Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Thrash Smartly · Recusant Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Posts: 3

I'm not a furry. I never was a furry. I stumbled
on furry by accident. A long time ago, I read
part of a story by Elf Sternberg called 'One Night
on Thundara." It was the first time anything I
read caused me physical pain. Well, obviously,
I avoided anything written by Elf Sternberg, but
I didn't give it much more thought than that. My
biggest interested in times pasts was mudding.
Mostly, that took me to combat muds, but I was
bored one day and set out to find a social mud.
I found the biggest one at that time: FurryMUCK.
There was a lot of people there and the theme
was animals, I thought, so why not join in? It
wasn't all that bad at first, really. I did notice a
large number of stupid people who lacked a sense
of humor about themselves and who expected
everyone (strangers included) to give a shit about
their pathetic lifes. I didn't even give that much
thought. I was rude to those people and hanged
out with the few who were cool. And then one day
someone showed me the furry fandom. Suddenly,
things about the people on the muck were made
clear. Zoophiles abounded there. They're just
bestialists with a prettier name. They BRAG about
having sex with animals! I remember one blind
guy who was proud of having 'seduced' his seeing
eye dog. That kinda thing was the tip of the
iceberg. Their art and stories were full of that
kinda sickness. From sexual cannibalism to outright
pedophilia, these people knew no limits. Do I
exaggerate? I wish I were. Some furry apologists
will argue that not all furries are like that. That the
majority of the fandom is just about enjoying
anthropomorphic animal genre. I scoff at that.
Anthropomorphic animals aren't a genre. It's not
even a macrogenre. It's a literary device! Authors
use them as everyman characters that anyone can
identify with. A white man in that role is bound to
alienate someone, but a talking animal? It appeals
to, at least, the child in all of us. I suspect in real
furries they're stuck being that child for life. They
turn it into a sexual fetish because their bodies
have gone through puberty, so they're compelled
to direct their desire somewhere. That's why they
take to plushies and cartoons. Much of their art
looks Disneyish. It all points back to the same
thing. The key difference between how furries
look at anthropomorphic animals and how others
look at them is furries use them to REPLACE
humans and others see them as standing in for
humans. I don't think everyone who calls themself
a furry has that kinda sickness. Those people are
worse. They ENABLE the sick ones if only in their
silent acceptance. I'm sure they'll be some who try
to dismiss me as a troll. I'm not. But am I alone here?
Does anyone else see furry for what it is?

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Yes and No, I agree with some of what you're saying but I know too many good 'furrys' who have nothing whatsoever to do with the morons, they don't encourage them or anything.

Also so people are just fucked up no matter whether it's anthromorphics, robots or whatever.

Thrash Smartly · Recusant Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Posts: 3

Also so people are just fucked up no matter whether it's anthromorphics, robots or whatever.

Oh, that's undoubtly true. The net makes a perfect refuge for them.
Furries just seem to smell the worse.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Furries just seem to smell the worse.

They do, but dont worry , you get used to it after a while

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

I read 70% of your post before I had enough.
There are some really fucked up furries, I think the problem is not with the furries but with the word furry itself. The fact there is many sick furries does not have to mean anything more then the fact there is many sick humans - both words covers way to many people and way to different people for them to be accurate in any way.
The point here, I dont think furries are any worse then the rest of the population, but it depends on how you define a furry.

SLaitila · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 126

There are some really fucked up furries, I think the problem is not with the furries but with the word furry itself. The fact there is many sick furries does not have to mean anything more then the fact there is many sick humans - both words covers way to many people and way to different people for them to be accurate in any way.
The point here, I dont think furries are any worse then the rest of the population, but it depends on how you define a furry.

I think the whole idea is fucked up. I was a furry, I was fucked up, I grew out of it and now I'm cooler that vanilla ice on the rocks. And smoother than a lubed up Barry White.

And I HAVE SUPER POWERS! FEAR MY SUPER POWERS!

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

Actually it's more a case of all the weirdos scuttle to hide under 'furry' since no other fan group will have them.

Thrash Smartly · Recusant Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Posts: 3

Actually it's more a case of all the weirdos scuttle to hide under 'furry' since no other fan group will have them.

Yea, I suspect that's the bottom line. The history
bears it out. Merlino made a cattle to the dregs
of geekdom to populate his furry convention,
Confurence. Since those days more emotionally
retarded fuckwads have glommed onto it. I've
found that the sane people who discover it and like
funny animals soon get sick of the nastiness and
leave.

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

Actually it's more a case of all the weirdos scuttle to hide under 'furry' since no other fan group will have them.

Yea, I suspect that's the bottom line. The history bears it out. Merlino made a cattle to the dregs of geekdom to populate his furry convention, Confurence. Since those days more emotionally retarded fuckwads have glommed onto it. I've found that the sane people who discover it and like
funny animals soon get sick of the nastiness and leave.

But it would all implode if not for the not-so-fucked who enable and defend the nutcases and dimbulbs out of a misguided or wholly insane sense of "open-mindedness". We critics of furry are up against people similarly functional, but in greater numbers, who are continuing to obstruct forward progress. They say we criticize out of mean-spiritedness but how is it not mean-spirited to let these fucknuts go on making themselves and others miserable losers in the end? Why shouldn't furries be encouraged to try to be achievers and winners in the world instead of sheltering them with ridiculous redefinitions of what it is to achieve? Instead, exhorting them to try, to attempt to do something with their lives, is viewed as mean and nasty.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

The key difference between how furries
look at anthropomorphic animals and how others
look at them is furries use them to REPLACE
humans and others see them as standing in for
humans.

Bingo. Yeah it's the reason I think a character like Sherlock Hound was made, it wasn't cause the creator(s) thought, "Oh Sherlock Holmes, that fleshy bastard" it's more like, "Let's add a 'unique' and 'different' take on the legends of Sherlock Holmes." in my opinion.

To be honest, I realize now that I really don't give a damn one way or another about the fandom. As far as things along the so-called "furry" line go, I am more interested in defending the use of anthropomorphic creatures (animal, appliance, vegetable, or otherwise). And when I think about it the fandom crashing and dieing (I don't literally mean in the sense of members of the fandom dieing) would be the best thing to happen for those who like to use anthropomorphic animals as an literary (or whatever artsy thing) type device.

I read this interesting point of view on the nature between humans and animals from the lead singer of a band called Saves The Day:

In my opinion, human beings are animals who have forgotten that they're animals. I know I'm a fruit, but I see animals as my brothers and sisters.

As crazy as that point of view sounds, if more furries took up that sort of attitude maybe things wouldn't be so bad. I'm sure the furry scene would get support from hippies, nature freaks, PETA, etc. Hey those may not be the definition of "cool", but heh.. you know.

On the first point he makes: it reminds me of how the lifestylers are all like "i am this animal or that animal" completely missing the point that as human beings, they are already animals.

And on the second: Well, let's just put it this way.. would you want your sibblings exploited for sexual and perverted means? Alas, I'm sure their's plenty of furries into incest so I guess that philosophy wouldn't completely work.

Goddamnit, for someone who is like "I don't really care" I seem to care a lot. Bwah.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

that last post ("Guest") was me, by the way.

Ethan A. Stanger · Rasophore Joined: 23 Oct 2003 Posts: 53

The point here, I dont think furries are any worse then the rest of the population, but it depends on how you define a furry.

True, they're not. Most of the population have a petty desire to latch onto things, label themselves and not think before acting/saying.

How I define furry is by looking it up in a dictionary, but people should already understand that definition without reaching for the nearest dictionary.