Found a great new article about Furries today - “My Life As A Furry.”
Talks more about what the media so far has gotten wrong, as opposed to what Furries actually are, but I think it’s a good step towards dispelling some myths. I liked the summary paragraph:
So, what do you guys think - harmless geeks or kinky pervs?
Esprix
90% harmless folks, 10% scary crazy people.
Just like any other group of people, really.
As someone who had played a lot of D&D, and had a short-lived Star trek phase, and listened to my share of sub-pop bands, I think that in some people go overboard in order to fill in something that is missing. Dr. Drew, of “Loveline” fame (radio show, used to be on MTV too) would say that these people have something wrong in the “hard wiring.”
I’m inclined to believe this, that something went a little askew when the wiring for sexuality was forming in these folks. However, whatever gets you throught the night, as long as nobody gets hurt.
cameraboy, did you read the linked article? The whole point is that the majority of Furries aren’t in it for sexual reasons. Does just liking anthropormorphic art mean that “something went a little askew” in their wiring?
Esprix
I’ve been a major-league furry for a long, long time. (In fact, I almost named the genre! I wrote an essay “On Fuzz,” referring to “Fuzzy Fandom.” However, the essay was in the same issue of the British Fanzine “Sic Buiscuit Disintegraf” as another essay by Doctor Craig Hilton of West Australia, who used the term “Furry Fandom.” Hilton’s name stuck. Mine didn’t. (Wah!) According to Furry historian Fred Patten, this is the earliest documented instance of the phrase.
Furries are like any other special interest group: they are vaguely annoying to “outsiders” – just as Linux users or Poodle owners are – but once you get to know 'em, they’re very, very much like everyone else.
All of which is merely to say, “What Tabris said.”
Trinopus
Hold on, didn’t realize there was a link…
Ok, skimmed it. It seems to say that there is a very strong sexual side to the whole furry thing, but some people aren’t interested in the sexual aspecs. My opinion still doesn’t change much. Something is not right in the hard-wiring, whether it 's the sexual hard-wiring or the social hard-wiring, or something else.
I think this is the case when any interest becomes an obsession that alters one’s life in a way that causes that person to behave radically different from the general populace.
The article cites an example of a girl who dresses like a cat, because she feels she can only be outgoing when in her cat persona. So the cat thing fills in some mis or under-development for this girl.
Perverts? maybe, but the accepted range of sexuality is forever broadening. I think they are more than a little messed up. But I think any obsession is more than a little messed up.
But the media didn’t get anything “wrong,” they just only explored one side to the whole issue. I think there is a difference. Also, I can’t judge, really, because I don’t have any personal experience with this. I have to point out that the article is also a part of the “media.” How do I know that the author of the article didn’t have an agenda, and is being any more or less truthfull than the MTV stuff, or any other stuff on furries?
But again, as long as nobody gets hurt…
However, I wouldn’t let a “furry” watch my kid while I was out of town. I also wouldn’t let an adult who was wearing “spok” ears watch my kid either.
I think the Furry movement consists of three main categories:
Those who think anthropomorphic animals are kinda cool.
Those who obsess over anthropomorphic animals, typically dress as them, and use them to gain social acceptance.
Those who like to get it on with all things fuzzy.
The first group strikes me as just another class of hobbyists, like those who like to watch anime, or play D&D, or whatnot. The second group strikes me as an unfortunate sector of maladjusted individuals, unhappy with themselves, and unhealthily obsessed with being somebody else, just as someone who spends every waking moment wishing he were an elf, or a Klingon.
And to the last group, I can only say: Ew.
Jeff
There was that episode of ER with the furries. The one guy just liked dressing up in an animal suit-he started doing it for kiddy parties, and found that he liked wearing the costume because he was shy, but this made him able to be more outgoing.
The other guy was a fullblown perv. By the end of the episode, he was jerking off with Kerry’s Mr. Whiskers kitten puppet.
Actually, what it said was that there generally isn’t a very strong sexual aspect. But thanks for “skimming it” anyway. :rolleyes:
Why? What’s wrong with having hobbies? I guess my “hard-wiring” is messed up because I like science fiction and do historical costuming?
Define “radically different.” It sounds to me like you’re painting an awfully broad brush. The whole point of the article was that those who you would define as “obsessed” are a vast minority of the fandom (just like any other hobby).
Finding an outlet for your personality isn’t “under-development.” Are artists, writers or musicians “obsessed” with their creative and personality outlets? What’s the difference between them and wearing cat ears?
When almost all of the press to date (as outlined in the article) focus solely on the minority sexual aspect of the fandom, then yeah, they got it wrong.
:rolleyes:
I, for one, can say this was a much more accurate portrayal of Furry fandom than any other piece I’ve seen.
Why not?
Esprix
The famous alternative press columnist Dan Savage said (right here, last paragraph), perhaps partially jokingly, that he would doubt the sanity of somebody who was into all that stuff and had no sexual motive. It is an interesting read.
I find furry about as appealing, sexually or otherwise, as a dusty old stairwell that smells faintly of vomit.
As a paid-up member of the Virginia Tech Society of Anthropomorphics and official Furry-in-Training, I say that the article is pretty accurate. The fur thing isn’t necessarily sexual any more than the oodles of Legolas slash makes LOTR fanfiction intrinsically sexual. A bit bit of it is that furries tend to be outgoing about things like showing affection. But it’s not intrinsically sexual.
Wow, good find, Esprix! I know you can’t summarize an entire fandom in a single article, but this one did an incredibly good job. Saddly, I see at least one person didn’t seem to get the jist of the article. It ain’t all about sex.
It’s gotten kind of annoying, lately. I keep hearing “furries do …” whatever, when neither I, nor anyone I know, actually does anything like what they’re describing. I think this article does a good job of describing how furries don’t all act as one big unanimous group. There are different levels of interest. Everywhere from the ultra-prude types that yell at every single other furry for giving them a “bad name” by having any sexual interest whatsoever, all the way to the types that usually get the media attention.
Though, while it doesn’t particularly interest me, I don’t really see what the big deal is about “fursuiters” and “plushophiles” and the like. I don’t know anyone who does any of that (Well, at least not that I know of), but really, how is it any worse of a fetish than heavy bondage, or any other “big” fetish?
Furry is like any other fandom. The majority are in it for a common interest, something they like. A small minority are nuts. And yet, trekkies and the like seem to be better thought-of in society than furries.
I loved vulcans, but I didn’t love vulcans… :smack:
geeky pervs!
Eh. I don’t see anything wrong with it. I predict that in a year or so people will find some new hobby/fetish/whatever to get all uptight about and furriness will go the way of every other “media kink”. I remember when everyone and his brother was talking about bondage, with the predictable faction-forming: “Harmless fun” on one side, “My God, think of the children” on the other. And what’s happened to bondage? Become completely acceptable, almost mainstream: suddenly buckle collars are a hot new fashion item, and nobody much cares about the issue except the fans themselves. I see furries headed this way.
Or maybe they’ll just be added to the ever-growing list of geekdom genres.
For me, it’s a non-issue. The non-sexual component of it is just a hobby like any other. The sexual side of it is just a fetish like any other. As long as everyone’s a consenting adult and no laws are being broken, I don’t see what the big deal is. But like the article pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be all that much sex involved. I don’t know- humans have this weird tendency to sexualize everything. Somebody brought up slash fiction, and I think this might be a good parallel. Bear with me here: not all slash is about sex.
WHAT?! you cry. Are you blind/stupid/crazy??? I hope not. But talking to slash writers over the years, many of them don’t seem as concerned with the sexual aspect of the genre as they are with character-driven exploration. Many writers just do it as a way to flesh out different aspects of characters or dramas they enjoy, and being human, this often takes the form of sexual exploration. While I admit that not all of it is to my personal taste, I do not think of these people as hopelessly screwed-up weirdos hell-bent on destroying society as we know it. They’re just folks with a hobby. Maybe not the sort of hobby you’d feel free to discuss with the kids, but just a hobby nonetheless. The people wearing cat ears are obviously exploring aspects of their own personality, playing with identity. They simply do so in a less “mainstream” way than most other people.
I also don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with letting a furry, or a Trekkie, or any other hobbyist interact with their kids. Do more “usual” hobbyists such as stamp-collectors and aquarium-keepers also experience this stigma? Doubt it. If it could be statistically proven that persons whose hobbies fall outside what the majority considers “normal” are somehow more prone to committing crimes, then there’d be a good reason to lock up your kids. But that “proof” is not forthcoming. First, define “normal”. (Go on, I dare you. 
) Then decide who is or is not “normal”. Then prove that these “non-normals” are any more likely than a “normal” to commit a crime. It just doesn’t make sense. It seems like most people object to hobbies like furrydom or Trekkism just because it rubs them the wrong way. Now, everyone’s entitled to their own opinions, but acting on such completely unsubstantiated beliefs, especially to the extent of persecuting those who do not conform to one’s beliefs, is downright wrong. And people who habitually do that are the real ones to be keeping the kids away from.
Here’s my take, take it for what it’s worth.
The person who wrote the article has an agenda. (Surprise!) He wants people to think that furry fandom is not about sex. That’s great. I know several furry fans who strongly advocate that it is not about sex.
That being said, about 75% (if not more) of my direct experience with furry fandom has been about sex. From anthropomorphic erotic art to finding a furry pile in my living room when I arrived home from school one day, most of my encounters of the furry kind have been based on sensuality.
For someone to say, as in this article, that it’s not about sex, that’s great for him. Unfortunately, the furries I tend to run into at cons and other situations tend to be very into the “let’s pretend we are cute woodsy animals and go hump in the woods” variety. I don’t have a problem with that, but anyone who wants to prove that furry fandom has little to do with sex has a ways to go with me.
And as with everything, I’m sure that there are some who are into the sexual aspect and some who are not. That’s not the point, however.
(Then again, there are some who would claim that I am a member of the furry community due to my liking of comic characters such as Herobear and Usagi Yojimbo. I would reject such a classification personally, so I hope the writer of that article is not counting on people like me to boost his numbers.)
JOhn.
And yet, one guess what our chances are of going through even a single Enterprise thread here more than 10 or so posts long without someone hinting at how hot they think Tu’pol is (Or whatever that female vulcan is. Only seen the show a couple times. Lack of cable sucks…). I don’t remember anyone complaining about that… 
jkusters, I think the point of the article isn’t that some (Or many) furs don’t enjoy sex in “furry” stuff. Many do. The point of it is that the sex part isn’t a “requirement” or the like, and that previous mainstream articles on furry stuff focused on very narrow parts of the fandom. There are some who see it only for sex, some who think sex should have no part in it, and the majority that falls somewhere on the spectrum inbetween those extremes. Personally, I think the sex side is interesting, but so is the non-sexual stuff. It all depends on what it is. I’ve even started on some hard sci-fi writting lately, and since I know several furs, wanted to make it in a furry setting. No sex in them, or even much suggestive stuff (Biggest is one character places a kiss on the top of another’s head from behind).
I’d go into how I don’t think the sexual side should be that big of a deal, but I see ratty covered it much better than I could…
How is that not the point? Isn’t that the whole point of the article?
Esprix
Well, that begs the question of wether the furries at the cons are a representative sample or not. I mean, I’m an ex-furry-fan myself, and while I was amused at the titilating stuff at the furry cons I’ve attended, the over-the-top stuff just made me feel uncomfortable. But I know some furries who aren’t into the sexual extremes at all, and they refuse to go to any of the conventions because of the presence of the “furverts” there.
I mean, you can go to a Star Trek convention and find that half the folks are walking around in Klingon costumes and whathaveyou, but that doesn’t prove/disprove that half of all Trek fans are into that…
