[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think that’s because the Star Wars fandom does not contain the fetishistic element., which, let’s face it, is the defining element of furrydom, no matter how much they try to deny it. Do a google image search on “furries” or “furry,” and it’s nothing but porn. I don’t see how they can say with a straight face that it’s not just a sex fetish.
[/QUOTE]
Slave girl Leia, anyone? 
[QUOTE=Flutterby]
LARP is live action role play.. the people who instead of sitting around the table rolling dice, go out and act out their characters. They wear costumes, and pretend they are someone else. Fights are determined by stats and rock paper scissors instead of stats and dice.
[/QUOTE]
I will point out that some LARPs, like IFGS and NERO, settle fights by fighting, not by rock-paper-scissors. Combat LARPers generally use foam weapons of varying degrees of sophistication to handle the fights safely. (The swords I use are made of layered foam, Kevlar, and latex over a fiberglass/carbon fiber core, and look pretty realistic at a distance.)
</hijack>
[QUOTE=freekalette]
Slave girl Leia, anyone?
[/QUOTE]
That’s from the movie, not from the fandom, and it’s not the reason for the fandom.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s from the movie, not from the fandom, and it’s not the reason for the fandom.
[/QUOTE]
I was just making a joke; it was the first thing that popped into my mind.
Actually, I’m having a hard time grasping the nonsexual aspects of furries, but 'm here to get my ignorance fought, so…
A big “YES, THANK YOU” to everything Miller said.
Am I a furry? Well, yes, a bit. I’m certainly not sexually attracted to animals. Sex in a full, mascot fur suit is out (looking into my partner’s face and seeing lifeless, plastic eyes would kill the mood fast), though I wouldn’t object to ears, or a pin on tail. I like cartoons, and enjoy anthro art, even sexual anthro art. I can get off on it.
I don’t think my reason for considering myself a furry has been mentioned yet: I have an occasional fantasy/desire to have animal traits. Being sneaky like a fox, or small and easily hidden like a mouse, flying like a hawk, swimming fast like a dolphin. I love the idea of living in a beautiful forest, and being well adapted to that. It’s not limited to animals – I adored watching Tarzan surf through the trees like a chimp on skates in the Disney version, and my breath caught in my throat when Iron Man took to the skies like a bird. Animals are fast and strong and beautiful. Those are valued traits, and who wouldn’t want them?
I also love the costuming and acting aspect of it. Playing dress up and pretend might be childish, but I don’t think it’s a negative aspect of childhood, just a very creative one. And, of course, men and women in Hollywood make millions to do just that, and we all enjoy going to see the results.
I hope I haven’t somehow secretly implied that everybody’s just a little bit furry. I understand there’s a lot of that going around.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think that’s because the Star Wars fandom does not contain the fetishistic element., which, let’s face it, is the defining element of furrydom, no matter how much they try to deny it. Do a google image search on “furries” or “furry,” and it’s nothing but porn. I don’t see how they can say with a straight face that it’s not just a sex fetish.
[/QUOTE]
Well, on the one hand, we’ve got people in this thread, who identify as furries, saying that sexuality is not the defining trait of their particular fandom. But hey, you’ve got a Google search, so I guess that means you win.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect]
They’re both LARPers. My criterion is this: Could you re-enact a medieval conflict in GURPS? Yes. Could you re-enact the Civil War in GURPS? Yes. In fact, there are tons of RPG systems, GURPS and otherwise, designed for those very things. Those are role-players, and the people who dress it up and do it in live action are live-action role players. The analogy to the murder mystery dinner parties is a great one, actually.
[/QUOTE]
I think I see where you’re coming from on that; however, my definition of a LARP (and I say this as a former RPG) implies that there is some one or some group controlling the outcome - or planning the outcome.
The SCA doesn’t work that way. By your definition, Civil War reenactors would be LARPers, since the outcome is predefined.
Obviously, YMMV.
</hijack>
OK, I think I’m even more confused now. A couple of questions for Silver Tyger Girl…
First, the first question you listed in your OP is “What kind of critter are you?” I assumed from the way you phrased this question that the definition of being a furry is identifying oneself as a particular animal (it seems very specific, from how you describe yourself). However, from what others are saying here, this is not necessarily a defining characteristic of furries? Can you (or anyone) help me, here?
Second, can you explain a little more about how imagining your tail & wings helps you manage stress?
[QUOTE=Miller]
Well, on the one hand, we’ve got people in this thread, who identify as furries, saying that sexuality is not the defining trait of their particular fandom. But hey, you’ve got a Google search, so I guess that means you win.
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Look, even if they say that, the perception remains that it’s a sex fetish, and the perception is the reason it’s more marginalized than other fandoms. If they don’t like the perception, then they need to find some way to distingusih themselves from the fetishists, who do exist in abundance and who subsume whatever non-fetishistic elements may exist. You can’t blame people for getting that perception when 90% of the imagery they see is sexualized.
Sarahfeena, maybe I can help.
The furry community has not been able to agree on a definition of the word furry. Some think it’s a person who likes to dress up as animals. Some think it’s a person who wants to be and animal. I think it’s anyone who likes anthro animals, of any sort, for their own sake.
I consider myself a furry. I am not a specific animal (other than human). I sometimes put on cat ears, or pretend to be a mouse, but I’m not an animal in spirit. Some people have specific characters (like Silver Tyger’s character) who the fully identify with.
As for the stress thing, Tyger’s gonna have to answer that herself, but I can tell you about my experiences. I went through a stressful emotional period not too long ago. When I would fall asleep at night, I would fight off my stress by pretending to be a mouse. I was so small, and I could hide easily. No one would be able to find me, and no one would expect anything of me. It’s not exactly fighting my problems head on, but it bought me sleep so that I could fight them during the day. Maybe Tyger envisions fighting her problems as a tiger, or flying away from them.
Earlier but not especially inspired thread about the CSI episode.
Thank you, Small Hen! That helps a lot.
Glad to be of service. tips cat ears
Miller, thank you for an excellent summation of what I was trying to say. I appreciate it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Look, even if they say that, the perception remains that it’s a sex fetish, and the perception is the reason it’s more marginalized than other fandoms.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Unfortunately, CSI and news reporters chose to go “Hey, look! Freaks!” and latched onto the most extreme part of the fandom, calling them furries and ensuring that when someone thinks of furries, they think of fursuits and sexual deviancy. A bit like calling a PETA/Greenpeace get-together a Democratic convention.
Well, hey, if Mario can be a furry, it can’t be all that bad.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Look, even if they say that, the perception remains that it’s a sex fetish, and the perception is the reason it’s more marginalized than other fandoms. If they don’t like the perception, then they need to find some way to distingusih themselves from the fetishists, who do exist in abundance and who subsume whatever non-fetishistic elements may exist. You can’t blame people for getting that perception when 90% of the imagery they see is sexualized.
[/QUOTE]
So, what you’re saying here is that the popular perception of an unpopular minority is the controlling definition? If that’s the standard you want to go with, I suppose that’s your lookout, although I suspect there’s any number of other situations in which you’d argue against it pretty fiercely.
[QUOTE=Miller]
So, what you’re saying here is that the popular perception of an unpopular minority is the controlling definition?
[/quote]
No. I’m just saying the perception is the reason it’s more socially marginalized than Star Wars fandom, as per your post upthread. Whether it’s fair or not is a different question. Furries are seen as weirder than Trekkies because the perception is that furries are primarily fetishists while Trekkies are just fans. Now that perception may not be accurate, but the perception controls the level of acceptance.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No. I’m just saying the perception is the reason it’s more socially marginalized than Star Wars fandom, as per your post upthread. Whether it’s fair or not is a different question. Furries are seen as weirder than Trekkies because the perception is that furries are primarily fetishists while Trekkies are just fans. Now that perception may not be accurate, but the perception controls the level of acceptance.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you were just stating the blazingly obvious. Well, thanks for that, I guess.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Oh, so you were just stating the blazingly obvious. Well, thanks for that, I guess.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you said they were less accepted like you were mystified by it. I say what should they expect when 90% of what people see of it is sexualized?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Well, you said they were less accepted like you were mystified by it. I say what should they expect when 90% of what people see of it is sexualized?
[/QUOTE]
You have my heartfelt thanks for your valuable insight.
