Should this be moved to Culure:Philosophy?
I know it's a controversial issue, but are babyfurs really a subset of _lifestylers_? As I see it, infantilism is just one of the many forms of unconventional sexual behaviour that furs, like all people, get up to; it's not any more closely associated with the "identifying yourself with your animal persona" issue that (IMO) defines a lifestyler than, say, BDSM or macrophilia would be. If the argument is that sexual unorthodoxy per se is enough to make one into a lifestyler, I would take issue with that point - or, at least, suggest that all such "deviancies" are listed in this article, rather than having infantilism singled out as it is now. Tevildo 11:55, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Some just enjoy being childish and silly without relating to anything sexual. I would say that the number of those who emit baby animal sounds or behave child-like when among furries is vastly greater than those for whom it forms part of their sexuality - but perhaps this is just my personal impression. "It's not all about sex." Unci 11:39, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the page should be altered to reflect this? -- Siege 10:29, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Y'know what? I really have to ask whether being babyish is specifically a furry thing. Barefootedness relates, but not youth. So I'm going to remove that reference. -- Siege 01:38, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Just posted merge tag to "Furry lifestyle" and "Furry lifestyler". My opinion at the moment is that "Furry lifestyler" page should become a redirect to "Furry lifestyle" article. I think a word-pair that is similar to the lifestyle/lifestyler pair is fursuit/fursuiter pair, and "Fursuiter" page redirects to "Fursuit". --EarthFurst 22:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)