It's scary, but there's really little room for doubt as to what that means. Usually I'm one to say "that ain't furry", but given the nature of the scene, the 'quality' of the art and that it's apparently drawn by the character (who is obviously not an artist and draws only to produce wank material), well... someone in the mainstream knows, and they got it dead on.

I sense a quickening as of late, don't you? As if we're on the cusp of some new awareness of furry dawning on the normal, outside world.

And there will be much ruination and despair all around, mark my words.

To keep with the, just because it's got humanized animals doesn't mean it's gotta be furry, who's to say that's not some old Robert Crumb stuff or some of that older comic art?

Looking at the artwork, save for the animal heads, there' very little that really would identify it by furries as being furry. They literally are the humans with animal heads types that you probably could find in old porn mags of the past.

Using anthro animals as symbols of human sexual activity isn't exactly a new 'furry' thing afterall that's excusively done by those who actually would consider themselves furry either.

Frankly, judging by the animal types, they seem more like the symbols of human behavior we often give animals (which anthromorphizes them).
The male being the dog (Like saying men are dogs) and the woman being a rabbit (which we often associate with fertility and sexuality). They seem like basic, what's the word achetypes(?), for ideal human stereotypes.

It's like doing a story where you want to show someone is greedy so you draw an anthro pig, someone who is clever would be an anthro fox, someone who is a theif, an anthro raccoon, ect.

One thing I learned in psychology is that (and yes, this was a suprise) that the use of anthro characters are sometimes encourage because it gives a person an idealized, yet separate, thing to look up to and aspire to, because of the human qualities we give the animals. Like, lions are brave, so a person may visualize themselves as such. What that gotta do with this from the movie, shrug, but then, not sure what its got to do with furry either.

To keep with the, just because it's got humanized animals doesn't mean it's gotta be furry, who's to say that's not some old Robert Crumb stuff or some of that older comic art?

Looking at the artwork, save for the animal heads, there' very little that really would identify it by furries as being furry. They literally are the humans with animal heads types that you probably could find in old porn mags of the past.

Using anthro animals as symbols of human sexual activity isn't exactly a new 'furry' thing afterall that's excusively done by those who actually would consider themselves furry either.

Frankly, judging by the animal types, they seem more like the symbols of human behavior we often give animals (which anthromorphizes them).
The male being the dog (Like saying men are dogs) and the woman being a rabbit (which we often associate with fertility and sexuality). They seem like basic, what's the word achetypes(?), for ideal human stereotypes.

It's like doing a story where you want to show someone is greedy so you draw an anthro pig, someone who is clever would be an anthro fox, someone who is a theif, an anthro raccoon, ect.

One thing I learned in psychology is that (and yes, this was a suprise) that the use of anthro characters are sometimes encourage because it gives a person an idealized, yet separate, thing to look up to and aspire to, because of the human qualities we give the animals. Like, lions are brave, so a person may visualize themselves as such. What that gotta do with this from the movie, shrug, but then, not sure what its got to do with furry either.

Are you sure you're not a furry? That stuff you just said has been one of the furries' biggest rationale for years.

(and that shit never has flushed with the mundanes either)

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

So I'm watching "Eternal Sunshine Of A Spotless Mind", a recent movie
starring Jim Carey, and in a scene from it, he masturbates to
something that can be qualified as furry porn... o.o

Christ.. that just kinda, embarrassing. Thats it, Fuck it all.
Fire the ovens boys! I volunteer to go in first!

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

Then you got hosed with a hardcover tome of claptrap then, I'm afraid.

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

Then you got hosed with a hardcover tome of claptrap then, I'm afraid.

And my gosh, do you know how hard it is to take any reply you make seriously when I'm looking at a giant fursuited racoon dog swing his giant sized balls back and forth?

I mean, really...

Dont' be so quick to discredit that which you do not understand, which, judging by your very well thought out and intellegent reply, may be a lot of things.

Dont' be so quick to discredit that which you do not understand, which, judging by your very well thought out and intellegent reply, may be a lot of things.

It amuses me to know that you think your ownership of some textbooks makes you feel superior in the argument.

Come on, please. Now tell us that you must be off to play the grahnd pee-ahn-oe. :lol:

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

Then you got hosed with a hardcover tome of claptrap then, I'm afraid.

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

Then you got hosed with a hardcover tome of claptrap then, I'm afraid.

Somewhere, somehow, there a Martin Wagner / Hepcats mention begging to be made but I'm not going to do it.

I will say that the movie stuff is probably slightly less in-jokey that let's say using some Hardiman, Martin, or Winger spooge would be but it's still right in there with spooge. It IS spooge. And spooge is furry. And that's just wrong.

'Kay?

Class dismissed. Tomorrow, we will have a test on the philosophical difference between TV giving furry a bad rep by exposing it and furry doing itself in by making the material for them to use in the first place.

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

Then you got hosed with a hardcover tome of claptrap then, I'm afraid.

Somewhere, somehow, there a Martin Wagner / Hepcats mention begging to be made but I'm not going to do it.

I will say that the movie stuff is probably slightly less in-jokey that let's say using some Hardiman, Martin, or Winger spooge would be but it's still right in there with spooge. It IS spooge. And spooge is furry. And that's just wrong.

'Kay?

Class dismissed. Tomorrow, we will have a test on the philosophical difference between TV giving furry a bad rep by exposing it and furry doing itself in by making the material for them to use in the first place.

You make the assumption that that was the intent of thta material in the first place, which I still say is reading a lot into things. Just because eomething has an animal head on it doesn't mean it's furry/yiffy/spoogey, or what ever term you want to use.

It's sort of the opposite of how furries will claim anything talking humaniod animal as being furry in an excepting way.

I still say the concept of using animal characters in adult situations isn't exactly a new thing nor is it a furry thing. You all reported I see, about Hustler using a humanoid beaver as its mascot. Playboy has had the anthro bunny girl (whom I happen to find a mini-statue of at Wizardworld) for years. Heck, you can even go back to Greek mythology and find anthro creatures in sexual situations (Zeus as a bull and swan, the Minotaur).

So, let's not be so quick to claim everything that is good as being 'furry' and everything this is weird or bad as being 'furry'. Otherwise, what's the difference between the two sides save for positive/negative reactions?

Be that as it may, I actually have the psychology book that I had to buy for class that had that in it.

Then you got hosed with a hardcover tome of claptrap then, I'm afraid.

Somewhere, somehow, there a Martin Wagner / Hepcats mention begging to be made but I'm not going to do it.

I will say that the movie stuff is probably slightly less in-jokey that let's say using some Hardiman, Martin, or Winger spooge would be but it's still right in there with spooge. It IS spooge. And spooge is furry. And that's just wrong.

'Kay?

Class dismissed. Tomorrow, we will have a test on the philosophical difference between TV giving furry a bad rep by exposing it and furry doing itself in by making the material for them to use in the first place.

You make the assumption that that was the intent of thta material in the first place, which I still say is reading a lot into things. Just because eomething has an animal head on it doesn't mean it's furry/yiffy/spoogey, or what ever term you want to use.

It's sort of the opposite of how furries will claim anything talking humaniod animal as being furry in an excepting way.

I still say the concept of using animal characters in adult situations isn't exactly a new thing nor is it a furry thing. You all reported I see, about Hustler using a humanoid beaver as its mascot. Playboy has had the anthro bunny girl (whom I happen to find a mini-statue of at Wizardworld) for years. Heck, you can even go back to Greek mythology and find anthro creatures in sexual situations (Zeus as a bull and swan, the Minotaur).

So, let's not be so quick to claim everything that is good as being 'furry' and everything this is weird or bad as being 'furry'. Otherwise, what's the difference between the two sides save for positive/negative reactions?

The difference is that I have never met anyone anywhere at any time outside of furry who thinks of your examples as wank material. The Hustler beaver is a frigging visual pun, and if you aren't following that, I suggest National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon One for further edification.

Playboy's bunny girl is an icon. No one strokes off over it who isn't seriously fucked.

And we can mention mythology all we want and in the end drag SG-1 into it through turns.

Furry is anthropomorphics gone wrong. Spooge is furry porn. That simple. What MH posted was clearly an example of spooge. It was Hepcats porn if you want to dice what's furry and not and play Wagner all day long. Doesn't change what it is.

FWIW, Hepcats is furry only because Wagner's protestations to the contrary are so slight as to be irrellevant next to the tumult of furries claiming otherwise. They adopted it, he didn't win back the custody, it's furry by squatter's rights as it were.

But hey, A witch hunter is going to find a witch when they go looking for one. So will a "Furry" hunter I suppose. I still feel that seeing something with an animal head on it doesn't automatically make it furry. If it does, then I guess you'd fall under the same mind frame as those labeld furry trying to claim anything with an animal head on it as being furry.

Then Maus really is a furry graphic novel, rather than a story that just happened to use humanoid animals as the medium to tell a story. Fairy Tales are laced with furries too then. 3 Little Pigs & the Big Bad Wolf. Puss N Boots. Tony the Tiger. Billy the Chicago Bulls mascot is a fursuit. Don't look now, we're surrounded by furries, furriness.

*appluads*
Ebonyleopard, well done. Maybe eventually you'll break through the hardened shell of these fellows to whatever shred of humanity lies beneath. :lol:

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you guys hate the furry fandom so much, why not just IGNORE it and go on with your lives? Don't you guys have girlfriends/wives or anything?

It seems to me that the people who have nothing better to do than sit around grousing about something they consider worthless and atrocious are not really doing much to aid their cause... Unless, of course, the cause really is just to sit around grousing about it! 0_o

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you guys hate the furry fandom so much, why not just IGNORE it and go on with your lives? Don't you guys have girlfriends/wives or anything?

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you guys hate the furry fandom so much, why not just IGNORE it and go on with your lives? Don't you guys have girlfriends/wives or anything?

OH NOES! HE PULLED OUT TEH LIFE CARD!

You're my internet hero.

Add an "s" to that "he", pal. ;)

*deftly goes back to dancing to 80's music without missing a beat*

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you guys hate the furry fandom so much, why not just IGNORE it and go on with your lives? Don't you guys have girlfriends/wives or anything?

I just find it odd that on one hand fursuiters are often commented on negatively, yet one would have an avatar that's gotta be one of the most disturbing type of fursuits you could have. (A fursuit that displays any type of genitals, is going far beyond just creative cosplay.)

I'm sorry to see you believe published books on psychology are drivel, though it doesn't surprise me. You are aware though that not everything is come big furry conspiracy. And might I point out, that while try as you may to distance yourself from it, you're sorta just as responsible for the image of furry being more about sex than cartoon animals you know, Mr. Furplay. If it was the 90's that caused all of this 'furry drama' we see today, that's your era.

I just find it odd that on one hand fursuiters are often commented on negatively, yet one would have an avatar that's gotta be one of the most disturbing type of fursuits you could have. (A fursuit that displays any type of genitals, is going far beyond just creative cosplay.)

Poor Shawtae. He's just not getting it.

Dude? Ebonyleopard? Even though my avatar pretty much speaks my opinion, I'm going to give you a little advice here.

Imagine you are standing on a patio, rock in hand. Fifteen feet away is the wasp nest that is currently Michael. Peacefully buzzing away, adding on, sure, they've stung people in the past, but now they're over that. You take aim with the rock, pull your arm back, and get ready to throw. Suddenly, you have a change of heart.

You now have a choice. The road you are heading down is the road of pulling the fucking nest down and playing hacky-sack with it. The road you should be taking is the road of calmly backing away, the road of neither of you bothering each other.

And might I point out, that while try as you may to distance yourself from it, you're sorta just as responsible for the image of furry being more about sex than cartoon animals you know, Mr. Furplay. If it was the 90's that caused all of this 'furry drama' we see today, that's your era.

Seriously, as a connoisseur of avatars I have to say that is one of the best. Do you know where it's from, or the mythology behind tanuki balls? They're magical and can turn into candy and stuff.

put the hornet's nest over his head and is now wearing it like a space helmet.

And might I point out, that while try as you may to distance yourself from it, you're sorta just as responsible for the image of furry being more about sex than cartoon animals you know, Mr. Furplay. If it was the 90's that caused all of this 'furry drama' we see today, that's your era.

Whoa....this reads as if Mike Hirtes is solely or mostly responsible for the sexual-based content that's been perverted and widespread throughout furdom. If that's the case, I'll have to disagree (and you're giving Mike WAY too much credit). That's akin to saying I'm responsible for the actions of the characters in SHANDA THE PANDA because I inked it (and there's been those who've tried to hold me accountable for such).

Mike's right. I think it's more the actions and antics of those he mentioned that contributed much more to the perversion element of furdom than Mike's fanzine.


The Outsider

So Mike is responsible for creating Howard. =)
-------------------------------------------------------
You IDIOT! You made me! Remember, you dropped me into that vat of furporn... That wasn't easy to get over, and don't think that I didn't try!

Out of respect for a mod, this will be the last post I make on this topic anyway, simply to clarify. I am not saying Mr. Hirtes is sole responsible for the sexual image of the furry fandom, but he has helped contribute to it by publishing a pornographic zine. So I'm just pointing out it's silly to on one hand complain about the negative image the fandom has which has grown over the years, when one of your only contributions to it was making that which is now being ridiculed in the past.

So no, Mike isn't responsible for the image of furry, but he has helped in one way or another contribute to it in its history. (Heck, Furplay magazine was one of the first adult furry things I ever saw, back when Mailbox Books was in PA and they sent me a catalogue. They had all kinds of pictures of furry stuff I never new existed and Furplay was one of the first adult oriented furry mags I had ever heard of. So...)