Talk:Babyfur/Page 3

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 three, please follow the link above for other discussions about this page.

Artist section

This is my first time using a wiki, so if I'm doing something wrong, I apologize in advance. I was wondering, could I be added to the Babyfur artist section? I do exclusively babyfur art and sculpting, and I just finished my own page here. If not, I understand, but please let me know. - Degrey

History section

I have added a basic timeline in the History section. I appreciate the several veteran babyfurs who responded to me privately with detailed history, but while I found them very interesting I also saw some of them to be too focused on a specific topic, and many of them contradicted one another (when and by whom the term 'Babyfurs' was coined, for example). So I instead pulled out the relevant information that I believe os accurate and compiled this timeline with details about various web pages, IRC channels, IRL gatherings, and the mailing list for babyfurs. My sources were Snuggems, Proxima Centauri, BitterGrey, Swift Fox and my very own brain.

The dates look kind of screwy because I was searching for a way to show them in an organized way. I believe they are much easier to read now, but if an admin wants them to be in a specific format, feel free to fix it.

I don't want the timeline to remain this small. If anybody can add more pertinant dates to it, PLEASE DO! Throw in what you can, even if you think it's inappropriate or too drama-ish or whatever. If it doesn't belong, it will be corrected later on.

Question

Just wondering if someone could add me to the bf artist section... Or maybe I'm to much of an unknown to be there? Also, I didn't think it would be smart to write myself in... :3 -Te'Targa

Don't know enough about the topic to add you, but others might. Please don't remove or rephrase words from people in talk pages unless they are personal attacks on other people. --GreenReaper^(talk) 08:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Was that just a general statement or did I do that??? -Te'Targa

[1] Perhaps you have censorware on the computer you were using that removed 'bad' words onload. Jello 18:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ah... Sorry about that... Will refrain from doing any editing with that computer in the future... - Te'Targa

NPOV Alledged

Since NPOV is a case by case basis, and Crassus believes that article VII is not NPOV.. I'm going to mark the article NPOV. If an admin sees this and decides that the article should not be marked, please remove it. Thanks. Redcard 12:23, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Again, I ask that the admin please look over the tone and neutrality of the babyfur vs pedophilia section. Redcard 18:13, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Babyfur and Pedophilia

Is this section really necessary? Stating that we are against something that is patently illegal should be a no brainer. Redcard 18:19, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

So you think that anything patently illegal should be automatically considered wrong? Technically, erotic furry art is illegal in Canada. It's considered zoophilic in nature. Yet, I seem to know many furries in Canada that still collect the stuff, and even draw it. --Crassus 16:23, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to include, because I know a lot of Babyfurs who are tired of the bad rep they've gotten from close-minded people who can't get their understanding of terminologies correct. Most babyfurs that I know are very open-minded and understanding of others. They're just tired of all the crap they've received from hateful, ignorant people. It really reflects on the state of the fandom as a whole. I think most furs can agree that we're all tired of getting a bad rep in mainstream society. Subsections within the fandom are also tired of suffering the same intolerant treatment from other furs. My only beef is that I think the article needs to be clear up a couple legal definition issues.

--Crassus 18:23, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

And I disagree. I don't believe that we need to be throwing the "we're not pedophiles" argument down in front of people. Nor do I believe that pedosexuality has any place in the core definition of babyfur. I'm not saying we have to take the sexuality out of babyfur, but we should not be in the business of running around proactively telling everyone that we are not pedophiles. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference type article, not a sounding board for pro-pedosexuality or anti-pedosexuality. It really doesn't need to be in this article. Redcard 18:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I DO agree with you strongly on that last notion. We shouldn't be dealing with having to be pro or anti ANYthing. That's what my whole beef is with the section of the article. The tenor floats about in a defensive posture. It should be neutral. It should simply say what it is, and clear up confusion as to what it's not. It shouldn't look or feel slanted. Slants can be left to HHGttG, not the Intergalactic Encyclopedia, as the repository for all knowledge and wisedom of the universe, so to speak. :)

But also, think of this: We can't even say the word "pedophile" without some people automatically attaching it to (im)moral conduct. Therefore, is it not up to the individual reader to be left to their own understanding on an issue to ultimately be non-biased? Very tough to do. Though, I think it needs to be done. All I'm saying is, reword the thing. I'd do it myself, but I doubt I have teh skills. :)

--Crassus 18:35, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Redcard, the article is not "proactively" mentioning anything about pedophilia. Rather it is reactively mentioning it, because there already exists the mistaken notion that babyfurs are somehow involved with pedophilia. I believe that it is important to dispel that myth, and that the best way to do it is by mentioning that it is in fact, untrue. --Dmuth 18:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

dmuth, Understood. The problem I had is that it seemed to couple babyfur with pedo by using the conjunction and on top of the contrasting vs below. This would give the cursory glancer the wrong impression and was not in like form to the remainder of the article. Changing it to vs clarifies the contrasting elements within it.Redcard 19:03, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this part of the article is necessary was included because it's a precieved issue with the general fandom. Like it or not, babyfurs that do engage in sexual ageplay are often labeled as such. This section tries to draw the line between what is done in roleplay and what is done in real life (and what is illegal). -- Rama 18:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"...is patently illegal should..." Pedophilia is not illegal. Jello 17:27, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Please make your revisions here and not on the main article, especially when a consensus has not been reached. Further, for revisions that change the context of an entire section of an article, you need to properly mark the edit as a major edit. Do not try to sneak major context changing edits in as minor edits. Thanks Redcard 17:48, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Jello, I know you are wanting to remove the broad generalization. We , however, have reached a consensus at having a condemnation of pedophilia in this article. An acceptable compromise might be to remove the broad generalization of "all " and replace it with "most." But you are not going to remove the entire condemnation because you don't like its whole message.Redcard 17:56, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Why is that even sentence there? It can't be true. The furry fandom doesn't have a spokesman and it's made up of different people with different opinions who have different ideas of what should be "accepted" or "condoned". The sentence claims that the entire (overall) furry fandom dislikes pedophilia. Where are you getting this? This is the opinion of whoever wrote that section, not the furry fandom. Jello 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have to condemn pedophilia in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...

What statistics have you used to deduce that 'most' of the furry fandom dislikes pedophilia? Do you have a cite? Jello 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

So you are not a fur, and by nature, are not a babyfur. Look, we are babyfurs. We are the ones who have written this article. We will maintain the line as it is in many of our operating statements and codes of conduct. This article was written by consensus. It will NOT be changed by a single person, who is not even represented by the article, deciding that they don't like what it says. I'd rather all references to pedophilia be out entirely, but the consensus did not work that way. Work within the system, please. Redcard 18:03, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I'm not furry, and it doesn't matter if I'm not babyfur. These are immaterial. I've seen enough of the world to know that not everyone thinks the same about things, and I highly doubt furries are any different. So the concensus said to write it like that? That's like people writing history by a vote, to reflect whatever makes them look good; even if this isn't Wikipedia, WikiFur is intended record factual information. Concensus shouldn't determine fact. Jello 18:11, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

WHOA

whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Why do you have to condemn pedophilia in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...

If you're stepping in to provide a defense of the sexual exploitation of children in the name of inclusivity and tolerance, you've already lost the argument, no rebuttal necessary. End of story. --Rootdown 18:15, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Gargh, pedophilia isn't the sexual exploition of children. I'm not defending anything, anyway, I'm saying we shouldn't be untruthfully stating all furs hate pedos. Jello 18:17, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure not *all* do, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of furs would say that engaging in a sexual act with a real child is not the right thing to do. This article will not be used to say that babyfurs are pedo nor will it be used to make it sound like that furs in general accept pedo. Why is it in the article...because many furs equate babyfurs with pedo. -- Rama 18:53, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think that's where people are getting foncused. Pedophilia does not mean someone is doing something with a child in real life. It can be roleplayed with other adults. I know some people who are zoophile, but they've never done anything with an animal. Being attracted to something doesn't mean you're going to be involved in a criminal act. That's why I say, you're blurring the line between legalities and just being /attracted/ to something. --Crassus 15:27, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Note to Jellochuu: It seems your definition of pedophilia and pedophile is based on the clinical definition of the terms. However, the connotation of the term as used in society at large is something very, very different from its literal meaning. If your intention is accuracy, and I hope it is, then you will know that what you are writing are coming across with a very different interpretation than what the words you are using literally mean. Almafeta 19:38, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Using the word 'pedophile' to describe a child molester is like using the word 'furry' to describe an animal rapist. If you mean child molester, then say child molester. Jello 17:11, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Jello, I'm all for "calling things what they are", and in the context it is used in the article, the word "pedophile" is calling it what it is. --Zhaleskra

The article has been fixed now. Prior to that, "pedophile" was used to mean someone who molests children. This is prejudicial, racist, and inaccurate. Babyfurs who don't know the difference between a pedophile and child molester should be ashamed. Jello 23:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect us to respect the opinion of someone who resorts to setting up the straw man of calling "racist" on an issue that has nothing to do with race? Telling other people how they should feel is not an effective way to debate. Yet all I see you doing is screaming "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're also stupid for not thinking like me". Zhaleskra 14:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some true thoughts and feelings

Grrf.. this is getting ridiculous. The entire deal is showing quite clearly the very paranoia and fear within babyfur community on being labelled pedophiles; so much so that they're condemning another sexual preference to save their own name. It's what the gays did during the pride movement in the 70's and 80's, and it's what the burned furs did in the last few years amongst other furries more kinky than them. People want to wash their hands of things when someone accuses someone of something that puts them in a compromising position. They display outward hatred toward the ideal behind the accusation, effectively labeling and outcasting someone else to save their neck.

Roman dude: "You know Jesus! I saw you with him!", Peter: "I don't know him!"

This is what's happening in this article. That's what I take offense to. By condemning pedosexuality in this article, you are being biased, you're being self-centric, and successfully fulfilling the very stereotype about babyfur that they're over-reactive and immature when it comes to sexual issues.

You're being prejudice and discriminatory. Wanna know how it feels? Take this for example: "For being into something like putting diapers on in public and shitting in them in private hotel rooms while sucking on pacifiers and being coo'ed to like you're 2 years old, you certainly seem to have closed minds."

Oh, I'm sorry.. You think that's not true? You think that's biased? Well, now you know how I feel. I'm not ill. I don't have a sickness. I'm not raping or molesting children. I refuse to fit into this little cube of an idea that some know-it-all shrink bastard decided upon a 125 years ago.

The following portion of the article is biased, it's hypocritical, and it's wrong:

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

This paragraph should be removed. It's unfounded, it's biasd, it's reactionary, and it implies things by context. It's outcasting people.

Did you ever stop to think that those babyfurs who just might happen to have the feelings and attractions you're condemning might feel a bit bad? People you know and love might feel quite rejected by your words. Is that your goal? To clear out all the evil doers?

Holy CRAP. Are you for real? You're worried about how PEDOPHILES FEEL? JESUS MARY MOTHER OF CHRIST what kind of POS are you?

I agree, mate. Compassion, on my planet? What the fuck? 24.224.153.40 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the poster's words. The concern is that it implies that babyfurs are pedophiles by association, and that such association would make babyfurs in general feel bad. It is not saying that people should feel sorry for pedophiles. Personally, I do feel sorry for them, not for their acts (which most have at least some measure of control over, if only by staying away from children), but for the fact that they posess the desire (which is not really something that can be helped - it's like saying people can avoid being attracted to members of the opposite sex [or the same sex, where applicable]). --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, WikiFur SHOULD be NPOV. It's the responsible thing to do for this community.

Solution

I'm working on a revision that I hope I'll be able to finish soon that will hopefully satisfy the majority of the people without trampling on others needlessly. The moment I can finish it, I'll post it here.

I just wish to God you guys could understand how whoever wrote this article is sounding.

--Crassus 16:07, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I wish to God you'd understand that we ALL wrote this article, Crassus. Nobody owns the article. It's all of ours. I wish you'd understand that we KNOW exactly how it sounds because we wrote it to sound that way. Maybe you need to write your own article on pedosexuality or something. But please, leave a well written and solid consensus article alone, please? Redcard 16:54, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

See, but the problem is, this article does NOT just belong to the BF crowd. It belongs to ALL furries. It's not a sales pitch for your fetish, it's an objective assessment from ALL angles, not just yours. And that includes the opinions of the rest of the fandom too.

That's fair enough. Please don't try to drown out other people by shouting over them in bold text, though. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sex and Babyfurs

Okay, we've had a lot of furor over this right now. Let me sum how I see that section of the article right now:

• People mistake babyfur activities as being pedophilia. This is not the same thing. I feel the new title edit makes that clear.
• Some babyfurs are interested in sex in babyfur persona, some are not. Of those, some age-play with adults, some age-play with other babyfurs.
• We can't totally say that no babyfur ever is a pedophile, because we just don't know. No one identified as a BF has ever been involved in legal action regarding sexual conduct with a minor.

I think at this point, we may need a seperate article on Age-play and how it relates to the fandom.

MelSkunk 19:16, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I don't. I think we should simply link to Wikipedia's already very detailed entry on the matter. Ageplay is not a "furry" topic. It has links in that it is a sexual kink, but it in no way deals with "furryness".

--Crassus 19:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again I'm going to have to disagree on something that was recently added:

"Many babfurs do not include a sexual element to their interests."

First off, there's a typo for "babyfurs". Secondly, just because there is not a sex act being performed in the scene does not mean they aren't receiving sexual gratification from the scene. Many a time, when someone pulls off one of those diapers, you're bound to see evidence that the person's being stimulated mentally. The above statement is phrased in a way that lends to the notion that there is no sexual element involved at all, which is definately not the case. The same goes for pedophilia in many cases. Merely seeing kids playing or acting "boyish/girlish" is enough to be stimulating. (Again, not passing judgement in either AB or BL/GL issues. Simply stating the facts.)

--Crassus 19:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I know quite a few that do not include sexual play in with their babyfur play. -- Rama 19:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I just said that. Just because there's no actual sexual play does not mean there isn't a sexual element or gratification from the non-sexual act.

--Crassus 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

For some, I'm sure it's just like you are trying to explain, while there is no direct stimuli, there's is mental stimuli. However, realise that being a babyfur and wearing a diaper or doing anything else connected with babyfurs in real lif is not the same thing. There are babyfurs out there that they like roleplaying young characters but would not do anything outside of that roleplay. -- Rama 19:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there isn't a sexual element, though. Sexuality revolves around a much more expansive circle than direct stimulation. Sometimes the very feeling of comfort derived from non-sexual activity can result in stimulation, or at least be conducive toward feeling more sexually inclined and "in-tune" so to speak. I'll give you an example. Suppose someone can't "get it up" unless they're wearing a Marylin Monroe wig. The moment they put that wig on, even if it has nothing to do with sex directly, provides an element which enables them to feel sexually enabled. Diapers and such are a paraphernalia to that degree. Granted, that doesn't include everyone. Nothing is 100%, but I bet you it's the majority of them.

--Crassus 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Passing observation on this discussion - it would seem to be getting a little bit into the abstraction of just what constitutes sexuality, sexual stimulation, feedback, mental states, etc. Which isn't a bad topic or anything. In point of fact, I think more people need education on it, and there are a lot of primitive / simplistic viewpoints floating around, IMHO. One reason why things like furry sexuality in general may be misunderstood or shocking to outsiders at first glance. However, I do wonder how well the abstractions help the issue of trying to describe the issues surrounding the babyfur topic. It's clearly a topic for discussion about it because there have been so many misunderstandings. There is just the practical issue remaining of how to integrate all of this into an encyclopedic entry.

--ToyDragon^(talk)

For some...yes. But not for all. What babyfur means to you is not necessiarily what babyfur means to others. This article was written in the hopes to cover as many bases as possible. There are babyfurs out there that have no intrest in the sexual ageplay. They just like to play innocent characters. There is no connection of a diaper and a fetish object to them. To deny that these babyfurs exist is a disservice to them and a misrepresentation of the community. -- Rama 20:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The problem that I see in trying to clear off the name of Babyfurs for a clear definition is the fact "Babyfur" is associated tightly with so many other sexual kinks: AD/BL, infantilism, watersports, scat, ageplay, overalls and clothing, baby oil, etc..... I don't see any other way to view it as just an adaptation of the kink, whether it be inherently sexual or not, it's still a kink, with a tail stuck on it. Furryness aside, adult babies for the most part is in fact a sexual element added to their life. Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia:Infantilism even mentions this:

"Some forms of infantilism are purely regressive, without any sexual content. After an individual has reached full maturity, including a fully independent living situation, as well as stabilized in his or her long term sexual role in society, most infantilists report having incorporated certain aspects of sexuality into their infantilism. However, some few adult infantilists report never having done so. Even though some infantilists may never incorporate any aspects of sexuality into their practice, most adult infantilists would agree that their practice of infantilism has minimally had a profound effect on their sexuality, if not having been a direct part of it."

--Crassus 23:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

And this is not Wikipedia, but rather a wikicities site on wikipedia. Why don't you detail fixes instead of just pointing out what's wrong , so that we may discuss fixes instead of your amporphous ideals, and then we can vote on those suggestions? If you're just going to point out what's wrong, you need to leave. You're not contributing to WikiSociety. Redcard 23:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Actually.. we aren't connected to Wikipedia in anyway. Wikicities is privately owned and financed, but respects similar values to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. ;) -Nidonocu - talk 01:47, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ah.. you are correct. I was thinking that Wales founded Wikipedia under Wikia, but he chose not to. Regardless, according to the wikicity creation policy , we do operate with a tit-for-tat relationship with Wikipedia. Also, it is expected upon reading the wikicities information that Wikisociety still take place in the same manner as it would on a wikipediaproject vs a wikia project. (Which was created thusly to be a commercial entity) Redcard 02:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I believe you mean "amorphous". Really now. Don't hold back your real feelings about me. I've contributed to a number of other articles which I openly know more about than this, and for that very reason, I don't even assume to know everything about a subject that I myself have never participated in, but such arrogance to assume that a higher definition can be obtained through individual personal opinion rather than the collective thoughts of the many, plus outside sources like Wikipedia and thefreedictionary.com... that just boggles me blind. I don't dare to add or subtract from this entry simply because I know that I don't know everything about it. But, I do know a little about ageplay matters, and sexuality in general is rather a hobby of mine to study. I know that in the US, we've obtained such a high degree of puritanical BS to make us want to hide and cover up our true natures, which is the direct force behind so much of our conflicting and ambiguous ideals... to me, this entire matter is simply a matter of covering things up and making us "feel" better just because something isn't socially accepted. It's the entire problem we as furs as a whole have. We can't face reality, and that, Red, is more of a hinderance than any "non"-contribution that I could dish out. Sorry for the difference of opinion. --Crassus 00:02, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Will you get to the POINT , Crassus? Please? What do you want? We are not going to turn this into a boylove article, so forget about that. Further, the purpose of this article is not to explore the sexuality of babyfur, but to explore babyfur on the whole. So.. will you please tell us what you want or drop it? Yes, you're very clearly into pedophilia, and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints, and yes, you think that , from reading things.. everyone should be allowed to have sex, both pedo and non. Forget what I think of your viewpoints, and just get to the point about what you want to see in this article. The next thing out of your mouth had best not be a diatribe about how evil society is for not letting you have sex with children, and better be something about THIS article. Redcard 00:21, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Let me spell it out. Again. (I already did so up there somewhere.) Section VII of the article is biased and it should NOT be biased. Change it.

"Yes, you're very clearly into pedophilia, and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints"

You say that like it's a bad thing to be open minded and not a bigot. And no, I'm not "into pedophilia". That's stupid. Pedophilia is a modern clinical term coined in the 1800's by some victorian know-it-all shrink dude for a biased point of view during the height of the anti-child-labor movement as part of the backlash to the industrial revolution. During the 20th century it got taken a step further and it got turned not only from a term for a paraphilia, but also a blurred connotation for child rape and molestation, which is NOT part of the equation. Think of it this way: It would be like forcing someone into a diaper who doesn't want to have one. It's not consentual. Rape is rape, no matter the age. So, no. I am not into pedophilia. Sorry. --Crassus 05:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Section VII is staying the way it is until someone proposes a change and that changes gets voted on. Simply saying change it is not helpful since it does not offer us something to change it to. So, again, please make a suggestion or leave. You're not even a babyfur, Crassus, why the hell is this bothering you so much? The babyfurs by and large seem okay with it. (Oh, and by the way, we're allowed to be biased here. NPOV is not strictly enforced here. You might want to read the wikifur policy. Please also note that it says to consult an admin, and so far two admins have looked this page over and think its just fine..)Redcard 12:04, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

HOW is section VII bias? All I seem to be getting from you and this conversation is you [Crassus] wanting to remove the section that says not all babyfurs get sexual stimulation from it. If that's all you want, I've already told you, many times, that it's not true. I know a few that do not cross that line. I also know a few babyfurs that do not even get involved in real life with it, all they do is roleplay young characters on a muck or such. I can see your confusion as the first line of the article states that a babyfur is an ab/dl furry. They do make up a chunk of the general babyfur population, but not all of them. Again, that's not always true and I corrected that.

Also, to the both of you, please stop the personal attacks. This is NOT the place for them. -- Rama 13:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

How do we offer proposed revisions for the entry? --Crassus 18:36, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, one possibility is simply write out the text that you have in mind and put it right here. --Duncan da Husky 18:37, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I had a good talk with a friend of mine who is a babyfur, and has given me some insight into things. I'm going to see what people think.

A babyfur = A fur who labels themself as someone who fits into the babyfur ideals. Those ideals mean any or all of the following:

• Might or might not be into infantilism, AB/DL, or any range of various sexual interests at any varying degree.
• Ageplaying an extremely young age: birth through pre-schooler age.
• Might find their play sexual.
• Might find the age they roleplay sexual.
• Might find diapers and other paraphernilia sexual. They may wear diapers for whatever reason, whether it be for fun, to feel emotionally comforting, to be enabled sexually, or for medical conditions.
• Might not find any of the play sexual, but enjoys it on a level.
• Might talk funny ICly.
• Might talk funny OOCly.
• Might be a pedosexual, might not be.
• Might RP, might not. Might RP RL, some only online.

More to come as I think of it. At this point, I'm really confused as to how we can define something that no one really agrees upon. I guess just to offer different definitions. --Crassus 00:26, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Everything you've said in this is already in the article somewhere...or am I missing something? -- Rama 21:53, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a tad broad? "any range of various sexual interests at any varying degree." Then "but enjoys it on a level." What does that mean? It is NOT necesarily a sexual enjoyment, unless you think everything is sexual, then food is sexual too, and movies, and biking... I think that statement is redundant. If they didn't enjoy it (they suffered it?) they wouldn't do it, would they? --Tundu 00:53, Aug 31 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, lemme clarify. "Any range of various sexual interests in some way related to the type of stuff related to babyfur"... .. heh, or even sometimes /not/ related to babyfur. Sexual interests overlap sometimes, which is the whole problem with trying to group people together with a label. Personally I think the idea of labeling intangible ideals is a bit old fashioned and like theoretical physics, has no clear-cut end and simply will never be boiled down to anything.

My writing of those "revisions" was only to point this very fact out. I was being rather incredulous with it. I'm trying to sort out definitions as I go along. I'm learning at the same time everyone else is. --Crassus 16:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Very personal opinion

To me, one of the most retarded things about being human is that humans take a LONG time until they can do anything useful. They cry a lot, getting on everyone's nerves. They take a long time to learn to walk. And I'm not even getting into the messy aspects here .... In my opinion, most species (especially those popular among furry fans) have a much more graceful childhood, and I feel it's best to leave it so without adding negative aspects of the early years of every human. Give me baby kittens any day, but I'm not sure if I'm ever up to having children of my own .... (End personal ramble, I know that others have a different taste.) - Unci 10:15, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just a random thought inspired from that. I'd be willing to bet that more than a handful of babyfur fans are, even if just subconsciously, thinking about childhood of the animal species which is considered more graceful than human infancy. While they may symbolize it with humanoid decorations like diapers, a number of the babyfurs I know personally tend to envision juvinile character which are really not very "human" at all. - ToyDragon

Reverting 67.176.94.60's edit

I removed the following text that was entered by 67.176.94.60:

• Distaste from being in line at a convention near a babyfur who has just filled his diapers and the entire hall with an unholy stench ('mainstream' babyfurs make a show of not approving of such individuals, yet they constantly make unwelcome appearances at conventions and in emo-laden LJ posts).

The author may have a point, but I felt that the text was a little inflamatory. Anyone want to take a shot at toning it down? --Dmuth 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few edits. It obviously is an unfortunate situation to be in, and one which the individuals concerned should not have placed the group surrounding them in.

I would note that there's probably only so much mainstream babyfurs feel they can do about their bretheren, and it probably doesn't help if they feel that their options are siding with a group that denounces them as pedophiles or a group that soils their pants occasionally. To take a similar example, are furries more likely to want to go along with those who claim furries are all skunkfuckers, or of other members of the fandom who are just fine with them (despite seeming to have a few too many plush toys for their age)? And if they decided it was worth the derision of those that they craved acceptance from, what exactly could they do? Stop being furry out of protest? Too many people have been forced to make that choice, IMO.

I think such things can be solved more simply with public rules about what is acceptable in a given area. If there is enough consensus about something, then it should be a clear rule about it that people are willing to enforce. This lets others say, "well, this is how it is - if you soil yourself in public, you'll be banned, and you'll have to sit in the hotel room without us, so don't" without feeling that they've let a fellow babyfur down. Punish the objectionable action directly, and it is likely to go away. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't registered with WikiFur yet as I'm still deciding on an appropriate username. Having an example of exactly a particular behavior that leads to distrust from "mainstream" furries is good, and I feel that describing the offending behavior explicitly is bad. --Zhaleskra (for now)

I registered, and I apologize for the use of quotes around mainstream in the above comment. Zhaleskra 15:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Section VII" ?

(from the "Facts and Myths" section) "... See section VII about the difference between babyfurs and pedophiles ..."

Section VII seems to be a timeline, and I didn't see anything there explaining the difference. An error? --Chibiabos 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably - referring to sections with numbers never really works out so well on a wiki. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Artists

I removed Genesis Whitmore after having looked through her website and not seeing any significant representation of babyfur artwork, I don't think there are many babyfurs who have even heard of her or are familiar with her work. I'm sure she's done a commission or two for one or two individuals but if that was the metric for determining what constitutes a babyfur artist, I think the list of artists would be several times longer than what it is now.

I also corrected some of the goofy stuff Skippyfox wrote about me a while back. --Rootdown 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I was wondering, since there wasn't an edit summary. Not that the rest of the article is much better in this respect (it really needs a thorough de-fluffing), but are you able to give any references for phrases like "sudden popularity" or "ongoing controversies"? To a reader who isn't involved in the babyfur community it's not really clear what you're talking about. --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting the artists section back (and shortening it slightly). The "goofy stuff Skippyfox wrote" is a perfectly sensical description of Astolpho's artistic style. However the changes he (Rootdown) made to the paragraph about himself entirely evade the NPOV guidelines. I'm sure we can all agree that, much to Astolpho/Rootdown's disappointment, Wikifur is _not_ a popularity contest.

If anybody wants to contest this change please bring it to this Discussion before making any edits. skippyfox 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to understand why a comparison to Precious Moments might be considered unflattering. Perhaps it would be more precise to describe Astolpho's style simply as "characterized by light, open outlines; pastel-like colors; and innocent expressions"? BitterGrey 04:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable, neutral description; the Precious Moments comparison seems unnecessarily pejorative. I'll swap that phrase out. ----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

View on Paraphilia Section from newcomer

I know nobody likes a latecomer to a long, contentious debate, but IMO the 'Babyfur as paraphilia' section is a mess of denials, evasive language, and compromises, and is just the sort of content that damages the credibility wiki-like projects-- not because the subject is unattractive, but because of the presentation itself. Sorry, I know that sounds abrasive. If it helps... I think it's nicely written and laid out, as well as very much worth getting right. Anyway...

It would be fine if the article asserted that for most or all babyfurs, babyfur has no sexual activity or erotic intent. From THAT basis you could argue that Babyfur is not characteristically a paraphilia. But that assertion ISN'T made. Without it, there is NO basis to POSITIVELY ASSERT that babyfurs aren't pedophilies, as the article strongly suggests when it says: "Babyfurs are not inherently pedophiles," (What purpose does the word 'inherently' serve in this sentence other than to allow it to suggest something without worrying about the facts?) and when it prominently lists the leadingly phrased bullet point: "false beliefs that all babyfurs are pedophiles." (What about aversions attaching to beliefs that a few, or many, babyfurs are pedophiles?)

But if babyfur IS characteristically erotic or sexualized, it is pedophilia, which is simply a paraphilia whose object is children (even if only in fantasy, e.g., fanatasies involving them having ears and a tail).

I understand the difference between pedophilia and sexually assaulting actual children; this is absolutely not the place to discuss what link may exist between the two. But is the goal of all this evasiveness to escape the inaccurate stigma of child molestation that attaches to harmless fantasy pedophilia? Denying the accurate use of the word 'pedophile' with a reinvention of the term is a bad way to do that, and not the proper aim of a wiki entry, in my n00b-to-wikia opinion.

The paraphilia section of the article needs to either: 1) Assert clearly that babyfur is NOT characteristically sexual (which it certainly can be even if the rest of furry art and RP also is, so regardless, drop that argument in the first paragraph), 2) do NOT remark at all on whether babyfur is pedophilic, 3) assert that it's unknown whether babyfur is characteristically sexualized, and that if it is, it's pedophilic, or 4) assert clearly that babyfur IS charateristically sexualized, and that babyfur *is* pedophilic.

Those're the only things the article can do if it wants to be, and sound, honest.

In the latter two cases, there could also be remarks contrasting Pedophilia and child molestation, though again I think it's beyond the scope both of wikifur and the expertise of people contributing here to make definitive remarks about that. --furthling

While I'm not particularly wedded to the current wording of this section of the article, I think you're missing the point that it's trying to make:

While babyfurs roleplay as underage characters, this doesn't mean that they are sexually attracted to children.

As I understand it, babyfurs typically want to be children (whether or not they want to have sex as children), while pedophilia is about being about sexual attraction with children. So, seems like it would be quite possible for babyfurs to be sexualized without they themselves being pedophilic - unless you think that babyfurs always have TinySex with one another, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Those who take the babyfur role in such activities want to fantasize about being children having sex with adults (which could be anything from "brotherly love" to rape fantasies), not adults having sex with children (pedophilia). Of course, the people who do have TS with them are kinda stuck with the term. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GreenReaper's answer hit the nail on the head. There is a subject-object difference. To further reduce the dependence on language, here are some numbers: A typical babyfur, if paraphilic, might fall under 302.83 in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. While only one sentence long and unfortunately under the header of "sexual masochism," this is the most verifiable definition for infantilism. The book is available in many US libraries. In contrast, pedophilia is in section 302.2. (A fur with a diaper fetish would be 302.81.) 302.83's (masochists, infantilists) focus on their own position, with themselves as the subject. 302.2 (pedophiles) focus on children, with those children being the object. Each are categorized differently by the APA.BitterGrey 11:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The DSM is not the author of the concept of Pedophilia, a phenomenon that has been under constant observation by society since prehistory. Moreover, the DSM's definition of pedophilia is notoriously contentious-- so much so that, side by side with a dictinoary of spoken english, there's should be no contest.

Even if the APA's views on pedophilia were rock-solid, standard usage should take precedence over technical UNLESS wikifur's audience is understood to be a community of psychiatric professionals. Verifiable expertise in that field might be brought in to comment on the state of the DSM with re: infantilism and pedophilia, and whether research has been done into the correlation between babyfurs and pedophilia, if it's available and deemed appropriate.

I appreciate the importance of noting that sexualized babyfur doesn't prove anybody's a child molestor or thinking about becoming one. But that doesn't excuse tacking on an exclusion to the definition of pedophilia for situations where one of the objects of the sexualized fantasy about a child is narrated from a quasi-first-person PoV.

In english, if babyfur is characteristically sexualized, it is pedophilic. Pretending otherwise is a disaster for the (perceived) intellectual honesty of that section of the article. So is the appearance of positive assertions that babyfurs aren't pedophiles or pederasts, without sufficient evidence. --Furthling 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia is the personal desire on the part of an adult to have sex with children, not the desire to have sex with others as a child. That is the dictionary definition. It's the same situation as the difference between sadism and masochism, or being a top vs. being a bottom - while some may share both as a pleasure, there's no guarantee of that, nor is it the default (that's why most MUCKs have a switch option in their wixxx). The same goes for reading stories or appreciating artwork - it depends on who you identify with. Perhaps we need to explain that a little better, and note that we're talking about the people who take part in it or enjoy it rather than the "genre", as it were - but if readers don't understand the meaning of the word, even after having it explained to them, that's not really our fault. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could just quote a song to explain (although this tends towards the non-consensual side of things):

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

The point we need to make clear in the article is that while all of these people may like the idea of a child taking part in such a scene, they are different groups that do so for different reasons. Some of them want children, some of them want to be a child. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree re: the common usage and dictionary definition. Most definitions and common usage do NOT restrict pedophilia to actual acts with children. Oxford Concise English Dictionary 10th edition (1999): 'Paedophile (Us Pedophile) n. a person who is sexually attracted to children. -Derivatives paedophilia, paedophilic.' If babyfur is characteristically sexualized and IF the presence of children is a sina qua non of the attraction to babyfur, then babyfur is a sexual attraction to children (fantasy or not), and is pedophilic. Splitting hairs over what it is they're "really" attracted to is just a shells game being played to lose the meaning in the shuffle. And that's very much what comes across in the paraphilia section.

At very least, assertions about whether babyfur is pedophilic, either way, should be expanded or stricken. Why not be up front and tell the reader that babyfur is characteristically sexual fantasy entertained by adults about children, and let them decide for themselves? Or is that something the article intends to obfuscate? (Assuming that it is. As I've said previously, I don't regard my knowledge of sexual babyfur RP, etc, as sufficient to characterize it with re: sexual content. OTOH I've yet to hear anybody object that it often or usually isn't, though I may have missed remarks made.)

Also, I hasten to point out that if you feel it's important to make clear that different babyfur fans have different interests and motives, again, making positive assertions that certain motives are not prominent is contrary to your aims as well as made with insufficient evidence.

At any rate, I think I've made as clear as I can where I think the problem lies with the section of the article. Thanks you for your attention. --Furthling 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess we'll have to find some babyfurs who are willing to speak on the record about their motives. :-) But still, your point hinges on being attracted to children. My understanding is that it is possible to play a child and to want to be sexually active without actually wanting to have sex with other children, and that's why this section says what it says now. It's not the babyfurs that are the pedophiles - it's the people who want to have sex with them (who may or may not be babyfurs themselves).

Indeed, the concept of having an adoptive caretaker as "mummy" and "daddy" seems quite common. If this relationship were sexual, then the caretaker would be sexually attracted to a child (the definition of pedophilia), but the child would be sexually attracted to an adult. They just happen to prefer to play as a child - probably for one of the many reasons detailed earlier in the article.

Telling them that something is "characteristically X" is probably not something we should be doing, as it's making a wide judgment without the proof to back it up. I suspect there is likely to be proof - or at least stated opinion - confirming both sides. We can't really ignore the topic, otherwise our coverage won't be complete. --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The question "...that it is possible to play a child and to want to be sexually active without actually wanting to have sex with other children," is not something I've contended either way, and I don't see its relevance. The question at hand is adults with an interest in children in sexual fantasies. But if after consideration you think that's really, no more and no less, what the article says, I'd be happy to help clarify where it says things otherwise.

At the kind of risk one always takes asking about what should be obvious, are we clear that an adult enjoying babyfur art, RP, fantasy, or literature is not any of the characters involved, no matter how much they identify with them? That even one's own character in RP is, properly, an *object* of interest (sexual or otherwise)?

I strongly agree we shouldn't assert "babyfur is characteristically sexual" until there's a consensus that that's what the evidence shows. But I don't agree that the form "characteristically x" is bad, especially re: a genre of art, for example, that is necessarily broadly defined. Not because I know as much about policy as you, Greenreaper, but because I can't envision any alternative.

I also agree that coverage shouldn't ignore the topic. But so long as we're in the dark about it, is it good policy to make remarks like: "Babyfurs are not inherently pedophiles?" That's a positive assertion with the implicit positive assertion that babyfur isn't characteristically sexual. And we don't know that to be true any more than we know the opposite to be true.

I think (you'll tell me if I misunderstand something about the way wiki projects in general or wikifur particularly, works) that if the view that there's nothing sexual going on in babyfur is present, it should be presented in the article. (My own experience *is* sufficient to say that a statement like 'There's little or no sexual activity in babyfur," is false, but I don't constitute a consensus. :) ) If the view that there's something sexual going on in babfur is present, that view should also be presented. Remarks about babyfur as a paraphilia would have to be specific to those presentations.

I think the article already implicitly takes the stance, by mentioning it in the first place, that there's sexualized content in babyfur.--Furthling 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue I have has always lies with the statement "3) assert that it's unknown whether babyfur is characteristically sexualized, and that if it is, it's pedophilic". I think that the first part of that is closest to the truth of the matter, but I don't see that the second part follows . . . unless you're talking about the other people in those sexual relations. This article in general and that section in particular is about babyfurs, not people who have TinySex with babyfurs, so I have presumed that you are not.

To lay it out simply: if there is sexual activity between an adult and a child, then there is pedophilia, but that does not imply that the child is the pedophile - which is what "Babyfurs are not inherently pedophiles," is trying to point out. The "Babyfur problem" has historically been that a lot of people do assume just that. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it says that, but have no suggestions for a rephrase so long as you use the word pedophilia, because (if that's what you mean) you're falsely denying pedophilia based on the inaccurate notion that situations that don't involve an actual act between an adult and a child aren't pedophilic (they are. fantasies can be and are pedophilic), and because when you say: "that does not imply that the child is the pedophile" I'm pretty sure you're referring to the child character in the RP, who is obviously not the issue. The adult playing him or her is.

Keep the article as it is, and everyone who knows what pedophilia is and discovers there's sex play among babyfurs will regard the paraphilia section, at best, as deceitful.

Promise I'm done now, you know my thoughts. --Furthling 05:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm actually been rewriting it as we've been speaking here.

I still think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, though. Specifically, I'm not saying that actual acts have to be involved. I'm saying that the adult who is performing the child's role in such activities cannot be assumed to be a pedophile through their participation in that role, because they're not enjoying the fantasy of having sex with a child. They're enjoying the fantasy of being a child and having sex with an adult. That's a different fantasy, just as the fantasy of being covered in whipped cream is different from the fantasy of covering someone else with whipped cream. There's pedophilic fantasies involved, to be sure, but they're demonstrated by the person playing the adult character, not the person playing the child.

Ignoring the question of whether "virtual or real?" matters, it's inaccurate to call babyfurs pedophiles unless they actually have an interest in having sex with children. Probably some do have such interests, but that's not implied by the above roleplay unless they take the "adult" role. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I did understand what you're saying, but that we disagree about something else. I acknowledge that there's a difference, probably a meaningful one, between an adult enjoying the fantasy of being an adult engaged in sex acts with a child, and an adult enjoying the fantasy of being a child engaged in sex acts with a child. Yes, they're different. And they're both pedophilic in nature.

The article is much improved. I'm conerned about clarifying what POV is presenting this paragraph: 'If adult characters are involved, then the actions of their players would normally be classified as pedophilic, even if those of thie child's player are not.' I think it would be well to explain which of the following you mean: "Most babyfurs would regard inclusion of adult characters in sexual play with children as pedophilic..." or "Onlookers/the uninitiated/general english speakers would not classify adults interested in sexual play involving child characters as pediophilic... unless they were themselves playing adults." (I'm unsure of the former; I have objections to the latter.)

Thanks for your attention to the article. Believe it or not, I'm as much interested in getting rid of unreasoning prejudice as anybody (because I believe in reason). And moreover, getting this kind of thing just right is, to me at least, worth being as awfully tedious to you as I've been. --Furthling 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Sissyfurs

This was inaccurate. I have adjusted it by leaning the original definition in as a common misconception and explaining the truth afterward. ~Amethe - #sissyfurs founder/administrator

Notable Babyfurs Section: List Cleanup?

The list of "notable babyfurs" currently features Snuggems among the list of babyfurs who are "among the most known and respected in the furry fandom, recognized here for their contributions and devotion to the babyfur community". With all due respect to his past contributions to the community, Snuggems pretty much hasn't done anything except RP on mucks in years, and it's unlikely that that will change. The others on the list have continued to do the things that put them on the list to this day, for the most part, while Snuggems has practically become a recluse, not attending or running any events in several years at least; the last Nursery that Snuggems and Wolfcub ran was at FC '07.

Given this information, does anyone have any objection to removing him from the Notable Babyfurs list? He's still mentioned in the timeline, but I really don't think his presence on this list is appropriate anymore.

-- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proceeding with proposed removal of Snuggems from the "Notable Babyfurs" list, due to lack of opposition. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable Babyfurs Section: Ludwig?

Recently, an anonymous user added Ludwig, creator of the #babyfur IRC channel (not to be confused with #babyfurs), to the list of "notable babyfurs". I have some serious objections to this, for a number of reasons. First off, that section describes "notable babyfurs" as being "among the most known and respected in the furry fandom, recognized here for their contributions and devotion to the babyfur community". I fail to see any way in which someone who's described (even by a fan or himself who put them on the list) as being "often connected with anti-babyfur sentiment" and "a known troll" fits that description, regardless of what they may have done in the past. Secondly, his cited accomplishments consist of being "often credited with the concept of 'Ironic Babyfurs'", something completely unreferenced anywhere on Wikifur, and creating the #babyfur IRC channel, a known haven for trolls and troublemakers. While the latter is enough to warrant mentioning in the community timeline, that alone hardly qualifies as "notable" compared to others on the list, especially when Ludwig is admittedly "not as prominant now as he has been in the past", and everyone else on the list (with the possible exception of Lil Kitt and Orca) is as active in the community now as they were years ago, if not moreso.

If Ludwig is to stay on the list, the person wishing to add him needs to explain how a known anti-babyfur can be well-respected in both the babyfur community and the furry fandom at large, and provide more information regarding his contributions to the community beyond creating an IRC channel that is controversial at best, and largely considered to be only tangentally related to the babyfur community. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think focussing on individuals is the best way to go, anyway. I suggest turning the history section into prose, and incorporating the facts embodied of the list of notable babyfurs within it. "X maintains Y"-type information should be on the pages X and Y, not here. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the concept of a "notable babyfurs" section is a bit outdated, considering the way the community has evolved to become less centralized. But, given the scope and quality of the article as it stands, rewriting it as you suggest would be a major undertaking, especially since many of the people/things in these two sections of the article need their own articles (or need to have their current articles drastically revised). In the meantime, there's no reason not to maintain it as-is, and as it's currently written, Ludwig's addition to the Notable Babyfurs section is not appropriate. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 04:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, while I appreciate your seemingly well thought out argument, I think you still have some facts mistaken. Ludwig is and always was a strong leader for a large portion of the babyfur community. As I explained in the page talk, there was a period in which his channel was the largest single gathering place for babyfurs. It just so happens, however, that since these babyfurs were widely regarded as anti-babyfur trolls, you seem to not be crediting them as also being babyfurs. So a 'tangential' relationship is hardly true. Just look in the 'history' section and note how many people have mentioned his name. I assure you those people were not me, and it shows just how important he has been considered in the past. Even if his opinions and personality are considered contraversial, there's no doubt in my mind that he has been responsible for a large amount of what the community has become. As for being 'less prominent' now. That's not a question of years, that's a question of months. After being k-lined from FurNet and being forced to pick up and move to Anthrochat, a lot of his channel members reintegrated with #babyfurs. Yes, reintegrated, despite your personal opinion that the members of that channel were nothing but trolls.

Appended: Added the requested reference to ironic babyfurs under the 'Babyfur Roles' section. -- Anonymous, 6:58, 1 September 2009 (EST)

Very well, I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the "ironic babyfur" sub-community. However, in order to fit the definition of "notable babyfur" within this article, you need to establish that Ludwig is well-respected among the entire babyfur community (not just a subset of it) as well as the furry fandom as a whole. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I could simply argue this point by using the converse method. Ask yourself if the babyfurs already listed there are 'well respected among the entire babyfur community'. I can tell you that among the ironic subset of the community, inline with their mentality, none of the above are well-respected at all. Understand that the 'community' of which you speak is ALSO only a subset of the community, because you would never be welcome to or privy to the goings-on of the other major subset. -- Anonymous, 10:28, 2 September 2009 (EST)

You could argue that, but there's a flaw in your logic. The ironic babyfur sub-community is exactly that, a sub-group of the larger babyfur community, similar to diaperfurs. It began as an off-shoot of babyfurs as a whole, not as an independant group. So, saying that those on the current list of notable babyfurs aren't well-respected babyfurs because the ironic babyfur community doesn't respect them is flawed reasoning. It's like saying Uncle Kage isn't a "notable furry" because he's not well-received by babyfurs (note: this is just a hypothetical scenario). Back to the original point, saying that Ludwig is a notable babyfur based on being respected by a single subgroup of the community is flawed reasoning. Now, if you're saying that the ironic babyfur community is its own entity, and is not a sub-group of the babyfur community as a whole, you may have a point there. However, if that's the case, Ludwig still wouldn't be a "notable babyfur" by definition, because he wouldn't really be a babyfur. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Using your very same logic you are also implying that Babyfurs are not actually furries and therefore should not be included on a site such as wikifur, so I believe it is you who must learn how a venn diagram works...the Babyfur Community is a subset of the Furry Fandom. Ironic babyfurs are a subset of the Babyfur Community. Just as every single person mentioned in your list belongs to some subset of the Babyfur community. Please be aware that I'm not arguing that most babyfurs wouldn't consider Ironics to actually be Babyfurs, but that's more of the political dynamic of the situation than anything else. As a perfect example, Sissyfurs are a small subset of babyfurs, as are ageplayers, however, nothing really says that a person considered responsible for the creation and propegation of that subset is not important to the structure of the community as a whole. In fact, it's worth noting that the amount of dissention brought on by Ironics has been incredibly important in the shaping of the community long before Ludwig took the initiative to bring them together. Some names were prominant in the ideal long before the community was solidified, such as Ozzyfox, Noname and Cubstatik, Gore, etc. But overall, it was Ludwig who finally took to giving shape to the ideal. Also be aware that such things as Behavioral norms at conventions and such would've never taken place if it wasn't for the fact that people involved in the Ironic community were heavily involved in the hazing of the individuals who made the babyfur community look bad. The community formed as a direct result of such actions and a need for babyfurs with some sense of common decency to rally against the overwhelming feeling in the babyfur community that anything was acceptable. And since this comment's getting too long, I'll end it there. -- Anonymous, 12:03, 2 September 2009 (EST)

An extremely small group of people inside of a single IRC with absolutely no tracable presence outside of it does not qualify to be its own subset. This claim of importance is completely of opinion and if such were true there would be evidence of this group outside of this wiki page on google. There is no public evidence of those named outside of Ludwig identifying themselves as "Ironic Babyfurs" over just babyfurs. Where groups like sissyfurs has a large member base who spefically identify as sissyfurs and have a presence through out the babyfur subcommunity. Due to lacking any wide presence in the community "Ironic Babyfurs" should not be considered a subset. ~~ Anonymous, 00:17 18 February 2010

Also worth mentioning, there are only two mentions of Ludwig in this entire article, both of which pertain to the #babyfur IRC channel (one when he created it, and one when he was banned from Furnet). Is that what you're referring to? -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be correct, sir. -- Anonymous, 10:28, 2 September 2009 (EST)

I believe you meant "ma'am". -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there guys. I believe Ludwig counts as a notable babyfur even if the ironic babyfur community has decayed somewhat in the last few months. For many years the ironic babyfur community was another choice for babyfurs who did not fit into the regular community. You'd likely not have heard about it because it went to great lengths to distance itself from the regular community. There were, in fact, a great multitude of ironic babyfurs and Ludwig should be credited with the idea of starting a historical subculture within the babyfur subculture. -- Duckbutt

Yes, we've established that he helped start the ironic babyfur community, and that would be good information to add to his page, which is severely lacking in content. The point is that that alone doesn't make him "notable" for the purposes of this article/discussion. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is also important to note that Ludwig is an actual dolphin. The government hooked his brain up to a computer and now he's running a muck on the internets. I believe that his plan is to tear down the furry community by slowly eroding the sub cultures. He started with Babyfurs but now he has moved on to working the Zoophile sub-culture. He can learn swiftly with his new cybernetic mind and will soon accomplish his goals of collapsing the fandom in on itself. WE MUST STOP HIM AT ALL COSTS! Join the resistance today!

-StopCylonDolphins

Seems like a "Notorious babyfurs" section would be a good place to put such names. After all, the negative influencers can be just as important in a community as the positive. -- 217.155.69.206 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you define positive and negative though? I mean many babyfurs see me as "negative" in that I'm an active contributor to ED as well as an infamous reality manipulation artist (troll) and an invective word artist (flamer), not to mention I once incited an nth level war in the general AB community when I pitted ABs against TBs in a large scale multi-group flame war on Usenet that ripped every one of the major Usenet groups apart. While many see such actions as "bad" or "negative", most of them are actually fueled by a sense of righteousness and what *I* believe is *GOOD* for the community in general...mostly in that I believe those who take themselves too seriously are the ones who *REALLY* damage the community and it's the ones who *DON'T* take themselves too seriously that are most beneficial. My work in general may be considered *VERY* "negative" in nature, like nyah:

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Deviant_Art/Diaper_Art_Stamp_-_01.png

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Deviant_Art/Diaper_Art_Stamp_-_02.png

But the end result is often *VERY* "positive", in that particular instance the original author took down the stamp and apologized, after it had been up for months and months, with continual attempts by DOZENS of others to get him to take it down using other "nicer" methods. Onideus Mad Hatter 08:42, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

Yeah

So, I re-added myself to the list of notable babyfur artists, and here's why:

• Most of my artwork (especially what I've been publishing lately) depicts one or more babyfur
• In my town, if I'm not known as the girl with the dog collar, I'm known as the girl that draws baby animals
• I sold several babyfur pieces at my town's Art Fair a few years ago
• I run the #Babyfurs group on dA

There is more kinds of notability than just on-line. The Furry Fandom would do good to remember this. If you think I should be removed, tell me here instead of just taking it, because I will keep putting it back. I don't care. kthxbai Equivamp 14:42, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but as far as I can see none of these meet the barrier for "notability". In my company I am known as a furry, but that does not make me a notable furry. I would have to stand out among other furries. By your estimation, almost any artist who ever sold anything that could be construed as a babyfur would be a notable babyfur artist - and there are hundreds of such artists. In contrast, Marci McAdam has been a regular dealer at conventions for years; I'd estimate she clears about $1000 of business at each of them. Her work is known both within and without the babyfur community - to the extent that people will assume that you are a babyfur if you wear a badge by her. (You also did not mention that you are the only person in that dA group, which you founded this week.) --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:16, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

To each their own

So, I am reading this and I am somewhat astounded. This is Wikifur and you all are using it as though it were a chat room. The quote of the day is: "TO EACH THEIR OWN". As long as no one is hurting children or abusing a child in any form, it's not pedophilia. This is common sense, and the majority of our world has none. Let us erase all this chatty non-sense and retry this. Babyfur, Furry, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Pansexuality, Transexuality, and so on and so forth are ALL a lot easier to explain than people give credit. I believe my first quote said it all. TO EACH THEIR OWN. Respect peoples limits, space, rights, and simply accept that no one wants to be you, and you shouldn't want to be anyone but yourself. If YOU believe you are a girl, so be it. If you think you are 5 years old, whatever. Don't hurt children, don't hurt others AT ALL and I won't care nor should anyone else. LinkDrako^(talk) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

Are you asking that people simply accept everything, and throw morals to the wind? Equivamp 16:25, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Whose morals? :-) But this isn't really relevant to improving the article. Pedophilia is defined elsewhere as "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children ... at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles". I think this is a reasonable definition. It does not apply to all babyfurs and doesn't say anything about actions which harm others. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

Any morals. Everyone has their limits. Also GreenReaper, a tip: you of all people should stay away from pedophilia discussions; it'll only hurt you in the long run. Equivamp 01:02, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

Because I moderate Inkbunny, cub haven of the world? (OK, so technically that's Cub Central.) I have it on my LinkedIn profile. If people want to judge me for that, it's their call. I'd be a lot more worried about human porn, and I'm a lot more comfortable with Inkbunny's no-tolerance policy there than certain other furry archives. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:15, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

And that right there is why I respect you. Equivamp 01:35, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

Infected website

The following website [2] was identified as Trojan-infected by my anti-virus. It's worth double-checking, because it may be false-positive. EvilCat 07:19, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

It leads to an image of a crudely-written note that seems to be mocking people that threaten to kill themselves. Not sure if it's a virus, but it's definitely not a furry site. Equivamp^talk 17:29, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Actually, it is a letter rejoicing the return of the site, and clicking on the image leads to the site itself. The link seems to serve as an +18 warning. Equivamp^talk 17:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, my anti-virus still says "TROJAN:Illiframe-B". If there is an iframe, then the safety of the website it referenes can be checked with http://www.malwareurl.com . EvilCat 05:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

There is an iframe on that site, but the site it points to is down, at least when I checked. Note: I am not talking about the clickable link, but the invisible frame. --Rat 14:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)