Naw man, it's totally the video games' fault.

Ha, video game violence never helped but certainly wouldn't be the scape goat for our violent culture lol is just a consequence of violent culture. If most fetishes stem from childhood how did guro sneak in there lol

Because God clearly said that if anything under the label of "Videogames" would ever be invented, it would become the designated source of all the violence that would occur from that point onward.

Oh and uh, something about fags too, can't remember entirely.

I honestly believe he's bein' facetious.

Dude, with all these animal people? The humanoids have animal dicks... soon, the furries will seek out the real ones!

I don't think the attraction to furries is supported by the fact they are animals. For me it is that they are non human humanoids. I'm not gonna cave and look for some otter pussy cause that's not what I'm after. Combing sex with violence is a much more easily obtained than a sexual concept not even expressible in reality.

I was being facetious, I don't think you can use fantasies, sexual or otherwise, to really gauge or predict human behavior. There are games based around killing in terrible ways, or crashing cars so that the driver is flung into blowing pins! The SAW series has produced how many movies now? And I'm pretty sure none of the producers or writers are serial killers. You can't attribute gore artwork, even sexualized, with real violent tendencies. Rape fantasies are common, but typically those who enjoy it enjoy it in a -fantasy- medium, and have no real desire to rape or be raped.

I remember reading a book written by one of the world's foremost athorities on serial killers, a guy from my province and his findings show that many serial killers habits start off sexual and the more they feed into them the more they disconnect from reality. I don't doubt this, pretty simple idea in psychology. So this leaves me wondering if the guy with dead and dieing filing up their gallery on a daily basis is a ticking time bomb

Most school shooters favor dark clothing, listen to angry music like metal or punk, are unpopular, and often have a history of being bullied. That being said? A -lot- of high school age kids fit into this category, share some or all of these traits, and the vast, vast majority do not end up killers. Many serial killers may start off a certain way, but that doesn't mean you can apply a global label on those participants. It's the logical fallacy of correlation and causation i.e. if most cops grow mustaches, then growing a mustache means you're a cop.

I don't think expressing a sexual interest in death and murder is a consistently generalized behavior that can be used in the same context as dark clothing. Dressing dark, anti social behavior, anything that is fringe in that it is rebelious to the status quo has its attraction because it is anti social, and those who get involved with it have their own reasons for disliking society, though the same emotions and feelings that drive people away from each other also make it easier to have greater disregard for others. That's an entirely different debate all together. Ultimately I don't think living a life sexualizing something that is at its core violent is healthy.

So S/M play is unhealthy? Are sadists and masochists unhealthy people for what they enjoy sexually? Pain comes as a result of violence, and one could argue their sex lives are based around it.

Violence and s&m are different violence is malicious, I'm sure s/m peeps would agree its less about malice and more about other things. Violence and pain can be mutually exclusive anyway. Were discussing sexualizing and admiring a deep attraction to violent death. I could say autoerotica is unhealthy, would you?

I assume you're talking abut auto-erotic asphyxiation? That's a habit that can be safely practiced, if you're smart about it and have a safety partner. Otherwise, it slides into a risky behavior, and that's an entirely separate argument that includes everything from drinking and smoking to driving over the speed limit and jay walking.

As far as producing gorey artwork, or sexually gorey art, it's still an expressive piece, not a behavior. I've written pieces on death, on suicide, and even rape and cub work. Yet those are things that have no real attraction to me in my real life. Those pieces I wrote were on foreign ideas and concepts, a way to explore parts of our world. It's indulging in a curiosity or an idea, and not having to actually perform the act or have any interest in such. Artistic expression is just that, expression of an idea or concept in an art form.

I don't support asphyxiation.I mean in the same way I would'not support doing anything highly likely to be dangerous in its nature in a sexual context. I can see how there is sexual addiction to that behavior to. And what ever you draw for what ever reasons isn't explicitly enjoyed for the same reasons by others.

Ever fapped to feral art? I have, and have been in situations where zoophilia was a fully acceptable option. I did not, and have not, ever committed a zoophilic act, and probably never will. Just because you enjoy a piece of art doesn't mean you'll necessarily act on it in person. Some people do, some people don't. With an act as extreme as gore or snuff, I suspect that the vast majority of people who enjoy gore artwork aren't sexually violent or likely to be a serial murderer.

I think we're at an impasse, our opinions just conflict too much on the concept at work here. That said, it's been a fun debate to have, and I respect your opinion, even if I feel it's off base.

I'm strictly speaking of the act of asphyxiation in this case, and outside of curiosity I doubt a person who hasn't done it is full on into the art, the interest does come from the initial idea or experience of asphyxiation. But the act it's self is mechanically not supposed to be experienced and used in that way and can be harmful not just biologically but psychologically.

I know, your right about do'ers vs likers but at the same time we could say we have an issue of violence in our culture, doesn't mean everyone is violent but the innate qualities of our behavior support the mentality and acceptance of violence.

I don't feel off base, maybe it's a matter of communication. Either way, same to you.

Yeaaaaaaah I don't know. I thought about that a while ago but... Though, it does make me wonder what people would do if they could actually get away with it. But I don't know about us becoming too lax or anything. Sure this is all a form of expression and some of those things expressed can be...alarming, but at the same time I don't really think most of these folks would do anything or would really even want to if they could. I think some of them enjoy it because it's so taboo and unnerving. It's interesting though, that we'll find one thing happening, run them out of the community as a whole essentially, and then go back to all the other really freaky, creepy, and terrifying fetishes you can find elsewhere around the site. I mean we ran out or at least ostracize most of the zoophiles and got nearly every cub artist, at least the ones who drew anything "adult" oriented, to fly the coop for reasons ranging from it's disgusting and you're a freak, to just saying those artists are making the rest of the community look bad. Then they go back and draw their sexy rape pics as if really rough sex = rape and that makes rape hot.

I find a lot of people try to justify fetish s in that they have them therefore it is justified. But what if you could eliminate the factors that lead to those interests, there would be nothing to worry about. So that bergs the question what questionable factors leaf people to be interested in anti social thoughts and how does this effect over all decision making

You're connecting your dots in the wrong direction here, me thinks. Inability to draw a clear line between fantasy and reality may influence what kinks someone has; but it doesn't the other way around.
I guess what I mean to say is you have to be crazy first; then, you might be criminally-influenced by works of art/fiction/fantasy/etc. Not before.

Would it be wrong to assume some of these behaviours could be a warning sign? And for those who take it to far, does it not influence and edge them on?

I'd say it'd be a misinformed assumption, but a completely common and understandable one.

Our ids can be all over the place (fetishes, etc) but those types of things are completely independent of our moral values, our empathy, and our grip on reality. Behavior is a warning sign, indeed, but simply drawing certain things because you like them or are intrigued by them is not an indicator in itself. We can't help the things we like, and everyone has their more... demoralized, I guess you could say... inner thoughts. When people fail to realize that their fantasies should probably stay fantasies and start flaunting their crazy shit because they don't see a problem with the content, THEN you can start making assumptions.

For example, I'm wise enough to know that furry porn is simply weird. It's not a thing you bring up immediately, or even relatively soon in conversation unless necessary (like if it's your job, lol). And it's merely a passing remark if the conversation turns in that direction amongst the open-minded. Loving violent art is the same thing. A love of violence is odd, and requires further explanation to clarify that you are in fact a sane person BECAUSE the assumption of psychopathy is so common. But to NOT know social boundaries like this - to disregard cultural norms altogether and flaunt your love of deviant sex or violence - is an indicator of greater problems. But any odd preferences for violence or sexual deviance in itself is just an uncontrollable part of basic human nature.

I don't think that the products influence. I think those who are influenced seek the product.

I think you've made some hasty assumptions.

If by behaviors you mean drawing porn then yes, it would be wrong to assume that; you'll need a little more to go on (and I think psychiatrists would agree) before you can form a sound conclusion. Unstable-sounding rants, aggressive behavior, depression, destructive behavior, something other than "they draw guro/rape/whatever" leading directly to "they might shoot up a school". And I have to say, that's a real odd conclusion to reach to begin with. They're much, much more likely to harm themselves.

As for edging them on, I don't understand that either. Edging on implies some kind of deliberate intent to influence the behavior of another. A stable person isn't edged on to make violence when they see violence or even depict violence. And stable (or harmless at the very least) people are perfectly cable of depicting extremely violent imagery.

If drawing guro is all you have to go on for a person (and admittedly I don't know if it is) I'd say try employing the principal of charity instead of defaulting to negative assumptions. If anything, it's just rude. To answer your first question a bit short, it is generally wrong to assume. Oscar Wilde had a good one on that.

Not drawing but the interest in itself, I don't think a psychologist would say sexual attraction to violent death is healthy, or otherwise something that is going to breed a positive mindset. And by edge I mean the acceptance of the at work online and how inclusive other people can be and the constant use of violent imagery for sexual gratification would have an effect on the mind. Reinforcing the interest.

I never said they would. Perfect mental health isn't what we're talking about here (lol, how could we? look where we are xD). Up there you went from just drawing guro directly to shooting up a school. Sorry, but that requires a hell of a leap--no psychiatrist would make it.

I know what you meant by edge on; positive reinforcement of their neurosis. When I say I don't understand, I mean the implication you draw literally doesn't make sense to me. If a person is influenced by violent/sexual imagery and/or a community of artists who make it, etc. it has little if at all to do with the fact that people make violent/sexual imagery, and everything to do with the mental instability of said person.

On the other hand you're talking about things becoming "too lax" in the community, as if the community is to blame. As if it were possible to prevent someone from seeking out that which they wish to seek out on the internet, and prevent those people from talking to each other and thereby forming a community; say some of them draw--you can see where I'm going. If every furry everywhere stopped drawing guro, it would change nothing. These things happening in the real world are much, much more scarce than guro artists on the internet; not what we'd expect, were there a solid correlation. This is a societal problem; you aren't going to find it's causes at the community level.


I find it really odd that in all this talk of the "culture of violence" (most of which is perfectly valid criticism, mind you!) in imagery and whatnot is that there is always this knee-jerk reaction against the things people assume (usually without a second thought) cause violent behavior in unbalanced individuals instead of, say, actively helping such unbalanced individuals. If anything has gotten to lax it's the accessibility of proper mental health care. A society-level cause to a societal problem.

OMG loooooong ranty >.>
sorry o.o

And I'd to early in morning to make elaborate response *pass out*