FA+
Shop
There's No Such Thing as Clean Fetish Art
16 years ago
You heard me. Clean fetish art is an oxymoron. A contraction in terms. Or, if you're feeling generous, a paradox.
Sure, technically, it can be "clean" in the sense that there's no nudity or genitalia involved. But it is still fetish art. And fetishes, shocking as this may seem to you, are inherently a sexual thing. That is why they are called fetishes. If you are drawing art that depicts something that arouses you, the artist, even if it doesn't arouse others or it isn't drawn in what is normally considered a sexual interaction (PENIS IN VAGINA and what have you), the intention is still there. And that intention is what makes it fetish art, which makes it sexual by default.
You cannot go around with an entire gallery of babyfurs wetting their pants or in various states of undress with a diaper on and tell me with a straight face that it's only "cute," that it's not sexual at all. You are a liar, sir, and though I admit I am squicked out by babyfurs I will hold the one who admits that it is, in fact, a fetish and that it is weird over the guy who tells me that it's completely and totally innocent, you guys, and that it's pure and innocent and nothing is wrong with it. I haven't noticed this problem as much among other fetish groups, but there is no doubt in my mind that it exists.
You guys. I have fetishes too, you know. I mean, technically, I've uploaded drawings of dudes in dresses and had them labeled under 'general," because of a lack of nudity, but I would not call it "clean," because although they may be partially done for laughs, I will freely admit I like dudes in dresses. I get off on it. I will not defend it as "clean." I will not go around showing these drawings to my parents and relatives with pride. I will probably show some of them to my friends because they are all weirdos anyway. I embrace it. You should too. But don't get too carried away. Moderation is a good thing.
So, man up, put on your big-boy pants and come to terms with your own sexuality, you weirdos.
Sure, technically, it can be "clean" in the sense that there's no nudity or genitalia involved. But it is still fetish art. And fetishes, shocking as this may seem to you, are inherently a sexual thing. That is why they are called fetishes. If you are drawing art that depicts something that arouses you, the artist, even if it doesn't arouse others or it isn't drawn in what is normally considered a sexual interaction (PENIS IN VAGINA and what have you), the intention is still there. And that intention is what makes it fetish art, which makes it sexual by default.
You cannot go around with an entire gallery of babyfurs wetting their pants or in various states of undress with a diaper on and tell me with a straight face that it's only "cute," that it's not sexual at all. You are a liar, sir, and though I admit I am squicked out by babyfurs I will hold the one who admits that it is, in fact, a fetish and that it is weird over the guy who tells me that it's completely and totally innocent, you guys, and that it's pure and innocent and nothing is wrong with it. I haven't noticed this problem as much among other fetish groups, but there is no doubt in my mind that it exists.
You guys. I have fetishes too, you know. I mean, technically, I've uploaded drawings of dudes in dresses and had them labeled under 'general," because of a lack of nudity, but I would not call it "clean," because although they may be partially done for laughs, I will freely admit I like dudes in dresses. I get off on it. I will not defend it as "clean." I will not go around showing these drawings to my parents and relatives with pride. I will probably show some of them to my friends because they are all weirdos anyway. I embrace it. You should too. But don't get too carried away. Moderation is a good thing.
So, man up, put on your big-boy pants and come to terms with your own sexuality, you weirdos.
We talking like, the latex and gasmask photographs, right? Personally, DA is so schizophrenic about what they seem to consider what is porn and what is art I have given up on caring and they can go suck a bucket of dicks.
Well it's just a lot of the photography where there are naked women posed in a provocative way, with some fetish or another being portrayed in the picture. dA says that's a-ok, but if you draw the same photo? Oh no.
I just can't seem to grasp where it's "sophisticated, adult art". As if every single person looking at that photo has a monocle and top hat and is simply going to look at it as a "masterful piece of photography". :I wat
And where the heck is the line drawn?
If it doesn't exist, it should.
That's now my new fetish, by the way.
I guarantee you it does exist.
SWEET.
First, a bad picture of a comic with a character wearing a monocle and top hat: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bdVR-JIDi...../Photo+125.jpg
Next, a picture of the pussycat dolls with top hats and canes (somehow, they lost their monocles): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jXMIsK3dV.....photoshoot.jpg
Finally, I descended to the depths of hell itself, and found this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iUis36Ojs.....agina-Bike.jpg [NSFW, children, parents and most of the world's population. I'm looking at you, Heavy!]
But I like your spunk.
... I bet Agouti would like it.
I bet he'd like it anyway.
As a matter of fact, clean artistic fetish photos are a gentleman's sport.
So they think it's normal.
That would probably explain a lot, too.
innocently
it's not a fetish I swear
OMG LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE DICK FETISHES PERSECUTE US.
AND WE R MAD
ACCEPT US.
Also, volume. If your entire gallery is drawings of fat people, either you can't draw anything else or it's a fetish of yours.
WOOOOHOOOOOOO~~~
Seriously though, this journal is nothing but truth!
YOU'VE FIGURED ME OUT.
I'm going to have to kill you now.
Still waiting for that obituary.
I wish to see it.
Which is, of course, why only having to label things mature for nudity (or maybe gore) doesn't make the system work goddammit.
So. Goddamned. Much.
After I questioned it, and the original artist chimed in on my side, they still decided to fight anyway
The clean artist account is a fucking joke and while it's a nice notion it needs to be removed from the site. It's not working, and in my opinion the only reason it was founded was so that the creator would get some publicity out of it.
That and the redundant ILoveYiff club that they're partnered with only makes me rage harder. YOU LOVE YIFF? ON A FURRY WEBSITE THAT ALLOWS PORN? NOOOOOO...
And people don't have to draw 100% clean art anyway, it's their choice
There doesn't need to be a club founded on things that people didn't do
>>Halos for non idlers in TF2
mmm, applicability
Because, you know.
Furries.
I'm so fucking confused.
But being the sick twisted fuck that I am, I can say I've found numerous "clean" pics to be hot. I have no defense because I like to think I'm an honest bastard; I'm not gonna defend it as "clean." If it's hot, it's hot.
I find myself feeling this way about pictures in dudes wearing pink, frilly aprons, regardless of the artist's intention. I find it hot. But artist's intention is really what decides whether it's "clean."
I'm kind of a pervert and I like to project.
FOR SATIRE.
They make me rage, and I don't even know why half the time. The thought of having either a cleanartist club or an i-love-yiff club just...
God, it's so pointless.
If you love yiff, then look at yiff. And if you don't, set your shit so that you can't see it.
Also, neither of the clubs know how to design characters for crap.
Not to mention with all the fetishes out there now-a-days, I'm sure someone out there can fap to -anything-.
Clean or not.
D'ahahaha. I didn't notice, but now I am going to CAREFULLY EXAMINE THEIR POLICIES AND CHARACTER DESIGNS. *gets out magnifying glass*
GENERIC ANTHRO WOLF/FOX/ANGEL/DEMON WITH RAINBOW FUR AND FIVE WINGS DOES NOT GOD CHARACTER DESIGN MAKE.
And then I grew out of it.
So I'm sure they can. For some reason a lot of furries think, somehow, sparkle-animals make their art look better.
*whisper*itdoesn't*whisper*
D'ahahahahaa. It's either they fuss them up or they just do like..a plain, black wolf with yellow eyes who looks like every other wolf.
Find a balance, people.
No lie.
I just came across a picture of like..a character comparison which had the OC as an 18 year old, and then as a 24 year old.
And..
THE 24 YEAR OLD HAD MORE PIERCINGS AND DYED HAIR THAN THE TEEN.
WHAT THE FUUUU-
would it be considered fetish art?
D:
Volume has a lot to do with it. And intention. The reason i got pissed off at fatfurs and babyfurs faving shit of mine that's intended to be satire is because it's intended to be satire and not made for fapping. But then again... projecting...
Thanks, this made me think.
I draw humans, though, with plenty of sexual intent. So it evens out.
DAMN SKIPPY ; o
Let's get married.
BUT MY PENIS IS LONGER.
O MURR
UR A GUD LOVUR
NOW UR PRAGNANT AND WE WILL RAISE FAMILY AND I WILL GET STEADY JOB AN SEND OUR KIDZ TO KOLLIDGE.
CUZ I GET OFF ON DAT.
GET OFF 2 NORMUL STUFFS LIEK PEEIN IN DIPERS
D:
Also, who doesn't like men in dresses? Honestly. D<
Ah, me. The innocence of four decades or so ago.
But, just for the record, I prefer the cooter, and am not particularly interested in teh cock (indeed, most of my favorite pr0ns involve girl-on-girl).
I don't care what the onlookers will think of my faves. IT'S GETTING FAVED ON PRINCIPLE, DAMMIT.
Godspeed, you crazy furfag.
Since there is always someone out there somewhere that will get off to it, no matter how mundane.
it's the artist's intention that makes it fetish art. The viewer projecting on a picture doesn't make it fetish art. READ MORE CAREFULLY.
Because, like I've said before: There's a difference between plain vore and outright phagophilia.
I get offended by the assumption that my cartoons are porno for vorephags. <---(9v9) I totally spelled it that way first...maybe.
You have a cockvore picture in your gallery.
How is that not a fetish?
I don't draw to fap. I draw just to draw.
You can can obviously tell the difference between a sexual fetish and a non sexual one. And yes there is such a thing.
People only say fetishes are sexual because that's the common conception of it.
Of course, we can go Sigmund Frued here and say all concepts of thought are sexual. Like say, the shape of an indy race car or a gun and the shape the bullet.
Wait, uh what?
And yes there is such a thing. People only say fetishes are sexual because that's the common conception of it.
Um, no. fetish implies sexual overtones. Or undertones. Hence why the word fetish is chosen. If there's no sexual anything involved, it's just an obsession. WORDS HAVE SPECIFIC MEANINGS AND IF YOU MEAN AN OBSESSION WIT NO SEXUAL ATTACHMENTS, USE THE FUCKING WORD "OBSESSION." SERIOUSLY.
Of course, we can go Sigmund Frued here and say all concepts of thought are sexual. Like say, the shape of an indy race car or a gun and the shape the bullet.
Unless you're jerking off to guns or racecars, they're not your fetish. Stop clouding the issue.
A fetish can be sexual. Or not. It depends on how strong it is. In fact, fetish can be used as a synonym for obsession.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetish
Do some more research why doncha?
It is a fetish because you find it sexually attractive.
Sexual
you
YOOOUUUU...
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. "FETISH" IMPLIES SEXUAL OBSESSION. IF YOU USE IT AS A SYNONYM FOR "OBSESSION," IT IMPLIES SEXUAL OVERTONES. THIS IS COMING FROM SOMEBODY WHO READS FUCKING BOOKS AND WRITES AND KNOWS HOW TO USE FUCKING WORDS WITHOUT SOUNDING LIKE A DUMBASS.
STOP REPEATING YOUR POINTS AND PAY ATTENTION, DAMMIT.
Just because you read books and write does mean that you're one hundred percent correct. Your acting like the mad scientist in Robot Chicken. The one who thought he had the power to change anything by saying what he wanted.
How did you... I don't even...
WHAT?
YOU'RE comparing an argument to a cartoon.
Good job
GOOD JOB
DUDE.
I rebuked your argument TWICE and you declare victory by making the same argument I already rebuked a THIRD TIME, and you say that you won.
THAT'S NOT HOW DEBATING WORKS. YOU DO NOT DECLARE VICTORY AFTER BEING DEFEATED ON ALL FRONTS. AND THEN MAKE A BIZARRE METAPHOR.
I feel like trying to debate with you further would be akin to trying to hold an argument with a broken record. I have no interest in doing it. Good day, sir.
Did you read definitions 1b and 1c?
A fetish can be sexual or non. In a simple explanation, 1b reads that a fetish is a strange and or obssesive attraction and 1c reads that a fetish is a stange and or obsessive attraction that turns a person on.
Of course, because you know how to read and write gives you the ability to count out information because you think you already know it.
Your argument is invalid.
Now go to your room, no desert for you tonight.
I gave him a link to the definition of fetish and he obviously couldn't take being wrong.
Arguing with him was like arguing with a def and blind man with a speech impediment. He wouldn't wouldn't listen or maybe didn't look at the info I gave him and kept babbeling on about what he thought he knew.
I hate people who act like that. It's in bad taste to let them get what they want.
HE
lol
I've got issues with this subject if you couldn't tell. Somebody destroyed a lot of my work because of this very misconception.
why are you drawing porn then brah
Cartoon are to rediculous as Seaweed_Princess is to thinking he or she knows the exact definition fetish.
Dag nabbit. I'm late for the cake.
Unless you're a cake rights activist.
Oh wait, I already used that joke with vegetables fuck.
GET OFF THE STAGE, YOU HACK.
I also want a girl with a short skirt and a long jacket.
I understand where you're coming from, and I think I can safely say that I would agree with it for any fetish other than babyfur, since that contains some exceptions (and as with all things varies on a case by case basis).
Forgive me for being an apologist.
As a babyfur, there is a switch in my head. It goes from "That's sooo cute!" to "That's sooo hawt!" when I look at babyfur and diaperfur art depending on the content of the art and my mood. This is made slightly more complicated for me, as many things I find cute I also find hawt. Many other babyfurs have this switch (or something similar) where that when they look at art they either feel they can fap to it or they feel like it is a cute looking picture.
Kind of similar to the difference between hentai art and moe art, if you know what I mean.
I'm not saying that it isn't a fetish, because most babyfurs don't JUST regress and (try to) act cute. Most of them incorporate some or a lot of it into their sexual nature. But it IS a fetish where people don't always draw fap material, they can draw cute material instead.
So... Please don't assume that every single piece of babyfur art is specifically made as porn. I'm not saying there aren't people who don't get off to it anyways, but the artists intention isn't always porn.
Sorry for the long post. And I rambled a bit. Sorry about that.
if I go and draw babyfur and put it in my gallery and make it cute it is not fetishistic because I do not have any babyfur pics in my gallery, also I am not into babyfurs. regardless of the viewer
I also really, really want to state that I am not particularly inclined to educate myself about babyfurs. It is not a fetish that I am comfortable with at all, for lots of different reasons. I really don't think you're as "different" from other fetishists as you make yourself out to be.
What I was saying though is that the difference is that while it IS fetish art, it isn't always intended to be fap art. At least what I can gather by both talking to artists and by reading their comments seems to indicate that often times the "strictly cute" pieces are often intended to be just cute.
But, the fetish being the way it is, that won't stop people fapping to the "strictly cute" art if they really want to.
And... I'm honestly and sincerely sorry if I or my fetish offends you. It's something that fills me with shame sometimes and I'll admit... It has lost me some friends. But... I try my best not to let it interfere with my regular life.
I'm sorry for making you uncomfortable. I didn't mean it.
Also, I notice that most of the time you comment is when I write something pertaining to baby furs.
But... To a lot of us it's got more of an emotional side to it. There are a ton of babyfurs who are so because they had some damn rough pasts or presents, and whether its right or wrong, they use regression (which is more often than not non-sex related) as a way to deal with or escape from the stress. I'm not one of those who has had a past such as that, but for me it is a coping mechanism for when the stress of a busy life catches up to me.
So it's not as simple as just "This is fetish art, therefore it is fap art". It depends on the artists intentions, the person viewing the art, and their mood.
As for commenting...
To be blunt, I see enough birthday/sorry I'm busy/guess who just got b&/here's a youtube video FA journals as it is. And I don't comment on most of those from any artist. And would it even be noticed since they all have 100+ comments?
Basically, when you say something about babyfurs it's something I feel (marginally) qualified to talk about. And apparently you talk about them a lot for you to notice.
Personally my own fetishes don't have that much of a deep, personal connection to them, or at least on in the way you describe. The cross-dressing men thing is the closest since it's the oldest, but it's something that's... not even much of an obsession. It's more like something that if it appears in something hot it just drives me wild and sens me over the edge, and can also be cute and funny and also hot. I would not go out of my way to identify myself as a cross-dressing fetishist. I guess I don't get why people tend to latch onto fetishes and turn them into an identity.
Meh, I'm tired.
Tired too. Fuck college homework.
There are a lot of people out there with odd fetishes. (According to Rule 36 of the internet, if it exists, it's someone's fetish.) Therefore, this logic dictates that anything that people can get aroused by is considered "porn", and basically, this makes everything that arouses anybody fetish porn.
WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT? WHAT PART OF "ARTIST INTENTION" DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
STOP MAKING YOURSELF LOOK STUPID AND READ.
No one will persecute us.
LET'S DO IT ANYWAY
ALso: Is it me, or have the cub-lovers been fapping to the recent FA banner. COULD IT BE THAT FA NOW HAS A BANNER THAT ISN"T OFFENSIVE?
Viewer projection and artist intention are two very different things.
Also, LAWL at the fapping to still life of fruit there. Because I KNOW someone who does. ANd luckily for them, they don't use a computer D:
But just because you're fapping to a still-life of a fruit bowl doesn't make that still life sexual by nature.
I for one cant fap to comedy based fetish stuff.
DERP.
and that's saying a lot.
BUT THE SHITTING DICKNIPPLES ARE COVERED UP WITH DIAPERS, SO YOU CAN'T SEE THE SHITTING. DOESN'T THAT MAKE IT CLEAN?
OK, i'm a total furfag, and i like feet more than the average person, but furry feet/paws don't attract me at all
However, fucking agreed.
In all seriousness though, I agree with this journal, though I haven't actually noticed any of that behavior because I avoid the people who are into babyfurs and the other hardcore furry subfetishes like they're the frigging plague.
Especially if their art makes me laugh.
if you fap to -only- that, then it's a fetish.
trufax.
[ps I have a monogamous sex fetish do'hohoho]
those bowls of fruit are just asking for it oh so naughty
JUST HOW GOD INTENDED.
NATURE IS GREAT.
There's little more revolting than obvious fetish artwork trying to pass itself off as "innocent fun."
Even when it's a fetish that I like, that's kind of weird and unnerving.
WHY DO PEOPLE DO THAT?
FOR SHAME. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!
Unless, well, that's why they call him Droopy.
But again we are brought back to 'artist's intention', not someone else's projection on the art itself. . .
But I see some bulging in that first one. :B
Also the last guy to comment on this journal (MifftheFox) had this relative logic down, I don't think I could put it better.
No secret that I think herms are hot. My gallery and faves are full of 'em. Most of my characters are herms.
Usually, my intent is to evolve or have fun with a character rather than to fart out some quick wank material. My main character has been designed with such a depth of personality that unless you know about her gender, in most pictures she can be assumed to be female because that is how she projects herself.
If a balloon fetishist draws a child holding a balloon at a fair, then it's simply incorporating something they enjoy as a facet of a theme. But if the fetishist draws that same character holding a balloon to their genitals, or blowing up a balloon with the very same expression (and blush!) that would display some kind of sexual undertone, then you've got trouble.
Using this same logic, you can have a herm character and use it as a depth of character. But when you put the gender itself as a focus in any given piece, then it becomes a fetish picture -- "clean" or not. (see: Minnie crotch bulge)
You can have a gallery full of something, and work towards a theme. When that theme becomes stagnant or repetitive, it is a fetish.
/can't make this a better comment seeing as everything has been said.
I SHALL FILL FA WITH ALL SORTS OF CLEAN FETISH- ah. Never mind. I'll just go back to drawing people standing, staring into space. because I can't draw anything else.
I BELIEVE IN YOU!
Is there a way to not make a rollarcoaster drawing arousing to them?
What Kamunt said.
In regards to the actual subject of your journal, I've actually considered this paradox in the past. However, I'm not cool like you and I didn't make a journal about it because I have no internet friends. :< There's something I've noticed, though. Sometimes artists will place a piece of art (or even stories, on occasion) under certain fetish labels, just because that gets it more views. I can't count how many "Paw - Tame" pictures I've seen where it's just a coyote sitting with one leg across the other with his bare foot showing. It's not a focus of the picture, even, it's just there. It's a bit sad that artists have to do that just to get some comments, but eh. Furries, lol.
and then get all revolted if people interpert it as porn indeed
The only way you can tell whether something qualifies as "fetish porn" or not is by whether the artist was sexually aroused by it.
However, there is no 100% reliable way to tell this, other then the artist's direct admission.
A lot of us here hold sexual preference in anthros, but not all of us. However, there is no way to tell just by looking at the art, so in less vauge terms, most of this site would be classified as "fetish porn".
According to the "artist is arroused" theroy, let me provide an example:
Artist: I drew a babyfur!
You: You must have a babyfur fetish then, because you drew a fetish pic.
Artist: No I don't, I just found it challenging to draw.
You: Then you did not draw a fetish pic.
This is called the No true Scotsman fallacy, as you're objectively redefining "clean" to have a different meaning.
FA is not a person, rather actually an abstract entity. Therefore, the official standards of FA need to hold up to testable logic. "Was the artist aroused" is not a fitting descriptor for non-clean art because it is not easily testable. However, the "depicting genitalia and adult* situations" clause is allowed.
In short, I believe that this more logical definition should be used to discern between "Clean" and "Adult", and I hold confidence that the admins of FA will stand by this decision.
see me after class
This argument fails to take into account, again, the volume argument. A lone picture of a baby cartoon animal waddling around in a diaper in someone's gallery does not make the artist a babyfur. We are talking THEIR ENTIRE FUCKING GALLERY is devoted to the stuff. That's when it becomes an obsession, which in a case like this will indicate to any normal fucking human being that gee, THEY MUST HAVE A FETISH FOR THAT SORT OF THING. Their denial of this only perplexes the viewer, and it personally creeps me the fuck out.
Also, artist intention is pretty easy to tell. You seem to assume that looking at a drawing, that there is no way you can tell what the artist is trying to say. That is fucking bullshit and you should go back to your room, young man. It's how you can tell whether or not somebody is inflating a cartoon character with hot air as a gag or if it's because it's their fetish. You assume that Viewers are Morons and that there is no way we could possibly penetrate the artist's thoughts. This is pretty insulting. Artist's Intention can be inferred by a lot of different things:
-Presentation: How is the subject matter being presented? Is it shown to be genuinely funny or sweet? Or is the subject matter presented solely for what it is?
-Volume: Just how many of the drawings in this person's gallery are showing this subject? One? A handful? More than half? ALL OF THEM? Again, if an entire gallery is devoted to babyfur artwork, normal human beings are going to draw the conclusion that the artist is into that sort of thing. This isn't flawed logic, this is just how it is.
-Attitude: What appears to be the artist's attitude towards the subject? This has a lot to do with presentation. Are they going around making trades with other artists that revolve around the subject? Do they proudly proclaim their love for it? How do they write about it? What choice of words do they use?
Also, again, I'm going to reiterate, if the presentation and volume and attitude indicate that the artist does indeed have a fetish for it, then IT'S FETISH ART, STUPID. And if the artist doesn't have that fetish but it's done for an audience that does, it's still fetish art. To imply that the only art capable of arousing people must have nudity and genitalia is insulting to how sexuality works. You telling me I can't have feelings of desire towards a subject wearing clothes? Pish posh. That's bullshit. It may be technically clean, but again, the intention is still there, and you can tell.
Also, I don't like you and you support that bitch that runs Clean Artist, so you can piss off.
Most of this argument has been for fetish-specific subjects. By an extension of your reasoning, somebody who draws lots of cars or robots all the time would also have a fetish for them. That's not the case. I am actually one of those people who doesn't totally hate furries (hence why I'm on this site, hurr hurr), and is willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that if they like to draw cartoon animals, that doesn't necessarily mean that they jerk it to them. If these animal people are PRESENTED in a sexual way, and if the artist's ATTITUDE indicates they have sexual desires towards drawings, then yes, it's safe to assume that they have a fetish for it. It's the combination of attitude, volume, and presentation that determine whether or not an artist's output is fetish art. For something as broad as furry, though, it's possible that a stand-alone picture is clean. It's when we start getting into niche fetishes like inflation or babyfurs or weight gain that the lines gets crossed.
Remember, normal people are used to seeing lots of drawings of cartoon animals. Normal people are not used to seeing dozens and dozens of pictures of cartoon animal people melting into puddles.
I could put it more simply by simply asking if the artist would show these pictures to their mother, but keeping in mind how retarded furries tend to be with their fetishes, a few of them would probably state that they would show their babyfur artwork of cubs wetting their pants to their mothers with pride.
You, if I read this correctly, are.
Original journal wrote:You cannot go around with an entire gallery of babyfurs wetting their pants or in various states of undress with a diaper on and tell me with a straight face that it's only "cute," that it's not sexual at all.
By an extension of your reasoning, somebody who draws lots of cars or robots all the time would also have a fetish for them. That's not the case.
Eh?
Apparently you're stating that this argument only applies to "fetish-specific subjects", but seeing as the number of fetishes out there is so diverse, it's a safe bet to say that anything at all is at least one person's fetish.
... and is willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that if they like to draw cartoon animals, that doesn't necessarily mean that they jerk it to them.
Yet you're not willing to give people the benefit of the double if they like to draw baby cartoon animals or inflating cartoon animals, because those things fall under the "fetish" category, correct?
For something as broad as furry, though, it's possible that a stand-alone picture is clean. It's when we start getting into niche fetishes like inflation or babyfurs or weight gain that the lines gets crossed.
So your logic here is "if enough people like it, it's considered 'too broad' and therefore not a fetish", am I correct?
If these animal people are PRESENTED in a sexual way, and if the artist's ATTITUDE indicates they have sexual desires towards drawings, then yes, it's safe to assume that they have a fetish for it.
So if I drew a fat anthro, but didn't make it sexual, you'd assume that I don't have a fetish for it, therefore it's clean. But if I make a comment saying that, yes, I find fat furs sexy, it would automatically turn the picture into a fetish pic, and then make it adult?
Fuck off and die.
Submissions: 0
Comments Received: 284
Comments Given: 559
Journals: 0
Favorites: 0
your argument is invalid
Not sure why I do this to myself.
but if you need Blackula can show you your error
But then Blackula respects you so much
That Blackula is torn between justice of idea and justice of friendship
But Blackula funkadelic pic was a trick of a treat for that are discreet
And on the subject of that one guy "NO U ARE THE LOGICAL FALLACY"
I understand, that robots and cars could potentially be fetishes. In fact, there are sites out there devoted to people who get off to robots, cars, or any combination. But babyfur? Inflation? Shit like that is almost always sexual. If he's saying that someone drawing shitloads of babyfur or shitloads of let's say fatfur, isn't drawing fetish art unless he SAYS it's fetish art, then he is wrong, and awesome you are right.
Hell I draw shitloads of robots, and I don't get turned on by them! There are so many things I draw that I draw with such regularity that some may consider it a fetish. I just like drawing robots, and Victorian clothing, and bad jokes. But someone who draws what most of the Arpanet is (PORN!), then it's not some clean pic of a babyfur shitting themselves, or someone wearing uncomfortable amounts of latex. It is porn, plain and simple.
Hey, party time?
My fedish right now would probaly be any Dr. Steel related Rule-34 shit
BUT NO ONE WILL EVER FIND IT
SO THE RULE LIES
so fuck YOU
theres no fetish filter for mouth tentacles so its not a fetish
then that would be a pretty lame comment :D
I'm late to the party again.
i know what you mean but i can't explain cause i know i'll mess it up but i know what you mean
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
People need to stop rotting there brain with TV and read a book once in awhile or go outside and have fun
All I know is there's a lot of this that involves just going by gut instinct and reading into things and just knowing shit from experience and being fucking perceptive instead of taking everything completely at face value.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2776191
SEE IT IS POSSIBLE
Cripes, you're getting a lot of comments here! This whole deal must be getting you working overtime!
I don't know, man. Furries are weird. Fascinating, though.
Don't have many friends on here, but I do have a few. Most of what we talk about is sports.
This has become my main art site for me since I was banned from DeviantArt.
Honestly I'm surprised I haven't been hunted down (again) and attacked so things look a bit more promising this go round.
Also, there's a lot more freedom in what you can post, and the admins actually do a better job of moderating compared to DA. I do not have pleasant things to say about RealitySquared. I caused far less trouble on DA than I do here, and yet I got banned permanently for one infraction and then had all my work deleted for daring to come back.
No sir, I do not like DA.
Nice thing about all of these sites is there's something for everyone. I've been kinda burned by furry too many times and perhaps tend to be a lot more combative and defensive. (Still have many friends of the old school fandom, though.)
I don't SEE the fetishists at DA I do here (I know they're there, it's just the crowd I usually associate with like to keep it to themselves)
I joke about mine and it's pretty public, but most people would be surprised it's NOT boxing. It's a passion, yes, but I don't get a sexual charge from it. (Well... naturally the women athletes are of the physical sort I find sexy. Some like big tits and tight butts, I like toned athletic types)
I saw all the boxing pictures in your gallery and I didn't get a sexual vibe from them.
Also, Ed Roth, holy shit. I know him more for his art than his hot rod work, but still, wow.
My fetishes I keep to myself, though they're of the kind that doesn't show nudity, either. If people ask, I'll tell cuz it's not something I'm ashamed of. I get a lot of accusations "Boxing is your fetish" but it's just a passion, I watched a woman die in the ring... and in the conditions there are people here in FA that'd be sitting there wanting to masturbate to that sort of scene. It's disgusting. Some fetishes should best be left in private, when it's displayed not only publically but in such HIGH VOLUME it worries me, and brings back some pretty horrible memories.
Most of mine are pretty tame compared to a lot of people here. I'm pretty up front about the cross-dressing thing because it's also kind of goofy, really. That, and wandering around Philcon one year with my boyfriend while we both wore dresses and ended up fogging each other in a hotel room party... people know.
That was good times.
Some people have fetishes for actions and that tends to worry me. Rape fetishes, violence fetishes, and such.
" So, man up, put on your big-boy pants and come to terms with your own sexuality, you weirdos. "
AMEN, HOLY SHIT. this website is full of people who deal with their SEXUAL SHAME in really irksome ways.
WHAT THE HELL.
I have the same philosophy on how I bring my kink into interactions with people. I don't hide behind multiple accounts on this website. I freely talk about it with those sharing my prurient interests, but I feel no compulsion to discuss anything related to it outside of channels with an implicitly appropriate atmosphere.
I'm don't there's something wrong with it, because if I really believed that unusual or illogical weren't better adjectives, then I'd be looking for a padded couch to lie on. That said, I'm less likely to describe it as "clean" in any sense of the word. When I make contributions, I'm fapping valorously and I hope that my audience is fapping even harder.
But yeah, furry seems to be kind of a two-way street.
The furry fandom is.... .....complicated.... It's growing larger, having different themes added/mixed together, has different people with different mindsets and then there's the whole different kinds of generation/type of furries out there... It's like... Almost like a generic fruit cake... It can appeal to some people by looks with it's colors an' such, and a rare number of them eat the thing. But it has so much stuff in it, a LOT of people can't make out what's going on or just find the thing disgusting and would rather bad mouth it and not even want to look at it or smell it.
Yeah, this fandom is weird.
Yeah, the fandom is weird. But once you know where to step, it's a pretty good one. At least the humor and art is good, right?
The humor and the art is why I stick around.
Not only does it make people uncomfortable but it's also kind of rude, a little bit?
I don't... I don't know how to feel any more.