Furries

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

Dolphins are sentient, and I think if you called a cetacean scientist a "furry" you'd get punched in the mouth. People who watch cartoons with animals in them are not furries and would not identify as such, for the most part. Whether you like it or not, the term "furry" refers almost exclusively to anthropomorphic animal fetishism.

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.

Princess Leia is human. And yes, actually, sex appeal is definitely part of Star Wars, and no one has denied that. What are you doing here is trying to deny the overtly sexual nature of the furry-related items you post.

Then where did you get your information on furry fandom?

The Internet, man. They're all over. Always whining about being persecuted, and having to be banned from forums where they aren't wanted because they either won't stop posting furry bullshit or they're always whining about how no one will accept them.

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.

No, what I see here is you trying to normalize the furry subculture by claiming anyone who likes cartoon animals is actually a furry. You might as well claim any guy who likes masturbating is gay, because he likes touching dicks.

I really don't care what sorts of creepy things furries are into, I am just against this whole "acceptance" movement. So some people don't like your subculture, so what? There are things I like that nobody else does, and I don't go waging propaganda campaigns so people will accept it. Why are furries so obsessed with being accepted? Is it because they don't want to admit what they're into is weird and deviant?

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.

Okay, fine, then you're having sexual thoughts about something that isn't human and doesn't even pretend to be done, or pass as one. I think that's kinda creepy. Your mileage may vary. I don't see why it makes any difference to you what anyone else thinks of it, though.

 

[Gepard]

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

This woman does. (Link has NSFW image near the bottom of the page, by the way.) Cue Internet drama...

 

[Gepard]

Whether you like it or not, the term "furry" refers almost exclusively to anthropomorphic animal fetishism.

Strictly speaking, at least in the original definition of the term, Jay is correct. It has evolved and narrowed since the early '90s, however, in response to exactly the kind of thing you're talking about. That said, the definition is still broader than you're giving it credit for, as "furry" tends to encompass all kinds of online artists and convention-goers, whether they have a sexual fetish for the art or not. (See marymouse, sammystudio, dingbat, frisket, thornwolf etc.)

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, I don't know, Gadget was kind of hot. Not that I noticed as a kid, of course.

 

[Amaris]

**snip excellent post**

I understand what you're saying, and usually I relegate such things to the same type of fandom that I do Star Trek fans who go for the whole K/S fiction as you mentioned before. There will always be that kind of subculture, there's no denying that. All we can do is show that there is a balance to it, just like there are Star Trek fans who just enjoy watching the show.

Dolphins are sentient, and I think if you called a cetacean scientist a "furry" you'd get punched in the mouth. People who watch cartoons with animals in them are not furries and would not identify as such, for the most part. Whether you like it or not, the term "furry" refers almost exclusively to anthropomorphic animal fetishism.

It doesn't. The popular culture currently replaces "furry" with "guy who wants to have sex with cats", just as it replaces "Trekkie" with "guy who lives in basement playing with action figures and will never get laid". If we based ourselves on popular culture definitions, then there would be no point in trying to explain to others the misconceptions.

Princess Leia is human. And yes, actually, sex appeal is definitely part of Star Wars, and no one has denied that. What are you doing here is trying to deny the overtly sexual nature of the furry-related items you post.

No, I readily state that many of the images I post have a sexual tone in them. I have never denied that. In fact, my signature even has such a tone in it. Why would I deny this?

The Internet, man. They're all over. Always whining about being persecuted, and having to be banned from forums where they aren't wanted because they either won't stop posting furry bullshit or they're always whining about how no one will accept them.

I'm not whining about being persecuted. Whether I am accepted or not is not up to me. All I can do is be who I am and trust that people will eventually get the idea that I'm not some kind of sexual predator or guy who wants to have sex with Flipper.

No, what I see here is you trying to normalize the furry subculture by claiming anyone who likes cartoon animals is actually a furry. You might as well claim any guy who likes masturbating is gay, because he likes touching dicks.

I see here that you're not listening to anything I say, instead substituting what you believe is furry fandom, even when a furry is trying to tell you all about it. Again, I ask, what are your sources? I honestly want to know.

I really don't care what sorts of creepy things furries are into, I am just against this whole "acceptance" movement. So some people don't like your subculture, so what? There are things I like that nobody else does, and I don't go waging propaganda campaigns so people will accept it. Why are furries so obsessed with being accepted? Is it because they don't want to admit what they're into is weird and deviant?

You're not making a good argument here, you're ranting more than anything. Relax. I'm not out to make you into a furry. It's not a disease and you can't catch it just by associating with furries.

Okay, fine, then you're having sexual thoughts about something that isn't human and doesn't even pretend to be done, or pass as one. I think that's kinda creepy. Your mileage may vary. I don't see why it makes any difference to you what anyone else thinks of it, though.

I bolded the part where it shows everything you've ignored up to this point about me and what I have said. If you have issues with it, fine, but at the very least, address what I have actually said.

As for what difference it makes, it doesn't. I'm just curious. There's nothing wrong with that. If we never ask questions, what's the point of learning anything?

Anyhoo, in a more general remark to everyone, here is an example of furry art that I like:

(Copyright 2009 Valentine Crow, just so I can get the legalities out of the way)


J.

 

[Yoda]

Here's what I think about furries: You're a bunch of weirdos.

I don't buy that the 'sexual' side of it is overstated. I assume that you *fap* to it. But even if you didn't, instead of being mildly disturbed by the concept, I'd still think being a furry is a bit silly and lame.

I didn't see any CSI episode about it, it's largely based on what I've seen on the Internet without actually looking for it.

This 'other cultures' use anthropomorphism crap doesn't jive with me either. When I've seen that kind of stuff it's usually in some sort of mythological context. That's a little different than a ripoff Disney-style fox... with tits.

I don't feel bad about my stereotyping. When the Comic Con folk roll into town every year they're basically a parade of ridiculous stereotypes.

 

[sidious618]

Furry fandom, or whatever you want to call it, is usually defined more by the sexual images.

First, though, I'll hit the non-sexualized images. I don't care if you like them, it's not different than liking any picture.

Sexualized animal pictures is, to me, completely bizarre and borderline deviant. If you're into that, fine, but it's not exactly normal to find other animals arousing just because you throw a pair of breats on them. And, no, comparing it to a Twi'lek or a Klingon doesn't standup. For one thing, Klingons and Twi'leks are not real AND they're played by regular ol' human beings. You're objectifying animals and making them into sex objects.

Now, letme put it another way: WHY? Why would you want to make animals sexually charged? Is it some sort of artistic statment? What's the appeal if it's not sexual?

 

[Michael]

Oh boy ... I must say, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding with which furry fandom is met here. I guess I expected Trek fans to be a little more open-minded ...

 

[trampledamage]

I'm just surprised the thread's lasted this long without reference to M'Ress.

 

[Rii]

Oh boy ... I must say, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding with which furry fandom is met here. I guess I expected Trek fans to be a little more open-minded ...

Clearly you're unfamiliar with the geek hierarchy:

 

[Michael]

I'm just surprised the thread's lasted this long without reference to M'Ress.

Yeah, where's Redfern when you need him?

 

[Yoda]

Oh boy ... I must say, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding with which furry fandom is met here. I guess I expected Trek fans to be a little more open-minded ...

To be fair, I'm a completely normal nerd stereotype myself.

That is the angry, grumpy, bitter "if you don't watch Battlestar Galactica you're an idiot" kind of nerd. Kind of like a shorter Dwight Schrute... with somewhat better social skills and no weird beet farm upbringing

 

[Amaris]

Here's what I think about furries: You're a bunch of weirdos.

To each their own. What you call weird is considered normal by others. What you consider normal may be considered weird by others. Those are very fluid terms.

I don't buy that the 'sexual' side of it is overstated. I assume that you *fap* to it. But even if you didn't, instead of being mildly disturbed by the concept, I'd still think being a furry is a bit silly and lame.

Okay. Some people consider Star Trek lame. Look how people who are heavily into computers are lambasted. As for the sexual side, that is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure some people do, just like the Trek fans who *fap* to Kirk/Spock fiction.

I didn't see any CSI episode about it, it's largely based on what I've seen on the Internet without actually looking for it.

So the internet... serious business?

This 'other cultures' use anthropomorphism crap doesn't jive with me either. When I've seen that kind of stuff it's usually in some sort of mythological context. That's a little different than a ripoff Disney-style fox... with tits.

I don't feel bad about my stereotyping. When the Comic Con folk roll into town every year they're basically a parade of ridiculous stereotypes.

In general, any fan convention is full of stereotypes, and always fodder for people who don't like that kind of fandom. I understand that.

Furry fandom, or whatever you want to call it, is usually defined more by the sexual images.

First, though, I'll hit the non-sexualized images. I don't care if you like them, it's not different than liking any picture.

That's rather broad. Any kind of image can garner a specific reaction. If I were looking at a picture and you couldn't see it, would you just assume it's a picture? Or would you angle your head around to see what it might be? A picture is never just a picture.

Sexualized animal pictures is, to me, completely bizarre and borderline deviant. If you're into that, fine, but it's not exactly normal to find other animals arousing just because you throw a pair of breats on them. And, no, comparing it to a Twi'lek or a Klingon doesn't standup. For one thing, Klingons and Twi'leks are not real AND they're played by regular ol' human beings. You're objectifying animals and making them into sex objects.

The image in my avatar is an anthropomorphic image. What do you notice about her? She has human features. All of the indicators for human attraction is there: breasts, human proportioned hips, legs, facial features, and in this case she's supposed to be sentient and self aware. What attracts people to Klingons/Vulcans/Romulans/Andorians/etc? Think about it.

Now, letme put it another way: WHY? Why would you want to make animals sexually charged? Is it some sort of artistic statment? What's the appeal if it's not sexual?

It can be anything. Surely you don't consider something to be represented only if it's sexual. There would be no point in any other kind of art if that were so. I love artistic style, colors, social and political statements, personal meaning can be attached. Fantasy, fiction, imagination, all of this is tied into anthro art. The sexualized aspects are heavily unbalanced, as they are seen the most frequently by those who don't get involved in the fandom, but there is a lot of what you would consider legitimate furry art out there.


J.

 

[Michael]

Oh boy ... I must say, I'm somewhat surprised at the lack of understanding with which furry fandom is met here. I guess I expected Trek fans to be a little more open-minded ...

To be fair, I'm a completely normal nerd stereotype myself.

That is the angry, grumpy, bitter "if you don't watch Battlestar Galactica you're an idiot" kind of nerd. Kind of like a shorter Dwight Schrute... with somewhat better social skills and no weird beet farm upbringing

With large parts of Battlestar Galactica being about humans having sex with machines I'm actually surprised you're not more tolerant towards furries.

 

[Amaris]

I'm just surprised the thread's lasted this long without reference to M'Ress.

*gasp*

I can't believe I forgot to mention M'Ress.


J.

 

[trampledamage]

I'm just surprised the thread's lasted this long without reference to M'Ress.

*gasp*

I can't believe I forgot to mention M'Ress.


J.

And you call yourself a furry...

 

[Amaris]

And you call yourself a furry...

I am so ashamed!
I've got to turn in my ID card, ears and tail!

J.

 

[DonIago]

As a furry myself, it's safe to say that a lot of what I would associate with the more "mainstream" furry movement raises my eyebrows, though I don't feel it's appropriate for me to judge, particularly if everyone involved is providing consent and nobody is being harmed.

That being said, as with many other movements, the furry fandom is plagued by the fact that the more extreme members tend to be the ones who also attract the greatest degree of media coverage and hence lead to exaggerated stereotyping.

No reporter would use me as an example of the fandom because I would fail to be entertaining.

Looking beyond the bad publicity, I think our greatest problem is the horrifying mediocrity of most furry fiction and artwork.

 

[MANT!]

I see much in furry fandom that is similar to Science Fiction fandom in general..
there's a lot of non-sex orented fandom there..
an example can be found at the following..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maB7r3U78Bo&feature=related
and Trek related as well
http://startrekanimated.com/tas_art_bruffy02.jpg
however, there is that other element ..
http://img.slate.com/media/80000/80300/Powell_Spock-Kirk.jpg


and that "other element" does not make all fans of any sort of fandom..perverted..
does it?

BTW I'm not a furry fan, just an old Trek fan..

 

[Amaris]

As a furry myself, it's safe to say that a lot of what I would associate with the more "mainstream" furry movement raises my eyebrows, though I don't feel it's appropriate for me to judge, particularly if everyone involved is providing consent and nobody is being harmed.

That being said, as with many other movements, the furry fandom is plagued by the fact that the more extreme members tend to be the ones who also attract the greatest degree of media coverage and hence lead to exaggerated stereotyping.

No reporter would use me as an example of the fandom because I would fail to be entertaining.

Yep. Because I don't walk around in a fursuit talking about yiffing other fursuiters, a reporter wouldn't come within a mile of me, either. It's all about ratings and what brings them in. Nice, normal folks don't do that. Guy who walks around sniffing other people's crotches? Yep. Girl with Spock ears talking about how she's going to have a Klingon child someday? Yep.

I see much in furry fandom that is similar to Science Fiction fandom in general..
there's a lot of non-sex orented fandom there..
an example can be found at the following..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maB7r3U78Bo&feature=related
and Trek related as well
http://startrekanimated.com/tas_art_bruffy02.jpg
however, there is that other element ..
http://img.slate.com/media/80000/80300/Powell_Spock-Kirk.jpg


and that "other element" does not make all fans of any sort of fandom..perverted..
does it?

If it does, then every person alive who ever liked anything fiction is in serious trouble.

J.

 

[Gepard]

Sexualized animal pictures is, to me, completely bizarre and borderline deviant. If you're into that, fine, but it's not exactly normal to find other animals arousing just because you throw a pair of breats on them. And, no, comparing it to a Twi'lek or a Klingon doesn't standup. For one thing, Klingons and Twi'leks are not real AND they're played by regular ol' human beings. You're objectifying animals and making them into sex objects.

I get where you're coming from–sort of–but I think you're underestimating the amount of human in the average furry character. It's a lot more than "sticking boobs on an animal" and calling it good. Furry characters (the sexy ones, at least) obey almost all the rules of drawing a realistic human character: the breakdown of the body, limb and head proportions is human and the structure of the hips, shoulder girdle, neck, (often) eyes, upper legs and arms is human. They have a lot more in common, conceptually, with Klingons and Twi'leks than you're admitting, being essentially human frames augmented with spots, hair, flaps, fold, scaled, ridges funny ears or all of the above.

It is, deviant, though, socially. As to whether it's psychologically disturbed...well, my therapist seems to think I'm okay in this area. Pretty messed up in other areas, but the furries seem to be okay.

Now, letme put it another way: WHY? Why would you want to make animals sexually charged? Is it some sort of artistic statment? What's the appeal if it's not sexual?

The non-sexual stuff appeals because it looks cool. I don't really know how to explain it, beyond this kind of art makes sense. Human-styled animals look "right," and have since I was a kid and spent hours reading Calvin and Hobbes or watching Disney cartoons.

As for the sexiness, it's the same sort of thing. Tails and ears and big, limpid cartoon animal eyes are cute and cuddly, thanks to years of association. It makes more sense to me than having a thing for Klingons, precisely because animal characteristics actually exist and are more "real" than freaky fantasy beings that have no reference point to reality.