I’m happy to open our second weekly discussion topic:

This week we’re going to cover a phenomenon that’s been around in the fandom forever but which has resurfaced these last few years in the form of typically younger furs (13-21), often called “puriteens”.

This new manifestation of reformists tend to be very vocal in their opposition of certain NSFW traits in furry characters such as anatomically correct genitalia (knots, sheaths, etc) as well as feral yiff / feral NSFW artwork.

Typically active on twitter, but progressively also on other platforms, people holding these beliefs are controversial due to their tendency of conflating and accusing people who enjoy this type of NSFW depicts of animal molestation.

I’m trying to be mostly neutral in this description, so please accept my apologies if the vocabulary is a bit too formal. Anyways, here’s a few key questions:

  • How should the furry fandom react? Embrace it? Reject it? And if so, how to deal with the risk of being “called out”?

  • Is their point valid but are they simply to loud and aggressive?

  • Or are their methods correct and it’s time that the fandom received a wake-up call?

Please feel free to share any opinions that you have. As always this thread will stay up for at least a week and will then be locked. So make sure to voice your opinion in time!

Also, by leaving a comment you can, if you want, in the same comment propose a new topic for next week’s discussion!

Note: this topic is not marked as NSFW as it is educational, thus please don’t be too explicit in your wording or use spoilers to hide any potential explicit text or images that you might want to use.

Edit: This went a bit out of hand, but it’s very very late here and I might not be around until later tomorrow so I’m locking this thread and have removed any comments that went down a tangent while I figure things out. Tomorrow (technically today) I’ll try to reply to any DMs that you have sent and will try to see if we can reopen the topic and how.

  • Noxy@yiffit.netEnglish
    43·
    1 year ago

    I understand the Harkness test, and that they can talk and consent and all that, but it feels a little too close to bestiality for my taste

    1. the Harkness test is some arbitrary made-up shit from Doctor Who. I don’t understand why anyone thinks it’s worth a damn.
    2. Fictional content should not be subjected to ANY morality test in the first place. Drawings can’t hurt anyone.
    3. Do you think that furry porn featuring humans and anthro furries is also close to bestiality?

    So a question to feral furry peeps, if you don’t mind me asking, where do you draw the line between “feral” and “animal”?

    I don’t draw such a line in the first place. Humans are animals. Nonhuman animals are animals. Anthropomorphization of nonhuman animals to give them traits of human animals is still just animals all the way down.

    • Awoos the Kinkwolf@yiffit.netEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago
      1. It’s a useful tool to give a quick guideline on how consent works; if something passes the harkness test, it’s a good sign that there won’t be moral issues with having (hypothetical) sex acts with them.
      2. Agreed. Although it still makes me feel greatly unconfortable.
      3. No, anthros (and ferals) have the ability to give consent. Anthros also generally appear very human like, and so there is the implicit understanding that they have human-like society and language.
      • Noxy@yiffit.netEnglish
        45·
        1 year ago

        It’s a useful tool to give a quick guideline on how consent works; if something passes the harkness test, it’s a good sign that there won’t be moral issues with having (hypothetical) sex acts with them.

        I disagree. It’s a useless tool for accomplishing a useless goal - to give a moral green light to fictional depictions of hypothetical sex acts with fictional characters.

        Agreed. Although it still makes me feel greatly unconfortable.

        That’s fine as long as you don’t push others to an unreasonable degree.

        No, anthros (and ferals) have the ability to give consent. Anthros also generally appear very human like, and so there is the implicit understanding that they have human-like society and language.

        I didn’t ask about consent, I asked if you think human/anthro approaches bestiality as human/feral does. Leave the topic of consent out of it.

        • Awoos the Kinkwolf@yiffit.netEnglish
          5·
          1 year ago

          I’d define bestiality as “having sex with a living creature which does cannot consent to sexual acts in the same way that humans can”.

          Human/anthro and human/feral don’t fit those criteria, because anthros and ferals can understand and consent to human norms (Well, I assume ferals can. Don’t really know much about them). What I’m concerned about is what the difference between “man having sex with an animal dog” and “man having sex with a furry feral dog” is.

          More generally, if I drew a picture of an animal dog, what separates it from a picture of a realistic feral?

          • Noxy@yiffit.netEnglish
            31·
            1 year ago

            I’d define bestiality as “having sex with a living creature which does cannot consent to sexual acts in the same way that humans can”.

            That’s not what that word actually means, though.

            More generally, if I drew a picture of an animal dog, what separates it from a picture of a realistic feral?

            That would be up to you as the artist. You could decide to include a description that details the degree of anthropomorphization, or lack thereof. You could include some speech bubbles. Or you could leave it completely unspecified, in which case the difference would appear to be absolutely nothing - and that’s okay, it’s a drawing.