Not categories, entirely different sets of content for:

• straight: pornhub.com
• gay: pornhub.com/gayporn
• trans: pornhub.com/transgender
• lesbian: ___ which is actually just a category and not a set of separate content___ oof___ pornhub.com/video?c=27

This is incoherent to me.

You are conflating sex and gender which are distinct things.

How so? Also it would help if you didn’t cut off the quote mid phrase.

Other than, arguably, pornography they don’t seem to be overly relevant to furry either.

I’m giving a family resemblance definition of furry sexual. I’m not making any deep claims about the activities of any particular furries.

Apologies, I did misspeak with “all”, however that’s like saying trans people all share the hobby of crossdressing and it’s just fetish wear. Fursuits serve the same function as gendered clothing or HRT for many individuals.

You’re presupposing the conclusion you want to draw. I don’t believe furry is a gender so you’re not going to convince me that wearing a fur suit is gender affirming care.

My overall point is that you should speak with more furries, there’s more going on there than you choose to acknowledge. Reducing it all to “fetish” is harmful and does harm the overall LGBTQ+ community.

I’m not reducing the entire furry fandom to fetish. I’m claiming that it’s a fetish community. Does it have more depth than that? Yes, but that doesn’t change the nature of the fandom. You could make the same claim about adult babies. They do more than just wear diapers. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s inherently a fetish community.

Questioning and invalidating another’s gender or sexuality identity sets the precedent and framework for yours to be questioned and invalidated in turn.

I’m not questioning anyone’s gender or sexuality, so I’m not worried about that happening.

This has been a long conversation. It’s been getting less focused and more repetitive, so I’m going to call it here. I hope you have a good day.

Then what are heterosexuality and homosexuality defined by?

Pornographic material: Pornhub has entirely separate sites for “straight” and “gay”. Would adding a “furry” site really feel all that strange or out of place?

Porn categories do not define sexual orientations, so I do not understand your point. Sexual orientation is a description of the sexual characteristics of yourself and the people you are attracted too, neither of which are decided by whether or not either of you are furries.

sex toys, roleplay scenarios: I don’t think that’s as strongly correlated as you’re suggesting. Pony/pet play is big in the BDSM community and bad dragon toys were far from exclusively for furries. Unless you have something else in mind I’m unaware of?

Shared hobby: What exactly is the hobby all furries share?

I’m not claiming all furries do all those things. I’m saying that all of the characteristics that make someone furry sexual are covered by the categories I listed. None of the categories I listed are relevant to whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual.

Also, the hobby that many furries share (I never said all) is fur suiting.

I’m not the one to define these terms. At best, furry is a case of gender expression, not gender identity. These are not the same concept, and I would argue that furry is not even gender expression since there isn’t an underlying gender identity for it to express, though I am not an expert here.

The issue isn’t that you are explicitly making some call to action, it’s that you are othering and implicitly calling for the persecution of other people based entirely on your personal aesthetics.

That’s not what I’m doing. Let me be clear about my central claim - the furry community is a fetish community. While I have given my personal feelings on the matter, my arguments have all been in service of this claim. Even if I were attempting to other furries, I wouldn’t feel that bad on the basis that I don’t believe it’s a sexual orientation, sexual identity, or gender identity, rather I believe it’s a fetish. However, that’s not what I’m intending to do, though I admit that sharing my personal feelings on the matter may have come across that way.

If I did kink shame anybody, or otherwise make furries feel like inferior people, I want to apologize here. I don’t have an issue with furries. I hope they can continue to enjoy their fetish. I just want it to be recognized for what it is.

Why are heterosexuality and homosexuality not ‘just part of the fetish community’?

I have also made the claim that the misidentification of the furry community as a gender identity, sexual identity, or sexual orientation is harmful to the LGBT movement which exists to protect gender identities, sexual identities, and sexual orientations. To me, this question is a perfect example of the confusion that’s brought about by the conflation of furry sexuality with the LGBT movement that is harmful to the LGBT movement.

To give my answer, it’s because heterosexuality and homosexuality are not defined by their pornographic material, sex toys, roleplay scenarios, or a shared hobby in the way that furry sexuality is.

Then we do not have the same experience. From my perspective, people have been claiming for years that the sexual aspect of the furry community is only popularized by a vocal minority and that most furries are just individuals interested in a hobby. If that isn’t your stance, then you and I have no disagreement.

accidentally responded to myself instead of editing my previous comment

Again. I’m not conflating the two. You quote me on explaining why I personally find it disgusting. Then you tell me it’s okay for me to have that feeling. Great. We’re on the same page.

The problem isn’t conflating anthropomorphic animal porn with animal porn, it’s conflating being a furry with sexual and gender identity.

Edit: I will also add that I’m not arguing we do anything to furries. If you look for my calls to action, I’m clearly just arguing that people need to admit it’s a fetish community. I’m not saying we need to shove furries in the closet or make it illegal to be a furry. However, even if I did say that it would be difficult to argue it’s the same as violating LGBT rights because sex and gender are central to a person’s identity while being a furry is not.

That’s categorically incorrect. First of all, I never said the harm towards the LGBT community is caused by the fact that furries are weird. Being a furry is independent of sexual and gender identity. The implication that they are the same is the very thing that is harmful to the LGBT movement. The fact that furries are weird just amplifies the issue.

This just opens more questions than it answers. Like, I know this is from a children’s movie, but since we are discussing furry sexuality, suppose it was furry porn. How could a bunny realistically consent to a fox? Is that not a problematic power dynamic? It sounds like a stupid question, but I shouldn’t even have to evaluate these sorts of questions. It shows that I don’t need to understand the intricacies of pornographic material to be able to decide if it’s gross or not. (And before you ask, I don’t like power in balances in human porn either.)

I’d also like to emphasize that I am not drawing a moral comparison between furries and pedophiles. I don’t care if furries want to do their thing behind closed doors. I personally find it gross, and think that the way the furry community suppresses this side of their fandom is unhealthy and potentially a public health risk, but I do not have a moral qualm with furries in principle. I’m not advocating for making furries illegal or anything. I simply think they need to collectively admit that the sexual side of their fandom exists and is prevalent.

The irony is that most people who wear fursuits don’t perform sex acts with them, while you won’t be able to find a single person at pride wearing bondage gear who will tell you that what they’re wearing is never ‘utilized’ in their bedroom.

Yes. That is harmful too.

Singling out furries in this way makes no sense, you’re just personally squicked by it and trying to rationalize that feeling.

I did say that I personally find it disgusting. My ability to reason is not somehow tainted by my opinions.

P.S. Is a Star Trek fan not a ‘legitimate’ fan if they lust over Seven of Nine or any of the other characters?

I never claimed that furries don’t like anthropomorphic animals if they view furry porn.

No. It’s clearly not the same logic. I have no problem with anyone’s body shape. If an actress were to act out the role of a child in an adult film, then I would have a problem. Since you want to take it there, then I’ll point out that you are using the same logic as the people who claim certain art is not pedophilic because the child’s body is canonically inhabited by a thousand year old soul. Is that context readily apparent? Is that context entirely relevant? I would argue it is not.

I understand the mechanics of it. I’m not conflating furry sexuality with bestiality. I am still repulsed by the attraction to anthropomorphic animals just as much as I am to the attraction to real animals - especially the furry art featuring non-human genitals. It’s gross, it’s weird, and it’s a perversion of childhood themes that I would prefer not to be so public.

Other people view porn too. Do you now find everyone disgusting?

No. I don’t find porn in general disgusting. I find furry porn disgusting because it borders on bestiality. You obviously know that’s what I meant. Don’t be obtuse.

Also, what’s the source of you claim that over 70% of furries view furry porn?

https://furscience.com/research-findings/sex-relationships-pornography/5-4-frequency-of-porn-use/

And how does it matter? They’re individuals, and can make choices on their own.

They are individuals and can make choices on their own. However, I have already expressed why I think it matters. I personally believe the furry community is harmful toward the LGBT movement. Regardless, it matters simply because it’s the truth and there is a major misconception that being a furry isn’t a kink because it isn’t inherently sexual, despite the fact that it is a kink for the majority of furries.

I’m going to get a lot of hate for this, but for the majority of furries, their fandom is at least party sexual in nature with over 70% of furries reporting they they view furry porn. Personally, I find that disgusting and I feel that the furry community’s constant need for validation detracts from the seriousness of LGBT issues at large. I may be wrong in my judgements, but the claim that furries are just people with a hobby is an attempt to sweep an inconvenient truth under the rug.

LLMs have already discovered new proofs for math problems that were previously unsolved. Granted, this hasn’t been done with a commercially available model as far a I know, but you are technically wrong to say they will never discover anything new.

Taught should be replaced with trough.

No has said it because it’s not true.

My favorite version of this proof:

Let S be the subset of natural numbers that are not interesting. Suppose by way of contradiction that S is inhabited. Then by the well ordering principle of natural numbers, there is a least such element, s in S. In virtue of being the least non interesting number, s is in fact interesting. Hence s is not in S. Since s is in S and not in S, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore our assumption that S is inhabited must be false. Thus S is empty and there are no non interesting numbers.

A group is not an algebra. A group consists of a single associative binary operation with an identity element and inverses for each element.

A ring is an abelian (commutative) group under addition, along with an additional associative binary operation (multiplication) that distributes over addition. The additive identity is called zero.

A field is a ring in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse.

A vector space over a field consists of an abelian group (the vectors) together with scalar multiplication by elements of the field, satisfying distributivity and compatibility conditions.

A non-associative algebra is a vector space equipped with a bilinear multiplication operation that distributes over vector addition and is compatible with scalar multiplication.

An (associative) algebra is a non-associative algebra whose multiplication operation is associative.

You can read more about these definitions online and in textbooks - these are standard definitions. If you are using different definitions, then it would help your case to provide them so we can better understand your claims.

There’s a general negative attitude towards chromium browsers due to some anticompetitive practices pulled by Google in addition to privacy concerns and probably some more issues I’m not aware of. So that includes chrome, but also edge and most other chromium based browsers.

It is. Either we need guns for protection and it is okay to point them at people in certain circumstances, or we don’t need guns for protection and they should be outlawed beyond certified uses like sport shooting, hunting, and collecting. I don’t understand your seeming belief that guns are okay to own, but not okay to use.