Breaking limits?
goth...@yahoo.com
together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
it...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ilr
> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
> together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
> bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
> it...
>
These people are only interested in seeing animals "gettin it on".
Try the Lifestylers though, they don't care much about art
but you'll prolly' be safe since they approve of anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ahh, this looks like a good place"
"He,he, dirty wormies"
*poke*
*Phhhwwiiisshhhhhhh*
*plop*
*crank* *crank* *crank*
- i l r
Donald E. Sanders
> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
> together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
> bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
> it...
>
*** Warning! Sensitive subject engine engaged!!***
First of all, I must state that officially by general consensus, it would
be considered a taboo subject. My personal thoughts on the matter follows.
I have done both art and written stories on the matter of human/morph interactions.
Although most were not received well, I have learned that depending on how it is
done matters if it is accepted or not. On one end of the fandom, the consumer side,
most Anthromorphic comic book titles do not include humans! either in G rated, or others.
One artist who shall remain nameless, but has been in the business for quite a while,
(One hint, look up the word that define the whiteness put out by the spectrum of stars
and also the word that describes the other way to produce energy other than Fission
and you will know who I am talking about. :)) has only showed humans in his work but
in shadowed background and all but extinct. On the true fannish sense, there has
been other furries who have produced works that involved humans. One person in mind
did a good job with a certain Lemon drop loving Vixen Mage.
In a few mucks and on IRC, I had to run a gauntlet when I bring in a character that
announced that he/she was human. It seems a general knee jerk reaction I guess.
Now to the brass tacks! What do I think?? Imagine if you will artwork based on
designs of creatures that really do not exist yet! Now really, have anyone out
there in the real world seen a actual Morphic Vixen?? Or a Anthromorphic bunny
other than those who wear fursuits?? No! Unless the governments of the world know
something that we don't know. If a person was to produce a picture of Unicorns being
driven to slaughterhouse, would anyone at PETA or the ASPCA raise a eyebrow??
Has anyone been tried for Dragon Abuse????? I think not. You see, Anthromorphic
creatures do not exist yet, therefore the argument about besti@lity should not even
exist. My suggestion? If you decide to travel down that less traveled and less loved
road of human/morph interaction art and stories, learn, practice, and do it well.
It may be the only shield you have to defend yourself against the consensus of the
fandom.
My apologizes if what I have written above seem harsh. To me, it seems like the
cold hard facts. Unless anyone can prove me wrong, I will stand by this.
Dedicated to the author of "What Bunnies are For", "Underneath Crystal City"
A certain grumpy Unikorn who runs a certain archive, and quite a few others,
you all know who you are. :)
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Donald E. Sanders
> {Hey, time for an impression. Guess who I am!}
> > together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
> > bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
> > it...
> >
> These people are only interested in seeing animals "gettin it on".
> Try the Lifestylers though, they don't care much about art
> but you'll prolly' be safe since they approve of anything.
Hehehe, you are such a jolly fellow. Yep, it's quite a mess we got
here. It gets bad when we have to go elsewhere for something that
used to be rolled up on one big furry lump.
AllanGldmn
In article <01be40d7$6c365940$3f23...@rofintug.rof.net>, "ilr" <i...@rof.net>
writes:
>
>These people are only interested in seeing animals "gettin it on".
Throw in a few smilies to show your being sarcastic, or stop spitting on furry
fandom.
Al Goldman
M. Mitchell Marmel
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 goth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
> together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
> bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
> it...
No, by all means, go ahead. Heck, that's classic furry fantasy anyhow... :)
-MMM-
Brian W. Antoine
One of my favorite Terrie Smith prints is just this kind of mixture.
--
(UniKyrn on IM, ICQ#27068798)
Brian W. Antoine briana @ iea|dogear|circuit|cet .com
http://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/
Farlo
>{Hey, time for an impression. Guess who I am!}
>> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
>> together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
>> bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
>> it...
>>
>Nope, ya can't do that.
>These people are only interested in seeing animals "gettin it on".
>Try the Lifestylers though, they don't care much about art
>but you'll prolly' be safe since they approve of anything.
... anything and everyone, except you personally, ilr ;)
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
I am not postmaster@[localhost] nor postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
-------------------
Keith Wood
[I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
[together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
[bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
[it...
Draw what you want to draw. If you think it's worth selling when you
are finished, then try to sell it. There isn't anyone in charge of
saying what is and is not "art."
If they are having sex, it is beastiality, but there are people here
who are into that.
The one "limit" that you should keep in mind is to never draw
ANYTHING that you wouldn't want your kids, friends or the people
at church to see -- your art will last YEARS. Spooge drawn by your
own hand is more powerful than cheating on your spouse as a
reputation trasher. Even putting a pen name on your work isn't
enough, because an artist's style is usually distinctive and
recognized by those around you.
Last week I mentioned my embarrassment when a lady I spend a lot of
time with, curious about my ex's art, asked a dealer at a con if he
had any of her work. She was handed spooge, and after she flipped
through it turned to me and asked "Keith! You were MARRIED to this
woman when she drew this?!" It has become a joke between us, but
still -- imagine how you would feel if some classy lady were to
someday ask in shock "YOU drew this?!"
lonely...@newwave.net
>
> If they are having sex, it is beastiality, but there are people here
> who are into that.
hmmm...that's a subject that has been up for debate a LONG time.... it IS
obviously pornography, which is wrong enough to be condemned in its own
right... but is it bestiality? I'm not so sure, really. Me, I always defined
bestiality as sex or depictions of sex by a human with a real, nonsentient
animal. Anthro characters are, essentially, sentient beings-- humans,
really-- with morphic charecteristics.It isn't the animal characteristics
that make an anthro character sexually appealing... though they do seem to be
an attempt to lend the suggestion of the unique, alien and 'exotic'(Such as
erotic artists and writers attempt to do with the 'island lover' or 'asian
seductress' archetype(Do the asian and tropical markets do the same with,
say, caucasians?) It is those humanoid characteristics....breasts, shapely
legs, 'come hither' eyes, etc... that make an anthro character such as, say,
Minerva Mink, 'sexy.' I suspect that depictions of sex with an anthro, or
between anthros, is an attempt to 'iconize' the male and female... to render
femininity and masculinity in abstract concepts, while at the same time
giving them a unique character. On the opposite side, one wonders why the
artists finds a 'FOX woman' more erotically stimulating than a 'real' woman.
Then AGAIN, on yet ANOTHER side, one might point out that 'hentai'.... anime
porn... is hardly 'real' women, yet is considered closer to 'normal' porn or
erotica....even though it is as much an iconization of gender and sexuality
as anthro. And on ANOTHER side.... is anthro sex any different than
portrayals of elves, or other mythical creatures.... or blue-skinned aliens?
Could anthros be considered 'just another kind of alien race?' note: I am NOT
approving of porn in any way. I actively oppose it, period. but these
questions do arise in the fandom, and perhaps they should be addressed.
Responses? counterpoints? debate? Ben Bruin
Brenda Daverin
> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
> together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
> bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
> it...
You wouldn't be doing anything that hasn't been done before.
--
Brenda Daverin bdav...@best.com
The Unravelled Ferret - http://members.aol.com/lysana/
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen
Dr. Cat
: I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
: together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking?
That would depend on your personal limits, and the limits of your
intended audience.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: If you don't know WHO your intended audience is, then that's
the question you really have to ask yourself. If you know who they are,
but don't know what they want, then you should ask them specifically or
tell us what your target audience is so we can put words into their
mouths for them.)
(Disclaimer Disclaimer: If your intended audience is alt.fan.furry
readers or all furry fans or something like that, then you already did
ask them, just now, and the answer is "Some of them like it and some of
them hate it and some of them would just kind of shrug and go 'Ok,
whatever'." It's too broad, vaguely defined, and varied an audience to
expect one single answer from.)
Mark Ryerson
>I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
>bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
>it...
>
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I don't see it as limit-breaking. Neither, apparently, does Jim Hardiman, who
put out an entire portfolio based on that very concept. (Mind you, some
consider Jim's work to be limit-breaking in general.)
But as to the question of beastiality, some might say it is, but I'd have to
disagree pretty strenuously. Anthropomorphic animals are basically people
with animal characteristics. While you could argue one way or the other
whether animal or human traits dominate physically, almost every single furry
I've ever seen is depicted as a sentient, thinking person with all of the
traits that people throughout the ages have pointed to as defining humanity.
They laugh, they communicate, they have free will, etc. So as far as I'm
concerned, they're just a different type of people. Not human, but people
nonetheless.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about what people think. Draw what you like.
Whatever it is, someone will almost certainly have some sort of objection or
criticism to throw at it. Often, these objections will be vehement beyond any
semblance of reasonableness. If you're going to be a furry artist, you have
to be very thick skinned. Certain vocal members of the fandom have
demonstrated this fact beyond any doubt. In fact, it drives many of us to
stay on the fringe as lurkers most of the time. The sheer intolerance
exhibited repeatedly in this newsgroup has never ceased to amaze me. You just
have to learn to ignore it and focus on those who DO like your work.
Otherwise, you run the risk of having the fun go out of all this. And it's
supposed to be fun, right?
Donald E. Sanders
>
> If they are having sex, it is beastiality, but there are people here
> who are into that.
>
In a earlier post on this thread, I did mention something to the effect
that in Real Life, Anthromorphic creatures do not exist!!! Once more
I must state that Beasti@lity is defined as having sex with Real,
Nonanthromorphic animals! Any photograph depicting such is of course
wrong! any drawing of a quality that shows total realism almost
to be compared to a photograph of course is wrong. However any
drawing that does how show total realism, or photo manipulating should
be ok. I am not sure of the latter due to the fact that the rules
keep changing everyday!
Anyone is welcomed to rebut this what was supposed to be a discussion
turned argument now.
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
RoadKill Fur (Sun baked sorta but not burned!)
GothTiger
goth...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a human
> together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
> bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
> it...
Well, it depends on one's definition of 'together': If they're 'together' doing
something like laughing over lunch or engaging in couples' ice skating, or
something similarly romantic, I PERSONALLY have no problem with it. If it
involves them. well. you know...it veers toward porn, and I personally wouldn't
go for it.
If you're asking if furry fans wouldn't buy it in the basis that there's a HUMAN
in the picture, I say go ahead and draw it! A human on occasion makes for a nice
artistic contrast.
GothTiger (tig...@execpc.com)
((Who is in 'voice of reason' mode today for some strange reason))
Keith Wood
Noo...@my.email.com (Donald E. Sanders) wrote:
[In article <za0n2wUN...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com>, kei...@SKIPTHESP.AM.bctv.com says...
[>
[> If they are having sex, it is beastiality, but there are people here
[> who are into that.
[>
[
[In a earlier post on this thread, I did mention something to the effect
[that in Real Life, Anthromorphic creatures do not exist!!! Once more
[I must state that Beasti@lity is defined as having sex with Real,
[Nonanthromorphic animals!
If you say so. But then, that depends on what "is" is. ;)
You can always find someone who will consider anything to be
acceptable.
[ Any photograph depicting such is of course
[wrong! any drawing of a quality that shows total realism almost
[to be compared to a photograph of course is wrong. However any
[drawing that does how show total realism, or photo manipulating should
[be ok. I am not sure of the latter due to the fact that the rules
[keep changing everyday!
This is the real problem. How much of a character must be non-human
for the character to be animal? Is a human mating with a half-cat
half-beastiality?
[Anyone is welcomed to rebut this what was supposed to be a discussion
[turned argument now.
It's not an argument so much as a question of degree.
Victry "Vixy" Hyzenthlay
> . . . Is it limit-breaking? Some might think it's like
>bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans about
>it...
>
GO FUR IT! I very distinctly remember some mainstream books that had just
such situations in them. One example... "Forests of the Night" (can't recall
the author) had just such a situation with a tiger 'morph and a human girl.
Now as far as what you want to draw, why even ask others? If it's your
pleasure, do it! And if you are proud of it, SHOW IT OFF. ;)
--
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========
Victry 'love long and perspire; Vixy' Hyzenthlay
Technofox and personal Vixen. "YIP!"
Furry Fan WITH a Furry Lifestyle and PURRfectly content! :>
_____________________
/ \
| Vivacious Vixen II | _
)""""\___ |- - - - - - - - - - - -| |_\____
)----| |\-| Home of Techno Tails |-/| | |\
)____|___|=============================| """|_)
`----' \|http://members.xoom.com/Vixy |/"""""
"""|"""""""/"""""\"""""""|"""
Victry{nospam}@- `=++++=" "=++++=' -@{remove}juno;com
FCF/Wc3admrwA>++C->+Dm+H-M++++P++R+T+++W+>+++Z++Sf++RLE$acn++d++e++f++h+iwf+j*-
p+sf++
Please post any response to this newsgroup. Thanks.
Donald E. Sanders
> In article <MPG.110966567...@news.fysh.org>, Donald E. Sanders wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I must state that Beasti@lity is defined as having sex with Real,
> >wrong! any drawing of a quality that shows total realism almost
> >to be compared to a photograph of course is wrong.
>
> may not be considered moral wrong (this depends on if I'm taking a
> picture as a pertisipent or as a thred party as in news gathering).
> If I paint a photo realistic piture of murder, I have not hurt anyone
> and I can't consider it worng.
>
> Likewiase for bestiality.
>
Hmm, I think my example may have gotten mixed up somewhere, let me
clarify. For the sake of argument here, those who have a thing
against beasti@lity would not accept a realistic picture drawn of
such a act even though in most cases such a picture would have been
done either from the imagination or after the fact. Therefore, even
though the act itself never happened, those who are against it will
still be against it due to the principle of it.
In other words, no matter how you slice it, they will always be against
it. Thus my point was how narrow minded some folks can get if you draw
a picture of a anthromorphic femme bunny doing the wild thing with
Joe Jock, human, Or for that matter, a photo realistic tinkering of the
same subject.
Chakat Goldfur
> like bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask you furry-fans
> about it...
As a furry artist myself, I still like the idea of furries and humans
interacting in specific circumstances. Some of my art and stories have
featured humans. Dammit, some of them are my friends too, so why should I
ostracise them? Of course I don't mean that they should always be there.
Many times I prefer an all-anthro world. See my website (below) for specific
exceptions!
--
Chakat Goldfur (a.k.a. Bernard Doove) I don't bite, I PURR!
The Chakat's Den, Melbourne, Australia ICQ# 3430714
Website at http://www.felidae.apana.org.au/~chakat/Den.html
FC1.3: FFMt3admw A+++ C++ D+ H+ M+ P++ R+ T+++ W+ Z+++ Sh++
RLAT a41 cn+ de+ f++ h+ iwf+ j+ p- sm#
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>I must state that Beasti@lity is defined as having sex with Real,
>Nonanthromorphic animals! Any photograph depicting such is of course
>wrong! any drawing of a quality that shows total realism almost
>to be compared to a photograph of course is wrong.
Why do you conisider this to be so? If I photograph a murder I may or
may not be considered moral wrong (this depends on if I'm taking a
picture as a pertisipent or as a thred party as in news gathering).
If I paint a photo realistic piture of murder, I have not hurt anyone
and I can't consider it worng.
Likewiase for bestiality.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
How to win arguments on usenet http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/usenet.html
ilr
> >but you'll prolly' be safe since they approve of anything.
>
> ... anything and everyone, except you personally, ilr ;)
Yup
Sure I'm aware of such an intolerance.
Even a bat with cataracts can see the lack of tolerance
that "furry" has for any kind of joke that is smart-assy
and isn't followed by cockeyed smileyfaces.
What was that stupid f*cking Bugs Bunny thinkin?
---ilr
Brenda Daverin
kei...@bctv.skipthespam.com wrote:
> This is the real problem. How much of a character must be non-human
> for the character to be animal? Is a human mating with a half-cat
> half-beastiality?
When I published my little furry spoogezine, it had a no beasti@lity
clause. It was defined as "having sex with something which doesn't realize
you're using a language when you thank it for a good time." This allowed
for cross-species sex stories and art so long as it was clear that each
party was adult and consenting (and not related, but that was a different
clause).
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> I'm a furry artist and i just had in mind to draw a furry and a
> human together. So my question is: Is it limit-breaking? Some might
> think it's like bestiality or something, but i just thought i'd ask
> you furry-fans about it...
Yeah, you're breaking the limitation some people have about humans, and I
think that's a good thing. One thing that keeps anthropomorphics from being
just "People with furry costumes on" is when you have humans to contrast them
against. I like to see that.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.