Editorial: Furries are already well aware of sex and sexuality
An opinion by the title of Room 366 or "How furries need to realize that sex and sexuality ACTUALLY EXIST" was posted on FNN as a result of the accidentally leaked dirty dancing fursuit video Room 366. [The article originated on AsylumCat (NSFW), a furry bondage site.] As a result, I find myself needing to talk a little about sexuality and the fandom.
While some of the reaction to the video could be considered a bit alarmist, this article as a reaction was also alarmist. The title was demeaning, implying that it's furries who are uneducated about sex and sexuality. I cannot briefly state every reason why this is just a flat-our wrong assertion, so I'll cut it down to two specific examples.
Writer's note: I have not linked to or embedded the video, because it is the property of EZwolf. The video was illegally re-uploaded; it is in the above articles. EZwolf's comments are here.
1) Scientific survey's sexuality questions
Anyone who went to Anthrocon this year and took Nuka's survey, or went to it online, knows how detailed the questions were about a person's sexual identity. Not only did you have a question about your perceived sexual identity, you also had your practicing sexual identity, your furonsa's sexual identity, your perceived gender role, and so on.
However, it isn't just these questions that show an evolved sense of sexual knowledge, it is also the way you answered them. You used a version of the Kinsey scale with the additions of pansexuality, omnisexuality, and asexuality, (and even 'other', if that wasn't enough). Big deal; how does that prove anything, you ask? Well if you have to ask, then that is the proof.
Confused? The paragraph above likely makes sense to you. The reality is most people don't know what those words mean. If you were to walk down the street and ask the general public what their number was on the Kinsey scale, surely over half would look at you and ask: "Uh, what the hell is the Kinsey scale?" If you were to ask a hundred people what a pansexual is, there is no doubt in my mind that at least one would ask you "is that when someone likes having sex with pans?"
The fact that in a survey made for the fandom we are given these words that no scientist would probably put on a real world survey given to the general public and expect them to understand, I think is a shining example in our understanding of sexuality. Society in general still only basically understands GLBT and is trying to get them to equality. In furry fandom, the GLBT group seems just as vanilla as being straight, making us able to concentrate on even more obscure definitions that society in generally doesn't hear about on a regular basis.
2) The article itself
The article's existence on FNN stands as a further testament to the fandom's acceptance of those with fetishes that the rest of society deem awkward or taboo. I consider myself a news hound – well, roo, but anyway, I am hard pressed to think of a single time that an article from a fetishist website has been used as an op-ed in a mainstream news outlet (if someone knows of one I'm curious to see if it has happened).
Isn't this the pudding where the proof is? We consider people who have awkward fetishes actual people. People who have opinions worthy to be placed on the news, even if the place they posted it is risqué – and the news organization gladly links to it!
Not only this, it seems to me that Furry News Network is actually more on the pro-sexual side then against it. They have a rebuttal article, probably understanding that if they're going to allow an opinion article for one side they should probably allow the other to be published as well. However, the way they published the opposing view has very peculiar wording in the disclaimer that is different to that of the original article.
For the original article:
This is an opinion piece republished from AsylumCat's site. As stated on FNN before, there is little denying that there is a growing sexual side to the fandom. This is not going away, and with media attention coming to the fandom like never before, it is something that we all need to learn to deal with.
Now for the rebuttal:
Note: This is an opinion article. The views expressed in this article do not directly reflect the views of the Furry News Network as a whole or the views of any of its affiliates.
It might be just me, but the first one seems a lot more like Furry News Network is accepting the views of the article RubberGator has written, while in the second, it sound like they are distancing themselves. I doubt they would have consciously done this; they at least care to try and appear neutral by allowing a second article. I'm only showing this because it does show that furries may not be as biased against sexuality as the article seems to indicate, by the disclaimers alone.
Update: An alternative explanation for this has been provided in a comment by the author of the rebuttal.
To wrap up this section, the fact that fetishists are in the furry fandom itself and feel comfortable talking about those fetishs on their websites, and even on furry websites shows that they don't feel unwelcome in the fandom. If the fandom had really gotten bad enough where they felt uncomfortable, they wouldn't be here.
My final thoughts
I understand the intent of the article, however, its execution was careless. One might say it was preaching to the choir, but to me it had the unintended side effect of also having the preacher backhand all the ones singing and blaming them for the flaws of the pulpit.
I believe the furry fandom in general is doing fine; we're trying hard to balance expressing ourselves freely and being considerate of those around us. To try and be ourselves, but let others be who they are. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but as the article stated itself:
Some furs are absolutely up in arms about it 'destroying our image'. Others are happy it got leaked. And a lot of us are like 'meh'.
If most of the fandom wasn't upset about the video, then why was writing an article about furries not being sexually accepting necessary?
The biggest worry of the so-called "furry police" is not that you're having sex in general, but that our public image will be overly sexualized, and that their friends who just wear costumes or draw art and are not quite as kinky will be hit by collateral damage if an ignorant society swarms in.
Our fandom is so far ahead of its time with sex and sexuality, it is also the cause of this very conundrum you see. The group has sort of become this bubble that's been mostly shielded from the outside fights about "morality". We have felt examples of stings here and there, but overall we have stayed the wrath of an outside world decades behind.
While I understand the fear that some fetishists have that they will be rejected in a fandom they were once accepted within, why should it be any surprise that some are scared that the outside world might reject them in the same manner? So I respectfully disagree with RubberGator. The fandom is well aware and generally accepting of sex and sexuality, the real problem is they are also aware of how much society is oblivious and generally judgmental of it.
However, there is a silver lining: I hope the repeal of DADT in the US is a sign that society is finally moving more toward our ideals of sexual acceptance. When they finally catch up, that is when these fights will end.
On the video itself, I must say it's probably one of the best unintentional works of art the fandom has seen this year. To me, good art stirs the pot a little bit, while still being tasteful. After articles continues to be posted on it and we ask ourselves about sexuality and the fandom, it certainly has done the job of inciting discussion – intelligent or otherwise.
About the author
Sonious (Tantroo McNally) — read stories — contact (login required)a project coordinator and Kangaroo from CheektRoowaga, NY, interested in video games, current events, politics, writing and finance
Comments
I wonder what it says about Flayrah that we published this response? :-)
For "cleaner" fursuit dancing, check out the Anthrocon 2011 rooftop session, featuring Mangusu? and friends. [furryne.ws]
Seems that one has more hits then the controversial video as well.
The irony as well here is that some of the moves found in the video were considered risqué gestures at some point in dance history. Mangusu has used things such as the pelvic thrust, strip tease (2011 talent show ), things that I remember news reports caused controversy when originally performed by Micheal Jackson and others during the 90s. There was even some movie in the 80s about the whole phenomenon, which is kind of what this whole thing reminded me of more then anything.
That's a well-written piece; but one bit I didn't get was where you said, "the real problem is [the fandom is] aware of how much society is oblivious and generally judgmental of it." - Why is awareness of things outside the fandom a problem?
I believe the suggestion is that they feel the need to adjust their own behaviour to compensate for it.
Probably a bit poorly worded, the knowledge of society isn't a bad thing as you can use it to adapt a middle ground, something I think our conventions, have been able to do rather well.
The wordings about the FNN article "preaching to the choir" and the sentence following the one you quoted about society moving in the right direction point to what I was trying to allude to. What we want to change the fact that the fandom sees society as a sexually judgmental element, and they only way you can change that is to make society itself less sexually judgmental so that the fandom sees no need to protect itself from it.
It's not an easy answer, it's tempting to just try and change furry, because we have more control over the fandom's behaviors then society's. But just because an answer is easy, doesn't make it the best one.
Ah, ok; my philosophy on the fandom shares most of your points and differs here and there. I agree with the "bubble" analogy, fandoms are partially about creating an agreed-upon sub-culture where members share an interest (in our case, drawing furry art, wearing fursuits, etc). The more it shifts from the quirky sub-cultural to the counter-cultural, going against the societal grain as a cultural statement, it becomes a delicate act of compromise - adapting to a middle ground, as you say. Furry fandom is first and foremost about anthropomorphic animals; any other spin we put on it is personal and secondary and the rest of the fandom doesn't have to necessarily go with it. Speaking personally, I want to see society improve its notions of sex and sexuality, but to me that's a separate concept from furry fandom... When I interact with other furries I don't expect them to carry my torches just because we have furry in common. Within the fandom, I like the open-mindedness. At the same time, if someone in the fandom is less comfortable with sexual topics then I'm completely ok with them too, I respect their boundaries if I can. In a fandom of differing viewpoints, consideration is key. However we're a fandom of so many differing takes on the subject matter, getting everyone to agree on what "balance" is, is next to impossible. (See the fandom's report card). Mind you I only have this view towards the online fandom. I think our furry conventions have done a really kick-ass job of finding and maintaining balance so that everyone there can have fun.
As the author of the rebuttal article, I feel that I must step in and clear up some of the confusion about the disclaimer; the Furry News Network did not write either of them. The first disclaimer was written by the author of the original article, Submitwolf, and is very biased indeed. The disclaimer written on the rebuttal article was mine. I wrote it as you see above due to the fact that there was and will be extreme amounts of controversy about this article. I did not want to someone thinking that I had been put up to it by FNN, so I wrote the disclaimer as such and removed FNN from the equation.
One of my biggest concerns was the fact that so many were actually approving that this video leaked out. It is alarming to me that many furs don't care what the public thinks of us at all. Granted, myself included, 90% of the furry population does not care what the media thinks of us. However, one has to step back and look at it as if they were the parents of a young 13 or 14 year old who just discovered the fandom. If the very first pictures that show up on Google are of a deer bound in leather and the first video is Room 366, what does that say about us? Effectively, it screams to the masses that we are nothing but sex-crazed, animal costume-wearing nut jobs. Is that what those furries really want? I would pray not.
I hope that makes things a bit clearer. Thank you for your time.
Rainstar
For the fandom, by the fandom. Furry Journalists Forever.
Tell them to then Google Rick Santorum, Google isn't necessarily the world's accurate information provider, sometimes it is hidden behind internet memes, lies, and running jokes. That is something that needs to be educated to the world as well.
Heck if your parents are republicans and they are saying "Well I looked furry up on Google and see that it's a bunch of sexual deviancy." Santorum would be an excellent card to play in rebuttle.
Go to Google images and type in "Human", you will receive an image of our chromosomes, is it fair to say that a human is equivalent to a chromosome, or is the chromosome merely a part of the entire entity of a human?
As far as the disclaimer thing goes, I always thought things like that were the responsibility of the website itself, not the article writer. I'm surprised they'd leave that up to the authors themselves. I mean, it can't be a disclaimer if the people disclaiming aren't the ones disclaiming is it? Wouldn't that then require a disclaimer on disclaimers written by those claiming to disclaim for them? Thanks for letting me know about that, it's a good thing to know for future reference.
Exactly! Very well put my friend.
It is the same to say that if you were to find an apple tree with one bad apple on its branches, would you pass by the entire tree because of one rotten apple sticking its ugly head out? Well, if the mainstream media has anything to say about it, the ignorant (used in a courteous way, of course) masses would avoid that tree at all costs.
For the fandom, by the fandom. Furry Journalists Forever.
Yeah, but ...
I don't know if you know this, but some furries actually do have gay buttsex.
And, also, we've actually got a much cleaner first page than Rick Santorum.
A better comparison would be fchan to 4chan; both are completely fucked up.
That was kind of my point, humans do have chromosomes, but not every human's chromosomes look like that, unless Google is saying that people with Down Syndrome aren't human.
My point with the Santorum thing was it's a good way to be dismissive of republican parents who would simply believe being furry was equal to the first thing they received on Google. It's about keeping it simple and tailoring it toward your target audience. Obviously the Santorum comparison would be oversimplified for talking within the fandom.
Whoah, that was quick; I'm not used to abusing the edit button, so you got my post stuck in the first draft.
The joke needs more work, and I hadn't even worked up a point yet.
Better get cracking. It'll take ages to find a straight man to feed it to around here.
Well, prayer gets into yet another bundle of issues . . .
The phrase "you'd care less about what people thought of you if you knew how little they did" springs to mind. For example, hotel managers do have their image to keep in mind . . . but they also care quite a lot about making money. What they want is plausible deniability (which is why problems arise when non-socially-accepted activity becomes undeniable). Most conventions draw a line between what happens in rooms vs. event space, which works out pretty well.
As for the 13-14 year old . . . should they realistically be participating in furry activities at that age? Drawing stuff for your friends is one thing, but would you want them to be dropped off at a local furmeet by their parents? This is a welcoming community - but as I see it, it is primarily for adults. Seeing the occasional 12-year old running around in a fursuit (or uploading to FA) is neat, but it raises a number of complicated issues for those who become responsible for them.
I would hope that parents of children who feel strongly about belonging to the fandom would bother to research the truth - but part of that truth is that there really are people who have sex in fursuit/boink stuffed animals/go dirty dancing at the discos, costumed or otherwise. Not all aspects of the community are for everyone, and while tempting, it's a bad idea to mislead others into thinking that it's an entirely family-friendly group. It only sets them, and the fandom, up for a fall when it turns out not to be true.
Thank you for the explanation; I have noted it in the article.
I find RubberGator's foul mouth tirade a typical of more the radical LGBT activist in your face demagoguery, mixed it with a good scoop of logical fallacies. The Room 366 video while cleaner the Lady Gaga,
is still a polish piece of propagandanoting unauthorized uploading of video.RubberGator engages in setting up a straw man with “squeaky clan furs” by declaring we live in denial of sexuality in the fandom. We do understand there is sexuality in the fandom but the fandom but not necessary a large part and no need to be overtly public and in your face about pushing exhibitionism. Furry fandom is not jut a mini Folsom Street Fair. As a furry who happens Christian defiantly no or have any right to speak for me.
He mentions Yaoi, Yuri and Hentai in Anime but leave out a very important fact: anime fandom consist of many genres that appeal young children who like Sonic on the 4 kids network to adults who like some erotica spice in their anime. In addition anime fandom knows there a place and time for adult martial but more than furries do not think eroticism and sexuality need to be expressed publicly: to whit, many amine conventions have strong dress code and restrict more adult shows to after hours. It not uncommon for a entertain group to have an all ages show during the day and a more adult show in the evening. Even with the presence Yuri and Hentai, anime fans are very down on fetishes expressed publicly. Until recently anime cons were hostile to a furry presence feeling the anime con hall is no place to express a fetish. I remember having to go toe to paw with Anime con staffer who suggested fursuits should be banned for con spaces as fetish gear. Ditto for Science fiction fandom and conventions were one can know about SF for kids to Erotic SF.
Second Rubber Gator uses a sweeping generalization to push is point; he can not say because some furries are sexually active, means ALL wish to be sexually active in a fursuit.
Another question is why all this now; is it because furry fandom is trending younger with 12- to 14 entering and furry parents with their children. I do find the hostility to young ones in fandom very troubling.
I thought this was a very well written article, and it pretty much already answered all the things I would have said.
What I will say is that I see your point about sexuality between furs and society but I don't think that's a reason to hide it. I think it's a reason to push for progress. If society is lagging behind someone needs to move them forward. Currently the only people that really do that are those that are specifically part of a sexual group or supporting them. BDSM has a certain amount of public image but otherwise it's the LGBT group that pushes for more acceptance. Furry might get labelled as sexual if we try push a more open sexuality but I think it's worth it. I don't want the world to continue lagging in such thoughts when we could be helping. In addition those that are likely to get the wrong image are those people who you probably shouldn't be paying attention to anyway.
And on the video itself it wasn't even all that sexual. Sure they were rubbing up against each other but as has been pointed out that's the same sort of thing you can see on TV at any hour of the day. The only difference was that people were wearing fursuits and suddenly that's all terrible. People need to grow up and we can't help with that if everyone is so scared of someone accusing us of something.
Oh and thanks for the new BDSM link. Could be interesting. ^^
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Like bondage?
"Hey, cool, me too!"
*highfives*
Like furry?
"lolwut."
*over-reaction from both sides, multiple articles written on furry news sites*
I wasn't going to bother watching the video, but then watched after seeing several mild descriptions. Holy crap, talk about a case of the drama being more severe than the original trigger. When people talk about the excessive sexuality with furries, I often think of how tame they appear compared to a stereotypical frat guy. Considering there are quite a few college aged furs around, many are on par with non-furs of the same age. But what was involved in that video looks on par with things I've seen in high school videos, used for class projected, shown to the class for grades... It is like many people don't realise how much sexual references come up in a typical crowd these days (or even for some, forgot what themselves and their peers are/were like).
Drama is human nature, but such discord like that make me feel especially annoyed over furry sex drama. I question whether anyone should have responded with articles like this, and those that are being responded to, regardless of how well written. It is not that I am saying there isn't room or a need for serious discussion on some issues, but just wondering why attach it to this mess? It is a difficult enough subject to broach, but now with emotions higher and extra hyperbole pulling things down.
I agree. It really was a huge overreaction. I'm conservative with open-mindedness towards people, hobbies, etc. (then again, who isn't in the fandom?) and while that's not the sort of thing Mum and Dad need to see, it isn't in any way worse than some of the smut appearing "in a theater near you." If anything, it shows that those of us in the fandom (even the "squeaky clean" ones), are more mature (not in the "Rated M" sense) toward sexuality than many other groups.
Is the image of the fandom dirty? A bit, but going back up to what Sonious said about the Google search, think of what it used to be like before they had the Smart Filters. As far as algorithms that prevent images like that, it makes sense why they don't catch furry porn very well since it can't be based off of the quantity of skin tones or suggestive poses due to the uniqueness of every creature in the fandom.
To Google, a nude leopard girl looks no different than a Pomeranian, a fuzzy shoe, or another Pomeranian (strangely not to another leopard).
I'm now convinced that Google really likes Pomeranians.
It's funny you should bring up frat parties, because this whole situation kind of reminded me of two editorials that happened at my college.
There was a black student organization, and they had a party. Apparently it got a bit riske because there was an article written by a black student about how the party made blacks look bad. My first question was, hold on a second, whites have never had outrageous frat parties?
Then there of course was the response which was even more offensive. Another black student claiming the one who wrote the previous article had, and this was the exact phrase. "Sold themselves out to the white man" by complaining about it and making a bigger deal out it then necessary.
Well, you know what they say: "History has a tendency to repeat itself." ;)
>be a cat person
>fuhreh bondage site
>AsylumCat.com
;_;
We are making an indie film that explores sex and sexuality within a furry couple.
The film is called "Not Safe For Work" and you can be a part of making it happen!
Check out this link, to see some awesome videos!
www.nsfwfilm.com
Great, more controversy to add to an already shaky reputation!
All the "members" who are mostly artists/writers just sit in the corner and try not to attract any attention to themselves. But they are the ones people should make documentaries about.
That's boring, though.
Not to me!
You'd want to follow some Average Joe to work, then home as he eats his dinner, and maybe watch as he lurks Second Life for an hour and posts a journal to FurAffinity simply because he's a furry?
I would like to see and hear an artist talk about his/her art.
What's weird about that?
Maybe if it were several artists...but honestly, if I saw that with just one or two artists, even furry artists, my thought after watching that would be, "Okay; so what?"
If you are a fan of something, you ARE interested in that.
Obviously not necessarily; it isn't true for me.
(I'd probably watch it though, if only to gauge how much drama it would cause.)
It is not necessarily boring, just more difficult to make interesting. Sensationalism is just a crutch to lazy or desperate journalists and writers.
I don't like it, mainly because discussions about sex and sexuality don't need to be "NSFW".
Yes, they are taboo topics, but merely talking about gays or transgenders in and of itself should not be deemed "NSFW". If you have gay porn, then yeah, that's NSFW, and to me that title makes it seem like it's more about porn then serious discussions...
What a lot of fuss and bother over nothing. There are no private bits hanging out in the video. It's no worse than a lot of videos shown on MTV or Country Music TV. The message is not do Furries know sex exists or not. It's that Furries are adults and are prone to adapt the artistic idea of anthropomorphic animals to adult concepts. At this late date this is news . . . to anybody?
No, what it is is an opportunity to reopen old conflicts about who should own the fandom, fetishists or the common fans. But the fandom as a whole has generally agreed that both should live and let live – that which you don't like you should not go looking for or shove in anyone else's face. All those making a big deal out of this video and the resulting controversy are the ones hurting the fandom.
If you ignore it, it's yesterday's news by tomorrow. But if you make a stink about it, it can be creating problems for us a decade in the future.
The video exists for those who like it. Those who like it should have it. The rest of us do not need our attention directed to it. We have better things to be looking at.
Still, I could not make myself watch more than a few seconds.
Ewww!
I don't know if it has to do with "ownership" of the fandom, or just the fact of feeling welcome in the fandom.
The thing of the matter is, when a group is large enough, you're not going to be liked by everyone in the group. Even getting rid of fetishes, there are probably some plain vanilla furs that don't like these other plain vanilla furs (an example in one word; "Brony"). This happens in all groups, which is why you always see splinter groups. An outsider is less likely to note the splinters because they're not a part of the group. I know many atheists that don't know the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic. Likewise I know a lot of theists that don't know the difference between an atheist and and agnostic. Most of the time they see them as all one big group.
I think most furs understand that social dynamic, that there are a variety of sub-groups within the culture, however there are some that see us the way outsiders tend to view a group, and they do so because they want to be accepted by outsiders. Thus the reason they try and make the fandom as much towards their tendancies as possible.
You can create a leaderless group, people will paint you how they want to paint you. I think if you want to convince the "99%" of that, all you have to do is now point to the "99%" (Occupy Wallstreet *cough*)
The problem is looking at the fandom as if it was some kind of organized, or even semi-organized political entity. It's not. That's why the occasional campaigns that get run every once in a while to get us all thinking one way never work.
When these discussions come up, people are always drawing parallels to political groups, civil rights groups, even financial groups. All that is wrong. We don't compare to any such entities. We're a fandom. And though some of us would like to think we’ve become more than that, we haven’t. We’ve become a bigger, more inclusive fandom than we were initially, but we still remain a fandom – a collective of people who like certain things involving the common subject of anthropomorphic animals. Not a group of people who can be motivated to march on Washington to effect social change, nor anything else of that nature.
On the contrary, even as fandoms go, we are more divided and in conflict with each other than most. We also generally resent anyone attempting to assume a position of leadership. So we are devoid of power to affect anyone but each other. And even that power is limited to making the community unpleasant for those who don’t agree with us.
Fandom is a dirty word in the mundane mind to begin with. Some fandoms, such as sports fandoms, are more tolerated than others. But we're a cartoon related fandom. Whether we were squeaky clean or not, we still wouldn't be due any respect in a mundane mind that sees all forms of fantasy indulgence as an indicator of retardation.
But the truth is, a lot of the mundane minds sitting in judgment are deficient in perspective or awareness, making them easily prone to prejudicial thinking. And we have no power to fix that, no matter what we do. You can't educate a large segment of the human populace that doesn't want to be educated. We can, however, get used to the idea that we can't change them and stop worrying about how they perceive us.
It is only important how Furries perceive themselves and each other. And we have never had a very good self-image as a group. This initially results from the way we know we are perceived by the mundane of mind - those who have no patience for fantasy of any sort. But it then gets distorted as we go about pointing fingers at our sub-groups and saying, "It's your fault that the mundane of mind disrespect us." When, in reality, they would disrespect us whether any sub-group existed or not.
Our sub-groups then get defensive to the point of billing themselves as the whole reason The Furry Community exists – totally forgetting that a community is not one thing, but a coming together of many things. And no single one of those things is the main purpose of the community. Yet, those who speak the sense of all living together with mutual respect get drowned out in the fury of the drama, or just plain steamrolled over by both of the opposing sides.
A fandom is an even worse environment for that kind of politics than a normal political arena. Well, nothing is required to make sense in a normal political arena either, but in a fandom arena all recourse to common sense is just chucked right out the window at the outset. Fandom politics is not about right or wrong. It has nothing to do with what is best for the community as a whole. It is all about who can yell the loudest or do the most eye-catching grandstanding.
Furry is the only fandom that has this illusion of itself as a political entity that in some way grants power to individuals or ideas via the collective will of its members. Furry Fandom possesses no power to grant to anyone. It is just a bunch of people who like anthropomorphic animals for one reason or another. No further agreement or unity of any kind is intimated.
The reason Anime Fandom doesn't have these problems is that it does not perceive itself as a venue of power. Nor does it go after the respect of the mundane of mind. It knows it exists for the adult indulgence of frivolous fantasy and does not try to make more of itself than it is.
Some Furries, myself included, have a tendency to try to elevate the fandom to a venue of high art, which for the most part it is not. Others try to elevate it to a political platform for civil rights issues, which again it is not. Some use it for a venue of bringing things out of the closet – things that belong in the closet, which they falsely think makes these things seem respectable, but in reality just makes them look stupid as individuals. The rest of the fandom then makes itself look stupid by acting like the idiot behavior of individual fans or sub-groups reflects badly on us all, thereby turning the spotlight on ourselves to be judged by the mundane, who are geared to think the worst to begin with.
When an Anime convention is covered by the media, Anime fans come off as fans there to enjoy something they like. They do not intimate there’s more to it that can’t be spoken of in polite company, even though there most certainly is. Mundanes then see a fandom acting like a fandom, turn off to it, and look the other way.
When a Furry convention is covered by the media, they hear that it is a fandom. But a fandom for what? They are not quite sure. If it is a fandom for mascots, why doesn’t it say so? If it’s a fandom for cartoon animals, the absence of recognizable cartoon characters is conspicuous. There are flags going up right and left to suggest there is more here than meets the eye, or something they are deliberately not being told. This forces them to look closer than they normally would – to actually take an interest in learning something about the fandom, where as they would never feel the need to learn anything about Anime.
And what is there for them to learn? A look on the internet will quickly turn up a lot of Furries fighting with each other – some of these battles being 10 years old, bringing up subjects like tentacle rape that were directly introduced to Furry by its association with Anime. But still, they never had to look hard enough at Anime to learn of such things. So they assume that every disgusting thing Furries fight about was something Furries invented. When, in fact, just about all Furry controversies were imported from elsewhere and exist in just about all the other fandoms. But we get blamed for them because we demand the scrutiny which gets them observed.
Anime Fandom doesn't turn the spotlight on itself by constantly complaining in public venues how bad segments of it are. That's the only difference. Anime fans know that the vandalism of an elevator is the LOL of the moment to be just as quickly forgotten. Furries will still be swearing over it in the faces of the mundane 20 years later, drawing everyone's attention to "How bad things have become in the fandom," as if this was something that happened every day.
So, we deliberately go out to peak the interest of the mundane media. They come in looking for how bad it is. They see a video of a bunch of furs doing an imitation of a common MTV video. It's totally alien to their experience and makes them scream "OMG," even though it's generally harmless.
Actually, it's at worst stupid, at best cute. But to the mundane mind stupid is good for a LOL and may be passed over. Cute, on the other hand, is offensive to the core of the mundane mind. Cute represents everything that is impractical and immature. So it does no good for me to point out that there are no bits showing in this video, or that it's just a common modern music video with fursuits. The fursuits are cute. They attempt to evoke an emotion in the mundane mind that the mundane mind is conditioned against. Of course they're going to be shocked, even offended.
But, again, Anime Fandom makes videos too, just as shocking on parallel levels to mundane minds. But mundane eyes never see them, because the fandom doesn't go out of its way to spotlight them. Anime Fandom knows what the fandom makes is appreciated only by the fandom. It doesn't demand that anyone else look at it.
Furry has to be the only fandom that doesn't get that. We're the only fandom that climbs up above the heads of the other fandoms and shouts for everyone to hear, "LOOK AT US. WE'RE WEIRD!!!!"
Oddly, in comparison to the other fandoms, that one thing is the weirdest thing we've got going. We're the only fandom that feels itself so obscure that it's willing to shoot itself in the foot year after year just to remind people that we're here and we'll do anything to get attention, even to the point of irreparably smearing our own reputation.
The only reason I care about that at all is because it inevitably gets in the way of the fandom's ability to function as a fandom for anthropomorphic characters. During the 10 years or so that I've been active in The Furry Community, I've spent way more time writing essays on this subject than I have finding anthropomorphic characters to be a fan of. It's tiresome and unproductive. It's not what I came into this community for. And I'm sure most who leave feel the same way. They're not going because they stopped liking anthropomorphic animals. They leave because they found we don't function as a fandom for such. We fill their lives with drama instead of anthropomorphic animals. And who needs that?
We build up all these high expectations that the fandom is going to produce all these things fans want that the mainstream media is not producing, and we don't deliver. All the energies that are needed to deliver what we promise go into this nutty drama stuff that we've made ourselves world famous for.
Furry Fandom has failed utterly at its initial goal of promoting, expanding and gaining respect for the anthropomorphic arts. And this is why. Our work is not good enough to get us attention for our creativity and artistic ability. So we've got to have the drama to get the attention we crave.
But even that attention we don't deserve. Because, truth be told, we fail at being shocking, too. If they were of a mind to, the other fandoms could out shock us easily. Heck, Anime has a whole sub-industry of school girl rape videos that makes cub porn look like the harmless cartoons they are. Otaku get arrested and sent to jail for owning that stuff. But you'll never see an Anime fan jumping over the heads of the other fandoms and shouting, "JOIN ANIME FANDOM. WE MAKE STUFF YOU CAN GET ARRESTED FOR!!!"
I'm genuinely weary of coming to sites like Flayrah to see what news of new anthropomorphic titles there is, only to find more stupid drama. But I wonder, if they banned drama posts and limited articles to news of genuine anthropomorphic entertainment, would there be enough content available to keep the site going?
After all this time it has become quite clear to me that all this drama is meaningless and of no consequence. Anthropomorphic animals exist apart from the fandom, as they always have. And their popularity continues to increase, in spite of everything we’ve done to taint them.
Mayhap a new generation will assume control of this fandom that is more concerned with advancing the anthropomorphic arts – one that will take everything we purport ourselves to be seriously and bring the original dream to fruition. Or perhaps we will just disintegrate in a flurry of confusion, without enough of a sense of purpose or identity to keep us glued together as a community.
But we could at least have the sense to stop stating the obvious as if it was something shocking. In The Furry Community we tend to be adults. Adults tend to know that sex exists. In fact, sex tends to influence the type of art adults find appealing. None of this is news to anybody. And it does no good to any of us to give others pause to stop and think about anything so obvious, as if there were anything uncommon or unnatural about it.
"Some fandoms, such as sports fandoms, are more tolerated than others."
Try telling that to this Phillies fan or this soccer fan or heck let's just take soccer in general.
I think what we can learn from this though? Both the perps and the victims were sports fans, not "the general public". So "tolerated" is a relative term. Sports fans HATE other sports fans apparently to the point where they could end up killing each other. I haven't seen a furry kill another furry over being of a particular sub-interest yet.
If the general public sees our tolerance as odd, maybe it's because we're not killing each other enough? Then please, let them see us as odd.
"Mayhap a new generation will assume control of this fandom that is more concerned with advancing the anthropomorphic arts – one that will take everything we purport ourselves to be seriously and bring the original dream to fruition. Or perhaps we will just disintegrate in a flurry of confusion, without enough of a sense of purpose or identity to keep us glued together as a community."
Right, and what it art without generating controversy, without pushing the boundaries of expression and speech? That is the human aspect of art. It's not to fit into the niche that you art teacher tells you you must do. It's following your own inhibitions. This video did that, and though it wasn't meant for public eyes, as I states it's a good piece of art. If what you say is true we shouldn't have to worry about "keeping us glued together". People will come and people will go. New people will be born, and others will die.
I think trying to think about what people feels, how they react, knowing opinions on boths sides, and then thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of both sides is the best way to come to the best conclusion. This article was clearly marked editorial. If you did not wish to read those kinds of articles, you did not have to read past the title. If you don't even want to see the title, I think that is something that should be incorporated into the site. Newspapers keep their entertainments sections seperate from their opinion ones. Furry news doesn't occur often enough that it was probably seen as necessary to have sperate areas such as that, but if it helps people find what they are looking for then it's a good thing.
Trust me, I don't wish to throw this article at people who don't want to read it, just as much as people who don't want to read it don't want to read it. I don't think forbidding these kind of articles from Flayrah is the answer, as there has always been these kind of articles in the past. Certainly I don't think the review articles should go either, as we have a group of people dedicated to those and they do good work. Perhaps there is a happy medium where these sections are kept separate from one another. Or do it like how IB makes it so you don't have to see art you do not wish to see.
"But we could at least have the sense to stop stating the obvious as if it was something shocking. In The Furry Community we tend to be adults. Adults tend to know that sex exists. In fact, sex tends to influence the type of art adults find appealing. None of this is news to anybody. And it does no good to any of us to give others pause to stop and think about anything so obvious, as if there were anything uncommon or unnatural about it."
I agree with this, which is why I had written this article, because an article on FNN had stated that the fandom were not adult to know that sex existed, which was the point. The thing is, and as annoying as it always is, things that are obvious to one person, are not obvious to another. Which is why I felt the response was necessary, to "state the obvious" that the FNN editorial missed. And when this subject matter was of "current event" this article had 5 out of 5 starts. I have only recently received two 1 stars on it, because it remains on the front page long after people had stopped caring about this.
My meaning was that sports fandoms are more tolerated by the mundane of thought, not by other sports fandoms. Indeed, sports fandoms may be the craziest of all, short of war and politics fandoms, which do not call themselves fandoms, but are fandoms none the less. The human race is just crazy. In the grand scheme of things Furries just can't compete on the craziness scale. But that won't stop some of us from trying.
Also, I said nothing about Furries pushing boundaries and generating productive controversy. If we actually did that with any consistency, I wouldn't think Furry Fandom artistically impotent. But, in 30 odd years, how often have we come up with a Maus? Those things are the exception, not the rule of our productivity. You actually saw a great deal more of that stuff before we banded together as a community than after.
I don't necessarily not want to see something because it's an editorial. It could be an editorial on something productive. I tend to read editorials like this one out of that old compulsion of damage control, or in hopes of contributing to balance. But that is just an old reflex that I try to avoid, without too high a degree of success, obviously. And I always feel dirty after responding to one of these things. I don't know if it's because I think I ought to know better by now, or if I just feel like it's an unforgivable waste of my time to be writing Furry essays when I should be writing Furry fiction.
But that’s the whole problem with the fandom in a nutshell. Too many of us applying ourselves to these pointless discussions when we should be about the business of creating something genuinely artistic, or at least enjoying something genuinely artistic that somebody else has created. I can’t for the life of me explain why I’m here doing this, when I could be on Ozfox catching up on Faux Pas.
In order to be artistic one has to have experience, sometimes in things that are pleasant and sometimes in things that are not so much. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, perhaps this article was a waste of effort. The person who wrote the article on FNN probably didn't read it. The people here already knew this stuff already, but at the time of its writing I did feel it important.
To be quite frank, I read the article and felt insulted. As I stated, I felt as if we were slapped in the face for letting others be themselves just because a few people got angry. Clearly the FNN article might not have been directed at every fur, but when one says the word "furrys" you have to be careful, because then you impliciately talking about and to everyone. I covered this back in 2009.
And in all actuality not EVERYONE in the fandom is as tolerant as my own title says, but I in my opinion it feels closer to what is then FNN had presented. At the time I had written it the rebuttal article in FNN hadn't been published (though mine only got past the editing phase after it had been making it seem to come later).
The furry fandom I also think, is the only fandom where people are pushing at fellow fans to make something world renowned. Sure people make their fan fictions in all fandoms. But I think this is the only fandom where I've seen people actually EXPECT a fan to create world breaking stuff. All fandoms demand more of their content of choice, sure. But I don't think anime fans point at their peers and ask them why they haven't made the next "Spirited Away" yet.
That AAARRRGHticle from 2009 was very well-written.
Also, your old avatar was better (just throwing it out there... )
Anime Fandom does have that same creative ambition. Long before I got on the internet, when Anime Fandom was mostly pen palling, every one of my pen pals drew and was creating prototypes of the comics they wanted to create. Some of them appeared to be amazing talents.
But this was before Spirited Away, and the highest success an Anime fan could aspire to was an Antarctic Press release. And very few Antarctic Press releases made much of a dent in the comics market. So there was not this great expectation that there was a ton of money to be made in Anime creativity.
No one even considered making their own Anime, with the possible exception of myself. I did have some foolish notion of trying to sell some Japanese company on the idea of animating Spectral Shadows, but that was only one of many Anime based pipe dreams I was noted for back then.
Other fans were not so adventurous with their dreams. Just to complete a comic and have it published would be enough for them. Sadly, I don't know of even one who went that far. But therein lies the nature of fandom. Real life tends to intrude before dreams are achieved. Yet I still retain some of the characters my friends created and subsequently abandoned, with the intent of reviving them as part of Spectral Shadows, should I ever have the opportunity.
Furry Fandom creativity is not much different. The highest achievement a Furry could count on until recently was a Radio Comics release. And even that is gone now, leaving us only with self-publishing to fall back on. And one should not anticipate denting world awareness that way. Indeed, the fandom itself is probably unaware of most Furry self-publishing efforts.
Yet, there are a few crazies like me who still dare to aspire to a Maus, a Jonathan Livingston Seagull, or a Watership Down. But I wouldn't say I feel pressured by the fandom to push for such success. I think the fandom would rather I not think about such things as success and just concentrate on creating product for them to consume.
At this stage, the only way anything of world renown could come out of the Furry Fandom would be if there was a concerted banding together of Furry resources to create an animation company to bring our characters to life. The fandom needs to produce a Walt Disney with the passion for the interest and the genius to pull it together. And even I am not optimistic enough to foresee that happening.
Nah, we're just like Anime Fandom. We have our little dreams, little sparks of ideas and concepts. But the fandom provides nothing for those sparks to catch onto and build to a blaze that the world could see. Any pressure towards that end would therefore be misguided.
Instead, create great works for the amusement of yourself, your friends, your children. Most Furry works of world renown were written in that spirit, without the aspiration of great success. Then perhaps, if you are fortunate and your work is good enough, world renown will come to you in spite of yourself.
You know, you writing about how "there is no right opinion" is an opinion in itself.
Just saying.
Wouldn't the "opinion" then be called a "fact"?
What came first the chicken or the egg?
Normally I would say chicken, and write a wall of text explaining why.
But not today.
¯\(o_°)/¯
P.S. I do not get how could this fandom be compared to anime fandom. "They" like anime, therefore it is "anime fandom". "We" are the furry fandom. If the objects of our interest are sometimes so different, then why put all the people under the same umbrella? I mean, some furs don't even like cartoons.
I don't think in either case it's that simple. If they like AN anime, they are not necessarily part of the anime fandom, but just because they are part of the anime fandom doesn't mean they like all anime. Case in point: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/ratings-anime.php
Now, surely there are individuals who consider themselves anime fans who might not like Full Metal Alchemist. Or think the Cowboy Beebop should be above Full Metal Alchemist. Those are the things they disagree on, and trust me, they do so with fervor when they get into discussions. Same with us and our particular furry interests. Which shows or books we like.
"Our" care is 10 times more complicated.
And I am not buying the idea of "us" being completely disorganized and having very little in common. If that is true, why do "we" have Anthrocon and WikiFur? Why use the term "we" then?
And I am not trying to "alienate" people who do not like cartoons. What I am trying to get across here is the following: "if you have so little in common, make separate fandoms".
I guess I'm confused as to what how this post is an argument, I didn't say "we" have little or nothing in common, just saying that "we" are not identical in tastes. No one is, otherwise we'd be clones and even then clones might have different opinions based upon the environments they grew up in.
I never used the term alienate or implied someone was trying to do such.
I am only trying to make the same point every time I get the chance:
So many people with such differing views will never get along with each other.
Right, but being a furry doesn't mean you have to like every furry.
What people tend to do if they don't like someone is not interact with them, same with furries who don't like each other.
And if they both have their own circle of friends they will both still be calling themselves furries. Like Mormons and Baptists both call themselves Christians because they both believe in Jesus, they just don't see eye to eye on the other stuff.
In that effect the fandom has made its own "circles" in the past which we have given different names, it's just they both still use all tend to still use the furry title.
And thanks to this I just came up with the "Godwin's Paw": As a furry Internet discussion progresses, the probability of an argument devolving into "defining furry" approaches 1.
That is the odd thing about fandoms. I've observed it in both the Anime and Furry fandoms. People of differing views do get along much better than they would if meeting outside of a fandom, because they have a common interest that they are desperate to share, and are not willing to let little things like differing politics or religion get in the way of that.
Obviously it doesn't work for everyone in a fandom, and the positive examples of getting along do tend to get buried beneath the examples of those who never get along. But I theorize that it is not the differing views that keep some fans from getting along. It is more likely the belligerent nature of certain fans that keeps them from availing themselves of the middle ground a fandom offers. But this does not mean we should discount the good that is provided for those who only needed to stand on that common ground to have their social prejudices obliterated.
Not all Anime fans like cartoons either. Anime Fandom has the same expansive tendencies as Furry Fandom. So much so that Anime Fandom has come to encompass the whole of Japanese pop culture. And well you might find people at Anime cons who only like the comics, or the video games, or the J-Pop Music, or the costumes, or the fetish stuff. Oddly, at the point where I took my leave of Anime cons, some people were just there to buy weapons.
But, cartoons are at the root of both fandoms. It's why they exist, regardless of whether some people just use them for side interests which they make more accessible.
They also are compared because, in America at least, they can trace their origins back to the same community organizers. Namely, The Cartoon And Fantasy Organization which gave rise to both the Anime and Furry movements in America. And the 2 movements remained close for decades after that.
As a matter of fact, at my last Anime con in the early 2000's, it could properly be said I was only there to buy Furry comics, of which I purchased at least $200 worth.
Thus the two fandoms are often compared because they are siblings, and because of their many similarities of structure. The only real difference is the artistic concept, and that one is estranged from its commercial market while the other is exploited mercilessly by it.
But, regardless of these differences, or the various other things both fandoms have come to encompass, it can still be said that both are fandoms, populated primarily by fans. Comparisons are therefore drawn to determine if there is a significant difference between one fan group and the other, and if so, why.
Still, a fanDOM is a club of sorts, formed by fans. Unless they have enough similar interests, the club will fall apart.
Also, shoot my dog and call me Sally, I actually read your livejournal article on that topic!
It will fall apart, fandoms do every day. They lose members, they gain members. The core however, is usually what always remains. I have yet to see any fandom fall into nothingness. If you have an example, that'd be helpful, and interesting.
Hhhmmmmmmmmm.............................................
Errrrrrrrrrr.............................................
You mean you read "Confessions Of A Former Anime Fan?"
Yep.
Mister Twister, you are being an idiot, moreso than usual!
Theory of evolution; the first chicken, Gallus gallus, hatched from an egg laid by a member of a pre-chicken species (Gallus protogallus, or something), so therefore, it was the egg!
You know, the first time I saw fursuit porn was on Ychan, when I saw the RL (real life) section and wondered what in the hell that could be, so I clicked on it. Now, I'm supposed to add "and I then hit the back button as fast as I could," but I was on Ychan on purpose, so, not like I was totally shocked and all.
Strange thing about furries is we're the only fandom that seperates "fetishists" from "other fans;" if we're comparing furry and anime fandom, those guys jack off to hentai all the time, doesn't mean they don't appreciate the non-porn aspects.
The thing I'm seeing isn't so much "fetishist" versus "fan;" the problem I'm seeing is that nobody seems to want to admit 999.99999999 times out of a thousand, they are one and the same thing; the same guy who likes Disney's Robin Hood is the same guy who has a subscription to Pleasure Bon Bon.
Except that's a lie; only like one guy has a subscription to Pleasure Bon Bon, and he slips it to the rest of the Internet for free.
The furry fandom at its finest!
The dilemma works as a parable (is this the right word?):
What came first: the ANIMAL of the egg of said animal?
Also,...
>calling ppl idiots on the Internet
>2011
I must say, you have made the best point in this entire thread:
Sonious's old icon was way better.
I hope to God you were using the term "mundane" sarcastically.
But wait, I don't think you were, since you said they were imaginatively deficient for not being a part of a fandom.
-_-
Mundane is a pretty common word for someone outside of various groups, kind of coming from the "ordinary" meaning and usually without the various connotations of being lesser or lower. It can be an attempt to circumvent the "what is normal and abnormal?" debate and related connotations that calling outsiders "normal" might invoke. Although some people do take it too literally, that is usually just the most obnoxious cases.
How come Anonymous is always the wisest?
except when someone dies
You mean the founder of Apple computers?
No, he doesn't, and anonymous commenters should die screaming.
Just saying. :(
Anonymity is a tool, which can used for good or evil.
However, no one is truly anonymous, as the person doing the action will always know and have to live with the fact they did that action.
Oh, I agree completely that anonymous commenters are tools.
That was your point, right?
Also, I'm actually a lot meaner when I'm in a good mood, apparently.
Don't worry, some of us don't mind if you are mean in such a way or not. If posting anonymously because we care about discussing some point, without caring about who says what or building/sinking ego, then someone else reacting to the people behind the points instead is pretty inconsequential.
Dude, I was worried about Sonious' feelings.
You're a tool who can die screaming.
Of all the six main ponies from FIM, you, sir, are a combination of Pinkie Pie and Rainbow Dash. You are too busy having fun to notice you are hurting others.
(In b4 you tell me to go to Hell)
My Little Pony scares the living fuck out of me.
Then, I guess Japanese horror movies make you laugh.
Well, Godzilla movies are funny.
I hope you soon have an opportunity to sleep in a comfy bed in a room with ideal temperature, accompanied by your preferred combination of significant other, blanket and/or plush. In addition, hopefully your eventual passing will be serene, or if instead desired, filled with exhilaration while engaged in a impassioned, but risky activity.
You rock, Anon!
That's a good point, as I've seen people rate my other comments based upon other comments I had made in the past. Ironically I'm sure it was someone who posted anonymously.
But the thing is that while yes, in some ways anonymity does make people read things for as they are rather then the person behind it, it doesn't have that effect on everyone and in fact can have just as much a mistrust impact as a name being tied to it.
I mean, crossafflictions behavior toward all anonymous people is the very bias you're talking about. Because anonymity is not a "no identity" it is it's own identity which people can be just as biased to as our pseudonyms, which some people also have biases against (such as facebook).
As I said, it can go both ways. People can use it to say something worth while and just use it because they don't want to be tied to it (particularly if you aren't free to do so, such as a convention chair who doesn't want their opinion on some things being tied to their convention), they feel their reputation was tarnished in some way and don't want that getting in the way with the meaning of their words (that is easily solved without being anonymous however, just come up with a different pseudonym). However, it can also be used for nefarious reasons, such as saying something someone knows they shouldn't say at all but to protect themselves they post anonymously just to watch how the post they know is nefarious cause a backlash that they know is going to occur.
The trouble with posting anonymously is that all posts marked Anon tend to get grouped together as one entity. And though one Anon may write more intelligently and insightfully, you can't automatically distinguish between the intelligent Anon and the trollish one. Therefore, some readers may click the option to ignore all Anons. Or someone might reply to one Anon thinking it is another Anon.
This seems unnecessary to me, as Sonious and I are just as anonymous as anyone else behind our screen names and avatars. Folks just have a sense of a specific Anon to direct their comments at.
How much trouble is it for an Anon to create an ID to distinguish their comments from those of other Anons? It doesn't need to be elaborate or imaginative. Xyz123 would do.
If there is any doubt which anon said what, it is easy enough to just assume they are all different and each post needs to stand or fall on its own. People who have trouble understanding that and instead critically base their points on assumptions about people aren't really contributing much of substance either way in the end, hence are pretty inconsequential. I don't know how much of that a name change would help fix, although it might affect how hidden/buried those assumptions are.
I see what you did there.
Look, guys.
If you don't have enough respect in your own opinions to stand behind them, why the fuck should I respect them?
If you're an anonymous poster, you are either a. for some reason hiding; or b. too fucking lazy to put up a name. Either way, it doesn't exactly fill me with admiration for said poster.
And if you really think a single post in a sea of fucking posts is worth judging on its own merits, well, you have odd priorities.
Oh, the hypocrisy...
I think I actually made you mad at some point. I can't really be sure, but you seem to be slightly less flippant than usual. Maybe it was the parody of you in the original "die screaming" post?
You're not anonymous, you're okay. I genuinely like you. Because I know who you are. Because you are not just one post; you are many. You have a name. I know who you are. You sometimes say silly, stupid things, but I forgive you, because you I remember the times when you said silly, funny things, or even insightful things, and I forgive you.
You have a style. I can parody you, pretend to be you, even. See, even if you never log in, you still take the time to write "Mister Twister" in the byline, and that makes all the difference.
The last time I tried to convince you to actually write for Flayrah, you disappeared for like two weeks, and I thought maybe you had been scared off, and that made me sad, genuinely sad, because I would have missed you posting. Not your posts, but you.
Look, man, I want to you to know, I appreciate what you do here. You do contribute to Flayrah, in a way no anonymous poster ever could.
Because anonymous posters are a dime a dozen. You are ... you.
So thank you for being you.
tl;rd
Short version:
You are awesome.
How does ones mess up grammar in an abbreviation?
I dunno lol ¯\(o_°)/¯
Why should we care about your respect? If the name is such an important aspect of how you dispense respect, so much so you repeatedly derailed various story discussions over this, I'm not sure why that should be something to work toward. Especially considering I don't come here to stroke my ego, so I am not sure why it should be about respect, regardless of how it is awarded.
And watch out for false dichotomies, e.g.: if you are getting this worked up about anonymous posters, it is either a. you are trying to cause trouble; or b. what they say hits too close to home, and you give them enough regard to actually care.
My thought is that it is rather pointless for crossaffliction to be arguing, debating or even having a discussion with random comments that come out of thin air from nobody. It is even sillier for crossaffliction to care about the feelings of random comments coming out of the air from no distinguishable individual.
If you choose to be nobody, just random thoughts coming from nowhere, that's cool. But it's just as silly for random thoughts from nobody to be trying to argue a point or have an extended discussion or debate, because no one has any reason to believe these random thoughts come from a person, let alone the same person.
So, if you're going to be random thoughts coming out of nowhere from nobody, be true to that notion and don't argue or debate. Just hit it and quit it. Drop your random thought and let it stand, undebatable, because it came from nobody, and there is therefore nobody there to be reached with a response.
I disagree with your view that arguments must come from a specific, named person.
Is it necessary for a philosopher to attribute a position which they wish to argue with to a particular person? No; doing so merely serve as a shorthand for describing the position in detail. It may even detract from consideration of the argument, or hide the fact that the philosopher does not properly understand the position.
There are now many forums in which all participants are anonymous. Are the arguments which take place on them meaningless? I would say not. Real people are both reading and writing those arguments, and perhaps being swayed by them. The fact that they cannot be identified is irrelevant.
Remember also that around ninety percent of readers do not contribute their own thoughts. The world is always listening, albeit in silence.
This discussion is well off the topic, and as the post is now a month old, I suggest that it be concluded soon.
On the plus side, this discussion has finally killed CSI from the 'historical debates' list in about 8 months. About time...
In b4
"Are the arguments which take place on them meaningless?"
Yes, Green. They're all utterly meaningless. It's pointless enough having a whole internet full of avatars offering a point in every direction (as a point in every direction is the same as no point at all.) But the anons just get buried beneath it all without even a name to remember them by, let alone what they said.
It's a total waste for you and me to post in these things, because in the end who cares what is said by a couple of furs in passing on the net? It's in no way going to change the world. Especially since no conclusions or revelations are ever reached in these things. But at least we leave each other the memory of encountering each other. An anon can't even do that.
I probably don't get a lot of respect when I post in The Furry Community. Furs probably think, "Oh Lord, here comes that crazy longwinded bunny again." But, whether they think good or bad of me, at least they think something of me and have some sense of the weight they want to give my opinions. An anon can never build up any weight to put behind his/her words. It's just a random breeze blowing across the internet. Here for as long as it takes to read it, and then just as quickly forgotten.
Granted, anons do often give me an excuse to launch into full blown essays on different angles or totally unrelated topics. That’s good if they like me to rattle on as I do. But doubly pointless if they’d like me to shut up.
4 stars.
Where else would it come from? And I'm not sure where trust and belief come into it if no uncited facts are being dropped. If something questionable but important was given, in most cases someone would ask to back it up with more than a name anyway.
Well, of course if one comments and never looks back, there will be no one to reach. Yet if one does look back and remain engaged, then there is someone to reach. Seems kind of self-fulfilling.
I can sort of see how if one viewed arguing on the internet as some game that must be won, then they could be bothered by those that don't play, who can neither win nor lose such a game. Otherwise the issue appears kind of superficial and of little impact. Either way, some people seem to give too much importance to things that don't really matter in the end.
This anon must love to hear me talk. And I hate to disappoint. So here goes.
"if one viewed arguing on the internet as some game that must be won"
It is definitely a game that people play. But no one ever wins, except possibly by coming out of this nonsense with a new social contact or two, or by feeling like they added something to their internet reputation, or by feeling like they were able to torture the mind of another human being, which would give them a LOL.
Where would anon comments come from besides a person? Well, they might be coming from some crew of trolls. They might be coming from some LOLs board. They might even be coming from some psychologist or some such out to test the reactions of furs. They might be coming from anywhere. Maybe they come from outer space. Or maybe someone's family cat got to playing with the computer.
The thing is you just have no idea where it came from. So the idea that it came from a person, let alone a person who honestly holds such opinions, is always an assumption, never a fact.
4 stars.
Anonymous commentators are not attempting to live up to an image or "'tude". We do not care about getting brownie points with others in the group... or trying to make ourselves appear bad assed, rebellious, or edgy. Anon comments are used by trolls, it is true, and also by some members of this very subculture who are addicted to hating everyone and thing in it but know they would go down in flames if they posted too much under their known identity.
But the Internet is a bigger place than that. And you might be surprised at how many people follow topics or even subcultures anonymously, never create a persona or name for themselves within it, and may not even be directly interested in the topic. But they are intrigued by discussion about the topic.
Such people can (no guarantee) provide level headed commentary. For instance, this business about the word "mundane". That word has a history of being highly charged within the furry fandom, and a great deal of derision heaped upon it by furry fandom's own professional, and personal, troll squad. It is presumed to indicate furry fans advertising themselves as "magical" and "special" by the implied insult that non-furries are boring and worth less than they. But ironically, the in-fandom trolls and sarcastic crusaders don't seem to realize that furries didn't get there first. Mundane is a very common term and has been for decades, in everything from sci-fi and fantasy, to ren faire culture and the society for creative anachronism. There is no implied insult most of the time around the word. The word merely refers to the "ordinary" world outside the unusual walls of a given subculture.
People visiting faires and spectating SCA events even willingly refer to themselves as "mundanes" because it makes sense! It is considered humorous in most contexts.
In this context, the amount of venom and spite the word generates inside furry fandom is remarkable, even ridiculous at times. It may suggest though just how cut off and isolated furries and their lifestyle detractors are from other culture. Furry has sort of suffered this, being the first major subculture to gain most of its growth via the Internet. Simply put, tons of people discovered furry via the net, and it was their first, and perhaps only, exposure to anything remotely unusual compared to undifferentiated mainstream culture. Oddly enough, the people who dislike furry often fall into the same category - they know little of subcultures, and furry merely sticks out like a sore thumb to them because it's been made so visible.
As a result, both furries and their critics have an unfortunate tendency to believe they are, basically, the only uncommon people on the planet. Many furries would be truly shocked to discover how much the underpinnings of their culture are somehow based in other, older subcultures and fandoms that modern furry has seemingly no connection with. The DNA has been obscured, as in the pre-internet days, people would have to venture outside their suburban environment and into the wilds to discover unusual pools of culture. Typically, they'd find that these cultures pooled their resources or at least helped one another out, as outsiders sticking together. It is a reason why older furry fans are well aware of many other subcultures but internet-only fans are often oblivious to anything BUT furry fandom.
All I did was make a reference to Uncyclopedia.
You wrote a wall of text.
A GOOD wall of text, keep in mind.
This seems to be over-thinking things a bit, although it is too much to go point by point. You seem to treat the fandom as both unorganized/incoherent in some parts but the opposite in others, and I'm not sure I've ever seen much comparison between the fandom and political groups.
I'm not so sure there is as much difference with the Anime fandom as you say, although I mostly see the latter only from the outside. There still seems to be infighting about issues including sexual topics that gets dumped on outsiders sometimes, fighting for respect, etc.
I think in the end the main difference between the two is that others have more exposure to the boring side of anime via knowing more mundane fans as a friend or having seen more of the mainstream content. Otherwise the connection with outsiders of the fandom comes down to the same two parts: what the outsider was exposed to and the nature of the outsider. Someone who's first or majority of exposure to either fandom is via obnoxious but visible fans or having only seen some of the more extreme, sexual content, will of course have a warped perspective. At the same there are those that have a fairly wide exposure and awareness of a fandom, but don't care and concentrate on the more problematic, even if obscure, aspects of it. And I've watched situations where members of both fandoms argue with such a person that if they were better educated about the content of the fandom, they would see how their perspective is wrong. But in many cases that just digs the hole deeper, as person already had quite a wide exposure and has issues with the fandom for other reasons, possibly now including "fans pushing too hard for awareness of their fandom."
There is one significant difference between the furry and anime fandom, and that is in furry being a nearly exclusive do-it-yourself community. Sure, furries will cite every random piece of work that has a talking animal in it as being "furry" but the majority of professional, or commercial, anthropomorphic material is not made for furry fandom. Furry fandom is merely one of several groups that may create a following around it.
Anime is a fandom that is also synonymous with DYI, mind you - but it goes hand in hand with a tremendous amount of commercial material (and product) that provide more of a specific anchor for the anime subculture. You can be a very light anime fan, who partakes of none of the actual anime subculture or its scene, yet still be an anime fan - there is a wide variety of professional work to pursue.
Furries, not so much. Almost everything aimed purely at furries comes from inside the fandom. While this does mean it is highly targeted, so far the material also suffers from a shallow gene pool. Simply put, the average quality of furry work is very low - both technically and conceptually. Furry's reputation as a dark scene ruled mainly by fetishes has a lot of basis in fact. And because fetishes dominate furries, most furry creators simply create fetish work that is low quality in the sense it strives to do nothing more than cheaply titillate.
As bad a reputation as anime has for the various kink and fetish themed commercial product, it still does have a wide range of very high quality general audience material.
One problem furries labor under is that this creates a self reinforcing cycle. Poor quality of content drives away those who might offer better content and panders to those who desire poor content, and those who only wish to exploit that demand and nothing more. It's kind of like asking why the porn industry has never produced its Citizen Kane. The answer: because 90% of its audience wouldn't care, just wants more porn, and the creators in it either can't do it, or know there's no profit in trying.
That also in the end, affects the attitude of persons within the subculture. There is a great deal of self delusion and denial in furry about just what the culture is about. (And ironically, just as much delusional self hatred that goes overboard in the opposite direction. Geeks with low self esteem are their own worst enemy.)
It is one reason why anime fans are more accepted (on a very relative scale) than furries... because as much a some furries would wish it otherwise (and one does sympathize with them!), the average furry fan is even more of a social outcast than the average anime fan.
However, a caveat to all this must be that both anime and furry do plump the absolute depths of fringe, fetish, and strange in their fannish works - so the most outrageous / misfit fans in both groups are just about on equal footing.
Someone once said that furries should learn how to be Executive Weirdos rather than just plain creepy weirdos. The same advice applies to other groups like the anime folk, but due to higher quality material to work with and a wider variety of persons within its culture, anime simply has more Executive Weirdos than furry, and this helps its ambassadorial status with the mainstream.
"Poor quality of content drives away those who might offer better content and panders to those who desire poor content, and those who only wish to exploit that demand and nothing more."
You know things like Naruto and Inuyahsa are popular in the anime community... not saying, just saying.
10/10
Bravo.
You wrote exactly what was on my mind. I kind of suck at writing a lot, so thank you for doing that for meh :D
You state a common misconception. Furry has just as much a commercial side as Anime does. There is at least one Furry box office draw a year. Sometimes there might be 5 or more. Not to mention TV cartoons like My Little Pony and Video Games. And don’t forget novels. Plus Furry is much older than Anime and has just as big a back log of commercial titles for a young Furry fan to discover.
I was going to say the one thing Anime has that Furry doesn't have is a commercial porn industry. But I just realized that it does have one. You can find its venders at Rabbit Valley.
You state that the commercial product of Furry is not made to be sold to the fandom. True. Commercial products of every sort are made to be sold to anyone who’ll buy them, including the Anime commercial product. No vender of a commercial product has ever said, “I don't want anyone to buy this product who is not in a certain fandom.”
None of this has anything to do with the nature of either fandom and what they produce. Both fandoms create fan art of their favorite characters which ranges from "My God! You're so talented" to "My God! Whoever said you could draw should shoot himself."
Both fandoms produce a plethora of original titles that are of interest only to other fans. Both fandoms have a tendency to find that the best way to get the attention they crave is to draw porn. Both fandoms are attractive to fetishists.
So, when you isolate the two fandoms from the myth that one has a thriving commercial product and the other doesn't, it becomes easier to see that they are 2 sides of the same coin.
Actually, particularly in America, Anime is not the commercial success some think it is. The majority of the American Anime distributors have gone out of business, because the mainstream fad has run its course. Anime is also dying in Japan, but that's another story.
But now that Anime is being forced back into the underground in America, Furry may soon eclipse Anime in popularity. After all, Furry offers something Americans can relate to. Anime offers nothing that is not foreign and an acquired taste.
Still, even if Furry should enjoy a new wave of popularity in the mainstream (like the ones in the 1940's and 1980's) this will not improve the output of the fandom. Fans will still be working on shoestring budgets with limited talents. And they will still find that the best way for fans to get instant attention from other fans is to draw porn.
They will still act silly and attract LOLs. I expect the Anime enthusiasts who hang on will do the same. After all, there is nothing dignified about belonging to a fandom. Fandoms are supposed to provide escape and relief from the need to maintain social dignity. They are supposed to be fun and carefree, and fans are supposed to be able to laugh at their own silliness, because they know better than to take anything that happens in a fandom too seriously.
There I think we see the one sad difference that makes Anime the more successful of the two fandoms. Furries take things too seriously, and thereby create a situation where the fandom can not fulfill its purpose. But thankfully, I think we see less and less of that as the years progress, and Furries having fun are seen more often. Each new generation that takes over finds less and less to boo hoo about, and we enjoy more of the fun experience Funny Animal Fandom was always meant to be.
Can I just completely derail everything here and talk about something completely different that was inspired by the "anime is dying" paragraph?
Oh, I can? Well, thank you.
I'm going to compare Japanese cartooning to American, especially comics. There have been a lot of people saying American comics are all the same, which is true, they are mostly 9/10 some kind of superhero comic with the other 1/10 being the current fad (zombies, anyone?). Even those who are complaining about this seem to not realize they're part of the problem; was naming an autobiographical account of surviving cancer in comic form Cancer Vixen much stupider than that infamous Bam! Pow! Comics aren't just for kids anymore! newspaper headline? American animation is a bit more diverse, but it is still mostly kid's genres, with the rest being Family Guy/Simpsons/South Park/Beavis and Butthead fair that are working on the premise that anything shocking is ten times more shocking in animation because animation is for kids.
Often, these critics of American comics point to the Japanese manga and anime and say look at the genre diversity over there! There are apparently comics devoted completely to the game of mah-jong, which, what these critics are saying, is totally a good thing.
The thing is, however, and you know it's true, they all look exactly the same. They ripped off the cute look of early Disney in the fifties, then added some fetishistic elements in the seventies, and have not learned to draw any other way since. In America, animesque describes one way to draw a character; their is not an American way to draw a cartoon! Marvel comics may be publishing four, count'em four, core Avengers titles, but each title is drawn by artists that cannot be mistaken for each other, which cannot be said of four Japanese titles of four completely different genres!
My point is, the critique of American cartooning as "all the same," while valid, equally applies to Japanese cartooning, albeit in a different way. Americans tell one story that have a million different looks; Japanese tell a million stories that all look the same.
And ... that's the end. That's it.
So, furries, huh?
I heard they have sex sometimes.
I totally agree that both American and Japanese comics like to proclaim their diversity. But what it really boils down to is they've both developed a hundred and one ways of doing the same dang thing they've been doing for decades.
You'd think, from the way they both talk, that no one should be left feeling they can't find anything that appeals to them. But neither do the type of fantasy I like. They just expect me to be content with rehash of the same old superhero or samurai stuff while I wait endlessly for something that actually hits me where I live. I caught onto this several years ago and dumped them both.
I realize that the same is true of Furry comics. They promise diversity. They promise things that appeal to the adult intellect. But they endlessly rehash the same types of Space Opera, RPG based fantasy, Slice Of Life sit coms, pin-up collections and sex titles. And never, ever, do they get deep in a way that appeals to the adult intellect.
And worst of all, with both Furry comics and Manga, it's all in friggen black & white. And they tout this as if there was something preferable about it - something that's worth $5 or more an issue. And they wonder why they can't sell enough to keep themselves in business.
It would seem that professional markets are all about ruts. And they'll stick with those ruts and defend them, even as they're filing for bankruptcy, rather than learn how to do something new.
Well, I will agree with you that an animated movie is what will put furry on the map. Or a furry, I guess.
I've gotten beaten over the head by saying "furry novel is a bad idea" in the past, but a furry novel is a bad idea; if the "funny animal" style is employed, you defeat your own purpose, as the primary appeal is visual, and novels aren't exactly the most visual medium. The other options are "allegorical" or "hard sci-fi," but both have very limited appeal to most people.
Comics are at least a visual medium. But, as we've both pointed out, comics aren't an entirely healthy medium; I don't despair for them as you do. However, I am under no illusions that the appeal of the medium just isn't as widespread as comic fans would like to believe; I mean, even if there were more variety in comics, it wouldn't matter. They're still a niche medium with limited mainstream appeal.
And video games are still games, at the end of the day. The only genre of video game where its actually somewhat important what you play as is role-playing, which will never be the dominant genre.
I'm not saying if you want to write furry to stop writing furry; I'm just saying it's called a screenplay, people.
Potentially insightful view of the nature of comics as a medium, although aren't you the one that despairs the lack of furries reaching out to a wide appeal of anthropomorphic animals? Seems possibly analogous.
I'm sorry, but if you took 2000 scientists and locked them in a lab until they discovered the "single most appealing thing ever" they'd probably come out after about a year with some form of anthropomorphic animal.
It would probably be a kitten. With boobs.
If she had boobs, would she still be considered "a kitten"?
She could be a sex kitten.
Furry novels are actually quite common, just not advertised as such. They used to be best sellers. I'm not aware of how well the more recent ones have sold.
But, in this day and age, it is probably antiquated thinking to be concentrating solely on novels, comics or even videos. To reach the entirety of the Furry market, multi-media is the mindset to have.
So, I write in novel format because that's my particular talent. But I do so with the thought in mind that the novelization is just a blueprint for translation of the story into other formats.
I think that last line is probably right; write what you know, and all. It's just a starting point, however.
Changing the artwork to suit tastes other than your own's sounds like a lack of artistic integrity, but I am convinced that that is the point art becomes art.
Doesn't that describe nearly every creative medium in existence? Not every artist and creator is a great visionary and communicator. Very little will be novel outside of the exceptionally few, especially as we accumulate more and more topics in the "passe" categories that have been fleshed out and are difficult to find a novel aspect to.
Yes, this is true of most mediums. But eventually the ruts grow so deep that a truly original creator hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being taken seriously in his own medium. This is because constant repetition, decade after decade, dumbs down both the publishers and the audience to the point where they wouldn't know what to do with something coming from a higher level of creativity.
This may be a old article that I am replying too. But I can't find any open articles like this about Sexuality somewhere in the Fandom these days. "Sigh"
Sometimes I fear that, that side of the Fandom would get more forgotten and be subject to more of a Taboo, I worry a lot about this if people keep making stuff about "We are not like them in the Fandom, we only do this for clean fun." (In a way they say it as if it was bad if they were one of those) or something and that TV show about taboo promoting fear (I think) of the side that is basically normal and harmless as usual Humanity. >_>
By reading when society would get less judgmental and reading some of the comments, like one saying that the changing the way of how parts of the Fandom sees society as judgmental by making society less judgmental. From that, I do wonder if there is a way to make society better so the Fandom wont have to be judging other people in the Fandom or something. Of course, there's always that DADT thing, I hope that is a good sign also.
Good article though, I basically hope everyone that believes them self as a Furry in anyway can be accepted and soon, Society would not fear and act all threatening to others who are different.
I don't know if this is a good proper reply to this article though.
Society actually is more accepting than one might think. That the media portrays Furries as sexual is not necessarily derogatory. As the new sexual deviants in town, we're quite popular. And it doesn't hurt at all that we're funny.
Society is all geared up for defending GBLT people - making bad guys out of the people who persecute them. They see Furries as the comic relief in this "Freedom Of Sexuality" generation.
But as simple cartoon fans, or people who read novels with animal characters, or people who Fursuit for the pure fun of it, or draw Furry characters in the time honored tradion, or just about anything that would mark us as a "normal" fandom for a "normal" interest, the media just doesn't know what to do with us.
A Furry Fandom that is what it claims to be is not interesting to shock hungry media audiences at all.
The weird thing is we keep getting more and more popular as a kink, while the fandom focuses more and more on fandom type stuff. Apparently the fandom has learned to let the media and the outside world enjoy their fantasy of us. We're too busy enjoying the fandom to care. And the less and less we worry about what the outside world thinks, the less we care about what some of the more flamboyant Furries are doing.
You don't need to worry about the fandom creating taboos and becoming squeeky clean. It's a fandom for adult aged people. And adults tend to enjoy adult things. But one thing the fandom is not is a political platform for promoting various kinks. Some people try to use it that way, but they never have any great impact.
Basically the fandom says, "Do your own thing. If it looks interesting, I'll watch. If not, I won't." I seriously doubt we'll ever be a fandom that says don't do your own thing. The most we'll say is, "Please don't do that here. There are other sites for that."
But, even so, nobody likes their tolerance of things going on in the fandom being used to brand everyone as enjoying such things. Some people are here for just the good clean fun. And they deserve just as much respect as anyone else. So, one subgroup's thing is one subgroup's thing. It's nothing to worry about if others say they're not here for that.
Oh, OK.. Hmm my thought on your paragraph 3, when you quoited Normal, if you were saying the "Kinky or sexual" side of the Fandom is not normal, and not if you liked them that way, I would say it is because I believe its a part of how people can like or be interested in a normal way also. Sorry if I read that wrong...
"It's nothing to worry about if others say they're not here for that." Of course, I don't mind at all if people wanted to go in for the clean fun, thats not the main thing I worried about its self. (If you were replying to that part where I talked about the "We are not like the...") Its how people say it on populated stuff in away that if it were bad if one person who did "Do that stuff usually in private" wanted to get interviewed or whatever. I was kinda wanting to find away to not promote certain stereotypes without offending the ones who has them. (So later, people who does have the sexuality part can be welcomed equality as the ones who didn't.)
Anyway, one major thing I am concern about is the judging of what Furry is or something near that. Say, one guy started getting interested into some Anthropomorphic creatures in the sexual way, after that, he became a fan of them, he liked them because of how he did, now he wanted to call him self a Furry because of the whole history of him. Created his Fursona or more. Of course, he would still have Freedom to express, but he may get looked at differently as if it "wasn't" good, all because of his own history. Some may say "You are not really a Furry" for example. Sorry, I said this because in some parts of the fandom, I think I saw some stuff thinking its weird if so, and where they quoted Furry, etc.
Sorry if this is too off topic, it was a little hard to understand certain things you said. I did understand about most though I think. Its just the main problem is how others view others and tell others how to be a Furry, when I say it means whatever you want. And the other one where people outside freak out because of how he or she liked certain Anthropomorphic creatures.
Hmmm, well, I think it all boils down to you're worried because people on message boards and such like to talk a lot, and they don't worry a lot about whether they speak for the whole fandom or just for themselves. Thus you will often here some say they don't think this or that is Furry by their definition. But the fandom as a whole has pretty well established the definition of what is Furry, and it's a very broad definition that allows for just about anything that in some way involves anthropomorphic animals. Whether it's sexual or not doesn't matter.
The majority of the fandom community is aware of this. And for the most part the community seems rather proud of its reputation for tolerance and acceptance of people who like to do Furry in a unique way. Though there will always be the odd trouble makers who will make trouble for anybody who looks vulnerable. Just be aware that anything trouble makers say will almost always be completely wrong.
So, any time you come upon a situation where someone says "This is not Furry," ask, "Does it involve anthropomorphic animals?" If it does, it's Furry.
And if they say, "You are not a Furry because you don't like anthropomorphic animals for the right reason," remind them that the fandom makes no stipulation about right or wrong reasons for liking anthropomorphic animals. A Furry is a fan of Furries, no matter what their main interest in Furry is.
And if someone says, "I don't like that all things involving anthropomorphic animals should be called Furry," say, "Like or dislike what you want, but you don't own the fandom, and you can't tell other Furries what they may consider Furry."
There is only one way I know of to not be a Furry, and that is to have no interest at all in anthropomorphic animals.
Ha, thanks for the tip. ;) On paragraph 5 you did say some stuff from what I think sometimes. "They don't own the word of the Fandom, its a gift for everyone in there way." (I think of something like that.)
I guess I was worried mainly when I saw those messages is that it came to me like this: "Is this what the whole purpose of society "acceptance" for Furries is?" "To keep treating sexuality side bad and try to completely separate it or something?" In "order" to accept or something. Other then that, I would probably have not worried as much.
Thanks for some replies, I do hope one day in the future, the outside (Non-Furry Media) would not think negatively if one fan did have a side of that though.
I don't think normal society would ever accept the fandom in its entirety, because not even the fandom accepts the fandom in its entirety for the most part.
Society in general has always looked down on fandoms, at least as an adult interest. It's considered childish, and "normal" society does not accept adults acting childish.
Except for fandoms in sports, religion, or politics which are encouraged... and people wonder why people are generally nostalgic.
So wait, the outside may still not accept that one part of the Fandom? (Not even the inside?) Well, this can possibly be an issue for some reasons:
(Ignore this part if not)
One is that I and possibly others usually have an Internet side that some sort of lots of people enjoy, like me modding and stuff, I have videos and stuff, some people enjoy them etc. And if I or others were to express my self from what I or they would of liked for example further in that side, I would probably get bashed just because of that one thing if I were to have it. (That one side from what some claim to be "dark")
Two is that, lots of other fandoms that can have a interest like in this Fandom doesn't usually get bashed. I usually don't think its fair that the outside expects people to not have a "secret side" of of one fandom but yet, doesn't do that to other people who is a fan of something else.
___
Which is why I did kinda hoped this gets normally accepted by the outside without trying to hide the other part just like others in that moderate way. (Anime, Usually Sci-fi, maybe ponies, etc)
Unless I am not reading your reply right when you said "Its entirety". Also, if I was expecting everybody in the world do that, I was mainly just "expecting" (Or whatever) in a society (Most) people way or something near that.. I think I mainly say hope one day of society was because this article kinda had hope that society would move toward our ideals of sexual acceptance. (And other stuff I read in here) Then again, I may have not looked at that right...
__________________
@crossaffliction:
"Another bad troublemaker would say "there is only one way I know of not to be a furry, and that is to have no interest at all in anthropomorphic animals" to a guy who enjoyed a Looney Tunes short for the humor or Watership Down for the characterization but, you know, really doesn't want to be a furry, guys, really. "
Oh, I forgot, I remembered thinking that some who has a fan of anthropomorphic animals would still not want to be called a Furry, I would probably have to agree with that also.. As I usually say it can mean whatever you want, if you don't believe you are, even liked Looney Tunes, your not I guess.
And the last part @crossaffliction, hmm, I wasn't sure if you were talking about me. :P If it was or not, I didn't expect to cause any of it just now.
"Some sort of lots of people" is like something out of beatnik poetry. Dig it, man.
Also, I am just grumpy my replay of Oblivion is hampered by ridiculously bad loading times right now, so just assume I'm being mean and it may not be completely your fault.
lol, the part I said that: "Some sort of lots of people", I thought about that I think but I didn't really care. I was just kinda stressed out and worried so I probably wrote it too fast and not cared about "weird" sentences I say.
But I guess you were talking about me on that last part. But eh, some people might of known what I talked about I think. Also, you probably were not being mean.
Anime and My Little Pony are no more accepted by outsiders than Furry. I know as I've been a member of all these fandoms at various times. My Little Pony collecting is looked on as childish in the extreme. And Anime is looked on as too weird to be tolerated, as it's hard enough to understand why an adult would want to watch cartoons, let alone watching them in Japanese.
Even comic book fans are more often than not portrayed negatively in the media. And, as Furry has its roots in comics, a lot of that negativism spills over on to us. So, even if we hadn't had a block of bad media portrayals a few years ago, Furry would still be put down by the folks who fancy themselves as "normal."
That is to be expected, and there's nothing to be done about it. But one would expect not to be put down within the fandom itself. One basic function of a fandom community is to provide a safe haven where the interest can be enjoyed. Unfortunately, even in the Anime and My Little Pony fandoms, this did not work out in practice.
There will always be certain big mouths in fandoms who consider themselves critics, or think they are somehow the ultimate authority on the fandom, and will therefore start spewing venom at aspects of the fandom they personally don't care for.
This also is not something that anything can be done about. Fans will be fans. Any random segment of a fandom is bound to include a few dim bulbs who will start arguments and end up diminishing everyone's enjoyment of the fandom.
But once the fandom has been around a while, as Furry has, people get used to these stupid topics that keep being brought up that never amount to anything but trouble, and they just refuse to take them seriously anymore.
Two rules of thumb I've come to employ.
1. Don't worry about being accepted outside of the fandom. It’s nice if people outside the fandom like what you do, and it can happen. But, unless you mean to publish something professionally, you don’t need it.
2. Remember that critics do not represent the fandom at large. Just because one loudmouthed critic bashes what you do doesn't mean the whole fandom is against you. Just do what you do the best you can, and let your work generate an audience of Furries who appreciate it. Remember, you can’t please everyone. So please yourself, and don’t worry if what pleases you doesn’t please all Furries. As long as it pleases some Furries, you’ve got an audience. And that’s good enough to make it worth doing.
You might say, "but this is not perfect. Can't we try to make it perfect?" No, we can't. For better, but most often worse, Furries are human. And humans are noted for not being perfect. Therefore they can not create anything perfect. But they can create things that are beneficial and lots of fun, if one is willing to learn to deal with their imperfections.
Eh, troublemakers bad at troublemaking make trouble up; really good troublemakers find where the real trouble is, and use it.
For instance; a bad troublemaker would say "all furries like it in the ass from their dogs." Another bad troublemaker would say "there is only one way I know of not to be a furry, and that is to have no interest at all in anthropomorphic animals" to a guy who enjoyed a Looney Tunes short for the humor or Watership Down for the characterization but, you know, really doesn't want to be a furry, guys, really.
A really good troublemaker would point out that you think that's how the world really works, don't you?
Also, I have no idea what the original poster is babbling about. That is some messed up syntax, there, dude.
All being a Furry means is being a fan of anthropomorphic animals. A fan of anthropomorphic animals can say they're not a Furry all they want, but if they venture to knock Furries, they’re still in denial of the fact that they're knocking themselves.
No, they are knocking stupid people who say everyone and everything in the world is furry and don't understand why that pisses people off.
You're the fucking Borg over here; "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated now."
Your position is simultaneously annoying and scary. And you wonder why people hate furries.
Can't be helped. I see no sense in denying truth just because some people can't accept the simple fact that Furry = anthropomorphic animals = Furry.
I don't care if it's just some guy reading a Peanuts comic strip. If he's diggin' on it because of Snoopy he might not be a Furry himself, but he sure is diggin' on something Furry. And he's got no business being down on me.
If he’s down on me, it's just because of some prejudice he has that makes him think Furry means something besides anthropomorphic animals. And I'm not going to tip-toe around my vocabulary just because some folks can't get that straight.
It is possible to like a particular element of a genre while disliking the culture developed around a genre.
For example just because someone like Johnny Cash doesn't mean they now have to accept that they are a fan of the country music genre.
This is where the MLP conflict sort of resides, there are Bronies out there who are not furries because while they like a show that happens to have anthropomorphic animals it is not the anthropomorphic animals that gave them bias toward the particular show, but rather good story. The major question that has to be asked is, if the Ponies were not ponies and nothing else changed would they still like the show? If they said yes then they are probably not furry, if the they said no then, yeah kind of furry.
But even then, if they happen to like MLP but not anything else furry related, it's hard to tell them they are a furry if they don't believe themselves to be. That's the gist of these things, you can't convince someone they're something they don't believe themselves to be.
Yes, I've had problems with every fandom that has ever developed around anything I like. Particularly MLP fandom. But just because I don't care for the MLP fandom doesn't mean I stop being an MLP fan.
In the case of Johnny Cash, you may not be a country music fan, but there is no way you can come out and say Johnny Cash was not country. Like the guy who digs Peanuts for Snoopy may not be a Furry, but he can't go around saying Snoopy is not a Furry character.
Therefore, if you admit to liking Johnny Cash, you have admitted to having found something in country music you like. And if you like Snoopy, you've admitted that there is something Furry you like. There is absolutely no point at all trying to shift genre distinctions to your personal taste. What's Country is country, and what's Furry is Furry.
As for My Little Pony, there's a problem with the Brony excuse of, "We watch it for the story, not the ponies." I'm an adult MLP fan myself, and I'm going on record as saying that is total BS. The stories in MLP are pretty cartoon standard. I've been watching cartoons for 50 years. Kimba The White Lion had more involved stories 40 years ago. I could sit here all day pointing out cartoons that were more worthy of adult analysis than MLP.
It's not the stories, it's the characters. And the only special things those characters have going for them is that they're Furry. If they were human adults would not touch that show.
So, while I might have some sympathy for the Brony who says, "I only like one show with anthropomorphics. So I don't consider myself a Furry fan," I have no sympathy at all for the Brony who says, "I'm not a Furry because MLP isn't Furry."
Like it or not, all Bronies are in Furry territory. They're liking a Furry show for Furry reasons, no matter how they try to deny it to themselves. And when MLP is gone, and they go looking for something to replace it, how much do you want to bet the next show they end up obsessing over will also be Furry?
What the heck makes Bronies think they're so special just because they suddenly discovered the magic that we Furries have known was there all along? And why am I not politically correct if I decline to pander to their denial?
Why does MLP have this incredible effect on adults when Powerpuff Girls did not? If you want to know what's special about MLP, the history and allegorical qualities of anthropomorphics is what you need to research. Because that's what all these guys are responding to, whether they realize it or not. And it would be to the extreme benefit of all Bronies to realize MLP is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a heck of a lot of stuff out there that can affect them in the same way, some with even greater power. I do them no favors by helping them to enforce ignorance on themselves.
"As for My Little Pony, there's a problem with the Brony excuse of, "We watch it for the story, not the ponies." I'm an adult MLP fan myself, and I'm going on record as saying that is total BS. The stories in MLP are pretty cartoon standard. I've been watching cartoons for 50 years. Kimba The White Lion had more involved stories 40 years ago. I could sit here all day pointing out cartoons that were more worthy of adult analysis than MLP."
The problem with the argument you lay out here is that you forget that most of these people were not old enough to remember stories of 50 years ago and only have the media of today to base off of what is "good" or "bad" without much undo effort on their part to go digging into the past. They're basically saying in relationship to what you find today, it's good. I mean, there are some MLP fans that are fans because they just like Faust's work.
Then they wouldn’t be Bronies. They'd be Fousties.
Also, this Brony thing has nothing to do with how well MLP stacks up to other cartoons, old or new. It has to do with most of these Bronies had probably never watched that kind of show at all, because they'd been conditioned to think such shows weren't made for them and they wouldn't like them. But on a dare they actually sat down and watched one, and the first one blew them away with how much they liked it.
Thus the logical theory is that this Brony thing is just a lot of people taking their first step into a much larger world of cartoon fandom. And it also naturally follows that a lot of them are going to end up Furries.
Just a prediction on my part, but one I feel great confidence in. After all, that's how it started with me back in the early 80's. I just wanted to find out what a Smurf was. I never expected to become a Saturday morning addict.
No.
NO.
"Furry" is a made-up term to describe the real thing. It's like different cultures having their own word for "moon" or "cherry". You cannot force your terms into others. I chose to call myself a furry (but not in the middle of a crowded street) because I... decided to. No logic involved, just a preference; an opinion.
What you call yourself is a preference. How various types of characters are classed is not an opinion. It's a science with definitive laws. If it's an animal that expresses human intelligence, talks or has human facial features, it's a Furry. If you are a fan of such a character, you are a fan of a Furry. If you are a fan of many such characters, you are qualified to proclaim yourself a Furry, if you so choose. But that last one is a choice, not an obligation.
No, it is. It is an opinion, as countless shitstorms on message and image boards have proven me time and time again.
I feel sorry for you if you've had your deductive reasoning impaired by "shitstorms."
Why in the world would anyone need a message board to clarify the meaning of a genre name or a type of character?
We're talking about a literary science here. Not the random opinions of a bunch of Otaku/Furries on some message board.
Internet-based fandom.
Internet based BS. That's what I'd call tunnel vision. You only see it through the internet. So you assume it's internet based. But then you might have noticed more than half the stuff that gets reviewed on this site is not the product of any internet based fandom. There's a hell of a lot more to Furry than the few web sites you've visited. And most of it does not require the internet to access.
Oh, just for laughs, or to add to your confusion, you might like to check out my latest fandom essay. It kind of has to do with being a Furry without the internet.
http://symphonic-rp.livejournal.com/201470.html
Well, it depends on if you're defining the furry fandom as "people who choose to define themselves as furries" (me, Mister Twister) or "everyone" (you).
I have made it a point to keep track of the movies I review's commentaries notes of the furry fandom.
I assure you, the people making movies about anthropomorphic animals are completely unaware that an anthropomorphic animal fandom exists. If they are aware of furries at all, it's as people who wear fursuits, not people who like their movies.
Um, I'm sorry. But it costs millions of dollars to make a Furry movie. If I was a movie producer, and I didn't know for a fact that there was a huge fandom out there for it, I wouldn't make a Furry movie.
And they certainly wouldn't be putting out 3 or 4 Furry movies a year, progressively gearing them towards higher age groups.
As a matter of fact, Disney has never made Furry movies for kids. Disney's concept was to make movies the entire family could enjoy, because he personally detested children's entertainment that adults had to suffer through.
So, Disney perfected the product, and in doing so helped create Furry Fandom. And the Disney Company today is very aware of its audience. So is Dreamworks. They see all those adults who come without kids. They may or may not know some of them call themselves Furries, but they sure are making their next movies with the idea of luring those people back to the theater.
perri, you can not say My Little Pony = An American Werewolf in London = Peanuts = the /ah/ board of of fchan and expect to not sound like like an idiot.
The only way it can't be helped is if you are, in fact an idiot.
She seems rather intelligent, just naïve.
Only an idiot would know what the "/ah/" board on any "chan" site means. I think well of myself that I do not know.
A bad place to be.
Well, Perri, you have no right to judge the furries on fchan because they are furries and there are anthropomorphic animals on fchan's /ah/ board and you are a furry, so you must approve of it and condone it even if you don't like, except you do like it, becau anthropomorphic animals are anthropomorphic animals, so you love every furry rape thread and every furry fart fetish thread and, oof corse, every fart fetish plus rape thread, and if you think you don't you better grin and bear it because we're all furries here , and who wants to not be a furry with all the oth er wonderful furries ou there, am I right, or am I FUCKING right?
YOU ARE THE SECOND SMARTEST PERSON HERE :|
Already answered this in a comment below.
http://www.flayrah.com/3693/editorial-furries-are-already-well-aware-sex-and-sex...
Really, honestly, we should be clear here; I am not mad at you because I think furry should be an exclusive club.
I'm mad at you because there are very good, well thought out reasons why people would not like to be furries, and to call them furries is rude and uncaring, and I am mad at you on their behalf.
Oh, piffle. I've never met anyone in the real world who'd ever heard of Furries. Every time I have to give someone a face to face explanation of what I do, they've never seen anything like it in their lives. They have no pre-conceptions at all, other than I'm doing something fantastically mature with something they'd always thought of as being for kids.
You do not speak for the real world. Most of the real world is still not on the internet. And most that are are not reading these foolish discussions. They do not know what Furry means, and they have no reason to be afraid of the term.
But still, they know what they're a fan of. They may not have a name for it. But they know how they're interest defines it. And most of them would be pleased as punch to learn the term for that interest is Furry, if there wasn't always someone like you waiting to jump up in their face and fill them with terrifying misgivings about the word.
You don't speak for anybody but yourself. And if there is any reason why anyone should be afraid of the term Furry, you and your ilk are more to blame for it than anyone else, because you’re the ones who keep insisting that Furry is some kind of bad word that people need to be protected from. And in doing so, generate the abuse of fans that you say people need protected from.
Why don’t you go protect the Star Trek fans from the term Trekkies. That would make about as much sense.
The Dogwing's law of furry: Any discussion about a topic on a furry site will eventual devolve into the definition of what furry is.
The complexity here is one person is using "Furry" to describe "an anthropomorphic form of art" (a genere)
The rest is using "Furry" to describe a fandom that likes the genre.
We do happen to use furry in both context, it just takes, you know, understanding context to derive what a person means when they're saying it at different times.
I mean, let's say I was a Country Music Fan, I'd never say "I'm Country".
That's where all this confusion comes from, ambiguity.
What's wrong with "I'm Country," "Country Music Fan," or any old thing in relation to a popular segment of American music? I'm an Art Rock fan. That's a way more loaded statement than "I'm a Country Music Fan." But still it's not something I'd ever feel the need to hide.
Likewise, Furry refers to a segment of pop culture. It's not obscure or shameful. It's not universally hated either, as certain people would have us believe.
What it really boils down to is communication. When you're out meeting people, you've got to be able to tell them what you like. That's what these short fandom names are for. You won't very easily attract the interest of any other Country Music fans if you're ashamed to admit you're a Country Music fan.
Likewise for Furry. When you're out and about, and need to communicate your interests, you've not only got to be able to use the term, you've got to be ready with a short, to the point, explanation of what it means.
You've also got to be able to treat it like it was as normal an interest as anybody else's, if you don't want people wondering what you've got to feel so ashamed about.
This is social communication 101. I really don't get why anyone wouldn't say what they are, at least as far as fan interests go.
My point was not that I would not say "I'm Country" because there is any shame or stigma in it, I'm saying I wouldn't say "I'm Country" because it makes no syntactical sense.
The biggest problem is the language of the furry fandom while artistic and expressive in nature suffers the problem of artsy language and that is ambiguity.
"Country" = a genre
"Country fan" = a fan of country music
"Star Trek" = a sci-fi show
"Trekkies" = fans of the sci-fi show star trek
"Furry" = a work involving anthropomorphic of animals
"Furry" = a fan of works involving anthropomorphic animals
See how clear the former two are to distinguish the two and ours isn't? That's what leads to confusion on what people are talking about.
That problem is very easily solved by saying "Furry fan" when you want to be clear. Otherwise, the context of the sentence tends to make it clear. "I'm a Furry" is obviously referring to a fan. "Furry characters are defined by certain attributes" is obviously referring to the art.
"Richard Adams is not a known Furry" is obviously in reference to the fandom. "Richard Adams is a creator of Furries" is obviously in reference to the art.
If it's confusing it can only be that certain people are so eager to start responding they don't read the whole sentence.
But, knowing that some people on message boards are like that, I very often make a point of using "Furry fan" to make it easy for them. And still they either don't read it, or they ignore it because they want to make out I said something I didn't.
Do they do this deliberately out of connivance, or is it some kind of psychological quirk that allows then to see exactly what they want in the writing, regardless of whether it’s there or not?
I’m prone to think it’s being deliberately contrived, a well-practiced tactic. But of course I can never be sure. But this is why I have developed a healthy disrespect for the things that are written on any message board.
I tend to have the opposite problem, I tend not to believe a person is acting in malice unless it is extremely clear.
Could be they misread, and you know misreads happen all the time and not just on internet forums. Unfortunately pretty much 2/3 of the information we recieve is a misread. We're hearing something from someone who interpreted a group or scene or words. It's more important to know that misinterpretation exists and help others understand that it exists rather then correct all misinterpretation because there is so many (malicious and not) it'd take multiple lifetimes to correct.
There was a game we played in elementary school called telephone. The teacher would write down a phrase and whisper it in one student's ear and then the student would whisper it into another's until the last one at the end said what the phrase was. More often then not it'd be something different then what was started with.
Likely one student in the middle changed it, or maybe many did, was it an act of malicious intent, or perhaps one student is hard of hearing, or maybe one student doesn't speak very clearly and muddles the words.
Long story short, once the person who hears the message for the first time gets it stuck in their ear, they actually believe that is what the teacher said. It's not malicious, it's just trusting the chain before them.
What's this have to do with message boards? I think it means the topic we were whispering about to start with changed somewhere. Probably from a context stutter.
And the whole context thing works best for furries who understand the whole context things, but like most niche languages outsiders may find themselves confused. It's interesting that English has evolved in this way, dialects used to be a big way to determine cultural divides, it is now increasingly falling upon neologisms.
Sometimes you can pass it off as a probable accident. Like in the case with Diamond Man, who obviously doesn't have a high comprehension of English.
You and I sometimes misunderstand each other a lot, and I usually take that to be accidental. I at least can feel confident that you are interested in truth and intellectual analysis. And thus you will always make an honest attempt. But sometimes you will miss a cultural reference or something, because our backgrounds may be somewhat different.
In the case of someone like Crossaffliction, whom I recall starting out our adversary relationship by quoting The Burned Fur Manifesto as their motivation, I know this person's motivations are political. And therefore I am less inclined to expect honest mistakes.
Mister Twister may be the same, but could just be a misguided victim of the Crossaffliction type. In which case his mistakes are encouraged by an implanted prejudice that he has difficulty seeing past.
Crossie Not Logged In, however, is just a straight up troll who has no interest at all in truth. This is a person who reduces the entire significance of a community as large as Furry to Fchan, makes sweeping generalizations that all Furries are obligated to enjoy and support what happens on Fchan, even if they've never heard of it, and just in general do everything they can to insult and demean Furries in hope of drawing an amusing over reaction.
You and I are a relative rarity in this situation. We're interested in analyzing the situation intellectually, usually on a level that people on message boards are not used to seeing. So what we say may often go over the heads of the average Furry reading, who is more often than not young and impressionable, trying to decide which of the above described types to trust and emulate.
It's these young, impressionable furs I am most concerned with, as most likely are the other described types. The object of the message board game is to enjoy the power to affect the minds of the impressionable ones in either a positive or negative manner.
Unfortunately, intellectuals who attempt to explain how the situation is not so bad with a lot of educated prose are the most difficult for the young, impressionable ones to understand. The trolls and political types are the easiest to understand, and therefore have quite an advantage in controlling the state of disinformation and self-loathing in the community.
They are the one thing that can and does make The Furry Community an unpleasant place to be, in any true sense. If they were taken with a grain of salt as they are in any other fandom, The Furry Community would be as stable and happy as any other fandom community. So long as they maintain the balance of popular opinion on their side, we will continue to have impressionable Furries like Diamond Man running in fear of their own shadows due to the irrational fears that have been impressed on them by reading message boards.
I was there once. Message boards just about drove me insane with the amount of misinformation and prejudice they filled my mind with in regard to Furries. I didn't begin to get any kind of real understanding of what Furries are actually like until I got off of message boards and went on Second Life where I could actually live with Furries and get first-hand experience as to what they were like.
That's why I feel it's important to stress that what is seen on message boards is only talk. It is not a true representation of the reality in question. It is a minimal amount of truth, muddled by a preponderance of prejudice and irrationality.
I don't think my English is that bad. Sure I said some "unusual" things in my English, but I always want to say things very new or whatever..
But, I do sometimes make some mistakes, sometimes a lot I think.
Please don't think I am taking that too seriously... ^^^^^
_______
Well that fear I have from reading some message boards, well I only get it if I started to see it everywhere around me.. At lease I am not really in that much fear of the Fandom (Atlease maybe less fear now) I think. The one I usually have is this other one outside, and its not mainly from just a couple messages, its based on what I been seeing everywhere, comparing to and noticing that this can easily lead to unfair inequality (Like how others can express more fully and some others having fear about expressing them selves also and probably "can't") and this article might of been explaining about that a little bit.. Maybe. (Like some parts might of matched with a couple things I been thinking I think)
I think I been told (By a couple) to be very smart at some things and I had some theories (Based from what I seen, compare, etc) about what could happen around me, some was true, some was false.
Why the FUCK am I still getting replies in my inbox?!? I UNsubscribed to this thræd!~!
*angry face*
Apparently the site doesn't like Chubby Checker and delights to torture you.
Whuz Chubby Checker??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOifzcjyFZs
Nice guess, but not even close.
Drat, I knew I should not even commented on here in the first place. I thought none of this was going to be on the front page. (As I didn't even notice the comment section on the front page) and worse, now people are getting emails saying they have a new comment on this. I think this website needs to have some new features now. :/
I mainly did so I could possibly get a reply from only about 1 guy or not and that others wont much notice. "Realizes all this days later"
____________
Reply to Perri,
Hmm, well from what I saw, society seems to accept under the terms Anime and MLP because I see them everywhere and lots of people don't have a problem with them being around, even if there was a couple of the "hot looking side". Although maybe a lot of people view them (Whole fandoms) as "Childish" or "Weird" but it doesn't look like its threatening them in a very bad way.. (Just saying as I keep seeing them everywhere) When it comes to Furry, (Fan of anthropomorphic or whatever) certain fights might come along, and there usually is that one thing. But from what I saw, only if people used the term "Furry" covering them. Its kinda a funny story. Certain fights might come. (As I kinda see them in some websites I like)
All I was mainly concern about from how people act in public when it comes to a person uploading Anthro in this one way while some others who do Anime in the same story is usually not for now.. Maybe I could be wrong, maybe I just looked at certain areas by just luck. (Society still might view Anime (for example) as something weird but that barely seems to effect others that much. (As I see them a lot and is even in a lot of cultures now, well my wanting to make one your self or something)
Oh and in 1: I don't get what you mean by: "But, unless you mean to publish something professionally, you don’t need it. "
2: Yeah, I know that part, I didn't say the whole fandom was.
Of course, not everything is perfect, I was mainly just concern about a moderate thing.. For example when I mean accepted some times, I sometimes mean that people don't go in and start freaking out by rating it down, commenting bad, whatever. Now of course not everyone would stop I guess, but only was thinking if the main media was like this, Just because of one thing.. And currently its not like (Or it did before) this usually when not interested: It would be viewed as a well, not into this, going to the next place only. Although, some other fandoms (Though again I wont say perfect) from what I saw in medias isn't always like this in a populated way. (Fights about sexual, hatred with that or whatever) I could say they barely bring it up on "The front". Again, maybe I am wrong, maybe I am missing them again, but it just seems I always get discussions about that one part in this fandom every time someone discusses about this under that name. Maybe that will slow down to a point where people don't care like you would say I think though.
I don't know though, again I was just looking at this article and was replying when it looked like this was talking about society being judgmental when it comes to sex somewhere within this I think. And yes, I write too much in a comment, sometimes its probably not to be taken seriously. And I don't know if this is a good reply to Perri_Rhoades. :P
The problem is that "furry" is a term in public domain: owned by nobody, and used by everybody to describe pretty much anything. The fandom is full of perverts of the most perverted variety. It is also full of great, talented, and perfectly "normal" people. All use the same word to describe their interest and themselves. NATURALLY, fights ensue. And they will never continue until somebody solidifies the meaning of the term and takes control over it.
Food for thought: Call God "Allah" in a Catholic Church, and see what happens.
The term "Furry" is clearly defined, and has been so since the earliest days of The Furry Community. The problem is there have always been some who did not like the definition and tried to change it. But they have all found they did not have the authority. Thus the definition of Furry (as it applies to the fandom) remains . . .
1. Anthropomorphized animal characters in all manner of art, literature and entertainment.
2. A fan of said characters.
3. [plural] a collective reference to said fans.
Life is really that simple. You'd do well to stop buggering things up by insisting they are more complicated than they really are.
Yes, that simple definition is unbelievably broad. It covers a multitude of things that few had previously realized there was any relation between. But, unlike the detractors bewail, it does not encompass "Everything." It has very clear, well defined boundaries were it stops.
It defines the element that was of such interest a fandom formed around it – anthropomorphic animals. It includes nothing that is not in some way relative to anthropomorphic animals, and excludes nothing that is relative to anthropomorphic animals.
Any discussion of the meaning of Furry beyond this definition is pointless hyperbole, opinion, personal taste, and outright BS.
European colonists tried to force different African tribes to co-exist when trapped inside new colonies' borders. Violence ensued. Same here: you cannot put perverts and normal people in one group; that will make the latter mad beyond belief.
I've got news for you. The human race includes varying numbers of "Perverts" and "Normals." I don't hear either of them screaming not to be called humans.
Anyway, your reasoning is further flawed by the assumption that all Furries are in the same group. They aren't. Furries usually have a comparatively small circle of friends who have a level of similar interests that makes them compatible with each other. If you don't like what one circle of furs is doing, it’s not happening in your group. So you don't have to see it or be bothered by it.
Unless, of course, one is subscribed to a group that one doesn’t like. Which means that one is out looking to be offended. Which I think means one is a fan of offensive Furries, and they're giving one exactly what one wants. Thus, one has not got any legitimate reason to complain, but one will complain anyway, because complaining is one’s hobby, and possibly one’s main interest in Furry as well. Because, where else could one possibly find so much to complain about but in a community of such outstanding diversity?
So that's the first thing the complainers jump on us about. We're too tolerant, too accepting, too live in let live. What's wrong with us? We should hate each other. And it just gives them more to complain about if we just don't care to hate each other for our extreme states of diversity.
We don't even hate the complainers, because we wouldn't deny them their fun anymore than we would any other fur.
This is a do your own thing fandom. And you know what? A lot of us are kind of proud of that. We're proud to have created a place where people aren't forced to conform. Practically none of us like everything that's coming out of the community. But there's so many different kinds of things coming out of it that we don't have to be bothered with the stuff we don't like.
We have freedom of choice here, and we like that. We like that so much, we'll even defend the rights of the complainers to try to make us miserable. Unfortunately, though, just like with those who don't want to see porn, just because we fight for your right to have a channel doesn't mean any of us have to tune into it, especially if there's something more enjoyable going on, which there always is.
And, just my personal opinion, of course, but I think if the complainers want to stay in the spotlight, they need to get some new records – 'cos we're getting more than just a little tired of the same tunes they've been playing for over 10 years now.
"You have perverts in your fandom!" was a big hit back in '02. After 10 years it's about wore out.
Perri, we're not talking about furries inside the fandom, we're talking about people who like anthropomorphic animals but don't want to be in the fandom.
For a lot of people, furry = perverts. Yeah, I know, old complaint, but it's not like they are complaining "OMG, I'd be a furry but they don't draw fox tails right." This is a pretty big deal. This bothers people. It may not bother you, which is super-duper, you're such a wonderful person, but I guess you're so busy being wonderful that you've forgotten to try and see other people's perspectives.
Seriously, your advice for dealing with criticism can be paraphrased as "Ignore it, they are just meanyheads anyway."
But anyways, fan is short for fanatic, which means you kind of have to like this stuff a lot. If Joe Bob liked Rango so much he bought the Blu-Ray and will end up watching it every two years or so and think to himself, "Boy, I sure do like this Rango movie," while he does, but he doesn't want to call himself a furry, I'm fine with that, because while Joe Bob obviously likes, and probably even loves, an example of art featuring anthropomorphic animals, there is no evidence that he likes, or even loves, this example fanatically.
Furthermore, Joe Bob could possibly mistakenly believe furry = perverts, or perhaps he does know better, but also knows calling himself a furry will get him called a pervert (and almost certainly worse things) to his face (or at least his FaceBook page). Or heck, maybe Joe Bob just doesn't want to be called a nerd, geek, dork or other such sobriquet, never mind pervert. If a guy loves not being called a pervert or nerd more than he loves anthropomorphic animals, so much so that he refuses to acknowledge he is a lover of anthropomorphic animals, can he really be said to be a fanatical lover of anthropomorphic animals?
I don't know if you know this, but Christians are big on conversion, mostly because what Rakuen Growlithe (you remember him?) calls the "Magic Book" says you should totally try and convert everybody if you are a Christian. Now, for starters, Christians actually don't much enjoy this part of the "Magic Book," because the conversion process tends to consist of them annoying random strangers who now hate them, to begin with. After two millenia, however, one strategy that has never really taken off is to ridiculously stretch the definition of Christianity and tell people they were Christians all along. I imagine it would go something like this:
CHRISTIAN: Do you like nice people?
NON-CHRISTIAN: Uh, sure.
CHRISTIAN: Well, Jesus was a nice guy, so since you like nice people, you like Jesus, which means you are a Christian, because Christians are people who like Jesus. Now, stop denying you are a Christian and come to Church Sunday.
STILL NON-CHRISTIAN: You're stupid.
Thank you, Mr. Non-Christian, but I would like to point out this technique is not only stupid, but also annoying and arrogant, since it implies that the target is unaware of his or her own self, and that this random stranger knows better the target's needs or desires than the target does his- or herself.
Which is a pretty common complaint against Christian evangelism, even without this technique, but, you know, it's in the "Magic Book," so they are kind of obligated to do it. Furries don't have a "Magic Book," however, so maybe it's just best if we let people come to Jesus on their own.
I meant furry. Furry, not Jesus.
See the following comment for my response to the first half of what you said.
http://www.flayrah.com/3693/editorial-furries-are-already-well-aware-sex-and-sex...
And now on to the second part.
Oh for Ra's sake. Now you're putting me in the position of defending Christians.
Listen, when the Christian asks you if you believe this or that, and you seem intrigued, there's nothing wrong with him inviting you to church to check out what they've got going on to see if you'll like it. I believe in trying everything that seems interesting. Unfortunately I've tried Christianity, and I didn't like the notion of being a very nice terrorist.
Now, I don't know if you remember or not, but round about '06-'07, I was going through some very similar BS here in the fandom. There were these people called Burned Furs. Or, more accurately, Burned Fur 2. And they said, "You're all about doing good things for the fandom. Well, we're all about doing good things for the fandom, too. Why don't you come along and join up. You might like it." But, again, I found that I just don't get into the idea of being a very nice terrorist.
All the while I was in this vicious tug of war between the fandom itself and its detractors. The fandom kept saying, "Please don't go over there. You're way too nice to put in with that lot, while the detractors kept chanting "Crush, Yiff, Destroy."
So, I eventually said, "You know, I don't see where I need to take a side in this. It's not my responsibility to tell others how they should or shouldn't do Furry. So I'm just going to go over here in my own space and do my own thing. And if the fandom likes my thing, that'll be just peachy. If they don't . . . Well, I got along without them all this time."
And, though I wouldn't say the response to my thing has been overwhelming, what response there's been has been nothing but positive. And at the same time the fandom has shown me a lot of things to which my reaction has been positive.
So, basically, after I saw that Burned Fur stuff was not my thing, The Furry Community said, "Why don't you come along and see what we have to offer. Because we think you've got a lot more in common with us than you do with those groups of very nice terrorists who have been trying to recruit you." So, once again I came along to look, I liked what I saw then, and I like what I see now even more.
So, you see, there's no harm in somebody asking you to check something out. The more you check out in life, the more you know, and the better chance you have of ending up somewhere that feels like home. But just because you're checking something out doesn't mean you have to let somebody mess with your head.
That's what I like about Furry. It doesn't try to mess with my common sense of right and wrong. It doesn't try to make me hate people I don't even know. Some people on this board try to do that, but that's got nothing to do with Furry. That's got something to do with some internet game people like to play on message boards called, "Let's see how many minds we can screw with today." Which is a fine game for good natured terrorists. Get those poor little Furries all scared and terrified that somebody might not like them for this reason, or that reason, or any ridiculous little thing that can be thought up.
I feel like Arlo Guthrie here. Y'all want to know if I'm moral enough to rag on Furry Fandom for having some perverts after selling Hentai doujinshi at Anime cons. Hee-hee-hee. You guys make me think of funny things.
You silly old terrorist types. I've been in this community for a decade now, and you still haven't shown me anything more perverted in Furry Fandom than I saw in Anime Fandom. Heck, most of the perversions you have in Furry Fandom were directly imported from Anime Fandom. But you've just got to keep harping until you convince the whole world that Furry Fandom has some kind of monopoly on perversion, because that's your thing, and that's what makes you happy.
But this is a do your own thing fandom. So you get to do that. You get to make us common Furry folk look like we're something different in the eyes of the world, while at the same time using Anime Fandom as a measure of normality.
I've got to hand it to you guys. Outside of the government I have never seen a better run con game. You've got all these poor little Furries all terrified and depressed, thinking their fandom is so shameful, and nobody's going to like them. You've got them going up to their parents all shaky and paranoid, crying, "Mom, I like to draw cartoon animals, please don't hate me."
But, I’m not going to hate on you for that, because you get to do your thing here. And now I'm going to do my thing, which is to tell Furries to ignore the hell out of this crap, because it's not real.
Well, this is unexpected.
Apparently, Joe Bob writes for Cracked.
Who is Joe Bob? Is he from Planet Bob?
The food for thought kind of proves making two definitive vernaculars won't solve the "fighting" problem.
It was a good enough reply. I'm just sorry the reassurance I attempted to offer was probably negated by the fact that Furries on message boards are prone to argue non-sense.
If I may quote a great philosopher from back in my day, "Remember that what is going on around you [particularly on message boards] is not reality." Thus the world is not nearly such a scary place as we on the internet who run off at the keyboard make it seem.
Pay no mind to all this internet chatter. Just go forth and do your thing. No harm will come to you if you don't let the chatter psych you out.
(Sorry if anyone needed a 70's translator to read that)
No one in the Fandom is a "pervert".. Wait, maybe only the ones who causes pain and violates rights. What is a pervert? Someone who goes to people's houses and do types of stuff that you know.. actually is harmful. Or anything that is pain and violates people's rights. Dang it, this is one thing I get pissed off at, calling people who could have that one side or not (That isn't even a big deal and never hurts anyone) a "pervert". Well of course, it is in the public domain though..
Umm, ignore that I was mad at one part, this was meant to be a reply to the one who brought that up just now. I probably miss read it again.
Shees, my Email has a page full of replies from this website, accept for this one email. I feel like this should not have happened on a sort of old Article I had some faith in for society to be better and stuff. But, if this is normal, then I guess I could say I feel less bad sort of.
Since I cannot unsubscribe, I'll just ignore any subsequent posts.
P.S. I came up with several ideas for articles, and I think I would make an account eventually.
The links in the emails should work as designed; however, it is likely that when you made multiple comments, you set up multiple triggers. Removing the trigger on one of your comments will not prevent others from triggering in the future (as you might have intended to only stop listening to that thread). To remove all triggers, you have to keep clicking new links.
Users have access to topic subscriptions, rather than comment notifications, which are easier to manage. The system needs to be overhauled, but there's not a perfect solution for Drupal if you want to support anon and registered users.
Post new comment