Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Shii · Recusant Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 4

I finally got fed up with furry drama on an anime forum I moderate and wrote an essay to sort them out, drawing somewhat from this website but mainly from Google and my own opinions. I am not a furry and all I know about furry stuff is what I've read here, on SA (of course), and on the anime forum.

I don't know how well it's going to go over, or whether there are flaws in my logic or I haven't examined all the evidence. I've only shown it to a friend of mine, who is a :cool: furry, agreed entirely with it, and thought it was well-written.

One objection I think will be raised on this board is that the "funny-animal" culture of the pre-1970s had no sexual aspect. I don't think that style of art has very much to do with furries today, and I didn't bring it up in the essay because furries are about as good as Jehovah's Witnesses in remembering their history in general.

M0us3_Zero · Venter Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 252

Just got done reading it, good job.

I think you pointed out alot of things that people miss.

Dogthing · Venter Joined: 26 Oct 2003 Posts: 257

Sounds accurate and fairly well-written to me. Too bad the furries on your forum are going to go ape shit over this. They're probably going to cry fursecution and start shitting all over that forum with drama, comparing it to Nazi Germany, but not leaving.

That is, if they're anything like your average furry. Which they probably are. But if it needs saying, it needs saying, and I admire your saying it.

Ps. Sup Shii 8)

The New Meat · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 403

This essay is a thing of beauty. It brings a tear to my eye. Good show!

Wayd Wolf · Vociferator Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 522

I would quibble over one small point. I've run into countless anime freaks who act every bit as bad as some furries. Everything Japanese(furry/animal) is superior, anime(furry) is their whole life, etc.

While there may be more functional anime fans than functional people lurking in furrydom, there's still a sizeable number of total losers in anime fandom and growing from what I keep running into.

While I am sorry to see furry melodrama creeping into your world, I do so hope you strike early and fight the creeping creepiness and stave off in anime fandom what's happened in furry. There, open minded acceptance for the purpose of covering ones own foibles has allowed total infection of pathetic garbage thinking which has created a place where there's no standards, no judgements, and no rules, unless they're against "hyoomans", "normals", or "mundanes".

M0us3_Zero · Venter Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 252

You know, I've seen some crazy Otaku, but I have only seen a handful compared to the majority.

Thing is, unlike the Furry fetishists, Anime fans are not ruled by the minority.

Computolio · Vociferator Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 405

You had me at "Furry is not a fandom". I love this essay, it's full of stuff I couldn't have put better myself.

SquareSoft0 · Prattler Joined: 07 Sep 2004 Posts: 143

FSCKing awsome, well done. :D

Even without knowing as much as others involved in this, you summed it up quite nicely. I know WAY more than I would have EVER wanted about the furry 'fandom' first hand and online, and completely agree. I also agree with Wayd that there are many dysfunctional anime fans, but nowhere near the abyss of furry. Hope you don't mind if I use a link to your page to help educate some friends on the matter, claiming no credit of course. And to show that I know some real dysfunctionals, I've personally met some mascots from Disneyland... :? Of course knowing about furry in general before meeting them, there was no major shock.

EDIT -- Added the quotes on 'fandom' I even got myself using the term. :wink:

The New Meat · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 403

And to show that I know some real dysfunctionals, I've personally met some mascots from Disneyland... :?

Tell me more.

Rankin · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 727

There is no spoon, goon.

I saw your bequeathed handle, and immediately thought of your SA kitty avatar. Then, was confirmed by the first bit of your essay. I think that many aspects are quite truthful - but in the end, I've ceased to give a shit for either side.

The furries are persecuted, the non-furries are persecuted, the ex-furries... who gives a fuck? Just find something to spank off to behind closed doors, wether it be some shitting dicknipple animu tranny, or the same, with red fur.

In conclusion: I like pie.

Not-a-stalker edit: Que es Nevada?

ZenZhu · Vociferator Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 669

Great article. I really like how it is coming from the standpoint of someone outside furry fa-.... er..... hmm.. we'll just say furrydom. Rather than the usual mantra of "Furry sux cuz..... cuz.... cuz it sux!" this attempts a more clinical approach to the furry phenomenon. I think it actually benefits from being from the eyes of someone that's never really been into furry stuff.

As far as pre-1970's anthropomorphic characters having no sexual aspect, I think there's two sides to this. While I'm sure folks at WB and Disney (the latter probably more subversively, given what happened to Harlan Ellison) did gag drawings that furries would find wankable (those crazy animators do some strange stuff to let off steam.. I used to know someone that worked on The Simpsons, and had some scans from some rather bawdy doodle sessions the group had). If you've ever watched Tom & Jerry, you may recall a cartoon with a mother duck where the down on her chest was exaggerated to define her as female. With the style, little hints like this are often necessary. In recent times, Daisy Duck has sported a slightly enhanced bustline. It's not to say "WHOA.... sexy boobies!" but to clearly define that the character is female. In the same cartoon with the mother duck, Tom runs over her with a lawnmower, and there's a gag where her feathers are like a coat, exposing her undergarments.

Unlike furry work, however, this stuff has always been meant as sight gags. A duck wearing a bra under her feathers is a comedic gag, not an attempt to arouse. It says "A duck in a bra... HAW HAW HAW... that's the silliest thing I ever did see!" rather than "DUCKTITTIES!!!"

The article also brings up a good point that much of what furrydom can cite from non-furry works is aimed at children. Now, with the advent of Father of the Pride, one could make the argument that there is now an animal-based work that is clearly aimed at adults. The place this falls apart, however, is that FotP was not produced by furries. The adult humor in it, much like the duck in the bra, is meant to be a juxtaposition...... in their pot-induced decision making, NBC thought the idea of cartoony animals in adult situations and speaking of adult themes would be so paradoxical that it would be comedy gold. Unfortunately for them, unlike foul-mouthed third graders, this just isn't proving to be the case.

Furry stuff like Omaha, Genus, etc. is clearly aimed at adults, but is produced within furrydom. Almost everything furrydom fixates outside of furrydom.. plushies, animal toys, The Secret of NIMH, Talespin, Space Jam, Darkwing Duck, Animaniacs...... is produced for children. I think that's something that's at the back of our minds for most here, but maybe something we never fully and cognizantly appreciated. It's something many of us may have said before.. but it gains extra oomph coming from someone who has never really been into furry stuff.

If we look at the world around us, however, we will see that anthropomorphized animals are an integral part of our culture. We use them to represent our political parties. We talk to our dogs (and some even imagine they talk back, though in their own way). We put a tiger in our tank. We cheer for mascots -- anthropomorphic animals dressed in team uniforms -- at our favorite sporting events. Our casual observer may simply be unaware that it is only in the last forty years that cartoons and cartoon animals have been relegated to the world of children. Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and their ilk were once targeted primarily to an adult audience, their productions filled with innuendo and biting political satire.

This is one thing the concept of furry "fandom" suffers from. As the author of this quote states, animal imagery is very closely ingrained in our culture, and has been for a long time. But, that's just the thing... it IS ingrained in our culture.. to the point that your Average Joe does not think about it. If they find the antics of the Chicago Bulls costumed mascot entertaining, or collect Winnie the Pooh merchandise..... it's just something they like. It's not something they identify with. In the case of Pooh, the fact that there is a book called The Tao of Pooh is really kind of proof that normal people do not identify with Pooh because he's a bear, but rather because of the innocent wit and strangely astute insights that can be found in those stories. People don't like Pooh because he's an animal.. but because of phrases like "If he's not here, he must be.... elsewhere."

If you as an adult still occasionally like to flip to the old cartoons, or have a stuffed animal sitting on the dashboard of your car, or buy cereal because it has a cool tiger on the box, you may well enjoy what our fandom has to offer.

It took the strangely obsessive mind of furries to take these things that are so ingrained into our culture out of context and put them on a pedestal. An adult watching Tom & Jerry is not as unusual as furries make it sound. An adult owning a stuffed animal that their significant other gave them is not something that proves you're a furry. Buying Frosted Flakes because Tony the Tiger told you to instead of Special K doesn't mean you are becoming aware of the fact that you're a misplaced tiger soul.

In this light, there is another place the idea of furry as a fandom begins to break down. With a fandom, you have people that enjoy something that is generally not always around us. You can't sit down in your office and see a soccer game, and then get in your car and see another soccer game going on. If you are a fan of Kung Fu films, you have to actually put one in the player, go to the theater, or wait for one to be released. The point being, I would dare say a fandom revolves around something special.... something that is not perpetually around us. To be a fan of someone or something means you are enthusiastic about and look forward to the next time you can partake of an event.. like a soccer match or the next Star Wars movie or that night's airing of Babylon 5... or the next time you can see a person perform or something.

But with animal imagery.. it's just too commonplace. I look around my office and the desk of my office mate, and I see Godzilla figures, birds in a Hiroshige print, an elephant in a magnet from the Smithsonian, Cardinal's baseball stuff with the mascot, one of those eagle toys that balances on its nose, Arkansas Razorbacks pictures, my office mate's wife next to some horses...... animals are everywhere.

Animals as a subject are just too, too broad to provide a cohesive base for a fandom..... which is something that has been cited before as leading to furrydom's weakness and current problems. Now, you might be a fan of Don Bluth, or a fan of Disney, or a fan of Brian Jacques..... but a "fan" of anthropomorphic animals is just too nebulous a concept to really do anyone any good.

An essay, this was written by one fan of The Lion King who explained what a profound effect it had on his life. I include it because this paper helped me discover the wonder of The Lion King, and hence, my own furry tendencies.

I think this is another example of furries mistakenly fixated on the animal characters, rather than the themes they present. The Lion King told a story that tauted the values of truth, honor, courage, and being true to one's self. The same story could have been told with a human cast..... and it was... they called it "Hamlet." The animal characters are just window dressing.

Take another furry favorite, Balto. Many, many furries went apeshit over this movie. It actually has a very good message.... namely, be happy with who you are, be proud of who you are, and realize that you have value. The message of Balto wasn't "be a wolf." But, it took furry fixation to turn these messages that are perpetuated in many other stories, and obsess on the animal part of it.

As another example, look at Disney's Robin Hood. Here is a story that has been told time and again, and lauds the merits of helping those less fortunate and opposing oppression. Is Disney's Robin Hood any more charitable or worthy of emulation because he was a fox, as opposed to being portrayed by Errol Flynn, or Kevin Costner? (opinions on the actors aside) Does the fox Robin exemplify courage, nobility, and humanitarian motives moreso than a human Robin Hood?

As I've said before, the things furries fixate on with animals and animal characters are really the human values we attribute to them. Take the lion. A male lion is imbued with a certain sense of regality by humans. In reality, male lions pretty much lay about and are highly inbred these days. Because of its appearance, humans give the male lion this status of being regal and noble. In truth, if anything, male lions could probably be most likened to "trailer trash" these days... the folks you see on Cops during a domestic situation. So, these qualities of regality and nobility that furries fixate on are not inherent to the lion... they're the qualties we as humans project onto them. Every quality an animal has that the furries like about that animal is really just a projection of human standards. In fixating on those qualities of animals, furries are really taking an ass-backwards approach to fixating on human quailities.

Excuse me! "Furry tendencies"? Do people talk about their "soccer tendencies"? "Movie geek tendencies"? "Michael Moore tendencies" (oh God, I hope not)?

Very eloquent in its simplicity and directness. Kudos. As I said above, these "furry tendencies" they "realize" are little more than shining a spotlight on human behaviors idealized and packaged in an animal form for merchandizing purposes.

Let's take your average guy who enjoyed reading Redwall but has no sexual interest in funny-animals whatsoever. Would you:

*call this guy a furry
*expect him to adapt a "fursona", or at the very least imagine himself as an anthropomorphic animal
*consider the possibility that he would dress up in a fursuit for pleasure
*expect him to enjoy the furry artwork on VCL

I've speculated before that, in an attempt for external validation, furries have this need to characterize your Average Joe that likes animals as a latent furry. I've even had someone in another forum suggest that a soccer mom that decorates her kitchen with a holstein print theme (an example I had used of someone using an animal theme with no real furry connotations) would probably enjoy the artwork on VCL and going to furry cons. I can't really expound on that much.... other than simply uttering WTF?

Looking at that PVP cartoon reaffirms my theory that many furries don't really care so much about the animal side.... it's just a way for them to ogle big tits. You could put tits on a broomstick and someone would wank to it. Again... they're really just fixating on something very human, rather than the animal.

Keeping in mind the comparison and contrast between furry "fandom" and the definition of a fandom, such as soccer fans, Star Trek fans, etc.... think about people that are into building models, flying model airplanes, dog shows, dog agility competitions, and such. Do you ever hear of model train fans? Dog show fans? Hackey-sack fans? No. These things are a bit too broad to really fit the concept of a fandom. Usually, these people refer to themselves as enthusiasts.

I daresay furrydom isn't a fandom... merely a collection of animal enthusiasts. At the very least, "furry enthusiast" is a bit more diplomatic than "furry fetishist." Not that I really care about preserving their pride. (And, no, I don't mean a group of self-proclaimed misplaced lion spirits.)

21st Century Digital Boy · Apocrisiary Joined: 27 Dec 2003 Posts: 50

Because I'm a big fat smelly pedant who is also big and fat and smelly, also fat:

I can't recall any funny-animal television shows or movies that are produced for adults.

Other than that, nice essay.

Shii · Recusant Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 4

First off, ZenZhu, I'd like to thank you for your very detailed response. Right now my essay is leaping directly from point to point without a very detailed rebuttal to the "funny animals are everywhere" argument that is posed, and I think thanks to your comments I will be able to improve on that and revise it some.

Not-a-stalker edit: Que es Nevada?

All of the things on my plan page are upcoming websites. Eventually I will get a scrappy version of that Nevada page done and you'll learn all you need to know.

img- Fritz the cat

I was sure I couldn't have been totally right on that point. Thanks for letting me know before I got some hate mail to that effect-- I'll change it immediately.

Once I am happy with this essay, I think I'll write one on "Internet Communities and the Madness of Crowds", which will have a more general focus on how stupidity is prevalent on the Internet and less on "furrydumb" specifically. :D But I actually have real-life unrelated work to do right now, so it will be a while.

Kadius · Venter Joined: 10 Feb 2004 Posts: 254

Que es Nevada?

Huh? Nevada-Chan?

Rankin · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 727

Que es Nevada?

Huh? Nevada-Chan?

Nothing like this then, huh?

Rangifer · Recusant Joined: 10 Jul 2004 Posts: 9

A very good start spoiled by a commonplace ending.
Furry is NOT a fandom in the usual sense, and that has to be stated, but the same arguments can be used to say it's not a fetish either if you look carefully.

Let's take your average guy who enjoyed reading Redwall but has no sexual interest in funny animals whatsoever. Would you:

* call this guy a furry
* expect him to adapt a "fursona", or at the very least imagine himself as an anthropomorphic animal
* consider the possibility that he would dress up in a fursuit for pleasure
* expect him to enjoy the furry artwork on VCL

1) Fetishists are very shy about boasting their interest or casting their label on uninvolved people;
2) Fetishists do not care for commissioning personal material;
3) Fetishists roleplay heavily, but usually they don't belive they are something or somebody else;
4) Fetishists would never keep up something like the VCL for free.

There is too much worrying about the perverts issue. No way a good description of the situation can be found this way.

Later,
Scale

Shii · Recusant Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 4

1) Fetishists are very shy about boasting their interest or casting their label on uninvolved people;
2) Fetishists do not care for commissioning personal material;
3) Fetishists roleplay heavily, but usually they don't belive they are something or somebody else;
4) Fetishists would never keep up something like the VCL for free.

There is too much worrying about the perverts issue. No way a good description of the situation can be found this way.

I guess the word "fetish" seems to limit furry to the realm of pornography, which is not what I intended to say. I don't mean to disregard the wide variety of furry art.

If anyone can think of a better word for me to use ("enthusiasm" doesn't explain the severe dislike of furry by non-furries, which I do think comes from the sexual aspect), then I'll rewrite that whole part. In any case, I will update this evening with a more detailed response to what you said in the "Arguments" section.

ZenZhu · Vociferator Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 669

Don't mind Rangifer, he's from an alternate reality.

Furry "fetishism" carries some errant connotations for those who are obsessed, but not necessarily to the point of it being an official fetish. Furry "enthusiasm," as you said, might be a bit light. I'm not sure how one would make an adjective to describe someone afflicted with furry obsession.... furry obsessist.... furry fixicist? :) I guess just "obsessive furry?" That might be a redundant term, though.

Simo · Recusant Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 6

I've even had someone in another forum suggest that a soccer mom that decorates her kitchen with a holstein print theme (an example I had used of someone using an animal theme with no real furry connotations) would probably enjoy the artwork on VCL and going to furry cons. I can't really expound on that much.... other than simply uttering WTF?

ZenZhu, I am the "someone" to whom you are referring, and I will thank you to stop lying about what I said.

Here is what I actually had to say about your hypothetical soccer mom: the choice of kitchen decor was cause to SUSPECT Fur-inclination, and/or be a POSSIBLE indication of what I term "implicit Furriness", meaning that the soccer mom in question is unaware of the existance of Furry fan-dom. Notice the conditionals there. At no time did I ever state that she would "probably" like the artwork at VCL or going to fur-cons. I stated that it was a possibility. As for the soccer mom herself, well, it's not my call, or yours, or anyone else's. If she, upon learning that there is such a thing as Furry fan-dom, chooses to affiliate with same, then she's a Furry. If she declines to affiliate, then she isn't. As for her level of participation, that, too, is strictly up to her: whether or not she uploads art to VCL, or whether or not she attends fur-cons or local fur-meets, or not.

That is what I said. Period. End of story.

You can find that discussion here My posts are #20 and #22. Now you show me where I said what you claimed here.

ZenZhu · Vociferator Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 669

ZenZhu, I am the "someone" to whom you are referring, and I will thank you to stop lying about what I said.

Here is what I actually had to say about your hypothetical soccer mom: the choice of kitchen decor was cause to SUSPECT Fur-inclination, and/or be a POSSIBLE indication of what I term "implicit Furriness", meaning that the soccer mom in question is unaware of the existance of Furry fan-dom. Notice the conditionals there. At no time did I ever state that she would "probably" like the artwork at VCL or going to fur-cons. I stated that it was a possibility. As for the soccer mom herself, well, it's not my call, or yours, or anyone else's. If she, upon learning that there is such a thing as Furry fan-dom, chooses to affiliate with same, then she's a Furry. If she declines to affiliate, then she isn't. As for her level of participation, that, too, is strictly up to her: whether or not she uploads art to VCL, or whether or not she attends fur-cons or local fur-meets, or not.

Oh no! I iz felled with the iron hammer of semantics! A WINNAR IS J00!

The point remains that someone decorating with a holstein theme has no relation whatsoever to "implicit furriness." It's not cause to suspect anything other than some broad likes black and white cow print. You can't suggest someone is a potential furry just for liking animals with no knowledge of the fandom. Furrydom isn't this kind of Jungian archetype or untapped potential that rests in the minds of all sentient beings. It's a bunch of folks that have taken the animals and animal icons we see every day and elevated them from the commonplace to a fixation. Millions of people have toasters in their homes, but it isn't cause to suspect that they'd be huge fans of The Brave Little Toaster series and might enjoy dressing up as toasters and creating Brave Little Toaster porn.

Shii has done an excellent job of outlining that furrydom really isn't a fandom in a typical sense. Your Average Joe that likes animals is not a suspected potential furry. Billions of people like animals and are appealed to by animal iconography every day. But, it's just one of hundreds of thousands of thought processes that go on in their minds on a daily basis. Furrydom has fundamentally taken something pretty ordinary and, in the furry eye, elevated it to something of dire significance, even to the point of fixating on it as a fetish, a lifestyle, and a religion.

Animal imagery is just as common place as..... the color blue. But you don't hear about blue religion, blue lifestyle, blue pride, or blue fandoms. No one mashes their doughy flesh together in bluepiles.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a furry enthusiast. Everyone has stuff that they have preferences for. But, what Shii has really helped demonstrate is that liking animals and anthropomorphs is really no more significant than preferring odd numbers over even, or purple instead of red.

Just for the heck of it:

"Lots of people like morphs, but may not even be aware of the fandom. Think of all the soccer moms that love Disney stuff... Mickey, Minnie, Pooh, Eeyore... those are morphs. But, does that make all of those soccer moms furry? I would have to say no."

These folks obviously share a great deal of interest in common with Furry-dom. If they don't know that such a fan-dom exists, then call them implicit Furs. Once they are made aware of the existance of the fan-dom, they will probably choose to affiliate with it.

Sure, that soccer mom, upon learning what Furry fan-dom is, might have but a fleeting thought: "Oh, so that's what they call it." and never think another thought about it. So she remains on the periphery of Furry-dom, as a nonparticipatory non-affiliate.

There are all levels of participation, from virtually none at all to hard-core, fanatical life-styler, to everything in between. No one can say that the one is the "right" way to do Furry, and something else is not.

Nonparticipatory participation?

Kadius · Venter Joined: 10 Feb 2004 Posts: 254

Over-reaction in 3... 2... 1...

ZenZhu, I am the "someone" to whom you are referring, and I will thank you to stop lying about what I said.

Here is what I actually had to say about your hypothetical soccer mom: the choice of kitchen decor was cause to SUSPECT Fur-inclination, and/or be a POSSIBLE indication of what I term "implicit Furriness", meaning that the soccer mom in question is unaware of the existance of Furry fan-dom. Notice the conditionals there. At no time did I ever state that she would "probably" like the artwork at VCL or going to fur-cons. I stated that it was a possibility. As for the soccer mom herself, well, it's not my call, or yours, or anyone else's. If she, upon learning that there is such a thing as Furry fan-dom, chooses to affiliate with same, then she's a Furry. If she declines to affiliate, then she isn't. As for her level of participation, that, too, is strictly up to her: whether or not she uploads art to VCL, or whether or not she attends fur-cons or local fur-meets, or not.

That is what I said. Period. End of story.

You can find that discussion here My posts are #20 and #22. Now you show me where I said what you claimed here.

ZenZhu · Vociferator Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 669

Overall, Simo's logic... to use the term loosely... still leaves me saying, "WTF?"

Shii · Recusant Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 4

Here is what I actually had to say about your hypothetical soccer mom: the choice of kitchen decor was cause to SUSPECT Fur-inclination, and/or be a POSSIBLE indication of what I term "implicit Furriness", meaning that the soccer mom in question is unaware of the existance of Furry fan-dom.

Ha, this reminds me of when I referenced a totally random guy on the Internet, and the guy came out of nowhere and registered on the forum I was posting in just to say that he wasn't really like that.

Oh, it's the exact same thing actually...

I updated my essay again to try to respond to the confusion Rangifer had over my intentions with the word "fetish". Yeah, you said to ignore him, but I'm trying to make a point to furries here, not to people who already agree with me :wink: so he's my target audience.

ZenZhu · Vociferator Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 669

I will concede that I may read too much into it. Others here can share their interpretations. But it still gets too much into the territory of furry-and-doesn't-know-it-yet to not call BS on it. IMO, it's total bunk to "discover" one is furry. When I watched a few episodes of Case Closed (A.K.A. Detective Conan) I didn't "discover" I was a fan. I just found a show I liked.

I'm sure one can make an argument for it varying with interpretation and all, but I just can't see furry as anything deeper than liking Burger King over McDonald's. Anything more, IMO, is just building it up in your own mind. Not to say someone's an inherent loser for doing so. People do it all the time... not much difference between a furry raving over The Lion King and a teenybopper raving over N Sync or Linkin Park.

Simo · Recusant Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 6

Oh no! I iz felled with the iron hammer of semantics! A WINNAR IS J00!

No, ZenZhu, what you were "felled with" is a very common-place misconception: that the 'Net is so vast and enormous that you can become lost within it. Actually, it's a collection of smaller communities, one being the Furry community, of which you are a part, like it or not, simply by your participation on a forum which is dedicated to discussing all things Furry. You misrepresented my position, and you got caught. It's as simple as that.

The point remains that someone decorating with a holstein theme has no relation whatsoever to "implicit furriness." It's not cause to suspect anything other than some broad likes black and white cow print.

Here is where you are quite wrong. It is a cause to suspect implicit Furriness, and I would certainly be more inclined to mention the existance of the fan-dom to someone whose kitchen was so decorated, than if it were not. Now, it just might turn out that the "broad" in question would have zero interest in the fan-dom. Then, again, it might not. Either way would be just fine by me.

You can't suggest someone is a potential furry just for liking animals with no knowledge of the fandom. <...> Millions of people have toasters in their homes, but it isn't cause to suspect that they'd be huge fans of The Brave Little Toaster series and might enjoy dressing up as toasters and creating Brave Little Toaster porn.

Now you're deliberately obfuscating. Liking animals, or not liking animals, has no revelance to Furry whatso-damn-ever. I know lots of folks who are animal rights activists who have no interest in Furry fan-dom at all. Furthermore, I know some Furries who are utterly indifferent to RL animals, don't have pets, don't want them, wouldn't make good pet owners, and shouldn't have them. Your analogy here is clumsy and irrelevant.

Furrydom isn't this kind of Jungian archetype or untapped potential that rests in the minds of all sentient beings.

I'm not the one who's psychologizing the fan-dom here.

Shii has done an excellent job of outlining that furrydom really isn't a fandom in a typical sense.

Yes, he does have an amazing grasp of the painfully obvious. The main difference being that Furry is very much a DIY fan-dom, rather than consisting of worshipful acolytes admiring from a distance, Furry largely produces its own "stuff" from within.

Furrydom has fundamentally taken something pretty ordinary and, in the furry eye, elevated it to something of dire significance, even to the point of fixating on it as a fetish, a lifestyle, and a religion.

And how, exactly, does this make Furry different from every other fan-dom? Star Trek, X Files, Babylon Five are just television shows. Star Wars is just a movie. Anime is just cartoons. No great cosmic significance there either, and yet, they all have their own fandoms, don't they? So far as obsessive/compulsive types, every fandom has them; it seems that fandoms in general were just made for such folks. As for myself, Furry is one thing that I enjoy, one thing that I am interested in -- one thing amoung many.

Over-reaction in 3... 2... 1...

Sorry, Kadius, I don't do flame wars.

Although I do find it quite hilarious for you to be proclaiming that Furry isn't all that important, and yet, you have over 500 posts registered here on that very subject. :shock: In my ten month long affiliation with the fan-dom, I don't have anywhere near that many posts on the Furry forums I visit. Indeed, it took me some two years to hit 500 posts over at the Microsuck forums, about a year-and-a-half at ExtremeTech.

Seems someone's truly obsessed with Furry. I wonder who that could be? :lol:

BTW: loved the graphic. Really demonstrates your level of maturity. :roll:

Kadius · Venter Joined: 10 Feb 2004 Posts: 254

Getting your panties in a bunch over being misquoted on something so insignifigant. It's almost like you have a grudge against ZenZhu and came here to pick a fight. ...Wait, aparently you do... and you did!

Trolling gives you cancer.

Simo · Recusant Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 6

Getting your panties in a bunch over being misquoted on something so insignifigant. It's almost like you have a grudge against ZenZhu and came here to pick a fight. ...Wait, aparently you do... and you did!

Kadius, you just don't get it, do you? Yes, you are right: it really is insignificant. And, yet, ZenZhu has 530 posts, and you have 180, and climbing. That's one helluva lot of hours on-line to get that. Doesn't that strike you as being just a little bit weird?

I don't know ZenZhu, I never met him, I can't say that I really give a damn. I've been lurking around CYD for quite some time. It's one of the funniest web sites I've ever seen, and the fact that all the comedy is unintentional makes it funnier still. All those posts, all that bile and venom, all the grandiose psychologizing (good going: you're making Furry seem as though it has some deep, dark, mysterious meaning better than most "life-stylers" and "Furry spiritualists" manage to do) directed at one lil' ol' fandom for folks who happen to like funny animals is :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: beyond words.

I didn't come here looking for ZenZhu. I just happened to see his post, and, so I decided to come out of lurker mode to give his self-important chain a yank just to see what he'd do.

Go on: keep me entertained.

Rankin · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 727

RANKIN BIOGRAPHY

Rankin has gained recognition as a photographer, publisher and, most recently, film director, but is perhaps best known for being stubbornly himself.

With an iconic, intimate portraiture style coupled with a mischievous, witty eye, and well acustomed to ruffling fashion's feathers, Rankin has become one of the world's leading photographers.

Rankin co-founded Dazed & Confused with Jefferson Hack in 1991, and oversaw it's rise as Creative Director.

Publishing CeleBritation, a collection of his celebrity portraits, and Snog in 2000, Rankin Works, a comprehensive retrospective was also published in 2000 by Booth-Clibborn Editions. Rankin’s recent publication, Works in Progress #1, Breeding – a b/w study of androngenous models, is a limited edition of 1500 box set with a signed limited edition print enclosed and was published October 2002. The latest publication of Rankin’s work is a joint special edition book with David Bailey, Rankin+Bailey – see images and details on www.baileyrankin.com

Still active as a magazine publisher, Rankin is co-publisher of ANOTHER, the new launch from Dazed & Confused. Committed to promoting talented young photographers, Rankin's publishing activities are underpinned by this.

Advertising work has included shooting a television commercial for Guinness, an ad and press campaign for Mattel’s “My Scene” Barbie dolls, a press ad campaign for Siemens/ Xelebri’s new range of mobiles, and an advertising campaign for Intimates, Elle McPherson’s new line of underwear. His most recent campaigns have been for Morgan and a Dove firming lotion print and TVC campaign that features normal women, and not models.

Rankin has recently directed a short film for Film4 to go on UK cinematic release trailing features in 2003 – entitled Perfect, and it has just been selected as one of the few short films shown at the LA Film Festival in June 2003, Edinburgh Film Festival August 2003 and the Raindance Film Festival 2003. His latest directorial outing was a TVC for Rimmel cosmetics featuring Kate Moss. He photographed Tony Blair for the Financial Times and various fashion stories and recent covers for German Vogue, Harpers, Arena, GQ and Queen, Mixt(e) and Citizen K among many others.

Rankin was selected as one of ten photographers to photograph the Queen for her Golden Jubilee. His image was exhibited at Windsor Castle (opened February 2002) and has transferred to the National Portrait Gallery in London. Recent Exhibition List;
Sugar & Syrup @ The V&A, London
Rankin Photographs @ Tom Blau Gallery, September / October 1998, London, Grazia Neri Gallery, Milan, and Palazzo delle Esposizioni, Rome

Dead Fashionable @ The Collette Gallery, Paris, and as part of a mixed media show, Jam ’97 @ Barbican Art Gallery, London
* Substance @ the Dazed & Confused Gallery, June 1999, London, an exhibition and book featuring 6 documentary photographers chosen by Rankin
* Rankin Nudes @ Proud Galleries, September/October 1999, London accompanied by the soft back catalogue/book Rankin Nudes
* Celebritation @ Proud Galleries, May/June 2000, London supported with a soft and hardback book, featuring some of the many famous celebrities Rankin has photographed over the years
* Snog @ Rossi Gallery, June/July 2000, London, an exhibition and book of up close portraits of the general public, all ages, sexes and races, snogging.
* Male Nudes @ Proud Galleries, March 2001, London. Following on from the Female version, displaying works taken from the book published by Vision On.
* Celebritation toured the UK in 2001; visiting Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Brighton, Edinburgh
* Royal Academy of Arts – Summer Exhibition 2001, London
* ‘No Sex please, I’m British’ @ Acte 2, December 2001 Paris. A ‘best of’ collection of his work
* ‘Visually Hungry’ June/July 2002, New York. Displayed over 200 ‘best of’ images in a former fire station in downtown Manhattan.
* Douglas Kirkland & Rankin @ Camerawork, July/August 2002, Berlin. Selected colour and black & white prints from Rankin’s Waxworks, Breeding, Rank & CeleBritation projects.
* ‘Breeding & Celebritation’ @ Galerie Wouter van Lueewen, September 2002, Amsterdam. Selected images from Rankin’s Breeding & Celebritation projects.
* ‘Sexshow’ @ Proud Galleries, September/October 2002, London. Photographs from Breeding & SofaSoSexy publications.
* ‘Matthew Williamson’ @ Whiteley’s, London. Commissioned exhibition with photographs of Helena Christensen, Jade Jagger, Heather Graham & others celebrating five years of fashion design by Matthew to tie in with fashion week.
* ‘Celebritation’ @ Spazio Armani, March 1st – 29th 2003, Milan, Exhibition that updated his 2000 show Celebritation including more recent work.
* Bailey & Rankin @ Proud Galleries, May/ June 2003 – a joint show featuring Baileys ‘pussy’ shots & Rankin’s ‘Girls on Top’
* ‘Celebritation’ touring Asia and the USA Autumn 2003/ Spring 2004 to various Armani spaces.
* Crossings Gallery, March/April 2004, Hamburg - a small retrospective showing a collection of portrait, fashion and personal work alongside a loop of his short film “perfect”.

Rankin solo publications;
* Rankin Photographs, published in 1998 by Waddell Ltd, ISBN 095329210X
* Nudes, published in 1999 by Rankin Photography, reprinted in 2001 by Vision On Publishing – ISBN 1903399432
* CeleBritation, published in 2000 by Vision On Publishing, ISBN 095374793X, paperback – 0953747948 hardback
* Snog, published in 2000 by Vision On Publishing, ISBN 0953747956
* RankinWorks, published in 2000 by Booth-Clibborn Editions, ISBN 1861541619
* Male Nudes, published in 2001 by Vision On Publishing, ISBN 1903399130
* Sofasosexy, published in 2002 by Vision On Publishing, ISBN 1903399521
* Works in Progress #1, Breeding, publishing in 2002 by Vision On Publishing, ISBN 1903399319
* Bailey & Rankin, May 2003 – a joint show featuring Baileys ‘pussy’ shots & Rankin’s ‘girls on top’. A limited edition book with iris prints from the two photographers in a special box set will be able to buy from the exhibition and through the website www.baileyrankin.com

--- I'm nothing like that.

Kadius · Venter Joined: 10 Feb 2004 Posts: 254

I've been lurking around CYD for quite some time. It's one of the funniest web sites I've ever seen, and the fact that all the comedy is unintentional makes it funnier still. All those posts, all that bile and venom directed at one lil' ol' fandom for folks who happen to like funny animal is beyond words. <...>
Go on: keep me entertained.

Classic trolling.

Someone needs to ban this jerk.

Simo · Recusant Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 6

Classic trolling.

Of course, it's not like Furry haters never troll Furry forums. They'd never do a thing like that, now would they? :shock:

What goes around, comes around. :P

Someone needs to ban this jerk.

Oh no! Not that! How could I go on living, knowing that I got banned from Crush, Yiff, Destroy? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rankin · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 727

Stuff.

I like your quoting style. Wanna yiff?

Simo · Recusant Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 6

I like your quoting style.

I find that it doesn't take up so much screen "real estate" as block quoting everything, especially if it's just a line or two.

Wanna yiff?

Not on a first date, sorry.

SquareSoft0 · Prattler Joined: 07 Sep 2004 Posts: 143

Oh noes, look out! He has words and he's not afraid to use them! :shock:

Rankin · Vociferator Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 727

Oh noes, look out! He has words and he's not afraid to use them! :shock:

Wayd Wolf · Vociferator Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 522

Ignore the furry troll.

Fact is, I'd have to hazard a guess that well over half the board membership are ex furry fandom followers, done in by two factors:

1. Furry is full of self absorbed scumbags, egomaniacal artists, complete pervert losers, and other loathsome flotsam and jetsam of what is already the seamy underside of reality and society.

2. Furry is even more full of people who confuse being open minded with their brains falling clean out of their heads and tolerance with adoption of the maxim, "all things not forbidden are compulsory and the forbidden ones too".

I've experienced dozens and dozens of the poorest examples of mistakes of human flesh ever to grace furry and no furry trolling will change that. More to the point, it can't change that the attitude of furry is, "unless it happens to me or an artist I love, then no matter how weird and offensive other furries act, I don't care".

Unless a cretin offends enough of the right august personages, they can go on wreaking emotional and mental havoc on as many unsuspecting people as they like. They can saddle anyone they please with as many sad fetishes and ridiculous perversions as the like.

Furries don't help each other, they cover each other's eyes, ears, and brains from reality. They provide safe harbor for loserdom and then wonder why it all looks like such a fucking mess.

Put another way, why does furry have such a high and disproportionate number of idiots living with their parents, living with other furs, who can't even manage to hold a part time minimum wage job, and who cannot function socially in any way with those who are not of the fandom? BECAUSE FURRY ENCOURAGES FREAKY LOSER BEHAVIOUR.

Partly for the cynical enjoyment of watching everyone slide downhill into personal Hells of their own because they themselves operate under "misery loves company". Partly because it helps those doing the encouraging keep from taking stock of their own failings.

Meanwhile, people all over the world shurg, grow up, and go on with their lives, and often, no matter how pathetic their lives may be, they are still on the same level of demigods and angels compared to the crap that furries take as more normal than normal.

Xarai · Recusant Joined: 25 Aug 2004 Posts: 3

Agree with Wayd Wolf.

I definitely agree with the whole 'furry fandom is largely a fetish in disguise', because it IS, and any hope of change is long since dead and buried by now.

The only gap I see in the essay is an explanation of those who like 'funny animals' in some way but don't consider themselves furries at all and don't want to have much to do with the fandom (e.g. a lot of this forum, myself included). Maybe it's just me, but I felt overtones of 'if you like cartoons, you're a fetishist'. It probably seems that way now that you can't Google Image Search without turning up pictures of nine-breasted Sonic the Hedgehog clones getting it on, but it seems a bit unfair to non-furries.

But I get your point. How about "the furry subculture" instead of "the furry fandom"? The only more accurate term I can think of would be "the furry clusterfuck".

mouse · Vociferator Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 740

I definitely agree with the whole 'furry fandom is largely a fetish in disguise', because it IS, and any hope of change is long since dead and buried by now.

The only gap I see in the essay is an explanation of those who like 'funny animals' in some way but don't consider themselves furries at all and don't want to have much to do with the fandom (e.g. a lot of this forum, myself included). Maybe it's just me, but I felt overtones of 'if you like cartoons, you're a fetishist'. It probably seems that way now that you can't Google Image Search without turning up pictures of nine-breasted Sonic the Hedgehog clones getting it on, but it seems a bit unfair to non-furries.

But I get your point. How about "the furry subculture" instead of "the furry fandom"? The only more accurate term I can think of would be "the furry clusterfuck".

The essay is well written though I gotta disagree with almost all of it.

To say furry isn't a fandom - I cant even possibly agree with that. "Furry Fandom" DOES show characteristics of all kinds of different social groups (fetish subculture etc), but a science-fiction or media-based fandom is definatly one of them.

Re: the original essay itself:

My own bias is against anime fandom heavily - partically because Furry and Anime are so very similiar, yet no one wants to recognize it. And implying that Anime fans are humble comes really close to actually razzing me. That definatly does not describe my experience with Anime fandom. As far as history - they grew from the same exact organization - the C/FO of the late 70's. They have the same exact early history, and a lot of the early players. You can't accuse furries of not knowing thier history when Anime fans don't either. As I've said before Anime can be viewed as just as much of an intangible thing to form a fandom around as "cartoon animals". I will point out this which is important : ISBN 0-13-275561-0 The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Cartoon Animals. The only reason I cite this book is that it has nothing to do with furry fandom at all - yet there it is. Someone recognized the fact that cartoon/anthropomorphic animals stories and cartoons are in some way discernable from others in that cartoon animals are used as the main characters. Common sense. And there are "furry" comics and characters that appear in this. (Erma Felna, Captain Jack, Fission Chicken...) Long before I was aware of furry fandom, most of my favorite cartoons had cartoon animals in them. This isn't important in itself, but the fact that people might form a fannish group around a very visible style/genre/whatever of cartoon isn't unusual at all.

Most fandoms are defined by what they logically are supposed to be 'about' - but the article references a lot of individual opinions like FAQs and private info pages. Anime is about japanese cartoons, furry is about cartoon animals - at least in its history and somewhere at its core ..whether it gets truely hammered with a solely "cartoon animal sex fetish" label remains to be seen.

SLaitila · Prattler Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 165

To say furry isn't a fandom - I cant even possibly agree with that. "Furry Fandom" DOES show characteristics of all kinds of different social groups (fetish subculture etc), but a science-fiction or media-based fandom is definatly one of them.

It's a social group for fat, gay, lonely men, alas the cartoon animals are only an appendix.

And yiff stands for mangina.

Mitch · Vociferator Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 335

Classic trolling.

Of course, it's not like Furry haters never troll Furry forums. They'd never do a thing like that, now would they? :shock:

Are you saying that some of the regulars here have been trolling furry forums? Do you have any evidence, or are you just assuming that that's the kind of thing we do? Seriously, I don't think anyone here is into that. Of course, if you know differently, please post a link.

ZenZhu · Vociferator Joined: 22 Mar 2004 Posts: 669

Boy, Simo and EbonLupus should hook up. They both have that I've-got-an-answer-for-everything pseudo-logical debateproof armor thing going... even right down to the "level of maturity" tactic. Great stuff.

What he might be suggesting, Mitch, is that I was trolling Furcentral.net, since I used to do a fair bit of posting over there over the past couple of years. It was sort of a precursor to CYD. But, the whole site turned into little more than a LiveJournal message board for some guy and his blossoming romance with an angsty teen. It started a few years back as a board where furries would mock the crap on VCL. These days, it's basically posts ad nauseum about what new dumbass stuff is going on in the kid's life, and what hokey animal dream the older guy had after eating crackers and mustard the night before, and how the two are going to wind up in t3h butt53xx0r2.

No, ZenZhu, what you were "felled with" is a very common-place misconception: that the 'Net is so vast and enormous that you can become lost within it. Actually, it's a collection of smaller communities, one being the Furry community, of which you are a part, like it or not, simply by your participation on a forum which is dedicated to discussing all things Furry. You misrepresented my position, and you got caught. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's a simple as Simo throwing a temper tantrum. To "get caught" one has to assume one isn't already under observation. I'd figure for every one of us here, there's quite a fair number of unregistered but regular readers watching. "Getting caught" implies actions on this board are done with the notion that no one we're discussing can read it. I'd guess most of the CYD crew inherently assumes our posts are being read by the folks we're talking about on a regular basis. Simo's post isn't the first time someone saw themselves referenced here and had a hissy fit.

Although I do find it quite hilarious for you to be proclaiming that Furry isn't all that important, and yet, you have over 500 posts registered here on that very subject.

It's not important. But I never said the downward spiral of it since my familiarity with it in the late 80's wasn't fascinating.

Seems someone's truly obsessed with Furry. I wonder who that could be?

Oooh.. oooh... I know this one. It's me, right? Please say it's me! That line wouldn't be as entertaining an attempt at pointing out my foibles if it wasn't me. C'mon, guys... help me out. Is it me he's talking about? I hope so! Wow... I feel so... targeted. Now I know how Mike must feel! What a rush!

BTW: loved the graphic. Really demonstrates your level of maturity.

The picture didn't really capture my essence. I had made a boom-boom in my diaper, and it was close to nap time, so I was cranky when the photo was snapped.

Kadius, you just don't get it, do you? Yes, you are right: it really is insignificant. And, yet, ZenZhu has 530 posts, and you have 180, and climbing. That's one helluva lot of hours on-line to get that. Doesn't that strike you as being just a little bit weird?

It is a lot of hours invested. It takes me about 8 hours to really craft the one-line responses. I have to have my secretary hold my calls for anything longer than a paragraph.

I've been lurking around CYD for quite some time. It's one of the funniest web sites I've ever seen, and the fact that all the comedy is unintentional makes it funnier still. All those posts, all that bile and venom, all the grandiose psychologizing (good going: you're making Furry seem as though it has some deep, dark, mysterious meaning better than most "life-stylers" and "Furry spiritualists" manage to do) directed at one lil' ol' fandom for folks who happen to like funny animals is beyond words.

+

I didn't come here looking for ZenZhu. I just happened to see his post, and, so I decided to come out of lurker mode to give his self-important chain a yank just to see what he'd do.

The first chain sets off the foghorn. The second chain generally lowers the drawbridge, but it got tangled in with someone else's self-important chain, so, until the bridge is repaired, we're having to send the peasants home using the catapault.

Since Simo's panties are in such a wad about my apparent misinterpretation of his claims, I'll go ahead and apologize for any offenses stemming from said misinterpretation. In my unenlightened, mundane mind, the idea of equating your Average Joe's love of animals to some inherent level of uninvolved involvement in the furry "fandom" is just absurd. As such, I misinterpreted Simo's assertions as suggesting liking animals is a surefire indication that one's destiny could only be realized through the furry "fandom." Since I have been shown the error of my ways, I must proclaim that the concept of "implied furriness" is a much smaller pile of bullshit than previously assumed.

Now, how about one of our famous bike rides, kids?