fchan

discussion

Is thare any yiff animation

Pages:1 41
19Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 11:05

>>16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car
You may want to take back the claim that car enthusiasts do not term certain cars as racing even if they weren't built/advertised as such.

Even if the general populace disagrees, I have no contention with that, because that's outside the scope of this discussion. The question is, to a furry, is it furry? You claim that the ideas portrayed in Disney movies were existant long before, and I have no contention with that. However, it's precisely the same ideas which gave rise to furries, thus providing the link.

For note, I never mentioned myself to be furry either. You may want to stop your assumptions.

I agree that some furries may be pretencious. However, you cannot deny that everyone has their own classification rating. For example, Islam beliefs states that unless the meat is prepared in a certain manner, it is wrong to eat it. That doesn't stop the public from eating said meat, but as far as Islamic people are concerned, it is still wrong. In the same vein, furry associations note that Disney movies has certain traits which match nicely with their likings. That doesn't stop the public from treating them as a normal kids movies, but as far as furries are concerned, there are still likable traits.

Instead I'll ask just 3 questions, with answers on the Furry's part:
a) Can different groups of people have different classifications for movies?
 - Yes.
b) What are the traits that Furry takes into consideration before noting a movie to be furry?
 - Anthropomorphic animalistic characters in adult situations.
c) Do Disney movies involving anthropomorphic animalistic characters fall within this catagory?
 - Frequently, yes.

Hopefully this will streamline your arguements.

20Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 17:13

>>19
read
>>18
Even though it's written by an obvious hate site it makes many very solid points about what furries commonly do. Retroactive branding and hijacking of content shouldn't be encouraged especially when it results in furries claiming other people are closet furries for liking content that was never furry to begin with. Furthermore it's just downright silly to make claims that all of these things are furry when it's obviously nothing more than a ploy to gain "acceptance" by hijacking other cultures. I've never met a confident furry who made these kind of ridiculous claims and that's because confident and logical-minded furries don't do that kind of nonsense.

21Report (sage)
at 31 Jan 2008: 18:15

>>20
Not only an obvious hate site, but a parody hate site.  Meaning he's mocking the very ideas he's presenting as silly.  It's amazing how many folks can't grasp parody as being "he doesn't mean what he says, he's saying it to mock other people who say it but ARE serious."

And I thought furries cause drama?  I think all this 'OMFG don't call that/me furry' bullshit is the biggest bunch of needless (and unfunny needs more lulz) drama ever spawned, and furries aren't even responsible for it.  All the whiny little retards are. 

22Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 18:30

>>21
Are you kidding? Yeah, furries are totally not responsible for causing any drama! I mean, damn, how could anyone possibly be insulted when referred to as a closet furry because they happen to like Disney films, Sonic the Hedgehog or other related material? People should especially appreciate when a furry calls them a liar and hypocrite when claiming to have zero interest in the fandom! Nothing is better than being accused of loving disgusting fetishes just because they happen to like something a furry hijacked or retroactively branded!

Moron. That site is NOT a parody site. I know the dude who runs it personally and he is dead serious but it's just like a furry to once again try to hijack something, relabel and redefine it to suit their purpose(in your case trying to claim furries don't cause drama and that the webmaster agrees with you because the whole site is a parody despite you providing zero evidence to prove this...once again another common furry trait)

23Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 18:37

>>20
And religion often cause wars (and genocides), but no one seem to be interested in banning religions yet. You're still confusing minority with majority.

24Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 20:19

>>23
I didn't say anything about banning or oppression of furries. I simply said that ignorance should not be encouraged and celebrated. Decent furries should chastize those who make the entire fandom look bad instead of openly accepting them without question. There is a big difference between privately enjoying a fetish and starting arguments with people over how this and that are furry and if you enjoy those things you are a closet furry.

The stupid minority should be attacked from within the fandom itself, at the very least they should be disowned.

25Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 20:26

>>24
Which is outside the point here, since we're asking whether Disney movies are considered furry or not.

26Report (sage)
at 31 Jan 2008: 21:14

>>22
I said *this* drama wasn't caused by furries...  Just be a bunch of whiners who can't cope with being called furry or having things they like called furry... 

Don't like being called a furry?  Boo-fucking-hoo.  Did you whine piss and moan anytime someone called you name in a grade school too?  Suck it up, princess, there's worse things in life than getting stuck with labels you don't appreciate. 

As for the site, I was thinking of the former rendition of the site theme 'god hates furries' that was found at http://www.pisoc.org/ but which has since vanished (I'm sure someone must remember it, I'm not *that* old yet...).  It was much funnier, more colourful, and mocked both 'furry' and its detractors rather well.  Plenty of folks didn't think it was parody, although it was. 

I wasn't even aware that someone had taken the 'god hates furries' idea, bought it as a domain and put up a 'serious' (albeit still lame in a why-bother-you-wanker sort of way) site.  I'm apparently out of the loop as far as 'fur-hate' goes, so my apologies for the mistake. 

On the other hand, you're like the 20th person I've met on furry sites that supposedly 'knows the owner personally'...  For a guy who hates furries, he seems to have a lot of friends on furry sites. 

27Report
at 31 Jan 2008: 22:38

>>26
I'm not a furry, I just appreciate art of high quality so I come here to satisfy my art collecting desires every now and then. Labels can and HAVE caused wars, they are a serious thing and while being called a furry isn't quite as serious I was merely pointing out the fact a lot of drama and hate toward this fandom could be reversed if the obnoxious members of the fandom were disowned by the fandom.

28Report
at 1 Feb 2008: 03:47

>>27

Yay, the furry wars begin...

You know that you're talking LOTS of bullshit? *g*

29Report
at 1 Feb 2008: 03:52

EDIT: Forgot to say that I agree with you in the point that "the fandom" should ban LOTS of scum which causes their bad reputation, but your war and genocide comparision (when everyone posts anonymously it's hard to tell who said what any time) is totally out-of-point.

30Report (sage)
at 1 Feb 2008: 04:14

>>27
Some of us have tried disowning the less savoury elements that have taken root in the fandom, but alas, they're like roaches or rats (no offense to either species, of course, as both are rocking the bell curve on biological success/survival) and the fandom is like a really old house, with shitty insulation and mis-aligned doors, with lots of cracks for the bastards to get in.  While you're cleaning them out of the first floor kitchen, they're nesting in the second floor library, and raising spawn.

Besides, the problem with cleaning the bad segments out, is more than likely you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the broom eventually.  That's why my own take on things was always you can be keen to fuck trees if you want, but sit down and STFU about it, especially in front of strangers, the media and the world at large. 

Unfortunately, this 'pride' thing showed up and got all fucked out of shape by morons who can't grasp simple concepts, and now it's not okay to be gay (or fuck your dog, or diddle your stuffed toy) unless you can stand up and shout it from the roof tops, preferably nude and with TV coverage.  So now every tard with a hard-on for a donut isn't happy banging pastry in their own home, and keeping it on the down low, now they have this need to shove their interests down the throats of everyone too slow or surprised to escape screaming down the street. 

So we went from cub folks being nice and inconspicuous (no matter how distasteful) in their little corners of the Web on Cubcentral and a few other specialty sites, to having cub stuff all over the public face of furry as it is today (that being FA, if someone was wondering which the biggest furry site currently is). 

Of course, long before we had pics of TimmyFox getting dip-sticked by Uncle Pedobear, we had all the f'n diaper fans, vore, gore and scat folks wiping their messes all over the fandom anyway, so I guess it was a lost cause the moment the first furry declared that his sick fetish was as valid a part of his identity as the concept of liking anthropomorphic animals was in the first place.  If we had had the foresight then to tell that particular little wanker to STFU and pull up his pants, and have some f'n common decency, we might've had a hope. 

But it's too late now, I'd say.  Once that bitch opened her damn box, we were pooched.  You can let the deviants out to play, but trying to stuff them back under the stairs when the neighbors come visit is a whole different ball game. 

Now we stand as shining examples of what exactly a society with no sense of shame or acceptable behavior would be like.  A bunch of jackasses all waving their dicks at the cameras screaming LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME while wanking it with their own feces, as all the other degenerate morons look on, clapping and applauding the fool. 

It's a disgrace, but all the rest of us can do is shake our heads and turn away, while trying our damnedest to provide at least one more example of what a decent furry is like.  In case anyone bothers to look past the scatological facade to see that originally, the fandom might've been about the adult depiction and appreciation of the 'funny animal' ideal, but it wasn't about being a public spectacle of deviancy and perversion. 

And unfortunately, I don't think claiming I'm not a furry is going to make anything better, so I don't.  I admit I'm a furry, but I'm not one of those f'd up mentally damaged tards that are trying to take over the fandom, and have already taken over it's public image.  I'm the kind of furry that likes anthropomorphic animals, and that's it.  That's what classifies me as a furry.

Maybe if more furries, who weren't drooling f-tards that weren't a disgrace to the fandom and the human species came back out of the closet, there'd be a wider range of folks for people to decide what furries are like, and that were not all the diaper wearing, dog-fucking morons. 

As it is, I think I'm the last guy around who was around a decade or more ago, who still calls himself a furry despite the fact that everyone else has decided to avoid the label like the plague because of all the shit stains who've taken it up as the banner of their perversion.  And in a crowd of freaks, if your the only guy not wearing a dog-suit and masturbating furiously to the latest copy of toddlercon-with-ears, nobodies really going to notice. 

Hah, I think I just talked myself into not considering myself a furry anymore.  Leave it to the pervs and tards.  I need another drink.  :P

31Report
at 1 Feb 2008: 11:41

>>29
I wasn't comparing the horrors of war to the problems of this fandom as if they were equal in value. I was merely stating that the labeling of things causes a variety of damage both emotional and physical in nature. It's never healthy to label things forcefully and tell other people they are wrong if they don't accept the label. Being told by a furry that I am a furry for enjoying the same non-furry products he/she does is such an example. I shouldn't have to suffer because a minority of obnoxious people have hijacked and retroactively branded things just so they could feel more accepted, normal and righteous in their love of fucking children, eating shit, drinking piss, eating their mates and other reprehensible acts that DONT need to be broadcasted with pride.

>>30
I agree. There really is no reversing the damage that has been caused at this point so calling yourself a furry is likely to cause nothing but problems. Most the decent people of the fandom have already quit calling themselves furries which means the majority left ARE those sick fucks. Good luck taking back the word now, that'd be like being a white guy trying to take back "porch monkey".(Clerks 2)

The really obnoxious thing now though is that even if you just say "I like to collect anthro art" both people who hate furries and the annoying furries will say "YOU ARE A FURRY THEN". More and more stuff is getting hijacked everyday and now if there is even a single fucking talking animal character in the product it makes you a furry. Ridiculous.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if most the anti-furry people were actually former furries who were just disappointed where the fandom went due to sick fucks and obnoxious crazies.

32Report
at 1 Feb 2008: 20:24

Why to judge others... some of us may not be as righteous as we should, but it is the same act of judge that causes most of the conflicts.

And about the movies, I'm not from the Disney staff so I can't say if it is or it is not or even what it was supposed to be...

I posted first here, this is my second post... I may not be as righteous as I should be and I don't even know if I'm a furry or not, but I do not want to offend anyone and I really do not even want anybody else knows about it too.

34Report (sage)
CLW at 2 Feb 2008: 10:50

For the love of god delete this stupid thread. It's been discuss how many times now mods? The simple answer is this. YOU DECIDE WHAT IS FURRY TO YOU AND YOU ONLY. If you think something someone else thinks is furry isnt, then be mature and dont try to start a fight about it. Stop wasting space on this server cnotinuing an argument thats been repeated god knows how many times.

Thread is saged so it will hopefully die soon anyway.

35Report
at 6 Feb 2008: 07:05

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what the deal is over whether or not a Disney film is furry or not.  When the fandom got started, the term 'furry' simply meant either a work that featured anthropomorphic animals (and it didn't mean only those by fans) or else a fan of the genre.  That's all.

Therefore, yes, LION KING is a furry film.  It wasn't made by furry fans, but it does feature anthropomorphic animals.  That's the only necessary criteria, and the only criteria that ever really mattered.

36Report
at 6 Feb 2008: 08:56

>>35 "Therefore, yes, LION KING is a furry film"

No it's not. Stupid, idiotic furries applying their labels to everything.

37Report
at 6 Feb 2008: 09:11

>>36
If Lion King is not a furry film, then Azumanga Daioh is not anime. Because Azumanga Daioh was not created for anime fans either. Azumanga Daioh was created for Japanese television and intended for Japanese school kids, no different than shows like Scooby Doo in the U.S.

38Report
at 6 Feb 2008: 09:21

>>36
that my friends was a /b/tard
dont feed him:ignore him, they get bored if they dont get lulz. then they just disappear into the internet's black hole (4chan)

39Report
at 6 Feb 2008: 14:44

>>35
>>37
You apparently don't understand the definition of anthromorphic, go back to school.

40Report
Samhuinn at 6 Feb 2008: 14:53

>>39
..??

If you can trust http://www.dictionary.com ,  we get:

an·thro·po·mor·phism
n.  Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Or:

anthropomorphic
adjective
suggesting human characteristics for animals or inanimate things.


Maybe it's not "furry", but the Lion King is absolutely applying human characteristics to animals, even if they don't walk upright.

According to the same site, there is one definition that says "resembling or made to resemble a human form", which, I agree, wouldn't include the Lion King. It looks like you're both correct. Doncha love it when that happens?

41Report
riakun at 28 Sep 2008: 23:03

wow, this thread is old...

excuse me if I'm out of line here, or anything, but i figured this would be just as good a time as any to join in.

1. DO NOT INCLUDE RELIGION in any discussion, religion is so messed up right now, and has so many variants that there is no direct proof that anything is right or not.

2. USE YOUR OWN DEFINITION if you think a furry includes most Disney characters, then keep on thinking that, if not, then do the same.

3.FURRY IS A NICKNAME not usually meant as a bad name when you are being called it by someone inside the fandom

F.Y.I.

NICKNAME

a name added to or substituted for the proper name of a person, place, etc., as in affection, ridicule, or familiarity: He has always loathed his nickname of “Whizzer.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nickname

4.FURRIES ARE NOT DECLARING THEY OWN IT, it is just declared that it is similar to the definition of anthromorphic, and considering that most anthromorphic characters have fur, hence thenickname "furry"

if you met someone named richard, and called them dick, would that be considered an insult?

if you met a girl/guy, and called her good looking, would that be considered an insult?

if yo named your care betty, would that be cosidered an insult?

there are many more examples, and reasons, i am sure all of you can come up with some on your own. if not, ask a friend.

42Report (sage)
You lost the game at 29 Sep 2008: 05:48

>>39
You clearly don't understand the use of the word "apparently", or the use of punctuation. Go back to school. :D

43Report
at 29 Sep 2008: 05:51

>>38
actually, most people consider fchan to be the internet's black hole. But who cares? you're contradicting yourself. That's kind of funny.

44Report
at 4 Dec 2008: 02:21

opinion is not fact, .anthropomorphism is the basis of the fandom' that is a fact.
'disney movies are furry' this is opinion.

stop argueing over who is right and who is wrong, opinions are above the black and white.

45Report
at 5 Dec 2008: 01:46

>>9

Doom

game movie


ARE YOU HIGH

46Report
at 5 Dec 2008: 08:25

Quit arguing over opinions in a thread. It solves nothing. Disney movies can be proven as furry, especially TLK. Otherwise, you know, no one would have watched them. and here, "furry" and "yiffy" are two alike but seperate things.

As for the "anthropomorphism is the basis of the fandom" person: This isnt entirely true. Fursuits can be compared to antropomorphism, but some furs, like myself, prefer the ferral or semi-ferral variety. 

Also, it is true some furs have obscene and deviant fetishes. I wont deny it. And it is also true FA has a collection pertaining to said fetishes. Again, cant deny it. The difference is, FA has a browse categories for a reason; if you dont like it, STAY AWAY. I dont really see why our society has to be assholes to everyone who likes something different. If you're a fur, you have no right at all: just look in the mirror, and let the bitching fly at who or what you see. As for any non-furs who are here: NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO LOOK. You obviously came to it by your own FREE WILL, if Im not mistaken. So now that you've wandered a little far, you think you get the right to judge? HELL NO. Only a system and two people have earned that right...The juditiary system, Jesus, and GOD.

Also let it be known, most furs do NOT exploit for the public image; most furs are affraid to even tell the one they love, whether male or female, about it. As with many things, its just a bunch of fucked up morons who went too far, abused and abashed a society, and soiled a perfectly humane culture. As for other cultures like gays---yeah, some of us may have taken that a little far as well. But who can blame us....we've be ridiculed from the armed forces, kicked out of shops, and removed from high-paying jobs we're obviously perfectly qualified for. If I remember correctly, not too long ago America participated in the enslavement of African Americans. That soon ended, sure, but we also found ourselves in a time of racism and "separate but equal" laws. I'll tell you this: pay attention in any US history class. It was separate, yes...but the farthest from equal. Discrimination faced all of them, and they had to fight for their rights to be treated just like you or I. So why shouldn't Gays, who have been treated almost as badly as the blacks, not be allowed to fight for what is their NATURAL LIBERTIES?

Some of you would argue against this with something i will quote, and rebuke, below. You'd be surprised how wrong your accusations are.

1)"It isn't natural for a man to lie with a man, or a woman to lie with a woman."
a)Are you blind, or just stupid? Take a look on National Geographic, or even Youtube. Hell, Google would work to. Get some education; homosexuality has been documented in over 25,000 species in the wild world-wide.

2)"The Bible says it isnt morally right to lay with one of the same sex."
b)Yeah, thats true. But thats one of the reasons I dislike Christianity's holy book: it contradicts itself. A lot. As any of you know, who truly study it, it also says "love thy neighbor, thy brother, and thy enemy as you love thyself."(paraphrased) 'Love' can go much deeper then just kind feelings. It involves  care, compassion, support, and aide...where ever it is needed.

3)"Gayness/Homosexuality is deviant, wrong, and (insert other similar nouns here)."
c)Again, something you cant deny, but get over it. So is sex in general, according to the rest of the world. And not a single guy out there, with the exception of Jesus Christ and possibly the pope, can say you've never: -looked at porn, -masturbated, -considered porn or masturbation, -had a thought you could not say in front of your entire christian church denomination. So guess what? Humanity is ALL deviant. Go cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it.

Returning to the topic at hand...
Sure, some people have different thoughts, different ideals. That's life. If you cant get past them(the people who choose to flaunt their fetishes and act like idiots) and move on, where would we be?

If you've taken the time to read my post, thank you. I sincerely hope you'll take at least part of what I have said to heart, and spread it whenever you find a total asshole putting down someone for something as simple as being gay. Sure, there are some deviants out there, that go way too far...I mean, if you have to rape someone to get off, you deserve more then just prison time in my book...but you got to  get past the prejudice, and acknowledge the person; not what he or she likes.

47Report
Kaosi at 9 Dec 2008: 23:48

What I want to know is why we argue this point REPEATEDLY. Again and again, I see the same things being said and cited. It still doesn't and will NEVER change that fact that the human race is f'ed the hell up! Murderers, rapists, criminally insane, vagrants, perverts, furverts, and anything else you can name exist in this world. Why? Who cares! The way I see it, there are three stages to life. First, you're born. Second, Life will most likely fuck you in the ass in one way or another. Third, you DIE. That's all there really is to it. Sure, there will be moments like meeting your "soulmate", having a kid, family holidays, so on and so forth. BUT. Will it really matter when you're dead? No matter what you believe in, if you die and go to Heaven, you're going to be happy and have it easy for the rest of eternity. Or you go to Hell and pay for all of your "sins". No matter what, how you lived your life won't matter. Enjoy yourself no matter what in the here and now before you can't.

*sigh*

Well, now that that's out of my system, >>46 makes some excellent points. But I also don't agree with some of it either. Their 3 bullets are right on target. Also, the very first sentence. The part I don't agree with is the first part of the last sentence. But you know what? Who cares? It's called an "opinion" for a reason.

48Report
Diomedes at 2 Feb 2009: 01:03

Is it just me or has this completely deviated from the actual, very very simple question of if there were furry videos and animations that anyone knows of?

49Report
at 3 Feb 2009: 19:53

>>1
Before this thread implodes off of off-topicness, yes there are animations that could be found here.

Look for threads with the [Fl] icon next to them.

50Report
at 10 Feb 2009: 10:36

Off topic, but to whoever said that movies like Doom, DoA, etc, were movies made for the gamers; oh god how wrong you are.

Now, I love the DoA movie, but if it truely was made FOR the DoA fanbase, they wouldn't have switched around personalities and changed plotlines like they did.

The whole point of movies based off videogames is to take an existing concept that has proven to be popular (then there's also the fact that taking an existing concept takes less time and money than making a new one), make it a bit more Hollywood friendly, and then use it to attract a larger and broader audience. So if anything, videogame based movies are NOT made for the gaming fans, but more for the non-gaming audience because more people equals more profits.

51Report
at 10 Feb 2009: 10:40

#46; "Disney movies can be proven as furry, especially TLK. Otherwise, you know, no one would have watched them."

This is the most STUPID thing I have ever heard. Are you seriously saying that only furries watch Disney movies? Because of course Disney NEVER appeals to the kids no no...

52Report
TLKFan at 10 Feb 2009: 20:04

The movie The Lion King is pretty much a furry movie. When furs point out movies that sparks their interest because there is 'something furry' about them, they call it that. It's simply used as a descriptor and this doesn't mean that the movie was made by or for furries.

It simply implies that there is something in there that might be of interest to you, if you're insterested in that whole furry thing.

When I say, X is furry, it's usually not! It's a movie, or a song, or a book. It's something *in* that movie, song, or book, that is relevant to our 'special interests'.

And how about we go back to talking about NICE YIFFY ANIMATION and thus, back on-topic?? I really wish there was some animation out there, of decent quality and length, that'd depict - and quite graphically so - smut of the best kind in the furry world. There are Anime tidbits here and there, but they've never quite hit the spot,

53Report
at 12 Feb 2009: 22:09

Ok as far as I know there are two hentai shows currently out there that are close to yiff but I do not remember if it contains anothro on anthro. Sex Demon Queen contains several scenes with dogs (puppies) and human with dog head, pounding away at human girls.

Words Worth is a series that contains a Horse, an evil horse that pounds away at human girls when he captures them.

Those are the closest to adult video yiff that I have seen.

I am sure there are many home made yiff animations out there.

54Report
Desu Ex#SzKvZ3ztWU at 15 Feb 2009: 04:34

Felidae is one.

55Report
at 29 Mar 2009: 14:27

On-topic. According to my personal opinion, and the point that it can be linked contemporarily in todays society, yes - there are 'furry' movies.
Off-topic.
Also according to my personal opinion - (lets fly away here one moment, this point will finish, but to understand what is said you'll have to read the next bit first...)

An opinion is someones personal idea on a topic which has no held fact - therefore a fact by definition is essentially something which no one can truly hold a personal opinion of, they can hold an opinion ABOUT the fact, but the fact itself can not be changed, altered, scarred or buried and then resurfaced as something else in any way whatsoever...

Therefore, I think (OPINION-ALERT) that, the furry fandom was most likely around near-immediately when the idea of anthropomorphic characters were toyed with by animation companies, the characters made were different, and to my knowledge (personal knowledge of those around me), many of the people i speak to have watched and enjoyed animated movies, whether it be as a child of the 1990's/80's (i forget) watching 'Watership Down' or perhaps even earlier, heck! i don't know when the first ever anthropomorphic animal-qualitised film was made :)

As such, (relating to original 2nd point), i find it highly irrelevent that anyone should be debating, or having this deteriorate into an argument, over the question - "are there furry films".
This question immediately instigates a sense of personal opinion to the answer, what do you think is furry? what do you think is NOT furry? how much 'furry' does it have to be before it is 'furry'?
i know for a fact that some take 'furry' to the highest level of sexual acts - be it animations, real-life (fursuits), or just online roleplay.
Everyone is DIFFERENT, yes there are those out there that do indeed, and i do personally believe this, need removing... but i suggest everyone moves along and deals with it, leave the fools to their temporary delusions of grandeur and better yourself by not interacting with them.

To pull this to an end without rambling on any more -
Contemporarily, yes - today there are furry films, and companies will probably continue to release them,
Opinion-based, maybe there are and maybe there aren't. depending on what you deem to be 'furry', yes and no.
Factual - The world is probably fucked. and so are the people. deal with it.

I do consider myself a furry. think what you will, at the end of the day, i wish that a certain majority of people didnt tarnish the furry fandom with their ideas, but when i get criticised, at least i can reply with some form of intelligence.

56Report
at 29 Mar 2009: 14:31

>>55 (same person)
quick-note. 'yiff' animation.
"yiff" - here's a few things to note regarding this word.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yiff

And its not ridiculous like some things on that website, thankfully.

yes there is yiff animation on the internet.

57Report
stonefoxnick@Hotmail.com at 30 Mar 2009: 16:53

can i get alink to a yiffy animation site other than the gay/male site and taurin ???
email it to me at
stonefoxnick@hotmail.com

58Report (sage)
Tenko at 28 May 2009: 04:28

just so people shut up, movies are like this ,DANCE DANCE *where its just about gangster danceing* would be considerd for gangsters and people who like it, TRON a movie about a game would be considerd for gamers movie like fox and the hound would be considerd for furry fans, but their not a movie just for them,if you think that your just sterotyping and thats like saying a movie is for black people cause theirs a black person in it saying "DOG" to someone, or saying a movie is for redneck cause he said walmart sucks, fact is movies are for everyone,i watch just about damn near all of them, and yea ima furry but fact is you dont have to be furry to watch a movie that furry people like,you dont have to be a gangster to watch dance dance or shit like that,its a fucking movie.i dont know why people are so troubled by furries, people are all freaking about people drawn like cat ears or foxes ,HAS ANY ONE EVER HEARD OF SCAT? OR PAIN OLYMPICS?! THAT SHIT IF FUCKED UP! if you SAY NO YOU ARE FUCKED UP,FURRIES PC NERDS GAMERS JOCKS EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON THAT.

59Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage