Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

David

It is in our nature to anthromorphisise the world and it's inhabitants, it is part of our process of understanding it and the very limits that our human senses place on us.

We make gods in our own image; we have made vengeful gods, Hateful gods and jealous gods. Omnipotent gods (monotheistic religions) and Fallible gods (Greek mythos)
But these gods have one thing in common all of them; they are projections of our own humanity in various ways onto a celestial screen.

Making gods in our own image is part of the process of seeking to understand the universe.

In primitive times, when you did not understand why the seasons changed, you could ascribe it to some deity, a projection of your own humanity.

Now, we realise that while we are bound by our humanity, and therefore can only seek to understand the universe in human terms.

For example, IIRC we cannot see into the infrared spectrum without our tools, and never will (without genetic engineering).

While projecting our own humanity onto the universe does not always lead to understanding or enlightenment (the existence of humans is something quite incidental to the universe) it is something that in the everyday course of things, we cannot help doing.

The strictures of this are built into our very language. We talk of the weather being "nasty", but "nasty" is used to make inferences about the behaviour of other humans, the weather in itself is the product of the earths various different systems interacting.

Rain is caused by the evaporation of water by the suns radiant heat; this then forms into clouds, which disgorge when they cannot hold the water in anymore. This has nothing to do with any human ideas of behaviour or conduct at any point.

However, if we were out walking and then a sudden shower drenches us, we talk of the weather being "nasty".

While we can look at this now and analyse it scientifically, and say that it is inappropriate to talk of the weather being "nasty". The roots of our language are far older than the application of science however, and as such it is unreasonable to expect them to change suddenly (perhaps even at all) to reflect our new knowledge.

What this does show is that anthromorphisisation of the world is native to our species; we do this in order to understand it or describe it.

When it comes to the other living creatures that inhabit the world, it is indisputable that they experience the world in a manner, which is different to ours.

They have different sensory apparatus; therefore they may experience different emotions, different feelings and access to different data, which we cannot or have no idea of.

As a result of this, we can never truly really understand what it is like to be a non-human animal.

We can make inferences about their behaviour, we can learn how their bodies work, but as of yet we cannot for certain know how they truly perceive the world and their motivations and emotions. Enough trouble is given merely trying to work out the motivations and emotions of other people.

We can make inferences; this is what we do, when we describe the behaviour and mental states of a particular non-human animal. Indeed we must also do it when talking about other humans, and sometimes even ourselves, since we cannot always even be sure of what we are feeling.

Of course, the difficultly of making inferences depends on the species in question.
It is very hard for any person to guess what makes an octopus tick.

But dogs are a domesticated variant of wolves. Dogs are the most domesticated animal and the non-human animal that we can understand the most on an everyday scale. We have sought to remake wolves in an image that we liked.

In Wolves (thus also dogs) there is a mirror (to a certain extent) of ourselves, both we and they are social predators, both we and they have no natural predators (except we on them) both we and they have ranged almost everywhere where there is water and prey.

We live everyday with dogs since then and now, however we are separated in certain ways, dogs do not see colour in the same way we do, they have much more sensitive noses, their brains do not work in the same way as ours.

Most importantly, we are the most sophisticated tool users, the most creative being, and the most curious being.
This means that we seek to understand, we seek to know things. (Although equally we may not, that is our choice)

With the position that dogs hold in our society, it is natural that we should seek to understand them. And giving human attributes to them is one way of this.

For example, you might describe two dogs that snap bite and dispute as "having an argument", this serves to describe what happens (two dogs getting aggressive) in terms that we can understand and relate to.

We cannot know how far this description is true, since "argument" is a human term, in the original made for and by and to describe humans. But we apply it to the dogs and anthromorphise them, and as such, It seems that through empirical observation it is in an accurate inference, but ultimately, an inference.

We anthromorphise them in order to try and understand them in a manner which we can relate to most.

The primary sex organ is the mind; it is perfectly possible for people to find almost anything figurative, with genitals attached etc, as attractive.

Therefore it is not unlikely that certain people who have been subject to bad stimulus will find "dogs in the raw" attractive, furthermore, it is even more likely that by giving dogs human attributes, Upright stance, hands and thus the implication that they are "like us" and therefore, “fair game” for sexual representation by the sort of people who would do that.

It should be noted that when examining representations of sexualised anthromorphic canines, that in the majority of cases, they are more human than animal in certain respects. They are people with animal’s heads and tails.

For example they often have human like genitals, and almost always depicted or with the certain implication in the illustration that they have human level intelligence and that their minds works along the same lines as ours.

It is less common, but still not rare to find males depicted with canine type penises.

In humans, there is a desire (to a greater or lesser extent within each person) for novel experiences, new things.
This is also true in sex.

Thus adding canine genetalia to a human type figure allows us to explore the idea of different sex with certain safe parameters (i.e. is more like a human than the animal they are derived from and does have the same level of social taboo attached to it)

Also, with the closeness that dogs have to us, it is not unexpected that certain people should seek to use them in abusive manners to satisfy their own desperation.

There are also the issues, of reassurance and image. Dogs are companions, Guardians of the blind, Friends and more.

They are seen as unjudgeing and always accepting of us, therefore It’s “easier” to conceive having sexual/romantic attachments to someone who never judges us and always accepts us

Thus Anthromorphic animals are seen as being more “accessible” or in the vulgar: “an easy lay”.

Therefore they have an association to many people of friendship, love and trust. Again, it is not unexpected here that as a result of this association, the human brain should draw it over into sexual areas.

mouse · Posted: 7/25/2003 5:25:49 AM Post subject:

ya i agree with most of what your saying here dave

althought my only major disagreement wiht you would be that i feel some things are more just throwbacks to older times and not anywhere near as deliberate as it sounds like you making it out to be

such as dogs being with humans for a long time, i think its just one of those things that happened and its stayed that way ever since

i dont think early humans saw dogs as being especially like them...native americans in north america (at least) divided the world in 2 leggeds and 4 leggeds and didnt see that much difference between the two...(im not an expert on this so ..)

as far as humans being predators etc..i always looked at it like this: opposable thumbs, big brain...none of that shit matters that much ...

progress came from agriculture - everything else just helped out

the ability to just sit around thinking about the world around you.

now , cultivating crops is hard work , barring any types of famines etc, but still - having 1 location to live in, being relatively safe there and having food growing there, is the important first step

i think it was the main barrier to any truely-predatory animal really showing any progress technology-wise (or becoming sentient...although i dont like even using the word because i kind of disagree with even the idea that humans are sentient alone and animals are not just in the sense as you stated that we really cannot understand what in their minds in the first place. i think if anything sentience is more of a scale or a gradient. basically i believe that any living thing just wouldnt be able to funtion if it didnt understand in some respect that it was a seperate entity in the world. i.e how could they move from point A to B without understanding that they are at point A and either want to be or are being drawn to point B. i dont think instinct alone will cut it. instinct seems that its more of just a guide...like an adrenaline rush -it gives you a good idea of what to do, but YOU still have to do it.)

the most advanced cultures in history mainly ate grains /grew some sort of crops
its why the chinese were trying to figuring out how to perfectly measure the area of a circle (how many places did they figure out pi to?) making fireworks and calendars , mapping the stars.
the arabs were writing and reading books
(im aware the fact that these cultures were isolated also plays an important part)

you spend your time chasing food, then have to do it again next day , and every day for the rest of your life
your not gonna have time to think about anything else

the only way i think it could have ever been pulled off is with a very unbalanced caste system..a very small percentage of an "intellectual class" would completely live off the rest (and the rest would have to be hunters etc. )

either way it would probably collapse on itself pretty quickly
either by wiping out its food supply or from social problems

if this comes off as being sort of unrelated sorry, i found your post at least a little confusing

Jerry Collins · Posted: 7/25/2003 3:22:33 PM Post subject: Well made thoughts!

Both Mouse and David made very valid points,intelligent,and well thought out and fasinating.THIS is what is missing( to me) in "phurri"-dumb.Though,back in the old school / Ken Fletcher era "furry"-fandom,intelligent discussions and dialogues like the previous were quiet common..and fun...I miss that dearly. :cry: (Jerry)

p.s. Is it okay if I still get a kick out of seeing a well made fan-art piece of Miyazaki's Mrs.Hudson wearing nothing but a leather basque,a pair of hip boots and a wickedly mischevious grin?..if not..please forget the previous line(Jer)woof ya'll! :wink:

David · Posted: 7/26/2003 12:30:19 PM Post subject:

One thing that early people may have done I read, is follow wolves and try to steal their kills.
And perhaps they stole wolf pups, or wolves started following humans or hanging around once they

Dogs were also very important in early agriculture IIRC for herding animals, guarding stuff and they were even used as weapons as wars.

I think probably an important thing was their malleability; Dogs are the most trainable and malleable of all animals, bar humans

That makes them an important resource.

Jerry Collins · Posted: 7/27/2003 5:20:59 AM Post subject:

And just to throw a hand grenade into an oatmeal vat....."Lycanthropy"

mouse · Posted: 7/27/2003 6:03:45 AM Post subject:

Dogs were also very important in early agriculture IIRC for herding animals, guarding stuff and they were even used as weapons as wars.

I think probably an important thing was their malleability; Dogs are the most trainable and malleable of all animals, bar humans

That makes them an important resource.

im not aware that they are nessecarily more malleable, other than just in the TYPE of animal they are, as in fairly intelligent, i think most of the traits were really brought out through breeding

but as far as the original post, i dont see too many dogs being anthropomorphicized by furries...wolves specifically - yes

and more cartooney-type characters, definatly
dogs, probably because its just he first animal 9/10 people will think (for reasons stated earlier)

but as far as sexualization its usually foxes and skunks far as i can tell
or at least that would be my vote as to the 2 i think that are overall the most popular and used the most often...oh ya rabbit and cats too lot of those (im really only thinking in terms of female characters so...)

Jerry Collins · Posted: 7/27/2003 4:37:08 PM Post subject: non sequitor nonsense

And I still ask:"Is it okay if I still get a kick out seeing a well made piece of fan-art of Miyazaki's Mrs.Hudson in a leather basque,a pair of hip boots and a wickedly mischenious grin?"

Jerry Collins · Posted: 7/27/2003 4:41:25 PM Post subject: ack! I'm having a bout of stupid-itis

OOOOPS!that should be "Mischevious" grin.(IYAH!my typing stinks!)sorry for my ignorance folks(Jerry)

Inazuma · Posted: 7/27/2003 9:53:23 PM Post subject:

Excellent!

Jerry Collins · Posted: 7/28/2003 2:26:26 AM Post subject: to Inazuma

...NO...I'm not a hypocrite, I'm a LUNATIC!! Know the difference!!

mouse · Posted: 7/28/2003 4:05:28 AM Post subject: Re: non sequitor nonsense

And I still ask:"Is it okay if I still get a kick out seeing a well made piece of fan-art of Miyazaki's Mrs.Hudson in a leather basque,a pair of hip boots and a wickedly mischenious grin?"

to be honest jerry, the reason i never respond, is because i just dont know who miyazaki is, nor mrs hudson

Jerry Collins · Posted: 7/28/2003 8:27:25 PM Post subject: Mrs.H

Hiyao Miyazaki is comic artist/animator;His best know works are: Kiki's delivery service,Laputa(castle in the sky)Nausica,Princess Minoko,Spirited away,Castle Cagliostro(his direction of "Monkey punch's "Lupin the 3rd")and a host of fine television and feature film animations.The Famous Detective Holmes series(later renamed Sherlock Hound,this due to legal problems with the Doyle family estates) and like most of Miyazaki's work it was a mixture of high adventure,charming characters,pathos and comedy,and a beautifully designed world...like Hope Hodgeson's literary fantasy series "Beyond the blue"..The sherlock Hound U.K. is a world of Dog-people....Mrs.Marie Hudson is the young landlady of 221-B Baker street boarding House,The Widow of a young,valiant,Aviator/inventor Jim Hudson(Jim perished when his experimental air craft exploded mid-air)She ,like most of Miyazaki's women(human or critter)a mix of gentleness,great courage and character.The churlish remark about her in fetish gear was me simply being a goof(though,Sherlock probably wouldn't mind) Did this help Mouse?(Jerry)

Anonymous · Posted: 7/28/2003 8:57:32 PM Post subject:

I'm reading this allready for 2 hours and i'm still not yet half way... I must find my glaces! :oops:

David · Posted: 7/29/2003 7:37:44 PM Post subject:

Castle Caglistro, Yea I remember once that offering by someone, but my sole introduction into the Kerrazy world of Japanese anime was this thing with giant exploding tentacle penises and hideous demons and overlords something.

It put me of anime for life, and when spirited away appeared in the local shop, I did not buy, not least since I vowed never to buy DVD nor Videocassette.

Anonymous · Posted: 7/31/2003 12:31:25 PM Post subject:

Mouse mentioned the two most popular animals to be anthropomorphisized, fox and rabbit (I honestly don't think skunk fits well into the category.) I too, would like to find some sort of rhyme or reason as to why this is so.

From what I've seen, in descending order the popular animals are

Fox
Rabbit
Wolf/doglike creatures
Cat
Skunk
mouselike creatures
Equine/hooved
Scaled creatures
generic fuzzy creatures (ferrets, racoons and ermines for example)
Cetaceans (dolphins and such)
Avians

Mythical beasts are also in there somewhere... but I can't quite place them

Fox remains an enigma for me. Why the fox? Of all the different species of dog, why the fox over all others? Or, Why is the fox so popular and so associated with sexuality?

Take the english language, vixen is an outdated term for a lady who is physically extremely attractive. While it is no longer used (Well, in my social circle I've yet to hear this word in reference to a woman, so I won't pretend that it's current slang) for one reason or another, vixen can still be associated with (to use more old slang) "A foxy Lady"

But my question is WHY! Why of all the animals is the female fox so embedded into our psyches' as being attractive. There is really no difference between a vixen and a bitch, and yet term is used for someone attractive and the other is used for someone who isn't very nice!

I simply fail to see how vixens became so popular in furry society, perhaps it is the connotation that a vixen has the build of an attractive lady which begat this infatuation. For lacking any real and hard evidence, I cannot investigate this matter further.

The next favourite animal is the rabbit. Well, you don't have to be a uni student to work out why rabbits are associated with sex. personally the rabbit is my favourite animal, because, any sexual connotations aside... they're just so damn cute :3!! I draw them quite a bit, the name Dmitri came from a story I've written about a rabbit, it was inspired by watership down, hence Dmitri's a rabbit.

http://www.geocities.com/dmitri4122/Dmitri1.gif <--cut & paste link to see

Before anyone thinks I'm a rabbit trapped in a human's body or some new age trollop, I AM A HUMAN! I call myself Dmitri on the internet because I can't think up any better names. I wrote the story before I got into the internet and forums.

Rabbits have been associated with sex and fertility ever since the Springtime Easter festivals of old yore (The easter bunny and the eggs being symbols of fertility and growth and birth) It's not hard to see how the furs quickly grew to like the rabbit.

Man and Wolf have a symbiotic relationship with eachother... we did not 'steal' the wolve's breakfasts, we shared them with eachother. In return for warmth and shelter, the wolves helped us hunt. And thus walves and canines became man's best friend. They kept us alive and we tended to them.

As David has investigated, the most probable reason as to why canines are favourable is due to the close bond we have with eachother (man and dog).

I'm too tired right now and the post is long enough as it is. Thank you for taking the time to read my rambling

Anonymous · Posted: 7/31/2003 6:18:41 PM Post subject:

My girlfriend's down with the whole insane fox fixation thing, but even she doesn't seem to be able to adequately explain it. As near as I can tell, it's because they're beautiful animals and really fluffy. And they've got striking amber eyes. I'm sure there are other animals that meet these criteria, but I'm too lazy and stupid to think of what they might be.

They also smell really bad, so maybe a lot of furries feel some bond with them over that? after all, skunks are pretty popular, too...

The New Meat · Posted: 7/31/2003 6:23:09 PM Post subject:

Sorry, sorry, that was me before, talking about the smelly foxes. Forgot to log in because I'm stupid. Yet apparently I'm so proud of what I wrote that I feel the need to log in afterwards and tell everyone that it was me. Huh.

David · Posted: 8/1/2003 8:10:31 PM Post subject:

My girlfriend's down with the whole insane fox fixation thing, but even she doesn't seem to be able to adequately explain it. As near as I can tell, it's because they're beautiful animals and really fluffy. And they've got striking amber eyes. I'm sure there are other animals that meet these criteria, but I'm too lazy and stupid to think of what they might be.

They also smell really bad, so maybe a lot of furries feel some bond with them over that? after all, skunks are pretty popular, too...

Funny thing is, Foxes are evil things really, the neighbours here, They lost their pet guina pig one night, it escaped from hutch, And then in the morning, I found it (as I thought) trapped under our fence, I went to pull it out, and I found it had lost it's head (quite literaly) and a fox had eaten bits of it.

And yea, There was much tears and lament. And Foxes come and pooh all over the garden path, and it stinks awful bad, and is hard to get away.