Furries

[Amaris]

Hey all,

The desktop thread sparked a thought, about what people think about furries. I would like honest opinions, please. I want to know what you think, what you know, and what you think you know about furries and the fandom.

I will answer all sorts of questions if you have them, but I am really curious as to what people think about furries. If you have questions for me of a personal nature, as long as it's tasteful, I'd be happy to answer. As I said, I'm curious about your thoughts.

Anyhoo, let's get this ball rolling.

J.

 

[Gepard]

Let's get this out of the way:

There.

 

[Amaris]

Now the air is clearer. Good work.


J.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

To be honest, I think people who have a fascination with anthropomorphic animals in risque situations are a bit messed up. You're basically getting turned on by an animal. It's not too far off from bestiality. As far as I'm concerned, it's in the same ballpark as people who are into shotacon and lolicon. You aren't actually screwing around with animals (or children), but you seem to be turned on by the thought, and that does worry me.

 

[Goji]

I don't actually know almost anything about "Furries". Other than that they apparently get made fun of on the internet a lot. I hold no ill will toward any, nor any preconceived notions, really. But then, hey, I was a Japanese major. I have a LOT worse things to worry about on the internet than Furries. Trust me on that.

 

[SeerSGB]

~shrug~ Frankly I don't see it anymore or less messed up as some of the other fandom fetishes/subgroups out there. Long as it's among consenting adults, have fun.

 

[Gepard]

Yay. Three outsider replies and already it's implicitly defined by sex. Good job, furry fandom. Really well done.

 

[clint g]

There are no greater creatures than furries


<---------- see?

 

[Amaris]

To be honest, I think people who have a fascination with anthropomorphic animals in risque situations are a bit messed up. You're basically getting turned on by an animal. It's not too far off from bestiality. As far as I'm concerned, it's in the same ballpark as people who are into shotacon and lolicon. You aren't actually screwing around with animals (or children), but you seem to be turned on by the thought, and that does worry me.

Where did you acquire that information? What sources? There is far more to furry fandom than sexuality. In fact, being a furry is easy; all you have to do is express an interest in anthropomorphic animals or animals with human sentience. For example; Mickey mouse, Bugs Bunny, Sonic the Hedgehog.

What popularized the idea of furries and sex has much to do with a particular episode of CSI called "Fur and Loathing in Las Vegas". Like all such shows, things like that need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. They're not out for truth, they're out for ratings and controversy.

As for connections with children, it has been shown that a large number of pedophiles have also been Trek fans. Is there a connection? Apparently. Is it fair to the 99% of Trek fans who express no such interest in children? No, it isn't fair.

Bestiality? In what way? We're animals ourselves. We're a part of the species homo sapiens and are simply bipedal primates. What you're thinking of is an attraction to feral animals. Keep in mind, that (and I've said this before) we're on a Star Trek board where people have expressed interest in having sex with green skinned Orions, Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans, Trills, Andorians, and all manner of species. It has been said that "yes, but these are people in makeup", and so I say anthropomorphic animals are merely people in fur/feathers/scales. The sentience is there, unlike in bestiality where the animals is feral and non-sentient/self aware.

J.

 

[Starbreaker]

I saw CSI. That's all I need to know...

okay my joke is a post too late.

Do you like to dress up in animal costumes and have sex with other people in animal costumes?

 

[SeerSGB]

Yay. Three outsider replies and already it's implicitly defined by sex. Good job, furry fandom. Really well done.

Considering some of the freaky stuff I've read/heard about in SW fandom (Jabba / Han Solo rape slash...I kid you not) most fandoms have me saying "Okay, and you're into fucking what?"

 

[Amaris]

I saw CSI. That's all I need to know...

okay my joke is a post too late.

Do you like to dress up in animal costumes and have sex with other people in animal costumes?

No. I don't fursuit. There's nothing wrong with fursuiting. It's getting into costume just like Trek fans, Star Wars fans, anime fans, and a whole host of other fandoms. There are people here who salivate over Princess Leia or a Twi'lek in a bikini and that is acceptable. Fursuiting is no different.


J.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

To be honest, I think people who have a fascination with anthropomorphic animals in risque situations are a bit messed up. You're basically getting turned on by an animal. It's not too far off from bestiality. As far as I'm concerned, it's in the same ballpark as people who are into shotacon and lolicon. You aren't actually screwing around with animals (or children), but you seem to be turned on by the thought, and that does worry me.

Where did you acquire that information? What sources? There is far more to furry fandom than sexuality. In fact, being a furry is easy; all you have to do is express an interest in anthropomorphic animals or animals with human sentience. For example; Mickey mouse, Bugs Bunny, Sonic the Hedgehog.

No, sorry, a lot of us watched that stuff as kids, and we wouldn't identify as furries. Because the entire point of the furry subculture is fetishizing anthropomorphic animals.

Why do your avatars and wallpapers have female animals in provocative poses? And then you claim it's not strictly sexual.

What popularized the idea of furries and sex has much to do with a particular episode of CSI called "Fur and Loathing in Las Vegas". Like all such shows, things like that need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. They're not out for truth, they're out for ratings and controversy.

I've been on the Internet a loooooooong time. My opinion of furries has nothing to do with CSI.

As for connections with children, it has been shown that a large number of pedophiles have also been Trek fans. Is there a connection? Apparently. Is it fair to the 99% of Trek fans who express no such interest in children? No, it isn't fair.

So, people who like looking at animals in provocative poses aren't actually turned on by it at all? Is that what you're saying?

I'm sure people read lolicon for the stories, too.

Bestiality? In what way? We're animals ourselves. We're a part of the species homo sapiens and are simply bipedal primates. What you're thinking of is an attraction to feral animals. Keep in mind, that (and I've said this before) we're on a Star Trek board where people have expressed interest in having sex with green skinned Orions, Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans, Trills, Andorians, and all manner of species. It has been said that "yes, but these are people in makeup", and so I say anthropomorphic animals are merely people in fur/feathers/scales. The sentience is there, unlike in bestiality where the animals is feral and non-sentient/self aware.

J.

Don't be dense, J. Yes, we're animals. But we're humans. Humans don't go having sex with non-humans. Even in Star Trek, I find the concept kind of icky, but let's face it--the aliens in Star Trek are, by and large, a lot closer to being human than your typical furry character. A bumpy forehead isn't really that "alien." Having a dog snout, furry body, and tail? Yeah, I think you're venturing into "I have dirty thoughts about animals" territory.

 

[Amaris]

No, sorry, a lot of us watched that stuff as kids, and we wouldn't identify as furries. Because the entire point of the furry subculture is fetishizing anthropomorphic animals.

No, it's not.
A furry is someone who expresses an interest in anthropomorphic or sentient animals, most commonly found in art, literature and media.

Why do your avatars and wallpapers have female animals in provocative poses? And then you claim it's not strictly sexual.

So if you saw someone with Princess Leia in a bikini, you're going to assume all Star Wars fandom is about sexuality? My avatars have that because I like the images. I like the colors. Do I find sexuality in it? Sure, if I want. I like Fantasy.

I've been on the Internet a loooooooong time. My opinion of furries has nothing to do with CSI.

Then where did you get your information on furry fandom?

So, people who like looking at animals in provocative poses aren't actually turned on by it at all? Is that what you're saying?

I'm sure people read lolicon for the stories, too.

No need to get acidic. I will gladly answer questions, it's why I started the thread. Firstly, most furry art is not sexual in any way. Secondly, what is sexual is usually niche, just as other more accepted porn is niche. There are people in both groups.

Don't be dense, J. Yes, we're animals. But we're humans. Humans don't go having sex with non-humans. Even in Star Trek, I find the concept kind of icky, but let's face it--the aliens in Star Trek are, by and large, a lot closer to being human than your typical furry character. A bumpy forehead isn't really that "alien." Having a dog snout, furry body, and tail? Yeah, I think you're venturing into "I have dirty thoughts about animals" territory.

I'm not being dense. I'm being honest, completely honest. A character may have a dog snought, furry body and tail, but that doesn't mean I'm going to have sexual thoughts about my neighbor's Border collie. There is a huge difference in those concepts, and it's intellectually disingenuous to push them together and assume they represent furries as a whole.

J.

 

[Michael]

I'm not much into furry characters myself, but I have some friends who are and I never thought of it as particularly odd or strange. As J. has pointed out before, a Star Trek message board should be the last of all places where furry fandom is looked down upon.

I do, however, have a problem with some of the art depicting furry characters. Not because I consider it obscene, but rather because most of it looks just the same! I mean, from a purely artistic standpoint; why do so many 'artists' draw their characters in exactly the same unoriginal way? And I'm thinking mostly of all the furries on deviantART. It's as if they are just copying one another.

 

[thestrangequark]

In regards to Furries in relation to art, it's clearly very normal. Anthropomorphizing animals seems to go as far back in human history as the ability to identify oneself as human. It's ancient and ubiquitous in pretty much every culture I know -- sometimes as part of religion, entertainment, whatever. The fact that there is a subculture who identify themselves by their appreciation for the art and literature surrounding anthropomorphized animals isn't so odd. We're inundated with such images from the moment we're born, what with 50% of children's entertainment populated by animals in people's clothing.

The fact that for some people this appreciation has grown to fascination and the fascination to fetishism isn't really surprising either; we grow up with characters we idolize and identify with who are anthropomorphized animals (Disney, Loony Toons, Dangermouse is a personal fave). For many people the things that are most comforting and pleasurable in childhood continue to be so in adulthood, and may develop sexual connections. I haven't studied the subject, but I doubt that most furries are into bestiality at all. They're into something very specific, and it's not sheep and dogs, it's fantastical characters that have some animal qualities.

As for my gut reaction to furries and sex, though -- honestly, and hoping not to offend, I think they're indulging in one of the most humorous sexual fetishes in existence. I don't want to be the type to mock other people their quirks and more unusual proclivities, but the idea of furries -- informed by people in what amount to high school mascot costumes miming the deed, and bewiskered and tailed pin-up girls -- are just, well, funny. Really, really funny. But then, I find most fetishes funny (with the obvious exception of the disturbed). Hell, I find my own fetishes funny. People are strange, especially when it comes to sex, and I think furries add a delightfully imaginative strangeness to the annals of bizarre human sexual behavior.

Also, while I don't share the Furry fetish (well, Disney's Robin Hood was sexy, but he was sexy despite being an anthropomorphized cartoon fox, not because of it), I bet I could draw some Furry characters that are way hotter than the random stuff I've come across. Maybe I could take commissions and sell pictures.

 

[Amaris]

I'm not much into furry characters myself, but I have some friends who are and I never thought of it as particularly odd or strange. As J. has pointed out before, a Star Trek message board should be the last of all places where furry fandom is looked down upon.

I do, however, have a problem with some of the art depicting furry characters. Not because I consider it obscene, but rather because most of it looks just the same! I mean, from a purely artistic standpoint; why do so many 'artists' draw their characters in exactly the same unoriginal way? And I'm thinking mostly of all the furries on deviantArt. It's as if they are just copying one another.

You and I have that same question. For me, the whole point of the art is variety. When people emulate the same style, it loses it's charm, it's fantasy.

J.

 

[Amaris]

In regards to Furries in relation to art, it's clearly very normal. Anthropomorphizing animals seems to go as far back in human history as the ability to identify oneself as human. It's ancient and ubiquitous in pretty much every culture I know -- sometimes as part of religion, entertainment, whatever. The fact that there is a subculture who identify themselves by their appreciation for the art and literature surrounding anthropomorphized animals isn't so odd. We're inundated with such images from the moment we're born, what with 50% of children's entertainment populated by animals in people's clothing.

The fact that for some people this appreciation has grown to fascination and the fascination to fetishism isn't really surprising either; we grow up with characters we idolize and identify with who anthropomorphized animals (Disney, Loony Toons, Dangermouse is a personal fave). For many people the things that are most comforting and pleasurable in childhood continue to be so in adulthood, and may develop sexual connections. I haven't studied the subject, but I doubt that most furries are into bestiality at all. They're into something very specific, and it's not sheep and dogs, it's fantastical characters that have some animal qualities.

As for my gut reaction to furries and sex, though -- honestly, and hoping not to offend, I think they're indulging in one of the most humorous sexual fetishes in existence. I don't want to be the type to mock other people their quirks and more unusual proclivities, but the idea of furries -- informed by people in what amount to high school mascot costumes miming the deed, and bewiskered and tailed pin-up girls -- are just, well, funny. Really, really funny. But then, I find most fetishes funny (with the obvious exception of the disturbed). Hell, I find my own fetishes funny. People are strange, especially when it comes to sex, and I think furries add a delightfully imaginative strangeness to the annals of bizarre human sexual behavior.

Also, while I don't share the Furry fetish (well, Disney's Robin Hood was sexy, but he was sexy despite being an anthropomorphized cartoon fox, not because of it), I bet I could draw some Furry characters that are way hotter than the random stuff I've come across. Maybe I could take commissions and sell pictures.

Honestly, commissioned artwork is something you should look into. I have seen some incredible artwork, but as I was saying to NCC and he to me, much of the artwork is the same, it's emulated and after a while gets repetitive. I am learning to draw so I can make my own, and make it as imaginative as possible.

For the record, I too grew up with some Disney favorites. Primarily Rescue Rangers, Tailspin, and not once did I ever sexualize any of it.

Oh, and don't worry, you haven't offended. I started this thread to clear the air.

J.

 

[melancholymecha]

I dont mind it, Im a hybrid(mermen, centaurs, etc) nut myself. Also werewolves & humans when they have a few animal characteristics(like in mid transformation), though for some reason once they have a fully snouted animal head like say Anubis, Im no longer interested...

 

[Gepard]

Considering some of the freaky stuff I've read/heard about in SW fandom (Jabba / Han Solo rape slash...I kid you not) most fandoms have me saying "Okay, and you're into fucking what?"

That's a very good point, and one that brings me to something I meant to say here:

Where did you acquire that information? What sources? There is far more to furry fandom than sexuality. In fact, being a furry is easy; all you have to do is express an interest in anthropomorphic animals or animals with human sentience. For example; Mickey mouse, Bugs Bunny, Sonic the Hedgehog.

What popularized the idea of furries and sex has much to do with a particular episode of CSI called "Fur and Loathing in Las Vegas". Like all such shows, things like that need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. They're not out for truth, they're out for ratings and controversy.

While it's nice (and sort of true) to pin the blame for this on media who spin it for sensationalism, I feel there's a lot of self-reflection the fandom needs to do about not only how it's presenting itself but what it actually does. Go to any furry art site, turn any filters off, and look at the uploads. It's full of porn and nudity. I don't know how accurate it is to paint fandom as sexual, but given the content, we're kind of asking for it; while it's not the full story, it's not wrong, either.

The furry fandom is like the slashfic, Kirk/Spock seedy underbelly of the Trek fandom, but without the normalizing influence of a vanilla mainstream media product as its tentpole. We're the only self-generating fandom built around an idea rather than a product or media empire that I'm aware of, making little difference between user content and
"official" product. That has it positives and it's negatives, but one of the big negatives is really freaky art. As a result, we have the odd situation of the "Jabba/Han" slash equivalent being just as mainstream an legitimate as the clean stuff.

Now, is that bad? My hard drive is hardly a posterchild for the It's Not a Sexual Fetish Honest camp anyway, so I'm in no position to judge, but given not just what's presented but what we actually put on the Internet...I'm not so ready anymore to leap to defend the fandom as a monolithic entity to those who look at it and are squicked out. I actually called into Anthropodcast last week about this very subject, and brought up some of my observations form the TrekBBS; the new show isn't up yet however, so no idea if they used my voicemail or not.

Bestiality? In what way? We're animals ourselves. We're a part of the species homo sapiens and are simply bipedal primates. What you're thinking of is an attraction to feral animals. Keep in mind, that (and I've said this before) we're on a Star Trek board where people have expressed interest in having sex with green skinned Orions, Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans, Trills, Andorians, and all manner of species. It has been said that "yes, but these are people in makeup", and so I say anthropomorphic animals are merely people in fur/feathers/scales. The sentience is there, unlike in bestiality where the animals is feral and non-sentient/self aware.

J.

The self-aware part is important to note, but--and again, I hate to say this--bestiality does happen, albeit not at a *too* much higher rate than the general population, if the discussions about this on the FurAffinity forums are to be believed. I spent the last several minutes digging unsuccessfully through the FA forums to try to find a post where one guy talked about notcing a percentage if folks who come to conventions bringing their pets with them, and that those pets are almost always "unaltered," shall we say. As he put it, "you don't have to be a neurosurgeon to figure out what's going on here."

On the flip side, (and, again, I wish I could locate this post and link to it), it was brough up there that most furries really seem to have a thing for "kyewt" ears and tails, rather than animals for real, as we all grew up watching tlaking cartoon animals as kids and probably imprinted on them to some extent. (I think that's true in my case, at any rate.)