fchan

discussion

Gay furries and gay-liking straights

Pages:1 41 81
60Report
at 23 Jul 2008: 14:06

All furries are gay, aren't they?

61Report
at 23 Jul 2008: 14:07

>>54 I'm going to assume you're also >>56 right And here's where you learn what an idiot you are. There is more than one person on my side.

For instance: >>53 is me but >>55 is not. You really thought you were arguing with just one person? If I may be so bold, there's a small legion of people you're arguing with.

You're accusing me of being a troll because I disagree with you. I'm disagreeing with you because you're wrong, and I'm not the only one who says so, but alas, I'm the one you have insulted. Why do you react with such hostility? Is it because you've admitted to performing a homosexual act and therefore I call you gay? That's not something I did to you, that's something you did to you.

That's right, when you told everyone that you jerked off to same sex porn, you admitted to committing a homosexual act. You see, homosexual MEANS same sex. And though you might never get it on with a real live human same sex partner, the fact that you masturbated and orgasmed while looking at another male, imaginary or real means you = gay. Not 100%. Probably not 50%. But gay enough.

I DARE you to refute the above paragraph. I DARE you to do it without insulting me (because you haven't been able to keep your temper once this whole discussion). Just keep in mind, in order to refute the above paragraph, you're going to have to come up with a more compelling reason than "people who think about murder = murder" because you didn't just think about your imaginary male, you blew your load to him.

And until you can actually explain how shooting your wad while looking at homosexual porn is not a homosexual act, you are the loser in this war. Have a nice day.

62Report
at 23 Jul 2008: 16:45

>>61


ur gay

63Report (sage)
at 23 Jul 2008: 17:28

>>62 I am. Want to get drinks later?

64Report
at 23 Jul 2008: 21:08

The guy who writes in all lowercase makes no sense in his arguments, but I will say that you can be "furry gay" but not "real gay". We like to make vast oversimplifications of the human mind, but fact of the matter is, we automatically make very practical distinctions at a low level of the mind between things we would overlook and lump together with the overly broad abstractions and similarities that are popular to make in arguments nowadays at the higher levels of the mind. Furry guys (the drawn characters, not the human fans) often look softer and more effeminate, even the more muscular and "manly" versions, than even the most effeminate human man. Not just in physical appearance, but in personality. They're a lot less dirty and gross and threatening (both physically and mentally) than any human male. We like to think that we can just simplify it down to "a penis is the same in all contexts and on all animals" but our eyes and brains do see all of the nitty gritty details and differences between a penis on the cute and non-threatening furry character with oversized eyes and adorable little blushes and such, and the man-jawed, hairy, thick-bodied, rugged, dirty, judgmental, mean, dog-eat-dog human man who bursts a blood vessel in his eye and queer bashes you if you dare let your guard down on any emotional subject for even a second.

No, I'm not going armchair psychologist on you, it's just an observation and I'm not sure why we're automatically excluded from having a say unless we're certified psychologists. Look at the arguments people, not the credentials... I mean, if I was asking you to take what I say as true on faith, then you could certainly question why you should be able to trust that my opinion is the truth, but that's not the case. Not to mention, I've talked to psychologists and taken courses in psychology, and let me tell ya, I'm not impressed by how much they think that they verify their highly specific theories scientifically with such narrow points of data and questionable collection methods.

65Report
at 23 Jul 2008: 22:50

#41 fine, princess, I for one do not Jack Off, whack off, beat off, Masterbate, pump the magic stick, pleasure myself, if the furry looks too much like a human, or does not have fur of any kind. Not hair, fur. 

66Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 00:52

>>65 but you do pound the purple hellmet, rub the one eyed giant, chub the chicken,flog the dolphin, and play with Pete.

67Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 07:43

Saying that liking penis makes you gay...you might as well say that the act of masturbation makes you gay. You sure do LIKE your penis as you are stroking it to feel good. Or how about watching porn? You sure do like seeing that penis fucking slam that whore into oblivion. The more penis the better!

The point is that the aesthetics are completely different. A gay guy wouldn't understand this because he already likes the cock both in fantasy and reality. I suspect it's some angry gay making all the fuss trying to win an argument proving yet again that all straights are gay. Either that or it's the same troll who goes on /d/ saying anyone who likes herms is gay.

Liking penis does NOT equal gay. It's only if you like to get your REAL penis, shove it in another guy or have one shoved in you that you would be gay.

All the "if"s are irrelevant. If furries existed i'd fuck them so that makes me gay!! OH NOES! But they don't fucking exist, so that's not a relevant argument in proving my gayness. Furthermore, the fact this guy keeps using the term "gay" instead of "bi" implying we don't even like women at all pretty much verifies his troll status.

You good sir FAIL for being too obvioustroll.

68Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 08:16

>>67
Then what would you call guys who jerk off to pictures of naked men, if not at least partially gay, as are the subjects in question?

69Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 08:53

>>68
If they have no interest in human males at all then they are not even partially gay. You can't claim someone is gay for whacking off to something that doesn't exist. If I jerk it to Cthulhu ramming Cloverfield up the ass it has no bearing on my sexual orientation because neither EXIST, they are FICTIONAL characters.

This is part of the reason people keep bringing up the "guro = murderer" argument. It's pointing out how silly it is to label someone based on fantasies that don't apply to reality.

70Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 10:21

>>67 "But they don't fucking exist, so that's not a relevant argument in proving my gayness."

So if they existed, you would have sex with them? Would you still be straight? lol...

Here's the thing about human sexuality. It doesn't matter if the object of your affection doesn't exist. If you actually get off thinking about someone, and that someone is of the same sex, that's a homosexual act. Nobody has yet to refute this. Some of you have made the excuse that "they aren't real." Well, that's a cop-out.

"Furthermore, the fact this guy keeps using the term "gay" instead of "bi" implying we don't even like women at all pretty much verifies his troll status."

Ah, the magic of the Internet, where anyone who disagrees with your limited view of the world is obviously a troll. That's also a cop-out, an excuse to use poorly thought out arguments and declare them as "truth" in the face of differing opinions...

I've never once said you can't also be "bi." These are not mutually exclusive. Gay means homosexual. Straight means heterosexual. Bi means both homosexual AND heterosexual. Getting off to same sex pornography, regardless of the "existence status" of the subjects of the pornography, is a homosexual act.

The problem with you and the other guy I've been arguing with is you simply don't want to acknowledge this fact that same sex porn turns you on, so you hide behind the fact that, say, Fox McCloud doesn't exist. Well, HE may not exist, but his IMAGE does. If it's a simple matter of wanting to masturbate to a furry, why not a female furry, mr straight man? I fully expect more excuses, so I'm going to tell you my opinion: you're so ashamed to have homosexual urges that you hide yourself as far back into the closet as you can and react aggressively whenever anyone shines a light back there.

71Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 10:41

Why do sexuality labels always have to do with the act of sex?

People keep forgetting about the EMOTIONAL BONDS.

AHH!

:D :P

72Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 10:46

>>70
You totally fail to understand aestheticism and how it applies to sexuality. Why should someone have to "admit their gay" when the only applicable feelings apply to a fictional character drawn in a way that is more aesthetically feminine than masculine? Of course then we are getting into the argument of what KIND of gay furry art we are talking about. Bara, bishounen, etc etc.

The point is...it is ILLOGICAL for someone to call themselves gay or bisexual if the feelings they have only apply to ficticious settings. They would have to deal with more shit than necessary because they'd be getting hit on by human males they have zero interest in. It's simply easier to call yourself straight unless the thing you have feelings for exists.

It could be compared to calling yourself a bestialist just because you enjoy looking at drawn images of horses fucking women. It doesn't mean you actually want to see it IRL and applying the label to yourself does more harm than good. Unless you have an interest in human homosexuality there is no point in calling yourself bi/gay.

Is it accurate? No. Is it LOGICAL? Yes.

73Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 10:51

>>72
In other words...this isn't about being in the closet, this is about applying a logical label to ones self to avoid potential situations you prefer not to be in. Calling yourself gay or bi when those feelings only apply to fantasy settings is a disservice to the people around you and to yourself. It's a false label unless you go into unnecessary details about your life by saying "yeah, i'm bi but only toward furries of a feline nature, not interested in human males or anything like that", it's easier to just say "i'm straight" because it's more applicable and accurate to your REAL sexuality.

The only other option in this case would be to have a "fantasy sexuality" and a "real sexuality" but even that is unnecessarily complex.

74Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 12:12

>>71
EXACTLY
>>72
>>73
Exactly to you as well. Labeling yourself something that you feel does not fit your personality or interests just because someone else is imposing arbitrary definitions is illogical. You know whether or not you are truly gay and no one has any right to label you other than yourself.

75Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 14:05

>>72

No one said you have to label yourself as gay and tell everyone you know that you like the cock. You don't need to change who you are and how you act. (I wish actual gay people would realize this as well.)

The fact is, if you're aroused and get off to the male form, REAL OR NOT, that indicates that you have some interest in the same sex. You might only be a 2 on the Kinsey scale, and still 95% straight, and never entertain the thought of sex with the same gender in real life, but the interest is still there.

You don't need to label yourself or tell anyone, as I said. It's a private thing. If everyone realized that it's OKAY to entertain sexual thoughts or fantasies about members of the same sex, and that doing such would not change who you are or require a label, perhaps the world would be a happier place.

76Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 14:47

>>75
Then why are we even having this argument? If someone wants to refer to themselves as straight because they have zero attraction to human males then what exactly is the issue? It shouldn't matter if they like gay artwork or not because like you said it's a "private thing", so they don't need to be telling you about it.

The argument from the other side of the fence IMO is "YOU ARE GAY JUST ADMIT IT" which is basically the same as saying "IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU DONT WANT HUMAN MALES YOU NEED TO SAY YOU ARE GAY TO PLEASE MY EGO"

77Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 15:00

>>72 "They would have to deal with more shit than necessary because they'd be getting hit on by human males they have zero interest in."

*rolls his eyes* Only if you ran around like a prat telling everyone "Hey everyone, I like to jerk off looking at furry males!"

What you're saying is akin to saying that a white person could tell everyone they're black if it's more convenient for them. That is what's illogical.

>>75 "You don't need to change who you are and how you act. (I wish actual gay people would realize this as well.)"

Agreed. I've never understood the need to rub my sexuality in anyone's face.

>>76 "Then why are we even having this argument? If someone wants to refer to themselves as straight because they have zero attraction to human males then what exactly is the issue? It shouldn't matter if they like gay artwork or not because like you said it's a "private thing", so they don't need to be telling you about it."

This has nothing to do with wants. This has everything to do with the OP's homoerotic fantasies. And if it was a private issue, the original poster shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

And I'll finish by saying you can call yourself whatever you want to, because this whole discussion is one side arguing the definition of a homosexual act and the other side denying that they are anything but 100% heterosexual in spite of homoerotic fantasies, and nobody seems to want to listen, so I'm officially finished. Feel free to bicker amongst yourselves.

78Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 16:58

>>77
You can't look beyond your own gigantic upturned nose to see the facts, congrats.

79Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 19:48

>>77
If you want to nit-pick about definitions, then yes, you could say he is homosexual, but it would serve no other function than to declare yourself right by technicality. They aren't homosexual in any functional sense. They aren't even necessarily homosexual in any psychological capacity either, because the things they're looking for are effeminate qualities, perhaps even in spite of the more masculine qualities.

"*rolls his eyes* Only if you ran around like a prat telling everyone "Hey everyone, I like to jerk off looking at furry males!""

And again, in what functional sense are you employing the word 'homosexual' then? By an arbitrary technicality that will never affect the real world? And there are plenty of places on the internet that ask for sexual orientation. Your suggesting that they have to either lie or be secretive about the fact instead of just telling everybody what they are, in essence, just another heterosexual. It's not as if this is being fought because of homophobia. For fucksake, we're already in the furry fandom; if I had to choose, I'd rather lie to my friends and family and tell them I get pounded silly in both my man-orifices every wednesday than to say "yeah, I wank it to pornographic pictures of the looney tunes on the internet". Everybody'd be trying to keep there pets and children from me, thanksgiving would be an awful awful mess...

80Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 19:49

*you're

81Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 20:00

>>79
Arbitrary technicalities is what internet arguments are all about, didn't you know?

82Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 20:08

>>81
Yep. Also, look how far you apparently have to actually go to even in the real world to be considered truly gay: http//w/...

And you guys are trying to make a couple furries who got off on a lil cartoony m/m action one time sound gay...

83Report
at 24 Jul 2008: 20:27

>>82
Oh god, the cartoon picture they have on that article makes me LOL so fucking hard.

84Report
Draconis Khaan at 25 Jul 2008: 00:52

>>73
So, the message I'm getting from this is: "They're bisexual, but they're not *really* bisexual because that would be inconvenient for them."

WTF? Just because the type of male you're attracted to doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that you're attracted to a male. And, yes, that would require an inconvenient and awkward amount of explanation if the topic came up. If you want to solve that problem by just saying you're straight, that's on you. I wouldn't blame you for doing that (in that situation, it's exactly what I'd do), but it doesn't change the facts.

Ah, but I can hear (er, read) you now: "If it's a private matter that doesn't affect their interactions with other people, why are we discussing this?" In order to answer that, you'd have to ask the OP why he made a public discussion topic about a private matter that doesn't affect his interactions with other people.

85Report
at 25 Jul 2008: 15:08

>>84
Except it's not really "public" when posting under anonymous. Perhaps he just wanted to share his frustration in gay/bi people always trying to claim others want the cock IRL when they don't want the cock IRL. Anyone who is "bi" for ONLY a fictional fantasy character is NOT a functional gay/bi person.

Or maybe he is just a troll.

86Report
at 25 Jul 2008: 16:13

80+ replies in this thread saying, "No no no. I'm not gay for liking male/male furry porn."

You guys are in denial. Denial.

87Report
at 25 Jul 2008: 17:41

>>86
Obvious troll is obvious.

88Report
at 25 Jul 2008: 19:11

>>87
Troll, maybe.
Correct, yes.

89Report
at 25 Jul 2008: 22:48

>>86

Well, most I've seen haven't even said that they beat it to the gay porn. They've been arguing against it being considered gay, but that doesn't mean that they themselves are gay porn wankers in denial. I don't spank it to it, and it's even possible that some of the people arguing against the classification are openly gay or bi themselves and disagree with the notion based on what they know about the odd nature of human sexuality and its often overly simplistic classifications.

90Report
at 26 Jul 2008: 10:08

Pointless discussion.  The answers depend on ones definition of what being gay is.  For me, it is 'wanting' to be or being with the same sex in a sexual manner. I don't see this as seeing and being aroused by same sex situations in fantasy art or even in gay magazines.

You also can't convince me that if every guy in the world could suck themselves off, they wouldn't try it just because they were straight.  This does NOT mean these people would want another guy's cock in their mouth.  But by many of your narrow minded definitions every guy on Earth is gay for one reason or another.  There are way too many factors involved in each circumstance to just claim "Denial!"

91Report (sage)
Draconis Khaan at 27 Jul 2008: 01:46

>>90
Your example only works if people start considering masturbation an inherently homosexual act. Sex is a very psychological thing, and as long as people refuse to realize that, then yes, it's a pointless discussion.

Personally, I never claimed every guy was gay. I do, however, know denial when I see it.

92Report (sage)
at 27 Jul 2008: 03:25

>>91

"I do, however, know denial when I see it."

Translation: "I'm right, you're wrong. Stop writing, I can read your mind anyway" ;)

93Report
at 13 Dec 2010: 11:50

>>2

94Report
at 13 Dec 2010: 16:37

oh look, it's *this* thread again.


Only this one was bumped from 2 years ago.
/sigh

95Report
at 13 Dec 2010: 22:08

>>60

im straight! *thumbs up*

96Report (sage)
at 20 Dec 2010: 05:06

>>93

I'm a gunna necro a two year old long dead thread to say type " >>2 " like I agree with it or something. Yeah. I'm awesome.

97Report
at 22 Dec 2010: 16:16

Lulz

Reading this whole thread made me lost even more hope on humanity.
I mean... fuck, just fuck...

A lot of people just have a lot of problems and insecurities about themselves.
And I love how people always want to have some simple answer about a subject so fucking subjective as human sexuality.
Why can't you just stop using meaningless labels and just accept you by who you are?
I mean, I would like to think that somebody knows him/herself better than a label or some random guy on the internet.

98Report
at 22 Dec 2010: 19:36

>>97
THIS!

99Report
51k0 L33t#3GqYIJ3Obs at 23 Dec 2010: 11:57

Furries trolling furries...
self_headshot.jpg

100Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

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