But what of those who do? Or of CSI, like I asked earlier?
Well, I’m no fan of prescriptivism, so I won’t say you’re wrong. But I will note that you’re using the terms in a decidedly minority fashion.
But that’s not the aspect that’s being compared. Certainly, there is an inescapable sexual component to lesbianism. However, if one went strictly by the internet, one would have to also assume that being blonde, 18, and having big tits were also necessary components. Yet if one looks at real lesbians, this is clearly not the case. The point being that the internet does not accurately portray reality. Of the components of lesbianism that are apparent from a Google image search, many of them are not, in fact, necessary components. Similarly, of the components that are apparent from a Google image search on furries, there are many that are not, in fact, necessary components.
My cite is this thread, and every other thread on the SDMB on the subject, in which, without exception, every single poster who describes themselves as a furry says that the definition does not include a necessary sexual component.
Right. Because you did a Google search. Which any reasonable person would have to admit trumps the personal experience and testimony of people who are directly involved in the activity in question.
I was asking about your pejorative description of role-playing in general. You are aware that the term has a wider currency than just in the furry community, right?
That said, I thank you for your flawless example of a tautology.
You seldom seem to pass up an opportunity on these boards to tell furries that they’re immature, socially maladjusted perverts, so I think the question of whether or not you harass them is open to interpretation, depending on how severely you define “harass.” Regardless, I’ve no more dictated how you have to think than you have dictated how furries have to act. You are, of course, free to think whatever you like about anyone you want to. You are not free from having people draw conclusions about your personality based on how you express those thoughts.
Where did I say it was okay?
If it can’t even be measured, how came you by your iron clad certainty that they are in the majority?
Dio, “the media” covers newspapers, you know.
Is there something about reporting this story that’s unfair to furries? I will say that even I would never make any assumption that the pedophilia in this case is representative of even the most enthusiastic furry fetishists, but I don’t blame the newspaper for this guy being a bad example, I blame the guy himself.
As for the CSI episode above, I’ve never seen that episode (or any epsidode) of CSI, so I can’t offer an opinion on it.
I will say that I think I’m being perceived as hateful or hostile to this subculture when all I really have is the same kind of amusement I have for ComicCon nerds or RPG players, or guys who paint their faces at football games. It really goes no deper than that, and I would stick up for, and even physically defend anybody who was actually being bullied or harassed for this stuff.
It’s odd that I’ve never seen you in a Dungeons and Dragons thread, or a comic thread, calling the people who engage in those activities “maladapted losers.”
Perhaps you do that in sports threads, but I don’t read those, so I wouldn’t know.
You really have no interest in having sex? At all?
Think it through. What impression would such a story make upon someone who never heard of this before?
Ma: Says here this feller wanted to have sex with a boy…
Pa: That ain’t right!
Ma: …as a panda.
Pa: You mean one of those big bears at the zoo?
Ma: Yup.
Ma & Pa: Hey Boy, you see this? Fellers really do this?
Son: Yeah, I heered about that from that thar TV. They’s called “furries”.
Bryan Eckers fell into that trap, referring to furries (and plushies) as people who get a thrill out of wearing animal costumes due to the CSI episode.
Further, there are these from the other linked article, about Anthrocon 2009:
“(I)t’s people like Mr. Berlin who give furries a bad name.”
“Even he – if he’s guilty – had to be smart enough to know he would not be welcome here.”
“We do not condone that. Mainly we are artists, dealers, writers, puppeteers.”
You know, this kind of thing really doesn’t help your case.
The press was recently amused by the fact that the New York Mets stayed at the same hotel AnthroCon was going on in when they were in Pittsburgh. Apparently, a few of the players were confused as to what was going on while others had their pictures taken with some of the attendants.
As far as I’m concerned, the difference between furries and the people who jerk-it to anime is academic. In that vein, here is an article about people who feel a genuine emotional connection to cartoon people:" courtesy of the NY Times; those are some well adjusted adults.
For some reason, this reminds me of the stories about people who are attracted to objects, like the woman who married the Eiffel Tower. This makes a little more sense though, since the people are in love with human figures and not objects. There was one man in Japan who started an online petition to make it legal to marry fictional characters.
Ok, I’ll bite.
Explain?
Saying that furries are better people than everyone else just because they’re furries is hugely delusional. Being a fan of anything does not make you a better person than someone else, so putting furry fans up on a pedestal like that sounds off to a lot of people.
Let me restate then, Hedging more than enough here:
IMHO, AFAIK, FWIW, IIRC, Most furries have more in common with each other, than not. Those attributes, in general, are attributes that if more people had them, the world would be a better place.
I would step out here, and state that most Furs feel disenfranchised when compared to the ““popular”” people. It is essentially as if we are the outcast from cliques back in High School and College. If you have ever seen the final scene in Revenge of the Nerds, [Perfectly mundane, no fur content at all] there is a lot of that going on.
Perhaps, because furs are outcast, and because they hate feeling that way, they are more accommodating of other people. That, along with the fact that we are, to some extent of a similar mind to begin with, leads me to believe that, again, on the whole Furries are more Human (in terms of common courtesy) to each other, than two perfect strangers are to each other.
Yes, I admit that this is a catch 22. However, it does not change the fact that the situation does exist, and is currently in force.
[Interesting observation, that most of the Abbreviations allow one to hedge on statements. Also, I am not calling all Furs ‘Boy Scouts’ but, most of them are Trustworthy, Loyal, Help… You will excuse me here, as it turns out I am a Raccoon and and an Eagle.]
Congratulations. You’ve described every geek subgroup ever.
you’re “outcasts?” who’s casting you out? Can you not get a job? do you get hassled by the cops? Are you not allowed in restaurants? With all due respect, you sound like you’re kind of up your own ass with this stuff. If you want to be a raccoon, be a raccoon, but don’t put on an oppressed, martyr act if people don’t take you seriously, or think you’ve got some work to do on relating to other people, and don’t delude yourself that you’re BETTER than somebody else just because they don’t dress up like an anime squirrel.
I would comment on how you know this, but then again, we know each other from video game threads. [Not a slam to you at all, just the fact that it is, and further, that I am with you on your comment, and in particular to the subgroups you are more familiar with.]
I agree with you. Your statement does not take away from Furs at all, but only adds to it. I felt that bringing this fact to light was needed at this point in the conversation.
OK, but can you see how people might take offense to furries labeling each other “more human” when their only official connection with each other is that they enjoy anthropomorphic animal art?
I hate to bring up the Geek Hierarchy, but just because furries are on the bottom doesn’t make them different from other subgroups.
ETA:
I was exaggerating obviously, but come on, what geeky member of society doesn’t feel oppressed because of their brilliance/insight/views/etc, etc, etc?
In one sentence you managed to claim that furries are not human AND that they are in fact superior to humans. The former is the kind of thing that makes people think furries are nuts, and the latter is the kind of thing that makes them think furries are obnoxious nuts.