Talk:Furry pornography

Furry fandom section

It seems that part of the section from the Furry fandom page, could be better suited in this page. Some of the information, such as the surveys and statistics I feel may be better suited in this topic. I would like to know what other editors think on this matter. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see the main furry fandom article being altered to only contain brief summaries of the statistics rather than full paragraphs (ex. second and third paragraphs of the Sexuality section being trimmed to "The majority of furries responding to surveys on non-adult websites find that sexual attraction is not a very important part of their furry activities. A survey at a convention in 2013 found that the majority of furries have viewed furry pornography, and that surveyed males were more likely to view pornography than females; however, a very small minority cited pornography as their main reason for getting into the furry fandom." The statistics can be put in this article. As can the details about zoophilia I suppose. Demographics on sexual orientation is probably good to keep as is in furry fandom. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit , Yes, I agree that we should leave some context to be summaries. A minor thing to note, I think in other parts of the page that states or refrances furry porn should also be trimed and moved here. It seems that at one point a long time ago this page was redirected to the furry fandom page and some content regarding yiff/furry porn was more spread out in that article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Such example may be under Furry fandom#Public perception and media coverage with " A reporter attending Anthrocon 2006 noted that "despite their wild image from Vanity Fair, MTV, and CSI, furry conventions aren't about kinky sex between weirdos gussied up in foxy costumes", that conference attendees were "not having sex more than the rest of us" or "The article described furry fans' belief that they will be portrayed as "mainly obsessed with sex", which has led to distrust of the media and social researchers." there is also "many of its featured works contained adult themes, such as "Omaha" the Cat Dancer, which contained explicit sex." under history. On another note a brief mention of content under Art, websites and online communities may also be helpful for this page's History Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind copying over that part but it seems like that part is relevant to the fandom as a whole, since Omaha was a fairly early work in the development of the subculture and is mentioned earlier. I'm making the switch over with the statistics. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Launchballer (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that furry pornography discourse spans from Kirk/Spock fan works to real-world assassins involving Kirk and Trump?

• Source: https://worldtribune.com/what-the-hell-both-trump-and-kirk-shooters-had-furry-fetishes/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/probe-reveals-trump-shooter-thomas-crookss-links-to-furry-porn-maga-says-kid-was-programmed-to-kill-president/articleshow/125393725.cms

https://nypost.com/2025/09/18/us-news/tyler-robinson-played-furry-shades-of-gay-porn-game-report/

• ALT1: ... that the term yiff originated in a constructed language?

• Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190913170903/https://www.dailydot.com/irl/furry-yiff-meaning/

• ALT2: ... that Tony the Tiger has been the subject of sexualized fan art?

• Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/29/tony-the-tiger-frosties-begs-furries-stop-tweeting-him-porn

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tony-tiger-frosted-flakes-horny-twitter-furries_n_5bc015e8e4b01a01d689054b

• Reviewed:

5x expanded by Issac I Navarro (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC).

• Article has been expanded five times its size (from ~7k bytes to ~35k bytes). Sourcing is decent, but there are some issues with the ones used in the hook. I am unsure about the quality of the New York Post and Huffington Post per WP:RSP. Can you please provide a rationale as to why these should be acceptable for DYK? (Additionally, while this has nothing to do with DYK eligibility as none of the hooks use these as sources, I should let you know that Medium, Know Your Meme and the California Post are generally unreliable, and the Irish Sun is deprecated). Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 14:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Over the next day I will go ahead and see if I can find some alternative sources. To address why I used the New York Post and Huffington Post as sources; given the nature of the subject of this article, the amount of credible references wasn't much. I wasn't familiar with this subject when I stated editing, I saw that there was a number of social media and blog like posts when looking for sources the vast majority of had no use for an encyclopedia. However, some of it led to me find better terms to search. Furthermore, for the did you know your meme ref, I should of added Template:Primary sources references section / (better source needed tag), or not included that one at all. For the other sources that you mentioned, I ran into the same issue, this topic seems vast given the amount of explicit content and the way that it just exists and interacts on the internet though there wasn't much credible references illustrating this. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Issac I Navarro and Gommeh: it's been a couple of weeks since the last comment in this nomination. Are all issues resolved? TarnishedPath^talk 14:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be OK with approving ALT2 as long as the Huffington Post source is removed. Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 14:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with the Huffington Post, it's the Sun, NY/California Post, Medium, and Know Your Meme I have beef with.--Launchballer 06:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has been willing to review this, should we approve ALT2 as it stands or no? Beta Beta Beta - talk 05:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that I have gone ahead and removed the sources per above Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

ALT2 should be good then. Beta Beta Beta - talk 20:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

With this oldest open nomination now reaching a full week past WP:DYKTIMEOUT and the backlog so great that a full month's worth of approved nominations is not transcluding onto the page, I am marking this one for closure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll just note before I close this that the reason I wouldn't promote ALT2 is because it fails MOS:EGG. If/when you send this through GA, ping me.--Launchballer 03:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

AI Generated Image

Per Wikipedias AI Image policy, I do not believe this page qualifies for any form of exemption. The first image on this page is attributed as AI generated, and i think it would be more appropriate to source a human-made artwork for inclusion. ~2026-32113-60 (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it ~2026-32465-73 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Two problems here

One: Why are there clop images here? There's already an article for that.

Two: Since quite a large amount of furry porn out there is of males, it's a bit shocking that the only images here are of females. I'd add a male example myself, but I couldn't find anything from a quick search of Commons. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 11:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Someone-123-321, these images technically still fit the article, as clop is just a subgenre of furry porn, but I do think having two of them is a bit excessive.

As for c:File:Lead shits in Crunchy's mouth by Lordcuckness.png, I tried adding it to the Clop article, but it got deleted by a random dude. There was no consensus to include after the talk discussion, so I added the image here instead to illustrate the weird fetishes (plus, the specific fetish on the image is sourced).

As for c:File:Czu MLP clop Wikimare.png, I don't remember who specifically added this image, but I think it was @Issac I Navarro, since he contributed a lot to what is now the modern version of the page. I would probably replace it with something else, though there's not a lot of options besides "feral" and "cub", which are controversial and could be considered WP:GRATUITOUS.

Oh, and here's the only male yiff on Commons. Feel free to place it. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 12:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars and @Someone-123-321,

• Here is an example of feral File:Meteor Shower Day 6 Empress Cat by Star-Rifle.png.
• This File could be male yiff. File:Self-reflection.png, (I found sources talking about furry fat fetish.)
• Another example of male yiff (Vore fetish) File:Hymmanios vores Baselos.png.
• There is also this .gif depicting male furry porn File:The Femboy Hooters Jingle - Ranch Sauce.gif.

Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Good examples, though I feel like if we're doing that many images, might as well be a gallery section on the bottom of the page (or just expand the page with existing sources to space out images more, I may do that soon). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars was just pointing out suggestion and alternatives.

Also, on another completely different note, I been needing to go though the source for DYK nomination and find better sources. If anyone has any better sources or citations please replace. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll try finding sources in Russian. Furry porn in Russia is surprisingly prevalent, I've found countless artists and communities from here for some reason, so there are probably sources in that language too. Per Help:Language, it should still be useful as long as it hasn't been mentioned by English sources. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 18:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars , Thanks for the help, prior to editing I was not familiar with this subject. As expressed at the DYK nomination fot this page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS

We don't need to have 8 examples of furry porn in this article. Wikipedia is not a gallery of porn and people wanting to see furry porn can go to e621. We don't need to have an image for every single furry fetish in existence. Skyshiftertalk 14:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, especially regarding the coprophilia image, I have no idea how that is here. GamerninjaNotFound (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The current diff with a single sexually suggestive image is fine- it neatly illustrates the concept of furry porn without being overly explicit or gratuitous. qcne (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't really illustrate "furry" well. Either of the cheetah images that were originally here before more pics were added are much better. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Changed it back to the cheetah image that was the lead before. I think one of the other images should replace the foxgirl one, as that's barely "furry", would go better on a "anime catgirl" page. Ringtail Raider (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ringtail Raider No? I don't think a suggestive fox girl would belong in such an article.

From all the sources that I have seen it is; many people try and claim that is not furry. However, it is furry porn objectively, that assessment is based on the sources. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean the species specifically so much as the concept of an anime human with animal ears, which is arguably furry but not really as accurately representative imo. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: for the discussion on the encyclopedia use of the czu pony image please respond on

Talk:Clop (erotic fan art)#RfC about images on this page. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: coolgurl5555, HyperAnd, Dabmasterars, Someone-123-321, editor that have talk about images on this article. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Furry porn has different subgenres, so illustrating them I feel like can benefit the article. Even accounting the gratuitous rules, the four lead images should've stayed, while the scat image could be removed. Maybe the giraffe porn could get replaced with "TF" or "hosesuit" images, as they're less gratuitous. Winter lady image shows naturism without a sexual context, so it could stay. I considered including softcore "cub porn" at some point, but now that's fully out of the question by me, as I don't want for this discussion to turn into 60 notifications per day like with the clop talk discussion.

Honestly, I don't even care for the outcome. I have better stuff to do than discuss furry porn images on Wikipedia. I'm already tired from the clop discussion. Whatever may happen to the article or the image inclusion consensus, these images would still be on Commons, so someone could use it later if they're at some point found appropriate to include in an article (any article in any language, for that matter). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars I agree with that assessment, I don't think there is much more to gain by going on and on about the same matter. It is cartoon animal character porn it is not that important of a topic. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

On the note about there being too many images in the lead (or in the article as a whole), possibly keep them as Dabmasterars suggests or remove them. If removal is the course of action due to the amount. Also remove the images from the Fan art and Original character, articles due to them also haveing that issue. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, but the images on those two articles aren't sexual, so there isn't any interest in trimming those as well. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ringtail Raider At Commons:Category:Yiff, there are many examples to choose. I gave my rational already on this talk regarding the use of images. I have also expressed how a another file could be created or found if had the proper licensing.

Pick one from that category, however, the current one in the lead is good enough. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you replied to the wrong comment of mine. My point here was that I doubt people will be as enthusiastic to trim the images on those two articles, because they are not sexual, despite the "too many images" reasoning given here. Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ringtail Raider I am not interested in changing Skyshifter edit. The current image seems sufficient. I have previously suggested in this talk page that we can find an image such as "furry scale" that is properly licensed that may the best for this article.

If you find a superior image on Commons go ahead but I don't feel like comparing the quality of furry pornography. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. Again, I think you're replying to the wrong comment of mine; this reply should go to the comment near the top of this topic responding to qcne. The comment you are replying to here is in response to you saying the images on Fan art and Original character should be trimmed too, and I was saying that I didn't believe there would be people clamoring to do so like there were for this article, because the images on those pages are not sexual in nature. The implication that I did not want to bluntly state (because people have yelled at me enough already) was that the "8 images" part of the removal reason here was not the main issue behind it being brought up. As should be clear by this topic being titled "WP:GRATUITOUS" and not "Too many images". Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyways, regarding what I am talking about for an image see Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#State of this article 2 and Talk:Furry pornography/Archive 1#Image copyright Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I just removed this revision, which included a very explicit animated GIF. I don't think the article is worse off without it, but still sharing in this thread to make sure I did the right thing. Kognise (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what the image you're talking about is, whatever it was appears to have been deleted due to copyright violations, which on Wikipedia is always the bigger concern with media. Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, nice, I did discover that it was copyright violation after removing it and nominated it for speedy deletion. Seems like that's been done. For posterity, it was a GIF of two fully nude cat-like creatures having sex with a close up on the insertion. Kognise (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The image was deleted as a copyright violation. I even went and verified the license: it was CC BY-NC-ND, so not Commons-compatible. I feel like the editor who tried to put the image is likely a vandal; if he was acting in good faith, he wouldn't try to redo the same thing five different times. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

As a furry myself, I agree. GK1H ^(T/C) 02:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Feral

Is the feral image really necessary?! GK1H ^(T/C) 00:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gameking1happy

Sure replace it. Do you have any suggestions that may be suitable for this article from Commons:Category:Yiff. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Lead image

I thought the consensus was cleared, but apparently not. The Fahada image got replaced by an e621 screenshot, then by Fahada again, which then got reverted back to the screenshot. I guess time to do discussion number three cause you can't decide.

I myself think that the Fahada image (or anything in c:Category:Fahada) is preferable, as it is erotic enough to portray the genre, but not graphic enough to be considered gratuitous. e621 screenshot belongs more in the e621 article (or in a non-lead section of this article), while the foxgirl illustration is barely furry at all, belonging more in Kemonā.

Pinging recent editors who changed the image: @Issac I Navarro, @Ringtail Raider and @Jerodlycett. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars

Thank you for the ping.

File:Big ASS Order part 3 by ShyghostArts.jpg or File:Foxgirl 2.png. Seem to convey the subject. That is why I originally added four files in the lead to convey the range of this topic. Old revision of Furry pornography

Though, some have pointed out how File:Foxgirl 2.png is barely a furry; however, it is very much in that realm. According to some of the source I read when I was doing the rewrite, some people on forms point to something suggested as a furry scale. I talked about that here, Talk: Furry pornography/Archive 1#Image copyright, I suggest if there is ever a image with no copyright concerns that may be the best for the lead. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Being in the realm doesn't make it a good lead image. Something much more solidly furry would make much more sense for a lead image. It'd be like the main furry article having someone with a cat ears headband on as its lead instead of people in fursuits or art of fursonas. Ringtail Raider (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not connected to this subject in any way, nor do I know anyone that takes part in this type of thing.

That being said, after reviewing and editing the page; the sources I found along with the available images over at commons, I believe File:Foxgirl 2.png is a reasonable MOS:LEADIMAGE. While the character is not a full anthropomorphic animal, it clearly depicts a fox-eared, fox-tailed character and falls within the broader furry/kemonomimi. Several sources discussing furry art and fandom note that the boundary between anthropomorphic characters and animal featured humans is rather up in the air. The Foxgirl image reflects one end of that spectrum. That is why I suggested using multiple images, as seen in Old revision of Furry pornography. However, there is MOS:SANDWICH, to look out for. Also per WP:IMGCONTENT, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter." Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

To me it toes the line between furries and catgirls (which seem like more an anime thing). Not saying it doesn't count, I don't think most people who know about furries would think of this immediately if you asked them to imagine furry art or furry fandom people or whatever. To me it's like, imagine if the Even-toed Ungulate article couldn't use that collage as its lead image and had to just pick one, and they picked the whale one – it's technically true, but not what most people would think of first. It seems a lot of people have a problem with using multiple images on this page, so I can't help with that part. Anything's better than the current website screenshot though. Ringtail Raider (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ringtail Raider

It seems that File:The Cetartiodactyla.jpg, was created with other files currently Commons as well. It would seem reasonable to create such a file as that, specifically for this page. However, when looking at the available files over at Commons, I am not all that fond of their quality and consistency. The photographs used in File:The Cetartiodactyla.jpg seem to be consistent with their quality of lighting, their focus on the subject, field of depth, among other factors that make them consistent. That being said, if such a file was to be created what would be some of the files you deem adequate? Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

There can definitely be better quality files out there, it's just that:

1. We need files under Creative Commons licenses, and only specific ones
2. Fan art needs to either be transformative enough (which is a blurry line) or use original characters
3. Uploading too much furry porn to Commons may make users think that you're doing it out of vandalism (which is why I'm always inserting info like "uploaded to illustrate X" in the description)

Maybe I'm a bit overexaggerating, as I haven't received a single deletion request on these images. Anyway, if you want to find images yourself, aim for either DeviantArt or Newgrounds. DA has a built in CC license filter, while NG images can be found through google by searching: yiff "attribution" -"noncommercial" -"derivative" site:newgrounds.com I usually go for Newgrounds, as the policy permits more hardcore stuff and the results on average are less amateurish. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 10:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Also per C:COM:WKL.

@Dabmasterars I will take a look on Google as I don’t have a Newgrounds account, and have no desire to make one. If I do happen to find anything appropriate I will give you a ping on this talk. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing. Also, the word "yiff" in the beginning can be replaced with any generic word or combination, so you can find more specific stuff. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you're focusing on the wrong parts of my example. I was only trying to explain why I felt that image was not good to use here. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I was reverting a vandalism account that keeps making random changes to images on articles. Notably, they changed the image but not the caption. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett I seen your reverting on the other pages done as well.Thank you Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The e621 screenshot is really not helpful and doesn't make sense as the main image here. I still vote on Winter Lady as one of the preferable options. Demonstrates an example well, visually looks better than some others, hopefully won't make people mad. The old Fahada bikini image this article used years ago I guess is okay too but ehhhh, doesn't look as good. Ringtail Raider (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The current consensus appears to be to retain Winter Lady as the lede image until a better example can be found. In my view, however, no image would be preferable to one that directly contradicts the article’s opening sentence.

The lede, correctly or not, states that “furry pornography refers to a genre of pornography or erotic material depicting anthropomorphic animal characters engaging in lascivious behavior or sexual intercourse, commonly associated with the furry fandom.” The image depicts neither lascivious behavior nor sexual intercourse.

The cited sources may support a broader definition like the one used in the first sentence of Pornography. Even so, an example of naturism, which is expressly defined as “non-sexual social nudity,” seems poorly suited as the lede image. Dholish (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Dholish, I agree that there is likely a better example for the lead image. As Dabmasterar pointed out, the website Newgrounds may have some suitable images, and Fur Affinity might as well. If you happen to find one that you think would make a better lead image, feel free to give me a ping. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like another problem is that "yiff" can be both erotic and pornographic, but the article is explicitly called "Furry pornography", despite the fact that it also talk about regular erotica. Though, based on the move discussion, the current name was more common and more indicative of the genre. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 07:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think File:Winter Lady Nude.png is good as the lead image. Skyshiftertalk 12:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)