Fur-dom and the Media
Why does furry exist as a fandom? Why all the cons in public places where furs strut their stuff while wearing tails, ears, or full animal costumes? Why all the web sites? Was this not in order to be noticed? Congrats: you got noticed. There are several articles here at Flayrah about this, and these have generated blizzards of comments. Now you complain, complain, complain that the media aren't treating you right. Cry me a river! Furs b**** about a "Vanity Fair" article (Pleasures of the Fur) a TV show (CSI: Fur and Loathing) an MTV "documentary". All "unfair" and "sensationalized", well, guess what: that's what the press does. After all, it's not news if 10,000 airliners land and take off without incident; the one that crashes is news. That the vast majority of furs live the balance of their lives just like everyone else is not news. The one fur who wanks kids' toys, or yiffs in full costume: he is news.
There have been suggestions that furs ban the press from cons. This will not work since Mr. or Ms. Reporter did not sign away his/her civil rights when they joined the Fourth Estate. If it's open to the public, it's open to the reporter. Period. End of story. Announce a con, and the editor will assign a reporter to cover the event. And that reporter will come back with a story. So if the moderate furs take some of the suggestions I'm seeing here, they will be discourteous, or refuse to answer questions with more than a "yes" or "no", or generally make themselves "uninteresting". So what will our reporter do? You can bet next month's rent money that they will go to that plush-o-phile who's all too eager to discuss unusual new uses for stuffed animals, or that creepy zoophile. At the very least, we'll get the "What-are-they-hiding?" story, with God-only-knows what lurid fantasies to spice up a dull news day.
Let's take a look-see
Pleasures of the Fur wasn't so bad after all. Except for Gurley's going off on a tangent into irrelevance, it was actually a rather well-balanced piece. Indeed, I've found it quite useful as an introduction to Furry-dom. The actual content was not nearly so sensationalized as the title. The folks Gurley talked to and quoted for the article were not wierdos. Indeed, I know some of those folks. Pretty much, they're not so different from the general public. If he tried, I'm certain that Gurley could have found some real weirdos at that Midwest FurFest. He did not do this.
Fur and Loathing (this show is set in Las Vegas, Nevada. There is a Hunter S. Thompson novel entitled Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: get it?) The producers of this episode consulted with a fur named "Dark Fox". They did not have to do this, and could have made that story however they wanted. It could have been one helluva lot worse. At least they made the attempt to be fair to Furry-dom. Furthermore, this is a fictional series, not a documentary. Who is to say that they can't base a story on Furry-dom? This is the chance you take when you gain entrance into the mainstream conciousness. You may not like the result, however, this is the price that must be paid to live in a free country: someone may say something you do not like.
Plushies and Furries was certainly a poor excuse for a documentary, produced by a known pornographer: Rick Castro. This was a pure exploitation piece that made no attempt at balance. To be sure, MTV acted with questionable taste and integrity in showing this. However, it's not the first time something like this has happened, nor will it be the last. Nor was Fur-dom uniquely victimized in this fashion. Since there is no "Furry, Inc.", complete with a well-staffed legal dept., to hit either Castro or MTV with a big, fat law$uit, there's not much that can be done about it.
So does Furry-dom have a problem?
Regardless of what many furs think about their treatment in the media, one thing is certain: Vanity Fair, the CSI producers, MTV did not act out of active malice towards the fandom!. The "Halloween Documents" OTOH, lay out in clear terms Microsoft's strategy to smear, slander, and ruin the reputation of not only the Linux operating system, but the whole of the Open Source Community, of which Linux is a part. The tactic has since become known as "FUD" (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) There's quite a lot of information there, however, it would be most instructive for furs to read and understand it. This was an active campaign involving planted news stories in credible tech journals (off-line as well as on-line) "seeding" tech forums with agents provocateurs to spread lies about Linux (indeed, once these Microsoft agents became known for their good spelling and grammar, Redmond ordered them to be less careful with both. As a result, they continued to identify themselves with script kiddie speak, bad spelling and appalling grammar.) And furs are actually worried about a few TV shows?(!) What you're going through now doesn't even begin to compare to what Linux people had to put up with for years!
Microsoft, which is much bigger than Vanity Fair, MTV or CBS combined, and has resources at its disposal the likes of which the Linux Community could never hope to match, lost the "FUD War"!
Early last year, Steve Ballmer gave a speech wherein he stated that MS was no longer going to FUD Linux. Instead, he said that Microsoft would place the emphasis on "added value" of using Windows. Indeed, the anti-Linux trolling on tech forums is way down from what it was a couple of years ago.
So what happened? First of all, the constant criticism of Linux served to bring the very existance of the OS to the attention of those who'd never heard of it before. Secondly, MS made utter fools of themselves by telling what were quickly recognized as "untruths". Knowledgeable people in the IT field knew that MS was selling them a "Bill Gates" of goods, and weren't reticient to say so. This, in turn, served to cast considerable doubt on Microsoft's credibility. Lastly, but not least in importance, Linux people used the 'Net to challenge these falsehoods whereever they cropped up. The "Netizens" listened as Linux people made their case. As for Linux, it kept on doing what it's always done: being a vastly superior OS.
We furs can do the same thing. Counter the FUD on-line and in your day-to-day life. Go on living as you were and show your acquaintances that you are not a "freak", or a "weirdo". If they didn't believe that you were before, they won't believe so now. If asked, own your furriness, and explain that these shows/articles/documentaries are the products of ignorance and/or exploitation. However, don't try to deny that there aren't problems. Infiltration by zoophiles is very real: explain it as such. These are the real "Skunk-f**kers", and they are some of the most aggressive perverts out there. They seek the cover and respectability that Fur-dom provides, now that the general public has wised up to the fact that "zoophile" is a code word for: "I rape defenseless animals for my own selfish gratification". Explain that "yiff" has nothing what-so-damn-ever to do with fuxxoring the family dog. People of goodwill will understand. Furthermore, if you do have some sexual "peculiarities", these are no one's GD business but your own. Keep your private affairs private, and show the public the best of Fur-dom.
Remember: The only bad publicity is no publicity. And truth beats FUD every time. There is no necessity to avoid the press; the reporter is not the "bad guy"
Comments
I did, and was fairly unimpressed with the Linux argument. For one thing, it doesn't offer anything that isn't already being done, and it's rather like trying to douse a three-alarm fire by tossing water from a sieve. For another, it's a very passive counter, waiting until the damage has been done and the fallout in the form of newbies come to you to be corrected. Better to be aggressive and nip the problems in the bud by not allowing them to happen in the first place, and if they do then to offer some form of damage control, such as, perhaps, producing some form of PR campaign to illustrate and list the true side of furry fandom and its activities.
And I'm not going to waste my time searching out source after source in order to find your point; there's no reason I should have to do your work for you. If you have a point to make, sources to quote, etc, then do so here for the sake of all who read this thread, and sum it succintly.
-Chuck Melville-
More *NIX Hacker "special words": how could I overlook this one. It's a classic:
fsck: "Official" meaning: The UNIX file system repair command.
Unofficial 1: Same as "yiff"
Unofficial 2: An expletive, as in "What the fsck...?"
In the words of Brian Griffin: I'll be out on the patio, since you're already up on the cross.
Interesting info about dolphins. I haven't really studied Zoo sex with them before, my interest is almost all in one type of fur-bearing animal, and I'm not sure the skin of a dolphin touching me would be appealing. I'm also not at home in the water.
Good article, I liked the Zoo jokes page, and I could relate to some of those. :) I can see you have no love for Zoos based in things written on the net, but what you read is only part of the story...
Anti-fuD
My thought is from a different direction: how many fandom have words for other normal activities? I know sex is the most personal and stigmatized activity of humankind, but what about as ambiguous as "understanding something"? In 1961 the science fiction community was introduced to "Grok" (meaning to understand something completely and intuitively; literally "to drink deeply") in Stranger in a Strange Land; a book so controversial the unabridged version wasn't released until 1992! Today "Grok" is on page 551 of my Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.
Hot Rodders describe attractive women, among other things, in terms only they fully understand. Monty Python fans do the same. Ditto with Trekkies, Star Wars fans, comic book fans, and even "normal" people within a clique-like occupations (medicine, business, television & radio, engineers, scientists, etc.) use similar jargon. The military has more slang than you can imagine!
Do I like the word "yiff"? Not really, I only use it to annoy my friends. What I am saying is that all fandoms and social groups have their own lingo, some as ambiguous and well meaning as "grok" and some with as a taboo of meaning as "yiff". (Which itself, as many here probably know and have mentioned, wasn't originally taboo, it was closer to a simple onomatopoeic greeting that was corrupted long before I knew of it.)
People have called me Furry for years...but more Robin Williams than Robin Hood.
Keep Louisville Weird
WTF is that suppose to mean?
What I have no love for is the conduct. So far as Zoos are concerned, on a personal level, I don't hate them at all. They have nothing to fear from me as I would never physically attack a Zoo. Indeed, I've known exactly who the "Damping Factor People" are for quite some time now. (FYI: the Greek letter zeta stands for something called "damping factor" in electronics.) I just wish they'd stop their selfish exploitation of other animals, that they'd show some real love and respect for their fellow man by applying the same standards to non-Zoos and cease and desist with the trespassing onto others' property to "sex" the livestock, and have more respect for their fellow animals by ceasing inflicting pain and suffering on same.
If he (you?) was being 100% sincere about this, what I find so ironic is that this individual should have more incentive than ayone else on these boards to oppose this exploitation, and to disassociate himself from zoophiles completely. How does it make him (you?) feel to read about how someone selfishly hurts and exploits another member of "[my animal]"'s co-speciesists? How does it make him (you?) feel seeing his "intimate love" cheapened into a dirty joke on web sites like I linked to? How is it that he (you?) isn't royally pist about these exploiters who don't care whether or not they hurt another of "[my animals]"?
I did exactly what was suggested elsewhere here and checked out some Zoo sites. I certainly had no incentive to do so before. Perhaps the zoo supporters weren't expecting that? So far, I didn't like what I've seen: the rank hypocrisy of their saying that asking to fuxxor another zoo's animals is a big faux pas, but "Fence Hopping" is perfectly OK so long as you don't get caught. I don't like the attitude that doing anything you can to get what you want when you want it is OK. Nor do I like the self-justification of using "love" as an excuse for purely self-serving gratification.
So you tell me: what's the rest of the story?
I think that next to the last paragraph qualifies as some pretty heavy FUD about Zoophiles myself. I've never heard of any Zoos who have escaped to the cover of Furry fandom.
I see an intersection of interests between what Zoos like and what Furs like, and there are those like myself who are Furs to begin with, and Zoophilia is a part of Furry for us.
Anthro ideas are one way to help bridge some of the gaps in communication between species too, for the Fur to become closer to their animal partner.
I do hope that truth beats FUD every time.
>I think that next to the last paragraph qualifies as some pretty heavy FUD about Zoophiles myself.
Well, that's your opinion. Mine is that most of the article wasn't well thought out (for the reasons another person posted, I don't think the author has much information about running cons or dealing directly with the press) but the parts toward the end were fairly spot on. Zoophilia is not Furry and there are very good reasons why some furs get so angry when folks both "outside" and "inside" the community try to say their related.
>I've never heard of any Zoos who have escaped to the cover of Furry fandom.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Anonymous, but talk to any of the "old-timers" in this fandom and they will tell you that the videos of animals mating and the articles on how to have sex with your pet were DEFINITELY not there in the beginning. Many of them left because this garbage started appearing. This means that another element "escaped to the cover" of this fandom, so to speak.
>I see an intersection of interests between what Zoos like and what Furs like, and there are those like myself who are Furs to begin with, and Zoophilia is a part of Furry for us.
I hope that you and your friends are still in the minority. My association with those in the community would suggest that they are. Most of the ones I know appear employable and don't live in their parents basement either, so who knows?...
>Anthro ideas are one way to help bridge some of the gaps in communication between species too, for the Fur to become closer to their animal partner.
Here is the main point: All the drawings, stories, movies, etc. in the world can not enable your poor "pet" to say "I don't want to with you" or "please, stop hurting me." This is what they call consent. Sex without consent is rape and an act of violence. Animals can not and do not consent to have sex with you. End of story.
This is why many people who care about animals (gee, who would have thought that there would be any of those in "furry") will never accept this as tolerable behavior or ever wish to be painted by the same broad brush. This is why so many of us get angry when Zoophiles are confused with Furry.
In fact, many of the folks who tolerate your presence still have no respect for you.
People can argue all they want about adding human sexual characteristics, behaviors, etc. to their art, etc. That's actually a different topic with some grey areas. Acts of violence, however, do not belong in the furry fandom. There is a great difference between drawing a horse person or dressing up as a horse person, and actually going out and f***ing a horse.
There are places willing to help you end this pattern of abuse, but it's not here, sorry.
oh, and Ewwwww.
-Bluesman
"I've never heard of any Zoos who have escaped to the cover of Furry fandom."
Oh really?(!) You just admitted that that's exactly what you've done. Seems to me you proved his point. I have been involved in this fandom for just about a month. I have already heard that term "skunk-f'er" applied to me. F--- you so very much!
"I see an intersection of interests between what Zoos like and what Furs like..."
What furs like are anthropomorphic characters in art, stories, movies, cartoons and TV shows. Stories with animal heros. They believe that the Redwall novels are great literature, That Robin Hood (the version with the fox, not Erroll Flynn) Secrets of NIMH, etc. are the epitomy of the cinamatographer's art. None of this has the slightest thing to do with raping the dog who loved and trusted you. To be sure, furs frequently "sex up" their art, as do folks in Anime and Sci-Fi fandoms. After all, sex is a big part of "anthropo". They most certainly do not harbor any desires to rape animals. Period.
"Zoophilia is a part of Furry for us."
Then why don't you keep it to yourself in the privacy of your own sad, sick world? The vast majority of furries don't want anything to do with it, don't want to hear about it, and do not appreciate the "skunk-f'er" image one little bit. Do your recruiting elsewhere.
" Anthro ideas are one way to help bridge some of the gaps in communication between species too, for the Fur to become closer to their animal partner."
I will grant you one thing: you "zoos" certainly are masters of the euphemism. Who else could call the cruel rape of a defenseless animal "communication between species"? Amazing, simply amazing. "Animal partner": since when are rape victims "partners"?
"I do hope that truth beats FUD every time."
That's just about the one thing we do agree upon. And that truth is that those of your ilk are selfish pervs who care for nothing but your own gratification. Animals don't want to have sex with you, they do not enjoy it, they have no way to understand it, let alone give their conscent. If there is a God in heaven I hope he has a special place waiting for you where you can spend eternity with all the souls of the animals you abused. I find you utterly disgusting.
Not that I'm defending zoophilia or anything, but I just have one question...
Where did people get this idea that animals have no way to say "stop hurting me"?
They can pull away, they can bark, bite, claw, hiss, etc.
Just always seemed to me to be a weak point to be making.
KT,
OK, maybe I can better explain where I'm coming from in terms of consent.
>Where did people get this idea that animals have no way to say "stop hurting me"? They can pull away, they can bark, bite, claw, hiss, etc.
Animals will do those things for any number of reasons. They can pull away because they're bored or because they're hungry and need food for example. And they don't tell you why, it's usually up to us to interpret their actions.
Also, in this situation, usually this type of abuse is done by a "master" or "owner" and in some position of, for lack of a better word "trust". With that in mind, there are a number additional things a frightened animal can do, for example, like cower or submit. They do this behavior for any number of reasons, too.
Since you're not defending zoophilia, I think that you do agree that this is something the animal doesn't want or at the very least something that it doesn't fully understand what's going on.
Let me try to better explain why people call this rape. When two people are involved, if the victim submits or cowers for whatever reason, is it any less of a crime against them? Do they still not communicate or at least think "please, stop hurting me"?
If that seems a weak argument about consent, at least consider this. Consential sex means that all parties involved clearly communicate "yeah, baby, let's do this" and understand the consequences involved. When we discuss understanding the consequences, the topic "age of consent" comes up when talking about two or more humans. For example, a lot of states in the U.S. consider 18 years of age old enough to fully be able to understand and communicate. With humans people might argue about arbitrary numbers, but no one can credibly argue that their German Shepard can understand and communicate a sexual relationship with anywher near the clarity of an eighteen year old human, or a 16 or even 12 year old one for that matter.
We can interpret a multitude of things from animal behavior. Someone else will likely interpret the same behavior as something else, but the bottom line is: animals (certainly not one's pet, anyway) are not able to uniformly communicate their thoughts and feelings, primarily because they lack human language. Without communication there is no consent. Without consent, rape.
-Bluesman
"If that seems a weak argument about consent, at least consider this. Consential sex means that all parties involved clearly communicate 'yeah, baby, let's do this'"
Ever seen an animal in heat? :}
"and understand the consequences involved."
What consequences are involved here, though? With two different species, there's no chance of pregnancy. Animals also don't have complicated systems of morals relating to sex, so it's not like the dog's going to be excommunicated by the First Church of Canis Major or anything. :}
The thing that bothers me most, though, is that if you want to get our anonymous zoophile friend up there to see your point of view, and have any hope of changing his mind, I don't think it's going to work very well to accuse him of being a violent rapist.
There certainly are consequences. Four years ago, my cousin's three year old daughter started playing with our male dog's "privates". For the next three hours, the dog avoided this girl by either laying down to protect his privates, or by retreating. It was quite obvious that he did not appreciate this sexual assault. Furthermore, dogs belonging to zoophiles turn mean, really mean. They become so unrecoverable that it becomes necessary to have the dog put down. Being used in this manner is something that does incredible harm to dogs. This is serious.
There's about as much chance of talking a zoophile out of molesting animals as there is talking a child molester out of molesting children. Those who would violate a child are cut from pretty much the same cloth as one who would molest an animal: both place the premium on their own selfish gratification, regardless of the hurt inflicted on another. About the only difference is that the zoophile's victims don't testify against him in court. "I don't think it's going to work very well to accuse him of being a violent rapist" Why the H311 not: that's precisely what he is!
Sorry, but I completely miss the humor of those responses, KT. In fact I could point out how those answers work against each other, but I don't think it would serve any purpose in convincing you of my position.
Maybe I can't change Mr. Zoophile's mind, but I hope that I might have a chance to point out to him and his buddies that:
1) It's unacceptable behavior in any society
2) Some Furs don't want to hear about it.
3) Some Furs don't respect anything about the individuals who practice it.
4) Some Furs are extremely angry about being tarred by same brush as them.
4) Maybe most of us wish that they would go away. There sure is a lot of typing on the net to support this argument.
If I can't convince any of these folks to stop raping these animals, I would at least hope to convince them not to act like it's normal or accepted amongst anyone who actually cares about animals. Maybe a few other concerned furs should report these individuals for animal cruelty when they hear about it, or at least recommend that people like Anonymous Zoophile SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP. We definitely need to convince furs that if we're seeking any type of acceptance from the community at large, then we have to set some type of standards or else they're completely justified in tarring us as freaks of nature. You know, that old saying about "sleeping with dogs and complaining about waking up with fleas?" It's an apt metaphor, NOT "a handy tip."
And if we don't care what the Joe Six-pack and the rest of the community at large thinks of us, why all the fuss every time there is something reported? Do we care what the public thinks or not?
At the very least, the behavior doesn't change if there is a perception that people in this fandom are willing to facilitate it. You did say you weren't defending this behavior, right?
I didn't say I was condemning it either. I just don't see the point in getting all emotional about it.
"dogs belonging to zoophiles turn mean, really mean. They become so unrecoverable that it becomes necessary to have the dog put down."
Really? Sounds hard to believe. Where did you hear this?
...wait a minute.
Waaaait a minute.
You're using the actions of a three-year-old girl as an example?
Sounds like she grabbed the dog's balls! I wouldn't want her near my nether regions either.
After reading your response to the other person who was explaining why this is violence, I get the impression that you don't want to see the point. I would recommend looking up what the Humane Society or ASAIRS has to say on the subject, but you'll probably dismiss that out of hand, too.
If I don't emphatically state THIS IS NOT COOL, those within "my group" have to assume that it's prefectly fine to both engage in that behavior and be associated with me. At what point do you say "I don't want to be associated with you"? Rape of other humans? Killing? What?
Sorry KT, if you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge why this is considered violence, or if you know at your core that something is wrong and say nothing, then shame on you too.
/out
*shrug* I was just looking for an argument against it that didn't set off my bullshit flag.
I do agree that zoophilia is socially unacceptable, though. And that it's icky!
Simo, do you run a convention? Do you actually have to deal with the press of whom you write in any manner? Do you have the slightest legal training to make the staments you make about conventions, hotels and access to the media? Have you ever been interviewed even?
Its really quite simple. If a convention researches a story and does not like the intended subject matter of the story, they have every right to refuse to cooperate or provide access.
Theres a billion stories like Furry on the internet. The writer will amost always move on to the next target. We are not that important. Especially if you are courteous and professional. When you find stories that want to do more than exploit the fandom..THOSE are the media you co-operate with. The trick of course, is in telling the difference.
Do you actually have to deal with the press of whom you write in any manner?
Yes, as a "Free the Dolphins" activist. I've been doing that for over ten years now. I've learned a thing or two on handling the press.
"Have you ever been interviewed even?"
Again, yes indeed.
That depends. At Linux expos, it might have been desireable to keep out some tech reporters who are known shills of Redmond. If the owner of the venue says they can attend, then they attend. Furthermore, if they say that Microsoft reps can attend, then that's that: they attend. I have seen some appalling behavior on the part of some Linux people at these affairs. Name-calling, ill-mannered behaviors, even some nearly physical confrontations with "unfriendly" press and Microsoft "spies". The result? Yet another predictable story about how whacko those Linux users are. If the convention/expo organizers had actual control of the venue as a private property, then, yes, they could keep out whomever they wanted. This hasn't applied to Linux expos. Convention center/hotel owners don't say no to Microsoft. If my experiences as a long-term Linux/OSS person isn't apropos to cons, then I stand corrected. However, concerning the rest of the story, I do believe that it does apply.
To reiterate, Linux people have been there and done that. Their opponents were/are far more formidable than ours. When some nonsense comes out about Fur-dom, it's simply sensationalism to spice up a story. At the worst, it's exploitation on the part of those looking to turn an easy dollar. There is no real malevolence behind it. The Linux Community's opponents were/are out to destroy not just Linux, but the sum total of the OSS community. Furry-dom isn't facing this level of malevolence: those whose main purpose is its complete destruction. First and foremost being Microsoft, and now SCO (possibly with Microsoft's encouragement, support, and/or financing -- no one really knows) with its lawsuit against IBM, complete with allegations that not only did IBM violate its contract with SCO, but also that Linux was written with code stolen from SCO. They accuse Linus Torvalds of having stolen SCO's intellectual properties in order to code the Linux kernel. This is a very real threat to the continuing existance of Linux, and by extension, the Open Source Community.
Want to trade places with the Linux Community: their problems (deliberate, well-orchastrated campaigns of FUD and intellectual property lawsuits) for Furry's (bad reporting, expolitative producers of p0rn)? (I wonder how Eric S. Raymond would answer that, as if I didn't know.) Still think you don't have a thing or two to learn from the Linux Community?????
I would say this is a fairly blanaced account, so well done on that front. But again I see the same trend, the association with sexual activity as being something negative, something to hide. Clearly restraint is required when dealing with people not sharing your interest, but one shouldn't have to feel like it's a dark secret either.
I reccomend that the writer of this article actually find out what zoephiles believe and practice before making the statement he has. I know a zoephile, and I can tell you he isn't an agressive pervert.
NOT an agressive perv? Holy Crap folks, this is why people think we're all a bunch of pervs, because we try to tell people this is OK. This isn't talking about your comics, pictures, or stories, people. This is about ACTUALLY going out and sticking a part of yourself into another creature. Something that CAN'T say NO, but CAN feel PAIN.
If we can't even understand this is RAPE, can we at least WAKE UP and realize that this is ILLEGAL behavior that we're talking about?
It's quite clear here that our points of views on this issue are going to be very difficult to reconcile. Especially noting that most of the comments in the feedback are related to the issue of zoephillia, actually only mentioned once towards the end of the article! I'd actually nearly forgotten about it. :-)
There is one thing you and I agree on. We both are basing our arguments on the consent issue. Our peceptions of how the issue plays out in reality differ however.
If I come to believe that in balance, zoephillia must remain illegal in order to protect animals I will support such legislation. But right now the jury is out for me, I'm going to stay out of this debate from now-on until I make my mind up.
Thanks for helping me reassess my opinions.
I think your reply is based on the misassumption that animals can't consent to sexual activity. The kind of cruetly you are talking about would probably be better reffered to as bestiality. Zoephiles' defining attribute is a sensitivity and empathy towards animals, at least from what I understand. Sometimes this is sexual in nature, and it doesn't 'always' involve penetration. An animal will let you know if it is dissatisfied with your advances and most definitely can consent by being passive or enjoying your attentions.
You DO have a very valid point about the perception of 'us' as a bunch of pervs. I'm not a zoephile but I am very into yiffy art, and as a result a certain responsibilty is required of myself and my peers. I think the MOST you can ask anyone with an 'unpopular' interest is to keep a low profile, but if they are asked their opinions, I can't blame them for standing up for what they believe in. After all, both of us now have just given our opinions, and I'm quite sure we both think the other is totally wrong! :-)
There is no misassumption regarding the argument animals do not consent. The fallacy that your Zoephile/Zoophile/Beastialility buddies have sold you and are trying to use to justify their criminal acts is that submission or coerced behavior is consent.
First of all, animals are given no rights in human society and are considered "property" in most cases. This in itself is where we can say animals give no consent.
When we talk about consenting to sexual acts among humans we refer to Informed Consent. Informed consent is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a full appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications of any actions. When talking about people giving informed consent in regards to sexual acts the term "age of consent" is especially applied. If we can say that a child might be incapable of comprehending the arguments and information, and thus could give consent, but even after the act of informing the child the consent would not be considered as based on being informed. In other words, a child can still say "yes" and it's not considered informed consent. (This is sometimes called statutory rape) Can you really tell me that anyone with any grip on reality would believe that a farm animal is capable of comprehending the arguments and information better than, say, a ten-year-old child? The only difference between the criminal act of pedophilia and the act your friends are trying to call "Zoephilia" is that the victim has the ability to point out their abuser and say, "He touched me there."
One of the many things I find so reprehensible about the consent argument being applied to beastiality (and with or without the consent argument, that's the real name of it) is that those who do this have shifted to that argument because they could make no headway in trying to decriminalize this activity because of their rights as property owners. It makes me think that they don't even believe their argument; they just will do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to seek legitimacy. Taking the consent track within the furry fandom not embarrasses us as a fandom, but cheapens legitimate civil rights movements that correctly apply consent as a means of legitimacy.
>I'm not a zoephile but I am very into yiffy art, and as a result a certain responsibilty is required of myself and my peers. I think the MOST you can ask anyone with an 'unpopular' interest is to keep a low profile
Then you completely missed my point. If someone is into "Yiffy art", yiffing in fursuits, "tiny sex", sex with plushies, or whatever, whether it's "popular” or "unpopular" with the fandom or the level of embarrassment to the fandom at how high or low a profile those who practice these things is an ongoing argument. I accept them as things that can occur in the privacy of one's home with one or more consenting adults. I'm actually OK with whatever folks do so long as there is consent. Trying to argue that animals can consent is a sad, sick joke that has no basis in the reality that we live in.
When it comes to criminal activity, especially violence and cruelty to animals, there is certainly quite a lot more that the furry fandom can and should do. I can and will say to the "zoophiles" that you're not fooling me. I can say that I resent you trying to hide your criminal activity behind the cover of something that I happen to enjoy. I will not make criminals welcome in my presence or within my community. I can and will report any act of cruelty to animals to any and all local authorities that apply to the individual in question and hope that they are punished severely.
I can also do my best to inform the rest of the furs in this community of the argument put forth by these criminals to legitimize their behavior is a lie. I can encourage other furs not to facilitate this behavior, because it is as much a stain on the fandom as those practicing this criminal behavior. And I feel I am perfectly within my rights not to approve of anyone who would condone this act of cruelty against animals, either.
If we as a fandom or community cannot, as a majority, say that this is a criminal act and that we do not approve of this, then what other criminal acts can we condone so long as there is some type of “furry” tie-in? Would I be within my rights to argue for the legitimacy of clubbing these individuals to death, so long as I dressed them in baby seal outfits first? I much prefer the notion that any society, with any semblance of order and no matter how friendly or welcoming, has some standard of what is acceptable for being considered a member. I think it is well within the grasp of any group that has an interest in animals to shun those who criminally abuse animals for their own selfish sexual gratification.
You are quite right about the statutory rape law being a necessity. It is there as a reasonable and enforceable safeguard that allows minors to be protected from those that might take advantage of them. I don’t believe however that the issue of informed consent applies in the same way when dealing with animals. My reasons are as follows:
An animal is not a human being, that doesn’t mean they it is right to treat animals cruelly, on the contrary it is wrong. However this does mean that applying an argument about sexual activity that (quite rightly) applies to humans gives weight when applied to animals. Of course an animal does not understand the full ‘intellectual’ implications of sexual conduct because that is a human concept. How anthropomorphic, and how ironic considering the context of this debate! (giggle)
Human sexual desire is often mixed with a desire for security, the feelings are highly intense and have intellectual as well as physical consequences. Therefore for all people it is important to be fully informed as to the nature of the sexual activity you wish to partake in, and with full scope to backing out if need be. However animals behave on a more instinctual level, therefore if they have a sexual desire then they will seek to gratify it immediately, whereas with humans there are consequences to consider. In such a case I don’t believe one has to expect a deep ‘human’ understanding of the context from this animal, it isn’t inappropriate to help gratify that desire.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that human-animal sexual contact is ALWAYS abuse. “And I feel I am perfectly within my rights not to approve of anyone who would condone this act of cruelty against animals, either.”
This clearly isn’t going to be ALWAYS the case, particularly if you understand what most zoephiles’ views are on the issue. Yes there are always those that are cruel, and if you were putting forth an argument that perhaps on balance it is safer to not permit such activity based on such people I would probably be more in agreement.
I will certainly concede two points you make. Yes this activity is illegal, you are entirely correct in that, and it is up to you to decide on your own conscience if you will report this activity. I certainly wouldn’t stand in your way. It is also true that zoephiles’ being associated with the fandom has led to a decrease in the so called ‘reputation’, clearly this is upsetting for you, and lots of other furs. There is no easy solution to this, I think the most that can be expected just like everyone else is to show some restraint about describing your interest. But I can’t chastise people for standing up for something they genuinely don’t see as wrong.
Let me say this though. zoephiles that I’ve spoken too so far seemed like balanced and normal individuals. If you believe this is all an act to fool people you’re forgetting the golden rule. No matter how bizarre their interest, people are always just people, no more nice, nasty, clever or dumb that anyone else. I don’t believe that everything about zoephiles they have written or put forward is bullshit, because why the need for an elaborate facade if they really all just wanted to rape?
Perhaps there is a cruelty issue and the only way to stop this issue is to keep behaviour like this illegal. You may well be right there. But as for the issue of whether or not ‘consent’ is given, I do believe in some circumstances it probably is.
BTW, your arguments are very clear and well thought out and I certainly wasn’t expecting an answer of such depth to my comments. :-)
Trying to tie instinct to consent is not only invalid, but it helps prove part of my point. Outside of dolphins, animals do not pursue recreational sex. They either select the strongest available mate for the purpose of continuing their species (yes, there are a few well documented cases of biological coping mechanisms when this is not available but they do not apply to my next point) Animals acting purely on instinct (instead of human modified behaviors) do not pursue sex with humans for the purposes of continuing their species either.
The only time that animals show anything resembling this behavior, is when their instincts have been modified by their relationship with humans. If you go onto any Zoophiles "how-to" webpage, what you see is instructions on how to modify their behavior to submit to the act. This is coersion, not consent.
Your argument is that because animals instinctively engage in sexual encounters, when they do it's consent. (?) Since they instinctively will not have sex with humans unless that instinct is modified and that human is willing to coerce that behavior out of them, it is rape in every instance.
This does not even call into account the fact that consequences of even these acts that you call “consensual” include infection and disease, physical damage (stomach churning things like tissues tearing) and additional psychological damage. Because this occurs, this requires a higher understanding that instinct for anyone to reasonably attach the label of consent.
The fact that animals cannot even clearly state “yes” or “no” without a human interpreting the behavior means that consent is never given under any circumstance. The fact that I may look at an animals behavior and interpret it’s meaning and you may look at it another way still can never define an animals consent. And a zoophile’s self-interest makes that interpretation of behavior suspect.
In other words, until someone’s St. Bernard can say to everyone involved that “it’s OK if my master makes my @** bleed,” or a sheep can read and sign a document saying that they do not hold their “human partner” liable for causing an infection, etc. it will always be rape of a defenseless animal. (Yes, how very anthropomorphic of me. /sarcasm)
Additionally, how normal or balanced these folks appear to you is immaterial. Ted Bundy appeared very normal and cool to all his neighbors, yet he still went out and committed violent, vulgar acts. Your friends are, too. Why an elaborate façade? Because they want to be free to commit their acts of violence and still be accepted somewhere. This has been the center of my argument, they seek legitimacy for something that should never be legitimized by trying to say that “my partner [victim] is completely cool with this, isn’t that right fluffy?” “[whimper]”
Actually whether they are saying it to fool you, or they’re trying to fool themselves is immaterial, also. These are violent criminals trying not only to be free to continue what they do, but they want to feel legitimate by trying to find a sympathetic ear. Not only do furries have a focus on animals, but most of us understand what it’s like to be misunderstood. What better place to find a sympathetic ear, right? Again the core problem is that furries do not commit acts of violence upon animals. But if we continue to tolerate these folks, we ARE guilty by association, just as we would be if we knew someone was raping other humans and said nothing.
Stop defending these disgusting criminals. They are not furries.
There is another consideration as well. "Zoos" tend to be highly aggressive. Given that Furries are already known for an affinity for anthropomorphic animal characters, they tend to view Furries as potential recruits. To paraphrase a line from Star Trek Next Generation:
That is not a joke. That's exactly how they view Furrie-dom.
"That's exactly how they view Furrie-dom."
Wow, I'm amazed at your ability to read other people's minds. <_<
First off -- why is this article even posted here!? This isn't a news posting or a bulletin; it's a rant (or an essay, if you want to be polite) and is more properly suited to other venues, such as AFF. This is wildly out of place on this board.
Secondly, I don't quite get your point. You seem to be saying, "You can't do anything to stop bad publicity and negative exposure, so you might as well bend over and spread your legs. Resistance is futile!" An argument I totally reject. You can always fight back and stop bad publicity. Not a full hundred percent, no, of course not. But every little bit that you can block or stall is worth every effort made. The only reasons for allowing it to happen at all is laziness and fatalism.
Your arguments that conventions cannot ban reporters from attending because they are open to the public are in error. Conventions are private affairs and are open only to attending members; ie, those who buy admissions. Those who buy admissions are subject to conditions and terms set down by the convention, and these generally include rules of conduct and terms under which members can be evicted and/or banned from future events if deemed appropriate. Being on the staff of Conifur, I can assure you that such rules are not only in effect, but that we require a signed statement from attendees that they have read and understood said rules of conduct and behavior.
There are areas of the convention that spill over into the public areas of the hotels they are held at, but most of the event rooms are members only and are generally manned by con security to keep non-attendees out. And while it isn't possible to keep out a reporter who doesn't announce himself beforehand, cameras are verbotten in most areas of the con unless there is a special dispensation made by the committee. (That is, a film crew may have made prior arrangements to film segments of the convention for some upcoming show or documentary, and do so with the convention's permission.)
The fact that CSI had a technical advisor in the form of a furry fan is pretty much a joke. Did that convention that they portrayed on the show even look remotely like any furry convention you've ever been to? Looked more like a mascot con to me, or a weeklong masquerade marathon -- with seminars and a banquet??? By his own account, Dark Fox admits that the producers pretty much ignored about three-quarters of the things he told them because it would have made the convention much duller and more ordinary than what they wanted to portray, so he really might as well have not been there at all.
-Chuck Melville-
Oh, yeah -- I nearly forgot. You began your post with the question, wasn't the fandom and all for the sake of getting noticed?
The answer is no.
It came together for the sake of sharing a common interest with others who had the same interests. Same as happens with all fandoms. Wanting to get noticed by the rest of the world is a whole other goal, but not the reason for the origins of the fandom.
-Chuck Melville-
-- aaaaand I'll belatedly withdraw my initial objection to the initial post appearing here at all. Apparently there is a Commentaries slot here, and I did not pay attention to the heading when I read the article. Still seems a bad place for this, but as it's allowable, I'll keep my peace about it.
-Chuck Melville-
Okay, I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes anyway. As a warning, I discuss the Last Paragraph(tm) later on in this comment.
First of all, the article is generally very good. I've been in the fandom for a little over 3 years now, so I was around for both the CSI episode and the MTV docu, and have witnessed the "sky is falling" mentality that surrounded both shows. Actually, I enjoyed the CSI episode immensely, despite the inaccuracies and fallacies in the story. Most people will believe you if you tell them the truth, as long as you do it in a calm, intelligent, rational way.
However, I do have a problem with the slam towards zoophiles in the last paragraph. (And here's where I attempt the calm, intelligent, rational explanation.) I am a zoophile. Do I think the fur fandom should have any reputation for sexual contact with animals? No. That's not what the fandom is about. The fandom is about art, stories, and for some people a spiritual connection towards animals/furry. It should never be "about" boinking Rover in the basement. Furry and zoophilia are seperate things. Some furs consider both an important part of their lives. Do I believe animals can consent? Yes. Mature animals can consent. They can say "No" if you allow them to. (If you don't allow them to, and continue any kind of sexual behaviour with them, then that's all out rape.) They may not say "No" in plain English, but I think teeth, kicking, body language are plain indicators too. Someone mentioned "trust" in one of the threads above. Isn't that what consentual sex is about for most people? Having sex with some one you trust? Do I think anyone who abuses, rapes, or hurts animals for their own selfish reasons should be punished severely? YES. Most definitely. However consensual sex between adult beings and rape are two different things. The keywords being consentual and adult.
Yes, a lot of "zoophiles" out there advertise it for all the wrong reasons. Yes, a lot of them don't treat their animals properly. But it's not true for all zoophiles. Most zoophiles are intelligent, rational people. You just never hear from them because they either fear backlash, or believe that sexual matters should be kept private. I list my sexual preferences and kinks in my LiveJournal "interests" list, but only to find people with similar interests. I very rarely talk about them in my journal, and even then only under security settings and warnings.
And finally let it be said, I have never had sexual intercourse with an animal. Does the idea interest me? Yes. Do I think zoophilia is wrong? No. Do I think sexual contact with animals is wrong? No... if it's consentual. Is consentual sex of any type between adults wrong? No, but keep it in the bedroom.
Thank you. You may flame me now.
I am going to attemp a calm, intelligent rational reply.
I give you credit for also defining that there is a difference between Furry and Beastiality/Zoophilia. I give you credit for not "acting out" on your impulses. But you're trying to stand behind an argument that is fundamentally flawed:
Animals do not communicate their inner thoughts, sexual or otherwise, or feelings clearly. Their thoughts and feelings can only be interpreted by you or other humans. Quite frankly, your interpretations are suspect due to your motivations. Because animals do not communicate in this way, consent is never given. Just because an animal does not fight back does not indicate consent, no matter how much you wish to believe that it does. "Trusting" the human to provide food and shelter does not in any way indicate that the animal has chosen you as a partner for recreational sex.
And do not confuse an animals instincts to mate as some type of "consent" either, as someone else tried to as a joke. Outside of dolphins, animals sexual behavior is only to continue the species with the strongest available partner. Trying to tie that instinct to consent with a human is as offensive as the "she was asking for it" explanation for human-human rape.
Consent on the part of the animal can never be given.
And while consent on the part of the animal can never be proven, the physical and emotional damage inflicted upon the animal can easily be found in any victim of said abuse. To list all these things gets way too graphic. This is why it's classified as animal abuse and punishable by the law.
You present your argument calmly and rationally, but I'm sorry, it doesn't make it right or acceptable. the only positive thing I can say to it is, if you acknowledge that you have a problem, you may be able to get help before you "act out". The behaviors of other Zoophiles suggests that you see nothing wrong with this. That being the case, I will calmy and rationally say: I resent your presence here and if I find out who you are and that you have committed this act, I will report you to whatever law enforcement applies to you.
I commend you Anonymous Original Poster. You've been honest and balanced about your views. Isn't it interesting that this whole debate isn't really about the consent issue is it?
I've not yet found a person who disagrees with zoephillia because they genuinely and rationally consider that in most cases the contact is not consensual.
They disagree because they find the idea disgusting. That's not a good enough reason to disagree with something, just because it's 'icky'. Many people disagree with homosexuality because they think it is icky.
Even the fandom reputation issue is a better one than simply saying 'it's disgusting, and you're all pervs'. Mind you, some of the posters have given very balanced views, but I still detect this undertone of, yuck yuck icky!
Negative, Second Anonymous Poster. It is ENTIRELY about consent. Those that disagree with you are very plainly trying to say ANIMALS CAN NEVER GIVE CONSENT.
Oh, and SHAME ON YOU for trying to compare the continuing battle for CIVIL RIGHTS of two CONSENTING ADULTS has anything to do with you or your friends RAPING ANIMALS.
"Consent on the part of the animal can never be given."
Hopefully you won't mind my being graphic, but having talked to people that have engaged in such acts, it seems that a dog will in some cases mount a human that is bent over. How can it be non-consentual if the animal actively goes for it?
Easy to explain: a wild dog, or one that only interacts with it's own kind, will not initiate sexual advances toward a human. Only when they have lost some concept of what species they are, what species the human is, and what species other dogs are, will this instinct modification occur. And even then, to continue to actual sexual contact requires additional steps of modifying the behavior. Dogs do not instinctively engage in recreational sex.
And I'm not even getting into other areas, such as "dominance displays".
Thanks for asking.
Actually I've read that the scent of a human female's genitalia is similar enough to that of a female dog's that a male dog will want to have sex with her. And, I can't imagine that they understand that sex with a human won't result in offspring. They don't have a complex enough understanding of how it works. Also I have heard numerous accounts that once a dog mounts a human it will hump away all on its own, without coercion.
And someone else on this board pointed out that all of what you describe can be defined as it trying to display dominance. So that's hmm... let's see, at least three different interpretations of the same behavior by three different people. And one of those interpretations is tainted by the self-motivations of those who would practice bestialty. No definition of consent.
Half of your argument says they don't give informed consent, half says they do. What are you trying to sell me here?
Since humans do not operate on instinct, sexual contact requires informed consent or it is considered rape. In this post, and most of the others, you are trying to imply your own interpretation of behavior as informed consent. That doesn't wash. It's an even less convincing argument than "she was asking for it."
You are also trying to use lack of pregnancy and [modified] instinctive behavior as some type of reasoning that informed consent need not be present, as some other posters have tried to do as well. That also does not wash, because you neglect to mention that other consequences that have been proven to occur in any case include infection and disease, and physical and emotional damage. Because consequences occur, informed consent must also occur. Absence of consent equals rape.
Bottom line: Informed consent must be present for sex involving humans. There are consequences of human-animal sex. Animals can not give informed consent. Any human sex without consent is rape.
The biggest reason I've found the points to the contrary in this forum so laughable is that each argument begins with a "given" that one of these points does not exist and then tries to make an easily discredited point.
I'm tired of defending a point that is as plain as "the sun sets in the western sky" and having people reply by simultaniously trying to redefine "sun" and "sky" while spinning the compass. You're only fooling yourself. If you practice this, go back under the rock you crawled from, you get no welcome from me here. If you are just trying to convince me, stop it, I've heard all the arguments and they only further convince me of my position. Please stop facilitating this behavior by supporting it in this community. Buh-bye.
-Bluesman
Between watching Fur and Loathing and reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream (The full title of Dr. Thompson's book) I've decided that someone In the Know need to do Total Coverage of Furries i.e. A Gonzo news story of a Furry Con.
Gonzo Journalism is a style Hunter Thompson first used in "The Kentucky Derby is Decedant and Depraved". It involves using the raw notes fron the reporter's notebooks as the story itself. It's a highly subjective style as you don't get an homogenized article, you get the author's view and opnions. For most reporters, and I know several in the Louisville Metro Area (my father's an videotape editor for a T.V. news station here), a Furry Con would be too bizzare, too savage. But if the reporter was at least In the Know, or a "Furry" themselves, even a highly opnionated story would be more positive than: look at this freak...
I'm thinking of actually doing this by covering either the Mephit Furmeet or the Midwest Furfest in a style similar to Hunter Thompson's (without enough drug to kill a platoon of U.S. Marines) with the hope that someone on the inside looking further into the abyss will actually have a more balanced view than a reporter who thinks Furries are deviants.
People have called me Furry for years...but more Robin Williams than Robin Hood.
Keep Louisville Weird
"We were about fifty miles from Schaumburg when the Pocky started to kick in..."
What style would you call my cartoon con diaries?
A few problems I have with your rant:
By what authority do you claim to be able to deny certain people to be a part of the fandom? Nobody has that right. Whether a person is a furry is a private matter that a person can only decide for their own self.
There is a connection between the zoophile community and the furry community, whether people like to acknowledge it or not. Many (if not most) zoophiles feel the same connection to animals that furries do. It's no surprise that some zoos would be interested in furry.
The argument that zoophilia is wrong rests entirely on the idea that animals cannot consent. This is a faulty argument based on incorrect assumptions.
1) An animal will probably not care whether or not there is "consent" as we think of it. As long as it experiences no physical pain (and during sex it will likely experience pleasure) it isn't going to mind. The idea of consent is based off of human morality and most people forget that it isn't universal for all creatures.
2) An animal can give consent in its own way. If the human is on the receiving end then it is indeed necessary that the animal gives consent (as it will not mount/hump a person if it does not want to, it would be difficult to force it to do those things). And in general an animal will become agitated and possibly violent, which is a sure sign that they are saying "no." And if you have ever seen a dog hump a human's leg you should know that they are capable of making their own advances (or did you think they were doing that for another reason?).
3) No one is arguing that cases of actual human/animal rape (such as tying up or drugging an animal) are okay. At least, no one is doing it here at the moment and if they did it would be discounted out of hand.
Also, arguing that zoos should keep a low profile simply to suit your needs is selfish. It's basically saying "life would be easier for me if you keep quiet." Granted, I don't know why a zoo would want to tell people, but nobody should be able to say that they can't. That is their own decision.
and for your reading pleasure:
http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm
(note that I did not write this, I'm simply referencing it because I feel it is a good argument)
You have obviously chosen to ignore where the previous threads in reply to this poster regarding "Zoophila" have gone. Let me summarize: whether you wish to call it "zoophilia" or beastiality and whatever attempts to philosophically tapdance around the definitions of consent, this still does not change the fact that this is illegal. So, even though I believe that the poster and anyone else is within their rights to say "your actions are completely disgusting and run counter to everything that we believe in" and you obviously do not, they are still perfectly within their rights to say "stop performing this criminal act in our name."
Nothing that you or your additional link said refuted anything already presented about consent. In fact, you are trying to meander into the territory that animals both do and do not consent while your pet essay simply tries to pass off interpreted behavior as some replacement for an ability to say yes or no. This is only self-serving.
I'll just stick with your points:
1) First an animal does not care about consent because it does not consent. Trying to change the language does not change what it is. You try to seperate your behavior as different from rape by saying that an animal experiences no pain? Sorry, besides the occurance of disease and infection even in what only you call "consential sex", there is physical pain simply due to forcing physical structures to do things they weren't meant to, and there is no doubt that there is psychological damage done due to coerced behavior.
2) First, its already repeatedly been pointed out that while one animal may resort to aggressive behavior if it doesn't want to, another can have their behavior modified to submit. This is still not any form of consent. Additionally, the only time an animal initiates sexual behavior with a human is by instinct modification (intentional or unintentional) that can occur with human contact, coupled by additional coersion to actually perform the act for the self-gratification of the human involved.
You use the example of a dog humping a human's leg. First off, dogs that have no human contact do not instinctively seek humans for sexual contact, leg or any other part. A dog that pursues this contact has in some way lost its concept of what species it is, what species humans are, and what species other dogs are. This behavior can be corrected as simply as pushing Fido away, or putting him outside, and can be trained as not proper behavior. But in order for the type of contact that we are talking about here to occur, the dog must be additionally taught to modify its behavior to engage in sexual activity to gratify the human. This is also not consent by any credible argument. Animals acting on their true, unmodified instinct never make sexual advances toward humans.
3) Tying or drugging the animal is immaterial. The only ones trying to argue that there can be any type of sexual contact other than rape are you and the other posters who practice in or sympathize with your violent, criminal, and immoral activities. The only arguments presented have been self-serving, offensive, and laughable.
Arguing that a "zoo" [animal rapist in every instance] should be accepted or tolerated in any ordered society is selfish. It's basically saying "life would be so much easier for me if you let me continue tearing the genitals of my pets." And, please. feel free to tell me that you can. I will not only feel free to tell you that I find your actions completely offensive and your presence reviled, I will be motivated to inform animal control, the police and any one else I feel would stop your criminal activity and rescue any poor creature within your slimy grasp.
As the author of the article, I never claimed any such authority. I have zero desire to repeat the whole sorry "Burned Furs" fiasco. It simply is not possible to kick anyone out. Even if there were to be created a "Furry Inc.", it still would be impossible as "fur", and "furry" are common words. You can't trademark them, and IP wouldn't offer any recourse as a result. However, I never relinquished my right to either free association or free speech when I decided to join up. I didn't like "zoos" before I bacame a Fur; I still don't like them now that I am a Fur, and I certainly won't give them the acceptance, legitimacy, and cover they crave just because they also refer to themselves as "Furries". I certainly won't associate with them knowingly. AFAIC, let them go elsewhere for that; I will never accept them. Furthermore, it is well within my right of free speech to state just who is responsible for giving all Furs the reputation of "Skunk-F***ers".
if (! strcmp(what_you_smoking(), "Crack"))
printf("I thought so...");
else get_a_clue_run("now");
"zoophiles feel the same connection to animals that furries do." Connection to animals, really bad choice of words there :-D. Seriously, what Furs like includes anthropomorphic animal characters and/or stories with animal heros. Concern for actual animals is optional. Indeed, I know quite a few Furs who aren't one little bit interested in animal rights, and some who are as vigorously opposed to my work with the "Free the Dolphins" activists as any outsider. Indeed, one of these local Furs actually works within the dolphin abusement park industry. However, he is also one helluvan artist, and does outstanding work depicting anthropomorphic characters. We have an understanding: he won't defend the industry to me, and I won't criticize it to him. We stick strictly to all things Furry. Indeed, since concern for real animals is optional, the GD "zoos" got in all too easily. If a "zoo" also has a legitimate interest in Furry, then he's welcome so long as he sticks to Furry business. His zoophilia is a whole 'nother issue, and the vast majority of Furs would prefer not to hear about it. Furthermore, if this hypothetical "zoo" really cared about Fur-dom, he would gladly not do anything to harm Furdom. It would not be necessary to tell him to keep it separate from Furry.
It also rests on the fact that these practices inflict injury and pain on the victim animal. And don't kid yourself about that. Compare the "equipment" of even the largest breed of dogs to that of the human male. The human member does not fit unless forced, causing definite injuries and pain. If it is clearly wrong to inflict torment on the dog by beating it, it is also wrong to inflict pain on it by fuxxoring it. Finally, you are quite correct: animals can not consent. They can't consent to being ripped open just so some perv can get his rocks off. That makes this behavior just plain wrong. That's why I would report any such activity to the proper authorities, and I wouldn't care whether or not the perp called himself "Furry".
How wonderfully convenient! This is by no means a solicitation for sex. Dogs also use these humping motions in order to assert dominance within the pack. A male with higher pack status is the "humper"; the male of lower status, the "humpee". When someone comes to call, all ol' Rover is doing is "putting the visitor in his place", as an intruder into Rover's "pack". This is one of those things that "zoos" deliberately misinterpret to serve their own agendas.
Again, a convenient limitation. (Indeed, there are lots of "zoos" who do indeed do that.) However, how is it really all that different if the animal is psychologically manipulated? Not too long ago, some @55-hole trolling the forums at the Microsoft Eradication Society posted a link to one of these zoophile "How To" sites. This one involving mares. Part of that conditioning involved sensory deprivation. This is identical to the techniques used to "break" prisoners of war, and/or to create "Manchurian Candidates". How is that any better than tying-up and/or drugging? All I see, once again, is self-justification.
You are quite right: it is selfish. And my life would be soooooooo much easier if people didn't say: "EWWWWWWWW!!!! You're one of those Skunk-F***ers!" Whenever I get asked about Fur-dom, or where I got that desktop wallpaper or what it means, etc. Of course, that's just me. No one else in all of Fur-dom minds in the slightest if they are known as, well, you know, now do they? </sarcasm>
"And don't kid yourself about that. Compare the "equipment" of even the largest breed of dogs to that of the human male. The human member does not fit unless forced, causing definite injuries and pain."
Actually the largest dog's "equipment" is indeed larger than a normal sized human. And this is doubly true when the knot is expanded. Now, I am quite sure that the average human is nowhere near as wide as a dog's knot (unless it's a smaller dog, and my impression is that most zoophiles prefer larger).
"And my life would be soooooooo much easier if people didn't say: "EWWWWWWWW!!!! You're one of those Skunk-F***ers!" Whenever I get asked about Fur-dom, or where I got that desktop wallpaper or what it means, etc."
When someone calls you a "skunk f***er" it is their own ignorance that is at fault. You simply choose zoophiles as a convenient scapegoat because as a marginalized group they are much easier to attack.
"whether you wish to call it "zoophilia" or beastiality and whatever attempts to philosophically tapdance around the definitions of consent, this still does not change the fact that this is illegal."
It doesn't matter to me if it's legal or not. I'm merely concerned with the morality of the issue.
"another can have their behavior modified to submit."
I agree that if an animal is coerced in such a way then it is most definitely rape. However this does nothing to refute my argument because all you're saying is that _some_ zoophiles could force the animal to do something it doesn't want to. That doesn't make sex with animals immoral in general.
"First off, dogs that have no human contact do not instinctively seek humans for sexual contact, leg or any other part. A dog that pursues this contact has in some way lost its concept of what species it is, what species humans are, and what species other dogs are."
Irrelevent. Even if a dog is as confused as you say, that does not change the fact that they are capable of making their own advances, which indicates that they want to have sex. You cannot have non-consentual sex with a willing partner. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.
"This behavior can be corrected as simply as pushing Fido away, or putting him outside, and can be trained as not proper behavior."
This is exactly the kind of coercion you claim to be arguing against. It's forcing the animal to do something it does not want to.
"Arguing that a "zoo" [animal rapist in every instance] should be accepted or tolerated in any ordered society is selfish."
Claiming that my argument is selfish is an uninformed opinion. I do not have sex with animals and I never have or will.
You are choosing to ignore what I'm saying. You are still trying to say there is some difference between bestiality and what you call "zoophilia. I have repeatedly stated that there is no difference and I'm tired of all the sad, sorry attempts to redefine what consent is.
I find your statement equating me putting the dog outside being worse than you or your buddies making its genitals bleed particularly offensive.
The arguments in this reply have already been done to death. I don't buy them, nor does anyone else with a grasp of reality. And since your arguments are so unconvincing, what part of "all animal-human sex is rape" do you not understand? You keep trying to say there's a difference as if you haven't even read the other posts.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Oh wait, there is one more point...
> You cannot have non-consentual sex with a willing partner.
Bull, you are ignoring the very definition of informed consent. For example, I may find a fourteen-year-old girl in the state that I live in, she may be willing, she make all the aggresive maneuvers, but if I have sex with her, I rightfully go to jail because my state doesn't believe that at that age she is not capable of making a fully informed decision. Even the other posters here have backed away from trying to argue that a Collie is more capable of making an informed decision than a fourteen year old human. They change gears and try to state that consent doesn't apply.
Oh my! Those poor, pitiful, misunderstood zoophiles! Cry me a river!
I just came from a zoo site run by someone calling himself "Actaeon". This character is some sort of celeb within that community. And one of the first things I read was a complaint from him about how hard it was for him to get up in the morning. I can sympathize with that as I tend to be a night hawk myself. According to "Actaeon", he had another problem: by not getting up early enough, his three dogs kept messing the floor. Now I have three dogs myself (ages: 5, 10, 12 years) and I certainly don't have that problem. Of course, my dogs have never had my non-standard "plug" forced into their "sockets".
Like, DUH! You keep tearing, injuring, and weakening the dog's rectum like that, and it's no wonder they can't "hold it". "Actaeon" needs to have his dogs taken away, and he needs to be put away. And as for "marginalizing" zoophiles, they need to be marginalized. I don't care how politically incorrect that is. Harming animals for one's own selfish pleasure and gratification should be marginalized. It's utterly disgusting, and there is no possible justification for it.
I'm not sure why this is on Flayrah and not AFF, but I still have a couple of comments.
"The one fur who wants...kids toys."
There's only one fur who wants kids toys? :) Most of the press that furries complain about is at least partially accurate. You're exaggerating if you think that unusual hobbies and sexuality is such a tiny minority of the fandom.
"Explain 'yiff'...[and] people of goodwill will understand."
Not really. Talk about a cutesy word for sex and people will think your entire fanbase is about sex. I've been in interviews in the past, and reporters can't get enough of the word 'yiff', believe me. It's jargon, it's sexual, and it's very, very weird. It's like, the trifurcate of yellow reporting. Do you know of ANY other fanbase that has a special word for sex?
The problem with furry and the media is that we *are* a pack of weirdos, and most of us forget this. There's something highly unusual about an interest in human-beast combinations, especially since for a very large segment of us, the interest includes sexual fantasy. We're very, very strange, Simo.
Personally, I don't care if someone goes to the media; I agree that it's futile to prevent it on an individual level (though a convention can stop incursions for the benefit of the peace of mind of its guests).
But you seem to be one of those furs who feels "people will understand", and I believe that's folly. Few people who aren't furry can understand why we do what we do, because WE don't even understand it, by and large.
One last comment. While I'm not here to debate zoophilia, there is no "infiltration of furry" by zoophiles. There are very few active zoos in the fandom. There is a lot of support for the idea of zoophilia, which is different from the practice. The vast majority of zoophiles want nothing to do with furry, and don't see the point of our culture or artwork. There's no danger of zoophilia "taking over" the fandom.
But then, you did masturbate to a picture of a vixen last night, didn't you? Is that really so far off? I have always believed that one of the main reasons there's a lot of BF-type sentiment in the fandom is the fact that many furs suffer a good deal of cognitive dissonance due to their inability to accept or rationalize away their socially-damning attraction to a dog with breasts. Back in the day, I knew several members of BF, and all of them were self-loathers, one of them a practicing zoophile. Go fig.
Trickster
Trickster,
I understand your major point but, first off, although it doesn't happen on this page often, commentary is one of the options here. I think the discussion here has been healthy for the most part.
Your last comment I don't quite agree with, however. I think that just by the fact that the first person to complain about Simo's commentary was only jumping up to say "Hey! I'm a zoophile and I resent being insulted" and at least one or two other posters here trying with all their might to justify this practice. I'm betting that there's at least one, maybe more of the six or seven folks total replying here that DO practice this. This is not a representative sample of furry, but the percentage is way too high for my personal taste.
If you don't believe that there are people actively practicing bestiality trying to hide within furry, why is it that I can go on a major furry server or go to fursearch and find "how-to" instructions for this practice. This tells me some of them are not only using this fandom for a cover, but encouraging others to do it.
The language you choose is rather offensive, but I believe that you are also correct on why some choose to be sympathetic to this behavior. You are spot on about the overall social acceptance. But what I would argue is that, social acceptance aside, because some furs fantasize about a talking, intelligent creature and its primary attractiveness is the human sexual characteristics presented, this is a fantasy/fetish of human sexuality (human/fantasy human). After all you are talking about a "dog with (human) breasts" and not pictures from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Not to mention that until an actual talking, thinking, human/animal type creature exists in the real world, this is all just make believe stuff. This is completely different from an actual, real world act of violence against an animal. My point being, whatever your opinion of the social value of the "yiffy" art or "plush" or "fursuit sex" or whatever crowd, any member of that group is still justified in saying to the bestialist-zoophiles "I don't want you here, go away" because their "world" is a fantasy world and when practiced in private only affects them, instead of a suffering animal.
I agree that discussion is healthy, I just prefer Flayrah when used as a news source. There are many places on Flayrah (such as these commentaries within individual articles) where people are free to rant, and I like that. That doesn't make the discussions newsworthy in and of themselves, however.
I believe the language I chose was offensive only to the easily offended. The most profane words I used were "weirdos" and "masturbate", both of which I stand behind in the context used. I doubt most outsiders think of us that kindly upon exposure to our media.
On to the meat. The ability of access to "how-to" information on bestiality within furry is not a clear indicator of the prevalence of bestial practices in the fandom. I used to run a BBS back in the 1980's, and every thirteen year-old haX0r would upload a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. You'd be warning us that they were all Tim McVeigh, I imagine. I know a lot of furries who would leap into a zoophilia debate (on either side), none of whom are zoophiles. Support for zoophilia doesn't mean practice of zoophilia, often because furry is such a fantasy-based fandom, that its fans prefer fantasy experiences to real life sexual encounters.
As I said before, there's a lot of sympathy toward bestial practices within the fandom, which is understandable given the sexualization of animals that resides at fandom's core. But actual practice is rare, and there are no strong social bridges between the zoophile community and furry fandom. My sense is that you're talking about something of which you have zero personal experience. How many zoophiles do you actually know, personally? You're extrapolating conspiracies of supposed underground zoophile networks recruiting furries ("...this tells me some of them are not only using this fandom for a cover, but encouraging others to do it...") from some pretty shaky circumstantial evidence.
Even if zoos were prevalent in the fandom, this is irrelevant. It's not something anyone can control. If a bunch of perverts began collecting stamps, there wouldn't be any way to "clean up the stamp-collecting fandom". There's no central control over who enjoys a hobby. There exists no means for limiting people's access to the internet and conventions if you don't like them. It's a hobby, not a nation. There isn't anything you can do to manage how people express their interest in anthropomorphics, simply put, whether or not the imaginary army's numbers are "too high for [your] personal taste".
If anything, zoos are the only group within the fandom who *haven't* gone to the media, which again makes it rather suspect that they're around in sizeable numbers at all. The only way most outsiders would be aware of the idea that "furry = zoophilia" is from people like you who spend a good deal of time fortelling disaster in public forums.
I doubt that being aggressive toward supposed zoophiles would have much positive effect, anyway. Any openly-avowed zoophile certainly has a thick enough skin to ignore people who don't like them, and there's more than enough tacit support for zoophilia within the fandom, whether or not it exists in fact, to make up for any detraction.
I agree that actual sexual practices with an animal are different from fantasies about human-animal hybrids. This is one reason I steer clear of the former, because I too find the ethics of animal consent to be very complicated. But I don't see much of a difference between fantasy about things containing animal elements and fantasy about animals proper. The outside world doesn't see much of a difference, either, because putting breasts on a dog--for whatever reason--is bizarre, and it isn't socially acceptable to anyone in common society unless you can explain it away in some clever fashion (traditionally, the explanation has been for the gender-typing of children's cartoon characters). Well, some people became attracted to those characters, apparently. Expecting those who don't appreciate the aesthetics of the animal form to understand that deep attraction is setting oneself up for a big fall.
One last thing: please sign your posts if they're directed toward me for any serious sort of debate. At least lie to me and make a name up, for goodness sake. How original is "Anonymous", anyway? :)
Trickster
Just out of curiosity, how many of you are vegan? If you're not, and arguing against bestiality on grounds of consent, etc., then you're on pretty tenuous moral grounds. How 'bout them apples?
The very point that animals do not consent is the foundation of my moral argument.
My, or anyone else's feelings aside, the reason that animals are slaughtered, used for medical testing, etc. is that they do not consent. This continues to be an ongoing debate, and includes subjects like benefits to society, etc. that are too numerous to list here. For years, the "zoophile" crowd would work this very argument as a lame attempt at legitimacy: Animals don't consent, they're our property, therefore we should be free to do whatever we want with them too. The problem is that argument has never been able to stand up to the moral and legal arguments in regards to animal cruelty. So, conveniently they are trying to double back and say that consent can be given by an animal. This is equally ridiculous. How 'bout them apples?
How about these apples: Eating meat and animal testing serves a purpose, that is, the continued survival of the human species, which if I recall correctly, you belong to.
Boinking Fido serves what purpose now?
You've restated yourself around thirty times now; I get the gist of your argument. What you didn't mention (or at least not in comprehensible terms) is whether or not you, yourself, live a lifestyle free of meat, animal food products, animal-based clothing products, and hygiene products tested on animals.
Yes, eating animals and testing products on them serves a purpose; namely, the selfish gratification of individuals too lazy to consider other means of achieving the same goals. Boinking Fido amounts to roughly the same thing, but, of course, it doesn't kill the animal, cripple it, kill its parents and remove it from its family, etc. It's amusing that I need (x)'s consent to have sex with (x) but don't need (x)'s consent to kill and eat (x).
Your point come across thus: Bestiality is icky and gives furries a bad name, so bestiality is bad. I enjoy eating meat, on the other hand, so that's ok.
Your point was that my moral argument was on slippery ground if I was vegan. My reply was that the moral argument is consistent whether or not the person making it was vegan. I additionally pointed out that those trying to make a moral argument for bestiality/zoophilia have tried using both sides of the moral argument in regards to consent to their advantage, and is inconsistent. So I feel no need to continue this line. I'm not going to be dragged into something that doesn't apply.
Actually, the other reply isn't complete or coherent enough either, and I humbly apologize. Let's put it this way. The argument pro-"zoophile" states that animals can and do consent, mostly by "instinct" or behaviors. (incomplete, I know, but ties to the core of your vegan question) The agument presented here against this states that animals can not consent. Read "can not", not "do not".
Again, the reason animals are eaten, tested upon, etc. is that they can not consent, not do not consent. The moral argument is very different than what you interpret in terms of veganism. The credible ethical debate on eating animals, testing, etc. switches to other factors, such as weighing benefits to society against the suffering of the animal, etc. and is ongoing and has too many facets to argue here.
In fact, if the vegan argument tried to state that eating animals is unethical because they DO not consent, THAT is actually the argument that has the slippery moral ground, because it also suggests there are things that animals can and do consent to... Not that I believe in this slippery slope argument, either. But this is why informed consent isn't used in the credible pro-vegan arguments
On the flip side, someone munching a burger at McDonald's believes that animals can not consent. [Trying to add a do or do not argument to eating meat has been used to extreme comic effect by Douglas Addams in the "Hitchiker's Guide" series] The argument is always consistent for the meat eater: Animals can not consent therefore there isn't moral dilemma while eating them, but because consent is necessary for sexual relations, there is a moral dilemma in having sex with them.
It could be said that by stating that unless someone is a vegan they are on shaky ground making a moral argument againt bestiality, that eating animals is roughly morally equivalent to bestiality. I don't think that's what you're trying to say. I'm not going to say it, because I don't believe it. I do know that there are some vegans out there that will argue that point. But they don't credibly make it by using informed consent, and I haven't seen the more rational pro-vegan arguments presented that way.
All I will say is that whether I or anyone else making this particular moral argument is vegan is irrelevant. So I'm not going to wander into that distraction by answering if I am now or have I ever been a Vegan (or meat-eater depending on your perspective) because that argument really is different and doesn't apply to the particular one being made here.
-Bluesman
If my point came across as that, then I did good as that pretty much was my point.
Eating animals: Most of them we consider food were fairly worthless to begin with and have evolved to the point of being more so. Go on, release those cows into the wild. So how well they do.
And ham is yummy.
Animal Testing: Yup. I agree with some point that it is a lazy means, like in the instance of say, cosmetics. But as a comedian once said, "If hooking a monkey's brain up to a car battery will eventually come up with the cure for cancer, I have one this to say: Red is positive, black is negative."
I don't quite see anyone jumping at the chance of testing some new drugs that might prolong a person's life, but has that sliiight chance of making their heart explode or torturing their one structure to resemble Gary Busey for the rest of their lives.
Now try this little stunt out. Go ask 100 people on the street which is better: eating a hamburger or making sweet love to a dog? Wearing a leather coat or 'being one' with a dolphin? Testing heart medication on a rat or .. I think you get the idea. Let us know how it goes.
Congratulations, Anonymous Poster, you got your emotional argument out of someone else and took it right down the path I thought you would. I notice you avoided the ethical debate and just waited for something like that to pop up.
You're saying straight out that eating a burger is worse than bumping uglies with a dog? And YOU think the OTHER agument is amusing???!?
But since it's the emotional argument that you love so much, I'll say this before moving on. I personally am an easygoing, see it from all sides individual who doesn't usually spend any time debating in this or any other forum. Since any view can be argued morally and emotionally I'll stay out unless the argument is so morally bankrupt and universally reviled socially that the only people left defending the argument that don't actively practice it are trolls, philosophy students taking another point to its extreme, lawyers (who are required to argue both sides of anything) and those who really, REALLY wish they could but don't have the guts.
You don't sound like a lawyer or a philosophy student. If you're a troll, I hope someone takes you seriously enough that you get investigated for actually practicing this, it might cure you of the habit; but you don't seem to be a troll either.
And when I mean so universally reviled and morally bankrupt that no one but those I mentioned go there, there are so few things that meet that criteria. Murder for thrills, peeing on public toilet seats, raping animals; there may be one or two more, but it's a short list. The big difference in these debates is that those who do the other things have guts enough not to fool themselves or anyone else. Their whole argument is "catch me if you can". They know that their self-justification is never going to be shared. They don't make an argument as preposterous as "there is 'bad' raping animals and 'good' raping animals" like this crowd.
So, I'm never going to convince you. Fine, I'm done and I'm going for a walk... in the sun and fresh air. If you continue to defend this; you may call out all you want for understanding, you may try to get some sympathy for your pathetic existence from those who have been unjustly forced out of the mainstream, but ultimately you cannot safely crawl out from under your rock until you let go of "your precious". Goodbye.
-Bluesman
>The argument is always consistent for the meat eater: Animals can not consent therefore there isn't moral dilemma while eating them, but because consent is necessary for sexual relations, there is a moral dilemma in having sex with them.
And before someone tries to engineer a "gotcha" from the wording, that statement means that consent for all parties must be present and possible for a sexual relationship involving a human.
So, in other words, you don't give a damn about the animals and you're just following your societal imprinting. So, in yet other words, you're acting not on logic but on instinct. So, in yet other words, there's no reason to listen to your arguments.
Damn, you've stooped to LotR gibes; I am mere putty in your greasy furry hands, Captain McHolierthanthou. Because this argument is starting to bore me as well, I'll reduce my point to its simplest terms:
Which would you rather do to someone who 'couldn't consent':
1. "Bump uglies"
or
2. "Kill and eat them with ketchup and mayo"?
If you don't understand the logic by now, I guess there's not much of a point in carrying this any further. Incidentally, you annoy me.
Something wrong with not giving a damn about an unintellegent, lower species that provides no purpose other then to taste good and look good being worn? Just because I'm into furry stuff, doesn't mean I should turn into a damn hippie and protect all on Gawd's green earth. There comes a point when you're too into something, you know? Relax, yo.
And yes, before you bring out the old ammo, yes, I have been to a slaughter house. I have seen how leather is tanned and made. I've seen my grandfather lop heads off of chickens for the night's dinner. I've seen aftermaths of medical progress, but you know, it doesn't bother me one bit. None of these creatures are in danger of being extinct nor would they know what to do if suddenly introduced back into nature.
Next, if I'm so horrible for using 'societal imprinting', shut off your computer and toss it out your window. Quit your job. Run pantsless through the streets. Because it's instinct, not logic, that has you follow certain threads in society. Yeah. Okay, sure. We're an evolved species. We live in societies, form communities and work crappy jobs. We have for hundreds if not a couple thousand years, so there's probably something to it. Logic says, 'Hey jerk, if you don't have a job, you don't have a house and if you don't have a house, you should probably go back and live in a cave'.
But I digress.
I'm acting plenty on logic, I think, rather then instinct, which is why I haven't taken a single point in a previous statement and argued against it in that emotional, smarmy, too good for you way. Instinct tells me "canine [is not equal to] human", but funny, logic tells me that too. Logic lets me supress my urges so that I don't have to recieve gratification from something other then my own species. Logic tells me to not do anything that moves. Logic tells me that there's certain behaviors, not to mention laws, in society, usually for a reason.
Evolve.
I'm the one who wrote the original comment against the FUD over Zoophilia in the fandom. Too many comments for 1-on-1, so I'll reply essay style.
My take on Zoophilia and Bestiality is that we all are animals here, a part of the mammal family, so I can't see a problem with inter-species romance and sex.
Some of us mammals have discovered some happiness with another class of mammals that isn't a common thing. That's no reason for FUD, but I can understand it. Jazz music caused riots when it first came out, and at one time you were crazy if you believed that the earth was round.
Furries think alot about animal-human hybrids, and also some Zoos have thought of what the offspring of their matings would be like. If it was possible to happen, it would be a cross-breed, like a Furry.
There are Furries who are more than just fans, they believe they are a different species inside. It would be a natural thing for a Fur like that to have feelings for their 'own' type, it would make sense coming from a more open mind like that.
My first encounter with a [my animal] was in my early teens. It was mostly just sex play then, and it took a few years for romantic feelings for [my animals] to start. Not long after, I was into collecting pictures of [my animals], then I started to like the idea of anthro [my animals], 15 years before I knew a thing about Furry.
I didn't choose to be a Furry or a Zoo, it's just the way things are. I'm a Furry by default, because of who I am. I've had doubts, was the only reason I like anthros because of a yiffy interest? I wondered about myself, but then I grew to see being Zoo and a Furry is a special thing in my life.
With their innocence, playfulness, [my animals] are beautiful creatures, and they are just right for me. Intimate love is just one more part of the relationship that we share. I've cried while looking into a [my animal]'s face, seeing their beauty, and feeling their love.. These are things someone just has to experience for themselves to really understand.
There's no way to really prove how many Zoos there are, but Kinsey found bestiality wasn't that uncommon, with fewer who had contact with an animal in the city, and many more who had that contact in rural areas.
Someone has said Zoos should stay out of Furry. Well, I like Furry, and besides, Zoo groups talk about mostly one thing, and there's not as much I can add there. I like artwork, fursuits, conventions, websites, and other Furry things too. I try to respect everyone's level of involvement in Furry, and I've never had a Fur friend tell me to get lost when I told them I was a Zoo too.
Post new comment