WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Babyfur

2013-05-06T04:57:26Z

Bittergrey: /* Babyfur roles */ caretaker -> caregiver

{{unref}}
A '''babyfur''' is a member of the [[furry fandom]] who enjoys [[roleplaying]] younger characters. They may also be an Adult Baby and/or [[Wikipedia:Diaper Lover|Diaper Lover]] (collectively known as '''AB'''/'''DLs'''), or is otherwise involved in [[Wikipedia:Infantilism|Infantilism]]. There are many different types of [[fur]]s in the babyfur community, each focusing on different aspects and roles. Like [[furry]] in general, babyfur culture involves a good amount of role-playing (either light or heavy), both online and in the real world.

The community has been growing more and more popular since the mid-to late 90's. While the community itself is still part of the furry fandom as a whole, it is large enough to present sufficient leaders, politics and [[drama]] to give the community a nearly independent feel to it.

Role playing babyfurs will most often take on the role of a [[furry]] [[character]] in his/her infancy or childhood. Common roleplaying themes include "cute" [[clothing]] (onesies, footy pajamas, overalls, diapers) and a child's environment such as a nursery or day care center, complete with cribs, high chairs and babyish decor. A few babyfurs lucky enough to afford the privacy and devotion will set up adult nurseries to role play as children in real life. A [[sex|sexual]] subset of this type of roleplaying is known as [[ageplay]].
[[Image:Rieva-little.JPG|thumb|350px|right|Babyfurs in a Nutshell.<br\>Art by [[LoupGarou]] [http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/LoupGarou], character by [[Rieva]]]]
== Terminology ==
=== Babyfur roles ===

There are a few sub-groups within the babyfur community which are often described with the following terminology :

*'''Babyfur''' : Used to describe the group as a whole, however, specifically it refers to someone who roleplays as younger characters—up to the [[human]] equivalent of toddler age. Baby paraphernalia is likely to be involved for this group and roleplay speech is often either in gibberish or very basic speech.
*'''Lilfur (littlefur, kidfur)''' : This is a person who roleplays as a child character. Characters identified as lilfurs tend to be between their toddler and teen ages. Diapers and other baby paraphernalia may or may not be involved. Role played speech is usually more refined at this point, but still somewhat juvenile.
*'''Diaperfur''' : This is a person who roleplays as an adult character who still either requires or chooses to wear diapers. Role played speech and actions are consistent with an adult. The person may also roleplay an adult character who has mentally regressed back to a younger state, but still has an adult physical form.
*'''Sissyfur''' : This is commonly misunderstood as a person who roleplays a [[male]] character, either adult or child, who is forced to dress and act as a young [[female]] character. Truthfully, a sissyfur is anyone, male or female, who enjoys regression, leaning toward a very feminized and docile or submissive look and attitude.
*'''Caregiver''' : As the name suggests these are the people who roleplay caregiver characters, a 'mommy' or 'daddy' figure for other babyfurs.

Many people don't identify with one single group, but can change roles depending on the situation and who they are interacting with. It's also not uncommon for complex lineages (for example siblings, parents, etc.) to be set up among other babyfurs so that roles can be defined.

== Definition of AB/DLs ==

These are general non-furry terms but are useful to understand in this context.

*'''Adult Baby''' (AB) : A person that enjoys regressing back to being a baby. Beyond regressing using physical or environmental changes (such as diapers, clothing, and settings), they also mentally regress, taking the mentality of a baby. These are the equivalent to 'babyfurs' or 'lilfurs' when crossed with [[furry]]. Teenagers who are Adult Babies will sometimes refer to themselves as Teen Babies ('''TBs''').
*'''Diaper Lover''' (DL) : A person feels a strong desire to wear or use diapers, usually without physiological necessity. These people, unlike AB's, will usually not regress physically (adopting a baby form) or mentally. These tend to be the equivalent of 'diaperfurs' in the babyfur community. For some DLs, but not all of them, there is a fetish connection to the diapers. They will sometimes take the submissive role to a caretaker in sexual play, and the caretaker will take a dominant role.
*'''Infantilist''' : Essentially, [[Wikipedia:infantilism|infantilism]] regards any person who enjoys regressing to the mental age of an infant or toddler, and may or may not involve diapers and other baby paraphernalia.

== Baby items (and why) ==

From the Adult Baby (AB) angle of AB/DL, regressing individuals prefer to behave and be treated as much like a baby or toddler as possible. To do so successfully achieves in many babyfurs a comforting, secure or blissful feeling. Various paraphernalia help to satisfy these preferences:

=== Clothing ===

Many babyfurs enjoy wearing all sorts of clothing. Some say the cuter it looks, the better it is. Such articles of clothing include the following:

*[[Wikipedia:Overalls|Overalls]]
*[[Wikipedia:Shortalls|Shortalls]]
*[[Wikipedia:Booties|Booties]]
*[[Wikipedia:Dresses|Dresses]]
*[[Wikipedia:Onesie|Onesies]]
*[[Wikipedia:Pajamas|Pajamas]]
*[[Wikipedia:Pants|Pants]]
*[[Wikipedia:Footed sleeper|Footed sleepers]]
*[[Wikipedia:Mittens|Mittens]]
*[[Wikipedia:Bows|Bows]]

=== Plushies and toys ===

Just like clothing, interacting with [[plush toy|plushies]] and toys is very contributive to the cub experience. Toys range in age from baby toys to toy cars and action figures. As long as cubs get to interact with one another though, toys are not always the focus in a roleplay.

=== Objects ===

A toddler's life is not complete without items such as [[Wikipedia:Infant bed|cribs]], [[Wikipedia:Baby transport|walkers]], [[Wikipedia:Stroller|strollers]], [[Wikipedia:High chair|high chairs]], [[Wikipedia:Car seat|car seats]]/[[Wikipedia:Infant car seat|booster seats]], [[Wikipedia:Pacifier|pacifiers]], [[Wikipedia:Baby bottle|baby bottles]]/[[Wikipedia:Sippy cup|sippy cups]], [[Wikipedia:Baby powder|talcum powder]] and [[Wikipedia:Bubble bath|bubble baths]]. Many babyfurs use these objects in online roleplay and would love to be able to use them in the real world.

As well as physical objects, some babyfurs find a keen interest in actions like [[wikipedia:blowing a raspberry|blowing a raspberry]], being held, or watching old television shows that are no longer available on TV. Many old children's shows such as 80's and early 90's cartoons on [[Wikipedia:Nickelodeon|Nickelodeon]] were the same shows some babyfurs watched when they were little, and reminiscing about them leaves a nostalgic warmth.

=== Diaper usage (and why) ===

Diapers are an item frequently used while "cubbing out". Like other aspects of babyfur, this can be done in the virtual world, the real world, or both. There are many babyfurs, however, that while they will wear diapers in online roles, do not in real life. Many babyfurs will wear diapers in real life for a feeling of security and comfort, but will not use them for their intended purpose. At the other end of the spectrum, there are some babyfurs that, either by choice or by necessity, wear and use diapers all the time.

Why babyfurs wear, and possibly use, diapers in the real world is varied. For some, they are forced to wear them because of a medical condition and have no choice in the matter. These people have often blended their real life situation with that of their furry persona. For others, it is a way they can regress into their [[fursona|furry persona]]'s age. Some others see the diapers as a connection to their furry persona, paralleling a [[tail]] or [[fursuit]] in the general [[furry community]].

The wearing (and especially the use) of diapers in the real world are at the heart of many issues that some members of the furry community in general have with the babyfurs. For example, it is not generally considered appropriate for a diaper user to soil themselves at a [[convention]] in the presence of other [[furry fan]]s - or to put themselves in a situation where this is likely to happen — yet individuals have been known to do this, to the detriment of the group's reputation.

== Babyfur behavior ==

When cubbing out in both the real world and in online roleplaying, the level of connection to the role will vary between each player. Some babyfurs will become so involved and yearn for such an authentic childish mentality that they will use speech impediments and [[Wikipedia:baby talk|baby talk]] to communicate. Very few babyfurs make a habit out of using babytalk in the real world, similar to a [[Wikipedia:gay lisp|gay lisp]]. Depending on the situation, a babyfur could even develop a habit of whining or crying to get what he/she wants from a caregiver or another roleplayer.

In light online role-playing, babyfurs may toddle, crawl and [[wag]] their tails playfully while the sounds of crinkling diapers abound. Pouncing, giggling, cuddling, [[snug]]gling and tummy rubbing ensue with the maximum possible level of cuteness.

Child-like behavior, baby animal sounds and an emphasis on cuteness can be found among some furry fans when among themselves, even those who don't call themselves babyfurs and who don't participate in other babyfur activities described here, such as diapers or baby clothing.

While most babyfurs are closely attached to the development of young humans, a different approach can be found in online role-play, where newborn [[zoomorphic]] and [[anthropomorphic]] characters often grow up at a similar pace as wild [[animal]]s, doing without accessories such as diapers and learning to walk in a short time. This has the practical advantage of sooner getting into an age that allows interesting role-play even for non-babyfurs when playing a character since birth. As in nature, opinions on when a character can be considered adult vary greatly.

=== Cubbing out ===

"Cubbing Out" is a general term used by the community to describe roleplaying as a babyfur character. This can either be roleplay in the virtual world or the real world. Usually it will involve one or more regressed characters or people interacting with each other or with a caregiver.

"Padding" and "Getting Padded" may also refer to cubbing, in particular regarding to being diapered.

=== The caregiver's role ===

Caregivers (or caretakers) are the "mommy" and "daddy" figures in the roleplay. For the most part, they interact with other babyfurs as a mother or father would with their child. This can include playing with, cleaning or disciplining the younger character.

=== Babyfurs at furry conventions ===

Just like furries in general, babyfurs go to conventions to spend time with friends and express their [[furriness]]. For many, that includes their babyfur aspects too. One may see many babyfurs dressed in juvenile clothing and with various paraphernalia because that is part of how they choose to express themselves. To some babyfurs, dressing in such a way is no different from other furries wearing ears, tails or fursuits.

At many conventions, hotel rooms are set up as gathering places for babyfurs to socialize privately, and many conventions now have unique babyfur rooms/parties available, instead of relying on the same people to run the same parties at every con. Two of the most notable are the [[Cubhouse]], run by [[LilPup]], as well as the [[Cub Hub]], a new room run by any of its core members ([[FoxCub]], [[Natasha Softpaw]], and [[Scritchwuff]], currently) who show up for a particular con.

== History of the babyfur community ==
{{Dubious}}
*'''1995''' - [[Proxima Centauri]] opens [[The Nursery]] on [[FurryMUCK]].
*'''1995-01-13''' - Proxima Centauri runs the first official "AB/DL Furry" convention gathering at [[ConFurence 6]], though unsuccessful.
*'''1995-08-04''' - [[BitterGrey]] opens '''Understanding Infantilism''', then known as '''BitterGrey's Den''', a website for ABDLs and furries.
*'''1996-09-09''' - Proxima Centauri officially opens '''Nursery Tails'''.
*'''1997''' - [[Snuggems]] opens the FurryMUCK's '''DayKare and Bottoms-Up Diaper Company'''.
*'''1998-01-15''' - Snuggems runs '''The Nursery''', the first successful convention gathering for babyfurs, at [[ConFurence 9]]. The Nursery has been held at 18 furry conventions.
*'''1998-07''' - [[Chipper]] and [[OshKoshFox]] create [[babyfurs (IRC)|#babyfurs]] on [[YiffNet]].
*'''2000-05-20''' - [[Kasi Frost]] and OshKoshFox create the '''Babyfurs mailing list''' on [[One Groups]].
*'''2000-05-18''' - [[Ray_Ferret]] creates '''#littlepaws''' on YiffNet after heated disagreements on #babyfurs.
*'''2000''' -[[OzzyFox]] creates '''#nowhere_grotto''' on YiffNet as an alternative to #babyfurs and '''#littlepaws'''. The new channel grows to rival the size of #babyfurs, but falls before '''#babyfur''' is created in 2004.
*'''2001-07''' - [[LilPup]] runs the first CubHouse at [[Anthrocon]].
*'''2002-11-02''' - [[TF Baxxter]] officially opens the '''Babyfur Community''' on [[LiveJournal]].
*'''2004-07''' - [[Ludwig]] creates #babyfur as an alternative to #babyfurs, now on [[FurNet (IRC)|FurNet]], to allow users to chat with fewer rules and regulations.
*'''2004-09-13''' - The Babyfurs mailing list, having moved to [[Yahoo! Groups]], is deleted by Yahoo! and is revived as '''Babyfurs_part2'''.
*'''2004-12-11''' - Yahoo! again deletes the mailing list, and the group moves to "Babyfurs" on [[Smartgroups]].
*'''2006-11-30''' - SmartGroups ceases service. Babyfurs mailing list ceases to exist after over six years. The Babyfur LJ community eventually replaces mailing lists as a central babyfur community center.
*'''2009-02-14''' #babyfur is removed from furnet for making fun of a recently dead furry.{{fact}}
*'''2009-02-24''' - Ludwig moves #babyfur to anthrochat after being banned from furnet along with the other owners of #babyfur
*'''2009-06-21''' - The Cub Hub comes to [[Twitter]].
*'''2009-07''' - '''The Babyfur Group''' opens on [[Facebook]].
*'''2011-01-07''' - Ludwig closes #babyfur permanently.
*'''2011-04-18''' - [[LilFuzz|Fuzzy]] opens [[BabyFur.ME]] as a [[W:Social Network|social network]] dedicated to the babyfur community.
*'''2011-10-10''' - Ludwig opens '''#bfd''' on AnthroChat
*'''201x-xx-xx''' - "Babyfurs" opens up on Twitter, via [[Ruff Wolf]]

==Notable babyfurs==
{{Dubious}}
The following babyfurs are among the most known and respected in the furry fandom, recognized here for their contributions and devotion to the babyfur community:

*[[BabyTiger (person)|BabyTiger]] has been a member of the babyfur community since 1998, A Canadian Babyfur who has a strong presence at the Canadian conventions such at [[furnal Equinox]] and [[FurFright]], as well as organizing and hosting BabyFur gatherings. He also works and helps out with newer babyfurs in the community, making them feel welcomed and lending a hand to any who need the help. He also attends many furry gatherings in the USA, such as AC and FC. In the furry fandom he is also the technical director at [[Anthrofest]].

*'''FoxCub''' founded the Cub Hub mixer parties held at furry cons, which have been well-received by the babyfur community and the furry community alike. He's organized numerous local babyfur parties in the Pittsburgh area, and has been directly involved with most of the babyfur parties held at furry cons for the past decade. Recently, he began building high-quality cribs, high chairs, and other AB furniture, providing samples of his work at babyfur room parties at Anthrocon.

*[[Karis]] owns and maintains [[Karis' Playground]], featuring a large collection of babyfur and AB/DL comics by artists of all rank. Karis was the first person to make babyfur/diaper art available at furry conventions, thus pioneering the community known today as "Babyfurs."

*'''LilPup''' ran and managed the '''Babyfur Cubhouse''' at furry conventions for babyfurs to get together and have fun, before the Cub Hub and other babyfur parties gained prominence. Like Swift and Orca, LilPup works to improve the relationship between babyfurs and non-babyfurs at conventions and to help babyfurs maintain a positive reputation in the furry fandom.

*'''Ludwig''', the owner of the controversial #babyfur and #bfd; often connected with anti-babyfur sentiment.{{fact}}

*[[Orca (person)|Orca]] is a former moderator for the Babyfurs mailing list. He maintains an external file archive for the mailing list. He routinely reports links to interesting or humorous online articles relating to AB/DLs. Orca is also the famed inventor of the "Orca Stack".

*'''Proxima Centauri''''s name is perhaps the first name known to newcomers to the babyfur community as they search to satisfy their newly found interests. Proxima runs '''Nursery Tails''', one of the longest running AB Furry pages, dating back to 1997 (before the term "babyfur" had existed) and featuring thousands of babyfur art, fiction and multimedia files. Though it is in dire need of a new layout, the webpage still runs strong today.

*[[Swift Fox (person)|Swift Fox]] has been a member of the babyfur community since its inception in the mid to late 90's. He writes babyfur fiction, was owner and moderator of several iterations of the Babyfurs mailing list.

== Babyfur media ==
{{Dubious}}
A few of the authors and artists in the babyfur community are:

===Artists===

*[[Marci McAdam]] is probably the most popular [[artist]] in the babyfur community. Although not a babyfur herself, her ability and open-mindedness make her one of the most recognizable and well loved artists in babyfur circles. It is often said that a fur isn't officially a babyfur until they have purchased a badge or commission from her. Marci's babyfur art is for sale at her husband's website, [[Karis' Playground]] - other art is located at '''Marci McAdam's Furries'''. Due to professional time constraints, Marci only takes a few fandom commissions at a time, mostly at conventions.
*[[BushyCat]] appears at several furry conventions and is well known for her humorous-yet-innocent take on babyfurs as well as other alternative genres of furry art. Some of her creations have more human-like qualities than other artists tend to portray in their characters.
*[[Jade Fox]] The majority of his work is based on his own or other babyfurs' characters. His drawings focus on the most treasured aspects of childhood and include innovative clothing design.
*[[Kelvin the Lion]]'s works include the progressive webcomic ''[[Nivlek]]'', about the "weird" adventures of Nivlek the [[snow leopard]], who enjoys wearing diapers and eating.
*[[OzzyFox]], a student of [[Animator|animation]] at the [http://www.artinstitutes.edu/houston/ Art Institute of Houston], produces work that ranges from cuddly cute to controversial and mature.
*[[Cargo Weasel]]'s art leans strongly toward the "DL" side of "AB/DL," showing off mature diaper-related concepts that fit with his coloring and shading style. His art was featured on a now-defunct mailing list, but can still be found on his website.
*[[Familliar]] is a regular at [[Guppy]]'s [[Bluefurry Oekaki|Bluefurry]] [[oekaki]] board. Familiar regularly draws pictures of both his own character creations as well as that of his commissioners in his own charmingly creative and endearing way.
*[[Aramitz]]'s artwork focuses almost exclusively on the "DL" side of commissions for the babyfur community. His style features bold, thick inking lines set against cell-shaded coloring. Aramitz maintains galleries at all major furry art websites.
*[[TaviMunk]] is a traditional and digital artist whose work is intended to reflect the joys and fun of childhood and babyhood, using bright colors and warm, innocent expressions and actions. Tavi keeps his art at a G-PG level, and takes [[commission]]s.
*[[Kalida]] produces a great deal of babyfur artwork, much of it commissioned.

=== Art ''about'' babyfurs ===

Some [[furry fandom]] artists have covered the topic of babyfurs, typically taking the same line as [[:Category:Media coverage|external commentators]] on the entire fandom:

*''[[West Corner Of the Park (comic)|West Corner Of the Park]]'''s coverage has been [http://www.graphxpress.com/cgi-bin/wcotp.cgi?date=20051002 generally] [http://www.graphxpress.com/cgi-bin/wcotp.cgi?date=20051016 negative], although they did make an exception for the [http://www.graphxpress.com/cgi-bin/wcotp.cgi?date=20060521 Pink Panzer].

=== Writers ===

*[[CS Fox]], also known as '''Kit Fox''' and '''Cyprus Sygial''', is possibly the best known babyfur [[writer]] in the community. His works are the biggest features in the stories section at Nursery Tails, and since his submissions to Proxima's site he has gone on to host his own website showing off babyfur fiction of his own and by newer babyfur writers. The latest rendition of CS Fox's site, '''Fox Tales Times''', is being completed as this article is written. Its biggest feature is CS Fox's renowned AB/DL RPGM2K-based game, '''Weston Academy'''. The website also sports plenty of comics and art related to the RPG.
*[[Firemane]]'s fiction is prominently featured on CS Fox's fiction page.
*[[Fieval Mouse]]'s work is still favored by many furs. His stories are roughly 5 years old and are found on Proxima's Nursery Tails, featuring illustrations by [[Doodles]].
*[[Athalon]] is another notable furry writer who has written the lightly famous [[The Milkshake Club]].

== Controversy ==

=== Babyfurs and pedophilia ===

Like other furry fans, babyfurs often exhibit sexual attraction to anthropomorphic animals by participating in [[TinySex]]. But because this usually involves adult players [[roleplaying]] sexual situations involving prepubescent characters, the question of whether babyfurs are [[Wikipedia:Pedophilia|pedophiles]] often arises.

Babyfurs generally assert that roleplaying as underage characters doesn't imply sexual attraction to such characters. For example, some roleplay as young furries due to a longing to be young again, and have no sexual element to their roleplay.

Of those that do participate in sexual activity, some are interested in (for example) the fantasy of submission to an adult figure. Those who have TinySex with other babyfurs sometimes argue that if there is no adult ''character'' involved, the activity is not pedophilia. Others may stress that since characters portrayed are not ''human'', it is not meaningfully pedophilia. Outsiders often disagree, since the activity still involves actual adults taking an interest in prepubertal persons depicted in sexual situations.

This debate applies equally to visual and written depictions of babyfurs in sexual relations, and disagreements are often intense, between those with concerns about pedophilia, those who feel babyfur is distinct from pedophilia (because of players' identification with characters or the species of those characters), and those who don't care who enjoys it just as long as they're not forced to see it.

Within the psychological community there is a clear distinction that has been made between [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilic_infantilism#Pedophilia AB/DLs and pedophiles]. Including from wikipedia Sexologist Gloria Brame whom states that "...infantilists who recognize and accept their sexuality - and its possible roots in infantile trauma - tend to be acutely protective of real children."{{fact}}

=== Babyfurs vs. non-babyfurs ===

The concept of babyfurs is quite contentious with some members of the [[fandom]]. Some furries and non-furries who have identified themselves as babyfurs or were identified by others as being babyfurs may have acted inappropriately at [[convention]]s in the past.{{fact}} Such contentious behavior has allegedly included wearing diapers in public without using proper hygiene and trying to push uninterested people into babyfur roleplay, including sexual roleplay. These behaviors are frowned upon by the babyfur community in general, and such incidents, if perpetrated by babyfurs, are done by a small number of babyfurs within a larger babyfur community. The community in general adopted guidelines of conduct for how to act in public after a rash of such alleged incidents at conventions in an effort to police themselves.

Furries who dislike babyfurs may do so for a variety of common points, including:

*Grossed out by the concept of diaper lovers (or, in the aforementioned cases, by the smell)
*Concern that some babyfurs may be pedophiles
*Previous negative experiences with those who identify themselves as babyfurs or were identified by others as being babyfurs.
*Fear that babyfur behavior will be associated as a characteristic of the general fandom, especially in the media

While there is some conflict between babyfurs and the general fandom, such conflicts should not be overstated. The majority of babyfurs and non-babyfurs coexist quite well because the majority of babyfurs do not engage in the more extreme behaviors mentioned here.

== External links ==
[[Image:sr_secondlife.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Two babyfurs hug in the world of [[Second Life]].]]

=== General ===

*[http://foxtalestimes.actifforum.com/index.forum Fox Tales Forum] official homepage
*[http://www.adisc.org/forum/babyfur-littlefur/ Babyfur/littlefur forum] on [http://www.adisc.org/ ADISC.org]
*[http://babyfur.com Babyfur.com] official homepage (not maintained)
*[http://foxcrib.sk1p.com/ Fox Crib] official homepage (not maintained)
*[http://www.karisplayground.com/ Karis' Playground] official homepage (not maintained)

=== Informational ===

*[http://www.swiftsden.net/bfpbg_v1_2.pdf Babyfurs Public Behavior Guidelines (v1.2a)] official homepage
*[http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism] official homepage

=== Media ===

*[http://www.nurserytails.ca Nursery Tails] official homepage
*[http://www.foxtalestimes.com Fox Tales Times] official homepage

=== Communities ===

*[http://community.livejournal.com/babyfur/ Babyfur community] on Livejournal
*[http://babyfur.dreamwidth.org/ Babyfur community] on [http://www.dreamwidth.org/ Dreamwidth]

=== Mailing lists ===

*[http://www.altbabyfur.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/altbabyfur AltBabyfur] mailing list

=== IRC ===

*[irc://irc.anthrochat.org/babyfur.me Anthrochat #babyfur.me] (PG13 rating)
*[irc://irc.furnet.org/babyfurs Furnet #babyfurs] (PG13 rating)
*[irc://irc.furnet.org/diaperfurs Furnet #diaperfurs] (Unrated)
*[irc://irc.anthrochat.net/bfd Anthrochat #bfd] (Unrated)
*[irc://irc.anthrochat.net/ballpit Anthrochat #ballpit] (Unrated)

=== MUCKs ===

[[The Astonishing Treehouse of the Secret Moon|The Treehouse]] on [[Tapestries]]

=== Second Life ===

*[http://slurl.com/secondlife/Kit%20Estates/58/150/26 Cub Conclave] on [[Second Life]]
*[http://conclave.motd.org/ Cub Conclave] official homepage

=== Social networking ===

*[http://babyfur.me BabyFur.ME] official social network homepage

==== Twitter Feeds ====

*[https://twitter.com/#!/babyfur BabyFur.ME]
*[https://twitter.com/#!/Ruff_Wolf/babyfurs Babyfurs] (group)
*[https://twitter.com/#!/TheCubHub The Cub Hub]

==== Facebook ====

*[https://www.facebook.com/groups/92091061541/ The Babyfur Group]

[[fr:Babyfur]]
[[pt:Babyfur]]
[[ru:Бэйбифуры]]

[[Category:Paraphilias]]
[[Category:Social groups]]

{{Featured article}}

BitterGrey

2010-09-01T20:21:22Z

Bittergrey: /* External links */ -FA link

'''BitterGrey''' is the webmaster of the "Understanding Infantilism" website (originally known as BitterGrey's Den) on [[Wikipedia:infantilism|infantilism]], a [[paraphilia]] often including [[babyfurs]].
{{person-stub}}

== External links ==
{{Contributor|Bittergrey}}
* [http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism]
* [http://bittergrey.livejournal.com/ BitterGrey] on [[LiveJournal]]
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/bittergrey/ BitterGrey] on [[FurAffinity]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bittergrey BitterGrey] on [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://www.pawprinting.org/php-bin/browse_art.php?mode=browse&key=Bittergrey BitterGrey art sales] on [[Paw Printing]]
* [[spankart:User:Bittergrey|Bittergrey]] on Spanking Art Wiki

{{supporter}}

[[Category:People]]

Talk:Comparison of furry art sites

2010-09-01T20:18:09Z

Bittergrey: /* Content-based filtering? */ artist vs. submitter

==Most Wanted Information==
*[[SheezyArt]]
*[[ElfWood]] (Do furries even use ElfWood?)
*[[ArtSpots]]
*[[VCL]], if you insist.

Are there any other sites of major consequence? VCL, having nearly none of the features, doesn't seem to even qualify, but someone can add it if they want.

:VCL is an art site (pretty much nothing but) - it's worth including, even if it hasn't modernized itself to add new features. Artspots should be included. And maybe Artpiles. Elfwood? I don't know if furries use it anymore. Back in its day it was basically like Deviantart, but fantasy-only. There were definitely furries on it when it hit its stride, but it's been a long time since then. [[Special:Contributions/24.77.166.82|24.77.166.82]] 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What about [[ArtSpots]]? --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

== Content-based filtering? ==

Do these sites vary in their ability to filter artwork based on content? For example, would a fur be able to set his or her profile up to avoid snuff and vore? I'm unfamiliar with sites other than FA. Art submitted into FA is submitter-classified based on content and rating. Furs have an option in their profile to view or not view adult-rated art. (Adult furs have the option, at least.) However, they don't have the option to filter more specifically than that. FA permits warning thumbnails for edgy content, but leaves it to the submitter to generate these thumbnails and decide when to use them. [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of furry art sites

2010-09-01T20:17:00Z

Bittergrey: /* Content-based filtering? */ new section

==Most Wanted Information==
*[[SheezyArt]]
*[[ElfWood]] (Do furries even use ElfWood?)
*[[ArtSpots]]
*[[VCL]], if you insist.

Are there any other sites of major consequence? VCL, having nearly none of the features, doesn't seem to even qualify, but someone can add it if they want.

:VCL is an art site (pretty much nothing but) - it's worth including, even if it hasn't modernized itself to add new features. Artspots should be included. And maybe Artpiles. Elfwood? I don't know if furries use it anymore. Back in its day it was basically like Deviantart, but fantasy-only. There were definitely furries on it when it hit its stride, but it's been a long time since then. [[Special:Contributions/24.77.166.82|24.77.166.82]] 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What about [[ArtSpots]]? --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

== Content-based filtering? ==

Do these sites vary in their ability to filter artwork based on content? For example, would a fur be able to set his or her profile up to avoid snuff and vore? I'm unfamiliar with sites other than FA. Art submitted into FA is submitter-classified based on content and rating. Furs have an option in their profile to view or not view adult-rated art. (Adult furs have the option, at least.) However, they don't have the option to filter more specifically than that. FA permits warning thumbnails for edgy content, but leaves it to the artist to generate these thumbnails and decide when to use them. [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BitterGrey

2009-02-07T05:54:07Z

Bittergrey: /* External links */ -adjustment after logout

'''BitterGrey''' is the webmaster of the "Understanding Infantilism" website (originally known as BitterGrey's Den) on [[Wikipedia:infantilism|infantilism]], a [[paraphilia]] often including [[babyfurs]].
{{person-stub}}

== External links ==
{{Contributor|Bittergrey}}
* [http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism]
* [http://bittergrey.livejournal.com/ BitterGrey] on [[LiveJournal]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bittergrey BitterGrey] on [[Wikipedia]]
* [http://www.pawprinting.org/php-bin/browse_art.php?mode=browse&key=Bittergrey BitterGrey art sales] on [[Paw Printing]]
* [[spankart:User:Bittergrey|Bittergrey]] on Spanking Art Wiki

{{supporter}}

[[Category:People]]

BitterGrey

2007-07-17T04:03:12Z

Bittergrey: /* External links */ -wikipedia

'''BitterGrey''' is the webmaster of the "Understanding Infantilism" website (originally known as BitterGrey's Den) on [[Wikipedia:infantilism|infantilism]], a [[paraphilia]] often including [[babyfurs]].
{{person-stub}}

== External links ==
{{Contributor|Bittergrey}}
* [http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism]
* [http://bittergrey.livejournal.com/ BitterGrey] on [[LiveJournal]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bittergrey BitterGrey] on [[Wikipedia]]

{{supporter}}

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Babyfurs]]
[[Category:Wolf characters]]

Talk:Babyfur

2007-06-09T11:11:38Z

Bittergrey: /* View on Paraphilia Section from newcomer */ -DSM numbers...

{{featured}}

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Page 2|Page 2]]
</div>
'''I've split this talk page as its displaying the length warning. If you can't find a conversation you were taking part in, please see page two.'''

== History section ==

I have added a basic timeline in the History section. I appreciate the several veteran babyfurs who responded to me privately with detailed history, but while I found them very interesting I also saw some of them to be too focused on a specific topic, and many of them contradicted one another (when and by whom the term 'Babyfurs' was coined, for example). So I instead pulled out the relevant information that I believe os accurate and compiled this timeline with details about various web pages, IRC channels, IRL gatherings, and the mailing list for babyfurs. My sources were [[Snuggems]], [[Proxima Centauri]], [[BitterGrey]], [[Swift Fox]] and my very own brain.

The dates look kind of screwy because I was searching for a way to show them in an organized way. I believe they are much easier to read now, but if an admin wants them to be in a specific format, feel free to fix it.

I don't want the timeline to remain this small. If anybody can add more pertinant dates to it, PLEASE DO! Throw in what you can, even if you think it's inappropriate or too drama-ish or whatever. If it doesn't belong, it will be corrected later on.

== Question ==
Just wondering if someone could add me to the bf artist section... Or maybe I'm to much of an unknown to be there?
Also, I didn't think it would be smart to write myself in... :3 -[[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]

:Don't know enough about the topic to add you, but others might. Please don't remove or rephrase words from people in talk pages unless they are personal attacks on other people. --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 08:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

::Was that just a general statement or did I do that??? -[[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]

:::[http://furry.wikicities.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ABabyfur&diff=9529&oldid=9527] Perhaps you have censorware on the computer you were using that removed 'bad' words onload. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

::::Ah... Sorry about that... Will refrain from doing any editing with that computer in the future... - [[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]

== NPOV Alledged ==

Since NPOV is a case by case basis, and Crassus believes that article VII is not NPOV.. I'm going to mark the article NPOV. If an admin sees this and decides that the article should not be marked, please remove it. Thanks. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 12:23, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Again, I ask that the admin please look over the tone and neutrality of the babyfur vs pedophilia section. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:13, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

==Babyfur and Pedophilia==

Is this section really necessary? Stating that we are against something that is patently illegal should be a no brainer. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:19, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

: So you think that anything patently illegal should be automatically considered wrong? Technically, erotic furry art is illegal in Canada. It's considered zoophilic in nature. Yet, I seem to know many furries in Canada that still collect the stuff, and even draw it. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 16:23, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

:I think it is necessary to include, because I know a lot of Babyfurs who are tired of the bad rep they've gotten from close-minded people who can't get their understanding of terminologies correct. Most babyfurs that I know are very open-minded and understanding of others. They're just tired of all the crap they've received from hateful, ignorant people. It really reflects on the state of the fandom as a whole. I think most furs can agree that we're all tired of getting a bad rep in mainstream society. Subsections within the fandom are also tired of suffering the same intolerant treatment from other furs. My only beef is that I think the article needs to be clear up a couple legal definition issues.

:--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:23, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::And I disagree. I don't believe that we need to be throwing the "we're not pedophiles" argument down in front of people. Nor do I believe that pedosexuality has any place in the core definition of babyfur. I'm not saying we have to take the sexuality out of babyfur, but we should not be in the business of running around proactively telling everyone that we are not pedophiles. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference type article, not a sounding board for pro-pedosexuality or anti-pedosexuality. It really doesn't need to be in this article. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::I DO agree with you strongly on that last notion. We shouldn't be dealing with having to be pro or anti ANYthing. That's what my whole beef is with the section of the article. The tenor floats about in a defensive posture. It should be neutral. It should simply say what it is, and clear up confusion as to what it's not. It shouldn't look or feel slanted. Slants can be left to HHGttG, not the Intergalactic Encyclopedia, as the repository for all knowledge and wisedom of the universe, so to speak. :)

::: But also, think of this: We can't even say the word "pedophile" without some people automatically attaching it to (im)moral conduct. Therefore, is it not up to the individual reader to be left to their own understanding on an issue to ultimately be non-biased? Very tough to do. Though, I think it needs to be done. All I'm saying is, reword the thing. I'd do it myself, but I doubt I have teh skills. :)

:::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:35, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::: Redcard, the article is not "proactively" mentioning anything about pedophilia. Rather it is '''reactively''' mentioning it, because there already exists the mistaken notion that babyfurs are somehow involved with pedophilia. I believe that it is important to dispel that myth, and that the best way to do it is by mentioning that it is in fact, untrue. --[[User:Dmuth|Dmuth]] 18:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
:::: dmuth, Understood. The problem I had is that it seemed to couple babyfur with pedo by using the conjunction and on top of the contrasting vs below. This would give the cursory glancer the wrong impression and was not in like form to the remainder of the article. Changing it to vs clarifies the contrasting elements within it.[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 19:03, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, this part of the article is necessary was included because it's a precieved issue with the general fandom. Like it or not, babyfurs that do engage in sexual ageplay are often labeled as such. This section tries to draw the line between what is done in roleplay and what is done in real life (and what is illegal). -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"...is patently illegal should..." Pedophilia is not illegal. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:27, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:: Please make your revisions here and not on the main article, especially when a consensus has not been reached. Further, for revisions that change the context of an entire section of an article, you need to properly mark the edit as a major edit. Do not try to sneak major context changing edits in as minor edits. Thanks [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 17:48, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:: Jello, I know you are wanting to remove the broad generalization. We , however, have reached a consensus at having a condemnation of pedophilia in this article. An acceptable compromise might be to remove the broad generalization of "all " and replace it with "most." But you are not going to remove the entire condemnation because you don't like its whole message.[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 17:56, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::: Why is that even sentence there? It can't be true. The furry fandom doesn't have a spokesman and it's made up of different people with different opinions who have different ideas of what should be "accepted" or "condoned". The sentence claims that the entire (overall) furry fandom dislikes pedophilia. Where are you getting this? This is the opinion of whoever wrote that section, ''not'' the furry fandom. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
::: Why do you have to condemn pedophilia in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...
::: What statistics have you used to deduce that 'most' of the furry fandom dislikes pedophilia? Do you have a cite? {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::: So you are not a fur, and by nature, are not a babyfur. Look, we are babyfurs. We are the ones who have written this article. We will maintain the line as it is in many of our operating statements and codes of conduct. This article was written by consensus. It will NOT be changed by a single person, who is not even represented by the article, deciding that they don't like what it says. I'd rather all references to pedophilia be out entirely, but the consensus did not work that way. Work within the system, please. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:03, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
::::: It doesn't matter if I'm not furry, and it doesn't matter if I'm not babyfur. These are immaterial. I've seen enough of the world to know that not everyone thinks the same about things, and I highly doubt furries are any different. So the concensus said to write it like that? That's like people writing history by a vote, to reflect whatever makes them look good; even if this isn't Wikipedia, WikiFur is intended record factual information. Concensus shouldn't determine fact. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:11, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::: WHOA

:::: whoa whoa whoa whoa.

:::: ''Why do you have to condemn pedophilia in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...''

:::: If you're stepping in to provide a defense of the sexual exploitation of children in the name of inclusivity and tolerance, you've ''already'' lost the argument, no rebuttal necessary. End of story. --[[User:Rootdown|Rootdown]] 18:15, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
::::: Gargh, pedophilia isn't the sexual exploition of children. I'm not defending anything, anyway, I'm saying we shouldn't be untruthfully stating all furs hate pedos. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:17, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::::: I'm sure not *all* do, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of furs would say that engaging in a sexual act with a real child is not the right thing to do. This article will not be used to say that babyfurs are pedo nor will it be used to make it sound like that furs in general accept pedo. Why is it in the article...because many furs equate babyfurs with pedo. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:53, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::::: I think that's where people are getting foncused. Pedophilia does not mean someone is doing something with a child in real life. It can be roleplayed with other adults. I know some people who are zoophile, but they've never done anything with an animal. Being attracted to something doesn't mean you're going to be involved in a criminal act. That's why I say, you're blurring the line between legalities and just being /attracted/ to something. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 15:27, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Note to Jellochuu: It seems your definition of pedophilia and pedophile is based on the clinical definition of the terms. However, the connotation of the term as used in society at large is something very, very different from its literal meaning. If your intention is accuracy, and I hope it is, then you will know that what you are writing are coming across with a very different interpretation than what the words you are using literally mean. [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 19:38, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
:Using the word 'pedophile' to describe a child molester is like using the word 'furry' to describe an animal rapist. If you mean child molester, ''then say child molester''. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:11, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)

::Jello, I'm all for "calling things what they are", and in the context it is used in the article, the word "pedophile" is calling it what it is. --[[User:Zhaleskra|Zhaleskra]]
:::The article has been fixed now. Prior to that, "pedophile" was used to mean someone who molests children. This is prejudicial, racist, and inaccurate. Babyfurs who don't know the difference between a pedophile and child molester should be ashamed. [[User:Jello|Jello]] 23:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Do you honestly expect us to respect the opinion of someone who resorts to setting up the straw man of calling "racist" on an issue that has nothing to do with race? Telling other people how they should feel is not an effective way to debate. Yet all I see you doing is screaming "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're also stupid for not thinking like me". [[User:Zhaleskra|Zhaleskra]] 14:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Some true thoughts and feelings ==

Grrf.. this is getting ridiculous. The entire deal is showing quite clearly the very paranoia and fear within babyfur community on being labelled pedophiles; so much so that they're condemning another sexual preference to save their own name. It's what the gays did during the pride movement in the 70's and 80's, and it's what the burned furs did in the last few years amongst other furries more kinky than them. People want to wash their hands of things when someone accuses someone of something that puts them in a compromising position. They display outward hatred toward the ideal behind the accusation, effectively labeling and outcasting someone else to save their neck.

Roman dude: "You know Jesus! I saw you with him!", Peter: "I don't know him!"

This is what's happening in this article. That's what I take offense to. By condemning pedosexuality in this article, you are being biased, you're being self-centric, and successfully fulfilling the very stereotype about babyfur that they're over-reactive and immature when it comes to sexual issues.

You're being prejudice and discriminatory. Wanna know how it feels? Take this for example: "For being into something like putting diapers on in public and shitting in them in private hotel rooms while sucking on pacifiers and being coo'ed to like you're 2 years old, you certainly seem to have closed minds."

Oh, I'm sorry.. You think that's not true? You think that's biased? Well, now you know how '''I''' feel. I'm not ill. I don't have a sickness. I'm not raping or molesting children. I refuse to fit into this little cube of an idea that some know-it-all shrink bastard decided upon a 125 years ago.

The following portion of the article is biased, it's hypocritical, and it's wrong:

"However, as with the general population, a very small subset of babyfurs may also be pedophiles. Such interests and activities are neither accepted by nor condoned by most babyfurs. While there have been legal incidents in the past with some furries involved with pedophilia, they have not been specifically identified as babyfurs."

This paragraph should be removed. It's unfounded, it's biasd, it's reactionary, and it implies things by context. It's outcasting people.

Did you ever stop to think that those babyfurs who just might happen to have the feelings and attractions you're condemning might feel a bit bad? People you know and love might feel quite rejected by your words. Is that your goal? To clear out all the evil doers?

:Holy CRAP. Are you for real? You're worried about how PEDOPHILES FEEL? JESUS MARY MOTHER OF CHRIST what kind of POS are you?
::I agree, mate. Compassion, on my planet? What the fuck? [[User:24.224.153.40|24.224.153.40]] 22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

::Please read the poster's words. The concern is that it implies that babyfurs are pedophiles by association, and that such association would make babyfurs ''in general'' feel bad. It is not saying that people should feel sorry for pedophiles. Personally, I ''do'' feel sorry for them, not for their acts (which most have at least some measure of control over, if only by staying away from children), but for the fact that they posess the desire (which is not really something that can be helped - it's like saying people can avoid being attracted to members of the opposite sex [or the same sex, where applicable]). --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, WikiFur ''SHOULD'' be NPOV. It's the responsible thing to do for this community.

=== Solution ===

I'm working on a revision that I hope I'll be able to finish soon that will hopefully satisfy the majority of the people without trampling on others needlessly. The moment I can finish it, I'll post it here.

I just wish to God you guys could understand how whoever wrote this article is sounding.

--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 16:07, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

:I wish to God you'd understand that we ALL wrote this article, Crassus. Nobody owns the article. It's all of ours. I wish you'd understand that we KNOW exactly how it sounds because we wrote it to sound that way. Maybe you need to write your own article on pedosexuality or something. But please, leave a well written and solid consensus article alone, please? [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 16:54, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

::See, but the problem is, this article does NOT just belong to the BF crowd. It belongs to ALL furries. It's not a sales pitch for your fetish, it's an objective assessment from ALL angles, not just yours. And that includes the opinions of the rest of the fandom too.

:::That's fair enough. Please don't try to drown out other people by shouting over them in bold text, though. :-) --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

==Sex and Babyfurs==
Okay, we've had a lot of furor over this right now. Let me sum how I see that section of the article right now:
*People mistake babyfur activities as being pedophilia. This is not the same thing. I feel the new title edit makes that clear.
*Some babyfurs are interested in sex in babyfur persona, some are not. Of those, some age-play with adults, some age-play with other babyfurs.
*We can't totally say that no babyfur ever is a pedophile, because we just don't know. No one identified as a BF has ever been involved in legal action regarding sexual conduct with a minor.

I think at this point, we may need a seperate article on Age-play and how it relates to the fandom.

[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]] 19:16, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:I don't. I think we should simply link to Wikipedia's already very detailed entry on the matter. Ageplay is not a "furry" topic. It has links in that it is a sexual kink, but it in no way deals with "furryness".

:--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again I'm going to have to disagree on something that was recently added:

"Many babfurs do not include a sexual element to their interests."

First off, there's a typo for "babyfurs". Secondly, just because there is not a sex act being performed in the scene does not mean they aren't receiving sexual gratification from the scene. Many a time, when someone pulls off one of those diapers, you're bound to see evidence that the person's being stimulated mentally. The above statement is phrased in a way that lends to the notion that there is no sexual element involved at all, which is definately not the case. The same goes for pedophilia in many cases. Merely seeing kids playing or acting "boyish/girlish" is enough to be stimulating. (Again, not passing judgement in either AB or BL/GL issues. Simply stating the facts.)

--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

: I know quite a few that do not include sexual play in with their babyfur play. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::I just said that. Just because there's no actual sexual '''play''' does '''not''' mean there isn't a '''sexual element''' or gratification from the '''non-sexual''' act.

::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::: For some, I'm sure it's just like you are trying to explain, while there is no direct stimuli, there's is mental stimuli. However, realise that being a babyfur and wearing a diaper or doing anything else connected with babyfurs in real lif is not the same thing. There are babyfurs out there that they like roleplaying young characters but would not do anything outside of that roleplay. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::That doesn't mean there isn't a sexual element, though. Sexuality revolves around a much more expansive circle than direct stimulation. Sometimes the very feeling of comfort derived from non-sexual activity can result in stimulation, or at least be conducive toward feeling more sexually inclined and "in-tune" so to speak. I'll give you an example. Suppose someone can't "get it up" unless they're wearing a Marylin Monroe wig. The moment they put that wig on, even if it has nothing to do with sex directly, provides an element which enables them to feel sexually enabled. Diapers and such are a paraphernalia to that degree. Granted, that doesn't include everyone. Nothing is 100%, but I bet you it's the majority of them.

::::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::::Passing observation on this discussion - it would seem to be getting a little bit into the abstraction of just what constitutes sexuality, sexual stimulation, feedback, mental states, etc. Which isn't a bad topic or anything. In point of fact, I think more people need education on it, and there are a lot of primitive / simplistic viewpoints floating around, IMHO. One reason why things like furry sexuality in general may be misunderstood or shocking to outsiders at first glance. However, I do wonder how well the abstractions help the issue of trying to describe the issues surrounding the babyfur topic. It's clearly a topic for discussion about it because there have been so many misunderstandings. There is just the practical issue remaining of how to integrate all of this into an encyclopedic entry.

:::::--{{UT|ToyDragon}}

::::: For some...yes. But not for all. What babyfur means to you is not necessiarily what babyfur means to others. This article was written in the hopes to cover as many bases as possible. There are babyfurs out there that have no intrest in the sexual ageplay. They just like to play innocent characters. There is '''no''' connection of a diaper and a fetish object to them. To deny that these babyfurs exist is a disservice to them and a misrepresentation of the community. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::::The problem that I see in trying to clear off the name of Babyfurs for a clear definition is the fact "Babyfur" is associated tightly with so many other sexual kinks: AD/BL, infantilism, watersports, scat, ageplay, overalls and clothing, baby oil, etc..... I don't see any other way to view it as just an adaptation of the kink, whether it be inherently sexual or not, it's still a kink, with a tail stuck on it. Furryness aside, adult babies for the most part is in fact a sexual element added to their life. Wikipedia's entry on [[Wikipedia:Infantilism]] even mentions this:

::::::"Some forms of infantilism are purely regressive, without any sexual content. After an individual has reached full maturity, including a fully independent living situation, as well as stabilized in his or her long term sexual role in society, most infantilists report having incorporated certain aspects of sexuality into their infantilism. However, some few adult infantilists report never having done so. Even though some infantilists may never incorporate any aspects of sexuality into their practice, most adult infantilists would agree that their practice of infantilism has minimally had a profound effect on their sexuality, if not having been a direct part of it."

::::::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 23:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::::: And this is not Wikipedia, but rather a wikicities site on wikipedia. Why don't you detail fixes instead of just pointing out what's wrong , so that we may discuss fixes instead of your amporphous ideals, and then we can vote on those suggestions? If you're just going to point out what's wrong, you need to leave. You're not contributing to WikiSociety. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 23:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Actually.. we aren't connected to Wikipedia in anyway. Wikicities is privately owned and financed, but respects similar values to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. ;) -[[User:Nidonocu|Nidonocu]] - [[User talk:Nidonocu|talk]] [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 01:47, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
:::::::: Ah.. you are correct. I was thinking that Wales founded Wikipedia under Wikia, but he chose not to. Regardless, according to the wikicity creation policy , we do operate with a tit-for-tat relationship with Wikipedia. Also, it is expected upon reading the wikicities information that Wikisociety still take place in the same manner as it would on a wikipediaproject vs a wikia project. (Which was created thusly to be a commercial entity) [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 02:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::::: I believe you mean "amorphous". Really now. Don't hold back your real feelings about me. I've contributed to a number of other articles which I openly know more about than this, and for that very reason, I don't even assume to know everything about a subject that I myself have never participated in, but such arrogance to assume that a higher definition can be obtained through individual personal opinion rather than the collective thoughts of the many, plus outside sources like Wikipedia and thefreedictionary.com... that just boggles me blind. I don't dare to add or subtract from this entry simply because I know that I don't know everything about it. But, I do know a little about ageplay matters, and sexuality in general is rather a hobby of mine to study. I know that in the US, we've obtained such a high degree of puritanical BS to make us want to hide and cover up our true natures, which is the direct force behind so much of our conflicting and ambiguous ideals... to me, this entire matter is simply a matter of covering things up and making us "feel" better just because something isn't socially accepted. It's the entire problem we as furs as a whole have. We can't face reality, and that, Red, is more of a hinderance than any "non"-contribution that I could dish out. Sorry for the difference of opinion. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 00:02, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Will you get to the POINT , Crassus? Please? What do you want? We are not going to turn this into a boylove article, so forget about that. Further, the purpose of this article is not to explore the sexuality of babyfur, but to explore babyfur on the whole. So.. will you please tell us what you want or drop it? Yes, you're very clearly into pedophilia, and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints, and yes, you think that , from reading things.. everyone should be allowed to have sex, both pedo and non. Forget what I think of your viewpoints, and just get to the point about what you want to see in this article. The next thing out of your mouth had best not be a diatribe about how evil society is for not letting you have sex with children, and better be something about THIS article. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 00:21, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Fine. Let me spell it out. Again. (I already did so up there somewhere.) Section VII of the article is biased and it should NOT be biased. Change it.

::::::::"Yes, you're very clearly into pedophilia, and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints"

:::::::: You say that like it's a bad thing to be open minded and not a bigot. And no, I'm not "into pedophilia". That's stupid. Pedophilia is a modern clinical term coined in the 1800's by some victorian know-it-all shrink dude for a biased point of view during the height of the anti-child-labor movement as part of the backlash to the industrial revolution. During the 20th century it got taken a step further and it got turned not only from a term for a paraphilia, but also a blurred connotation for child rape and molestation, which is NOT part of the equation. Think of it this way: It would be like forcing someone into a diaper who doesn't want to have one. It's not consentual. Rape is rape, no matter the age. So, no. I am '''not''' into pedophilia. Sorry. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 05:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::Section VII is staying the way it is until someone proposes a change and that changes gets voted on. Simply saying change it is not helpful since it does not offer us something to change it to. So, again, please make a suggestion or leave. You're not even a babyfur, Crassus, why the hell is this bothering you so much? The babyfurs by and large seem okay with it. (Oh, and by the way, we're allowed to be biased here. NPOV is not strictly enforced here. You might want to read the wikifur policy. Please also note that it says to consult an admin, and so far two admins have looked this page over and think its just fine..)[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 12:04, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::'''HOW''' is section VII bias? All I seem to be getting from you and this conversation is you [Crassus] wanting to remove the section that says not all babyfurs get sexual stimulation from it. If that's all you want, I've already told you, many times, that it's not true. I know a few that do not cross that line. I also know a few babyfurs that do not even get involved in real life with it, all they do is roleplay young characters on a muck or such. I can see your confusion as the first line of the article states that a babyfur is an ab/dl furry. They do make up a chunk of the general babyfur population, but not all of them. Again, that's not always true and I corrected that.

::::::::::Also, to the both of you, please stop the personal attacks. This is '''NOT''' the place for them. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

==Revisions==

How do we offer proposed revisions for the entry? --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:36, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
:Well, one possibility is simply write out the text that you have in mind and put it right here. --[[User:DuncanDaHusky|Duncan da Husky]] 18:37, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I had a good talk with a friend of mine who is a babyfur, and has given me some insight into things. I'm going to see what people think.

A babyfur = A fur who labels themself as someone who fits into the babyfur ideals. Those ideals mean any or all of the following:

*Might or might not be into infantilism, AB/DL, or any range of various sexual interests at any varying degree.
*Ageplaying an extremely young age: birth through pre-schooler age.
*Might find their play sexual.
*Might find the age they roleplay sexual.
*Might find diapers and other paraphernilia sexual. They may wear diapers for whatever reason, whether it be for fun, to feel emotionally comforting, to be enabled sexually, or for medical conditions.
*Might not find any of the play sexual, but enjoys it on a level.
*Might talk funny ICly.
*Might talk funny OOCly.
*Might be a pedosexual, might not be.
*Might RP, might not. Might RP RL, some only online.

More to come as I think of it. At this point, I'm really confused as to how we can define something that no one really agrees upon. I guess just to offer different definitions. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 00:26, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

: Everything you've said in this is already in the article somewhere...or am I missing something? -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 21:53, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

: Isn't this a tad broad? "any range of various sexual interests at any varying degree." Then "but enjoys it on a level." What does that mean? It is NOT necesarily a sexual enjoyment, unless you think everything is sexual, then food is sexual too, and movies, and biking... I think that statement is redundant. If they didn't enjoy it (they suffered it?) they wouldn't do it, would they? --[[user:Tundu|Tundu]] 00:53, Aug 31 2005 (UTC)

:: Sorry, lemme clarify. "Any range of various sexual interests in some way related to the type of stuff related to babyfur"... .. heh, or even sometimes /not/ related to babyfur. Sexual interests overlap sometimes, which is the whole problem with trying to group people together with a label. Personally I think the idea of labeling intangible ideals is a bit old fashioned and like theoretical physics, has no clear-cut end and simply will never be boiled down to anything.

:: My writing of those "revisions" was only to point this very fact out. I was being rather incredulous with it. I'm trying to sort out definitions as I go along. I'm learning at the same time everyone else is. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 16:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

== Very personal opinion ==

To me, one of the most retarded things about being human is that humans take a LONG time until they can do anything useful. They cry a lot, getting on everyone's nerves. They take a long time to learn to walk. And I'm not even getting into the messy aspects here .... In my opinion, most species (especially those popular among furry fans) have a much more graceful childhood, and I feel it's best to leave it so without adding negative aspects of the early years of every human. Give me baby kittens any day, but I'm not sure if I'm ever up to having children of my own .... (End personal ramble, I know that others have a different taste.)
- [[User:Unci|Unci]] 10:15, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

:Just a random thought inspired from that. I'd be willing to bet that more than a handful of babyfur fans are, even if just subconsciously, thinking about childhood of the animal species which is considered more graceful than human infancy. While they may symbolize it with humanoid decorations like diapers, a number of the babyfurs I know personally tend to envision juvinile character which are really not very "human" at all. - [[User:ToyDragon|ToyDragon]]

== Reverting 67.176.94.60's edit ==

I removed the following text that was entered by 67.176.94.60:
:* Distaste from being in line at a convention near a babyfur who has just filled his diapers and the entire hall with an unholy stench ('mainstream' babyfurs make a show of not approving of such individuals, yet they constantly make unwelcome appearances at conventions and in emo-laden LJ posts).

The author may have a point, but I felt that the text was a little inflamatory. Anyone want to take a shot at toning it down? --[[User:Dmuth|Dmuth]] 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

:I've made [http://furry.wikicities.com/index.php?title=Babyfur&diff=42199&oldid=42193 a few edits]. It obviously is an unfortunate situation to be in, and one which the individuals concerned should not have placed the group surrounding them in.

:I would note that there's probably only so much mainstream babyfurs feel they can do about their bretheren, and it probably doesn't help if they feel that their options are siding with a group that denounces them as pedophiles or a group that soils their pants occasionally. To take a similar example, are furries more likely to want to go along with those who claim furries are all [[skunkfucker]]s, or of other members of the fandom who are just fine with them (despite seeming to have a few too many [[plush toy]]s for their age)? And if they decided it was worth the derision of those that they craved acceptance from, what exactly could they do? Stop being furry out of protest? Too many people have been forced to make that choice, IMO.

:I think such things can be solved more simply with public rules about what is acceptable in a given area. If there is enough consensus about something, then it should be a clear rule about it that people are willing to enforce. This lets others say, "well, this is how it is - if you soil yourself in public, you'll be banned, and you'll have to sit in the hotel room without us, so don't" without feeling that they've let a fellow babyfur down. Punish the objectionable action directly, and it is likely to go away. --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

::I haven't registered with WikiFur yet as I'm still deciding on an appropriate username. Having an example of exactly a particular behavior that leads to distrust from "mainstream" furries is good, and I feel that describing the offending behavior explicitly is bad. --Zhaleskra (for now)

:::I registered, and I apologize for the use of quotes around mainstream in the above comment. [[User:Zhaleskra|Zhaleskra]] 15:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== "Section VII" ? ==

(from the "Facts and Myths" section) "... See section VII about the difference between babyfurs and pedophiles ..."

Section VII seems to be a timeline, and I didn't see anything there explaining the difference. An error? --[[User:Chibiabos|Chibiabos]] 04:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:Probably - referring to sections with numbers never really works out so well on a wiki. :-) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== Artists ==

I removed Genesis Whitmore after having looked through her website and not seeing any significant representation of babyfur artwork, I don't think there are many babyfurs who have even heard of her or are familiar with her work. I'm sure she's done a commission or two for one or two individuals but if that was the metric for determining what constitutes a babyfur artist, I think the list of artists would be several times longer than what it is now.

I also corrected some of the goofy stuff Skippyfox wrote about me a while back. --[[User:Rootdown|Rootdown]] 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for explaining. I was wondering, since there wasn't an edit summary. Not that the rest of the article is much better in this respect (it really needs a thorough de-fluffing), but are you able to give any references for phrases like "sudden popularity" or "ongoing controversies"? To a reader who isn't involved in the babyfur community it's not really clear what you're talking about. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

::I am reverting the artists section back (and shortening it slightly). The "goofy stuff Skippyfox wrote" is a perfectly sensical description of Astolpho's artistic style. However the changes he (Rootdown) made to the paragraph about himself entirely evade the NPOV guidelines. I'm sure we can all agree that, much to Astolpho/Rootdown's disappointment, Wikifur is _not_ a popularity contest.

::If anybody wants to contest this change please bring it to this Discussion before making any edits. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:::It isn't difficult to understand why a comparison to [[Wikipedia:Precious Moments|Precious Moments]] might be considered unflattering. Perhaps it would be more precise to describe Astolpho's style simply as "characterized by light, open outlines; pastel-like colors; and innocent expressions"? [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] 04:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

::::That seems like a reasonable, neutral description; the Precious Moments comparison seems unnecessarily pejorative. I'll swap that phrase out. ----[[User:DuncanDaHusky|DuncanDaHusky]]([[User talk:DuncanDaHusky|talk]]) 13:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

== View on Paraphilia Section from newcomer ==

I know nobody likes a latecomer to a long, contentious debate, but IMO the 'Babyfur as paraphilia' section is a mess of denials, evasive language, and compromises, and is just the sort of content that damages the credibility wiki-like projects-- not because the subject is unattractive, but because of the presentation itself. Sorry, I know that sounds abrasive. If it helps... I think it's nicely written and laid out, as well as very much worth getting right. Anyway...

It would be fine if the article asserted that for most or all babyfurs, babyfur has no sexual activity or erotic intent. From THAT basis you could argue that Babyfur is not characteristically a paraphilia. But that assertion ISN'T made. Without it, there is NO basis to POSITIVELY ASSERT that babyfurs aren't pedophilies, as the article strongly suggests when it says: "Babyfurs are not inherently pedophiles," (What purpose does the word 'inherently' serve in this sentence other than to allow it to suggest something without worrying about the facts?) and when it prominently lists the leadingly phrased bullet point: "false beliefs that all babyfurs are pedophiles." (What about aversions attaching to beliefs that a few, or many, babyfurs are pedophiles?)

But if babyfur IS characteristically erotic or sexualized, it is pedophilia, which is simply a paraphilia whose object is children (even if only in fantasy, e.g., fanatasies involving them having ears and a tail).

I understand the difference between pedophilia and sexually assaulting actual children; this is absolutely not the place to discuss what link may exist between the two. But is the goal of all this evasiveness to escape the inaccurate stigma of child molestation that attaches to harmless fantasy pedophilia? Denying the accurate use of the word 'pedophile' with a reinvention of the term is a bad way to do that, and not the proper aim of a wiki entry, in my n00b-to-wikia opinion.

The paraphilia section of the article needs to either:
1) Assert clearly that babyfur is NOT characteristically sexual (which it certainly can be even if the rest of furry art and RP also is, so regardless, drop that argument in the first paragraph),
2) do NOT remark at all on whether babyfur is pedophilic,
3) assert that it's unknown whether babyfur is characteristically sexualized, and that if it is, it's pedophilic, or
4) assert clearly that babyfur IS charateristically sexualized, and that babyfur *is* pedophilic.

Those're the only things the article can do if it wants to be, and sound, honest.

In the latter two cases, there could also be remarks contrasting Pedophilia and child molestation, though again I think it's beyond the scope both of wikifur and the expertise of people contributing here to make definitive remarks about that. --[[furthling]]

:While I'm not particularly wedded to the current wording of this section of the article, I think you're missing the point that it's trying to make:
{{q|While babyfurs roleplay as underage characters, this doesn't mean that they are sexually attracted to children.}}
:As I understand it, babyfurs typically want ''to be'' children (whether or not they want to have sex as children), while [[Wikipedia:pedophilia|pedophilia]] is about being about sexual attraction ''with'' children. So, seems like it would be quite possible for babyfurs to be sexualized without they themselves being pedophilic - unless you think that babyfurs always have [[TinySex]] with one another, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Those who take the babyfur role in such activities want to fantasize about being children having sex with adults (which could be anything from "brotherly love" to rape fantasies), ''not'' adults having sex with children (pedophilia). Of course, the people who ''do'' have TS with them are kinda stuck with the term. :-) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::GreenReaper's answer hit the nail on the head. There is a subject-object difference. To further reduce the dependence on language, here are some numbers: A typical babyfur, if paraphilic, might fall under 302.83 in the APA's [[Wikipedia:Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders| Diagnostic and Statistical Manual]]. While only one sentence long and unfortunately under the header of "sexual masochism," this is the most [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] definition for infantilism. The book is available in many US libraries. In contrast, pedophilia is in section 302.2. (A fur with a diaper fetish would be 302.81.) 302.83's (masochists, infantilists) focus on their own position, with themselves as the subject. 302.2 (pedophiles) focus on children, with those children being the object. Each are categorized differently by the APA.[[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] 11:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bittergrey

2007-02-23T04:04:37Z

Bittergrey: Copied from wikipedia

BitterGrey is a pseudonym used by the editor of one of the oldest websites on [[Wikipedia:infantilism|paraphilic infantilism]]. Originally known as BitterGrey's Den, [http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism] opened in 1995.

Talk:Babyfur

2007-02-23T04:00:35Z

Bittergrey: /* Artists */ A more specific description of style?