So, do Furries have sex with animals?

[mutantmoose]

I read the threads in the pit about furries during Amnesia Weekend and I read the linked thread in MPSIMS. I read the post SilverTygerGirl made in which she explained what furries were. I even looked around all linked websites.

But I’m still not clear on it - everybody seemed to dance around the issue. I know that (at the extreme) they like having sex in animal costumes - big deal, so what - but I never quite got to the bottom of whether some of them take it that one step further - you know what I mean?

So, what’s the straight dope?

[Chronos]

There exists a set of people who find the concept of anthropomorphic animals appealing in some way. There also exists a set of people who have sex with non-human animals. The intersection of these two sets is almost certainly nonzero, so strictly speaking, it would be correct to say “Some furries have sex with animals”.

However, the intersection between people who drive Hondas and the set of people who have sex with animals is also almost certainly not zero. Therefore, one could equally correctly state that “Some Honda drivers have sex with animals”. Although both statements are true, neither of them is particularly significant.

[Bosstone]

The wiki entry says 2% of the furry fandom identifies as zoophiles. As Chronos says, however, the traits of being a furry and being a zoophile are not necessarily linked. To the extent there is any sexual attraction, the vast majority of furries find it in anthropomorphic animals, not real ones.

[Princhester]

How does XKCD always manage the right cartoon at the right time? Heavily enmeshed with the zeitgeist, they are.

Aversion Fads

[mutantmoose]

@Chronos

There exists a set of people who find the concept of anthropomorphic animals appealing in some way. There also exists a set of people who have sex with non-human animals. The intersection of these two sets is almost certainly nonzero, so strictly speaking, it would be correct to say “Some furries have sex with animals”.

However, the intersection between people who drive Hondas and the set of people who have sex with animals is also almost certainly not zero. Therefore, one could equally correctly state that “Some Honda drivers have sex with animals”. Although both statements are true, neither of them is particularly significant.

I understand what you’re saying but your answer doesn’t really compute. There seems to be a difference between, on the one hand, this set:

• people into bestiality and Honda drivers

and on the other hand, this set:

• people into bestiality and people who have sexual fantasies involving animals

There would seem to be more of a nexus between the two items in the second example than there is in the first.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that you’re comparing the two items as though they are equivalent when they might not be.

If you want to find a sheep shagger then you’re probably better looking at the set of lonely hill farmers than the set of Honda drivers.

You see what I mean? Not all sets are equal. Although, you’re probably right in saying it doesn’t happen any more than in the general population.

[Leaper]

@mutantmoose

I understand what you’re saying but your answer doesn’t really compute. There seems to be a difference between, on the one hand, this set:

• people into bestiality and Honda drivers

and on the other hand, this set:

• people into bestiality and people who have sexual fantasies involving animals

There would seem to be more of a nexus between the two items in the second example than there is in the first.

(Note: this reply is based on my limited personal understanding of the fandom, and some stuff garnered from my readings of the threads spawned by this discussion.)

Ah, but the second set is not “people who have sexual fantasies involving animals.” First of all, not all furries are into the sexual aspect (in fact, the thread you mentioned had a huge argument just based on that point alone). Secondly, and more importantly, that set is actually “people who [may] have sexual fantasies involving animals with human physiology and traits.” That’s a huge difference. Isn’t the entire point of furry figures that they’re both animal AND human? Wouldn’t eliminating the human aspect negate the entire raison de entendre (sp)? I mean, unless I’m completely mistaken, I don’t think furries are turned on by, say, visiting the zoo.

[Indistinguishable]

@Leaper

raison de entendre (sp)?

There’s something humorous about this interference from “double entendre”. But I imagine you were actually going for “raison d’être”.

[Robin_Goodfellow]

No.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Leaper

Secondly, and more importantly, that set is actually “people who [may] have sexual fantasies involving animals with human physiology and traits.” That’s a huge difference. Isn’t the entire point of furry figures that they’re both animal AND human? Wouldn’t eliminating the human aspect negate the entire raison de entendre (sp)?

So Furriesare turned on by Goofy but not by Pluto?

[Silver_Tyger]

Let me put it this way: no more furries are into bestiality than rednecks are. And those people are REALLY creepy.

[Lumpy]

A better question might be do Furries like to have sex with people dressed as Furries, or while dressed as Furries?

Also, another question about just what a Furry is. Are they people who fantasize/ like to dress up as cartoon anthro-animals, or (if it were possible) would they prefer something closer to what a human-animal hybrid might really look like, such as This: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/gallery/s2_01gallery/1024/cats3.jpg

[Lumpy]

A better question might be do Furries like to have sex with people dressed as Furries, or while dressed as Furries?

Also, another question about just what a Furry is. Are they people who fantasize/ like to dress up as cartoon anthro-animals, or (if it were possible) would they prefer something closer to what a human-animal hybrid might really look like, such as This: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/gallery/s2_01gallery/1024/cats3.jpg