Furries

[Plecostomus]

Can't sleep... furry will yiff me. -__-

[Gary Mitchell]

Dementor2009 wrote:

---

Word.

Dementor2009 is a cool Halloween user name, but it just occurred to me...shouldn't you be the Grain of Salt Vampire?

[J. Allen]

RJDemonicus wrote:

---

Well, this was a long Thread....

I'm a bit bewildered by all the controversy here. But then, being on the Internet has brought me a lot of disillusionment about SF Fandom; it's not what I thought when I was a kid.

Having been a big reader of Mythology since I was about six, I've never really thought twice about "Furry Fandom." All cultures have iconic characters, including their Gods, who either change into animals or have animal characteristics, and a great deal of it is sexual. In everyday life, animal similes and metaphors are often used to describe sexuality-- she's like a cat, he's a wolf, and so on. Women often wear leopard skin or tiger stripe underwear because it makes them feel sexual.

Genre art frequently involves characters that are mostly Human with animal characteristics-- flip through any volume of Spectrum. Mermaids and Centaurs are ubiquitous. In the mainstream world, of course, there are Playboy bunnies and many strippers use animal costumes, especially cats-- at least they did in the days of Burlesque.

Personally, I think it's great that there's a Furry subculture. This is what I like about the world in general and the creative genres in particular. The colorful diversity and variety of people out there. The weirder the world is, the more wonderful it is, as far as I'm concerned.

Excellent points. In that you also explain a little about why I am also a furry. I have a kinship with animals, my faith delves very deeply into nature. I believe animals have souls. So part of it is my faith.

THEBurgerKing wrote:

---

yeah, but, all the women i've met thave been into "furry" want to shove things up guys butts

Dementor2009 wrote:

---

Word.

J.

[Gryffindorian]

NightOfTheLivingGary wrote:

---

Dementor2009 is a cool Halloween user name, but it just occurred to me...shouldn't you be the Grain of Salt Vampire?

I thought about that, too--Salt Creature, Salt Monster, Salt Vampire! But it was too late.

[Locutus of Bored]

40,000 Year Stench wrote:

---

I'm surprised it's got this far without a total meltdown and moderator intervention.

We don't want to get rabies.

[Gep Malakai]

Nocturnus of Bored wrote:

---

We don't want to get rabies.

I've had my shots.

[Rincewiend]

Well, Cheetara and Tigra made me feel a tingeling sensation in my pants when i was younger...
Same as some other alien women in scifi series and movies...
It's that they have a nice female figure that does that, not the animal/alien face...
Remember rule 34 and that there are people aroused by even stranger stuff...
Being a furry is still tame stuff compared by those things...

[Jono]

TheGallifreyanSith wrote:

---

Once again, Star Wars sums up the situation purrfec...uh..perfectly:

That Wes Janson, what will he get up to next?

[LaxScrutiny]

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.

I get turned on by fantasies of watching people have sex with giant squids. And with chrome robots. And watching chrome robots have sex with squids. And amorphous beings with multicoloured hues having sex with light sockets.

[SPOCKED]

LaxScrutiny wrote:

---

I get turned on by fantasies of watching people have sex with giant squids. And with chrome robots. And watching chrome robots have sex with squids. And amorphous beings with multicoloured hues having sex with light sockets.

Sounds like the Briefing Room

[Count Zero]

I also believe animals have 'souls', that's why I don't eat them. I don't quite see how that is related to being a furry. Nearly all of furry art is pretty cartoonic and depicts anthropomorphic characters, not really animals.

[J. Allen]

Dr. Mabuse wrote:

---

I also believe animals have 'souls', that's why I don't eat them. I don't quite see how that is related to being a furry. Nearly all of furry art is pretty cartoonic and depicts anthropomorphic characters, not really animals.

I didn't say it was because I was a furry or vice versa, it's just one component of my faith, and the idea I can imagine human like sentient animals as not far fetched.


J.

[Robert Maxwell]

Ah, I can't resist.

To what degree something is sold because of its sexual content varies. Star Trek and Star Wars are sold much less on sex appeal than, say, furry fandom.

Your assertions are yours to make. I simply said the fandom does not, as a whole, consist solely of a sexual nature. Anything after that has been speculation and assertion on your part.

But you're creating a straw man here, because I never claimed furry fandom was 100% sexual, did I? I said it was predominantly so, and you have done nothing to dispel that notion.

You equated enjoying anthro art as being akin to pedophilia and bestiality "as far as you were concerned".

Maybe you should go figure out what an analogy is, because I didn't say it was "akin" to pedophilia. I never once indicated I thought a furry would molest children. Rather, I said furries have an unhealthy interest in sexualizing animals that is too close to bestiality for my liking. For comparison, I pointed out people who (for instance) like drawings of naked children or children in sexual situations are not terribly far from being pedophiles.

I have no ulterior motive aside from curiosity. I have no agenda.

So you say.

That is your opinion and your assertions.

If you don't want to hear the opinions and assertions of others, it might be wise not to ask for them.

You can assume whatever you wish to assume. You are free to do so. All I am doing is asking questions because I am curious about other's thoughts, and answering questions in an effort to clear the air of any misconception.


J.

Your idea of what is being "misconceived" here is obviously very different from mine.

Others have made plenty of good points in the interim.

J, I really don't care that you're into furry stuff. I don't complain about the avatars or the wallpapers. I saved my comments for this thread, where you specifically asked for them. I hope you got what you wanted out of it, because my opinion of furries has certainly declined as a result of this thread. There are those who admit to being furries--even into the sexual aspects--and they make no bones about it. I can respect that. At least they're honest about what they're into.

Then there are those who are openly uncomfortable with the sexual angle. That's fine, too. Animal-oriented art is a time-honored tradition and I don't begrudge anyone that.

In the middle, though, we have you: playing up the non-sexual aspects of furry fandom while dancing around the question of whether or not it's a sexual fetish. You can say you don't have an agenda, you can say you don't have an ax to grind, but what I see here is you claiming furry fandom is largely tame and wholesome, while half-assedly admitting you indulge in it for your own sexual gratification.

If you enjoy it, go wild, do whatever you want with it. Fap to naked foxes until your hands are callused. But don't come in here and try to portray furry fandom as something it isn't just to make yourself feel better about fapping to drawings of animals.

[J. Allen]

The Dead Nations wrote:

---

Ah, I can't resist.

To what degree something is sold because of its sexual content varies. Star Trek and Star Wars are sold much less on sex appeal than, say, furry fandom.

However, furry fandom is not a product. Unlike Star Trek or Star Wars, there is no guideline like there is in a franchise.

But you're creating a straw man here, because I never claimed furry fandom was 100% sexual, did I? I said it was predominantly so, and you have done nothing to dispel that notion.

I have created no straw man. When you responded about my defending furry fandom as not being all about sex, you derided me saying that I was trying to defend it by saying the fandom "just wasn't about sex". Why would you italicize the word "just" if you were not assuming that the whole of fandom is based on sex? In other words, you assumed that I was responding to a statement where you implied it was all based on sex (like bestiality and pedophilia), and replied based on that assumption. From your own post before that:

The Dead Nations wrote:

---

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

Maybe you should go figure out what an analogy is, because I didn't say it was "akin" to pedophilia. I never once indicated I thought a furry would molest children. Rather, I said furries have an unhealthy interest in sexualizing animals that is too close to bestiality for my liking. For comparison, I pointed out people who (for instance) like drawings of naked children or children in sexual situations are not terribly far from being pedophiles.

Yes. You made the comparison. You say I should figure out what an analogy is. Here's what the dictionary says:

analogy
  /əˈnælədʒi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-nal-uh-jee]
–noun, plural -gies.

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics.
a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

I'd say comparing pedophilia and bestiality with furry fandom is most certainly analogous.

So you say.

Yes, I do say.

If you don't want to hear the opinions and assertions of others, it might be wise not to ask for them.

I have repeated myself several times for your benefit, and still you say this. I don't think you're really reading my responses anymore.

Your idea of what is being "misconceived" here is obviously very different from mine.

Yes. Mine is correct.

Others have made plenty of good points in the interim.

And I have answered their comments.

J, I really don't care that you're into furry stuff. I don't complain about the avatars or the wallpapers. I saved my comments for this thread, where you specifically asked for them. I hope you got what you wanted out of it, because my opinion of furries has certainly declined as a result of this thread. There are those who admit to being furries--even into the sexual aspects--and they make no bones about it. I can respect that. At least they're honest about what they're into.

Considering that you had no problem within the first few posts of this thread to mention pedophilia and bestiality in the same breath as furry fandom, I would say your opinion was already formed and your mind made up. Nothing I, or anyone else here, could have said would have changed that. Even with your personal jabs, I have been respectful. I have been polite. You had no intention of thinking anything other than you already have, and that's the truth.

In the middle, though, we have you: playing up the non-sexual aspects of furry fandom while dancing around the question of whether or not it's a sexual fetish. You can say you don't have an agenda, you can say you don't have an ax to grind, but what I see here is you claiming furry fandom is largely tame and wholesome, while half-assedly admitting you indulge in it for your own sexual gratification.

Show me where I danced around it, and while you're at it, show me where I said it's wholesome.

If you enjoy it, go wild, do whatever you want with it. Fap to naked foxes until your hands are callused. But don't come in here and try to portray furry fandom as something it isn't just to make yourself feel better about fapping to drawings of animals.

All I have done is answer questions. You have been confrontational from the moment you were in the desktop thread. It is obvious you do have a problem with this. Did you know I used this very same avatar last year around Halloween? Not a peep from you then. I have posted many desktops, some of them furry, not a peep from you before. Only lately have you had such an objection to it, and particularly aimed at my direction. Why is that? I normally don't like to bring others into something, but Gep has furry avatars almost all the time. He posted furry desktops also. It wasn't until the one-two combo of my having an avatar and a desktop that is furry, and yes, sexual in nature, that you have decided to come forward and make negative comments.

J.

[melancholymecha]

J, are you pagan?(wiccan?)

Remember rule 34 and that there are people aroused by even stranger stuff...
Being a furry is still tame stuff compared by those things...

no kidding! 2 words- inflation fetish

as for Furries being all about sex, well in my expierience, from the furry art Ive bumped into while looking up hybrid and transformation art(they tend to overlap sometimes) on Google and Deviantart, I see an equal amount of art that's sexual and an equal amount that isnt. But then I dont go looking for "sexy furry" art specifically, so maybe there is a lot more of it out there & I just havent run into it. I dunno. I really think its just equal to any other niche genre thing like Star Trek or anime...