Non-binary genders

[The Steel Magnolia]

Illegal, no. Morally questionable, probably. In much the same way that masturbating to 'jailbait' is incredibly fucking creepy.

Theoretically speaking, there would be nothing legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age furry while jailbait is so named because the individuals are just under the age of consent, making it illegal. So, you're still comparing it to an illegal activity.

There's plenty legally wrong with having sex with animals though.

[Meryuma]

Firstly gender is NOT a social construct. Anyone with any common sense can see that. Throughout the whole if history in all societies no matter how equal or sexist people have always fitted into specific roles which they are better at based in their gender e.g even in prehistoric society, in a place I'm sure the people didn't know this concept of 'social constructs' those who identified as men were hunters and those who identified as women looked after the children. Society and the media didn't say who was what gender and what each gender should do.

Actually, there are many societies which recognize a third gender, including India (hijras), thailand (kathoeys), and many Native American societies (two-spirits). I think you just shot yourself in the foot there.

I also am fond of the Spivak pronoun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun Mostly because of geeky reasons though

I just use singular they. It makes more linguistic sense then ey and zie and whatnot.

[Olthar]

Theoretically speaking, there would be nothing legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age furry while jailbait is so named because the individuals are just under the age of consent, making it illegal. So, you're still comparing it to an illegal activity.

There's plenty legally wrong with having sex with animals though.

It's not bestiality if the creatures are sentient. It's just interspecies. It's like a human fucking an elf. Except the elf has more hair than the human instead of less.

[The Steel Magnolia]

There's plenty legally wrong with having sex with animals though.

It's not bestiality if the creatures are sentient. It's just interspecies. It's like a human fucking an elf. Except the elf has more hair than the human instead of less.

I wasn't aware there were sentient animals other than us on the planet earth who could consent.

[Olthar]

I wasn't aware there were sentient animals other than us on the planet earth who could consent.

There aren't. That's why there's no live action furry porn.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I wasn't aware there were sentient animals other than us on the planet earth who could consent.

There aren't. That's why there's no live action furry porn.

And?

There's no real difference in what something represents in animation and live action.

Furry porn is that of animals. That is sexualizing animals. I really don't see how you can try and dodge this point, it's inherent to the fetish.

[Olthar]

There aren't. That's why there's no live action furry porn.

And?

There's no real difference in what something represents in animation and live action.

Furry porn is that of animals. That is sexualizing animals. I really don't see how you can try and dodge this point, it's inherent to the fetish.

Do you simply lack imagination? Do you watch a sci-fi movie and start complaining about how aliens don't exist? In the realm of fiction, impossible things can sometimes happen.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And?

There's no real difference in what something represents in animation and live action.

Furry porn is that of animals. That is sexualizing animals. I really don't see how you can try and dodge this point, it's inherent to the fetish.

Do you simply lack imagination? Do you watch a sci-fi movie and start complaining about how aliens don't exist? In the realm of fiction, impossible things can sometimes happen.

I fail to see the relevance here.

Merely because something is fictional does not mean it does not reflect the society that creates it. Can one not criticize the new Star Trek movie for sexism, or racism? Because, ostensibly, both of those issues are mostly dealt with. Can I not analyze fiction merely because it is not an exact representation of the world as it is today?

Please.

[Olthar]

I fail to see the relevance here.

Then let me illuminate:
1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I fail to see the relevance here.

Then let me illuminate:
1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

[Susurruses]

Then let me illuminate:
1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

You do realise that comparisons to literal paedophilia and bestiality were the same arguments proposed against homosexuality, right?
(And I'm not talking historically, I'm talking quotes from Judge Scalia)

[New Naephak]

Then let me illuminate:
1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

You an' me, we're just a couple of animals~

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

Thought the whole issue about child porn was about consent.

[Warda]

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

You an' me, we're just a couple of animals~

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

Thought the whole issue about child porn was about consent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knItRruwXEA

[Olthar]

Then let me illuminate:
1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

Anthropomorphic furries are animals in the same way humans are, and there is effectively no difference between the two.

[Arcturus IV]

Can we please not fill an entire page with off-topic discussion? TGs exist for a reason...

I also am fond of the Spivak pronoun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronoun Mostly because of geeky reasons though

I just use singular they. It makes more linguistic sense then ey and zie and whatnot.

Same, although I may just be biased because I am more accustomed to it. I always had trouble wrapping my mind around pronouns like hir and such... seems like a lot of effort to go through when there are already pronouns in existence that work well enough.

Not that I have anything against them or those who use them. Different preferences, I suppose. *shrug*

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

You do realise that comparisons to literal paedophilia and bestiality were the same arguments proposed against homosexuality, right?
(And I'm not talking historically, I'm talking quotes from Judge Scalia)

And?

Seriously, and? I fail to see the relevance here, when it's literally comparable to bestiality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is not, there's no real connection. Gay porn doesn't promote anything other than gayness, doesn't sexualize anything any more than porn already does.

Furry porn sexualizes animals. Child porn sexualizes children.

Drawn or real, doesn't really matter, though in the latter case a crime has been committed.

[Olthar]

You do realise that comparisons to literal paedophilia and bestiality were the same arguments proposed against homosexuality, right?
(And I'm not talking historically, I'm talking quotes from Judge Scalia)

And?

Seriously, and? I fail to see the relevance here, when it's literally comparable to bestiality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is not, there's no real connection. Gay porn doesn't promote anything other than gayness, doesn't sexualize anything any more than porn already does.

Furry porn sexualizes animals. Child porn sexualizes children.

Drawn or real, doesn't really matter, though in the latter case a crime has been committed.

Animal porn sexualizes animals. Furry porn sexualizes furries. The two are not the same.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Except for the faaaaact that it is about aniiiimalllls.

If I draw a picture of what looks, for all intents and purposes, to be a five year old, say they're really 600 and magical, and then proceed to draw porn of this, you realize I'm still drawing child porn, right?

Anthropomorphic furries are animals in the same way humans are, and there is effectively no difference between the two.

They're still nonhuman animals, and those animals can't consent.

If I draw a picture of a child, say they're really hundreds of years old and draw porn of that character, it's still pornography of a child.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And?

Seriously, and? I fail to see the relevance here, when it's literally comparable to bestiality and pedophilia. Homosexuality is not, there's no real connection. Gay porn doesn't promote anything other than gayness, doesn't sexualize anything any more than porn already does.

Furry porn sexualizes animals. Child porn sexualizes children.

Drawn or real, doesn't really matter, though in the latter case a crime has been committed.

Animal porn sexualizes animals. Furry porn sexualizes furries. The two are not the same.

They are pictures of animals. Just because they're "really sapient guys!" doesn't mean it's not sexualizing animals.

[Olthar]

Anthropomorphic furries are animals in the same way humans are, and there is effectively no difference between the two.

They're still nonhuman animals, and those animals can't consent.

If I draw a picture of a child, say they're really hundreds of years old and draw porn of that character, it's still pornography of a child.

1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

[New Naephak]

You an' me, we're just a couple of animals~


Thought the whole issue about child porn was about consent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knItRruwXEA

Thanks, mate.

[The Steel Magnolia]

They're still nonhuman animals, and those animals can't consent.

If I draw a picture of a child, say they're really hundreds of years old and draw porn of that character, it's still pornography of a child.

1. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with having intercourse with a consenting, of age, sentient being.
2. In fiction, there exists "furries" who are sentient beings capable of informed consent.
3. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with furry porn assuming it involves neither rape nor underage characters.

None of which means it doesn't sexualize animals. Your desperation to avoid this is telling.

[New Naephak]

Animal porn sexualizes animals. Furry porn sexualizes furries. The two are not the same.

They are pictures of animals. Just because they're "really sapient guys!" doesn't mean it's not sexualizing animals.

And your point is???
I feel this argument is more about how squicky it is to you, instead of anything meaningful.

[The Steel Magnolia]

They are pictures of animals. Just because they're "really sapient guys!" doesn't mean it's not sexualizing animals.

And your point is???
I feel this argument is more about how squicky it is to you, instead of anything meaningful.

So you admit it sexualizes animals then (that are really sentient I promise!!!)

[Olthar]

Your desperation to avoid this is telling.

And now you're starting to slip into ad hominems. I think I'll leave now before you embarrass yourself further. I have better things to do then having insults hurled at me by a fanatic.