Talk:Babyfur/Page 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

This is page two, please follow the link above for other discussions about this page.

Okay...did a major edit on this to try to present a more neutral look at babyfurs. Rama 19:33, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Wow!

Rama, Skippyfox (sp), good work. This is more than I could have hoped for for such a touchy subject. Almafeta 19:03, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Keeping an NPOV

Unless there exists some evidence that backs up the section about Sibe, I believe that it should be removed to keep an NPOV. Regarding some of the other names that are mentioned, are all of those individuals cool with being mentioned by name here? I would like to head off any drama (or vandalism) before it starts. Thanks, --Dmuth 19:30, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...the Sibe thing is probably a little too much walking the line. As for the others, I don't belive there will be issues. They are people that are pretty well known in and out of the community. Rama 19:40, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Along that line, if someone comes to you with an issue about it, let us know Rama 19:43, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Two comments

One: Adding __NOTOC__ to the beginning of that article, to remove that rather large table of contents, might be a good idea. It's just, well, huge. Two: Maybe a secton on controversy, babyfur vs babyfur, to see what's happening there? Wikifur doesn't have a NPOV policy, but still, it would be good to present the good with the bad and let furs draw their own conclusions. Almafeta 22:24, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean babyfur vs nonbabyfur? There is a secion burried in there called ' Drama Between Babyfurs And Non-Babyfurs'. I might go in there...or put something else up...that covers it from my original article I wrote yesterday. Truthfully, at least from what I see publically, there's very little intra-babyfur drama. Rama 22:40, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Good one Rama. :D There's plenty of drama within the babyfur community itself, so much that we couldn't possibly cover it all. It's just that while there's so much drama, it's usually insignificant, like some flaming or a troll war in a chat room or something. I honestly don't see any point in talking about drama between babyfurs because, quite frankly, it's just the same as drama between any furs, and any human beings in any corner of the internet. If there is any significant milestone internal drama that is worth mentioning, I imagine it will wind up in the "History of the Babyfur Community" section, which hasn't yet been started. As for the "Drama Between Babyfurs And Non-Babyfurs" section, it's more of a pseudo-science and discussion there than anything, and doesn't actually give examples of attacks on babyfurs from other furs (like #safurs going after #babyfurs back before IRC AnthroChat). That could certainly use some expansion there. If you want to know why I wouldn't place this Drama sub-section in the History section instead of where it is now, it's because I would rather not give off the impression that the article is written and organized based on negative incidents. I think that would give readers the idea that the babyfur community is nothing BUT drama, which is far from the truth. skippyfox 23:04, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Opinion piece

This was originally posted in the article but has been moved to the discussion page Rama 14:31, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

In its current state, this section beyond this point is more of a discussion than statement of fact. I would like to get these thoughts across nonetheless, as I (the author) feel they are necessary as part of this article. -- skippyfox

Some furries dislike babyfurs for a variety of reasons: Some are obviously "grossed out" by the concept of diaper lovers. Some are under the assumption that babyfurs are pedophiles and should be hated. Some have had a bad experience with one babyfur and have negatively prejudged the rest of the community. Still other furries choose to ridicule babyfurs by default, simply for being different than the rest. Is it at all ironic for furries to point and shake fingers at babyfurs, after so many furries themselves have lamented and complained about the media's portrayal of them? Why should a furry who feels hated by the rest of the world choose to "pass the hate" on to the next group?

Perhaps it's because babyfurs are not the only "children" in the fandom, so to speak. Every human being retains some level of "immaturity" from his or her childhood. Whether a man is jealous of his neighbor's car or feels the need to pick on the one guy at work like everyone else does, it all stems from a mindset that has been with him since his birth.

The vast majority of children growing up and going to school experience some sort of encounter with bullies on the playground or in the hall, who will torment them mentally or physically. The victimized child will tell his mom and dad what happened, and his parents will tell him that bullies pick on other kids so they can feel bigger and better about themselves. This is true.

Is it possible that furries pick on babyfurs, "fanbois" and other identifiable groups in the fandom so that furries can feel better about themselves? Indeed, it is very possible. This is also a commonly proposed motive for trolls in any corner of the internet to do what they do best, spoiling otherwise calm online conversations and causing emotional uproars.

Essentially, babyfurs fall victim to ridicule from non-babyfurs the same way some furries feel "persecuted" by non-furries. It is not an irony, but rather a natural (albeit probably unnecessary) way of life that everyone should learn to both combat against and to live with.

Huh?

I'd have to disagree with a little bit in the main topic paragraph on the top of the entry:

"A sexual subset of this type of roleplaying is known as ageplay."

Ageplay is not a sexual subset of babyfur. I would say it's the other way around. Roleplaying a different age does not necessarily include being dressed up in diapers. It can include lots of various themes, good, evil, neutral, including other paraphernalia, or none at all, perhaps only encapsulating a certain attitude or mannerism.

Also, in section VII where you talk about "Babyfur" vs. "Pedophilia". Yes, I would have to agree that playing a child does not necessarily mean you are attracted to them. I know several furs who love to pretend to be the boy/girl/etc and like OLDER furs to be sexual with them, however, I also know some who prefer the sexual play not involve adults/pedophiles at all, (i.e.: child/child vs. adult/child.) Does this mean that a c/c RP person would be considered a pedophile, considering they're (usually) an adult typing stuff into a computer, getting sexual gratification from roleplaying a child, doing something with another roleplayed child? Or, does this fit into a completely different classification all together? I think it's important to mention this distinction, because since it is such a touchy subject for some, it could be misconstrued as hostile terminology. It's not as cut and dry as it's being shown on this article.

"However, as with the general population, a very small subset of babfurs may also be pedophiles. Such interests and activities are neither accepted by nor condoned by babyfurs or the overall furry fandom. While there have been legal incidents in the past with some furries involved with pedophilia, they have not been specifically identified as babyfurs."

I'd also have to disagree on this portion as well. On the whole, I've found that the furry fandom is much more accepting of alternative sexual preferences of all types, including pedosexuality. This portion of the article feels like a cop-out. I agree that most babyfurs probably don't have pedosexual feelings, but, for anyone who thinks general pedo tendancies aren't rather common, I'd suggest one to take a look at the number of people with "ageplay" in their wixxx on any given muck. While having this tag on one's character wixxx does not necessarily indicate they are pedophiles, it does clearly show that they are much more tolerant for any type of sexual play regarding roleplayed minors characters.

Also, there must be a very thick border marked between general feelings and tendancies, AND roleplay, versus legal issues dealing with real minors in RL. The article deals with roleplay, and shouldn't bleed into other related issues. It is not illegal to roleplay a pedophile as long as there are no minors involved... but then, if there WERE minors involved, it wouldn't be roleplay, would it? This needs to be revised.

Also, I have to say another thing about the following portion:

"In contrast, babyfurs desire to 'be' children, whereas pedophiles desire to 'do' children."

A clinical analysis of a person who is sexually attracted to pre-adolescents will show that not all subjects fit into this mainstream view that they want to "do" kids. Again, you face a very gray area in where just because there is a sexual attraction, doesn't necessarily mean you're going to A) act on it, B) even have thoughts of being sexual with them in the first place, or C) think of them as sexual beings. There is a major debate currently going on within other altnernative communities on the net where half the people are saying "I'm <enter-alternative-kink-here>!... But I don't find them sexually attractive!" while the other half are saying, "Yeah, right. What do you jack off to, then??" This goes across the board, whether it be pedos or zoos or people attracted to tailpipes on cars.

So yeah, all of this is really a matter of semantics, but very important semantics, IMO.

--Crassus 16:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

While the term 'ageplay' could mean the more innocent version, the general sexaul term, even for nonfurries, is also called 'ageplay'. That's why it's included as such.

I agree with you on the point that there should be a HUGE distinction between any sexual ageplay and pedophila. The main difference is the fact that, in the end, it's two consenting adults.

--Rama 17:35, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I strongly disagree: what is stated in muck forum and what is generally tolerated in real life space, particularly convention space, is two different things. Ageplay to pedophilia is like rape-play to actual rape, it may well allow people to safely explore kinks AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS that are not appropreate in real life, but it does not mean that even people who do enjoy such play condone or approve of pedophilia in general. The general attitude of the fandom is that pedophilia, as opposed to age play, is not a good thing, and I think this does not differ greatly from the norm. If anything, I've found the fandom to be especially careful with minors and especially aggressive with people taking advantage of minors.

Furries are generally more tolerant and aware that fantasy-sex does not equal reality, but if anything, most seem to work even harder to keep the fantasy/reality border strong, perhaps because of the aspect of the confusion of bestiality equaling furry sex.

We could put a section on Age-play, but I don't think it would be correct to say furries are more tolerant of the idea of sexually mature adults and sexually immature children being sexually involved together in anything more than a fantasy context. Even then, this is an issue that has dogged the fandom over and over for years, as fans who don't feel confortable with anyone even pretending to have sex with kids call to task muck areas and similar that allow people to do so.

-- MelSkunk 17:47, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of discussion, let's do away with the "ageplay" term for a second. That term is very ambiguous as it is merely a label placed as a bandage on a very open wound. Two adults roleplaying pedosexual situations with each other, whether it be online or in a RL scenario, is not illegal. Having sexual feelings toward minors is also not illegal. DOING something with a minor IS. Some would like to think merely having sexual thoughts for children is illegal due to their moral beliefs. People have blurred the line between "bad" and "illegal". The term "illegal" is purely a judiciary term. I am not passing judgement on the moral implications on a sexual act. I am talking about legal definition. We aren't in Nazi Germany, although sometimes I wonder.

--Crassus 18:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't make me pull out Godwin's Law, baby, cause I will! Seriously, though, I don't think anyone has even USED the term illegal while relating to the idea of age-play or fantasy sex. There's nothing illegal about it, and I don't think anyone is getting into specific moral arguments of legality or rightness.

This just saying that, in fandom, whether you are happy about the idea or not, most people are not tolerant of the concept of pedophilia, which is all that statement you are objecting to says. And that there have actually BEEN cases where furries have been accused of or involved with minors in a sexual sence (one just happened, abet invalidly, with Paul Kidd), none of which have been shown to involve babyfurs in any way. No one is saying that we should prosicute people for age-play, there have simply been cases where members of the fandom have been accused or convicted, legally, of sexual contact with a minor. It's factual, not opinion, in that particular sentance. The first sentance, while opinion, I have previously pointed out my opinion of the validity thereof. Neither is relating to fantasy roleplay in any way, simply pedophilia in it's active form. I don't think this is the article to try and garner acceptance of the term for use to refer to fantasy roleplay, as age-play is much more widely accepted, in spite of any pathological reasons for the choice of the age of the roleplay.

-- MelSkunk 18:34, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

A couple corrections:

A) I'm not complaining specifically about the individual statements made. My primary complaint is that it's even mentioned in the first place, period. It shouldn't be. It's supposed to be non-biased, not assuming or passing judgement, nor mentioning legal issues (as it's talking about fantasy/roleplay/ageplay as you mentioned).

B) I've never said that sexual contact with minors is not illegal. I'm complaining that legalities are even being mentioned in the article. Legalities should not be mentioned because of two reasons: It is dealing with fantasy/roleplay, AND in order for legalities toward pedophilia to even be mentioned, it would have to be linked toward Wikipedia:Age of Consent law, at the very least. It doesn't. Sexual contact with minors IS in fact legal in most US states to a certain degree as is also with most of the rest of the world in some fashion or another. This article should not even attempt to cover these issues, however. It's off-topic, it's biased, and it uses blurred definition.

--Crassus 19:18, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)