From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify WikiFur's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.

Hmm, should the "Pornography in furry fandom" section of Pornography be moved to Furotica ? --EarthFurst 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people might disagree with something's clasification as one but agree with the other. Is a painting of a nude fox erotic, or pornographic, or both? --GreenReaper(talk) 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"Pornography": Any piece you lose interest in as soon as you orgasm. 733
Heh. That's a bit blunt, but basically true, I think. --Douglas Muth 21:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As a point of thought -- why this particular picture to describe pornography? Why a picture at all? I don't think I agree with it... --IanKeith 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It was under a free license and near the top of the category gallery. --Rat 04:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Possible nomination for Featured Page[edit]

I just can't bring myself to agree with this. It's also definitely not something I want splattered on the front page. Surely we have better articles to feature? --IanKeith 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So find them, improve them, nominate them. And put your comments for this on the feature nomination, as linked in the header. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Without trying to be too overly blunt, this picture is crap, and is a horrible reference for the entire scope of furry pornography, I suggest getting a random pic off of Fchan, or a random one off of the /c/ board and using it instead (because they are not protected under a specific license on that site) I think it would benefit the page as a whole... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I agree, hyper pandess isn't all that hot and a too specific fetish for a general description of porn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
I'm not attached to any particular picture being used on this art. But no, pics off an image board aren't free to use. Artists do not give up their copyright unless they explicitly state so. --Rat 10:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where can I view non-gay furry porn?[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in furry porn. Where can I get decent porn as a heterosexual male? -- 12:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't even... *shudder* --Equivamp 15:08, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
Not really the place to be asking this, but if you go to e621 and search "female," that should work ~~


Wouldn't Furotica (furry term) supersede Pornography (mainstream term) in article standing?. Just musing (eh, it works) - Spirou 03:08, 18 May 2013 (EDT)


I deleted this sentences from the Legality section: "In the United States the Miller Test would classify yiff as having "artistic value" therefore making it a legal form of pornography." because it misinterprets the Miller test. A work of pornorgraphy would have to be (1) very well-drawn or (2) very well-written (i.e. more than just an "excuse plot") to pass. Most pornography you see on the Internet (fur or skin) does not pass and is considered obscene by the U.S. govt, occupying a space of legal ambiguity that is generally not enforced either way. I'm not sure about any other countries. Does anyone have any insight or sources about the legality of yiff or porn in general? Not-my-username 20:19, 6 October 2013 (EDT)

An "excuse plot" is more than enough to pass the Miller Test, that's why they're there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2602:306:250b:57d9:b562:5cfe:bca2:5c9d (talkcontribs) .


On your partial revert: The reason I removed {{Who}} is that, given the assertion that the word is based on "a writer[who?] who chronicled the lives of prostitutes", the name of the original writer is not relevant to the history of the word.

On the separate issue, it may be fine to document misspellings and take-offs of the word, such as P0rn and Pron, but these are aberrations that don't belong in the initial definition. SPIKE (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2014 (EDT)

"The name of the original writer is not relevant to the history of the word". Actually, yes, yes it is. It is called information. I for one I'm curious who and were this originated from. Some other people will/would probably like to know too. (...Aberrations...): That's an opinion, not a valid fact for deletion. Since there are interchangeable misspellings/slang variations of the term, used commonly in mainstream and furry fandom, yes, there is value to present such data.
The variants for the word Human maybe be also considered aberrations, but they are now part of mainstream/furry lore and culture. That is the whole point of the concept of "Also known as" in Wikifur articles. - Spirou (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
Athenaeus, by the looks it,... and the first use of it in the English language was in 1843. Quite interesting; will add the data later. - Spirou (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
Your research has improved the article. But surely the etymology did not hinge on a specific pornographer; a word defined as to "write about harlots" does not mean that the definer had a specific pornographer in mind; that's all I was getting at. On the other point, I did not mean to convey disapproval with the term "aberration," only that it was an exception, which the article should cover later than the general case. Cheers! SPIKE (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
Points understood, just bringing the two cents on the "why" of the revert, and cement that opinion a little better with additional references. No, I didn't think the word "aberration" was a forced POV point, just an simple opinion.
The assessment of leaving the writer's angle is that (normally), regarding Wikifur's article on mainstream subjects, the main opening section (prior to XXXX and furry) should read almost like an, for better words, a shortened mainstream encyclopedia/dictionary entry prior to tackle its involvement with furry fandom, which should include etymology, and with some of them, first use by author and/or date. But this is a rule not set on stone, and changes can still be made is other editors feel that such over-detailed data is not really necessary for this article. The beauty of any Wiki. =) - Spirou (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (EDT)