Meet The Babyfurs

Babyfurs are a significant part of the furry community, but they tend to exist below the surface. It’s common for babyfurs to create two identities: a clean identity for use in the furry community at large, plus a second identity for socializing with the babyfurs. So there isn’t much leakage from the babyfurs into the furry mainstream.

The babyfurs that are visible within furry largely fall into one of two categories: the charismatic types who are able to express their babyfur nature without it overwhelming their identity; and the laissez-faire, who are overt and often less-than-subtle. The rest of the babyfurs, the silent majority, are staying hidden.

There is a dilemma for this silent babyfur majority, those who want to express their identity honestly but choose to moderate such expressions in the furry mainstream. On one hand, they would like to be open; on the other, they don’t want to be subject to abuse.

And there is a lot of abuse aimed towards babyfurs from the furry mainstream. Most people reading this will be aware of the stereotypical antisocial babyfur, and will probably have heard some second-hand horror story about something that happened at a convention that one time.

Happily, I’m here to report that the stereotypes are wrong. The mainstream treatment of babyfurs is unfair and largely unfounded. This article is about the real babyfurs.

A few weeks ago, [adjective][species] published an article titled How To Be A Babyfur. In this article I investigated some of the challenges facing babyfurs, but the main point was an attached survey. The survey was shared around by babyfurs on the usual social networks, and (at the time of writing) we had 351 responses. My thanks to those who participated, particularly those who took the time to provide some extra comments. I learned a lot.

We’ve collated the results. While the data isn’t statistically significant, it shows some clear trends. I’ve read through the various extra comments, and I’ve followed up with a few extra questions for some respondents. I believe I have enough information to write a brief but broad summary of the group. Ladies, gentlemen, in-betweens… meet the babyfurs:

1. Babyfurs Are Indistinguishable From Regular Furries

(All comparison data is taken from

  • The median age of the babyfurs is 24, compared with 22 for all furries.

This difference is insignificant, and easily explained by the fact that [a][s] probably attracts a slightly older audience. The babyfur age distribution looks like the furry age distribution: a group of people around age 20 with a long tail. The youngest babyfur respondent was 14; the oldest 55.

  • The babyfurs are about 80% male, the same proportion as all furries.
  • The babyfurs are gayer: 44% compared with 22% for all furries.

This is an expected result: men are kinkier than women, and there is a sexual element to the babyfur identity for many (but not all). More on this later.

  • About two-thirds of babyfurs live in North America. The remainder are spread about the usual furry hotspots: Western Europe, Scandinavia, and Australasia.

Those from non-English-speaking nations are undoubtedly under-represented, because the article and survey are in English. Population data from an online survey is always subject to significant error so I won’t present any comparison data, but in general this result is similar to what I’d expect for the overall furry group.

2. Babyfurs Are Very Social

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that babyfurs are social beasts. As expected, a large majority socialize in babyfur communities online (83%), however there is also a lot of in-person socializing: a full 55% of babyfurs have attended a real-world babyfur event, and 34% have attended a non-furry AB/DL (Adult Baby/Diaper Lover) event.

Very clearly the stereotype of babyfurs as being socially-averse is false. The babyfurs that are poorly socialized are simply the easiest ones to spot. (Thus invoking JM’s Law: the most visible members of a minority are rarely the best ambassadors.)

3. Babyfurs Like To Wear Diapers

This may sound rather obvious, but results show essentially universal agreement: babyfurs are wearing diapers. It is fair to say that “babyfur” is synonymous with “furry diaper lover”.

The term “babyfur” is actually a bit of a misnomer, because many babyfurs do not engage in ageplay, or anything else that called be called babyish. Which brings me to…

4. There Is A Minor Schism Between Ageplaying Babyfurs and Diapers-Only Babyfurs

As far as conflict, aka furry drama (TM) goes, this one is very minor. Everyone seems to be happy enough to be lumped together in the broad category titled “babyfur”, however there are clearly two main subgroups.

Those who like to wear diapers, but don’t engage in ageplay, often prefer to be called “diaperfurs”. This is an important point (thanks to those who pointed it out), although use of the “diaperfur” term is not universal among diapers-only babyfurs. Some are happy to be labelled babyfurs; others see a big difference, to the point that some weren’t sure whether the article & survey were intended for diaperfurs as well as ageplaying babyfurs. (It was.)

Conversely, some ageplaying babyfurs prefer to be called “kidfurs” or “littlefurs”, which indicates that their babyfur identity is age-regressive. I suspect that the special delineation is largely for convenience, because it helps likeminded ageplayers identify one another more easily. There are also some furries who play as caretakers towards the ageplayers, as either an occasional or permanent preference.

The two groups seem to get along well, and nobody seems to mind being collected under the babyfur banner. Given the important difference separating the two groups, I think that the overall spirit of fellowship is rather generous.

The ageplayers have a special challenge: they are flirting with one of society’s great taboos, the sexualization of underage characters. For many babyfurs, ageplay has a sexual component, an interest that (partly) drives demand for cub porn. And this association sees some furs make an easy but completely unfounded leap: they accuse babyfurs of paedophilia.

The vague association of ageplay with paedophilia is one reason why some diaperfurs don’t like the babyfur term. It’s not because they think that there is any connection, just that they know that some people make that connection, and that they’d rather not be tarred with that particular brush.

The connection between ageplay and paedophilia is wrong. But it’s an easy connection to make. I can think of one case where a furry convicted of paedophilia-related crimes turned out to be a babyfur, and I think that it’s reasonable to guess that furry paedophiles are fairly likely to be babyfurs. However the correlation only works in one direction: it doesn’t mean that an ageplaying babyfur is likely to be paedophile.

Consider that violent criminals are likely to enjoy violent video games. But people who enjoy violent video games are not likely to become violent criminals.

For the doubters: if you are uncomfortable with cub porn, or feel that there must be some correlation between ageplay and paedophilia, please (1) consider that people don’t choose their sexual interests, and (2) read my article from last year, In Defence Of Cub Porn.

It’s a controversial topic, and not one I want to explore in any detail here. It’s only tangentially relevant to the subject at hand, and I think it risks overwhelming the main points. Suffice to say that it is false to suggest that ageplayers are doing something ‘wrong’. Which brings me to…

5. Babyfurs Are Unfairly Demonized

The babyfur group as a whole—ageplayers, diaperfurs, and the rest—are routinely accused of being anti-social or having poor hygiene. The stories are often exaggerated, and usually completely false.

One astute babyfur noted that watersports is a relatively visible fetish within the furry community. While watersports fetishists are subject to a certain degree of kink-shaming, they are far less likely to be demonized in the way that babyfurs are. I can only surmise that diapers suggest age regression (regardless of whether of not ageplay is taking place), giving diapers a faint whiff of the taboo.

I’ll add that unfair demonization of babyfurs occurs, to an extent, within the babyfur community itself. Some diaperfurs unfairly dislike ageplayers, much in the same way that some furries unfairly dislike babyfurs as a whole.

There are, of course, some bad eggs. Every group, including the furry community, has some outliers.

One of the (intelligent, moderate) commenters on my article reposted some comments to a Fur Affinity journal ( Here’s part of a comment he received, from a user named Bondagepup:

“Having to smell someone’s stale piss-pants in public is also not the end of the world. Ever been in public? People smell. (Old people especially.) Just hold your nose and move on people.”


Bondagepup argues that he’s merely expressing himself, and that he should be free to do so:

“Lastly, just a note to anyone who is offended by seeing anything they deem sexual in a public setting, your moral code is not law. Just because you were taught that sex was naughty and needs to be hidden doesn’t mean it’s true.”


Bondagepup thinks he’s being laissez-faire and sex-positive, and he is to a degree. However he is also forcing people around him to engage in his sexual fetish. Sex columnist and ethicist Dan Savage sums up the problem with public fetish play nicely. (I have edited this quote for clarity, you can read the advice in full here):

“Asking people to accept your pastime doesn’t give you the right to force other people to take part in it. That’s not asking for tolerance, that’s demanding participation. And that’s not okay.


Not once in our struggle for social acceptance have gays and lesbians demanded the right to have sex in front of our relatives. We want to be accepted by our families, tolerated by strangers, and treated equally by our government. But people who don’t want to watch us have sex aren’t compelled to.


This fetish stuff is, at bottom, about sex.


Keep the heavy stuff behind closed doors and keep it subtle when you’re out in public. That’s not oppression, that’s common courtesy.”


Bondagepup is being anti-social. There is nothing wrong with discreetly wearing diapers (or anything else) in public, but there is plenty wrong with being actively smelly. He is reinforcing the negative babyfur stereotype, to the detriment of the babyfur community as a whole.

The overwhelming majority of babyfurs are discreet. They are not noticed by the mainstream because they are respectful of those around them, and because they understand the boundaries of reasonable behaviour.

As ever, the most visible members of a minority are rarely the best ambassadors.

Consider this final statistic: only 35% of babyfurs have ever taken the simple, reasonable step of displaying a babyfur conbadge. Which means that there are two (or so) stealthy babyfurs for each conbadge you see. Next time you’re at a convention, take a headcount.

About JM

JM is a horse-of-all-trades who was introduced to furry in his native Australia by the excellent group known collectively as the Perthfurs. JM now helps run [adjective][species] from London, where he is most commonly spotted holding a pint and talking nonsense.

Before posting a comment, please read our Code of Conduct

31 thoughts on “Meet The Babyfurs

  1. Your responses to Bondagepup are right on target.

    I can honestly say that I’ve never had an encounter with an “offensive” babyfur, even at conventions and despite the stereotypes that are so often aired. If these statistics are accurate, then I think the fetish thing is greatly exaggerated.

    On the other hoof, I still wonder why these childhood regression things are so well-known and/or visible among furries, who otherwise seem statistically to resemble the general population.

  2. “This is an expected result: men are kinkier than women”

    I’m not sure I understood that part; what was the evidence that men are kinkier, exactly?

    1. Hi Feral. You’ve asked an outstanding question.

      When I write these articles, and this is something like my 60th, I try to include supporting evidence whenever I assert something. I didn’t do that here, because I didn’t have an elegant reference. I have cause to believe that it’s correct though.

      Firstly, Dan Savage thinks so. Here is a link to one article written by him where he makes the assertion ( He is a sex columnist, so presumably his opinion us largely based upon his correspondence over the years.

      Secondly, Jesse Bering thinks so. He’s got an upcoming book that deals directly with sexual behaviour called Perv. Bering is a psychology professor.

      The big problem is that ‘kinkiness’ is impossible to measure, because it’s impossible to define in a scientifically measurable way. There is a lot of research that looks at the differences in sexual behaviour between men and women, and all of it supports the idea that men are more sexually driven, more interested in sexual variety, and more likely to experiment with nontraditional ideas. A metastudy (a paper collating and summarizing results from dozens of studies) that is worth a read is available in full here. It’s a Norwegian metastudy, which is a good reference point because gender equality is more progressed in Norway than basically anywhere else in the world.

      Hopefully that’s enough to convince you as well. It’s not ideal, because none of those references prove that men are categorically kinkier. Altivo is partly right given that my strongest and simplest reference (Savage) is little more than informed hearsay, but I’d argue that it’s supported by good quality circumstantial evidence.

      1. Thank you for your reply. I’m speaking from the perspective of a gender studies grad student. I do think that it’s going to be difficult measuring in any way who is kinkier than who, in a society that tends to shame women about their bodies and sexuality (men are seen as sexual creatures by default; a sexual woman is, to put it simply, akin to a whore in the mind of many).

        Therefore not only women are not encouraged to speak out about their fetishes, but they grow up while being discouraged to explore their own sexuality (they do have to accept male entreaties and suggestions though). On the other hand, men are encouraged to actively seek pleasure and explore their options.

        It becomes difficult to assert with any certainity that women really are less kinky than men in this context.

      2. Circumstantial evidence is a better term. I see serious issues with the conclusion, just as I do with results from self-selected survey samples. In this case, the truth is even harder to determine because of the powerful sociocultural forces that teach women to hide their sexual thoughts and inclinations from an early age. Even in the years since the “feminist revolution” began, the impact of such conditioning has only weakened slightly. It doesn’t matter that responses might be going into a completely anonymous survey, because we (women, gays, whatever) have been beaten into such a degree of submission that we hide the truths even from ourselves. Were this not true, then the need for psychoanalysis would be greatly reduced.

        I’ll even admit that my objections to the constant casting of furry in the role of sexual deviance might be a result of this conditioning, though I think not. I was taught and allowed from an early age to take a jaundiced view of unjustified rules based on “because that’s the way it is.” Many of these binary arguments about male and female behavior, thinking, and so forth are based on that sort of reasoning, heavily contaminated by cultural expectations that have no justification in either physiology or psychology, but are merely conditioned behaviors enforced by social pressures.

  3. I think you may want to rethink your paedophilia and ageplay link a bit. The link certainly does not exist for any ABDL folks at large, and it certainly doesn’t persist with babyfurs. I can guarantee that a good majority of the “pornographic” ageplay bits of art that I see on sites like FA will typically focus on adult characters being made to be put into that situation. In short, please do your research before conflating a safe, and perfectly legal, kink with something that is quite detrimental and illegal. <- the references linked to here may be a good starting point for why your paedophile connection is very damn wrong.

    1. JM states explicitly, “The connection between ageplay and paedophilia is wrong.”

      We do not have an explicit comment policy here at [adjective][species], but I do ask that you be nice.

      1. Sorry, everything after that made it seem like a “I’m saying this thing, and then I’m saying something completely different” moment. I read that wrong and I’ll shut up now.

        1. Lucian, thanks for stopping back in and making this follow-up comment.

          I think you’ve provided a demonstration of why I didn’t want to dwell upon the (false) associations that come along with ageplay. It’s a very difficult topic to talk about, and it’s easy for the red mist to descend, regardless of your opinion. It’s a natural reaction, and I was worried it might overwhelm the major thrust of the article.

          By the way, if you’re interested (and haven’t done so already), please read my article on cub porn. I tackle the issue directly and in more detail.

    1. It is refreshing to hear that an intro like this, allowing for us babyfurs to be better represented, is helping other furs to note that there are a lot of us out here. And we are not all like those stinkybutts you hear about.

  4. This was actually really interesting to read, being female married and British I’m one of the ones in the minority I guess also ageplay often gets tied heavily with sexual connotations but foe some of us babyfurs it’s actually utterly non sexual. I’d be interested to know the percentages on that scale hehe. It’s quite refreshing to read a balanced article.

    1. Gem, thanks for the kind words, and I’m glad you appreciated the article.

      In the poll, I deliberately didn’t ask about whether babyfur activities for each person were sexual. I learned from chatting with babyfurs for my first article that it varies from person to person: for some people it’s all about sex; for others it’s about non-sexual comfort; for many it’s a combination of the two. In the end I don’t think it’s really relevant, or at least not relevant to this article.

      By the way, if your husband is a babyfur or AB/DL, I hope he realizes how lucky he is. Several babyfurs mentioned to me that there are few women who openly socialize within the group, and that there seem to be a lot of lonely straight guys out there.

      1. Ooh I didn’t mean relevant to this article I just meant it’d be inetresting to know the percentages how it was weighed in terms of sexual and non sexual, I guess It would also be interesting (to me at least) to know that same stat throughout the furry world really, whome just enjoy it for the cute or art or dress-up factor and those who get a sexual kick out of it. My husband is actually a carer type, I found him on an ageplay website quite a while ago now, but yes sadly it does seem to be correct that the majority of AB/Babyfur who are male and single. Its pretty sad really cause almost all of them that i’ve met are really lovely people.

  5. My research-based education has the best of me here. I find all these statistics somewhat comforting, being a kidfur myself. I also am glad to have found [Adjective] [Species] I can’t stop reading these thought provoking articles!

    1. Hi Maxxie, thanks for the comment and thanks for the kind words. I’m glad you’re enjoying the site, we have lots more in the works.

  6. “Asking people to accept your pastime doesn’t give you the right to force other people to take part in it. That’s not asking for tolerance, that’s demanding participation. And that’s not okay.”

    This whole argument is a straw-man. Bondagepup is right in his assessment that your moral code is not law. Simply wearing a garment is not asking for participation. For example, women wearing bikinis are not hoping you’ll come throw water on them, nor are adults wearing diapers hoping you’ll come check, change, and treat them like a child. To think either of those things is ludicrous. The prevalence of bondage equipment on furries from sled-dog harnesses to slave cuffs and collars is yet more evidence that nobody is asking for participation. The fact that this double-standard exists and needs to be explained is just silly.

    Do people want to be protected from things that hurt their sensibilities? Sure! Do they have the right to? No.

    Don’t take my word for it, here’s a quote from the Supreme Court of Utah over a case that I consider disturbing (as did the judge), but rightfully is not considered illegal, just weird.

    “Bagnes‘s offense was in dropping his pants in front of two young
    girls, exposing a toddler-sized diaper he wore underneath, and in
    distributing a flyer depicting images of diaper-clad children and
    adolescents. We reverse. Bagnes‘s conduct was strange, and socially
    inappropriate. But it did not fall to the level of criminal
    lewdness or sexual exploitation under the criminal definition of
    those terms as clarified below”

    If this were considered participation, then Bagnes would be in prison for a very long time. Simply put though, it’s not. If this isn’t participation, the simple act of viewing a diaper on a person (or smelling it, as disgusting as that is), as the act of viewing a harness on a person, or viewing women in bikinis, is also not participation.

    Your article was good, but both your opinion and Dan Savage’s opinion are clouded by your egos. People are not wearing diapers to invite you and Dan to party. They’re not wearing bikinis, slave collars, dog harnesses, or any other form of gear to invite you to play. You’ll know when they want your participation… it’ll be very clear.

  7. This article is very interesting and thought-provoking. I think it is nice to see thoughtful discussion on the subjects your blog discusses. Some of these are topics that are quite charged. It’s cool to see that.
    A small disconnect for me is that given the mostly positive and accepting tone of the blog, it was suprising to see a section passing judgement on an individual. I don’t agree with using platforms like this to attack individuals, and I found the pattern of “discuss taboo”, “draw personal boundaries”, then “personally attack person slightly beyond my personal boundaries” present here. This is a really common pattern when discussing taboo, but I think it is very damaging to people and groups of people.
    I don’t reasonably expect nothing will ever be criticized, but I wonder how to break up this pattern I see so often.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.