Just today I've learned that there's going to be an interesting psychologists' conference in neighboring (for me, at least) San Francisco this coming May.

Just today I've learned that there's going to be an interesting psychologists' conference in neighboring (for me, at least) San Francisco this coming May.
Quick, people! We've got the interweb's largest community of furry experts RIGHT HERE. YES YES Let's show these pompous ivy-league-ivory tower academic commie bastards how we write pop-pychobabble furry articles in this town and-

Oh, wait, deadline was Oct. 15. Never mind.

Anyway, I expect a couple psych grad students I know will be attending. Should be interesting to hear what they learn.

Also: Conference includes an "erotic photography exhibit," a "fetish Fashion show," and "opportunities to visit local community sexual venues."

Thought you guys might like to know.

Oh, wait, deadline was Oct. 15. Never mind.

Like just shy of a year ago ? or next month?

Im with Wayd on the fact that "furry sex" is almost an oxymoron. Other than when it combines desperation, sadness, and convention hotel rooms. Im not sure exactly what they are going to write about.

Im interested in hearing what comes of this. Id like to hear an actually scientific/sociological report based on actual field research rather than you usually see, which about equals a google search .. or less than that.

also, "opportunities to visit local community sexual venues." whats this ? the local titty bar? I gotta get in some classes that have field trips like that ... I must be in the wrong field or something

Im with Wayd on the fact that "furry sex" is almost an oxymoron. Other than when it combines desperation, sadness, and convention hotel rooms. Im not sure exactly what they are going to write about.

What IS to study anyhow?

>I'm sure most articles will probably be look at furry sex in the abstract (trying to discern where the urges originally come from, early childhood influence of cartoons, blah blah blah) rather than furry sex in reality (The whole nerd-gay angle).

Because nerd-gay, although fairly ubiquitous in furry, isn't really unique to furry. Psychologists studying sex already have about a bazillion theories about the interplay between weird sexual behaviors and pathetic desperation. No new ground to cover there.

I'm sure most articles will probably be look at furry sex in the abstract (trying to discern where the urges originally come from, early childhood influence of cartoons, blah blah blah) rather than furry sex in reality (The whole nerd-gay angle).

Xenophilia? Would that be a love of the strange and exotic?

Of course, the whole xeno thing as applied to morphs still has some consistencies with regular human porn. If you put aside the small section of furries that produce zoo works like dolphins with thier prehensile winkies and such, there are basically one of two sets of things present in furry porn.... either A) tits and ass, or B) cock and balls.

While the general reaction of your average schmoe to seeing DD boobs and a near-clinical diagram of a vagina on a blue skunk girl is going to be initial shock and aversion, followed by at least a passing glance at the humanoid nudity, then passing it off as either novel, silly, or repugnant.... the furry allure is really just a novelty that repackages the focus of the image.... tits and ass.

Seeing cartoon animals exude a sense of sexuality isn't new. The female felines in Tom and Jerry were typically curvaceous. Fifi le Fume was the female counterpart of Pepe le Pew, who embodied the thrill of pursuing amorous encounters. Kath Soucie's ability to rather huskily drip sexuality from her voice didn't hurt, either. Minerva Mink was your cartoon animal equivalent of a blonde bombshell, and Lola Bunny... what little of Space Jam I saw, had your girl-next-door/tomboy element with the underlying tones of someone who could go from 0 to slut in 6.8 seconds under the right circumstances (or with enough Jack Daniels). As we've seen with Huslter Canada's mascot, cartoon animal mascots with a healthy dose of anthropomorphised human sexuality is hardly anything new. Hell, I've even seen a line of sugar-free ice cream products that uses a skinny cow with a modest bustline. Combining animal characters with elements of human sex appeal is hardly new or shocking. But, they're not meant to be serious wanking material.

I think what the furries miss, though, is that all of this is merely human sexuality dressed up differently. While furry porn has a xenophilic element, it's focus is still human sexuality. I'd dare say what often causes the aversion to a lot of furry porn is either the extreme exaggeration of genitalia (it seems rather evident when it's serious and when it's done in comedy), or the kinds of fetishes displayed in the images. I personally don't mind the more tasteful or Playboy-esque furry nudes. While I may not find them arousing, I at least appreciate the aesthetics of the pose, the colors used, etc.

When you start uploading cub art, tentacle rape, or stuff with furries peeing their pants as a sexual thing........ well...... I'll respect your freedom to upload such things.... but I may also exercise my freedom to mock it.

There's a few things that, in their own right, make the draw of furry porn to some people unsurprising (mind you, this is all just theorizing):

*It's easily accessable. With the large influx of teens to furry circles in the past few years, you're getting a lot of new furry fans that, at present, cannot legally acquire pornography. Of course, they may not be competent enough with web searches... or covering their tracks if they share a computer with their parents... to make Google's image search their first line of attack for acquiring porn. Furry porn isn't regulated on sites like Furnation (depending on the individual's page) and VCL. As such, if you're a lusty teen wanting to see some boobs... you may not care if it's on a pop idol or a humanoid skunk. VCL is easy to get to, so, there's your porn fix.

I remember in my teen years, before I could legally buy Playboy, and back in the BBS days, I could still buy artistic reference books and books on glamour photography. I'm not sure what logic dictated that I couldn't buy the pictures of naked women behind the counter... but I could buy pictures of equally naked women from the section labeled Art & Photography at the bookstore. As such, my T&A fix came largely from glamor photography books, artists' model photo-reference books, and racier publications from artists like Boris Vallejo and Frank Frazetta. Of course, I also legitimately used these books for honing my own artistic abilities... but it was also used for more clandestine purposes. These days, furry porn, for some of those that come across it, is just easy access to unregulated porn.

*Some of our first exposure to sexuality is through cartoon characters. Many of the WB cartoons, most notably, have a healthy dose of humor that is aimed at adults. Not to say it is "adult humor," but it is jokes and themes adults may appreciate, and kids may just find silly because they don't completely understand it. As such, we get to see Fifi, Lola, or Minerva vamping it up at an early age. I wouldn't be surprised if this somehow registers with the developing sexuality of the young viewers. Minerva using her feminine wiles to con her way out of winding up at the taxidermist (I hesitated to say "stuffed and mounted"... wait.... DUOH) is a display of human sexual behavior and, while younger viewers may not be able to fully understand what they're seeing, something somewhere in them tells them it's a good thing. In the cases of the extreme, furries, however, perhaps they wind up fixating on the animal cartoon, rather than the behavior portrayed. They confuse finding the behavior sexy with finding the animal sexy.

I can't speak for anyone else's experiences, but I can't say I ever really found myself experiencing "strange new feelings" as a kid over Fifi le Fume or the cat women in Tom & Jerry. I will say, however, that my first "furry crush" was Cheetara from Thundercats. Of course, she looked like little more than a human with 80's style feline makeup. To a young kid, those thunder thighs crammed into a spandex outfit was a first glimpse how pleasant the human body could be. And, ogling a cartoon character got you in a lot less trouble than staring at some bikini-clad girl on the beach... since, doing one was obvious to your parents... doing the other just looked like you were a breakfast cereal zombie on Saturday mornings.

*Being part of our baser instincts, sex does have its animal-like qualities. Not to suggest bending your wife over the coffee table is the same as seeing bears humping on Animal Planet, but, sex is simultaneously part of our higher functions (in that we are cognizant of it and can enjoy it on levels animals can't) and part of our basic drives (the insticnt to perpetuate the species (often to excess in the poorer, more Bible-thumping portions of the population :D)). Much of our sexual terminology has ties to its more animalistic side. "Macho," if I remember correctly, actually refers to bulls in Spanish or Portugese or something. (I remember someone mentioning "macho bull" is a redundant term). We have the term "animal magnetism." We sometimes have sex "doggie style" (the derivation of that term being a bit more of a visual description than a term for something less tangible). We use colognes and perfumes to appeal to senses in the ways animals might use pheremones. Our clubbing outfits could be seen as basically an artificial form of mating plumage. We "show our moves" on the dance floor in a fashion similar to animals doing mating displays (usually looking about as silly as some animals in the process).

As such, sex itself has many animal-like connotations. Many peole find women dressed in fur coats, or on fur rugs alluring. This is unsurprising, as fur has a textural, sensual quality. We have Playboy "bunnies" in little cotton tails and ears. Looking at the Halloween stores that are now opening, cat and mouse costumes for women are well-stocked. In a way, this might all be considered an expression of the animal side of sex, and also a bit of a xenophilic titilation. It's alluring in its novelty. In light of these notions, really, a purple-furred skunk femme is not too far removed from a sexy woman dressed in a bikini and wearing a pair of fake cat ears. Of course, most of us would prefer to lust after the real woman than the imaginary cartoon one. Which brings me to my next theory...

*Nekkid cartoon critters are "safe." Since a lot of furries these days are teens and young adults.... or adults that never really matured during those socially formative years.... they're at a point in their lives where they are discovering and exploring their human sexuality. Cartoon animal characters have been used to "soften the blow" for many gritty realities. McGruff and.. uh... whoever the McGruff puppy kid is.... is used to help approach children with topics related to crime, kidnapping, child molestation, etc. Many fire departments use a cartoon dalmation mascot on brochures and other materials for children helping them learn about fire safety. Animal characters are used to take the edge off of many topics that are often considered a bit too much of a dose of harsh reality for kids. As such, I can kind of see where cute cartoon critters with boobs might not be quite as intimidating to youths who are exploring their sexuality as photographs of real people.

Additionally, much of our society teaches us that nude photography... or almost any depiction of the nude form created after the Renaissance is "wrong" and "pornographic." With the abundancy of porn and adult magazines, much of American society basically lumps any photographic image of a nude human into the category of "pornographic." There seems to be this paradox where, if it's photographed, it's porn.. and if it's drawn, it's "art." How many times have we seen a furry image that has absolutely no artistic merit or sense of aesthetics, but yet the furries quickly defend it as art?

Kids often discover masturbation before they even know there's a word for it. Naturally, youths and young adults (depending on when you start indulging your developing sexuality) will seek out sexually arousing stimuli (males moreso visually than females, so they say). If they swipe their father's Playboys, or Victoria's Secret catalogs... or open up to the bra secion of the Sears cataloge... or squirrel away a copy of National Geographic (don't get many tribal boobies in there anymore).... there may be associated feelings of guilt. They think they are doing something "bad" by looking at photographs of nude women (or men). If it's drawn, on the other hand.. like furry images.. then it's "art." Maybe it doesn't seem as bad. I don't know. But maybe the fluffy cartoon animals sporting big boobs and dripping phalluses is considered "less bad" by many of them. Who knows.

I think furry porn is often a case of bait-and-switch. It seems like the furries fixate on the animal characters. And many of the furries themselves may feel the allure is particularly the animal characters. But, really, I think it's the expression of human sexuality that gives it allure. Even for someone as anti-human as EbonLupus, the depiction of a sexual act between two animals is really registering on a level of human sexuality. Even buying into the arguement of recreational sex occuring in the animal kingdom, humans are cognizant of the sex act on many more levels than animals. As such, I'd dare say it is impossible to for humans to totally detach themselves from human sexuality and think of it in the same terms that animals do. So, furry porn, ranging from the simple nudes to the extreme zoo fetish stuff is really little more than something that appeals on some level to our human sexuality.

When it's all said and done, it's still basically human tits, ass, pussy, cocks and balls. The anthro animals are basically just a fuzzy gift wrap on human sexuality that is maybe a bit of novelty for some, and confusion for others.

Or I'm just totally full of crap.

Or I'm just totally full of crap.