WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Talk:Babyfur

2013-09-29T11:00:50Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* Factual accuracy tags */

{{featured}}

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Page 2|Page 2]]
*[[/Page 3|Page 3]]
</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 archived pages.'''

== Removal of #bfd ==

I'm curious, why is #bfd being removed? The channel appears to exist and have people in it. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:It's politics, actually. The people who run babyfur.me are buttmad that members of #bfd troll their website, and as such are making an effort to pretend like they don't exist or are irrelevant. This happened a couple of years ago too, after a previous channel (actually a much larger one) had been responsible for a major troll attack on the babyfur community. Essentially babyfurs can't handle that members of their community identify or behave as trolls.

::It's not that babyfurs "can't handle" the fact that some who calls themselves babyfurs are trolls, but rather that such behavior is irrelevant to the definition of "babyfur", which is what this article is about. It's like saying that because some furries are trolls, they must receive mention in the [[Furry]] article on this site, which is ridiculous for the same reasons. As for this IRC channel specifically, I'm avoiding involvement because I know nothing about it, I merely reverted an anonymous edit to the last contribution by a registered user. However, I fail to see how babyfur trolls are relevant to the Babyfur article, any moreso than babyfur auto mechanics or babyfur Team Fortress players are specifically relevant. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 05:10, 12 February 2012 (EST)

:::It's relevant because it was a list of babyfur irc channels, and was removed for 'being an insignificant channel', and as greenreaper pointed out, that is just not true. It's actually a decently active channel (as far as irc channels go). It should be noted that when it was first removed was also the same day that a number of other similar removals occurred on other pages. As far as I can tell, someone (most likely an admin on babyfur.me) was just trying to censor information that might lead more people to a group that they have a personal vendetta against, due to the fact that a few members of that group had been involved in trolling their website. (It's also interesting to note that if you go on their website...their profanity filter includes the names of certain people...) Again, it's all politics and censorship and really does not belong on a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:72.189.125.132|72.189.125.132]] ([[User talk:72.189.125.132|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/72.189.125.132|contribs]]) .

:::As a side note, are you saying that the reason it was removed was simply because the edit was from an anonymous source? because if that's so, why allow anonymous editing? I mean, it seems to me that a reasonable edit is a reasonable edit regardless of whether the source is anonymous or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:72.189.125.132|72.189.125.132]] ([[User talk:72.189.125.132|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/72.189.125.132|contribs]]) .

:::They don't have to receive mention as trolls, but they probably should receive mention as babyfurs. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (EST)

:::There are dozens of babyfur sub channels. The creation of each one is not historically significant to babyfurs. There is nothing significant nor important about #bfd. It is smaller then many other babyfur centric irtc channels, it isn't nearly as active nor is it important in any regard to babyfurs. Not every channel a babyfur creates is historically significant or else one could easily flood the timeline with hundreds of channels that can be registered on IRC networks on a whim.

::::What are the larger IRC channels focused on the topic of babyfurs? We would be glad to list them as well. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 15:25, 19 February 2012 (EST)

::::I agree with GreenReaper, if the list consists of hundreds of active channels, then so be it. This is a wiki, it's a collecting point for information. I highly doubt there are dozens of active babyfur irc channels though. Only a handful, and #bfd is notable in that it is an alternative to highly policed irc channels. If a babyfur is banned from all other babyfur groups, should he not still have an alternative for a place to go? Or is your implication that he should just stopped identifying as a member of the babyfur community.

::::It also should be noted that, upon doing research on Natasha Softpaw's edits in the past on other articles, Natasha Softpaw displays a considerable amount of 'babyfur elitism'. In one specific case I recall Natasha repeatedly removing the 'babyfur' category tag from a person who self identified as a babyfur simply because they didn't want that person (a pedophile) associated with their community. They claimed that since the person in question didn't attend their specific social gatherings, or run in their particular circles, the person could not be identified as a babyfur, only 'tangetially' related. I believe this is an unfair stance and against the NPOV position which wikifur tries to uphold. I really believe Natasha Softpaws' bias is unhealthy, not just for the wiki, but for babyfurs in general, which are a large, and quite diverse group consisting of people with vastly differing opinions and ideologies. -- Anonymous

::::The anonymous responses are coming from Ludwig himself, who is attempting to cast some sort of babyfur conspiracy against him. The timeline is noting significant developments in the babyfur community. Opening a new IRC channel, that contrary to Ludwig's claims is not that highly trafficked, is not significant. In the history of the furry fandom article, do we note the opening of each and every irc channel with 10-15 people in it at best? The babyfur community is much larger where this is not a notable development.--Unsigned

:::::Fine, I will compromise and remove #bfd from the timeline, if you agree to keep it in the channel list at the bottom of the page, sound fair? {{unsigned|72.189.125.132}}

:::::As a side note, I don't think there's any question that there's an anti-Ludwig conspiracy among babyfurs. I mean, go to a site like babyfur.me and try posting a message with the name 'Ludwig' in it. It's censored in their profanity filter, whereas the word 'Shit' is not. Go figure. Babyfurs in general do not like Ludwig, and would rather any mention of him or his legacy be removed from historical record. -Anonymous {{unsigned|72.189.125.132}}

::::::"''Fine, I will compromise and remove #bfd from the timeline''", no, you will not. BFD is part of the Babyfur history by somebody, liked or not, connected to the subculture. He has been notably entwined in one way or another to it, and his involvement and deeds are well noted and documented, so the timeline stays intact. Further whitewashing will result on the "protection" of the article until cooler heads prevail - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::Holy crap! Did I just get white knighted? - {{unsigned|Ludwig}}

:::::::Opening an IRC with a tiny number of people in such a large community does not make it noteworthy. The babyfur community is much larger then it once was and is no longer centralized among a niche group like it was in the late 90's and early 2000's. Opening an alternative IRC isn't relevant as it once was; alternative and niche babyfur IRC's and babyfur friendly IRC's are common place. The claims of conspiracy and cover up are laughable. An irc of a dozen people who dislike the rest of the babyfur community and have a particular dislike for a large facebook clone filled with babyfurs, does not make it historic. Not everything a babyfur who years ago used to run a comparatively large irc does is notable. Ludwig's notoriety itself is questionable as his impact on the babyfur community became near non-existant after #babyfur moved from furnet and its numbers dwindled. Snuggems and others were removed from the notable babyfurs list for similar reasons. Simply creating an IRC with a few friends is no longer a notable action within the babyfur community. What makes a babyfur worth being put in the "notable babyfurs" section is also questionable as there is no set nor consistent criteria for it and those noted within have their accomplishments noted within the timeline already, including Ludwig. The notable babyfurs section should probably be removed unless a solid criteria could be set. --Anonymous {{unsigned|209.73.132.64}}

::::::::"''Opening an IRC with a tiny number of people in such a large community does not make it noteworthy. The babyfur community is much larger then it once was and is no longer centralized among a niche group like it was in the late 90's and early 2000's.''". Welcome to how Furry Fandom history started. Burned Furs were a niche, small groups of critic furs that have now disappeared from from mainstream fur. As with bfd, they will be documented on Wikifur as part of fur history. So far all the reasons for bfd deletion ("they are trolls", "they are too small to count", "they don't longer matter",...), are petty, non reasonable, and one sided. Offer a very good reason, and the issue will be revisited - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 16:52, 22 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Way to abuse your power to benefit your friend Spirou. The bias is astounding and unbefiting of a wiki. What's notable and what isn't is supposed to be ruled by consensus, which is quite heavily ruling against you and others who frequent #bfd. Burned Furs also took place much earlier in the furry fandoms web history and was certainly not niche in its impact. #bfd is not important in any regard to babyfur or furry history. Blocking the article so your personal decisions stay intact instead of what the majority say is a blatant and disgusting abuse of power. --unsigned {{unsigned|173.245.64.75}}

::::::::::Hey there, I resent that, I have no idea who Spirou is. Geez, talk about conspiracy thinking. - {{unsigned|Ludwig}}

::::::::::"''Way to abuse your power to benefit your friend Spirou.''" 1) I have no clue "who" this friend is you refer to, and 2) If you wish to make a point or edit, register, make the edit, and discuss it here. "''#bfd is not important in any regard to babyfur or furry history.''" is just a one way, biased POV ("they are trolls, or there too few" doesn't cut it), 3) drop the "''Way to abuse your power ''" bit, it get really old, really fast, and 4) You wish to help?, come out from behind the "anonymous"/"unsigned" facade, join, and help edit Wikifur - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:03, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Except Spirou that the burned furs nor burned furs 2 are mentioned anywhere in the history of the furry articles. They have their own separate articles, if you personally want to spearhead an article detailing Ludwig's exile from most babyfur communities due to trolling then by all means. Evidence of such is readily available in the history of this article as Ludwig several times edited inappropriate language into past iterations that needed to be corrected. Your justification for keeping #bfd, despite not being a notable part of babyfur history in any sense is completely baseless. Ludwig can deny association with Spirou and even Equivamp, who also needed to be removed from notable furries after continuously trying to insert themselves, but it's already well known that they know each other. This article is being used by Ludwig in attempt to further troll the babyfur community, keeping it as is discredits the articles integrity and puts it on par with conservapedia where consensus is ignored in favour of a certain fews personal and incorrect opinions.--Anonymous {[unsigned|69.22.168.70}}

:"''Except Spirou that the burned furs nor burned furs 2 are mentioned anywhere in the history of the furry articles.''". That's because they are big enough to stand on an article of their own, which at the moment bfd is not, so it stays with its parent article, a normal Wiki practice.

:"''if you personally want to spearhead an article detailing Ludwig's exile from most babyfur communities due to trolling then by all means.''" Not.big.enough.to.separate.

:"''Your justification for keeping #bfd, despite not being a notable part of babyfur history in any sense is completely baseless.''" "Non-notable"... That's POV statement. Fine, never mind that he is listed already several times in the "history timeline" and "notable furs", if you were to tell me that #bfd is actually a channel taken over by [[ED]] only members (not more Ludwig involvement), to troll other babyfur IRC channels and websites, guess what?. It would still be notable enough to go up on the article. You wish to change it to the "Troll" angle?. Move it to the "Controversy" section.

:"''Ludwig can deny association with Spirou and even Equivamp, who also needed to be removed from notable furries after continuously trying to insert themselves, but it's already well known that they know each other.''" *facepalm* Just... register and move it to "controversy" already. There are 14.000+ articles in Wikifur to be taken care of, and I'm still working on the [[Julie Bruin]] one, for God's sakes.

:"''This article is being used by Ludwig in attempt to further troll the babyfur community,...''". Just register and edit - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:34, 22 February 2012 (EST)

::It's well documented that Ludwig is a troll, has trolled this article previously, several times, and even trying to glorify his attacks on babyfur communities. It isn't biased when it's reality. It isn't whitewashing to not note every time he creates an irc channel, as creating an irc channel isn't relevant when anyone can create one. If I created a irc channels right now and stated it's a babyfur channel, does that mean it is notable enough to be included in the timeline, even if I had 10 people in it? Of course not. When the babyfur community was barely over 100 people an irc channel with a dozen or so members was relevant. With the size of it today, it's irrelevant, especially when its purpose it to attack babyfurs. Does the history of the furry fandom note each time an anti-furry group raided a website? Each time an anti-furry group set up an anti-furry website, irc, forum, etc? It may be appropriate for wikifur to note them in an article dedicated to anti-furry sentiment, but not for articles included in the history when it has no impact and gives no relevant context to the history of furry fandom. It isn't bias when the consensus has been this is not relevant and the only ones who believe it to be is yourself, equivamp, and ludwig. --Anonymous {{unsigned|69.22.168.70}}

:::First, use four tildes (~) at the end of your posts to sign it, and Second, register and move that point to the "Controversy" section - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:39, 22 February 2012 (EST)

::::"''but it's already well known that they know each other.''" Erm excuse me, what? I have absolutely no knowledge of who spirou is, and I only know equivamp as an ED editor. [[Special:Contributions/72.189.125.132|72.189.125.132]] 20:46, 22 February 2012 (EST)

::::I only know Ludwig by hearsay, how is it "known" that we know each other? O_o [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 08:32, 23 February 2012 (EST)

== Factual accuracy tags ==

In the days it took to whitewash the article and talk about it (pro and against), I just spent a couple hours formatting it, cleaning it up and adding more apropos links, data and history information. That said said:

The "Factual tags" involving the "Notable babyfurs" and "Babyfur media" sections (and now "History of the babyfur community") have been up for a long time, and it would behoove babyfurs to settle the matter regarding them (yes, including #bfd), so they may be taken down - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:15, 22 February 2012 (EST)

:They look okay to me...and I've been around longer than Proxima. They were definitely the first as far as babyfur ~anything~ online. There are some things that could of course be added, for example FTT isn't anywhere in the history list, which it should be. The "notable" thing doesn't really matter, I mean...nobody cares. If someone did something or created something worthwhile then put it in the history section, otherwise it's just blatant USI. --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 07:00, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

== Notable babyfurs section ==

The section seems to contain people who founded websites, events, moderated lists, and so forth. How about renaming the section to reflect that: a section name such as "Founders and moderators" rather than the unspecified "Notable". -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 17:37, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-03T15:32:48Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* Holy Shit! */

"Bye" journal was deleted by admins due to "harassment". (How does one harass a dead person?) But, he had two journals that said the same thing. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 18:31, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
:Which "Bye"?, LJ? Got a PDF screenshot when can add to the article =/ - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:06, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::The one on FurAffinity, used as a reference. It had ocer 800 comments. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 19:59, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I stopped at 200, it was getting bad - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:14, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I could posts a screenshot of just last LJ words, as individuals are looking for any screenshot, long or short - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:24, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Why is there another goodbye LJ journal? - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:52, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There were also two FA Journals. The story is, he created a "placeholder journal" and created the new journal a few days later, and copy/pasted it to the other. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 21:02, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I heard about this as well. A shame he died,even though i didn't know him,he is in my thoughts and prayers.[[User:Axelfox|Axelfox]] 22:16, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::To Equivamp: Oh, but that's time he could have gotten help, all that time preparing ... - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:35, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I know. But you can't help some people. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 08:26, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

==EPIC!==
It's a good thing I'm a Little, cause I nearly SHAT A BRICK when I saw this:

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_FA/CORPSE_HARASSMENT.gif

o_O

They've nuked like...half the posts in the existing suicide journal as of ~9:30 AM pacific time, all of mine, all of Equivamp's have now been nuked as well (before only one was nuked) and various other posts from others. What tipped the scales apparently was when I called out the person claiming to be his sister and started posting proof of his dog molesting shenanigans and questioned his "sister" about why she hadn't removed all the dog fucking artwork off his account yet. Hilarity then ensued! :D [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 12:40, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah...I was suspended for "harassment"...all I said was he was selfish...and after that, I was only responding to messages showing up in my inbox...they also said I had been told not to leave comments on the journal...but I was not. I do think it's silly that I was banned for calling a ''dead person'' selfish, but the guy that told me (a living person!) to [http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:EquivampSuicide.jpg kill myself] (and many other were saying similar things) got nothing...oh well. FurAffinity is not known for having admins that make the best administrative descisions...and it's quite amusing to receive death threats via Formspring... so I'll be back in a week I guess. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 14:27, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::I wish it told you which admin was doing it, it'd be pretty hilarious to find out who the doorknob is. I'm not sure which I find more hilarious, the fact that they're banning people for "harassing" a CORPSE, or the fact that they're more concerned about negative comments than they are about the DOG FUCKING pictures he's got plastered all over his gallery. LOL The other hilarious thing is that ~supposedly~ they were revamping the way admins/mods handle bans in order to ~avoid~ epic public clusterfucks of this nature...guess it's not workin so well! :D [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 15:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: Mmmm, forgot to mention, I've got the entire journal archived (in sections, it was too big to capture as a whole), which I'll put together and put up on my server later today. [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 12:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

==Wow==
I've have never seen that much rage over a furry death before. especially how he decided to take his life considering what exactly happened considering all of the comments are hidden by the administration in that journal. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 17:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:That always happens when someone leaves a "suicide note" on the internet...then follows through. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 17:03, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:: Though it was not handled rather well considering the amount of rage that is going on. Though this is why i've been trying to find other alternatives besides FA considering how things are not going very well. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 18:32, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Holy Shit! ==
Look at Giz's FA page! Apparently, the mods banned *EVERYONE*!

I shit you not:
:'''ADMIN ANNOUNCEMENT. DUE TO CONSTANT TROLLING AND HARASSMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT EVERYONE HAS LOST THEIR POSTING PRIVILEGES ON IT. I AM SORRY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO MOURN HIM BUT THAT INCLUDES YOU AS WELL AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACK ALL COMMENTS FAST ENOUGH. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN SUSPENSION.'''

o_O

--[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 22:37, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:No, just banned to comment in this user's page again. Nothing earth shattering. Just to keep the Rah Rah Troll Trouble with one less toy to play with - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ahhh, I see, just worded wrong. They seem to be doing that a lot here lately, like when they banned me for two weeks for "harassing a dead user" *epic face palm* That could have been worded in ~so~ many better ways. LOL

::It seems weird though that they're not closing out the account...unless they just feel confident that the media won't jump on the story...if they do, well...it's not gonna be pretty. I'm working on a new article for ED to basically separate "feral furs" from actual furries, as they seem to basically be bestiality fetishists that are trying to disguise themselves as furries (and most of them not doing a very good job of it). I suppose in effect you could be both, wanting to ~be~ an animal ~while~ you molest animals, hence the reason I think they need a separate classification.

::In a lot of ways it's similar to how pedophiles try and infiltrate the adult baby community, posing as "caretakers" for TEEN babies, in order to get their grubby little pedo mitts on them. Works in their favor to a great extent in that many teen babies are from broken homes, so such a prospect is like...winning the lottery. They'll jump at the chance for supposed "unconditional love". Unfortunately once they're ensnared the pedo can do pretty much anything they want to them, blackmailing them with their own fetish to keep quiet about their molestation and rape.

::One thing I've been curious about is that all over his account he makes references to a "mate" that he says isn't on FA...the creepy thing is, the way he describes what his mate looks like, and how he commissions art of them...well, if you look at his pictures of the stuffed animals he owns (the great big huge ones)...yeah...potential plushie fucker I'm bettin...which would be *REALLY* sad if he considered a stuffed animal to be his significant other in life. :(
:: --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 00:26, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Onideus, this is not the talk page in which you should discuss the zoophilic implications of feral yiff. Please take it to [[Talk:Nonmorphic|the relevant talk page]]. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 08:41, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, given the likely potential mainstream media attention this user and his activities are likely to bring to the furry community in general, it's *VERY* relevant. We are in fact looking at a very likely and very potential "butterfly effect" which could have far sweeping implications and inflictions upon the furry community in general in the years to come, potentially even leading to more suicidal deaths because his own draws so much NEGATIVE attention to furries by reinforcing stereotypes, prejudice and blind assumptions about furries in general. The more cases like this that "go public" the worse furries in general look in the public eye. --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 11:11, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::[[Shawn Keller|The worst that will happen is grumpy old men will write angry blogs about it years from now about how poorly they "respect" and "represent" furry fandom]], and every furry someone doesn't like [[Sibe|will be compared to "Gizgiz, that guy that ruined furry".]]. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 16:33, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Best case scenario, yeah, but it doesn't always turn out that way. Stories like this have the POTENTIAL to snowball in the media...doesn't mean that they ~will~, just that they have the POTENTIAL to do so. If you don't respect that potential then bad can easily go to worse in the potential event that it does snowball. The point in cases like this is to try and MINIMIZE POTENTIAL damage to the community, the most obvious preventative measure in this case would be to dump his entire FA account and deny it ever even existed (unless it's the authorities asking). --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 11:32, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Compared to some of the things said (and discounting ones with logic attached to it "I. e. The FS#@#$#@, endangering the driver" parts), it was a no "duh" they had to close it down. Somebody (how I wish to know he figure it out) made the point that since this happened on the 29th, 427 new accounts were created to leave their bit of wisdom. ''It seems weird though that they're not closing out the account'', I think they can't (software wise, somebody is not on the ball, imho). Close it+protected. We can even do it here =P - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 00:51, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

== The Shit Has Hit The Fan! ==

Um, now, just so everyone is aware, I am ~not~ the first one to post this link/reference (even though I knew about it since yesterday). I waited for someone ~else~ to openly post it and, now that it's been outed I don't have any qualms with reposting it:
:http://zoophilestracker.com/index.php?page=userdetails&id=25563

I haven't actually looked at any of the content indepthly, so I'm not sure if it's stuff of ~him~, or just stuff he was sexually interested in...can't really tell the identities it looks like in most of the videos, so it could go either way.
--[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 01:20, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-02T15:11:28Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* Holy Shit! */ - Very Relevant

"Bye" journal was deleted by admins due to "harassment". (How does one harass a dead person?) But, he had two journals that said the same thing. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 18:31, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
:Which "Bye"?, LJ? Got a PDF screenshot when can add to the article =/ - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:06, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::The one on FurAffinity, used as a reference. It had ocer 800 comments. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 19:59, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I stopped at 200, it was getting bad - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:14, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I could posts a screenshot of just last LJ words, as individuals are looking for any screenshot, long or short - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:24, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Why is there another goodbye LJ journal? - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:52, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There were also two FA Journals. The story is, he created a "placeholder journal" and created the new journal a few days later, and copy/pasted it to the other. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 21:02, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I heard about this as well. A shame he died,even though i didn't know him,he is in my thoughts and prayers.[[User:Axelfox|Axelfox]] 22:16, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::To Equivamp: Oh, but that's time he could have gotten help, all that time preparing ... - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:35, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I know. But you can't help some people. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 08:26, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

==EPIC!==
It's a good thing I'm a Little, cause I nearly SHAT A BRICK when I saw this:

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_FA/CORPSE_HARASSMENT.gif

o_O

They've nuked like...half the posts in the existing suicide journal as of ~9:30 AM pacific time, all of mine, all of Equivamp's have now been nuked as well (before only one was nuked) and various other posts from others. What tipped the scales apparently was when I called out the person claiming to be his sister and started posting proof of his dog molesting shenanigans and questioned his "sister" about why she hadn't removed all the dog fucking artwork off his account yet. Hilarity then ensued! :D [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 12:40, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah...I was suspended for "harassment"...all I said was he was selfish...and after that, I was only responding to messages showing up in my inbox...they also said I had been told not to leave comments on the journal...but I was not. I do think it's silly that I was banned for calling a ''dead person'' selfish, but the guy that told me (a living person!) to [http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:EquivampSuicide.jpg kill myself] (and many other were saying similar things) got nothing...oh well. FurAffinity is not known for having admins that make the best administrative descisions...and it's quite amusing to receive death threats via Formspring... so I'll be back in a week I guess. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 14:27, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::I wish it told you which admin was doing it, it'd be pretty hilarious to find out who the doorknob is. I'm not sure which I find more hilarious, the fact that they're banning people for "harassing" a CORPSE, or the fact that they're more concerned about negative comments than they are about the DOG FUCKING pictures he's got plastered all over his gallery. LOL The other hilarious thing is that ~supposedly~ they were revamping the way admins/mods handle bans in order to ~avoid~ epic public clusterfucks of this nature...guess it's not workin so well! :D [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 15:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: Mmmm, forgot to mention, I've got the entire journal archived (in sections, it was too big to capture as a whole), which I'll put together and put up on my server later today. [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 12:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

==Wow==
I've have never seen that much rage over a furry death before. especially how he decided to take his life considering what exactly happened considering all of the comments are hidden by the administration in that journal. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 17:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:That always happens when someone leaves a "suicide note" on the internet...then follows through. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 17:03, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:: Though it was not handled rather well considering the amount of rage that is going on. Though this is why i've been trying to find other alternatives besides FA considering how things are not going very well. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 18:32, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Holy Shit! ==
Look at Giz's FA page! Apparently, the mods banned *EVERYONE*!

I shit you not:
:'''ADMIN ANNOUNCEMENT. DUE TO CONSTANT TROLLING AND HARASSMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT EVERYONE HAS LOST THEIR POSTING PRIVILEGES ON IT. I AM SORRY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO MOURN HIM BUT THAT INCLUDES YOU AS WELL AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACK ALL COMMENTS FAST ENOUGH. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN SUSPENSION.'''

o_O

--[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 22:37, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:No, just banned to comment in this user's page again. Nothing earth shattering. Just to keep the Rah Rah Troll Trouble with one less toy to play with - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ahhh, I see, just worded wrong. They seem to be doing that a lot here lately, like when they banned me for two weeks for "harassing a dead user" *epic face palm* That could have been worded in ~so~ many better ways. LOL

::It seems weird though that they're not closing out the account...unless they just feel confident that the media won't jump on the story...if they do, well...it's not gonna be pretty. I'm working on a new article for ED to basically separate "feral furs" from actual furries, as they seem to basically be bestiality fetishists that are trying to disguise themselves as furries (and most of them not doing a very good job of it). I suppose in effect you could be both, wanting to ~be~ an animal ~while~ you molest animals, hence the reason I think they need a separate classification.

::In a lot of ways it's similar to how pedophiles try and infiltrate the adult baby community, posing as "caretakers" for TEEN babies, in order to get their grubby little pedo mitts on them. Works in their favor to a great extent in that many teen babies are from broken homes, so such a prospect is like...winning the lottery. They'll jump at the chance for supposed "unconditional love". Unfortunately once they're ensnared the pedo can do pretty much anything they want to them, blackmailing them with their own fetish to keep quiet about their molestation and rape.

::One thing I've been curious about is that all over his account he makes references to a "mate" that he says isn't on FA...the creepy thing is, the way he describes what his mate looks like, and how he commissions art of them...well, if you look at his pictures of the stuffed animals he owns (the great big huge ones)...yeah...potential plushie fucker I'm bettin...which would be *REALLY* sad if he considered a stuffed animal to be his significant other in life. :(
:: --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 00:26, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Onideus, this is not the talk page in which you should discuss the zoophilic implications of feral yiff. Please take it to [[Talk:Nonmorphic|the relevant talk page]]. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 08:41, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually, given the likely potential mainstream media attention this user and his activities are likely to bring to the furry community in general, it's *VERY* relevant. We are in fact looking at a very likely and very potential "butterfly effect" which could have far sweeping implications and inflictions upon the furry community in general in the years to come, potentially even leading to more suicidal deaths because his own draws so much NEGATIVE attention to furries by reinforcing stereotypes, prejudice and blind assumptions about furries in general. The more cases like this that "go public" the worse furries in general look in the public eye. --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 11:11, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Compared to some of the things said (and discounting ones with logic attached to it "I. e. The FS#@#$#@, endangering the driver" parts), it was a no "duh" they had to close it down. Somebody (how I wish to know he figure it out) made the point that since this happened on the 29th, 427 new accounts were created to leave their bit of wisdom. ''It seems weird though that they're not closing out the account'', I think they can't (software wise, somebody is not on the ball, imho). Close it+protected. We can even do it here =P - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 00:51, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

== The Shit Has Hit The Fan! ==

Um, now, just so everyone is aware, I am ~not~ the first one to post this link/reference (even though I knew about it since yesterday). I waited for someone ~else~ to openly post it and, now that it's been outed I don't have any qualms with reposting it:
:http://zoophilestracker.com/index.php?page=userdetails&id=25563

I haven't actually looked at any of the content indepthly, so I'm not sure if it's stuff of ~him~, or just stuff he was sexually interested in...can't really tell the identities it looks like in most of the videos, so it could go either way.
--[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 01:20, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Babyfur

2011-09-02T15:00:45Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: Undo revision 342746 by 97.124.82.58 (talk) - I think not.

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 furs 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 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.
*'''Caretaker''' : As the name suggests these are the people who roleplay caretaker 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 things (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]]

Many male babyfurs find they enjoy being dressed as little girls as well, and are sometimes called ''sissyfurs''. The classic baby bonnet (seen frequently in certain [[Looney Tunes]] cartoons) is not very common among babyfurs, which might be attributed to the fact that modern society doesn't find real babies wearing them either.

===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 behaviour, 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 [[human]]s, 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 animals, 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 [[convention]]s 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 than other furries wearing ears, tails or fursuits.

At many [[convention]]s, 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 [[C'ubhouse]], 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.

===[http://www.swiftsden.net/bfpbg_v1_2.pdf Babyfurs Public Behavior Guidelines v1.2a]===

==History of the babyfur community==
*'''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 [http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism], then known as "BitterGrey's Den," a website for ABDLs and Furries.
*'''1996-09-09''' - Proxima Centauri officially opens [http://www.nurserytails.ca Nursery Tails].
*'''1997''' - [[Snuggems]] opens the FurryMUCK 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 [[C'ubHouse]] at [[Anthrocon]].
*'''2002-11-02''' - [[TF Baxxter]] officially opens the [http://community.livejournal.com/babyfur/ 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 [http://clubs.wanadoo.co.uk/group/group.cfm?GID=2982050 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.
*'''2009-02-24''' - [[Ludwig]] moves #babyfur to anthrochat after being banned from furnet along with the other owners of #babyfur
*'''2011-01-07''' - [[Ludwig]] closes #babyfur permanently.
*'''2011-04-18''' - [[LilFuzz]] opens [[BabyFur.ME]] as a social network dedicated to the babyfur community.

==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 Equniox]] 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]] [http://karisplayground.com/], 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 [http://babyfur.com/cubhouse/ Babyfur C'ubhouse] 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]], though not as prominant now as he has been in the past, is often credited with the concept of 'Ironic Babyfurs'. His channel, #babyfur, was once a major lifeline for the Ironic Babyfur community. He is often connected with anti-babyfur sentiment and is a known troll.

*[[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 [http://orcinus.dynip.com/AB_DL/Orca_Stack/index.html "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 [http://www.nurserytails.ca 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. ([http://www.swiftsden.net Swift's Den])

==Babyfur art and literature==
A few of the authors and artists in the babyfur community are:

===Artists===
{{disputed}}
*[[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 [http://furries.frithcat.com/ Marci McAdam's Furries]. Due to professional time constraints, Marci only takes a few fandom commissions at a time, mostly at [[convention]]s.
*[[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. [http://www.furryjadefox.com/ Furry Jade Fox]
*[[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. [http://www.geocities.com/kelvinthelion/index.html Kelvin's Furry Den]
*[[OzzyFox]], a student of animation at the Art Institute of Houston, produces work that ranges from cuddly-cute to controversial and mature. [http://foxcrib.sk1p.com/ Fox Crib]
*[[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: [http://www.cargoweasel.com/ Cargo Weasel: Art Complex]
*[[Familliar]] is a regular at [[Guppy]]'s [[Bluefurry Oekaki|Bluefurry]] [[oekaki]] board. Familliar regularly draws pictures of both his own character creations as well as that of his commissioners in his own charmingly creative and endearing way. His artwork can be found at: [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/familliar/ Familliar's FA website].
*[[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, [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aramitz/ including FA].
*[[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, [http://www.foxtalestimes.com/ 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]].

==Babyfur as a paraphilia==

===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.

===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. 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.

==Babyfur online==
Babyfurs have a well established community full of art, resources, and as many modes of communication as the rest of the furry fandom.

==Websites==
====Informative pages====
Want to learn more about babyfurs, who they are, and why they are? These web pages may be helpful.

*[http://understanding.infantilism.org Understanding Infantilism] by [[BitterGrey]]
*[http://babyfur.com Online Babyfur Community] by [[LilPup]], [[Natasha Softpaw]], and [[FoxCub]]
*[http://orcinus.dynip.com/AB_DL/Orca_Stack/index.html How to make an "Orca Stack"], which are useful diapers for babyfurs.

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

====Art and fiction pages====
*[http://www.nurserytails.ca Nursery Tails] by [[Proxima Centauri]]
*[http://www.foxtalestimes.com Fox Tales Times] by [[CS Fox]]
*[http://foxcrib.sk1p.com/ Fox Crib] by [[OzzyFox]]
*[http://www.furryjadefox.com Furry Jade Fox] by [[JadeFox]]
*[http://www.karisplayground.com/ Karis' Playground] by [[Karis]]

====LiveJournal/Dreamwidth communities====
*[http://community.livejournal.com/babyfur/ Babyfur Community on LJ]
*[http://babyfur.dreamwidth.org/ Babyfur Community on Dreamwidth]

====Mailing lists====
* [http://www.altbabyfur.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/altbabyfur AltBabyfur]

====Internet Relay Chat / IRC====
*[irc://irc.furnet.org/babyfurs Furnet #babyfurs] (PG13 rating) - [http://www.babyfurs.org.uk website]
*[irc://irc.furnet.org/diaperfurs Furnet #diaperfurs] (Unrated) ([[diaperfurs]] WikiFur page)

====Bulletin Boards and Forums====
*[http://foxtalestimes.actifforum.com/index.forum Fox Tales Forum] (G rating)
*[http://www.adisc.org/forum/babyfur-littlefur/ Babyfur/littlefur forum] at ADISC.org

====MUCKs====
[[The Astonishing Treehouse of the Secret Moon|The Treehouse]] on [[Tapestries]] is a common meeting place for lilfurs and ageplayers. Just teleport to ''secretmoon'' and you're there.

====Second Life====
Many babyfurs can be found in [[Second Life]]. A major meeting place for babyfurs is the babyfur [[island (Second Life)|sim]] called [[Cub Conclave]], created and run by [[Raven Welesa]].

====Social Networking Sites====
*[http://babyfur.me BabyFur.ME Social Network] by [[LilFuzz]]

[[fr:Babyfur]]
[[pt:Babyfur]]

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

{{Featured article}}

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-02T05:20:55Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* The Shit Has Hit The Fan! */ new section

"Bye" journal was deleted by admins due to "harassment". (How does one harass a dead person?) But, he had two journals that said the same thing. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 18:31, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
:Which "Bye"?, LJ? Got a PDF screenshot when can add to the article =/ - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:06, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::The one on FurAffinity, used as a reference. It had ocer 800 comments. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 19:59, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I stopped at 200, it was getting bad - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:14, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I could posts a screenshot of just last LJ words, as individuals are looking for any screenshot, long or short - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:24, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Why is there another goodbye LJ journal? - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:52, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There were also two FA Journals. The story is, he created a "placeholder journal" and created the new journal a few days later, and copy/pasted it to the other. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 21:02, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I heard about this as well. A shame he died,even though i didn't know him,he is in my thoughts and prayers.[[User:Axelfox|Axelfox]] 22:16, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::To Equivamp: Oh, but that's time he could have gotten help, all that time preparing ... - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:35, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I know. But you can't help some people. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 08:26, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

==EPIC!==
It's a good thing I'm a Little, cause I nearly SHAT A BRICK when I saw this:

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_FA/CORPSE_HARASSMENT.gif

o_O

They've nuked like...half the posts in the existing suicide journal as of ~9:30 AM pacific time, all of mine, all of Equivamp's have now been nuked as well (before only one was nuked) and various other posts from others. What tipped the scales apparently was when I called out the person claiming to be his sister and started posting proof of his dog molesting shenanigans and questioned his "sister" about why she hadn't removed all the dog fucking artwork off his account yet. Hilarity then ensued! :D [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 12:40, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:Yeah...I was suspended for "harassment"...all I said was he was selfish...and after that, I was only responding to messages showing up in my inbox...they also said I had been told not to leave comments on the journal...but I was not. I do think it's silly that I was banned for calling a ''dead person'' selfish, but the guy that told me (a living person!) to [http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/File:EquivampSuicide.jpg kill myself] (and many other were saying similar things) got nothing...oh well. FurAffinity is not known for having admins that make the best administrative descisions...and it's quite amusing to receive death threats via Formspring... so I'll be back in a week I guess. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 14:27, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::I wish it told you which admin was doing it, it'd be pretty hilarious to find out who the doorknob is. I'm not sure which I find more hilarious, the fact that they're banning people for "harassing" a CORPSE, or the fact that they're more concerned about negative comments than they are about the DOG FUCKING pictures he's got plastered all over his gallery. LOL The other hilarious thing is that ~supposedly~ they were revamping the way admins/mods handle bans in order to ~avoid~ epic public clusterfucks of this nature...guess it's not workin so well! :D [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 15:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: Mmmm, forgot to mention, I've got the entire journal archived (in sections, it was too big to capture as a whole), which I'll put together and put up on my server later today. [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 12:42, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

==Wow==
I've have never seen that much rage over a furry death before. especially how he decided to take his life considering what exactly happened considering all of the comments are hidden by the administration in that journal. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 17:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:That always happens when someone leaves a "suicide note" on the internet...then follows through. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 17:03, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:: Though it was not handled rather well considering the amount of rage that is going on. Though this is why i've been trying to find other alternatives besides FA considering how things are not going very well. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 18:32, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Holy Shit! ==
Look at Giz's FA page! Apparently, the mods banned *EVERYONE*!

I shit you not:
:'''ADMIN ANNOUNCEMENT. DUE TO CONSTANT TROLLING AND HARASSMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT EVERYONE HAS LOST THEIR POSTING PRIVILEGES ON IT. I AM SORRY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO MOURN HIM BUT THAT INCLUDES YOU AS WELL AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACK ALL COMMENTS FAST ENOUGH. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN SUSPENSION.'''

o_O

--[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 22:37, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:No, just banned to comment in this user's page again. Nothing earth shattering. Just to keep the Rah Rah Troll Trouble with one less toy to play with - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:50, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ahhh, I see, just worded wrong. They seem to be doing that a lot here lately, like when they banned me for two weeks for "harassing a dead user" *epic face palm* That could have been worded in ~so~ many better ways. LOL

::It seems weird though that they're not closing out the account...unless they just feel confident that the media won't jump on the story...if they do, well...it's not gonna be pretty. I'm working on a new article for ED to basically separate "feral furs" from actual furries, as they seem to basically be bestiality fetishists that are trying to disguise themselves as furries (and most of them not doing a very good job of it). I suppose in effect you could be both, wanting to ~be~ an animal ~while~ you molest animals, hence the reason I think they need a separate classification.

::In a lot of ways it's similar to how pedophiles try and infiltrate the adult baby community, posing as "caretakers" for TEEN babies, in order to get their grubby little pedo mitts on them. Works in their favor to a great extent in that many teen babies are from broken homes, so such a prospect is like...winning the lottery. They'll jump at the chance for supposed "unconditional love". Unfortunately once they're ensnared the pedo can do pretty much anything they want to them, blackmailing them with their own fetish to keep quiet about their molestation and rape.

::One thing I've been curious about is that all over his account he makes references to a "mate" that he says isn't on FA...the creepy thing is, the way he describes what his mate looks like, and how he commissions art of them...well, if you look at his pictures of the stuffed animals he owns (the great big huge ones)...yeah...potential plushie fucker I'm bettin...which would be *REALLY* sad if he considered a stuffed animal to be his significant other in life. :(
:: --[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 00:26, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Compared to some of the things said (and discounting ones with logic attached to it "I. e. The FS#@#$#@, endangering the driver" parts), it was a no "duh" they had to close it down. Somebody (how I wish to know he figure it out) made the point that since this happened on the 29th, 427 new accounts were created to leave their bit of wisdom. ''It seems weird though that they're not closing out the account'', I think they can't (software wise, somebody is not on the ball, imho). Close it+protected. We can even do it here =P - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 00:51, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

== The Shit Has Hit The Fan! ==

Um, now, just so everyone is aware, I am ~not~ the first one to post this link/reference (even though I knew about it since yesterday). I waited for someone ~else~ to openly post it and, now that it's been outed I don't have any qualms with reposting it:
:http://zoophilestracker.com/index.php?page=userdetails&id=25563

I haven't actually looked at any of the content indepthly, so I'm not sure if it's stuff of ~him~, or just stuff he was sexually interested in...can't really tell the identities it looks like in most of the videos, so it could go either way.
--[[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 01:20, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-02T04:26:46Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* Holy Shit! */

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-02T02:37:14Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: Holy Shit!

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-01T19:42:17Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* EPIC! */

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-01T16:42:02Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* EPIC! */

Talk:Gizgiz

2011-09-01T16:40:31Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: EPIC!

Talk:Babyfur

2011-08-29T12:42:04Z

Onideus Mad Hatter: /* Notable Babyfurs Section: Ludwig? */ - Positive & Negative

{{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.'''

==Artist section==
This is my first time using a wiki, so if I'm doing something wrong, I apologize in advance. I was wondering, could I be added to the Babyfur artist section? I do exclusively babyfur art and sculpting, and I just finished my own page here. If not, I understand, but please let me know. - [[Degrey]]

== 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://en.wikifur.com/w/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://en.wikifur.com/w/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)
:::The DSM is not the author of the concept of Pedophilia, a phenomenon that has been under constant observation by society since prehistory. Moreover, the DSM's definition of pedophilia is notoriously contentious-- so much so that, side by side with a dictinoary of spoken english, there's should be no contest.
:::Even if the APA's views on pedophilia were rock-solid, standard usage should take precedence over technical UNLESS wikifur's audience is understood to be a community of psychiatric professionals. Verifiable expertise in that field might be brought in to comment on the state of the DSM with re: infantilism and pedophilia, and whether research has been done into the correlation between babyfurs and pedophilia, if it's available and deemed appropriate.
:::I appreciate the importance of noting that sexualized babyfur doesn't prove anybody's a child molestor or thinking about becoming one. But that doesn't excuse tacking on an exclusion to the definition of pedophilia for situations where one of the objects of the sexualized fantasy about a child is narrated from a quasi-first-person PoV.
:::In english, if babyfur is characteristically sexualized, it is pedophilic. Pretending otherwise is a disaster for the (perceived) intellectual honesty of that section of the article. So is the appearance of positive assertions that babyfurs aren't pedophiles or pederasts, without sufficient evidence. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Pedophilia is the personal desire on the part of an adult to have sex with children, not the desire to have sex with others as a child. That ''is'' the [http://www.answers.com/topic/pedophilia dictionary definition]. It's the same situation as the difference between [[Wikipedia:Sadism and masochism|sadism and masochism]], or being a top vs. being a bottom - while some may share both as a pleasure, there's no guarantee of that, nor is it the default (that's why most MUCKs have a [[Wikipedia:switch (BDSM)|switch]] option in their [[wixxx]]). The same goes for reading stories or appreciating artwork - it depends on who you identify with. Perhaps we need to explain that a little better, and note that we're talking about the people who take part in it or enjoy it rather than the "genre", as it were - but if readers don't understand the meaning of the word, even after having it explained to them, that's not really our fault. :-) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Maybe we could just quote a song to explain (although this tends towards the non-consensual side of things):
:::::''Sweet dreams are made of this Who am I to disagree? Travel the world and the seven seas Everybody's looking for something Some of them want to use you Some of them want to get used by you Some of them want to abuse you Some of them want to be abused
::::The point we need to make clear in the article is that while all of these people may like the idea of a child taking part in such a scene, they are different groups that do so for different reasons. Some of them want children, some of them want to be a child. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I respectfully disagree re: the common usage and dictionary definition. Most definitions and common usage do NOT restrict pedophilia to actual acts with children. Oxford Concise English Dictionary 10th edition (1999): ''''Paedophile (Us Pedophile) n. a person who is sexually attracted to children. -Derivatives paedophilia, paedophilic.'''' If babyfur is characteristically sexualized and IF the presence of children is a sina qua non of the attraction to babyfur, then babyfur is a sexual attraction to children (fantasy or not), and is pedophilic. Splitting hairs over what it is they're "really" attracted to is just a shells game being played to lose the meaning in the shuffle. And that's very much what comes across in the paraphilia section.

:::::At very least, assertions about whether babyfur is pedophilic, either way, should be expanded or stricken. Why not be up front and tell the reader that babyfur is characteristically sexual fantasy entertained by adults about children, and let them decide for themselves? Or is that something the article intends to obfuscate? (Assuming that it is. As I've said previously, I don't regard my knowledge of sexual babyfur RP, etc, as sufficient to characterize it with re: sexual content. OTOH I've yet to hear anybody object that it often or usually isn't, though I may have missed remarks made.)

:::::Also, I hasten to point out that if you feel it's important to make clear that different babyfur fans have different interests and motives, again, making positive assertions that certain motives are not prominent is contrary to your aims as well as made with insufficient evidence.

:::::At any rate, I think I've made as clear as I can where I think the problem lies with the section of the article. Thanks you for your attention. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::Hmm. I guess we'll have to find some babyfurs who are willing to speak on the record about their motives. :-) But still, your point hinges on being attracted to children. My understanding is that it is possible to play a child and to want to be sexually active without actually wanting to have sex with other children, and that's why this section says what it says now. It's not the babyfurs that are the pedophiles - it's the people who want to have sex with them (who may or may not be babyfurs themselves).

::::::Indeed, the concept of having an adoptive caretaker as "mummy" and "daddy" seems quite common. If this relationship were sexual, then the caretaker would be sexually attracted to a child (the definition of pedophilia), but the child would be sexually attracted to an adult. They just happen to prefer to play as a child - probably for one of the many reasons detailed earlier in the article.

::::::Telling them that something is "characteristically X" is probably not something we should be doing, as it's making a wide judgment without the proof to back it up. I ''suspect'' there is likely to be proof - or at least stated opinion - confirming both sides. We can't really ignore the topic, otherwise our coverage won't be complete. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 02:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::The question "...that it is possible to play a child and to want to be sexually active without actually wanting to have sex with other children," is not something I've contended either way, and I don't see its relevance. The question at hand is adults with an interest in children in sexual fantasies. But if after consideration you think that's really, no more and no less, what the article says, I'd be happy to help clarify where it says things otherwise.

:::::::At the kind of risk one always takes asking about what should be obvious, are we clear that an adult enjoying babyfur art, RP, fantasy, or literature is ''not'' any of the characters involved, no matter how much they identify with them? That even one's own character in RP is, properly, an *object* of interest (sexual or otherwise)?

:::::::I strongly agree we shouldn't assert "babyfur is characteristically sexual" until there's a consensus that that's what the evidence shows. But I don't agree that the form "characteristically x" is bad, especially re: a genre of art, for example, that is necessarily broadly defined. Not because I know as much about policy as you, Greenreaper, but because I can't envision any alternative.

:::::::I also agree that coverage shouldn't ignore the topic. But so long as we're in the dark about it, is it good policy to make remarks like: "Babyfurs are not inherently pedophiles?" That's a positive assertion with the implicit positive assertion that babyfur isn't characteristically sexual. And we don't know that to be true any more than we know the opposite to be true.

:::::::I think (you'll tell me if I misunderstand something about the way wiki projects in general or wikifur particularly, works) that if the view that there's nothing sexual going on in babyfur is present, it should be presented in the article. (My own experience *is* sufficient to say that a statement like 'There's little or no sexual activity in babyfur," is false, but I don't constitute a consensus. :) ) If the view that there's something sexual going on in babfur is present, that view should also be presented. Remarks about babyfur as a paraphilia would have to be specific to those presentations.

:::::::I think the article already implicitly takes the stance, by mentioning it in the first place, that there's sexualized content in babyfur.--[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::The issue I have has always lies with the statement "3) assert that it's unknown whether babyfur is characteristically sexualized, and that if it is, it's pedophilic". I think that the first part of that is closest to the truth of the matter, but I don't see that the second part follows . . . unless you're talking about the ''other'' people in those sexual relations. This article in general and that section in particular is about babyfurs, not people who have TinySex with babyfurs, so I have presumed that you are not.

::::::::To lay it out simply: if there is sexual activity between an adult and a child, then there is pedophilia, but that does not imply that the child is the pedophile - which is what "Babyfurs are not inherently pedophiles," is trying to point out. The "Babyfur problem" has historically been that a lot of people do assume just that. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, I don't think it says that, but have no suggestions for a rephrase so long as you use the word pedophilia, because (if that's what you mean) you're falsely denying pedophilia based on the inaccurate notion that situations that don't involve an actual act between an adult and a child aren't pedophilic (they are. fantasies can be and are pedophilic), and because when you say: "that does not imply that the child is the pedophile" I'm pretty sure you're referring to the child character in the RP, who is obviously not the issue. The adult playing him or her is.
:::::::::Keep the article as it is, and everyone who knows what pedophilia is and discovers there's sex play among babyfurs will regard the paraphilia section, at best, as deceitful.
:::::::::Promise I'm done now, you know my thoughts. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 05:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::OK. I'm actually been rewriting it as we've been speaking here.
::::::::::I still think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, though. Specifically, I'm ''not'' saying that actual acts have to be involved. I'm saying that the adult who is performing the child's role in such activities cannot be assumed to be a pedophile through their participation in that role, because they're not enjoying the fantasy of having sex with a child. They're enjoying the fantasy of '''being''' a child and having sex with an adult. That's a ''different fantasy'', just as the fantasy of being covered in whipped cream is different from the fantasy of covering someone else with whipped cream. There's pedophilic fantasies involved, to be sure, but they're demonstrated by the person playing the adult character, not the person playing the child.
::::::::::Ignoring the question of whether "virtual or real?" matters, it's inaccurate to call babyfurs pedophiles unless they actually have an interest in having sex with children. Probably some do have such interests, but that's not implied by the above roleplay unless they take the "adult" role. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::I think I did understand what you're saying, but that we disagree about something else. I acknowledge that there's a difference, probably a meaningful one, between an adult enjoying the fantasy of being an adult engaged in sex acts with a child, and an adult enjoying the fantasy of being a child engaged in sex acts with a child. Yes, they're different. And they're both pedophilic in nature.
:::::::::::The article is much improved. I'm conerned about clarifying what POV is presenting this paragraph: ''''If adult characters are involved, then the actions of their players would normally be classified as pedophilic, even if those of thie child's player are not.'''' I think it would be well to explain which of the following you mean: "Most babyfurs would regard inclusion of adult characters in sexual play with children as pedophilic..." or "Onlookers/the uninitiated/general english speakers would not classify adults interested in sexual play involving child characters as pediophilic... unless they were themselves playing adults." (I'm unsure of the former; I have objections to the latter.)
:::::::::::Thanks for your attention to the article. Believe it or not, I'm as much interested in getting rid of unreasoning prejudice as anybody (because I believe in reason). And moreover, getting this kind of thing just right is, to me at least, worth being as awfully tedious to you as I've been. --[[User:Furthling|Furthling]] 07:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

== Definition of Sissyfurs ==
This was inaccurate. I have adjusted it by leaning the original definition in as a common misconception and explaining the truth afterward. ~Amethe - #sissyfurs founder/administrator

== Notable Babyfurs Section: List Cleanup? ==

The list of "notable babyfurs" currently features Snuggems among the list of babyfurs who are "among the most known and respected in the furry fandom, recognized here for their contributions and devotion to the babyfur community". With all due respect to his past contributions to the community, Snuggems pretty much hasn't done anything except RP on mucks in years, and it's unlikely that that will change. The others on the list have continued to do the things that put them on the list to this day, for the most part, while Snuggems has practically become a recluse, not attending or running any events in several years at least; the last Nursery that Snuggems and Wolfcub ran was at FC '07.

Given this information, does anyone have any objection to removing him from the Notable Babyfurs list? He's still mentioned in the timeline, but I really don't think his presence on this list is appropriate anymore.

-- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 20:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

:Proceeding with proposed removal of Snuggems from the "Notable Babyfurs" list, due to lack of opposition. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 12:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Notable Babyfurs Section: Ludwig? ==

Recently, an anonymous user added [[Ludwig]], creator of the #babyfur IRC channel (not to be confused with #babyfurs), to the list of "notable babyfurs". I have some serious objections to this, for a number of reasons. First off, that section describes "notable babyfurs" as being "among the most known and respected in the furry fandom, recognized here for their contributions and devotion to the babyfur community". I fail to see any way in which someone who's described (even by a fan or himself who put them on the list) as being "often connected with anti-babyfur sentiment" and "a known troll" fits that description, regardless of what they may have done in the past. Secondly, his cited accomplishments consist of being "often credited with the concept of 'Ironic Babyfurs'", something completely unreferenced anywhere on Wikifur, and creating the #babyfur IRC channel, a known haven for trolls and troublemakers. While the latter is enough to warrant mentioning in the community timeline, that alone hardly qualifies as "notable" compared to others on the list, especially when Ludwig is admittedly "not as prominant now as he has been in the past", and everyone else on the list (with the possible exception of Lil Kitt and Orca) is as active in the community now as they were years ago, if not moreso.

If Ludwig is to stay on the list, the person wishing to add him needs to explain how a known anti-babyfur can be well-respected in both the babyfur community and the furry fandom at large, and provide more information regarding his contributions to the community beyond creating an IRC channel that is controversial at best, and largely considered to be only tangentally related to the babyfur community. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:I don't think focussing on individuals is the best way to go, anyway. I suggest turning the history section into prose, and incorporating the facts embodied of the list of notable babyfurs within it. "X maintains Y"-type information should be on the pages X and Y, not here. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 04:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

::I concur, the concept of a "notable babyfurs" section is a bit outdated, considering the way the community has evolved to become less centralized. But, given the scope and quality of the article as it stands, rewriting it as you suggest would be a major undertaking, especially since many of the people/things in these two sections of the article need their own articles (or need to have their current articles drastically revised). In the meantime, there's no reason not to maintain it as-is, and as it's currently written, Ludwig's addition to the Notable Babyfurs section is not appropriate. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 04:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

:First of all, while I appreciate your seemingly well thought out argument, I think you still have some facts mistaken. Ludwig is and always was a strong leader for a large portion of the babyfur community. As I explained in the page talk, there was a period in which his channel was the largest single gathering place for babyfurs. It just so happens, however, that since these babyfurs were widely regarded as anti-babyfur trolls, you seem to not be crediting them as also being babyfurs. So a 'tangential' relationship is hardly true. Just look in the 'history' section and note how many people have mentioned his name. I assure you those people were not me, and it shows just how important he has been considered in the past. Even if his opinions and personality are considered contraversial, there's no doubt in my mind that he has been responsible for a large amount of what the community has become. As for being 'less prominent' now. That's not a question of years, that's a question of months. After being k-lined from FurNet and being forced to pick up and move to Anthrochat, a lot of his channel members reintegrated with #babyfurs. Yes, reintegrated, despite your personal opinion that the members of that channel were nothing but trolls.

:Appended: Added the requested reference to ironic babyfurs under the 'Babyfur Roles' section. -- Anonymous, 6:58, 1 September 2009 (EST)

::Very well, I admit I'm not very knowledgeable about the "ironic babyfur" sub-community. However, in order to fit the definition of "notable babyfur" within this article, you need to establish that Ludwig is well-respected among the entire babyfur community (not just a subset of it) as well as the furry fandom as a whole. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I could simply argue this point by using the converse method. Ask yourself if the babyfurs already listed there are 'well respected among the entire babyfur community'. I can tell you that among the ironic subset of the community, inline with their mentality, none of the above are well-respected at all. Understand that the 'community' of which you speak is ALSO only a subset of the community, because you would never be welcome to or privy to the goings-on of the other major subset. -- Anonymous, 10:28, 2 September 2009 (EST)

::::You could argue that, but there's a flaw in your logic. The ironic babyfur sub-community is exactly that, a sub-group of the larger babyfur community, similar to diaperfurs. It began as an off-shoot of babyfurs as a whole, not as an independant group. So, saying that those on the current list of notable babyfurs aren't well-respected babyfurs because the ironic babyfur community doesn't respect them is flawed reasoning. It's like saying Uncle Kage isn't a "notable furry" because he's not well-received by babyfurs (note: this is just a hypothetical scenario). Back to the original point, saying that Ludwig is a notable babyfur based on being respected by a single subgroup of the community is flawed reasoning. Now, if you're saying that the ironic babyfur community is its own entity, and is not a sub-group of the babyfur community as a whole, you may have a point there. However, if that's the case, Ludwig still wouldn't be a "notable babyfur" by definition, because he wouldn't really be a babyfur. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::Using your very same logic you are also implying that Babyfurs are not actually furries and therefore should not be included on a site such as wikifur, so I believe it is you who must learn how a venn diagram works...the Babyfur Community is a subset of the Furry Fandom. Ironic babyfurs are a subset of the Babyfur Community. Just as every single person mentioned in your list belongs to some subset of the Babyfur community. Please be aware that I'm not arguing that most babyfurs wouldn't consider Ironics to actually be Babyfurs, but that's more of the political dynamic of the situation than anything else. As a perfect example, Sissyfurs are a small subset of babyfurs, as are ageplayers, however, nothing really says that a person considered responsible for the creation and propegation of that subset is not important to the structure of the community as a whole. In fact, it's worth noting that the amount of dissention brought on by Ironics has been incredibly important in the shaping of the community long before Ludwig took the initiative to bring them together. Some names were prominant in the ideal long before the community was solidified, such as Ozzyfox, Noname and Cubstatik, Gore, etc. But overall, it was Ludwig who finally took to giving shape to the ideal. Also be aware that such things as Behavioral norms at conventions and such would've never taken place if it wasn't for the fact that people involved in the Ironic community were heavily involved in the hazing of the individuals who made the babyfur community look bad. The community formed as a direct result of such actions and a need for babyfurs with some sense of common decency to rally against the overwhelming feeling in the babyfur community that anything was acceptable. And since this comment's getting too long, I'll end it there. -- Anonymous, 12:03, 2 September 2009 (EST)

::::::An extremely small group of people inside of a single IRC with absolutely no tracable presence outside of it does not qualify to be its own subset. This claim of importance is completely of opinion and if such were true there would be evidence of this group outside of this wiki page on google. There is no public evidence of those named outside of Ludwig identifying themselves as "Ironic Babyfurs" over just babyfurs. Where groups like sissyfurs has a large member base who spefically identify as sissyfurs and have a presence through out the babyfur subcommunity. Due to lacking any wide presence in the community "Ironic Babyfurs" should not be considered a subset. ~~ Anonymous, 00:17 18 February 2010

::Also worth mentioning, there are only two mentions of Ludwig in this entire article, both of which pertain to the #babyfur IRC channel (one when he created it, and one when he was banned from Furnet). Is that what you're referring to? -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::That would be correct, sir. -- Anonymous, 10:28, 2 September 2009 (EST)

::::I believe you meant "ma'am". -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 15:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

::Hey there guys. I believe Ludwig counts as a notable babyfur even if the ironic babyfur community has decayed somewhat in the last few months. For many years the ironic babyfur community was another choice for babyfurs who did not fit into the regular community. You'd likely not have heard about it because it went to great lengths to distance itself from the regular community. There were, in fact, a great multitude of ironic babyfurs and Ludwig should be credited with the idea of starting a historical subculture within the babyfur subculture. -- ''[[Duckbutt]]

:::Yes, we've established that he helped start the ironic babyfur community, and that would be good information to add to [[Ludwig|his page]], which is severely lacking in content. The point is that that alone doesn't make him "notable" for the purposes of this article/discussion. -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 12:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

::It is also important to note that Ludwig is an actual dolphin. The government hooked his brain up to a computer and now he's running a muck on the internets. I believe that his plan is to tear down the furry community by slowly eroding the sub cultures. He started with Babyfurs but now he has moved on to working the Zoophile sub-culture. He can learn swiftly with his new cybernetic mind and will soon accomplish his goals of collapsing the fandom in on itself. WE MUST STOP HIM AT ALL COSTS! Join the resistance today!
-[[StopCylonDolphins]]

::Seems like a "Notorious babyfurs" section would be a good place to put such names. After all, the negative influencers can be just as important in a community as the positive. -- [[Special:Contributions/217.155.69.206|217.155.69.206]] 17:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

:::How do you define positive and negative though? I mean many babyfurs see me as "negative" in that I'm an active contributor to ED as well as an infamous reality manipulation artist (troll) and an invective word artist (flamer), not to mention I once incited an nth level war in the general AB community when I pitted ABs against TBs in a large scale multi-group flame war on Usenet that ripped every one of the major Usenet groups apart. While many see such actions as "bad" or "negative", most of them are actually fueled by a sense of righteousness and what *I* believe is *GOOD* for the community in general...mostly in that I believe those who take themselves too seriously are the ones who *REALLY* damage the community and it's the ones who *DON'T* take themselves too seriously that are most beneficial. My work in general may be considered *VERY* "negative" in nature, like nyah:
:::http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Deviant_Art/Diaper_Art_Stamp_-_01.png
:::http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Deviant_Art/Diaper_Art_Stamp_-_02.png
:::But the end result is often *VERY* "positive", in that particular instance the original author took down the stamp and apologized, after it had been up for months and months, with continual attempts by DOZENS of others to get him to take it down using other "nicer" methods. [[User:Onideus Mad Hatter|Onideus Mad Hatter]] 08:42, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Yeah ==

So, I re-added myself to the list of notable babyfur artists, and here's why:
*Most of my artwork (especially what I've been publishing lately) depicts one or more babyfur
*In my town, if I'm not known as the girl with the dog collar, I'm known as the girl that draws baby animals
*I sold several babyfur pieces at my town's Art Fair a few years ago
*I run the #Babyfurs group on dA
There is more kinds of notability than just on-line. The Furry Fandom would do good to remember this. If you think I should be removed, tell me here instead of just taking it, because I will keep putting it back. I don't care. kthxbai [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 14:42, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but as far as I can see none of these meet the barrier for "notability". In my company I am known as a furry, but that does not make me a notable furry. I would have to stand out ''among other furries''. By your estimation, almost any artist who ever sold anything that could be construed as a babyfur would be a notable babyfur artist - and there are hundreds of such artists. In contrast, Marci McAdam has been a regular dealer at conventions for years; I'd estimate she clears about $1000 of business at each of them. Her work is known both within and without the babyfur community - to the extent that people will assume that you ''are'' a babyfur if you wear a badge by her. (You also did not mention that you are the only person ''in'' that dA group, which you founded this week.) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 16:16, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==To each their own==

So, I am reading this and I am somewhat astounded. This is Wikifur and you all are using it as though it were a chat room. The quote of the day is: "TO EACH THEIR OWN". As long as no one is hurting children or abusing a child in any form, it's not pedophilia. This is common sense, and the majority of our world has none. Let us erase all this chatty non-sense and retry this. Babyfur, Furry, Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Pansexuality, Transexuality, and so on and so forth are ALL a lot easier to explain than people give credit. I believe my first quote said it all. TO EACH THEIR OWN. Respect peoples limits, space, rights, and simply accept that no one wants to be you, and you shouldn't want to be anyone but yourself. If YOU believe you are a girl, so be it. If you think you are 5 years old, whatever. Don't hurt children, don't hurt others AT ALL and I won't care nor should anyone else. [[User:LinkDrako|LinkDrako]]([[User talk:LinkDrako|talk]]) 23:28, 30 May 2011 (EDT)
:Are you asking that people simply accept everything, and throw morals to the wind? [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 16:25, 1 June 2011 (EDT)
::Whose morals? :-) But this isn't really relevant to improving the article. [[Wikipedia:Pedophilia|Pedophilia]] is defined elsewhere as "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children ... at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles". I think this is a reasonable definition. It does not apply to all babyfurs and doesn't say anything about actions which harm others. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Any morals. Everyone has their limits. Also GreenReaper, a tip: you of all people should stay away from pedophilia discussions; it'll only hurt you in the long run. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 01:02, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Because I moderate [[Inkbunny]], cub haven of the world? (OK, so technically that's [[Cub Central]].) I have it on my LinkedIn profile. If people want to judge me for that, it's their call. I'd be a lot more worried about human porn, and I'm a lot more comfortable with Inkbunny's no-tolerance policy there than certain other furry archives. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:15, 11 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::And that right there is why I respect you. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 01:35, 11 June 2011 (EDT)

== Infected website ==

The following website [http://foxcrib.sk1p.com/] was identified as Trojan-infected by my anti-virus. It's worth double-checking, because it may be false-positive. [[User:EvilCat|EvilCat]] 07:19, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:<del>It leads to an image of a crudely-written note that seems to be mocking people that threaten to kill themselves. Not sure if it's a virus, but it's definitely not a furry site. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 17:29, 6 August 2011 (EDT)</del>

::Actually, it is a letter rejoicing the return of the site, and clicking on the image leads to the site itself. The link seems to serve as an +18 warning. [[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]][[User talk:Equivamp|talk]] 17:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::: Well, my anti-virus still says "TROJAN:Illiframe-B". If there is an iframe, then the safety of the website it referenes can be checked with http://www.malwareurl.com . [[User:EvilCat|EvilCat]] 05:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::There is an iframe on that site, but the site it points to is down, at least when I checked. Note: I am not talking about the clickable link, but the invisible frame. --[[User:Rat|Rat]] 14:30, 7 August 2011 (EDT)