Furries

[J. Allen]

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.

[Gep Malakai]

Let's get this out of the way:





There.

[J. Allen]

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.

[Gep Malakai]

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?

[J. Allen]

The Dead Nations wrote:

---

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]

Ghoul Malakai wrote:

---

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?"

[J. Allen]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

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]

Jay O'Lantern wrote:

---

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.

[J. Allen]

The Dead Nations wrote:

---

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.

[M]

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.