Thread: Furries
View Single Post
Old October 7 2009, 03:41 AM   #32
J. Allen
J. Allen's Avatar
Location: United States
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Furries

Yoda wrote: View Post
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.

hideous618 wrote: View Post
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.


Like My Little Pony? Join us at Brony Kingdom!

💖 The Key To One's Heart Starts In The Other... 💖
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote