Animation Source Forums

Uhm, I see that you two (JC and Tibb) are only focusing one one kind of furry, without mentioning there are many different kinds. Remember that most fandoms can get pretty scary at a certain degree, but that doesn't mean that ALL furries are bad. Do you remember Walt Disney's Robin Hood? Well, that's furry too if you think about it. Sure that's where yiffing comes from, but they're not synonyms.

The costume aspect, to me, is no different than extreme Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, Twilight, etc. fans and LARPers who play dress up. IMHO, weird. Geeky. Just my opinion. Not saying it's a fact. But I happen to see it as a fact from my perspective.

...

Myths or stereotypes often have their foundation in some measure of fact. And even if furries HATE the image of them presented on CSI, there are elements there which were drawn from SOMEWHERE factual. Maybe the images there don't represent the "furry" community as a whole. But to the general layman, that doesn't matter. A layman is not interested in having to interpret this category, that category ("I just like the art", "I don't see anything wrong with dressing up", "what's wrong with being a furry?", etc.). Nor should the layman have to.

For good or ill, furries -- being an alternative social interest and, in some cases, lifestyle, anyway -- have to join the ranks of all others who express interest in things which are not generally embraced by societies at large, and accept that there will always be some confusion over, aversion to, and even hostility towards that interest or lifestyle.

And you're entitled to your opinion as well. And if you like being a furry, that's fine. I never said people have no right exercising their thing...whatever that is. Doesn't mean I haven't the right to think it's really freaking weird.

Well try to remember that furries (and sometimes their friends) are a bit touchy, and read into things people say. Especially on sites that are openly encouraging of that pastime. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But there is a tendency, even on this site, to castigate and alienate anyone who might even infer (much less openly say) they find furries weird, or that they just don't happen to like the furry thing, etc. And if they express that the furry pastime is not their thing, then they invariably get assaulted with a barrage of pointed questions and everything short of (or on par with) accusations that they are "haterz".

It's quite frustrating, and downright antisocial to people to be treated that way simply because they have the willingess (or perhaps even the courage, if they are concerned about their peers' reactions) to say that they have less than a "rah-rah" view of the whole furry thing.

But does that mean that I think the trolls, who hunt down and persecute furries, are good people? Not. They're not even in the same league as the others I mentioned. They're just basement-dwelling freaks who need attention and thrive on it.

...the only thing I will say (because I don't wish to get into a disagreeable discussion) is that I always thought that furries wanted others to know that they come in all sexualities, not just homosexuals and bisexuals.

...simply not liking furries or the furry pastime is not the same thing as "opposition". That is a bad choice of words. Opposition implies conflict. Most people who either don't like furries or the furry pastime are not in conflict with furries, nor are they seeking it. Though it often comes to them if they express their dislike. And that is unfortunate. People have a right to express their opinions.

I have seen statements on those furry forums which seem to imply that more furries are into beastial pornography than is generally admitted or even willingly realized by furries themselves. Of course, being an outsider, I have no data to back that statement up. I only go on what I have seen stated by furries themselves. Perhaps those statements were made by furries who are in that so-called "weirdest members" segment you referred to. Perhaps not. We cannot prove OR disprove that. But I will agree that the media does love to focus on the most extreme elements of ANY fandom. The way it has had a field day with Star Trek fans, role-playing gamers, pro wrestling fans, Twilight fans and LARPers is an ideal example. Star Trek fans most famously. After all, there are countless people who love Star Trek who fit quite well into the mainstream. But it hardly makes for good news reporting, television or mockumentaries for the media to present them. Rather, covering Trekkie conventions, which are largely attended by the kinds of fans which William Shatner infamously mocked back in the 80s on Saturday Night Live (that infamous episode for which he has since apologized), makes for more entertaining stuff. And why not? Some of those people are on a very disturbing fringe, and they bring it upon themselves. Like the lady who famously went to jury duty years ago, dressed in a full "Starfleet" uniform every day, in order to bring the "morals of the Star Trek future" to the American judicial system". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekkie#Trekkie_in_the_news; a picture of the super-geek here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/star-trek/5284858/Star-Trek-the-superfans.html)

No one furry has managed to create THE end-all, be-all definition of what a "furry" (or the "furry fandom") actually is. Each views it in his or her own way. Sometimes that concurs with what some other furries view themselves (and other furries) to be, and sometimes not. That is hardly new to any form of fandom or pastime which is not part of the "mainstream".

Besides, following on the mindset of many furries, I may well have already interacted with people who are furries without knowing it. And I haven't lost any sleep over that. If they aren't doing that "meet & greet on the street" stuff with me in their costumes, like in those videos, or trying to introduce me to furry stuff (in which I have no interest), then I have no problems with them being into whatever floats their particular boats.

All stereotypes, be they good, bad or indifferent, have at least SOME measure of truth to them. They all originate in some degree of truth...greater or lesser. That is a fact. And while NO one in this topic has said that "all furries are sick, perverted freaks and not really über-cool people", the stuff I linked, as well as ANY furry outlet anywhere on the net demonstrates that there are a large number of furries who most definitely ARE into perversions and unhealthy proclivities. Even one hardcore furry who recently left this site was said to have admitted to sexually abusing his own dog. I find that utterly and wholly contemptible, and worth prosecution. That poor animal has suffered greatly under the abuses of someone who most definitely IS a sick, perverted freak and an animal abuser. And certainly HE must be part of a miniscule percentage of the entire furry community who would be into such horrid things. But I am not going to go all politically-correct in my opinions just to suit your tender emotional insecurities.

Then in page 9 you go against what you said previously.

Hmm, I see, I'm sorry then. It's just your generally rude way of stating you opinion that made me think you were referring to all the furries, and not only to a specific category; after all, it looks like we were saying the same thing. They way you say it is important!

I'm not starting anything, I was stating my opinion. In your own words, that means I have a differing view than you do, and if you can't handle that you should go find greener pastures. Right? I don't believe your brand of intolerance and bigotry is appropriate here. I'm sorry if you have a problem with me stating my opinion.

I think you're trying too hard to make it sound like he's insulting your religion. He used the words "psychologically out of sorts" to describe someone that believes that they are a furry animal. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but you can't be throwing words like "bigot" and "intolerance" around and accusing him of "insulting people's belies" because that groups him in with racists and religious extremists. That's taking it a little far (and that is your intention by using the language that you're using, you're a smart guy and you're wording it like that for a reason).

Like UK-Ban Cat said, PLEASE stop it with the name calling. It's unnecessary.

Like I said, it's just my opinion, not an "attack". I don't believe it's okay to call people "psychologically out of sorts" without any kind of proof or evidence, not to mention the fallacies involved in judging other people.