Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

Just got an email with a link to this. Please note that if you bitch about furry, it means you're unemployed. Naturally.

http://www.furnation.com/foxen/articles/fhst/

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

What a huge pile of festering shit. That list assumes that anyone who doesn't like furries MUST BE A FURRY THEMSELVES! The fucking thing is sexist too. Why is it so wrong for a women to pretend she's a man online? If you have a problem with that you're probably a pathetic dork who can't talk to real girls so you chat with them on the internet. THE INTERNET! What a great place to pick up ladies, and possibly yiff them! ONLINE!
This is just your typical furry argument*. Trying to convince you that it's "lol dumb" to hate the idea of floppy dongs on cartoon animals.
Some people are just disgusted by you, and if you're not a pervert they just think you're a weirdo. It's as simple as that. You're a fucking freak and you must expect some level of disgust from others. If you don't want to be made fun of for horse cocks slapping kittens in the face then just keep it to yourself. Fuck.

Hilarious.

*Unless this was some genius writing to get haters "all riled up" then it's kind of interesting, but I seriously doubt someone so pathetic could be clever. At all.

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

Also note, that bitching about furry=no sex life.

Wow.

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Also note, that bitching about furry=no sex life.

Wow.

We're having sex! ON THE INTERNET!

Genghis · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 186

I wanted a livejournal-style quiz, damnit. In any case, let's go over a few:

Phycho whiner: Everyone on PoE is a crazed, alchoholic nutcase with a mental instability of some sort. Heard it before.

The conspirator: Apparently google is a bad thing and anything discovered using it must be untruthful. Oh, and there aren't ANY pedos in furry! None WHATSOEVER! Incidentally, letting people know what they're getting into before its too late is a bad thing.

Art snob: Furries can't take criticism. But we all knew that.

Know-it-all: GOOGEL SI HARD. Also LOLOLOLOLOLO THEY MUST WORK AT MCDONALDS CAUSE WE DONT LIKE THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SMART (hint: kaijima frostfang is not a reference point for how "intelligent" people live and work)

Denial Dickhead: LOLOLOLOL IF YOU HATE FURRIES YOU MUST BE ONE LOLOLOLO OF WIT IS ME.

There's a couple of choice quotes in thre as well. The fact that reporting people's ISPs for simply "making fun of you" is seen as a good thing speaks volumes.

Michael Hirtes · Coadjutor Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 519

Just got an email with a link to this. Please note that if you bitch about furry, it means you're unemployed. Naturally.

http://www.furnation.com/foxen/articles/fhst/

This person is an ass (as well as yet another "dreadful artist who's too full of him/herself to now how bad their art sucks").

I could go on about how wrong this "Once a furry, always a furry" claim is, but I know that NO amount of logic can penetrate the warped views these furries have of themselves. Nothing is going to change their tiny little minds.

PhilMaddox · Recusant Joined: 21 Nov 2003 Posts: 7

What a huge pile of festering shit. That list assumes that anyone who doesn't like furries MUST BE A FURRY THEMSELVES! The fucking thing is sexist too.

Yeah, it's EXTREMELY sexist. The "BitchKitty" one is my favorite...

Being rather vocal, Bitchkitties love to rant and rant and rant about everything they dislike, whether it is about furry or not, as if they had menstrual cramps on the hour, every hour.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Hey, I remember the pics. They were uploaded to Yerf about 2 or 3 years ago, on a comic page, but the author got a lot of negative comments and thought about taking it off. Or so I think.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

:lol: Now me most of those have been applied to me at one point or another by furries, real reason I dislike portions of the fandom, The cub art and the stuck up attitudes of various people.

Considering I bet the person who wrote this can't even get a job :wink:

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Usual furry fanboy transferrence, claiming that the problems which are theirs are actually those of others.

Married, real sex life, gainfully employed, homeowner, snappy dresser, that's me. Try again, fanboys.

IceCat · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Oct 2003 Posts: 81

Mind you I'm not a "Furry Hater" more like I'm a "furry skeptic" these days, who has been looking at both sides of the problems with the fandom, and as is the case with anything of the sort it's the obnoxious 5-10% of the whole that cause the most problems.
As for that list of steortypes well you can make up as many of them as you want to, and they still amount to the same old thing alot of noise, and time spent doing nothing of any importance.

Later.

IceCat

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

Art snob: Furries can't take criticism. But we all knew that.

Word to that.

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

Married, real sex life, gainfully employed, homeowner, snappy dresser, that's me. Try again, fanboys.

I may not be any of those things now, but, unlike our friends the fanboys, I can still entertain the hope that I someday will be.

SLaitila · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 126

Married, real sex life, gainfully employed, homeowner, snappy dresser, that's me. Try again, fanboys.

I lost interest of furry and started to do music. It makes me rememer those years of general fanboyery doing erotic furry art (HOT ANIMAL PORN) as stupid and useless.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Married, real sex life, gainfully employed, homeowner, snappy dresser, that's me. Try again, fanboys.

I may not be any of those things now, but, unlike our friends the fanboys, I can still entertain the hope that I someday will be.

I nearly had one of those things once, but I fell asleep.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Art snob: Furries can't take criticism. But we all knew that.

Word to that.

Umm… normal people have trouble with that too.
I’ve spied on 3 art groups, and some of them had trouble accepting their teacher’s comments and criticisms.
And also, the art classes wherein I have participated, there has also been similar issues with a few.

Esp. With oikish teenage girls from the lower classes who accuse the teachers of having it in for them.

The biggest group of people who have trouble taking criticisms and commentary is probably teenagers. (Though to be fair, many adults are like that too)

Coincidently teenagers are also the biggest group making up “furry”.

La sir, Who’d a thought it?

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Coincidently teenagers are also the biggest group making up “furry”.
La sir, Who’d a thought it?

Well it's okay because they're just kids... but they should grow out of it.

I lost interest of furry and started to do music. It makes me rememer those years of general fanboyery doing erotic furry art (HOT ANIMAL PORN) as stupid and useless.

Ugh. Yeah. I quit doing porn (ALL porn) earlier this year. It always made me really uncomfortable. I'd rather make others uncomfortable, not myself. Of course I have to work a lot harder now because doing porn was what used to keep me from being homeless. It feels better though.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Married, real sex life, gainfully employed, homeowner, snappy dresser, that's me. Try again, fanboys.

I may not be any of those things now, but, unlike our friends the fanboys, I can still entertain the hope that I someday will be.

EXACTLY!!!

Furries DON'T!

Most of them just have some thin patina of pseudo-bravado and that's it. You'd try. Winners, win or lose in the end, play to win. Furry fanboy losers play to lose. That's what separates them from everyone else.

So if you haven't achieved what you want in life and who truly has all they wanted or needed, if you gave it an honest try and still do and play as if you mean to make it and not falsely in order to set yourself up for failure so you can wrap yourself in victimhood, then you can't be a problem furry. It's that simple.

Those who are secure in the knowledge of their own will to keep on keeping on and not give up can't possibly take offense at me stating the facts about myself. Only those who KNOW (or think they know) that they've taken the coward's way out and surrendered to their own negative impulses get truly riled. "How dare Wayd keep mentioning he's married?!" Anyone take offense at Mike Curtis constantly posting and corresponding in the mutual term, Mike and Carol Curtis? No, but then Mike isn't a critic.

I've said this so damn many times among furries that I want to pull my hair out and the outrageous responses of indignation from people who aren't problem furs but think of themselves deep down as such are insane.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Furry fanboy losers play to lose.

La sir... So they actually want to have no life, no good job, no sex, no money, no house et al?

Pardon me if you will my good man, but I find that a little hard to swallow…

Dogthing · Coadjutor Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 207

Furry fanboy losers play to lose.

La sir... So they actually want to have no life, no good job, no sex, no money, no house et al?

Pardon me if you will my good man, but I find that a little hard to swallow…

It's the image. They wallow in their own self-made filth like a rejuvenating bath to keep up their "poor artist" persona. They may not know it, and if they do, probably don't care, that they stray from a "more conformist/mundane" (read: cleaner) lifestyle so they can be part of the rejects group.

Kind of like the goths who depress themselves so they can talk about it to their fellow depressed goths, which further depresses them. Instead of thinking that it's their fault that they seek out so much negativity, they blame it on the world for pushing it on them. So then we have a bunch of self-made rejects who blame the world for something it didn't do. Almost parallel to the furries.

Alas, like a chamomile bed, the more they are trodden upon, the more they spread. Us "mundanes" are the world they are blaming their own social retardedness on, because we can't "understand them." We understand them perfectly fine, just not in the way they want.

Maybe this only directly describes a smaller portion of the fandom, but the general premise of the entire thing is "us against them."

and don't get me started on the fucking scientologists they're worse

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

Umm… normal people have trouble with that too.
I’ve spied on 3 art groups, and some of them had trouble accepting their teacher’s comments and criticisms.
And also, the art classes wherein I have participated, there has also been similar issues with a few.

Furries and anime artists have to be the two worst groups when it comes to constructive criticism. Being a Yerf application reviewer, I've seen SO many flamewars started over the usual 'Oh merf! They just hate my style! Nazis!' argument. If you point out errors in a piece, a sadly huge number of furries will lash back saying it was a stylistic intention, or they'll totally ignore any constructive criticism they had just asked for. Fandom is a horrible influence to beginning artists. It teaches them that it's okay to stick with drawing one thing forever and never improve with it just as long as it's nicely airbrushed and has at least a mildly sexual appeal.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Sulaco, yes but sometimes a deliberate style is used, I used a rounded style on some hips once to emphasis it's cartoonishness, not anatomically correct technically but it worked.

Some furry whinged to me that it wasn't correct but then couldn't take her chars shoulder being corrected, point is I knew it was wrong, I did it that way for that character and it's the only time I've ever used it.

So sometimes a style tweak is just that but I agree that some people need to branch out more, though I don't remember any of those flame wars on Yerf...

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Furry fanboy losers play to lose.

La sir... So they actually want to have no life, no good job, no sex, no money, no house et al?

Pardon me if you will my good man, but I find that a little hard to swallow…

It's easier for them to sabotage their every action from the start by sabotaging their own heart and soul and resign to losing than to try and feel the sting of losing despite trying to win. Play $200 at the casino, and it bites to lose it. Throw the $200 away however you wish and it's a weird dark comfort as there never was any way you could have won by throwing it away so losing was foregone, hence, not your fault.

Yes, they do choose to lose, because they can take some silly shelter in the idea that losing was predestined due to any cause they care to blame. But never themselves.

Believe me, when I was in my early twenties I spent a lot of time experimenting and doing improvised work at home to keep myself busy because I was sick of being rejected every time I applied to jobs I really really wanted. It was a bit too much to take. But when I stopped rejecting myself for them and started spooging out resumes to various openings nonstop, the shotgun method worked and I started getting successes, each of which way more than outweighed all the rejections combined.

It's similar in dating. After enough rejections, it is often easier to not try and do their rejecting for them by doing so.

Furries if anything tremendously need to be encouraged to be brave and go through the same pains as the rest of humanity but most of the furry fandom which isn't so bad off has the wrongheaded notion that the nincompoops should be coddled and shielded. What do you get from that? Namby-pamby mommas boys who can't function and can only survive in packs of other similar sad individuals.

They need to buck up, deal with life's pains, and TRY. If penniless people in backwater shitholes across the planet can marry, raise kids, and live out their lives without turning into total blubbering piles of self-doubting drool, why can't furries? Are they really so much less capable? Refusing to deal with reality and indeed claiming that no one can tell furries to do so says pretty clearly who thinks that of them. I think they COULD if they only TRIED and for that, I'M called intolerant and mean-spirited.

Even Hartman thought Pyle could climb over the obstacle. If he didn't, he wouldn't have expected him to do so and been angry when he didn't. We need more drill instructors in furry and less people to make excuses for their lack of performance.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Sulaco, yes but sometimes a deliberate style is used, I used a rounded style on some hips once to emphasis it's cartoonishness, not anatomically correct technically but it worked.

Some furry whinged to me that it wasn't correct but then couldn't take her chars shoulder being corrected, point is I knew it was wrong, I did it that way for that character and it's the only time I've ever used it.

So sometimes a style tweak is just that but I agree that some people need to branch out more, though I don't remember any of those flame wars on Yerf...

It seems that Yerf is leaning more away from cartoons and more into this realistic hybrid sort of art, which is ok, but i guess i like cartoons better myself

if someone is trying to draw realistic , and its not, then its fucked up, if you are exaggerating features then its a cartoon
i mean you can be in the middle somewhere, but im pretty sure the dictionary definition of a cartoon is distorting and exaggerating some sort of features.
I think "furry" art's strong point would be pop/poster style art, comic strips and cartoons

because most other furry art is going to land in the realm of being WAY to fannish (fetish-y porn, straight pornography, personal characters/'fursonas', fandom-related, etc) or just too genre specific, as in some small offshoot of general fantasy artwork (whatever genre you would call 'dogs playing poker' or maybe even Louis Wain's semi-realistic cat paintings)

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

if someone is trying to draw realistic , and its not, then its fucked up, if you are exaggerating features then its a cartoon
i mean you can be in the middle somewhere, but im pretty sure the dictionary definition of a cartoon is distorting and exaggerating some sort of features.
I think "furry" art's strong point would be pop/poster style art, comic strips and cartoons

because most other furry art is going to land in the realm of being WAY to fannish (fetish-y porn, straight pornography, personal characters/'fursonas', fandom-related, etc) or just too genre specific, as in some small offshoot of general fantasy artwork (whatever genre you would call 'dogs playing poker' or maybe even Louis Wain's semi-realistic cat paintings)

While my favorite part of this is also the cartoony stuff, I get the impression that OMG TRUE FURRY FANS tend to look down on cartoons. Unless it's anime style. Or features giant cartoon wangs.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Ugh. Yeah. I quit doing porn (ALL porn) earlier this year. It always made me really uncomfortable. I'd rather make others uncomfortable, not myself. Of course I have to work a lot harder now because doing porn was what used to keep me from being homeless. It feels better though.

That's pretty cool, but... Who was paying you for the entire Smut thing? Or should we even bring that up?

But, back on the topic at hand, the "What Furry Hater Are You?" thing...
You will see those sorts of people, both within and outside the fandom. While reading them, a few people actually sprang to mind. However, they are just only stereotypes, and don't really apply to everyone who has an issue with the fandom...

-Anon. (That guy that keeps coming here and signing these posts like this.)

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

That's pretty cool, but... Who was paying you for the entire Smut thing? Or should we even bring that up?

-Anon. (That guy that keeps coming here and signing these posts like this.)

I thought it was pretty obvious that SMUT was just really sarcastic... but I'd still use it as a portal, linking to auctions and the stuff I did at Slipshine (the pay site.) Keenspot gave me money for the huge pageviews I was generating too. I still made a bunch of half-assed comics during Keenspot's dry spell because I still needed something that got a decent amount of hits to lure people in to subscribe to Slipshine.
I only quit smut because it wasn't funny to me anymore...

Also: http://smut.keenspace.com/d/20030120.html

SLaitila · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 126

That's pretty cool, but... Who was paying you for the entire Smut thing? Or should we even bring that up?

Seriously, do we even need to ask?

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

It seems that Yerf is leaning more away from cartoons and more into this realistic hybrid sort of art, which is ok, but i guess i like cartoons better myself

Actually, Yerf just happens to have a large number of newer members that are more into realistic styles. They don't prefer realism over cartoony (personally I have a kind of vicious bias against photorealism for the sake of fancy detail) they just ask that when people apply with cartoony stuff that it shows some knowledge of life drawing. You can tell when something is being cartoonized without experience with life drawing or some form of anatomy and gesture study, which is what they like to see in applications.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

That's pretty cool, but... Who was paying you for the entire Smut thing? Or should we even bring that up?

Seriously, do we even need to ask?

Well, I never actually read too much of it. I knew it was there, though. Glad to have its purpose clarified for me. Excuse my former ignorance!

Good luck on future projects, Shmorky. It's great to see somebody stick to their principles!

-Anon. (Same old, same old.)

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Seeing how irreverence abounds, and after a few samples of furry porn comics, I some times have fantasized about creating a porn comic featuring my chars.

So far, I always defeated the temptation, which I think it's good, as I consider that "prostituting" my art style wouldn't be positive. But the idea has been always around...

Amazingly, one of the things that make me shy away from this is that I may succeed, and that would make me be known by my erotic art rather than by my clean stuff, from wich Alice Otter is just a sample.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

I don't see why drawing furry eroticism/porn is considered prostituting your style, it's no worse than drawing human eroticism/porn and I do own a few books by noted adult artists, though sad to say in one of the compilations there is an artist who I would swear is furry except he has humans in his rather atrocious work....

*props up sign* -will draw smut for food- :wink: I have no problem with eroticism and the like though there is a lot of the fetishes I won't draw because they make me feel ill. I feel if you are comfortable with the subject then why shouldn't you draw it.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

I don't see why drawing furry eroticism/porn is considered prostituting your style, it's no worse than drawing human eroticism/porn and I do own a few books by noted adult artists, though sad to say in one of the compilations there is an artist who I would swear is furry except he has humans in his rather atrocious work....

I think it's a matter of ethics. From my point of view, one of the problems with furry fandom is precisely the abundance of "erotic art", and many of the artists who get a regular income from it base it on this kind of stuff. While this is good for those artists, it isn't SO good if you want to go beyond the narrow world of this fandom and be popular out there. :)

*props up sign* -will draw smut for food- :wink: I have no problem with eroticism and the like though there is a lot of the fetishes I won't draw because they make me feel ill. I feel if you are comfortable with the subject then why shouldn't you draw it.

I'm very picky regarding the money I get. Money is money, many people will say, but, if you allow me to do the comparison, money drug dealers get for smuggling stuff and slavize many uncautious folks is also money. Blame my principles, but, in my opinion, there are things I shouldn't get into things I could regret later.

And believe me, I've been pennyless many times and never recurred to porn to get some bucks. It's not what my pics are supposed to be.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Ethics? whats that :P

But no seriously, beyond the furry fandom there are places who have worse adult art than the furry fandom, and some of these are considered 'normal'

One magazine for men who are obsessed with women's Butts call buttman does a art mag every so often, I own one :wink: I'm a girl before anyone asks and some of the artists in it are extremely successful and respected. I myself am inspired by one of the regular contributers and collect his stuff, but it also has it's couple who could hardly be described as artists.

The furry fandom just puts it's erotic art more on display than the healthy sex scene for 'normal' people, just because you don't see it doesn't mean that the equivalent isn't there for everyone. There was a big Expo local to me recently with lots of Erotic and porn artists there.

So getting paid for drawing a nude couple cuddling and very much in love is akin to drug dealing? A picture harms nothing and no-one, drugs wreck lives...the comparison is hardly fair. Though the more extreme stuff I personally won't do, I do think it's a bit over the top to say that drawing erotic art is prostituting an artists 'skills'.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

I don't think the problem is really porn itself; it's the staggering immaturity of the people behind it that's revealed in a lot of it. (Immaturity in the sense of being a catchall for obsession, childishness, ignorance, denial, etc...)

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

I don't see why drawing furry eroticism/porn is considered prostituting your style, it's no worse than drawing human eroticism/porn and I do own a few books by noted adult artists, though sad to say in one of the compilations there is an artist who I would swear is furry except he has humans in his rather atrocious work....

I'm as opposed to drawing furry smut as I am to human smut. Maybe it's just my visual developer code of ethics kicking in, but the thought of settling for something so shallow for an extra buck puts a nasty taste in my mouth. It'd be like taking a Thomas Kinkade approach to marketing art. No matter how much it sucks and has no skill behind it, it sells like hotcakes, but the only good I'd be getting from it is the money. There are SO many more infinite possibilities for coming up with imaginative character work, and I'd rather be doing something more fulfilling like that and be barely getting by rather than getting slightly more money for drawing one tasteless set of nudes after another. Reducing them to mere objects of arousal is almost always chucking that out the window unless you're someone like Chris Goodwin or anyone else who can positively blur the line between art and erotica. If someone can give an image a real sense of character and story, then make a fat buck off it rather than just scribbling out a couple dongers or tits for the same price, they've succeded in my books.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

I don't see why drawing furry eroticism/porn is considered prostituting your style, it's no worse than drawing human eroticism/porn and I do own a few books by noted adult artists, though sad to say in one of the compilations there is an artist who I would swear is furry except he has humans in his rather atrocious work....

I think it's a matter of ethics. From my point of view, one of the problems with furry fandom is precisely the abundance of "erotic art", and many of the artists who get a regular income from it base it on this kind of stuff. While this is good for those artists, it isn't SO good if you want to go beyond the narrow world of this fandom and be popular out there.

I think it depends on mainly why the art is being created, furry fandom's main problem is that its used to generate quick cash

If someone just likes what they draw more power to them i guess, even though the other part of the problem is that in furry it seems way to many people have decided that shitty single-image pornography is what they wanna do

draw porn and it sells at higher prices..kinda wierd the price has not been driven down since the supply is so great

im surprised you still see just a single erotic piece go for a decent amount of cash
this shit should be in gigantic phone books of porn being sold for $10 like all the hentai is

anyway , i think some erotic/adult stuff can be good

A very good example of this would Kazaleh's The Suit (I wouldnt exactly say that its erotic though) which uses nudity to tell an allegory that I found incredibly multi-faceted and multi-layered. I think someone at one point had called it and anthropomorphic 'Man in the Grey Flannel Suit' , which I have not read, but I should soon ..although judging by what Ive read about Sloan Wilson's book I dont think they are that similiar.

Genus, being an anthology is mixed bag , but sometimes the stories are good (same for some of the other R-rated anthropomorphic anthologies out there)

Filthy Animals is another that was a pleasant surprise - it was pretty funny

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Well me I enjoy drawing the nude body, and erotic pictures, and hey if someone wants to buy it, it's no skin off my nose.

Though most of the web doesn't see my erotic stuff, because I do draw it mostly for myself, but when I do put together some stuff, it's likely to be pretty tame and bound into print-sets.

What I can't understand is the oversized sexual organs thing, or all the herm art..how could anyone find that sexually interesting?

Me I like a coy nude, what isn't seen is sexier than what is. :)

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

What I can't understand is the oversized sexual organs thing, or all the herm art..how could anyone find that sexually interesting?

Because we human beings are complex, and thus is our sexuality. When it comes to sexuality, our fantasies get unleashed: this is the origin of fetishism.

Some people feel sexually attracted to the most bizarre things: shoes, lingerie (I mean the obsessive approach where the lingerie on itself becomes the arousal object, not the flesh that it embraces), determinate parts of the human anatomy (and not always the obvious ones), even, why not saying it, objects and animals: cars, your nice and cuddly dog, scat stuff, BDSM, etc.

This can't be rationalized, as it forms part of one of our most primary instincts, though passed thru the filter of our complex mindsets with our our repressions, desires and idealizations, so the results are usually obtuse for people who doesn't understand it.

But I digress. Stuff like herms, from a psychological point of view, may reflect indetermination of one's sexuality, or the desire of belonging to the opposed sex while keeping the things you're familiar with.

And oversized genitalia may mean many things: not being satisfied with what nature gave you, for instance, or an overwhelming adoration towards these parts of your anatomy.

And, of course, if you give these "parts of your anatomy" a non-human look, well, we're starting to play with zoophilia. By taking a rapid look at some people's erotic art, you can tell if they're into that fetish or not. Do note that drawing anatoomically correct anthropomorphized animals doesn't mean that their sex has to be forcefully animal-looking. :)

Oh, well, there are thousands of interpretations.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Healthy sex is one thing, much of what we see in furry is another.

A kink is an occasional step outside the sexual norm.

A fetish is a kink used a bit too much.

Furry sexual interests are often fetishes taken way way too far.

As for the oversized organs, it can be funny sometimes, but as seen with Doug Winger's work, it goes to the point of serious derangement.

As for the animal aspect, it can sometimes not be a sign of a problem, but much of what is produced in furry is just plain wrong.

Very few people get a stiff one from reading the cartoons in Hustler. There's loads of works in furry which are as bad but the problem is it wasn't done for humor's sake, it was done seriously and there's a lot of people who find this stuff erotic to the exclusion of things closer to their natural biology and that's not healthy.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Healthy sex is one thing, much of what we see in furry is another.

A kink is an occasional step outside the sexual norm.

A fetish is a kink used a bit too much.

Furry sexual interests are often fetishes taken way way too far.

Not that I'm nesecerilyl disagreeing with you, but what gives you the right to define all those like that?

Are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist maybe?

An MD?

And also, just what is "Healthy sex"?
Is it anything that <insert person useing the term here> doesn't find icky?

wasn't done for humor's sake, it was done seriously and there's a lot of people who find this stuff erotic to the exclusion of things closer to their natural biology and that's not healthy.

Eh? How it works is, we humans are pattern recognizing creatures, we can recognize in other creatures, other animals, what we find attractive in our fellow humans. For example, Musculature.

Thus, It is perfectly natural for someone to find a "furry" attractive, since it is based off what we find attractive in humans.

Generally, Someone who shows an interest in furries, confirms their sexual interest in humans thus. Since “furries”, it is generally assumed, are like people in that they are sentient and have human shape (that is after all, What the word “Anthromorphic” means, attributing humanity to other things)

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

This thread is getting pretty disgusting.

Furry is a FETISH. If you draw nipples and dicks on furry creatures you CAN NOT RATIONALIZE THIS. It becomes a fetish when you do this. If you like it just admit that you're a sick fuck with unnatural desires... and if you don't want to be made fun of for it FOR GOD'S SAKE stay in the closet! Only another disgusting freak would want to know.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

If you draw nipples and dicks on furry creatures you CAN NOT RATIONALIZE THIS.

Oh yes, definitely, but it's big fun when people attempt it.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Furry is a FETISH.
If you draw nipples and dicks on furry creatures you CAN NOT RATIONALIZE THIS.

Why not?
You have to ask, what drives people to do that in the first place?
Understanding what drives people, what makes us work, how we work, That is the key to greater understanding and enlightenment.

You are essentially demanding that we abandon logic and reason and instead just simply bash something because you "just don't like it."

Now, how is that any more valid than a "furvert" saying that we have to accept furry pr0n because they "just like it"?

If you want to argue against the drawing of "nipples and dicks on furry creatures" you must produce a logical and rational argument for that.

For example, that it is the cause of moral degeneracy and sexual inversion or something like that.

Otherwise we are no better than vagabonds and ragamuffins who would steal the VERY CANDY FROM A CANDY TREE.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Well that's logical..so I cannot draw a male cat morph rolling on his back displaying either nipples or it's bits? Get real, because I think you should include all bits when drawing doesn't mean I want to bed my creations :?

That like saying you cannot rationalize drawing humans with all their bits on display, naked is naked, furry or human, most animals don't seem embarassed so why should we be?

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

naked is naked, furry or human, most animals don't seem embarassed so why should we be?

im not agreeing or disagreeing with the principle here, i would just say

because most humans are fat (the american ones anyway)

especially humans that you can usually find around ..well.. places like WAL-MART

thats some scary shit

-mouse

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Healthy sex is one thing, much of what we see in furry is another.

A kink is an occasional step outside the sexual norm.

A fetish is a kink used a bit too much.

Furry sexual interests are often fetishes taken way way too far.

As for the oversized organs, it can be funny sometimes, but as seen with Doug Winger's work, it goes to the point of serious derangement.

As for the animal aspect, it can sometimes not be a sign of a problem, but much of what is produced in furry is just plain wrong.

Very few people get a stiff one from reading the cartoons in Hustler. There's loads of works in furry which are as bad but the problem is it wasn't done for humor's sake, it was done seriously and there's a lot of people who find this stuff erotic to the exclusion of things closer to their natural biology and that's not healthy.

Then why look at it so much. Seems that everyone's issues with the subject is more due to individual likes and dislikes. So, I figure, if you don't like furry art/ furry erotica, furry whatever, they why bother continuing looking at it, going to where it is, reading about it, etc.

Somes more self inflicted pain to me if you keep searching for that that offends you. Half of the things that are pointed out that are..obsene, half of the public wouldn't know if someone didn't put a spotlight on it in areas where there's decent traffic.

I don't like Hentai, so, I don't go to places where Hentai can be found there for my since of morals/taste don't get offended. But if I did, then I'd be pretty much intentionally doing so, so it'd really be more my fault for being offended, cause I went and looked when I knew I shouldn't have. Same with furry. I figure, if its so bad, then why continue being involved in it. Many hobbies and art genre's to find interest in out there.

Just a thought.

Computolio · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 349

IF YOU DON'T LIKE DON'T LOOK AT IT HURRRRRRRRR

Please, please die.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Then why look at it so much. Seems that everyone's issues with the subject is more due to individual likes and dislikes. So, I figure, if you don't like furry art/ furry erotica, furry whatever, they why bother continuing looking at it, going to where it is, reading about it, etc.

Not the point and you well know it. The point is that too many of the furry fandom ARE looking at it and not just looking occassionally but looking CONSTANTLY and making it the center of their lives.

Such people glom onto others like them, they accrete like mildew, they build like fungus, until the present day where furry has a public reputation not far removed from NAMBLA as an overall VERY BAD IDEA©®. Why is it so hard to understand that furry needs a housecleaning for its own good and these people would be better off making a change in their lives, as would we all if they did?

Ignoring them and their idiocy has gotten us to this point. Criticism has now begun and as expected the defenders have raced to man the ramparts and defense has gone from mere excuses to actively attempting to redefine proper normality to include the worst excesses. As per the old maxim, as they're proven wrong the fanatics redouble their efforts and spin in a tizzy trying to make all the problems look okay, and only make them look even more bizarre.

Furry is definitely still imploding. Anthropomorphics will be better off.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

*Useless response*

Thank you for your contribution.

*Meaningful response*

Thanks, Wayd Wolf. You said all I wanted to say, and with less words, too.

Also, there seems to be a lot of 'guests' here, even after Mouse registered... Screw it, unless I want my posts getting mixed up with other 'guests'.

~Mass Treble (Please hold all Mr. Roboto refferences.)

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Ooof... every time this kind of stuff appears in a discussion, "what is normal", I always shake my head.

Appartently, many furries base their behavior in that sentence. "What is normal? Who are you to tell me how I have to behave?" and the stuff...

"Normal" is a word that comes from "Norm", obviously. That's simple to understand. Good. And "norm" means "standard", among many other things. Standard, like, for instance, "average".

Now, most of us live in what is considered "western society". In sociology, "norm" has a different meaning, meaning also "rule". Those are the rules that keep a certain society coherent and allow its individuals to coexist in relative ease and peace. Belonging to a certain society implies being subject to rights and obligations, not only those from legal nature, but a laaaarge set of conventions that we all obey without even realizing about that. We say "good morning" when we see somebody we know on the street. We wear clothes when we walk on the street, and so on. These are some of the "conventions" we daily obey, without even realizing we're doing it.

However, and depending on the society where you live, and depending on the historical moment, the norms get tighter or looser. For instance, it's evident that living in Manhattan isn't like living in an Amish community. In Manhattan, you can dress almost as you wish (within certain parameters, of course), while the Amish community has a rigid dressing code that is heavily punished if violated. So we've learned another concept: depending on place and historical moment, societies are more or less open to "people that doesn't follow the norms", in other words, people whose behavior is a certain distance away from the "average".

Right now, in the "western society" in general, we're living a "loose" moment. We can dress with liberty, weat t-shirts and let our hair grow if we wanted, and in many places you can even declare as a gay or bisexual person, behaviors deemed as "grotesque" only 40 years ago.

However, the more you escape from the "average", the more eccentric you are considered the less posibilities you have to be accepted by the society. Few people would go dressed like clowns to a job interview and have hopes to be hired, unless the company you want to work with is a circus. And few of us would dare to actually dress like clowns and walk thru the streets (except in Halloween): just imagine it, everybody would stare at you: the society, and the individuals it's composed with, would reject you. Therefore, no matter how loose a certain society is, there are certain behaviors, FAR away from the norm, that aren't accepted. If they were, the societies would rapidly decompose and self-destroy, like what happened with Rome after the imperial era.

So... We've learned that:

1) A norm is an average, therefore, "normal" means average;

2) Societies get loose or tight regarding norms depending on time and geography, therefore, what is "normal" and what is "not normal" is a blurry concept, yet specific to a certain place and historical moment;

3) Certain norm transgressions are deemed unacceptable by coherent societies, therefore, "abnormal, eccentric behaviors are not accepted by specific societies in a certain place and historical moment".

Cool. Let's extrapolate this to sexuality.

Our sexuality has an obvious purpose, reproduction of our species. That's the "norm": heterosexual vaginal sex among two adult beings, and that's what the society defines as standard.

We live in free times, in an open society, therefore, variations to hererosexual stuff like oral and anal sex, and even homosexual sex is allowed within the norm, while certain other things are more "in the blurry zone": BDSM, fist fuc*ing, voyeurism and the stuff. We can certainly understand these forms of sexuality, even if we don't agree with them.

On the other hand, some others are totally unaceptable by our society: rape, zoophilia, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophagia and gore stuff, among many other fetishes, are considered repugnant and often punished legally.

Furry "sex" isn't a fetish on itself, but an amalgamation of many of these fetishes that can range from vanilla to the most extreme, cruel and bizarre depravations conceivable by a human being. Furry stuff is in many cases just an excuse to display these fetishes, sometimes veiled, and sometimes explicit. And it's precisely by this same reason why furry stuff can't be accused or defended as a whole: though we can determine those creating that stuff depending on their place on the "norm" scale. And, judging by what I've seen, many artists would be rather on the furthest side of the scale.

Mass Treble · Recusant Joined: 16 Dec 2003 Posts: 7

A really good essay.

Ahh, this is why I go to CYD! We should seriously see if we could put this somewhere more... visable. I think a lot of people could benifit from reading this.

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

Jazzy

Despite all assertions to the contrary, I continue to be a clueless retard. Who's Jazzy?

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Our sexuality has an obvious purpose, reproduction of our species.

I would dispute that. That may be so in base animals, but humans ourselves are extremely sophisticated social animals.
To say that sex simply functions for reproduction is naïve and possibly ideologically biased.

Sex and romantic behaviour et al, Is a social lubricant that ensures and allows the large (relatively) cohesive societies that humans develop.
Indeed, The idea that sex is a recreational activity, a social lubricant et al, gains even more currency because of things like contraception. Many People want to have sex without reproduction, if sex was just for reproduction alone, we would not have sexuality in the first place or take pleasure from it.

Dogthing · Coadjutor Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 207

Despite all assertions to the contrary, I continue to be a clueless retard. Who's Jazzy?

JJCoolJ, I believe. He was an SA forum member when he turned furry, I think. After he turned furry, whenever someone posted a furry thread, he would show up in it and start defending furry in a horrible manner.

I saw a few threads in which he posted before I signed up myself, and they quickly degenerated into flamefests. A few days after I payed my 10 bux, he got permabanned, and FYAD had a big party thread about it in which a flash animation was made based on an IRC log that our very own Bobby (who was also featured in the flash animation as a whale) posted.

I want to say that it was Shmorky who made the flash, but I'm not sure.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Our sexuality has an obvious purpose, reproduction of our species.

I would dispute that. That may be so in base animals, but humans ourselves are extremely sophisticated social animals.
To say that sex simply functions for reproduction is naïve and possibly ideologically biased.

No, it isn't. My approach to this essay has been only sociological, therefore, psychological issues have been left beside. It's not surprising that in many closed, extremely conservative societies (from Amish to Talebans), tolerate this kind of sex to ensure the continuity of their communities.

Sex and romantic behaviour et al, Is a social lubricant that ensures and allows the large (relatively) cohesive societies that humans develop.
Indeed, The idea that sex is a recreational activity, a social lubricant et al, gains even more currency because of things like contraception. Many People want to have sex without reproduction, if sex was just for reproduction alone, we would not have sexuality in the first place or take pleasure from it.

The concept of "sex as a sport" is just another behavior attached to the rule of the norm I mentioned on my essay, and as such, it's subject to how restricted or tolerant a certain society is.
Let's see, in Victorian times, "recreational sex" was condemned: Women wore FULL nightshirts with a little hole in the crotch, as the society of the time was conservative to incredible extremes. Some women of the time considered "correct" to confess that not even their husbands have ever seen their pars pudendae. However, no matter how horrorized that society had regarding sexual aspects, they had to allow vaginal sex because of their reproductory purpose. :)

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

I agree, excellent essay by m_estrugo

As for my take on the issue.

I do agree that our society is going downhill and that if we don't do something about it, I have serious concerns about our future. Now, I acknoledge that this is probably something that people have been saying for decades, centuries even but I'm really getting worried.

For example, our standards of what shock us are getting higher and higher (or lower depending on your point of view). Ten years ago, a game like doom sickened people and had people screaming 'this game is going to make kids kill eachother' (and indeed the debate over wether or not that's true is still raging).

Games like this have been getting more and more voilent over the years. The content has been getting increasingly strong and the actions portrayed increasingly brutal. With each game that comes out, our 'omg that's sick' proverbial bar gets higher and higher. Just look at the violence in our society. I've heard that the murder rate is actually down, if anything -but- the brutality of the murders when they do happen has gotten to such levels that even hardened crime scene detectives are having a very hard time dealing with it. I mean, these are people that have seen things that would sicken anyone and even they are shocked at the brutality of these crimes. That's not to say that brutal crimes are new, but the sheer volume of them has increased exponentually.

The question is why? Is it because of video games decensitising people to voilence and it's taking more and more to shock and horrify us? Just look at TV, the acts of violence portrayed are getting more and more horrific with each year, it really makes me wonder.

And the issue we've been at here, sexuality issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong but fetishes have been arround for a very long time, probably as long as society itself. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but it used to be that things like BDSM, were only done in private, underground types establishments and you never heard about it outside of them. People would did it never discussed it as they knew it wasen't accepted in soceity.

Now, we've slowly started accepting more and more sexuality in society. As an example, bathing suits are getting more and more revaling, so revealing that the wearer almost might as well be naked now-a-days.

As for furry, this brings me to yet another point. As was discussed in the corruption of the innocent article, the problem with adding sexuality into it is that at first it seems harmless but then what starts happening is that a person needs more and more to 'turn them on'.

Say a guy is attracted to skunkettes for whatever reason.
At first one that's fully dressed, drawn in toon style and doesen't have any 'naughty parts' might really turn him on.
Eventually it gets to the point where that isn't enough and he (for example) might need to see one dressed in more revealing clothing and say have breasts.
Then he'll need one topless, then nude then with oversized breasts etc. Bascially it gets more and more and then into really extreme stuff. And this is where we are getting with a lot of furry stuff (but also real word sexuality, which goes back to my bathing suits getting more and more revaling issue, heck there was a time where even 'showing some leg' would get you arrested for indecent exposure.

Personally, I think this is the issue with fetishes. Our society is getting so lax on sex and sexuality that it's getting to the point where increasigly exotic and extreme stuff is being accepted in the mainstream.
Fetishes are almost being encouraged (just look at how often their now being shown in sitcoms where before it used to be 'those sick perverts', now it's almost 'see, everyone does stuff like this').

Now, I'm sure lots of people have 'kinks' and those alone are probably not a problem. Unfortunatly, what happenes is that, their used too much and before you know it, that kink is required to get turned on and without it, the person can't seem to get interested. This is where it becomes a fetish. It used to be that if this happened a person would say 'oh man, what I done to myself? I need to get help' now it's 'hey, it's okay, lots of people get turned on by that, so don't worry about it'. This is creating a serious issue.

As for the 'you have no right to dictate how I behave' issue. It is true to an extent. But I do agree with the idea of societal norms. If what the person is doing goes against what the society they live in defines as normal and acceptable then they should be discouraged from doing it but instead what's happening is it's being encouraged and anyone that goes against it is being told 'get with the times! This is how things are now'.

In all honesty, this scares me and I'm not sure what the solution is.

-edit-

As for the nudity issue. Lets face it, our bodies don't do well against the elements, we are designed to live in more tropical climates, not colder ones. And we consider a naked body or more so, certain parts of that body to be sexual and such things that shoulden't be exposed in pulbic.

As for furries, well IMO, lets just say real ones started appearing. IMO they should adhere to societial norms. As such, they should wear clothes, even if it means wearing very light fabrics, heck at least something, even if it's only a lioncloth (which might make sence for ones in more tropical climates).

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

A really good essay.

Ahh, this is why I go to CYD! We should seriously see if we could put this somewhere more... visable. I think a lot of people could benifit from reading this.

No problem at all. Feel free to distribute it, it's 100% royalty free. And I don't even care if my name's mentioned as the author of this stuff or not.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

No, it isn't. My approach to this essay has been only sociological, t

Therefore it is incomplete. You cannot present it as any form of comprehensive judgement or common as it only deals with the elements that are in line without whatever ideology has current currency within the field of sociology, and does not embrace true historical materialist methods.

The concept of "sex as a sport" is just another behavior attached to the rule of the norm I mentioned on my essay, and as such, it's subject to how restricted or tolerant a certain society is.
Let's see, in Victorian times, "recreational sex" was condemned: Women wore FULL nightshirts with a little hole in the crotch, as the society of the time was conservative to incredible extremes. Some women of the time considered "correct" to confess that not even their husbands have ever seen their pars pudendae. However, no matter how horrorized that society had regarding sexual aspects, they had to allow vaginal sex because of their reproductory purpose. :)

Recreational sex was condemned in words, esp. by the ruling elite, but that did not stop people performing it or having it.

Indeed, once you got below a certain point in society, the ideas of the ruling classes, by necessity or simply disregard, tend to stop having much currency.

Prostitution was very common, and prostitutes were very widely used (by men).
Why, It’s fair to say that London was a fair cornucopia of prostitutes in victorian times.

We must always be careful to remember, esp. When dealing with sociology, that what people (esp. ruling elites) SAY and what people (esp. the other classes) DO, are often different matters.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Games like this have been getting more and more voilent over the years. The content has been getting increasingly strong and the actions portrayed increasingly brutal. With each game that comes out, our 'omg that's sick' proverbial bar gets higher and higher. Just look at the violence in our society. I've heard that the murder rate is actually down, if anything -but- the brutality of the murders when they do happen has gotten to such levels that even hardened crime scene detectives are having a very hard time dealing with it.

In medevil times, Often, young boys and girls and so on, would be exposed to the aftermath of battle fields, since they'd end up there to loot the dead et al.

They'd see men who had been hacked to death, who'd had their skulls bashed in and their genetalia cut off, men who'd been impaled, men who had been stabbed, mud, blood and death.

That still happens where ever there is war and conflict, Though we have different ways of killing people now... so, How do a few computer games and crimes measure up to that?

the problem with adding sexuality into it is that at first it seems harmless but then what starts happening is that a person needs more and more to 'turn them on'.

Provide proof please,
Are you qualfied to claim that?
Are you a psych or an MD?

As for the 'you have no right to dictate how I behave' issue. It is true to an extent. But I do agree with the idea of societal norms. If what the person is doing goes against what the society they live in defines as normal and acceptable then they should be discouraged from doing it

So, If society decides that it doesn't like people being allowed to divorce, should people not be allowed to divorce?

What if society decides that it doesn't want people to dye their hair?

What if society decides that it doesn't want women to go outside without men?

Tolerence and what peopel tolerate is mallable. For example, Support in england for the death penalty took a drastic fall, once it had been abolished.

People who grew up when it had been abolished, had less support for it than the last generation who grew up when it was active...

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

No, it isn't. My approach to this essay has been only sociological...

...as my purpose was simply explaining what is "normal" and what is considered "acceptable" on a certain society and a certain historical moment. We're not talking about what people do or doesn't, but what the society considers acceptable and what it doesn't, nor I was judging nor saying anything else. Let's not lose the purpose of this essay. :)

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

That still happens where ever there is war and conflict, Though we have different ways of killing people now... so, How do a few computer games and crimes measure up to that?

Because in a computer game, your particpating in it. Games teach people to enjoy recreational killing. There's a diffrent between that and a battlefield.

Provide proof please,
Are you qualfied to claim that?
Are you a psych or an MD?

I don't need a degree to have that opinion. That opinion is based on observation. It's like how someone first tries a narctoic (disclaimer, I don't condone the use of narcodics, just using them as an example) for recreation. At first, they use it once in a blue moon to feel better or to experiment. Then they start to like it and use it more often. Eventually it gets to the point where they can't feel good unless they use the narcotic and they need more and more of it for it to be effective.

It very simular with objects used to induce sexual arrosal. At first, someone might experiment with it just to see what it's like, but their terrified the whole time. If they like it, they still are carefull to only use it for special occasions, then they start using it more and more until they need it to for sexual arrosal.

This is what I'm getting at.

So, If society decides that it doesn't like people being allowed to divorce, should people not be allowed to divorce?

No, that's not what I'm saying but couples having a hard time should be encouraged to get counsoling. Far too many marrages end in divore in this day and age, broken homes are so common that hearing of a divorce barley shocks people anymore, and this is not good.

What if society decides that it doesn't want people to dye their hair?

That's diffrent, that's a cosmetic thing and normally it's harmless. People tend not to complain about that unless it's taken to extremes like dying your hair a colour that isn't natural.

What if society decides that it doesn't want women to go outside without men?

It would take years, generations even for this type of attitude to come back.

Tolerence and what peopel tolerate is mallable. For example, Support in england for the death penalty took a drastic fall, once it had been abolished.

Tolerance is one thing, a free-for-all is another. I'm all for tolerance, and I uderstand that what and what isn't deviant behavior is arbritrary but it's getting to the point where people are afraid to say 'no, that's going too far' to anyone out of fear of offending people. Now-a-days people seem to be allowed to do almost anything and you can't say anything because your not allowed to offend people.

It all started with this PC stuff.

For example, I'm allf or equal opportunites, but we are taking it too far. Instead of treating all humans equally, we give certain races extra pull just for being part of that race (ie affirmative action) rather then based on their merrit. This is not equal opportunity, if anything this reverse racism and IMO its no less wrong then being racist.

Repomancer · Apocrisiary Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 47

Because in a computer game, your particpating in it. Games teach people to enjoy recreational killing. There's a diffrent between that and a battlefield.

That's funny. I've been making and playing computer games for a long time; I've put the crosshair on some pixels and clicked the button many times, but if I killed anyone by doing so, I'm unaware of it. I think your definition of "killing" needs some thought.

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

I am aware that it is not real. I am aware that the yells the NPC's make when the 'shoot' them are just sound files. I am aware that they are just pixels on a computer screen and that the guns are just pixels, bullets and missiles just pixels and the actions of the NPC's nothing more then subrountines designed to make them behave like people and the pixels ordered in a way to make them look like people.

My point is that, the graphics in games are getting so good that in some cases they are near photorealistic. Games can have weird effects on people, especially younger people that are young enough as to still have trouble diserning between real and fantasy. They see someone do this in a game and get away it without any consiquences.

Now, we know that it's just a game and any action it portrays should never EVER be recreated in reality. Violence and unnacceptable actions are fine in a video game but they don't belong in real life EVER. But for someone still learning the diffrences between reality and fantasy, they might not neccessarily know that the game is just a game and might not know to never bring the actions in it into the real world.

I know that this is where their parents come in and why their parents are supossed to prevent them from playing games like this until their old enough to know 'it's just a game' but a lot of parents use video games as a sort of babysitter and therein lies the problem.

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

This thread just keeps getting worse and the real furries are starting to show up with thinly veiled defenses of their fetish.

Drawing humans naked isn't fetishy because they're real.

Anthropomorphic animals are not so it IS unnatural. Sorry, bub.

Drawing real animals' genitals/teats either makes you a zoologist/scientist/doctor/expert whatever or you're just a low piece of scum.

To bring the point home:
It's a FETISH
FETISH
FETISH!

I don't HAVE to write an essay on this. It doesn't need to be closely examined! People are disgusted by your desires and they really don't need/want to know what they are! Furries keep trying to convince the world that they are normal, but it's not going to happen. EVER. NEVER EVER EVER.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

My point is that, the graphics in games are getting so good that in some cases they are near photorealistic. Games can have weird effects on people, especially younger people that are young enough as to still have trouble diserning between real and fantasy. They see someone do this in a game and get away it without any consiquences.

Rusty, allow me to suggest you reading the stuff on ludology.org. Amazingly enuff, it's been created by an old schoolmate of me. :)

I read, on one of the links the site features:

"Rapid advances in technology have made video-game graphics more and more lifelike. Video games are no longer about fighting fantastical creatures and chasing space ships; the top selling games of 2002 reward players for killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and committing despicable acts of murder and torture upon women and racial minorities. <...> Many video games expose children to a gamut of violent and graphic images often more explicit than those we find on television or in films. However, unlike watching movies, when playing video games, the child actively participates in the violence and becomes desensitized to it."

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

If I went by the books I read, the movies and television shows I watched, and video games I played growing up and followed them, YOU'D ALL BE EXTINCT.

It's udderly ludicrous to think that videogames or movies or whatnot make kids more violent. What makes society increasingly more violent is the same thing that makes furry increasingly worse: hypocrisy and tolerance of the intolerable. There's absolutely no counterpoint to anything in the media anymore.

When I was a kid, I was raised to know my dad would spank the living daylights out of me if I got too far out of line. I was raised by my mom to understand the concept of empathy. Together I understood the golden rule of doing unto others as I would have others do unto me. I could either try to do well by others and get better treatment of do badly and end up in a gutter in my own blood. I've lived both sides of the line and let me tell you, the former is far better and less unhealthy.

The point is whatever I've done in life has been my choice, I know it, and was raised to understand that. It was never a matter of poweless little old me wandering in a universe of victimhood.

Not so today for so many. No one is responsible for their own actions, hypocrisy is the order of the day, and concepts of nobility, justice, mercy, chivalry, and so on are ridiculed openly.

People who haven't lived remotely long or hard enough to know what real hardship and suffering are like are inordinately jaded, bitter, sarcastic, and negative. They export to anyone they can, crying in their beer with that sort of black humor which needs to be taken in as small amount as possible. Society is instead on an I.V. drip of self-pity, pious self-righeousness, and utter abdication of all control in their own lives while quite paradoxically apparently trying to create new rights at all times as if that would give them more control yet they have less and less so how does that work...?

It doesn't work.

Society isn't the way it is because of society's art nor does society's art reflect it. Society chose to abandon any responsibility for anything it does, and with no one at the rudder officially, all bets are off. The art is mere imagining and not always the better imaginings, frequently not, and with no one standing in enough regularity and conformity with any real respect given to them, why not follow the worse impulses of ones' nature?

Is not the very concept of respect for others reviled in all seriousness and used in all dark facetious and indeed mocking and scoffing ways, other than as it should be? We must respect people for any reason of whatever insubstantial nature as the politics of the moment demand yet true respect as a human being both to understand and accept their imperfections yet always exhort them to strive for better is to be roundly ridiculed?

Furry in that sense is a microcosm of society. And we who criticize it are the George Bushes of furry, trying to harken to a time when someone did take responsibility, when there was a right and wrong, and people stood bravely against monsters. We're the people ridiculed and lampooned by the Jeanine Garafolos and everyone thinks we're wrong and the supposedly inventive clowns are not only clever and wise but right.

We've seen this before when my parents' generation pulled this same "fuck off to reality and common sense crap" and MY generation has been paying the price for their multi-decade vacation from reality. The Hippie Kids are now grown and working and they ain't in the Age of Aquarius Nirvana of free love and hot sex and no attachments they thought they'd be in any more than I grew up to be a cowboy or fireman like I thought I would when I was eight.

I just wish more people would grasp that chasing dreams blindly without regard to cost versus benefit, to aggrandize their ego and vanity, has real consequences. We've chased the dream of a responsibility and indeed causality free society for far too long. Time to wake up before we die in our sleep.

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

Furry in that sense is a microcosm of society. And we who criticize it are the George Bushes of furry, trying to harken to a time when someone did take responsibility, when there was a right and wrong, and people stood bravely against monsters. We're the people ridiculed and lampooned by the Jeanine Garafolos and everyone thinks we're wrong and the supposedly inventive clowns are not only clever and wise but right.

Uhh... I agree pretty much with this paragraph, but, myself, I'd prefer to feel more identified as a "Winston Curchill" of furry fandom.

But that's just me, of course. :)

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Furry in that sense is a microcosm of society. And we who criticize it are the George Bushes of furry, trying to harken to a time when someone did take responsibility, when there was a right and wrong, and people stood bravely against monsters. We're the people ridiculed and lampooned by the Jeanine Garafolos and everyone thinks we're wrong and the supposedly inventive clowns are not only clever and wise but right.

Uhh... I agree pretty much with this paragraph, but, myself, I'd prefer to feel more identified as a "Winston Curchill" of furry fandom.

But that's just me, of course. :)

Same thing in many ways, actually. There were a fair number of supposedly enlightened people on both sides of the Atlantic who openly espoused that Hitler should remain unopposed and wasn't as a big a threat as certain politicians within their own nation. Much as now where American Democrats will openly liken President Bush to Hitler and claim that the Attorney General is a bigger threat to the nation than international terrorism.

Yeah, like badly run executive branch departments caused the September 11, 2001 attacks. PEOPLE caused that. Very bad people, who too many very stupid people refuse to believe exist or in the badness of because they are blinded by arrogance and vanity to seeing only their personal politics.

Again, terrorists didn't do this, nor did politics which above all else the modern mantra of non-responsibility harkens to. Someone else caused this. If anyone at all could be said to take responsibility. Actually, the non-responsible-for-anything movement instead blames ephemeral CONCEPTS for everything. Racism, poverty, unemployment... As if any of these has ever jumped out of your bookshelf dictionary and lifted your wallet for a night on the town using your credit cards much less felled two skyscrapers.

After you watch a video of an execution squad of the former regime operating, you can hardly call Hussein deserving of keeping his post as Psycho In Charge. Yet in our responsibility free zone of thought, we've got a lot of children playing. All happily bouncing in an insane dreamland of sitting back and letting people be tortured and slaughtered, less we be forced to acknowledge our own failings.

Yes, you heard me. If we allow him to continue, we can blame our political enemies for his continued predation and not recognize our own inaction as being the culprit for his rise to power. Fight him, and on some level, we have to come to grips with the fact that we sat back and did nothing for so long.

It's not much different in every day life. If we chase after the freaks of furry, or even criticize their behaviours in the abstract, then we have to acknowledge our own failings. We couldn't sit here and act the exact same way without extreme hypocrisy. That is why furries who aren't dysfunctional will continue defending the creeps and losers. They don't want to be the next to be judged, least of all by their own heretofore leashed and sleeping consciences.

When their guilt, which does exist, is roused, the damage to the psyche can be like a... well to put it plainly, a buttfucking with a howitzer. So instead, people avoid it, make excuses, even for the inexcuseable, lest they be called to account.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

This thread just keeps getting worse and the real furries are starting to show up with thinly veiled defenses of their fetish.

Drawing humans naked isn't fetishy because they're real.

Anthropomorphic animals are not so it IS unnatural. Sorry, bub.

Drawing real animals' genitals/teats either makes you a zoologist/scientist/doctor/expert whatever or you're just a low piece of scum.

Actually, I think you are going way too far in the other direction here
I would say anthropomorphic art that contains fetish material is a fetish or if it has a 'fucked up' sexual element to it ,

To say that it is automatically a fetish , its wrong as soon as you are talking about animal characters that are iconographic
because they are just representing humans e.g. Omaha, Fritz , etc

if you got a story, and your telling it with animals characters , and theres a sex scene, thats what it is

(i would say this can hold true OUTSIDE of that as well at times, but for the sake of simplicity here..)

Also, as I have in the past, ill refer to Kazaleh's books The Mean Green Bondo Machine and Short on Plot
They are collections of his art, 100% funny-animals, mostly nudes, and mostly bizarre to the point where there is almost no sexual connotation to the images whatsoever
(there is also Steel Pumpkin, and several others which I DO NOT have, otherwise Im sure i could cite those as well)

mainly because the characters are usually not engaging in sexual activity, and also the scenes are extremely casual

Its like looking at a society that doesnt wear clothes, no big deal (i think he started doing it because they are animals, and then went on to explore this idea more in depth in his GN 'The Suit')

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

What he said in the last two posts

I know this may surprise you, but I agree with what you've said. I could add some examples, but I think you've covered it.

Rusty, allow me to suggest you reading the stuff on ludology.org. Amazingly enuff, it's been created by an old schoolmate of me. :)

Thanks for the link :)

Computolio · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 349

I don't HAVE to write an essay on this. It doesn't need to be closely examined! People are disgusted by your desires and they really don't need/want to know what they are! Furries keep trying to convince the world that they are normal, but it's not going to happen. EVER. NEVER EVER EVER.

I'm agreeing with you here, nearly to the point of closing the thread.

However, there is some grey area on what makes someone a furry fetishist. Surely the random SomethingAwful goon who admitted to once having a crush on Gadget is not a furry fetishist? I guess the point of no return is when someone starts finding talking animal people attractive because they're talking animal people, not in spite of it.

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

Well, the thing is that, a lot of these 'femme furs' have more or less human bodies, just with some animal stuff.

Take gadget, she basically has a human body, just with a tail, mouse ears and muzzle. Yes, her hands and feet have the look of a toon, but she more or less has a human body.

Take Sabrina, again, she more or less has a human body, just add the black and white fur, a tail, the toonish feet and hands and facial features of a skunk.

I have a theory on all of this and the more I think about the more I think I'm onto something.

I think the issue here of these characters and people finding them attractive is that they almost feel afraid to find real women attractive out of fear of being called pigs or perverts. By adding the fur, tail and facial features, maybe they somehow feel vindicated and feel as if doing that makes it okay to fantasice about them. The problem with doing this is that, what starts happening is that they almost feel as if a women without the fur and tail etc is missing something and it perhaps even gets to the point where they need the fur and tail for the attraction.

In other words, what starts out as something that was done as a form of vindication ends of becomming a sort of fetish.

I'm not sure it's an animal fetish though, I think it's closer to a fur fetish (as in the kind where seeing a woman in a furcoat elicits sexual desire, but it's almost like the fur coat itself is the object of affection and not what's under the fur coat). In a sence, a 'femme fur' has a perminant fur coat, so I think it could be related.

Another idea could be that, by making them animals, they feel that it makes more deviant behavior by the characters more justifyable (ie saying 'well, their animals, of course they act like this!'). Maybe it's a combination of the two?

of course, this is just a theory. I could very well be way off.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

I don't HAVE to write an essay on this. It doesn't need to be closely examined! People are disgusted by your desires and they really don't need/want to know what they are! Furries keep trying to convince the world that they are normal, but it's not going to happen. EVER. NEVER EVER EVER.

I'm agreeing with you here, nearly to the point of closing the thread.

oh cmon now!

i took Kelly's statement to be a little bit reactionary, to the point where it smacks down a whole bunch of blatantly non-furry artists as well

However, there is some grey area on what makes someone a furry fetishist.

ill say

of the 3 statements i take issue with the second

Anthropomorphic animals are not so it IS unnatural. Sorry, bub.

unconventional, yes...unnatural..uh im not so sure on that one
what context?
unnatural as in an anthropomorphic anythign doesnt exist in nature

since when in art is unconventional ever a bad thing? (dont give the easy answer)

is the subject here still 'nudes' or porn ?
even with porn it doesnt change the issue that much (unless we are going to start argueing what constitutes pornography and what does not : X-rated humor, porn or no? discuss)

i think the the main problem is because people insist on using the word fetish to cover way too broad an area

in which case cartoon human porno (or even nudes) can definatly be a fetish

none of that shit really matters though,
if the artist didnt do it as a fetish piece - it isnt, period

since when is it ever an artists fault if some miscreant jerks off to thier work, when that was not the artists intent, regardless of the content of the piece in question?

goddamn, this thread has gotten hilarious, on BOTH sides of the issue

:lol: :lol:

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Drawing humans naked isn't fetishy because they're real.

But the humans you draw don’t exist. (Unless you’re drawing from a life model) Thus, your logic dictates that drawing humans engaging in sex (unless you use life models et al) is “Fetishy.”

Anthropomorphic animals are not so it IS unnatural. Sorry, bub.

Do you know much about philosophy?
Maybe if you did, Perhaps you would realise that there cannot be such a thing as "unnatural"?
If something exists or occurs in the natural world (that is, the physical universe), By it's very nature, It must be natural.

It doesn't need to be closely examined! People are disgusted by your desires and they really don't need/want to know what they are! Furries keep trying to convince the world that they are normal, but it's not going to happen. EVER. NEVER EVER EVER.

As it stands, your argument is no more valid than a "furry" saying that there is nothing wrong with furry pr0n and when asked why, they just say "because".

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

My point is that, the graphics in games are getting so good that in some cases they are near photorealistic. Games can have weird effects on people, especially younger people that are young enough as to still have trouble diserning between real and fantasy. They see someone do this in a game and get away it without any consiquences.

Rusty, allow me to suggest you reading the stuff on ludology.org. Amazingly enuff, it's been created by an old schoolmate of me. :)

I read, on one of the links the site features:

"Rapid advances in technology have made video-game graphics more and more lifelike. Video games are no longer about fighting fantastical creatures and chasing space ships; the top selling games of 2002 reward players for killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and committing despicable acts of murder and torture upon women and racial minorities. <...> Many video games expose children to a gamut of violent and graphic images often more explicit than those we find on television or in films. However, unlike watching movies, when playing video games, the child actively participates in the violence and becomes desensitized to it."

Ye gods, It’s like the Conservative party conference in here.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

*Snip reactionary rant*

“Oh what pitiful stuff” ;o)

(master and commander was an Okay film IMO)

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

*Snip reactionary rant*

?Oh what pitiful stuff? ;o)

(master and commander was an Okay film IMO)

Oh yes, let's not waste valuable time by debating those people whose views offend our hard-thought socialist principles borne of our extensive experience of life! Oh no! Let us instead fall back to tried-and-tested leftist methods and denounce them as reactionaries and/or fascists! Never fails!

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

*Snip reactionary rant*

?Oh what pitiful stuff? ;o)

(master and commander was an Okay film IMO)

Oh yes, let's not waste valuable time by debating those people whose views offend our hard-thought socialist principles borne of our extensive experience of life! Oh no! Let us instead fall back to tried-and-tested leftist methods and denounce them as reactionaries and/or fascists! Never fails!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

David is a most strange person. On the one hand, he's got the extensive knowledge of English history and whatnot but on the other, he seems to oscillate between being the real-life founder of INGSOC and wanting to do something concrete.

I didn't think modern British socialism had gone so far and damaged people so much.

Well, thinking about him, he's like a lot of other furs in the high intelligence but low wisdom and low life experience.

Dave, large amounts of rote knowledge should not be confused with wisdom. Do you know how many of the worst problem furs are total techno geeks who could if they weren't such ditzes, be IT admins for major corporations? You've got smarts, but your flirtation with socialism is either a put-on or if serious, a sign of a serious lack of life experience. When you get to the point of providing for your family, keeping a roof over their heads, and so on... then go on about socialism versus capitalism. You might see things a bit differently.

I used to think I could fix the world. Now I know I can't, but I know I can survive longer than others who never learned they couldn't.

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

David is a most strange person.

David is a furry defending furry fans.

Sorry if I was reactionary, but it drives me MAD when someone tries to call their six titted tiger porn "art." Don't get in to that whole "what is art?" mess with me. I've got a real headache right now. The things Mouse mentioned are things I don't have a problem with. Those are stories and scribbles. What I hate is someone drawing a naked anthro and telling you it's no different from a naked human. It IS very different. It's not as bad as drawing that same naked anthro in bondage/rubber pants/shit on their chest, but it's still WEIRD AS HELL. You have to give me that.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

*Snip reactionary rant*

?Oh what pitiful stuff? ;o)

(master and commander was an Okay film IMO)

Oh yes, let's not waste valuable time by debating those people whose views offend our hard-thought socialist principles borne of our extensive experience of life! Oh no! Let us instead fall back to tried-and-tested leftist methods and denounce them as reactionaries and/or fascists! Never fails!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

David is a most strange person. On the one hand, he's got the extensive knowledge of English history and whatnot but on the other, he seems to oscillate between being the real-life founder of INGSOC and wanting to do something concrete.

I didn't think modern British socialism had gone so far and damaged people so much.

It has gone much farther than you would credit, Wayd, believe me, and IMHO it has infected every corner of British public life. Modern British socialists now consist solely of middle-class students with massive chips on their shoulders, crazed trustafarians, disgruntled crusties, and cynical opportunists with their eyes firmly on the main chance.

Who, me? Bitter?

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Sorry if I was reactionary, but it drives me MAD when someone tries to call their six titted tiger porn "art."

I wouldnt call it 'art' either, particularly if its specifically 'porn' we are talking about here.
i think its just the pragmatic aspect of it, that someone has drawn it, that causes people to call it art.

What I hate is someone drawing a naked anthro and telling you it's no different from a naked human. It IS very different. It's not as bad as drawing that same naked anthro in bondage/rubber pants/shit on their chest, but it's still WEIRD AS HELL. You have to give me that.

It IS different,
It IS weird and I WILL give you that

i would just kind of point out that in a scenario like this , 'weird as hell' doesnt necessarily have to carry an extremely negative connotation to it (like the examples that i mentioned and that you already acknowledged)

If i did a painting of eyeballs, clocks and martini glasses floating in outer space that would also be weird as hell

i personally feel that it would also be really cool

Dogthing · Coadjutor Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 207

disgruntled crusties

What the fuck is a crustie.

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

You know it's odd until now I didn't know that I was strange until today...I mean I never knew it was normal to only get turned on by one thing.

I guess this means I will have to stop liking Faux fur bedding and satin bedding, oh yeah and no more undies with kitties on them :lol:

No but seriously it isn't a hard kink to understand, we humans are touchy feely sorts and a liking for certain fabrics and simuliar is a very common like, I can easily see why it extended to anthro animals.

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

Here's another way of looking at it.

People like animals, we've kept companion animals for many millenia.

People have often been facinated with animals, any many societies reguard them very highly.

Cats were worshiped as gods in ancient Egypt and if I remember correctly, at least one of their gods was depticted as a cat person.

Humans wanting to be arround animals and thinking highly of animals is definitly not a recent thing.

Think about the idea of having a companion animal and friend in one. I.e. think about how much fun it would be to have a anthro cat that you could speak to intellgiently, but it would still like to play with things like a kitty. I can certainlly understand the appeal in that. It's sort of a 'best of both worlds' kind of thing.

Or, think of a wild animal you admire. Having an anthro version of it to teach you about nature and stuff (and I don't mean in a sappy way, I mean in a way that teachs you about all the cool things aobut nature but doesen't pretend animals are all peace and love and dacing arround all dat). People do like to cuddle up to soft and warm things. I'm sure a lot of people find the idea of cuddling up to a human sized (insert species) here to be a neat concept, it would certainly keep you warm on a cold winters night.

I think the whole sex thing is simply people taking it one step further and perhaps too far. It's being changed from a 'it'd be so fun to cuddle up with an anthro skunk (and imaging having one as a bodyguard :twisted:) to 'hey they can be sexy too'. Yes animals can be beautifull, and there is a diffrence between beautifull and sexy. I think that as long as it's kept as the beauty of nature level and not taken to the sexy level, I think it's perfectly fine and harmless

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

*Snip reactionary rant*

?Oh what pitiful stuff? ;o)

(master and commander was an Okay film IMO)

Oh yes, let's not waste valuable time by debating those people whose views offend our hard-thought socialist principles borne of our extensive experience of life! Oh no! Let us instead fall back to tried-and-tested leftist methods and denounce them as reactionaries and/or fascists! Never fails!

Would you rather that me go at it point by point then?

I could try it, if you will as such mi’lord.

Though, You’re not one of those ex-student-radicals who ends up thinking along the same lines as David Blunkett are you?

They make me sad :o(

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

It has gone much farther than you would credit, Wayd, believe me, and IMHO it has infected every corner of British public life. Modern British socialists now consist solely of middle-class students with massive chips on their shoulders, crazed trustafarians, disgruntled crusties, and cynical opportunists with their eyes firmly on the main chance.

Who, me? Bitter?

You sound rather prejudiced there.
That's not very progressive of you, Indeed it's rather bigoted even.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

David is a furry defending furry fans.

Ad Hom attacks only proves the weakness of your position.
And I noticed that you still haven’t been able to answer any of my points.
However, I will give up on the idea that you can provide any form of basis your beliefs other than an emotive one.

Sorry if I was reactionary, but it drives me MAD when someone tries to call their six titted tiger porn "art." Don't get in to that whole "what is art?" mess with me.

Art is a cultural subjective. Some cultures consider tribal mask things "art", some cultures consider them, just objects.

Sadly, There is no black and white. None at all.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

People like animals, we've kept companion animals for many millenia.

People have often been facinated with animals, any many societies reguard them very highly.

Cats were worshiped as gods in ancient Egypt and if I remember correctly, at least one of their gods was depticted as a cat person.

Humans wanting to be arround animals and thinking highly of animals is definitly not a recent thing.

Humans have to Anthromorphise animals because we cannot understand (fully) what it is like to be another animal.

They don’t have the capacity for abstract symbolic language like we do, they don’t have a proper verbal language at all, verbal language is the speech of our reflexive consciousness, (that’s the voice in our heads) and that makes it hard to think about how they would think, since they don’t have a voice in their heads to do it with probably.

We cannot truly understand what it is like to be a cat, or what emotions they have, because we ain’t cats. We’re humans with human brains, and like a square peg in round hole, it ain’t going to go.

Thus, we have to attribute motivations to them (like “hunger”) that in truth, only really can be said to apply to humans, otherwise we'd never be even able to attempt to describe their behavior.

Mitch · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 290

It has gone much farther than you would credit, Wayd, believe me, and IMHO it has infected every corner of British public life. Modern British socialists now consist solely of middle-class students with massive chips on their shoulders, crazed trustafarians, disgruntled crusties, and cynical opportunists with their eyes firmly on the main chance.

Who, me? Bitter?

You sound rather prejudiced there.
That's not very progressive of you, Indeed it's rather bigoted even.

Yes, it probably does sound rather prejudiced and bigoted, but it's just my personal jaundiced opinion, borne of long experience and involvement with people on the Left. Hey, if you think that was bad you should hear me when I get going on the subject of the Right... as Churchill once said of Stalin vs. Hitler, it's just a pity that they both can't lose ;)

And as some French geezer once said, "Anyone who isn't a radical at age 20 has no heart, and anyone who's still a radical at age 30 has no brain".

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Yes, it probably does sound rather prejudiced and bigoted, but it's just my personal jaundiced opinion, borne of long experience and involvement with people on the Left. Hey, if you think that was bad you should hear me when I get going on the subject of the Right... as Churchill once said of Stalin vs. Hitler, it's just a pity that they both can't lose ;)

And as some French geezer once said, "Anyone who isn't a radical at age 20 has no heart, and anyone who's still a radical at age 30 has no brain".

Oh well then, I suppose that is okay then... reminds me a little of my father...
He went to school with a certain person who now holds (relatively) high office in this government and he had some really er… Choice words about that person.

And Also, From what he told me, He (and others) were upset in the 1980's because of what Thatcher was doing to the country, however, people like CND and the labour party were harping on about unilateral nuclear disarmament and stuff, while allowing thatcher to do what she did.

He mentioned apparently, that when he was a student radical, sometimes they went around calling people who didn't agree with their views, a proto fascist, and that an inordinate amount of his fellow radicals are now "turncoats" of some form or another. So I guess that your opinions are probably founded in truth.

He did advise me to stay clear of any Marxist group while I attend university.
(Though I admit, I do not know the current state of such groups)

Sulaco · Rasophore Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 61

However, there is some grey area on what makes someone a furry fetishist. Surely the random SomethingAwful goon who admitted to once having a crush on Gadget is not a furry fetishist? I guess the point of no return is when someone starts finding talking animal people attractive because they're talking animal people, not in spite of it.

Thank you.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Whats funny is that I've seen example of each on this site

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

I am that kind of furry hater that hate the stuff that would make your mom puke.
I have a feeling that "Furry Hater Stereotypes" were written in frustration by some furry realizing the furry haters were right after all.

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Whats funny is that I've seen example of each on this site

UH OH, GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Genghis · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 186

Whats funny is that I've seen example of each on this site

and so, THE HUNTAR HAS BECOM TEH HUNTED!!!111one

Shmorky · Coadjutor Joined: 22 Nov 2003 Posts: 182

Whats funny is that I've seen example of each on this site
and so, THE HUNTAR HAS BECOM TEH HUNTED!!!111one

And nothing is as it seems!
"Honey, the babysitter is here!"
"It better not be Joseph Staaaaaliiin!"
"I'm 100% sure it is not Joseph Stalin."
"ALLO."
"Oh no, it is Joseph Stalin."

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

I'm a fairly selective hater. I hate specific people for their tasks, rather than just giving a specific sect grief - well, other than the paedophiles, vores, and candy-ravers. ;)