And if they insist that their girlfriend whose feet are so small she buys her shoes in the kid’s section must wear “space needle” shoes because “those are damn sexy”, they are shoe fetishists in the sexual sense.
Diogenes, google the word “sex.” You will also find a ton of porn and almost no explanation of what sex is, how gentle it can be, what its purpose is, how to do it well, and so forth. You would come to the conclusion that everybody who engages in sex is a raging porno freak.
Google the word “alcohol.” You will find links on the first few pages that make you wonder if everybody who drinks alcohol has a problem.
Google the word “maid.” You will find links on the first few pages that suggest all maids are women in fishnet stockings who give blowjobs.
A google search, as you must well know, is hardly indicative of reality.
Are there elements of the furry community that are highly sexualized? Unquestionably. Does a google search prove it? I doubt it very strongly.
Oh, good.
A perfectly innocent getting-to-know-you thread transformed into tomes of internet psychoanalysis and barely-concealed derision. Damn you, furries! How dare you make your popular perception so controversial and unacceptable!
:rolleyes:
Full disclosure: I am a furfan, if not an actual furry. Most everyone who’s known me for any time can tell you have cat-like traits, which means any number of things. In few words, I feel it’s cute and convenient to make kitten noises when I’m surprised or curious. Oh, and I own a set of cat ears and I like having my head scritched. To add a bit more perspective (or perhaps a bit more ammunition for some explosively bad analogies) - for a lot of people who self-ID as furry, this is about as weird as they get. There’s art, too, but I have my own theory about that, which has been touched on a few times in this thread:
This is an excellent point and is, for me, a clear window into the appeal of anthropomorphism. From my view, it would be much weirder to “relate to” primates as furries (though, to be sure, there are some furries who do) because they don’t count as Other enough to be useful as personas/avatars/totems.
I’d be willing to say it fits a continuum similar to the Uncanny Valley effect - real humans have a certain appeal because, hey, they’re real. Human-esque creatures with exaggerated expressions, body shapes, body types, and/or personalities have a totally separate appeal precisely because, in any iteration (cartoony or realistic, art or costume), they are separated visually from humanity. IMO, this allows for a range of expression that’s much harder to come by when you approach realistic art of human characters.
As a case study of sorts, compare Sinfest’s style with, say, Steamboat Willie. If you focus only on the characters’ faces and not any particular drama going on, then Slick (human) and Willie (anthro mouse) have a pretty similar range of facial expressions - exaggerated anger, happiness, regret, fear, etc. So both species-types of characters are pretty even when the art is all big lines and cartoon physics.
But I think an interesting thing happens when you push those two art styles closer to the point of “realism.” It’s extremely rare to find art of humans in comics that isn’t “dumbed down” in some way - either with slightly out-of-proportion faces and bodies, or with poses and personalities that don’t require a lot of complex emotion to be shown on a human face (much as I respect Alex Ross’ art; even with photo references he still doesn’t do a lot of emotion in his paintings). As a counterpoint, there’s some ridiculous character detail in the furry period drama Lackadaisy, but, because there is no “right” way for our lower brains to process and see an anthropomorphic character, added detail and complex expressions don’t harm our ability to relate to them.
Or, as Scott McCloud put it in Understanding Comics - the closer a figure in art comes to looking like an actual human being, the more it automatically gets read by our minds as a specific person and not like a character to whom we can relate.
So yes, on some level, almost everyone can relate to Kung Fu Panda better than they could relate to, say, the same story told using the CG humans from Toy Story. That doesn’t make them furry any more than enjoying music makes someone a musician.
Obviously, the ability to relate to that Otherness in anthro characters and also to their specific animalistic traits is stronger for some people than for others.
(Disclaimer: This half-assed theory is presented as-is with no promise of infallibility or further support. Twisted analogies and venomous skepticism need not apply. Void where internets are sold.)
“Barely-concealed?”
I’m grateful to Silver Tyger Girl for posting the OP, even though it hasn’t been allowed to proceed as intended. It’s illustrated a side to the SDMB community which I hadn’t properly appreciated. Even the moderators seem content to allow the abuse to continue.
I had no idea that the “don’t be a jerk” principle was so toothless; now I feel like a fool for trying to avoid running afoul of it all this time. I’m going to have a blast having my ignorance fought in the Game Room forum from now on, when football fans try to discuss the season, and I’m free to drop in constantly with “What’s all this then? Tell me, why do you all waste your time on this idiotic hobby? Are football fans all so sexually twisted that they need to claim their sweaty homosexual bondage fetish as an innocent pastime? Do you all really beat your womenfolk when your team loses?”
I presume that will be okay, since I don’t have to accept or respect their interest in the pastime. So it’s up to them to tolerate my continued remarks for as long as I care to make them. Is that substantially correct, Marley23? I’m interested in getting as much entertainment value from my membership as possible.
applause
I’m not STG, but I’ll hit this one…
Like Small Hen mentions ‘furry’ is a rather…fuzzy term, if you’ll pardon the pun. It covers at least 2 overlapping, but distinct groups (could be more if you’re going to subdivide the second) - anthro characters, and the fans thereof.
‘What kind of critter are you’ only applies to those of us who fall into the overlap space - lifestylers, 'suiters, and roleplayers. People who adopt furry personae under whichever situations are appropriate for them.
As part of the overlap group, I can answer that, my furry personae are feline.
Before I developed those personae, I’d have still said ‘yes, I am a furry’, because I still liked furry characters - and even RP’d several general furry characters - but I couldn’t answer that question, because I didn’t have an actual ‘fursona’, just a few characters (of different species) I played occasionally. Now I can. I am a cat.
On the stress thing, it’s pretty funny - stress forces me OUT of my furry persona - I’m too busy dealing with human concerns for the feline habits come to the fore. I’m suddenly wondering, though, if I could use deliberately invoking them as a way of dealing.
Marley23: I posted in haste, and regret it. I see that you have cautioned against outright hostility in this thread. I’m just very unclear on how that particular post qualifies as crossing the line with “outright hostility,” whereas the earlier “developmentally stunted” crack apparently does not.
I quoted that post as an example and was not suggesting it was the only example of hostility - it plainly isn’t. But I think it was the most recent one at the time I posted, and I hadn’t opened the thread before that point.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Honestly, I’ve never really thought much about how forum moderators keep tabs on such things. I suppose the nature of the job requires one to make a lot of decisions on the fly.
You could re-enact buying a bottle of milk at the corner store in GURPS - doesn’t make milk-buying a LARP.
SCA is not a LARP. Yes, it has some roleplaying elements in the personas people (optionally) adopt, but it takes more than that to make a LARP - narrative, for one thing, which SCA lacks, competition, for another - LARPs are like ordinary RPGs in that they’re usually very goal-oriented (in the Find the Murderer/Replace the Prince/Sell My Property kind of sense).
I’m going to quote heavily from the TVtropes Furry Fandom page because it has the best breakdown of what a furry is that I’ve seen in a LONG time.
I realize this is going to give fuel to the people who think it’s all about sex. I’ll state that most furries fit in the first five bullet points. The vast majority is in the first two.
For myself, I’ll say I’m a fan. Yes I would like to be a furry in real life, but most of my fursona activity involves me writing stories in my head (actually most of those stories lately involve a very human me being a superhero. When I’m not coming up with Batman stories.)
I have no interest in shape-shifting.
I’d be interested in dressing up as my fursona, but I’d do it with body paint and prosthetics. I’ve seen some nice fursuits (there’s a certain griffin who looks awesome) but most of them end up looking like sports mascots which I can’t identify with. I would wear ears and a tail, especially if I had some way of making the tail stand up and sway realistically.
Yes, I do find some furry males attractive (realistic ones), but it’s not the furriness as much hey! Nice chest! Stripes help a lot, but still it’s more of an aesthetic reaction than a, um, hormonal one.
I don’t draw sexual cartoons. That’s just weird and disturbing.
I’m not otherkin. I don’t think I have an animal soul or that I’m a reincarnated winged tyger or anything like that.
I have no interest in having sex with something with fake fur. Ew. I have no interest in doing it with a real tiger or any other animal. Double ew (also stupid and suicidal. But mostly EW). If Tygra walked up to me would I do him? Yes. But for that matter if Batman walked up to me I’d do him. Neither of those is going to happen.
I have done no body modification to look like a tiger. Once again, I don’t want to only be able to make money by working in a freak show. I have thought about getting tiger stripes tattoed on a portion of my body - either my shoulders or my hips. Except there’s the whole needles and pain thing.
Does that help define it for people? Yes, it’s a very very fuzzy thing which is why I simplify it to ‘likes stuff with anthro or talking animals’ and say if you think you are one you are.
I included question one because most furries I’ve seen have a fursona - an animal persona of varying states of anthropomorphic-ness. Some have more than one. This persona’s use can vary from being an online identity (like mine) to an actual fantasy to (for the really weird ones) what they think they’re actually like (yes, some VERY WEIRD people think they are actually foxes or dragons or something and some magical force is keeping people from seeing them like that. I repeat these are VERY WEIRD people and a VERY VERY small minority).
For most people it’s no different from a Star Trek fan having a Vulcan character as their online persona.
The tail and wings, well among other things it gives me something to focus on besides ‘my sister is in the hospital again’ (which is the last time it came up). I imagine I can feel my wings wrapping around me like warm blankets and it helps me feel safe. Imagining myself as ‘Silvercat’ means that I can defend myself, I can take care of myself, I’m strong and brave. I can often feel a sensation in various parts of my body - my shoulders, my tailbone, my ankles where my body would be different. For the record - again, I don’t think I actually have a tail or wings or anything like that. This sensation is, well not completely imaginary, but not connected to anything. (I get the same thing when I’m reading about someone getting injured - it tingles where they hurt. It’s a weird thing and probably a symptom of my overactive imagination.)
Does that help? Did that do anything besides make people think I’m really really weird?
Oh god, bad memory resurfacing. Ow.
That list is indeed a good breakdown. As you noted, STG, it’s definitely an upside down pyramid, with each level containing a successively smaller number of people.
For a long long time (and possibly still now) was that all Trekkies were freaks who dressed up, had Star Trek themed weddings, decorated their houses in Trek stuff, etc. That doesn’t mean it’s true. Yes, furry fandom has a bad reputation, but most of that is the fault of people taking a small part of it and presenting it to the world (see: CSI, SomethingAwful, and most of the really old articles). And then people picked up on that and so you get everyone thinking that’s the entirety.
Googling ‘furry’ right now - the first hits are the wikipedia entry, a furry wiki, and the Atlanta Con. There’s two sexual hits on the first page - a copy of the Vanity Fair article (on pressedfur which is about the media coverage of furries) and a porn site. Yes it’s easier to find sexual stuff for furries and that’s not something I like, but it’s not 90% like you say.
How are we supposed to fight? If we go with a different name (like Trekkies became Trekkers) everyone will still think we’re about sex or that we’re just nuts. Media coverage is getting fairer and I do my part to fight ignorance. It’s just heavily entrenched.
Well, look. If I watch Star Wars tonight before bed, then while I"m going to sleep I’m quite likely to fantasize about having force powers and a light sabre and being able to do back flips and stuff.
If I watch a TV show with someone really hot in it, I’m probably going to go to sleep fantasizing about being with that person, and maybe sharing adventures with them.
I grew up on comic books and scifi, and even at my age, I still fantasize about being able to teleport, or fly, or shoot power beams from my hands, or hop on my spaceship and travel the galaxy.
They’re just fantasies, and I think they’re normal. Every time I buy a lotto ticket and imagine what it would be like to win $60 million dollars.
But, I don’t belong to a defined sub-culture, so excuse me for being curious. I don’t think I’ve been abusive.
Some people’s minds just fixate on different things, that’s all.
I can’t imagine how to write a story with any anthropomorphic animals, because I simply can’t. When I write, I naturally gravitate toward certain themes: love, betrayal, disguises, liminal states, understanding the perspective of the opposite gender, history, baseball metaphors, opposition of extremes (eg, male vs female, wilderness vs civilization, law vs chaos, etc), music, acting, and so forth. It’s just how my brain works.
Stephen King gravitates toward horror; that’s just his way. Gary Larson draws cartoons that are black and twisted; ditto Charles Addams. Agatha Christie wrote mysteries. Many dedicated genre authors are simply attached to certain aspects. Furry folks simply gravitate toward anthropomorphism, that’s all. It’s no weirder than people who gravitate toward Anime — and, not coincidentally, suffers from the same “it’s all weirdo porn” perception problem.
Quite honestly, and all joking aside, I think the reason that furries attract negative reactions is that an excessive love of anthropomorphized animals falls pretty firmly within the realm of childhood. The fact that some fans, even if a small and unrepresentative minority, take their liking so far as a sexual fetish simply underlines with emphasis the disconnect - that these are adults (with all that implies, including sexuality etc.) pursuing a childhood pursuit.
Collectors of Star Wars action figures and the like get some of the same treatment, but their fandom takes as its focus something that is considered appropriate to a somewhat later stage of childhood or adolescence, thus they are not judged as badly (those adults with an interest in pacifiers, baby bottles and diapers are, conversely, treated worse).
Somewhere around the late teenage years, it is generally acknowledged by most (but not all) of the public that age-appropriate behaviour can be extended indefinitely without excessive scorn. Thus, stuff that older teens do - like play team sports - is “okay” for adults to enjoy and to sexualize.
I make no comment on whether this treatment is justified or not (I suspect it is all a matter of degree); I just think that this age-disconnect is, above all, the reason for it. Though I do think that the notion of what is age-appropriate is breaking down these days, as more and more adults essentially extend adolescent (and childhood) interests and pastimes indefinitely.
Imagination falls firmly within the realm of childhood, and yet it would be a poorer world if everyone in the entire world abandoned his imagination when he became an adult.
True enough.
But then, it would be somewhat odd if everyone retained their pacifer and security blanket into adulthood, too (though it would be a great marketing opportunity - making pacifiers and security blankets that go with one’s tie, or with a nice set of high heels). 
I would not argue that strict age-seperation is necessarily a good thing in all cases, just that it explains the scorn or hostility those who choose to flout it are likely to attract.
Quite. I don’t think being an adult means you have to give up childish pursuits, necessarily, but it does mean you should expect to know when it’s appropriate to pursue them or not.
Case in point: I had an ex-coworker who’s a fantasy geek. Hey, I’m into that too, cool. I even bought her two D&D dragon figures for her birthday. Moderately expensive, collectible pieces of (plastic) art. After a while she brought them into the office and perched them on her cube wall, and I was mortified. Why? I like fantasy and dragons, after all. But to my knowledge, the rest of our coworkers are not fantasy geeks, or even geeks at all, and I knew damn well from the looks on their faces that they were a little bemused and definitely thought it was childish. It wasn’t the right audience to display these figures to, whereas if there were more D&D geeks in the office it would have been perfect.
Knowing when to share your interests and when to keep them private is what makes someone adult in my book, not what their interests are.
Maybe it does if you pretend to buy a bottle of milk at the corner store in real life to achieve some in-character goal. See what I’m saying?
My bad. I know next to nothing about LARPing.
Well…to me this kind of depends. Is your office culture that you don’t put personal things in your cubes? Is it okay to bring other, more “socially acceptable” things to decorate your cube with? I can see maybe having a picture of your SO or kids, or maybe a nice tasteful print…but if you have people who have many pictures of their kids, or memorabilia for their favorite sports team, or any other similar hobby-related items, then why are these any better than this woman and her dragons? As long as they’re just sitting there and she doesn’t dress up like an elf or something while she’s at work, what can they hurt?
I don’t believe that people have to become soulless automatons toeing the company line 100% when they go to work (unless that’s your corporate culture, in which case I wouldn’t last 10 minutes there). A little individuality is a good thing.
That said, though, I think even I would have a little bit of an issue if the woman had Barney paraphernalia or other things related to very childish activities as cube decorations. But dragons just mean she’s a geek, and might help her meet other geeky coworkers. I don’t see the problem.