Yeah, what is “yiffing”?
Rexdart also has a bug up his ass about slash and fan fic for some reason. I can understand not liking it, but the degree to which it seems to bother him is rather extreme.
According to this chap. it is the act of two anthropomrphic animals having sex
Hmmmm, learn a new verb everyday.
“Now children, today’s word is ‘yiffing’. Let’s try and use it in a sentence.”
Well you definitely do NOT want to type “yiffing” into google and visit the sites that come up, then.
I don’t know the whole story on how the word originated (I heard it had something to do with a sound a fox makes during a the sex act), but it basically encompasses all sexual fetish activity related to furries. The furries use it to describe the sex they have while in costume (they have holes in the front of their fursuits for that purpose, but I have no interest in delving deeply enough to learn the precise mechanics of that though), and pretty much whatever else they do in that capacity for sexual gratification, like the “furpile” depicted on last night’s CSI. They also use it as an adjective “yiffy” to describe anything that they find sexually arousing in a furry way, they might describe a drawing of an anthropomorphic man-wolf with a giant penis standing astride a cowering naked sheep-girl as “yiffy” to give you an idea. (You were right to be scared to ask.)
So when the guy on the show last night said “I’m just here for the yiffing”, he meant he was only at the convention to get involved with some furry sexual activity.
Well as long as they enjoy themselves nothing wrong with a little yiffage.
How fucking complicated is this concept, people?
THE PEOPLE WHO DRESS LIKE BUNNIES AND SCREW STUFFED TOYS ARE NOT THE ENTIRITY OF FURRIES.
I’m getting really fucking sick of repeating myself in the face of willful ignorance. I mean, the hell? We’re about fighting ignorance here, right?
Furry can be as simple as stuff like Disney’s Robin Hood. It’s anthropomorphic animals. It’s furry. What that has to do with dressing in costumes to have sex, I don’t know. Not that anyone’s explained to me why some costumes make you a sick freak, and the saucy french maid/catholic schoolgirl is just dandy.
I’m sure you think that pulling percentages out of your ass actually means something. But as has been already pointed out, I doubt the numbers are entirely accurate. And, I think more importantly, they’re based on not having a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
I just can’t imagine where the bunch who goes around reciting the same bullshit about how furries are all freaks who have sex with stuffed animals, or exclusively while dressed as a small mammal can turn around and insist that factual information is important somewhere else. You people must have balls the size of melons.
RexDart, you really ARE a moron, aren’t you?
SA’s whole raison d’etre is to make people look like freaks, by highlighting the extreme fringes.
You cannot say, without making yourself look like a fucking idiot, ‘I saw something freaky on Something Awful! These people are all freaks!’
Yes, there are freaky elements to furridom. Yes, some of those freaky elements are certainly creepy. But they are, I repeat (again, and again, and again), the fringe.
Taking it in ascending order of fringetude (and, accidentally, but not coincidentally, freakiness):
'Suiters are a large minority of furres. People who yiff in their suits are a small, but visible subgroup of 'Suiters.
Plushies are likewise small group - and, my instincts tell me, completely orthoganal to furridom. The vast, vast, although I can’t say, offhand, what proportion of plushies are furries, but I’d be less than surprised if it was less than 3/4.
It hasn’t been brought up in this thread (yet, but it will be), Zoophilia (real zoophilia, not the trumped up ‘yiff’s bestiality!’ bullshit) is almost unknown in furridom. Yes, some furres are into it, and yes, some zoophiles gravitate to furridom in an attempt to find likeminded people, but they’re so far outside the mainstream that one would be more than justified in ignoring them completely.
What’s really creepy is not furries. It’s not 'suiters. It’s not yiff. It’s people who have so little mental capacity they let Something Awful, of all things, shape their perception of ANYTHING.
People who enjoy a little furry cartoon stuff are one thing. But the “extreme” furries who actually imagine that they are really a wolf, or get really into it, they are freaky, IMO. Not that this is a huge deal; it’s none of my business. But if (if) they expect me to take them seriously, they need to look somewhere else.
Now, what percentage of people who enjoy a little “furry” are extreme “furry,” I don’t know. But the extreme ones are freaks, IMO.
yosemitebabe, the way you phrased it, I honestly agree with you. Some of the extreme fringe stuff is really freaking weird, and I don’t really want to see/hear/whatever it. It’s just the inability to seperate that angle that a lot of people seem to have that pisses me off.
Yiff you, RexDart.
However, you do have a point. People that dress up in animal suits and have massive group orgies are rather wierd. They. Do. Not. Represent. The. Furry. Fandom. Please repeat it until it sinks in.
Well, if you and others are so fed up with those guys, nobody’s forcing anybody to retain the label “furry”. The furries came up with the word, they can get rid of it, or leave it to the fursuit people and take on another name for the more level-headed folk that may be out there. Or they could quit associating themselves with any label at all and just say “I like drawing/looking at pictures of fox-men.”
But they continue to identify themselves as “furry” because they are wedded to the notion of having a united “community” and don’t want to toss the fursuit people out. As I understand it, a prominent group of furries on the 'net tried to distance themselves officially from the fetishists and were treated as turncoats and called intolerant by the rest of them, until the “movement” to distance themselves fizzled out.
But frankly, fursuits or not, I simply do not understand how any topic of interest as ridiculously narrow as “anthropomorphic animals” can possibly consume such a huge percentage of a person’s time, and compose such a large portion of a person’s identity. Hobby? Maybe. Lifestyle? Bizarre. The level of seriousness with which furries take their fandom is beyond the pale. Forget the guys on the Awful Links of the Day, just browse one of the furry message boards for a few minutes, the only word that describes it is “obsessive.” Even a die-hard Trekker doesn’t revolve his entire life around Star Trek and the cons, nor define a huge chunk of his identity around it. It’s something he does not something he is.
If you want to propose that some people who call themselves “furry” do not wear fursuits and jizz on each other’s costumes, then allright. So how about the ones that don’t just stop calling themselves by that label?
Damn, you’re a moron Rex.
If some Giants Fans call themselves giants fans and then beat the other team’s fans to death with sticks, that doesn’t mean all giants fans beat people to death with sticks.
If the show is correct about “yiffing”, when yiffing are you supposed to haul out your penis and ejaculate on the other furries suit, or ejaculate inside your suit? How do female furries satisfy themselves in a fur pile with those big suit hands. Don’t they make effective clitoral stimulation difficult?
Also, how so you get all that semen off the fur? Are they special furry dry cleaning methods?
RexDart: My understanding of “furries” is pretty limited (I saw “furry” art in the con artshows, but that was it). But to claim that the Trekkers can’t be just as bizarre or obsessive is untrue. There are some truly, truly WACKED Star Trek (and Star Wars, etc.) fans out there. I know some people who are obsessive, almost to the point of stalking. (And in the Los Angeles area, where these people are from, they can carry out their obsessive natures so much easier.) There are plenty of WACKED fans to go around.
So, barring evidence to the contrary, I guess I figure that furries are the same way. There are the harmless ones, and the wacked ones.
Bingo, yosemitebabe.
And, Astro - I can’t vouch at ALL for what yiffing 'suiters do, but really, most ‘yiffy’ activity, it’s just a matter of hoping your drawing/typing hand doesn’t cramp up. (IE, it’s a genre of art/fiction, rather than a 'suiter activity.) Although, I’d assume that both those ejaculatory possibilites would be discouraged. 'Suits CAN’T be easy to clean. (I’m probably wrong though. Heh.)
And Rex, thank you for once again proving yourself to be a twit more thoroughly than anyone on the right side of the argument could. Yes, the willfully ignorant insist on blatantly misusing a term, so the people who coined it to describe themselves have to come up with a new one. That’s CERTAINLY reasonable. :wally
(And Trekkies can’t be fucked up and obsessive. Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes: )
I should note - I say that both as a furre and a Trekkie.
Lt. M’res forever! ^__~
Just use cornstarch and a damp cloth, gently rubbing against the grain of the fur. Once the main stains are gone, just dry clean as you normally would.
What?
I’m sorry, I really shouldn’t have posted that, I don’t know what I was thinking.
Cornmeal, not cornstarch. And use cold water on the damp cloth.
Sheesh. :rolleyes:
I did think I made it clear that I was only referring to those who derive sexual stimulation from dressing as stuffed animals and taking animal identities. Though getting sexually excited by anthropomorphic animals is plenty odd as well, even if you don’t dress like one.
You will notice that a catholic schoolgirl is recognizably human. Both of your examples involve girls wearing short skirts. Look, some people might be turned on by the football players on a team, others the cheerleaders. It is a small and very odd minority that is turned on by the mascot.
I never pretended I was doing anything but pulling the number out of my ass. I wonder what world you are living in that you think most folks would find this to be less than freaky. What you seem to not understand that I am a fan of freaks of all stripes. They make the world a far more interesting place.
You seem to expect we should be dialed in to a subculture that I never imagined existed. For the life of me I never knew that this ‘fandom’ existed. I do find it odd that those people who like collecting animal figures choose to keep that same name as those who have sexual attractions to those animal figures.
I would be thrilled to have my ignorance challenged. If any furry would like to describe what kinds of things they collect and what, if any, sexual component there is to their interest I would be fascinated to hear their story.