who look at 'cub porn' don't necessarily go on to become paedophiles just because their 'sick' friends convince them that its okay to molest children. I believe that more times than not, that the people in question are able to seperate fantasy from real life situations.

and for one, furries arn't even real children, they are fictional creatures...which seperates then from real life even more.

However, it does come close to paedophile territory, so I can see what you mean. I'm sure that a small percentage of people that look at those kinds of images go on to be sex offenders, but no way the majority.

Ole Sparky · Qualificator Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 21

Ole Sparky here
The Pedo Vomit. The whole sick excusing crap.
Mitch, I beg your pardon for this, but seeing some of the comments.
My niece is dead, dammit. I watched her grow up. Sentencing hearing couple of weeks ago. The jerk got slammed by the judge,forty years.
And to listen to some Furry pedo apologist wanting to turn watching a child grow up, and then attending a funeral into some "Everyone does it" fantasy.
And then I have a couple of things from my own childhood I would like to forget, but I was really lucky. They were not good, but could have been a load worse, and were, for too many kids.
The Cub Artists and Pedo apologists really, really get to me. It is like listening to a Rapist speaking of his act and saying "But she really wanted it."
Pardon me if I go ape shit about this.
Oh yeh, Furry and pedophiles... Okay, lets follow the paper trail. Who is one of the movers and shakers of Cubcentral? Follow the paper trail and where it leads.
Follow the toilet paper trail.
Mitch, again, my apologies, the whole subject hurts too much and makes me too angry. I have heard too many Furs blow it off, like no one cares.
You see, I don't have a companion animal, because I can not give that being the care and environment it deserves. And when you take another being, child, person, animal in, then you are honor bound to do your best for them.
The whole pedophile and animal sex thing angers me deeply at a level I find hard to explain. There is love of others, caring, respect, and it can go so far past and not involve sex.
Mitch, again, my apologies, more than a decade of listening to Furry. I could say a lot more.
And too many of the Happy Furries have let too much slip.
I get a little crazy on these subjects.
Ole Sparky

Dogthing · Coadjutor Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 207

As Sulaco wrote, they should seek help, not encouragement

They should be seeking the end of a howitzer to stick their blubbery heads into.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

However, it does come close to paedophile territory, so I can see what you mean. I'm sure that a small percentage of people that look at those kinds of images go on to be sex offenders, but no way the majority.

Such people are probably going to grow up to be deviates anyway regardless of whether they've been looking at naughty furry pictures or not.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Such people are probably going to grow up to be deviates anyway regardless of whether they've been looking at naughty furry pictures or not.

Yes, and, precisely because of that, it would be much better for furry fandom as a collective to stay apart from those people instead of attracting them by offering images appealing to such people, a moral haven to find support and encouragement on their deviation and a community ready to accept them as a part of them so they thrive and grow like a tumor inside the fandom's body.

In my opinion, one of the main problems affecting furry fandom is that, with its proverbial laxitude, it's allowing groupuscles of those margined by the "mundane society" to grow stronger in collectives that aren't necessarily attached to furrydom save on tangential ways. This isn't bad per se, except if those groupuscles are composed by people potentially dangerous to the society. Cub art is an example.
Regardless of the feeble excuse of cub art apologists (hey, it's just drawings; besides, it's not even real kids, just animals) lies other things, subtler, yet not too hard to discover, like the intentions and motivation to draw that kind of pictures, that is exactly the same that make pedophiles to take real pictures of real kids. Far beyond the technique, the results are the same as the purpose is. That's what makes cub art so potentially dangerous for the furry fandom.

And you in particular, Nicol Firefoxx, have an important role on this threat, more important than you seem to think. As far as I know, you have the only public gallery on the internet I've heard of accepting (and even encouraging!) this kind of drawings. hence why people like those you can find on this forum speak about you, and hence why you raise such heated debates either defending or defenestrating you. You have that site, open to anyone willing to take a look, either related with furry fandom or not, openly exposing its contents, therefore, you are a prime personality on the cub art field, you promote it openly, and as such you are responsible for it and its consequences.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Cub art is an example.
Regardless of the feeble excuse of cub art apologists (hey, it's just drawings; besides, it's not even real kids, just animals) lies other things, subtler, yet not too hard to discover, like the intentions and motivation to draw that kind of pictures, that is exactly the same that make pedophiles to take real pictures of real kids. Far beyond the technique, the results are the same as the purpose is. That's what makes cub art so potentially dangerous for the furry fandom.

And dangerous in general,

The intent is exactly what its about. A lot of the excuses are just that. These guys dont want to accept the fact that this artwork is questionable at best, in many cases indicatory of certain tendacies - which are unquestionably sick.

Ole Sparky · Qualificator Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 21

And I peronsally would love to see a "Con", with "Cub Art, and "Firefox' and others where those who have been actual victims of child sexual abuse show up and confront these cubart goons.
Ole Sparky

Cub art is an example.
Regardless of the feeble excuse of cub art apologists (hey, it's just drawings; besides, it's not even real kids, just animals) lies other things, subtler, yet not too hard to discover, like the intentions and motivation to draw that kind of pictures, that is exactly the same that make pedophiles to take real pictures of real kids. Far beyond the technique, the results are the same as the purpose is. That's what makes cub art so potentially dangerous for the furry fandom.

And dangerous in general,

The intent is exactly what its about. A lot of the excuses are just that. These guys dont want to accept the fact that this artwork is questionable at best, in many cases indicatory of certain tendacies - which are unquestionably sick.

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

Those guys quoted in the first post acomplished something. They planted an idea that some guys on this forum is pedophile, so now people on this forum are trying to find out who and holding eachothers suspects :roll:

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

And you in particular, Nicol Firefoxx, have an important role on this threat, more important than you seem to think. As far as I know, you have the only public gallery on the internet <...> you promote it openly, and as such you are responsible for it and its consequences.

Given that there are plenty of age-play fetish sites around that have pictures and stories about human characters, I don't think having one with anthropomorphic characters is going to make a significant number, if any, of people become 'furries' because they can't get stuff like it elsewhere. And add to that the only times you'll see the site mentioned outside of a few furry groups is the regular columns by PoE et. al. about how evil we all are.

... which leads to the site getting attention from idiots who can't tell the difference between ageplay as a fetish for consenting adults, and the various immoral/illegal/etc. acts they want to engage in. I'll take my share of the blame for creating Cub Central in the first place, but sites that link to it claiming it's something that it was never supposed to be can take the rest.

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

And you in particular, Nicol Firefoxx, have an important role on this threat, more important than you seem to think. As far as I know, you have the only public gallery on the internet <...> you promote it openly, and as such you are responsible for it and its consequences.

Given that there are plenty of age-play fetish sites around that have pictures and stories about human characters, I don't think having one with anthropomorphic characters is going to make a significant number, if any, of people become 'furries' because they can't get stuff like it elsewhere. And add to that the only times you'll see the site mentioned outside of a few furry groups is the regular columns by PoE et. al. about how evil we all are.

... which leads to the site getting attention from idiots who can't tell the difference between ageplay as a fetish for consenting adults, and the various immoral/illegal/etc. acts they want to engage in. I'll take my share of the blame for creating Cub Central in the first place, but sites that link to it claiming it's something that it was never supposed to be can take the rest.

That's all really nice and intellectual, but you're still encouraging fantasies about ass-fucking schoolchildren.

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

Sulaco, As long as its just a fetish as Nicol FireFox says its fine with me.
Have you ever seen hentai? It is japanese cartoon-porn often featuring extremely underage-looking girls, eyes as big as a dish, rape, incest and God know what else. Yiff is Playboy compared to hentai.
I have friends who like hentai, yet they dont differ from other people. Its just a fetish..
Examples of hentai:
You are warned, look on your own risk
http://www.thanez.net/pron/pics/hentai/05/pics002.jpg
http://www.thanez.net/pron/pics/hentai/05/pics001.jpg
(I think this one below is the worst).
http://www.thanez.net/pron/pics/hentai/08/pics009.jpg
Some hentai even features furries, but when it is hentai they are called 'nekojins' instead of furries.
http://www.thanez.net/pron/pics/hentai/04/pics010.jpg
Nekojins are usually girls with cat-ears, a cats tail, and sometimes also paws instead of hands. Some of my pals are fond of nekojins, but they hate everything related to furry. I cannot understand why, but I dont care much either. My point here is that a fetish does not need to be anything more then that - a fetish.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

Some hentai even features furries, but when it is hentai they are called 'nekojins' instead of furries.
http://www.thanez.net/pron/pics/hentai/04/pics010.jpg
Nekojins are usually girls with cat-ears, a cats tail, and sometimes also paws instead of hands. Some of my pals are fond of nekojins, but they hate everything related to furry. I cannot understand why, but I dont care much either. My point here is that a fetish does not need to be anything more then that - a fetish.

The Japanese "furry" is "kemono".

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

The Japanese "furry" is "kemono".

Dr. Comet is so kawaaiii! ^_^;;;

Hey, Mitch, read your PM?

Fins · Qualificator Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 25

And you in particular, Nicol Firefoxx, have an important role on this threat, more important than you seem to think. As far as I know, you have the only public gallery on the internet <...> you promote it openly, and as such you are responsible for it and its consequences.

Given that there are plenty of age-play fetish sites around that have pictures and stories about human characters, I don't think having one with anthropomorphic characters is going to make a significant number, if any, of people become 'furries' because they can't get stuff like it elsewhere. And add to that the only times you'll see the site mentioned outside of a few furry groups is the regular columns by PoE et. al. about how evil we all are.

... which leads to the site getting attention from idiots who can't tell the difference between ageplay as a fetish for consenting adults, and the various immoral/illegal/etc. acts they want to engage in. I'll take my share of the blame for creating Cub Central in the first place, but sites that link to it claiming it's something that it was never supposed to be can take the rest.

That's all really nice and intellectual, but you're still encouraging fantasies about ass-fucking schoolchildren.

So true... except I'd leave out the 'really nice' part. Any attempt to justify the sexualization of children is vile as far as I'm concerned. Jeez peoples, if you really want a fetish, culture a fetish for feet or leather whips or something.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Given that there are plenty of age-play fetish sites around that have pictures and stories about human characters, I don't think having one with anthropomorphic characters is going to make a significant number, if any, of people become 'furries' because they can't get stuff like it elsewhere.

I've been surfing the web since April, 1995, and in all this time I haven't found a single site dedicated to "ageplaying" or displaying pictures of, as you say, human children in sexual poses, either drawn or photographed.
I'm not denying the existance of sites dedicated to "children porn", even displaying drawn pictures, supposedly not as harmful as real pictures, on the Internet, but I have been fortunate enough to not finding any. Probably because of its controversial nature, or open illegality under most laws on the western world, that kind of material is well hidden and hard to find, unless you are INTO that stuff and search for it on an active basis, of course. Nevertheless, given my exprerience on the Internet so far, saying "there are plenty of age-play fetish sites around" is a flawed defense for me, especially if they may be hidden due to their illegality.

The "everyone else does it so I should do it too" excuse to support a questionable behavior is a recurrent myth that needs proves to be supported. And, even if it's proved, that doesn't show its validity, since this doesn't mean the behavior it's inspired in is acceptable.

And add to that the only times you'll see the site mentioned outside of a few furry groups is the regular columns by PoE et. al. about how evil we all are.
... which leads to the site getting attention from idiots who can't tell the difference between ageplay as a fetish for consenting adults, and the various immoral/illegal/etc. acts they want to engage in.

Ageplaying? quoting your own words, it's a "fetish for consenting adults".
I assume you mean psychosexual infantilism: "sexual behavior with psychic and physical origin, involving sexual arousal from the behaviors and objects of infancy"(link), in other words, a sexual behavior characterized by acting like a child during sexual intercourse. I'm not going to judge it, since we human beings are complex and so is our sexuality.

However, the last time I visited your site, the pictures I saw didn't portray furry images of "consenting adults acting like children", but furry representations of "children" in sensual or openly sexual poses. There's a BIG difference between these concepts.
Showing such images, and being those images targetted towards an adult audicence transform them, openly, in pedophilia. (a paraphilia (...) in which arousal and orgasm in an adult are responsive to and having a juvenile partner of ... developmental status (a kid). Pedophile relationships may (...) take place in imagery or actuality, or both. (link))

Things may have changed a lot since I last saw your site, but... in my opinion, the pictures displayed on your site last time I saw it are much closer to pedophilia than to psychosexual infantilism. If you are really more interested for the latter rather than for the former, you should make that clearer on your site's policy.

In any case, you should establish a rigider policy keeping the questionable images out of the immediate sight. Should you do that, the amount of "idiots claiming it is what it looks like" will obviously go down proportionally. Better yet, ban anything resembling pedophilia and you'll have much less problems.

I'll take my share of the blame for creating Cub Central in the first place, but sites that link to it claiming it's something that it was never supposed to be can take the rest.

Therefore, if it isn't about what it seems to be, what is supposed to be your site about?

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

Sulaco, As long as its just a fetish as Nicol FireFox says its fine with me.

Is kiddie porn still okay because it's 'just a fetish' too?

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

I've been surfing the web since April, 1995, and in all this time I haven't found a single site dedicated to "ageplaying" <...> Probably because of its controversial nature, or open illegality under most laws on the western world, that kind of material is well hidden and hard to find.

Actually, I just went to a search engine and typed 'ageplay' in the box. There wasn't a lot of hits, but neither is Cub Central on the first page of them, not even when you refine it to 'furry ageplay'.

Ageplaying? quoting your own words, it's a "fetish for consenting adults".
I assume you mean psychosexual infantilism: "sexual behavior with psychic and physical origin, involving sexual arousal from the behaviors and objects of infancy"(link), in other words, a sexual behavior characterized by acting like a child during sexual intercourse. I'm not going to judge it, since we human beings are complex and so is our sexuality.

Yes, that's one aspect of it (and much bigger words than I know how to spell ;) )

However, the last time I visited your site, the pictures I saw didn't portray furry images of "consenting adults acting like children", but furry representations of "children" in sensual or openly sexual poses. There's a BIG difference between these concepts.

Not really, all the characters on the site are being portrayed by adults. :)

Things may have changed a lot since I last saw your site, but... in my opinion, the pictures displayed on your site last time I saw it are much closer to pedophilia than to psychosexual infantilism. If you are really more interested for the latter rather than for the former, you should make that clearer on your site's policy.

Yeah, OK. Next time I revise all the disclaimers and warning messages on the site, I'll try and make that clearer.

Therefore, if it isn't about what it seems to be, what is supposed to be your site about?

It's supposed to be about adults enjoying fictional portrayals of young anthropomorphic characters.

No 'justification' or 'promotion' or anything subversive like that, just a few pictures put in a gallery so tiny minority that don't think it's sick can go check them out.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

Is kiddie porn still okay because it's 'just a fetish' too?

If you could do it in a safe, sane and consensual way, maybe.

Naturally it would be impossible to meet that last condition if you're talking about people under the legal age of consent.

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

Is kiddie porn still okay because it's 'just a fetish' too?

If you could do it in a safe, sane and consensual way, maybe.

The only problem is that at the best it's tolerating support of what is not safe, sane, or consensual.

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

I've been surfing the web since April, 1995, and in all this time I haven't found a single site dedicated to "ageplaying" or displaying pictures of, as you say, human children in sexual poses, either drawn or photographed.
I'm not denying the existance of sites dedicated to "children porn", even displaying drawn pictures, supposedly not as harmful as real pictures, on the Internet, but I have been fortunate enough to not finding any. Probably because of its controversial nature, or open illegality under most laws on the western world, that kind of material is well hidden and hard to find, unless you are INTO that stuff and search for it on an active basis, of course. Nevertheless, given my exprerience on the Internet so far, saying "there are plenty of age-play fetish sites around" is a flawed defense for me, especially if they may be hidden due to their illegality.

I've been on the net for 3 years and I've only come accross it once. I clicked a link on a message board to bump into some anime pics of child bondage and torture. It was quite gory too, and one of the sickest sights I'd ever seen. But it was meant for arousal, which is what disturbs me.

But then again, they are only pictures, and I'd rather people who get aroused by that sort of thing to look at that rather than real pictures of naked children peeing themselves with their intestines hanging out.

It was also REALLY well drawn, and the computer colouring is one of the best I've ever seen, but that just made it look VERY realistic.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

...I just went to a search engine and typed 'ageplay' (...) neither is Cub Central on the first page of them (...)
(...) all the characters on the site are being portrayed by adults.
No 'justification' or 'promotion' or anything subversive like that, just a few pictures put in a gallery so tiny minority that don't think it's sick can go check them out.

Well, here I come again. This is going to be my last message on the issue, as I think your own exposure and defense of your site and the behavior around it showed what is your real position about the issue, why you are being attacked by those "unable to understand this fetish".

In the first place, you said that your site doesn't appear when we do a search about "ageplay" on the Internet. Well... it may be because the site, contrary to the position you've defended on a few replies to my original message, is not about ageplaying, but furry pedophilia in plain English.

Let's not forget that it was you who pledged that your site is not pedophilia but "ageplaying". On the message you are replying to, what I did was first saying that 1) I haven't seen any of that ageplaying on the net, except on your site, and 2) I had doubts to think your site is about ageplaying, but pedophilia, even if furry.

In my later message, I just exposed what is infantilism and what is pedophilia. In a nutshell, infantilism is feeling aroused by the elements of childhood, while in pedophilia the subject of arousal is -children- themselves. In this, you also agreed explicitly on your earlier message.

With these concepts in mind, I just went and took a look at the "recent entries" on the publicsection of your gallery. I'm seeing "Entries 1 to 20 of 424", and I find 5 portraits of dressed cubs, 7 images of naked or semi-naked cubs (including...... GADGET!!), and even a badly drawn comic featuring a sexual encounter between a babysitter and the cub he is supposed to take care of.

If anybody's got doubts about what I'm saying, all they have to do is going there and take a look themselves.

You'll tell me what is the central subject on the pictures belonging to the latter groups, sensual, or even explicitly sexual in nature. Arousing, for those who find them arousing(1). The subject on these pictures aren't the elements of childhood, not toys, not craddles, no talcum and diapers, but the cubs in themselves(2), and in many of these portraits they are protrayed with no other elements on the picture. And as you have stated before, the site is geared to adults(3).

We've got all the elements of the definition of pedophilia I told you before... "in which arousal and orgasm (1) in an adult (3) are responsive to having a juvenile partner(2)." Believe me, you don't need to get this scientific to discover what I'm saying, but I'm taking the time to explain it so you realize that my words have a basement and aren't just a hate speech.

The core of pedophilia, its concept, is not having sex with children, nor luring them into dirty games. The main idea of pedophilia is getting aroused by children, regardless of acts. Fantasy takes part on pedophilia, too.

On that recents page, there are also images of cubs wearing diapers (including a nonmorphic wolf (!!!), it's true, and those DO fit more within the infantilism category. But the rest is mere pedophilia, bold and plain, as it features all the elements on the definition. Never mind if it's furry, no matter if no real kids were harmed during the creation of those pics, the role of the cubs featured on these pics I mention is clearly to arouse their mature (?) audience.

After all, and I'm quoting Nicol Firefoxx, (the site) is supposed to be about adults enjoying fictional portrayals of young anthropomorphic characters. Pedophilia with furry subjects.

To my despair, furry fandom is way sexualized. An important fraction of the art for the furry audience is sexual by nature, and after a quick glance to VCL we find there's furry BDSM; furry scat; furry gore; furry vorephilia; furry homo; furry lesbianism; even furry inflationism and furry macro/microphilia. You see, many of the aspects of human sexuality and its fantasies, yet with furry subjects. And we call them like that, what they are, without rethorical surrounds. Furry gay pics are furry gay pics, and artists doing that kind of stuff just call themselves furry gay artists and the stuff.

The pictures I've found on the site, the ones I've mentioned, are just plain and simple and plain furry pedophilia. It's not illegal strictu senso, nor I'm going to debate about whether it's better or not than having real pedos taking real pics of real children, but it's at the very least condemnable and controversial, hence why so many furry places and galleries (even VCL itself, so lax with issues like quality and theme!) ban it.

And, what is worse, the pictures aren't hidden behind a "private" section, no, you can find those pornographic pictures on the public section, only behind a page warning you that its contents "might be considered pornograpic or otherwise obscene in some parts of the world"! now that's vague.

And hence why it is attacked with such zeal from both within furry fandom and outside of it, like the somethingawful crowd, the site specialized on pointing and laughing.

It's no wonder why so many people are upset with Cubcentral. I think that, should Nicol have at least a little of tact and respect to the rest of the furry fandom (and those people enjoying anthropomorphics), the LEAST thing he could do would be putting pornographic contents under a private section, enforcing more control over who sees what, and, of course, put more emphasis on the infantilist part of the audience, probably controversial, but not as much as plain pedophilia. Or, should Nicol say the contents of the pics are indeed furry pedophilia, something that he doesn't subscribe to, the pedophillic contents should be immediately banned of the site. But I'm afraid that he does enjoy these pictures, the hotter the better, so I doubt he'll do any of this.

That's all I've got to say on a public area about the issue. And my latest words on this thread in particular.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

I checked out Cub Central to see what the hubbub was about some time back after it was mentioned on a.f.f and it has struck me as definitely demented and positively in need of being eliminated.

Why?

Well, while I could care less what FICTIONAL MEMBERS of FICTIONAL LIFEFORMS of any given FICTIONAL AGE do to each other, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED... WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FURRIES HERE.

Furries are by and large already introverts with overly strong senses of fantasy and creativity to say the least. MANY MANY are severely fucked in the head.

If you claim that everyone who looks at ch1ld p0rn is necessarily a molestor, then you must necessarily go along with the claim that everyone who looks at adult p0rn is a rapist. Last I heard, the rape rate was not 100% and the porn industry's income was measured in the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Therefore, the only way that argument holds water, is that all the rapists that exist are all as wealthy as Bill Gates and that means we're talking a million dollars per cum shot.

Silly to say the least and it only holds water like a sieve.

What is important is to ask, "is the person going beyond mere looking at pictures?".

If you study the situation, you find the majority of people collecting ch1ld p0rn ARE NOT and NEVER WILL BE molestors in reality. BUT A HUGE PERCENTAGE ARE and that's the difference. Adult p0rn DOESN'T have a huge percentage who are active sexual criminals. Those in the much more unsightly areas of porn are already considered to be molestors or practicing their various fetishes a-priori, and therefore the self-fulfilling prophecy often comes into play, "since they already think I do because of this, why not actually do it already?" Get caught looking at zoophilia porn of a woman sucking off a horse, and you're automatically considered to be schutpping farm animals based solely on that. That's like going by the major American news media and engaging in the reductio ad absurdum result of simply assuming all students at the seminary of being ped0philes a-priori.

(Like saying Fish die. John is dead. John was therefore a fish.)

Furries? From mildly to extremely detached from reality, often desperately wanting to be their characters and wishing they could live their furry fantasies, we are not talking people with a strong sense of ANY kind of control, and this material scares living fuck out of me. We're NOT talking mere adult ageplay as you might get at a BDSM and More sex club. We're talking people fantasizing constantly about being a child and having sex or being an adult having sex with a child.

We're not talking a simple thing they can take or leave. We're talking people who show a consistant desperate desire to try it even if that desire involves them having real fur, long ears, and paws. I'd be very very concerned if ANY of these people who whack their weeners to this material work with or are attempting to work in proximity to actual real live children.

I remember the scholarly texts written by sexologists and sociologists from the late sixties through the mid-seventies before the Carter administration suddenly got religion and began the entre that later continued by the Reagan administration against what had heretofor been legal ch1ld p0rn overseas. This was a time during the sexual revolution when people were earnestly posited the idea that incest, intergenerational sex, and so forth might no actually be harmful across the board, but sometimes a good thing. And while you can find people who will glowingly speak of their experiences boffing their whole damn family since they were eight who are now in their sixties, it is a very dangerous thing that in retrospect many now consider to be a set of questions better not asked.

After all, if adults can often not handle sex, how can we expect kids to do any better with all those overwhelming impulses that come with them?

So we now find ourselves in this time when childhood is an end in and of itself where children are held almost universally to be totally innately innocent and cute right until the nanosecond they turn eighteen and only Planned Parenthood still holds that kids should fuck and the parents stay out of it.

If Nicol and Cub Central supporters want to get into those extremely tense and deep areas of sexual discussion, that's fine. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FURRIES, PEOPLE WITH A WELL KNOWN PROPENSITY FOR DELUSIONAL AND DAMAGED THINKING.

We're NOT talking psychologists and the case histories of their patients. We're talking FURRIES.

Not hard to see where Cub Central would be a bad idea.

DatdudeGil · Qualificator Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Posts: 36

Gil's thoughts:

Pedophilia=Bad

Groups of Pedophilia supporters=Very Bad.

Groups of Pedophilia supporters who are already quite detached from reality and share images and thoughts of said act=Breeding ground for real life pedophiles=Extremely, EXTREMELY BAD.

-Fin

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

It's no wonder why so many people are upset with Cubcentral. I think that, should Nicol have at least a little of tact and respect to the rest of the furry fandom (and those people enjoying anthropomorphics), the LEAST thing he could do would be putting pornographic contents under a private section, enforcing more control over who sees what, and, of course, put more emphasis on the infantilist part of the audience, probably controversial, but not as much as plain pedophilia.

I don't see it as my problem when people who might be offended by the site force themselves to click past all the warnings and disclaimers just to see something they're not going to like.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

If you study the situation, you find the majority of people collecting ch1ld p0rn ARE NOT and NEVER WILL BE molestors in reality. BUT A HUGE PERCENTAGE ARE and that's the difference. Adult p0rn DOESN'T have a huge percentage who are active sexual criminals. Those in the much more unsightly areas of porn are already considered to be molestors or practicing their various fetishes a-priori, and therefore the self-fulfilling prophecy often comes into play, "since they already think I do because of this, why not actually do it already?" Get caught looking at zoophilia porn of a woman sucking off a horse, and you're automatically considered to be schutpping farm animals based solely on that. That's like going by the major American news media and engaging in the reductio ad absurdum result of simply assuming all students at the seminary of being ped0philes a-priori.

Children are being hurt because of news media portrayals of the situation? That's very sad. Maybe you should be trying to get abc.com taken down instead?

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

Sulaco, As long as its just a fetish as Nicol FireFox says its fine with me.

Is kiddie porn still okay because it's 'just a fetish' too?

Of course not. Its not a fetish when someone gets hurt.
Drawing kids does not hurt kids.
Wayd Wolfe, I agree, the majority will not molest in reality. I could be wrong here, but Id say that 'Huge percentage' would molest anyway.
Priests tend to be pedophilic, I dont see anyone caring about that.

Gene Ternruh · Recusant Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 18

My furryMUCK chatacter is an FBI agent dressed as a six year old kid.

Genghis · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 186

My furryMUCK chatacter is an FBI agent dressed as a six year old kid.

Urge to register gimmick account on furrymuck... rising...

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

If you study the situation, you find the majority of people collecting ch1ld p0rn ARE NOT and NEVER WILL BE molestors in reality. BUT A HUGE PERCENTAGE ARE and that's the difference. Adult p0rn DOESN'T have a huge percentage who are active sexual criminals. Those in the much more unsightly areas of porn are already considered to be molestors or practicing their various fetishes a-priori, and therefore the self-fulfilling prophecy often comes into play, "since they already think I do because of this, why not actually do it already?" Get caught looking at zoophilia porn of a woman sucking off a horse, and you're automatically considered to be schutpping farm animals based solely on that. That's like going by the major American news media and engaging in the reductio ad absurdum result of simply assuming all students at the seminary of being ped0philes a-priori.

Children are being hurt because of news media portrayals of the situation? That's very sad. Maybe you should be trying to get abc.com taken down instead?

It's not that simple and you know it Nicol. We're talking:

A. A pervasive society-wide assumption and refusal to part with said assumption largely because it is first dangerous not to consider it and secondly because it is so often correct
B. A set of already over the societal edge thinkers
C. A subset of totally mentally fucked non-thinking doers

In short order, you get the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nicol, I grew up during the sexual revolution when the height of being "grown up" and "mature" for schoolgirls was to have as old as possible a boyfriend and "do it" with him as quickly as possible. In my home town, twelve year old girls with eighteen year old boyfriends who were sexually active resulted in, surprise surprise, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, lost maturation and school time, severe psychological disturbance, and familial upset. And that was JUST that group of kids. Some of their kids are now adults and guess how fucked in the head THEY are.

Never mind the boys who were fucking the randy divorcees on their paper route when they were thirteen. And the half-dozen kids I knew personally in my age and peer group during the junior high years who were openly boinking their little sisters and/or brothers. I shit you not. Guess how fucked in the head THOSE kids are whose parents were brother and sister.

Of course you had a fuck everything attitude where marriage certificates were treated like toilet paper, fidelity was something troglodyte audiophiles worried about, and there was enough cocaine being snorted to ski down the street and enough grass being smoked to make skirts for every woman in the entire USA. Not too surprising after the three martini brunch and six martini lunch decades just before.

So not only the adults were sexually incompetent vis a vis maturity to handle it, they were giving this incompetence right along to the kids.

Sex in the wrong hands is dangerous. In the hands of furries doubly so. This kind of kid-sex, squared. In the hands of furries, exponentially so, to powers not often used outside of astrophysics. Very bad idea. VERY VERY BAD IDEA.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

Nicol, I grew up during the sexual revolution when the height of being "grown up" and "mature" for schoolgirls was to have as old as possible a boyfriend and "do it" with him as quickly as possible. In my home town, twelve year old girls with eighteen year old boyfriends who were sexually active resulted in, surprise surprise, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, lost maturation and school time, severe psychological disturbance, and familial upset. And that was JUST that group of kids. Some of their kids are now adults and guess how fucked in the head THEY are.

I'm afraid I missed the sexual revolution. I suppose I should consider myself lucky.

Maybe those people unlucky enough to have been affected by it should stay away from furry porn sites, but they're not the cause of the problem, and neither is making them all go away going to solve it.

Computolio · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 349

Underage cartoon porn is one of the many painful but perhaps ultimately necessary side-effects that freedom of speech brings. Everyone with a shred of decency in their hearts holds a very special and intense revulsion for it. However, it is ultimately difficult to justify why it should be made criminal when the photographed stuff (which harms actual physical living people) should take such an infinitely higher priority.

The drawings are disgusting, but in the end they are just that: drawings. No actual children were harmed in their creation (or at least I can't prove that to anything approaching a reasonable degree). Regrettably, I then have to accept that people like NicolFireFox here may indeed have some right to continue on indulging their massively alarming sexual fantasies IF AND ONLY IF THEY STAY FANTASIES. That doesn't mean that I can't not stand the sight of him or his work, however.

As for whether or not drawn kiddie wank shit would incite someone to commit an actual crime, that's a whole other issue. It can be argued either way, but never conclusively proven either way. I'm not that keen on discussing the issue; I'd rather just stick the people who jerk it to Cub Central/Cardcaptor Sakura doujinshi/whatever in social quarantine and perhaps have them monitored by law enforcement from time to time. The primary focus should be on the liquidation of those who actually touch, seriously plan on touching or have touched real actual children. You know, like the MODEL CITIZENS over at boychat.org.

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

Underage cartoon porn is one of the many painful but perhaps ultimately necessary side-effects that freedom of speech brings. Everyone with a shred of decency in their hearts holds a very special and intense revulsion for it. However, it is ultimately difficult to justify why it should be made criminal when the photographed stuff (which harms actual physical living people) should take such an infinitely higher priority.

The drawings are disgusting, but in the end they are just that: drawings. No actual children were harmed in their creation (or at least I can't prove that to anything approaching a reasonable degree). Regrettably, I then have to accept that people like NicolFireFox here may indeed have some right to continue on indulging their massively alarming sexual fantasies IF AND ONLY IF THEY STAY FANTASIES. That doesn't mean that I can't not stand the sight of him or his work, however.

As for whether or not drawn kiddie wank shit would incite someone to commit an actual crime, that's a whole other issue. It can be argued either way, but never conclusively proven either way. I'm not that keen on discussing the issue; I'd rather just stick the people who jerk it to Cub Central/Cardcaptor Sakura doujinshi/whatever in social quarantine and perhaps have them monitored by law enforcement from time to time. The primary focus should be on the liquidation of those who actually touch, seriously plan on touching or have touched real actual children. You know, like the MODEL CITIZENS over at boychat.org.

Computolio, you just said everything that I wish I was eloquent enough to say.

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

yes yes, thats what i was trying to say too. well done.

zillford · Recusant Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 5

Underage cartoon porn is one of the many painful but perhaps ultimately necessary side-effects that freedom of speech brings...

...The drawings are disgusting, but in the end they are just that: drawings. No actual children were harmed in their creation (or at least I can't prove that to anything approaching a reasonable degree)....

I hate to start my venture into this forum by arguing with one of it's creators, but while commendable in your open-mindedness/defense of free speech, this is factually untrue.

any form of pornography deemed illegal in the U.S. is equally illegal whether it's photographed or drawn. the basis behind it's illegality is what everyone's been saying: a picture of a child under the age of consent made with the intent to arouse has been deemed to be supportive of the behavior, and thus, not acceptable.

ageplay is NOT illegal as, like stated before, it's not portraying UNDERAGE participants, but rather infantile ones.

now, whether or not you feel that something is morally wrong/ok is totally up to you, Dog Bless America.

also, I REALLY detest it when people make the blanket statement that "Furries are inherently mentally unstable/weaker than an average person". I won't argue that Furry (as with all fandoms) has the propensity to attract people of questionable nature (fandoms are welcoming to social outcasts, so it stands to reason that people with social/mental deficiencies are drawn to them.) but to claim that ALL of any group are "something" is very prejudiced and unbecoming of this rather intelligent forum/site.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Nicol, I grew up during the sexual revolution when the height of being "grown up" and "mature" for schoolgirls was to have as old as possible a boyfriend and "do it" with him as quickly as possible. In my home town, twelve year old girls with eighteen year old boyfriends who were sexually active resulted in, surprise surprise, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, lost maturation and school time, severe psychological disturbance, and familial upset. And that was JUST that group of kids. Some of their kids are now adults and guess how fucked in the head THEY are.

Never mind the boys who were fucking the randy divorcees on their paper route when they were thirteen. And the half-dozen kids I knew personally in my age and peer group during the junior high years who were openly boinking their little sisters and/or brothers. I shit you not. Guess how fucked in the head THOSE kids are whose parents were brother and sister.

Of course you had a fuck everything attitude where marriage certificates were treated like toilet paper, fidelity was something troglodyte audiophiles worried about, and there was enough cocaine being snorted to ski down the street and enough grass being smoked to make skirts for every woman in the entire USA. Not too surprising after the three martini brunch and six martini lunch decades just before.

So not only the adults were sexually incompetent vis a vis maturity to handle it, they were giving this incompetence right along to the kids.

Sex in the wrong hands is dangerous. In the hands of furries doubly so. This kind of kid-sex, squared. In the hands of furries, exponentially so, to powers not often used outside of astrophysics. Very bad idea. VERY VERY BAD IDEA.

Bull.

You sound like a Jesus soldier rageing against everything since the reformation.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

You guys do know that cub central is probably watched? since it would provide the ideal place for people who genuinely want to commit pedophilia to meet...

I think cub central is disgusting, though don't ask me my reasons they're personal.

Ole Sparky · Qualificator Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 21

Sidenote here ya'll.
We are not just talking fantasies, although that is a common Furry tactic to distract, a stalking horse.
We are talking NAMBLA here, we are talking folks cuddling up to an organization that promotes and suggests.
Big difference, or am I the only one who sees it?
Wayd, I think you may see where I am coming from.
A fantasy is one thing, cuddling up to folks who promote the act is rather something else.
Whatever.
In any event, think about this very carefully. None of us exist in a vacuum. We all interact with, rely on the rest of the world, we are subject to their evaulations, values, judgements, laws.
Sparky

If you study the situation, you find the majority of people collecting ch1ld p0rn ARE NOT and NEVER WILL BE molestors in reality. BUT A HUGE PERCENTAGE ARE and that's the difference. Adult p0rn DOESN'T have a huge percentage who are active sexual criminals. Those in the much more unsightly areas of porn are already considered to be molestors or practicing their various fetishes a-priori, and therefore the self-fulfilling prophecy often comes into play, "since they already think I do because of this, why not actually do it already?" Get caught looking at zoophilia porn of a woman sucking off a horse, and you're automatically considered to be schutpping farm animals based solely on that. That's like going by the major American news media and engaging in the reductio ad absurdum result of simply assuming all students at the seminary of being ped0philes a-priori.

Children are being hurt because of news media portrayals of the situation? That's very sad. Maybe you should be trying to get abc.com taken down instead?

It's not that simple and you know it Nicol. We're talking:

A. A pervasive society-wide assumption and refusal to part with said assumption largely because it is first dangerous not to consider it and secondly because it is so often correct
B. A set of already over the societal edge thinkers
C. A subset of totally mentally fucked non-thinking doers

In short order, you get the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nicol, I grew up during the sexual revolution when the height of being "grown up" and "mature" for schoolgirls was to have as old as possible a boyfriend and "do it" with him as quickly as possible. In my home town, twelve year old girls with eighteen year old boyfriends who were sexually active resulted in, surprise surprise, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, lost maturation and school time, severe psychological disturbance, and familial upset. And that was JUST that group of kids. Some of their kids are now adults and guess how fucked in the head THEY are.

Never mind the boys who were fucking the randy divorcees on their paper route when they were thirteen. And the half-dozen kids I knew personally in my age and peer group during the junior high years who were openly boinking their little sisters and/or brothers. I shit you not. Guess how fucked in the head THOSE kids are whose parents were brother and sister.

Of course you had a fuck everything attitude where marriage certificates were treated like toilet paper, fidelity was something troglodyte audiophiles worried about, and there was enough cocaine being snorted to ski down the street and enough grass being smoked to make skirts for every woman in the entire USA. Not too surprising after the three martini brunch and six martini lunch decades just before.

So not only the adults were sexually incompetent vis a vis maturity to handle it, they were giving this incompetence right along to the kids.

Sex in the wrong hands is dangerous. In the hands of furries doubly so. This kind of kid-sex, squared. In the hands of furries, exponentially so, to powers not often used outside of astrophysics. Very bad idea. VERY VERY BAD IDEA.

Ole Sparky · Qualificator Joined: 07 Nov 2003 Posts: 21

Oh, I just enjoy reading about myself and pretending that I'm half as interesting as some people seem to think I am. :)

I am sure ole Firefox does. Heh, maybe Firefox might even make the nightly news one night, Firefox and Ostrich, what a power pair for Furry.

THE PLOT THICKENS, LIKE SO MUCH WEEK (WEAK?) OLD GRAAVY!

"Thickens" or "Sickens"

Gag!

I am just so waiting for "A Furry Con" to make the nightly news, as in a raid.

Just as an observation, I don't recall registration being required to read; merely to post.

YOU MAY HAVE WON THIS TIME, MITCH - BUT I'LL GET YOU, AND YOUR LITTLE DOGGY TOO!

Ignore me, I get really fucking odd when I get migranes.

And, though I ashamed to admit it, I get a little strange too, when I have consulted with a, bottle, erm, as releases my inhibitions and attempts at civility. Chuckle, it releases that inner animal Furry so wants. "Mr. Polite and Civilized" goes bye bye.

I am just so waiting for the cops to knock on Furry's door. Operation Predator, two thousand busts, and counting.
Sparky

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

I hate to start my venture into this forum by arguing with one of it's creators, but while commendable in your open-mindedness/defense of free speech, this is factually untrue.

any form of pornography deemed illegal in the U.S. is equally illegal whether it's photographed or drawn. the basis behind it's illegality is what everyone's been saying: a picture of a child under the age of consent made with the intent to arouse has been deemed to be supportive of the behavior, and thus, not acceptable.

Not acceptable in the U.S.A., maybe. I don't believe that any anthopomorpic cartoon pictures are deemed illegal, but if it's proven otherwise, then obviously I won't be able to run a mirror site of Cub Central in the U.S.A. anymore.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

You guys do know that cub central is probably watched?

Of course. I wouldn't admit to running it if I didn't think it could stand up to legal scrutiny.

Nicol FireFox · Recusant Joined: 01 Mar 2004 Posts: 12

We are not just talking fantasies, although that is a common Furry tactic to distract, a stalking horse.
We are talking NAMBLA here, we are talking folks cuddling up to an organization that promotes and suggests.
Big difference, or am I the only one who sees it?

Maybe not, you're just the only one posting it to a public BBS without any proof of that statement.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Maybe not, you're just the only one posting it to a public BBS without any proof of that statement.

uh oh...a link to the dictionary definition of libel

..get a lawyer

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Maybe not, you're just the only one posting it to a public BBS without any proof of that statement.

uh oh...a link to the dictionary definition of libel

..get a lawyer

Speaking as someone who thought about studying law once, I can safely say that no court or judge in the land gives a toss about what people say on the Internet to each other as regards to the furry fandom.

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

try telling KAK that

Gene Ternruh · Recusant Joined: 10 Mar 2004 Posts: 18

Try telling Kaffe that.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Try telling Kaffe that.

Erm...the post was about what people say on the net...check your facts KAK harassed people close to Kaffe with phone calls, the courts defintely care about that. :?