Why I really hate SomethingAwful

[amencon]

As for the furry issue, I'd have to say I agree with the stance that's its disgusting and everyone involved needs psychological help. In my time on the internet, I've seen a lot of furries equate their fetish with being gay, which... Yeah, just no.

Why differentiate between flavors of sexual deviations from the heterosexual "norm"?  Either you are committed to tolerance and accept all sexual preferences of others (barring rape, pedophilia etc.) or you're a hypocrite that just moves the goal posts on tolerance to match societal acceptance.

Logically I understand there is nothing cosmically wrong with being gay (or wanting to have sex with animals or dead bodies or whatever).  I don't oppose their existence or rights.

In their defense, most people who consider themselves "furries" don't want to actually have sex with animals. Rather, anthropomorphic animals (like the one in the picture above) get them hot.

Personally, I blame Disney.

My main point was that it shouldn't matter.  Whether it's sex with animals or sex with cartoon animals or whatever else.  Being intolerant of anything you don't personally understand is logical to a certain point.  You hate what you don't understand, it's ignorant and I don't agree with the standpoint but it makes some kind of sense.  From my perspective furries not wanting to have sex with animals but rather being turned on by cartoon animals is sort of the same difference.  Both motivations seem odd to me, but if I'm willing to accept one I'd have to being willing to accept the other, otherwise risk being a hypocrite.

You're right, I was just correcting an informational error. There's morally no difference between homosexuality and being a furry. Anything done between consenting adults (including dressing up as racoons) is fine by me. On the other hand, having sex with animals or corpses... if it can't consent, it's rape.

Is having sex with the cushion on your couch rape?  It can't consent.  As far as animals, I'd think you'd be able to tell if they were receptive or not.  I could have sex with a girl that spoke no English and tell whether I was raping her or not.

[1715410992]

1715410992

[1715410992]

1715410992

[repentance]

I see no logical standing to arbitrarily be accepting of one variation in sexual desires and not another.  The only difference being in cases where one partner is non-consenting.

Sexual assault, bestiality and necrophilia are all examples of sexual behaviour with non-consenting parties.  "Consent" isn't always a bright line, either, and I think that's one of the things which disturbs people about some paraphilias - there can be enormous risk of harm if the parties involved aren't all mentally healthy or if the power dynamics are distorted.  In fact, DSM-V is trying to address this essential difference between people whose non-normative sexual behaviour is psychopathological (ie causes harm, impairment or distress) and those in which it's just a "quirk".

A lot of paraphilias have "communities" and those communities attract extremely disturbed as well as well-balanced individuals.  It's the extremely disturbed ones that you tend to hear about.  Some are predators right from the outset and some seem to progressively become more and more immersed in satisfying their particular kink until whatever has previously kept them grounded breaks down.  It's those individuals who operate at the extreme that you tend to hear about.

At an intellectual level, I think many people are aware that "if you can imagine it, someone is masturbating to it".  There are certainly some people who think "if it doesn't turn me on then it shouldn't turn anyone on", but I think that many people's reactions to the paraphilia's of others are a bit more complex than that.  

[myrkul]

I see no logical standing to arbitrarily be accepting of one variation in sexual desires and not another.  The only difference being in cases where one partner is non-consenting.

Sexual assault, bestiality and necrophilia are all examples of sexual behaviour with non-consenting parties.  "Consent" isn't always a bright line, either, and I think that's one of the things which disturbs people about some paraphilias - there can be enormous risk of harm if the parties involved aren't all mentally healthy or if the power dynamics are distorted.  In fact, DSM-V is trying to address this essential difference between people whose non-normative sexual behaviour is psychopathological (ie causes harm, impairment or distress) and those in which it's just a "quirk".

A lot of paraphilias have "communities" and those communities attract extremely disturbed as well as well-balanced individuals.  It's the extremely disturbed ones that you tend to hear about.  Some are predators right from the outset and some seem to progressively become more and more immersed in satisfying their particular kink until whatever has previously kept them grounded breaks down.  It's those individuals who operate at the extreme that you tend to hear about.

At an intellectual level, I think many people are aware that "if you can imagine it, someone is masturbating to it".  There are certainly some people who think "if it doesn't turn me on then it shouldn't turn anyone on", but I think that many people's reactions to the paraphilia's of others are a bit more complex than that. 

What he said.

[amencon]

I see no logical standing to arbitrarily be accepting of one variation in sexual desires and not another.  The only difference being in cases where one partner is non-consenting.

Sexual assault, bestiality and necrophilia are all examples of sexual behaviour with non-consenting parties.  "Consent" isn't always a bright line, either, and I think that's one of the things which disturbs people about some paraphilias - there can be enormous risk of harm if the parties involved aren't all mentally healthy or if the power dynamics are distorted.  In fact, DSM-V is trying to address this essential difference between people whose non-normative sexual behaviour is psychopathological (ie causes harm, impairment or distress) and those in which it's just a "quirk".

A lot of paraphilias have "communities" and those communities attract extremely disturbed as well as well-balanced individuals.  It's the extremely disturbed ones that you tend to hear about.  Some are predators right from the outset and some seem to progressively become more and more immersed in satisfying their particular kink until whatever has previously kept them grounded breaks down.  It's those individuals who operate at the extreme that you tend to hear about.

At an intellectual level, I think many people are aware that "if you can imagine it, someone is masturbating to it".  There are certainly some people who think "if it doesn't turn me on then it shouldn't turn anyone on", but I think that many people's reactions to the paraphilia's of others are a bit more complex than that.  

A dead body is an object not a "party".  If you want to condemn the behavior you'll have to find a better justification than rape.

I think you'd be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that someone who had sex with their pet was endangering their mental health and in that relationship the power dynamics are not an issue.  Obviously if the sex physically harmed the animal then there might be a case for criminality.  Then again I also think it's highly illogical that a meat eating society throws people in jail for physically abusing an animal.  I can facilitate the deaths of hundreds or thousands of animals by eating meat regularly (and I do), but kick a dog once and I can go to jail, what a joke.

As for sexual assault and pedophilia I completely agree.

[ElectricMucus]

As for sexual assault and pedophilia I completely agree.

but...

[amencon]

As for sexual assault and pedophilia I completely agree.

but...

haha

[repentance]

A dead body is an object not a "party".  If you want to condemn the behavior you'll have to find a better justification than rape.

Whether you think it's rational or not, our society and many other have a thing about treating dead bodies with "respect" and necrophilia is a transgression of that taboo.  Many people are disturbed by anything they perceive as disrespectful being done to a corpse and it's going to cause them mental anguish if they find out that the corpse of a loved one has been "mistreated" in any way. 

Hell, many people refuse to allow autopsies to be conducted on corpses and won't donate organs - even when the decided clearly indicated that they wanted to be a donor - because they regard even dead human bodies as being somehow "sacred".  People generally regard murdering someone and mutilating their corpse as somehow being "worse" than simply killing them.  Society has a thing about how dead bodies should be treated.

There's clearly no harm being done to the corpse itself, but I don't think that the average person is going to react well to learning that someone fucked the corpse of their loved one - whether you believe that's rational or not is irrelevant, it's internally consistent if people hold the viewpoint that dead bodies should be treated with respect.

[amencon]

A dead body is an object not a "party".  If you want to condemn the behavior you'll have to find a better justification than rape.

Whether you think it's rational or not, our society and many other have a thing about treating dead bodies with "respect" and necrophilia is a transgression of that taboo.  Many people are disturbed by anything they perceive as disrespectful being done to a corpse and it's going to cause them mental anguish if they find out that the corpse of a loved one has been "mistreated" in any way. 

Hell, many people refuse to allow autopsies to be conducted on corpses and won't donate organs - even when the decided clearly indicated that they wanted to be a donor - because they regard even dead human bodies as being somehow "sacred".  People generally regard murdering someone and mutilating their corpse as somehow being "worse" than simply killing them.  Society has a thing about how dead bodies should be treated.

There's clearly no harm being done to the corpse itself, but I don't think that the average person is going to react well to learning that someone fucked the corpse of their loved one - whether you believe that's rational or not is irrelevant, it's internally consistent if people hold the viewpoint that dead bodies should be treated with respect.

Yes my whole point was that this is irrational and illogical thinking, and that by being tolerant of gays but not other sexual orientations you are merely conforming to what society accepts rather than being a logical and critical thinker or a truly tolerant person.  I find it ridiculous that so many "accept" gays and pat themselves on the back for how tolerant and progressive they are when really they are just conforming their opinions based on whats currently accepted regardless of how hypocritical or illogical the line of thinking is.

People now think about people that have sex with dead bodies similarly to the way people used to feel about gays.  We haven't become a nation of tolerance, we've just moved the goal posts and declared victory.

[myrkul]

People now think about people that have sex with dead bodies similarly to the way people used to feel about gays.  We haven't become a nation of tolerance, we've just moved the goal posts and declared victory.

Changing the public perception of necrophilia will require more drastic change than the acceptance of gays, or even furries. You'd need to get everyone to see a corpse as an object rather than their dear Aunt Sally. You'd be going against not just centuries, but all of human history. We've been burying the dead to keep just this sort of thing from happening - desecration of the corpse - since we've been "us."

[amencon]

People now think about people that have sex with dead bodies similarly to the way people used to feel about gays.  We haven't become a nation of tolerance, we've just moved the goal posts and declared victory.

Changing the public perception of necrophilia will require more drastic change than the acceptance of gays, or even furries. You'd need to get everyone to see a corpse as an object rather than their dear Aunt Sally. You'd be going against not just centuries, but all of human history. We've been burying the dead to keep just this sort of thing from happening - desecration of the corpse - since we've been "us."

I don't disagree.  This doesn't refute the point I was making at all though.

It took drastic change for the acceptance of gays, before the change was made it would be inaccurate for someone to claim tolerance and hate gays, regardless of how much change was needed for the general populace to become accepting.  People that owned slaves probably didn't think they were prejudiced, this had no bearing on what the truth was though.

The type of thinking that led to arguments made by you and repentance is exactly why it took centuries (Millennia? more?) for acceptance of gays.  If we don't give a shit about truly being tolerant then that's fine (I happen to have a sexual preference that is very common and therefore don't personally benefit from tolerance of more exotic sexual orientations, if anything it hurts me in the sense that Will & Grace aired on TV at one point and I inadvertently watched occasional commercials of it etc.), let's just not pretend that people who accept gays are so much more enlightened since they are really just a different shade of gray from the ignorant bigots of say the KKK.

To be fair though from a practical standpoint you can say they (those accepting of gays) are tolerant of the vast majority by percent of total population if not a by a majority of sexual orientations.  Although that is basically saying it's OK to be intolerant of a people as long as the population of those people is small.

If you want to be selectively tolerant don't worry you are part of the majority.  Just be honest with yourself about your beliefs and realize you don't have a reasonable logical standing to support them.

It's actually not my intention to be offensive and I don't really hate people that are selectively tolerant since that is vast majority of the people in the world we live in.  Mostly I find this argument intellectually interesting, I've had it many times with friends.

[myrkul]

The type of thinking that led to arguments made by you and repentance is exactly why it took centuries (Millennia? more?) for acceptance of gays. 

Nope. Lots of cultures have previously accepted gays. (You could even stretch things and call the Egyptians furries.) None have ever been OK with desecrating the dead.

[repentance]

The type of thinking that led to arguments made by you and repentance is exactly why it took centuries (Millennia? more?) for acceptance of gays. 

Nope. Lots of cultures have previously accepted gays. (You could even stretch things and call the Egyptians furries.) None have ever been OK with desecrating the dead.

Not to mention that a sexual orientation and a paraphilia are not the same thing.  Perhaps you believe that because gay people were otherised in recent times that they were always persecuted throughout the whole of recorded history.  Historically, such persecution has been episodic and often correlated with times of religious power and oppression of sexuality in general.  The emergence of psychology as a field also created oppressive attitudes towards human sexuality for a very long time, with an increasing focus on "curing" what were regarded as sexual aberrations.  The "diseasing" of homosexuality (a term which was only coined in the late 19th century) helped entrench negative attitudes towards same-sex attraction.  It was no longer regarded as a chosen path but as an illness to be prevented if at all possible (and a lot of negative attitudes towards masturbation stem from the time when psychology believed that "excessive" masturbation would bring out "latent" homosexual tendencies) and to be "cured" if it couldn't be prevented.

We cannot now imagine a return to times when sexuality is oppressed - and yet throughout history that has happened time and time again.

[Rassah]

You people are weird  

Also, extreme homophobes often explain why gays are disgusting by describing the sexual acts they believe gays are into; things like drinking piss, smearing and eating shit, and other EXTREMELY nasty crap that normal gays can't even come up with, let alone find appealing. They find all those sex acts just as nasty. SA's reaction to furry fandom really reminds me of that: no, vast majority of furries do NOT want to have sex with animals (they are dirty and disgusting), and don't masturbate to Disney characters or coffee tables. It's really no different at all from anime fans liking pictures of cute, sexy anime girls/boys. Except it's cute, sexy anthropomorphic girls/boys. There's really nothing more to it, just as there's nothing more to being gay than just liking a certain sex, or to being human than just liking a certain body type (skinny/ full/ blonde/ redhead, etc.)
But some people really need to give themselves reasons for feeling justified about why they find something weird or wish to hate something/someone, so they come up with all these nasty fantasies to make themselves feel better. They're still assholes for doing it, though. And the SA bunch seems especially justified at coming up with these fantasies, and being assholes about them. No, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of bitcoiners didn't get involved with any scams. No, they are not computer illiterate idiots who don't understand hardware and could burn their house down from mining. No, they are not financially illiterate to the point where they don't understand that mining loses them money (my rig makes $90/month, and costs $45/month in electricity). And a lot us here also have degrees and MBAs in finance, economics, and whatever. Just because SA people's Keynesian ideals don't agree with the Austrian ideals of this group doesn't mean that one group is haha-wrong. Both are *methods* which work based on historically proven rules. The argument is mostly on what the outcome will be. SA isn't any more correct than Bitcoiners in their guesses about the outcome, but at least bitcoiners are willing to debate, discuss, and learn, while SA is too much of a circle-jerk.

[Fiyasko]

I Furone, Understand. Everybody instatly goes "BEASTIALITY LOVING ANIMAL FUCKING PEDOFILES!!" When they see a Furry, Thus, I have a Pony icon.

Love and tolerate, They will hate and dissasociate.
It's simple really, Any True Brony is just not going to give up an "argument" Because for them its a debate, Were not angry, Or annoyed that you hate us for liking things like MLP, Or anthro animals.
Were just simply going to debate why we like it, and why you dont.
We'll be happy, Changing your mind, While you toil in your own soil, Trying to say Anything to make us angry.

Why? Are you jealous?
Do you not want to "hop on the boat" or "join the herd" Simply because others got there first? Others that you may or maynot dislike?
Really people, Spouting anger at about pretty much anything that wont impact your life, is just plain Stupid.

Heckle a Furry? Get a hug. Hit the furry? He shakes it off, Do it again and they will dogpile you to the ground and have you arrested for assualt.
Heckle a Brony? Get a rebuttle, Hit the brony? he's going to leave and never see you again. Police call in ten seconds flat.
Cant hit them because they are across the internet? Block them you idiot. "Theres too many" Then ignore them! "Dude i told you theres too many"

Well shucks buddy, Your SOL and your just going to have to chalk it up that theres another thing on the planet that you dont like.
Like eating babies Or harvesting organs. Im sorry was that a Horrible comparison? How about this one.

Like seeing two dogs fucking in the park, Or like seeing a horse give birth.
Its a freaking part of life.

[Mushroomized]

You people are weird  

Also, extreme homophobes often explain why gays are disgusting by describing the sexual acts they believe gays are into; things like drinking piss, smearing and eating shit, and other EXTREMELY nasty crap that normal gays can't even come up with, let alone find appealing. They find all those sex acts just as nasty. SA's reaction to furry fandom really reminds me of that: no, vast majority of furries do NOT want to have sex with animals (they are dirty and disgusting), and don't masturbate to Disney characters or coffee tables. It's really no different at all from anime fans liking pictures of cute, sexy anime girls/boys. Except it's cute, sexy anthropomorphic girls/boys. There's really nothing more to it, just as there's nothing more to being gay than just liking a certain sex, or to being human than just liking a certain body type (skinny/ full/ blonde/ redhead, etc.)
But some people really need to give themselves reasons for feeling justified about why they find something weird or wish to hate something/someone, so they come up with all these nasty fantasies to make themselves feel better. They're still assholes for doing it, though. And the SA bunch seems especially justified at coming up with these fantasies, and being assholes about them. No, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of bitcoiners didn't get involved with any scams. No, they are not computer illiterate idiots who don't understand hardware and could burn their house down from mining. No, they are not financially illiterate to the point where they don't understand that mining loses them money (my rig makes $90/month, and costs $45/month in electricity). And a lot us here also have degrees and MBAs in finance, economics, and whatever. Just because SA people's Keynesian ideals don't agree with the Austrian ideals of this group doesn't mean that one group is haha-wrong. Both are *methods* which work based on historically proven rules. The argument is mostly on what the outcome will be. SA isn't any more correct than Bitcoiners in their guesses about the outcome, but at least bitcoiners are willing to debate, discuss, and learn, while SA is too much of a circle-jerk.

No one really cares what other people are into, its just the people who advertise their fetishes that get called out and made fun of

[myrkul]

No one really cares what other people are into, its just the people who advertise their fetishes that get called out and made fun of

Well, yeah, but if you're a gay furry hentacle freak, how else are you going to find another dude to dress up as an octopus and fuck?

Live and let live, man. As long as both (all? ) parties are willing, IDGAF what you're putting where, or how you're dressed.

[Mushroomized]

No one really cares what other people are into, its just the people who advertise their fetishes that get called out and made fun of

Well, yeah, but if you're a gay furry hentacle freak, how else are you going to find another dude to dress up as an octopus and fuck?

Live and let live, man. As long as both (all? ) parties are willing, IDGAF what you're putting where, or how you're dressed.

well that's how people should be, but not everyone is going to be accepting of stuff

[myrkul]

No one really cares what other people are into, its just the people who advertise their fetishes that get called out and made fun of

Well, yeah, but if you're a gay furry hentacle freak, how else are you going to find another dude to dress up as an octopus and fuck?

Live and let live, man. As long as both (all? ) parties are willing, IDGAF what you're putting where, or how you're dressed.

well that's how people should be, but not everyone is going to be accepting of stuff

Yes, there's a word for those people who are not: "asshole."

[enmaku]

I actually get a fair amount of traffic from SA. I get the feeling they're the reason I had to replace my comment system with something that can better handle floods of bullshit.

[Rassah]

No one really cares what other people are into, its just the people who advertise their fetishes that get called out and made fun of

Well, that's kind of the problem. Furry fandom isn't a fetish, just an interest in a certain art style, which also includes a sexual subset (just as there is a sexual subset in anime fandom, and even star trek fandom, from what I've heard), and furry fans tend to stick to their close-knit groups, having their own conventions and meeting, and welcoming anyone else who wishes to join, but otherwise never proselytizing and sticking to their group. Yet some other people really go out of their way to look for "advertisements" and imagine what kind of horrible fetishes someone may be into whenever they see a furry avatar or icon. You know, kinda like some people imagine nasty sex acts whenever they see two guys holding hands.