the definition of "furry"
Pepper
many years ago (mid 90s). I used to be involved in the furry fandom.
Since then, I have been fairly unaware of the happenings in the ol'
furry fandom. Just been up to other things. Recently, I've been
looking at a few furry websites and lots of things just boggle my
mind. Lots of press on furry too. It's all quite confusing to me
actually. I ask for some clarification and some intelligent
responsering here. IOW, just as little fighting as possible, I beg :)
- lots to ask for but i just really really want some old and new furry
fans to just help me out on this issue intelligently. I also know
this might have been debated here before and I hope to get some
feedback on any previous debates. But please forgive me in that since
I haven't been here in so long.
Okay so here's my wondering: I looked at wikipedia's definition of
furry fandom, anthropomorphics, funny animals and etc. Ok, back in
the ol' days I liked the bugs bunny and TMNT etc. I was under the
impression that if you were a fan of anthro cartoons then you
officially fell under the defnition of a furry fan. But as far as I
can tell, there is now a definite (?) separation of being called
"furry" and simply being a fan of anthro cartoons. How exactly does
the furry fandom define itself today? Do you have to be more
interested in animalistic features of anthropomorphism? Do you have
to be interested in more realistic depictions of human/animal hybrid
in the art? Who is in the majority in the community nowadays?
An artist friend of mine told me this definition of furry fandom:
"furry is a culture of people who feel close to animals and/or
animalistic behavior/expressions and convey that interest via art and
activity". Ok, that sounds cool... but last I remember, the
definition of furry was "if you like anthros, you are a furry fan".
So... I guess a question is did the definition change while I was
gone?
Remember, I haven't been involved in the fandom for years, I'm close
to clueless. For the record, no I don't like animals, nor am I
interested in being an animal nor do I find the concepts of half
human/animal hybrids interesting, nor do I "prefer" animalistic
features of anthro toons. I'm not interested in animal spirituality,
behaviors, or etc. What I do like is ducktales, rescue rangers, wb,
disney, etc. I like cartoon animals, but it's simply because I like
cartoons. Cartoon animals are cute, yeah, but so what? My kids like
cartoon animals too. I do consider cartoon animals very interesting
only because of the humanity they metaphor, not because of the fact
that they are animals. Yes, I do enjoy seeing cartoon animals doing
more mature things (meaning more mature and intelligent
-storytelling-, like anime, NOT sexually "mature"). No, I don't look
at furry art and I don't particularly like it - I started getting
really disenchanted with furry fanzine art around '96. Basically I
was just interested in classic funny animal comic-bookery and
cartoons. So do I fall under the label of a furry fan? I'm not
saying this because I'm some furry hater, remember, I spent my college
days in the fandom.
Cyrus The Great
Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>cartoons. So do I fall under the label of a furry fan? I'm not
>saying this because I'm some furry hater, remember, I spent my college
>days in the fandom.
Essentially, we humans cannot truly understand or relate to non-human
animals, since they have brains which are different to ours (just look
at how the tiny differences between individual human brains can make
all the difference).
However, We do have to interact with them in some way. So, we have to
ascribe our own feelings and thoughts and motivations et al to them.
I.e. We Anthromorphise them.
Turning them into "full on" people with animal heads and tails is
merely a natural extension of that, so, Tis' my conceit that what
"furry" represents is in fact a natural part of humanity, everyone has
a little bit of what "furry" represents (ascribeing anthromorphic
traits to non-human animals) in them.
Though is ironic in the end, that even when we look at other animals,
we see only ourselves in them.
---
"...based on human need not private profit."
Allen Kitchen
and you want to be a part of the fandom, then you are in.
It's as simple as that.
There's lots of people screaming this way and yon about
what is and isn't furry, who is and isn't a member, etc.
etc. But the hard reality is that such debates mirror
almost exactly arguments going back half a century in
SF circles. And they haven't resolved those yet. So
sticking with our genre's roots is the default operating
mode and it states that fans of anthropomorphics are
furries as far as the overall genre is concerned. There
are no additional requirements or testing centers involved.
You can be as active or inactive as you like within furry,
or not be a part of it at all.
It's a fandom - there is no fandom authority or furry
cabal to ensure rightthinking or what have you.
(shockwave, just a furry writer)
Dan Skunk
animalistic behavior/expressions and convey that interest via art and
activity".
I've been around for about 5 months and that definition seems accurate for
most of the people I've met.
It looks as though there are two diverging movements within the fandom
presently. I think I would call them "lifestylers" and "fans." Your
friend's definition would cover lifestylers.
For the fans, furries are simply fans of anthropomorphic animals. Nothing
more.
Lifestylers, on the other hand, are the one's that have a close affinity
with animals. They are developing a culture, philosophy, and lifestyle
based on animals. This where you find the people who want to be animals or
anthropomorphic animals and the people with a spiritual connection to
animals.
Within the lifestylers there are divergent subgroups as well which I think I
could call philosophers, spiritualists, fetishists, and zoos. I've already
mentioned the philosophers and spiritualists.
Fetishists includes people with a sexual fetish for fursuits and those with
a sexual fetish for plushies.
Zoos are people that have intimate relationships with animals from emotional
to sexual.
On the topic of sex, most furries are male and the most common sexual
preferences are gay and bi.
It looks as though the fans are the original furries, and the lifestylers
came later.
There is a lot of animosity between the fans and the other groups. The fans
are upset about all the lifestylers that have taken over their fandom and by
their strange behavior and interests, have shaped the public image of
furries in unfavourable ways.
The philosophers and spiritualists seem to get along fairly well, but some
philosophers think the spiritualists are going too far taking on a religious
aspect.
The fetishists control the public image of the fandom for the most part.
Most furs would be happy to live with them, except for this fact. They
believe this gives the fandom a bad public image.
The zoos are pushed to the fringe by the other groups. Most furs strongly
disagree with them. The have also appear to have a strong influence on
public image with people equating furry with beastiality. There are,
though, more zoos in the fandom than people know about. Most stay in the
closet (which would be considered a good thing by everyone but the open
zoos).
As I see it, the lifestylers are on the vanguard of the evolution of the
fandom. It is evolving from a simple fandom into lifestyle and culture.
Philosophical and spiritual elements also seem to be slowly forming.
A common theme of lifestylers is a rebellion against human culture. They
see the greed, dishonesty, and immorality of humans. They see humans
destroying the environment and animals and each other for profit and detest
it. They see animals as being honest and genuine and living in harmony with
nature and with each other and long to live like that, modeling their
lifestyle on that example.
Fans are leaving furry. Being turned of by all the weirdness from
lifestylers. Some are putting up a good fight, but I think it is ultimately
a loosing battle. Lifestylers already appear to have taken over the fandom.
It may not be long before there are no fans left and furry ceases to be a
fandom, becomming a lifestyle instead. I see a furry philosophy becoming
more defined over time and redefining what it means to be furry.
The spiritualists will probably continue to be a subgroup, but it could be
possible for them to unite under the same set of beliefs eventually forming
a fledgling religion. I don't see it as being too likely though.
Of course, I have not been around that long so this might not be completely
accurate. This is just how I see things so far.
Dan
slickpuppy
<Intelligent and reasoned request snipped.>
*shrug* Well-known SF writer/editior Daimon Knight was once asked to define
"science fiction", and replied "Science fiction is what I'm pointing at when
I say 'That's science fiction!' " Replace "science fiction" with "furry",
and that will do for me. It's a highly personal and subjective issue, on
that I personally think a lot of furs spend *way* too much time and emotion
on. I like what I like, I participate the way that seems best to me, and I
let other people do the same. Much as some folk would have it otherwise,
it's not a club that your have to follow rules and meet standards to join.
Read the stories, watch the cartoons, peruse the art, go to the cons if you
want, and enjoy yourself. Be reasonably polite as you do, and don't worry
about labels or demands that others might make of you. It's all supposed to
be *fun*, dammit! :>
--
Kevin J. Mulder
slick...@xecu.net
"Heaven goes by favor. If it went by
merit, you would stay out, and your
dog would go in."
-Mark Twain
Dan Skunk
I think yours is better, though.
More important than any specific definitions is the spirit of freedom,
openness, and individuality. :)
DishRoom1
>"furry is a culture of people who feel close to animals and/or
>animalistic behavior/expressions and convey that interest via art and
>activity".
>
>I've been around for about 5 months and that definition seems accurate for
>most of the people I've met.
>
>It looks as though there are two diverging movements within the fandom
>presently. I think I would call them "lifestylers" and "fans." Your
>friend's definition would cover lifestylers.
>
>For the fans, furries are simply fans of anthropomorphic animals. Nothing
>more.
>
>Lifestylers, on the other hand, are the one's that have a close affinity
>with animals. They are developing a culture, philosophy, and lifestyle
>based on animals. This where you find the people who want to be animals or
>anthropomorphic animals and the people with a spiritual connection to
>animals.
>
>Within the lifestylers there are divergent subgroups as well which I think I
>could call philosophers, spiritualists, fetishists, and zoos. I've already
>mentioned the philosophers and spiritualists.
>
>Fetishists includes people with a sexual fetish for fursuits and those with
>a sexual fetish for plushies.
>
>Zoos are people that have intimate relationships with animals from emotional
>to sexual.
Thnaks for the tips.
>
>On the topic of sex, most furries are male and the most common sexual
>preferences are gay and bi.
Strangly, that doesn't explain why some artist draw erotica of boxom femme
furries. Not that I deny that there a growing flow of male gay art, stories,
and comics, and some furries are gay. But there's still exists also the
straights of both genders and themes of being straight in furry material, too.
(I'm a straight man myself.) And there, I think, are those who have no deep
sexual intrest in the fandom as well. of that there's still many stories of
furry hetrosexualness. And what about lesbian furry fans?
>
>It looks as though the fans are the original furries, and the lifestylers
>came later.
So it is.
>
>There is a lot of animosity between the fans and the other groups. The fans
>are upset about all the lifestylers that have taken over their fandom and by
>their strange behavior and interests, have shaped the public image of
>furries in unfavourable ways.
>
>The philosophers and spiritualists seem to get along fairly well, but some
>philosophers think the spiritualists are going too far taking on a religious
>aspect.
>
>The fetishists control the public image of the fandom for the most part.
>Most furs would be happy to live with them, except for this fact. They
>believe this gives the fandom a bad public image.
>
>The zoos are pushed to the fringe by the other groups. Most furs strongly
>disagree with them. The have also appear to have a strong influence on
>public image with people equating furry with beastiality. There are,
>though, more zoos in the fandom than people know about. Most stay in the
>closet (which would be considered a good thing by everyone but the open
>zoos).
Much correct.
>
>As I see it, the lifestylers are on the vanguard of the evolution of the
>fandom. It is evolving from a simple fandom into lifestyle and culture.
>Philosophical and spiritual elements also seem to be slowly forming.
>
>A common theme of lifestylers is a rebellion against human culture. They
>see the greed, dishonesty, and immorality of humans. They see humans
>destroying the environment and animals and each other for profit and detest
>it. They see animals as being honest and genuine and living in harmony with
>nature and with each other and long to live like that, modeling their
>lifestyle on that example.
I see a lot of good in humans as well as the awful and ugly, and I'm happy with
being 100% so that's why I'm not into the lifestyle catagory.
>
>Fans are leaving furry. Being turned of by all the weirdness from
>lifestylers. Some are putting up a good fight, but I think it is ultimately
>a loosing battle. Lifestylers already appear to have taken over the fandom.
>It may not be long before there are no fans left and furry ceases to be a
>fandom, becomming a lifestyle instead. I see a furry philosophy becoming
>more defined over time and redefining what it means to be furry.
This I disagree with. I'm a fan for over ten years now, and I am still here
despite the problems the furry fan core has faced in recent years. I think that
while some folks have left, there are those from the very beginning of the
fandom that are still with the fandom that they love.
>
>The spiritualists will probably continue to be a subgroup, but it could be
>possible for them to unite under the same set of beliefs eventually forming
>a fledgling religion. I don't see it as being too likely though.
>
>Of course, I have not been around that long so this might not be completely
>accurate. This is just how I see things so far.
>
I hope that you would continue to explore what we're doing. ^_^
John Shughart
Lazarian
-snip-
If your definition of furry fandom is the appreciation of anthro
characters in comics, animation, etc, your perspective is equally as
valid as anyone elses definition.
There is no particular definition for furry fandom that I've been
able to see. There are so many subgroups with interests that overlap
on every level, applying a single definition to it all would be an
exercise in futility. It would probably be best just to enjoy whatever
it is that you like and not worry about whatever labels are applied to
it.
Lazarian
Dan Skunk
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040118161505...@mb-m19.aol.com...
I said most, not all. I'm aware of straigh furs. They just seem to be the
minority.
Not everyone has a sexual interest in furry. I probably should have made
this more clear. From the artwork I've seen, there is a fair number who do
though. I also failed to mention people who have a sexual interest in
anthopomorphics. I've not specifically heard of a lot of furs who do, but I
would assume there are a number of them.
I've not come in contact with any lesbian furs, but I do not doubt they
exist. I was just describing what I see of the state of the fandom from my
limited personal experience.
Perhaps I should have more accurately said "a popular theme." I'm pretty
sure there's lifestylers who are happy being human, but like a more
animalistic lifestyle.
> >
> >Fans are leaving furry. Being turned of by all the weirdness from
> >lifestylers. Some are putting up a good fight, but I think it is
ultimately
> >a loosing battle. Lifestylers already appear to have taken over the
fandom.
> >It may not be long before there are no fans left and furry ceases to be a
> >fandom, becomming a lifestyle instead. I see a furry philosophy becoming
> >more defined over time and redefining what it means to be furry.
>
> This I disagree with. I'm a fan for over ten years now, and I am still
here
> despite the problems the furry fan core has faced in recent years. I think
that
> while some folks have left, there are those from the very beginning of the
> fandom that are still with the fandom that they love.
Cool. I don't really have the long term experience to accurately assess
this. I knew there would be some old school fans still sticking with it
inspite of the different directions other people were taking it. My theory
is just as it becomes more populated with lifestylers, the fan element will
be deminished and have more difficulty attracting new members.
> >
> >The spiritualists will probably continue to be a subgroup, but it could
be
> >possible for them to unite under the same set of beliefs eventually
forming
> >a fledgling religion. I don't see it as being too likely though.
> >
> >Of course, I have not been around that long so this might not be
completely
> >accurate. This is just how I see things so far.
> >
>
> I hope that you would continue to explore what we're doing. ^_^
>
> John Shughart
I've always had a strong connection with animals. Went through a long stage
of wanting
to be an animal before slowely comming to appreciate humans and to accept
being one. Have explored philosophical, ethical, and spiritual issues
rooted in a connection to animals and nature. Was only recently that I
found the community and realized there were others that shared my ideas.
I've been a furry my whole life--long before ever hearing the word. I
highly doubt anything's going to change that since it's so deeply rooted in
my identity.
Dan Skunk
"Lazarian" <Laza...@hotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:gj0m00lfn0un6adoq...@4ax.com...
:)
mouse
Im relatively new to furry fandom, Ive only been around a year.
Somehow I got the idea in my head it was a about comic books, and by
chance I picked up some really good stuff form the early days. And I
thought the fandom was full of things like that..unfortunatly it seems
I was wrong. There was a short period of time that I thought furry
fandom was something I wanted to be a part of, So I figured I would
try and understand as much about the group as I could. I bought a lot
of old comics, read old UseNet postings. All the while aware of
PressedFur...but as I got caught up I realized this fandom's got
severe problems, It seems it used to have a more productive,
imaginative aspect to it, but thats fading out.
> How exactly does
> the furry fandom define itself today?
Seriously, who knows.
> Do you have to be more
> interested in animalistic features of anthropomorphism? Do you have
> to be interested in more realistic depictions of human/animal hybrid
> in the art? Who is in the majority in the community nowadays?
I would say, techincally no, to the first question, and I wish I knew
who was the majority, all the furry comic groups I've found are
practically ghost towns, meanwhile yiffy message boards have 1000s of
members..that probably speaks for itself
>
> An artist friend of mine told me this definition of furry fandom:
> "furry is a culture of people who feel close to animals and/or
> animalistic behavior/expressions and convey that interest via art and
> activity". Ok, that sounds cool... but last I remember, the
> definition of furry was "if you like anthros, you are a furry fan".
> So... I guess a question is did the definition change while I was
> gone?
I think that by default it changed as it has attracted more unstable
people - it just snowballed from there.
I dont really see this trend reversing anytime soon.
> I do consider cartoon animals very interesting
> only because of the humanity they metaphor, not because of the fact
> that they are animals. Yes, I do enjoy seeing cartoon animals doing
> more mature things (meaning more mature and intelligent
> -storytelling-, like anime, NOT sexually "mature"). No, I don't look
> at furry art and I don't particularly like it - I started getting
> really disenchanted with furry fanzine art around '96.
I only disagree with you here because I dont feel they should be used
as metaphors ALL the time...that would get kind of boring. I like
whent he characters are what they are. Like a more magical thing. Sort
of how, it would be stupid is there was some backstory to 'Pogo' that
they were all genetically engineered or soemthing ridiculous like
that.
Or even more techinal explanations whens its appropriate, like Erma
Felna, where the animal races were engineered by long-dead humans.
Some people seem to have a bug up thier ass about just a comic or
story that takes place in an earth-like anthro-animal world, with no
explanation.
To me, if I see cartoon animals in a story my first though isnt "HEY!!
WTF IS THIS?! ANIMALS DONT TALK!"
but hey ...thats just me
> Basically I
> was just interested in classic funny animal comic-bookery and
> cartoons. So do I fall under the label of a furry fan?
There are still funny animal books that are 'furry' being published
through SFA , Mu/Aeon, and RadioComix...thats mainly what I buy, and
other non-furry funny-animal comics that news about will filter
through this fandom. Thats really the only reason I am here. Furry
Fandom is, as far as I know the only 'place' that has a focus on
cartoon animals (which i like, G-R rated, i dont really care). Outside
of that , I have nothing in common with these people. I read a lot
about the history and past things going on in furry fandom and seemed
like it was really cool at one point, but I think that time is long
gone and not likely to return. I stick around just in case..but like I
said, I'm not very involved in furry fandom to begin with, and Im
going to keep it that way for now.
Also I think the fairest definition of furry stuff at this point is:
Works that are produced BY furry fandom participants, FOR furry fandom
participants.
All the baggage furry fandom has picked up , Its not fair to apply the
label of 'furry' to people who are unaware of or actively dislike the
fandom.
Apperently , a long time ago, it would have been totally
acceptable..but at some point a large sector of furry fans decided
that comics and cartoons and stuff (any rating) just wasnt good
enough, so now things are different. It seemed to me there was a time
when the fandom had more of a purpose - actively promoting and
contributing to the use of anthropomorphic-animals as a whole, by
focusing on them and appreciating them. not so anymore - nowadays its
more about self-gratification
William Earl Haskell
> On 18 Jan 2004 00:30:49 -0800, peppe...@yahoo.com (Pepper) wrote:
>
> -snip-
<snip again>
> There is no particular definition for furry fandom that I've been
> able to see. There are so many subgroups with interests that overlap
> on every level, applying a single definition to it all would be an
> exercise in futility. It would probably be best just to enjoy whatever
> it is that you like and not worry about whatever labels are applied to
> it.
I guess it's like pr0n - "I know it when I see it."
ilr
Pepper <peppe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9213a070.04011...@posting.google.com...
> Hello folks. I haven't read the a.f.f. since I was in college many
> many years ago (mid 90s). I used to be involved in the furry fandom.
> Since then, I have been fairly unaware of the happenings in the ol'
> furry fandom.
Well if you're looking for some accross-the-board definition, you
might as well toss a needle in the nearest haystack and get to diggin
because you won't find it.
I can tell you that the old Corporate Character worship we once
had has gone to pot, studios have been firing 2D animators left and
right and the whole industry's been moving away from 2D animated
characters. If you want to see any of them prominitently diplayed in
new roles anymore you'll have to go digging through shitpiles of
Anime anymore. You can find plenty of the old favorites, it's just that
most of them are in pornographic situations (which suits me just fine
because I draw them that way whenever I can, that's how I got
involved in the fandom myself back in the nineties, and if anyone here
don't like that there ain't shit they can do about it so *Nyaaahhh*).
The major strife is really behind us now though, nothing's going to
come of the politics, and if I managed to get that through my thick
skull than it's obvious everyone else who's going to be productive
in the future has already as well. ...So it's back to the drawing
board. Many of the 'old favorites' have been learning new tricks
and plenty of art is still to be had in new areas so long as you ask
the right people where to find what in particular you are looking
for. There's a ton more sites out there touting furry but which don't
have art at all, or just have some so poor you flee right back to
google as soon as you see it, which is why I suggested the affore-
mentioned of finding a guide again.
If you were into mainstream's take on these critters, you may be a bit
early but it's likely this fandom will have to start producing more of
that stuff itself to make up for the lack of it being produced now.
("Animation Studios", or so-called ones at this point are just a
bunch of 3DSMAX loaded computers filled with FullSail geeks
who watched too much Techno music-videos on MTV and are
now affording leading roles only to kinds of insects and simple
organisms that render quickly in a 3D because the CEOs refuse
to pay for a movie to take longer than a year or two to be made).
Media coverage is up, but if you've seen any random episode of
Jerry Springer then you've already seen them all so there's really
no point to mentioning it anymore.
The simplest answer: There's not much worth getting pissed off about,
it's not all happy either, average Auction prices have been down, and
one major convention is no-more. But really there's a process of
streamlining going on and the areas that are the most prolific and
hardworking will go on to define in totallity what this genre really
stands for despite whatever some fly-by-night media joint labeled it.
Wanderer
news:v2zOb.20576$nl2....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> "furry is a culture of people who feel close to animals and/or
> animalistic behavior/expressions and convey that interest via art and
> activity".
>
> I've been around for about 5 months and that definition seems accurate for
> most of the people I've met.
Amen so far. More coments fur-ther down.:)
>
> It looks as though there are two diverging movements within the fandom
> presently. I think I would call them "lifestylers" and "fans." Your
> friend's definition would cover lifestylers.
>
> For the fans, furries are simply fans of anthropomorphic animals. Nothing
> more.
>
> Lifestylers, on the other hand, are the one's that have a close affinity
> with animals. They are developing a culture, philosophy, and lifestyle
> based on animals. This where you find the people who want to be animals
or
> anthropomorphic animals and the people with a spiritual connection to
> animals.
YMMV, of course.:) I don't follow the lifestyler crowd, but I *do* wish I
had the body my spirit tells me I should have... shaggy fur, tail, muzzle,
fangs, furry ears, the whole nine yards. With hands, speech and upright
stance, of course... my spirit knows a good thing when seeing it.:>
<snip>
Yours hoping to have a fursuit made someday,
The wolfish,
Wanderer
wand...@ticnet.com
"Where am I going? I don't quite know.
What does it matter *where* people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow!
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I* don't know!"
-- a. a. milne
Dan Skunk
"Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:100n19q...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
>
> YMMV, of course.:) I don't follow the lifestyler crowd, but I *do* wish I
> had the body my spirit tells me I should have... shaggy fur, tail, muzzle,
> fangs, furry ears, the whole nine yards. With hands, speech and upright
> stance, of course... my spirit knows a good thing when seeing it.:>
>
simple fandom. Spiritual lifestyler probably. There's no definate set of
rules you need to follow to "live a furry lifestyle".
Not that I'm trying to force a label on you. You're free to define your
identity whatever way you with. :)
> <snip>
>
> Yours hoping to have a fursuit made someday,
>
Mmmm... I don't have a fursuit yet, but I had a skunk pelt here that was
particularly inspiring.
iBuck
>the furry fandom define itself today?
It doesn't.. the definiton of 'furry' varies as to the individual, the
'fandom' exists at the overlap of those definitions...
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
>accurate. This is just how I see things so far.
I sugest looking at places -other- than the newsgroups..
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
news:20040119102139...@mb-m27.aol.com...
I do. :)
iBuck
I suggest trying a con or two.. and definitly a lot of the IRC channels,
because frankly, yor veiw point seems to be leanin toward what I've seen here,
and a bit in ALF, most notably,on two counts, the gay/straigt balance, while
it's strong, possibly reaching a 30% mark, I doubt it's a -majority- the other
contention you had was that fans are leaving, and lifestylers are replacing
that, I don't think that's true eitehr, especially in terms of the amount of
growth of the fandom. You might want to check yur veiwpoint to see -who- is
saying what, and weather the veiw is being excessivly colored, like much of
the discussion is, by a few vocal commentators..
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
I would like to attend a con. Have a friend who's going to FC.
Most of the information I have is from IRC channels and personal
discussions.
Quite possibly the perception of the gay/straight balance is skewed by the
gay side being more vocal.
I've witnessed discussions (some quite recently) that concluded that people
were being scared away from and not joining the fandom because of the
lifestylers. Perhaps some fans are just overly paranoid.
The overwhelming majority of the furs I've met fall into the lifestylers
catagory.
Thanks for your input--and thanks to others who gave me their input. You're
helping me build a more accurate picture. :)
Arty McToon
interest in anthro animal art. Call it "Basic Furry
101"...appreciation of cartoony "talking and two or four legs walking"
animals for creative and storytelling purposes...nothing else further
than liking the cartoons and artwork, preferably clean G-rated, some
adult material if the characters warrant my sympathy and if marketed
to the right adult audience. I probably have no time or patience to
delve any deeper than that.
My roots come from mainstream media...cartoons geared towards kids and
like-minded adults...more than this current adult-oriented furry
fandom. I approach the fandom with that mainstream mindset.
Maybe if there is one nagging problem for me... is that the fandom is
becoming too separatist clicque-ish...pro creators in their own
private group, groups of fans in their own little friendship circles
on-line or at cons. The newbee is usually left on his own for the
most part. The more the clicques last, the deeper into their world
they become involved in where the outsiders and newcomers' thoughts
don't seem to matter at all. Maybe the norm for other fandoms
too...but rather blatant here.
I don't expect to change minds or devote my entire life to the fandom
so the best thing I do is to follow the stuff I like and trying not to
tick off anyone else in the process. And being personally human, I
abide by all the rules of humanity...good manners and respectful of
others and law and health regulations...even those working in con
hotels and exhibit places.
peppe...@yahoo.com (Pepper) wrote in message news:<9213a070.04011...@posting.google.com>...
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
[...]
> The zoos are pushed to the fringe by the other groups. Most furs strongly
> disagree with them.
The core newsgroup of the lifestyle side of the fandom
(alt.lifestyle.furry) has a policy of inclusiveness towards zoos
(amoung all other sub groups). Unfortunitly that policy isn't
enforced strong enought.
[...]
> Fans are leaving furry. Being turned of by all the weirdness from
> lifestylers. Some are putting up a good fight, but I think it is ultimately
> a loosing battle. Lifestylers already appear to have taken over the
> fandom.
I don't think that this is the case. There are plenty of fans in the
fandom and we seem to keep picking up more. The split isn't as
concrete as one would seem to think. There are plenty of fannish
lifestylers and lots of lifestylerish fans.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Dan Skunk
"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:m3zncjd...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> > The zoos are pushed to the fringe by the other groups. Most furs
strongly
> > disagree with them.
>
> The core newsgroup of the lifestyle side of the fandom
> (alt.lifestyle.furry) has a policy of inclusiveness towards zoos
> (amoung all other sub groups). Unfortunitly that policy isn't
> enforced strong enought.
> [...]
>
> > Fans are leaving furry. Being turned of by all the weirdness from
> > lifestylers. Some are putting up a good fight, but I think it is
ultimately
> > a loosing battle. Lifestylers already appear to have taken over the
> > fandom.
>
> I don't think that this is the case. There are plenty of fans in the
> fandom and we seem to keep picking up more. The split isn't as
> concrete as one would seem to think. There are plenty of fannish
> lifestylers and lots of lifestylerish fans.
>
refering to people who are fans only. I should have been clearer. It would
be more acurate to call them non-lifestylers. That's the group that seems
to have a problem with lifestylers. Like you have your "normal, well
adjusted, mature, human beings sharing an appreciation of anthropomorphic
art being annoyed by a bunch of psychotic social misfits who think they're
animals and have no sense of shame, decency, manners, or hygene acting like
perverted freaks and scaring people and give their fandom a bad image," for
example.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> I suggest trying a con or two.. and definitly a lot of the IRC channels,
> because frankly, yor veiw point seems to be leanin toward what I've seen here,
> and a bit in ALF, most notably,on two counts, the gay/straigt balance, while
> it's strong, possibly reaching a 30% mark,
There was a servay of the convention going furry population that
indercated that it was 10% Het 80% Bi and 10% homo approximitly.
Dan Skunk
> lncra...@aol.com.star (iBuck) writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > I suggest trying a con or two.. and definitly a lot of the IRC
channels,
> > because frankly, yor veiw point seems to be leanin toward what I've
seen here,
> > and a bit in ALF, most notably,on two counts, the gay/straigt balance,
while
> > it's strong, possibly reaching a 30% mark,
>
> There was a servay of the convention going furry population that
> indercated that it was 10% Het 80% Bi and 10% homo approximitly.
>
Pepper
> peppe...@yahoo.com (Pepper) wrote in message news:<9213a070.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Im relatively new to furry fandom, Ive only been around a year.
> Somehow I got the idea in my head it was a about comic books, and by
> chance I picked up some really good stuff form the early days. And I
> thought the fandom was full of things like that..unfortunatly it seems
> I was wrong.
Hi. If you had discovered this fandom around the 80s or 90s, you
would have been head over heels for it, and your ideas would have been
right. I guess this furry fandom really changed if you believe it's
not those things. Heh, sorry, but I guess you came in too late for
what you wanted to see. :) because from your description you really
would have become a furry if it was still that time period. I did,
that's why I'm kind of weirded out after getting a life and coming
back to it about how it's changed so much. Oh, I guarantee you it
used to be very comic-book heavy and it seemed to me that comics was a
grand majority of the fandom, at least from my perspective. I
discovered the furry fandom via comic books and my only connection to
it was by antarctic press comics and mail order fanzines and the like.
I was a rabid Albedo collector, nowadays I'm hard pressed to remember
any of that storyline.... I bought furry comics even though I didn't
like the art simply because it was a "furry comic".
It doesn't seem like I'm much of a "furry" anymore, from my own
opinion and research on the matter.
All my friends that live nearby were still into drawing and stuff.
They still draw that stuff but they haven't really talked about the
fandom for years. Figure that one out. Heck, i yanked my name off a
friend's (unpublished) furry comics, but he hasn't done that in almost
8 years.
> of old comics, read old UseNet postings. All the while aware of
> PressedFur...but as I got caught up I realized this fandom's got
Heh, I have no clue what a pressedfur is.
> severe problems, It seems it used to have a more productive,
> imaginative aspect to it, but thats fading out.
When I was in college, it seemed everyone in the fandom was doing
something incredible. They were all making fanzines or getting
themselves published in real comic books and no one really thought
badly of furries as much as they seem to now. Er, well, there was
some people who were mean to fans but really it was nowhere near as
bad as I've noticed in recent days. Interesting what the fandom seems
to have gotten itself into. :)
But you know i've noticed lots of that stuff is just on the web now.
Too bad, because comic books were sort of a measure of the furry fans
who were gaining some ground and popularity. Nowadays anyone can just
publish online. It's very nice, but there seems to be too much to
look through. It used to be very simple: terrie smith, michele light,
karno, tygger, other folks who you just knew by celebrity status.
> who was the majority, all the furry comic groups I've found are
> practically ghost towns, meanwhile yiffy message boards have 1000s of
> members..that probably speaks for itself
Hm, that's really sad to hear.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> "? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> news:m3ptdf7...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
[...]
> > There was a servay of the convention going furry population that
> > indercated that it was 10% Het 80% Bi and 10% homo approximitly.
> >
> That would agree with my experience. Which convention was it?
My understanding is that it was based on a complerlation of
conventions.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> "? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
> news:m3zncjd...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
[...]
> > I don't think that this is the case. There are plenty of fans in the
> > fandom and we seem to keep picking up more. The split isn't as
> > concrete as one would seem to think. There are plenty of fannish
> > lifestylers and lots of lifestylerish fans.
> >
> I suppose someone could be a lifestyler and a fan, yes. By "fan" I was
> refering to people who are fans only.
I feel that is an overly restrictive defition.
[...]
> Like you have your "normal, well
> adjusted, mature, human beings sharing an appreciation of anthropomorphic
> art being annoyed by a bunch of psychotic social misfits
But not all "psychotic social misfits" are lifestylers and equally not
all fans are properly socialized.
William Earl Haskell
> "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> writes:
>
>> "? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
>> message news:m3ptdf7...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
> [...]
>
>> > There was a servay of the convention going furry population that
>> > indercated that it was 10% Het 80% Bi and 10% homo approximitly.
>> >
>> That would agree with my experience. Which convention was it?
>
> My understanding is that it was based on a complerlation of
> conventions.
I think I remember seing that survey - the problem is, What is being
measured? The actual numbers, or just the ones who filled in the survey
forms? I am certain that nowhere enough attendees actually particpated, not
enough to any meaningful extant. That's the problem with surveys.
Wanderer
To be a fair fur, comic books are still "furry" popular. The problem is,
finding them can be difficult. My local comic store, just a mile down the
road, carries every DC and Marvel comic, loads of RPGs and miniatures, even
a truckload of the most otaku-drawing anime... but "furry" have they none.
The closest they come is an occasional RPG.
While I *have* gotten Extinctioners #1 from them once, they were very poor
servicepeople inded... I had to call up Diamond and bring *them* in before
they'd admit that Diamond really did carry such a comic. (To be fair,
they're not like that about furry stuff alone... they're like that on
*every* special order of *any* kind, unless it's one of the Big Names.)
So, yes, there are still furry comics. They're just hard to find.
Yours unable to buy right now anyway,
DishRoom1
><snip>
>
>To be a fair fur, comic books are still "furry" popular. The problem is,
>finding them can be difficult. My local comic store, just a mile down the
>road, carries every DC and Marvel comic, loads of RPGs and miniatures, even
>a truckload of the most otaku-drawing anime... but "furry" have they none.
>The closest they come is an occasional RPG.
>
>While I *have* gotten Extinctioners #1 from them once, they were very poor
>servicepeople inded... I had to call up Diamond and bring *them* in before
>they'd admit that Diamond really did carry such a comic. (To be fair,
>they're not like that about furry stuff alone... they're like that on
>*every* special order of *any* kind, unless it's one of the Big Names.)
>
>So, yes, there are still furry comics. They're just hard to find.
>
If you have that problem, Wanderer, you could still turn to mail-order company
that deal with furry like Rabbit Valley and Second Ed. Or you could order
stright from the publisher themselves (Shanda Fantasy Arts, MU, Radio Comix
the Fanzines publishers.)
John Shughart
mouse
news:9213a070.04012...@posting.google.com:
> mo...@blackvault.com (mouse) wrote in message
> news:<a4a687a1.0401...@posting.google.com>...
>> peppe...@yahoo.com (Pepper) wrote in message
>> news:<9213a070.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> Im relatively new to furry fandom, Ive only been around a year.
>> Somehow I got the idea in my head it was a about comic books, and by
>> chance I picked up some really good stuff form the early days. And I
>> thought the fandom was full of things like that..unfortunatly it
>> seems I was wrong.
>
> Hi. If you had discovered this fandom around the 80s or 90s, you
> would have been head over heels for it, and your ideas would have been
> right. I guess this furry fandom really changed if you believe it's
> not those things. Heh, sorry, but I guess you came in too late for
> what you wanted to see. :) because from your description you really
> would have become a furry if it was still that time period.
Stupidly, I immersed myself in the fandom's history. By the time I was
running out of stuff to look at I started realizing it was messed up like I
said. Coupled with the fact that seriously, I started looking into furry
fandom just on a whim. Total boredom. I just found it really fascinating.
(I've always liked cartoon animals)
And for a short while I though furry fandom was the perfect place. So
saying that I would have been a furry fan in the early late 80's or even
early nineties...absolutely. I was way too young at that time anyway
but..eh
> I did,
> that's why I'm kind of weirded out after getting a life and coming
> back to it about how it's changed so much. Oh, I guarantee you it
> used to be very comic-book heavy and it seemed to me that comics was a
> grand majority of the fandom, at least from my perspective. I
> discovered the furry fandom via comic books and my only connection to
> it was by antarctic press comics and mail order fanzines and the like.
> I was a rabid Albedo collector, nowadays I'm hard pressed to remember
> any of that storyline.... I bought furry comics even though I didn't
> like the art simply because it was a "furry comic".
Well its funny because right after I started looking around furry fandom, I
had money to burn so I figured I'd buy a few furry comics to see what it
was all about and I bought some stuff randomly from rabbit valley. Ok,
first I got I think Sleepers and coincidenatlly the Suit, which was Out of
Stock at the time and those books by that Norwegian cartoonist JASON
(Later, I came to find out SOME of the stuff I was buying was not actually
'furry' per se) Anyway, I thought it was ok, so i figured I would order a
few more things, since I liked the Jason books...but I figured if I didnt
find anything good that would be it. Now the 2nd order I placed I got the
collected captain Captain Jack, some other stuff and Critters #9 and these
blew me away...and I bought them completely randomly, talk about how weird
that is, that I just happened to buy some of furry fandoms best comics
ever. Im currently trying to get a complete set of Albedo..I'm actually
almost there. I have a complete set of Captain Jack (and everything that
Kazaleh's done, with the exception of 4 fanzines I'm trying to find) and
also a near complete set of Critters.
Furry fandom got me back into comic books again, and I found stuff that
completely off my radar back when I was a kid, and stuff that is furry
fandom specific that I like. But I mean most people dont want anything to
do with it, you know?
All these furry publishers subsist on like 2000 print runs of any given
book, its impressive in a way but those numbers are laughable.
Also with you being away for so long, Im kind of curious, what made you
want to check on things? Just one day figured you'd like to look around and
see what was going on/whats changed?
Imagine if you were away all these years, almost forgotten about fandom and
then you caught that MTV sex 2k or any of those major shows. How weird
would that have been? hehe
>
> Heh, I have no clue what a pressedfur is.
>
http://pressedfur.batcave.net/
or
http://www.pressedfur.coolfreepages.com/
They had collected and covered nearly each and every piece of media
coverage furry fandom has ever recieved. Unfortunatly I think they stopped
updating around Oct. 2002, more has happened since then in case you are not
aware.
If you really want to see what has happened to furry fandom there is TONS
of information there. It took me a couple weeks to get through it all when
I first came across it.
> But you know i've noticed lots of that stuff is just on the web now.
> Too bad, because comic books were sort of a measure of the furry fans
> who were gaining some ground and popularity. Nowadays anyone can just
> publish online. It's very nice, but there seems to be too much to
> look through. It used to be very simple: terrie smith, michele light,
> karno, tygger, other folks who you just knew by celebrity status.
I think its why I continue to like furry comicbooks, these guys for the
most part are not going to publish utter shit. I mean its not ALL top notch
but its decent..meanwhile keenspace (or whatever) has no standards at all.
Its a good thing , I guess, but you see how far and how crazy people decide
to get and its just one more thing that really did a number on furry
fandom's reputation.
Like RadioComix isnt going to publish a comic with crayola art of someone's
goofy vorefetish and try to market it. meanwhile on keenspace for example,
thats exactly what happens.
Theres plently of total embarrassments to furry fandom on there
Exhibit A:
http://kitnkayboodle.keenspace.com
This guy can draw pretty well, and I can handle adult content. Thats not
the problem, the problem is the guy is completely insane. If you dont feel
like reading through it - Basically the characters are him and his
girlfriend (and other actually furry fans characters too), and he writes
(horribly) thier boring sex lives and other weird crap into this comic. If
that weren't bad enough, it got REAL creepy when he started writing his
MOTHER-IN-LAW into it at one point.
He drew her as a fat naked poodle...and ...bad things...ugh...she was
actually OK with all this too..
actually she wasnt just OK with it, she was enthusiatic about it..
sadly most furries cant tell someone they;ve gone too far..yeah, you cant
DO anythign about it , but the fact that everyone clams up about
criticizing people, its why everyone looks at furries as freaks. You got
one guy behaving comepletely outrageously and everyone ignores it. So
everyone looking in figures that everyones OK with that. You can see this
is not a difficult concept nor is it unreasonable for anyone to view it
this way. but a vast majority of furry fans just dont get it
>> who was the majority, all the furry comic groups I've found are
>> practically ghost towns, meanwhile yiffy message boards have 1000s of
>> members..that probably speaks for itself
>
> Hm, that's really sad to hear.
Yeah, furry fandom for me is kind of a big let down. Thats my fault for
letting it be..but oh well. I have so many other interests I never needed a
fandom for anything, I just feel they are nice for thier focus (which furry
has lost or is losing).
cars , car clubs and kustom kulture sort of stuff I like so much more. So
much less BS, and what BS there is - is not difficult to wrap your head
around ...there is no 'WTF?!?!?!' factor like you constantly get in Furry
If I go to a car show and start humping fenders and claiming I actually
have the soul of an Olds Toronado - someones gonna kick my ass in the
parking lot, either for touching thier car or being annoying
mouse
news:100s2c7...@corp.supernews.com:
> So, yes, there are still furry comics. They're just hard to find.
No, thats not the problem at all, they are easy to find. There are 3
publishers that publish 'furry' comics books. RadioComix, SFA and Mu/Aeon.
Maybe someday if some super-talented furry fan writes and draws a REAL good
story that EVERYONE will want to read, then you might have a furry comic
being published by another company.
If the comic is from one of those 3 companies, and it has some sort of
cartoon animals in them its most likely 'furry'. The only thing that can be
making them 'hard to find' would be that those companies cant afford to
print many of them, because people do not want to buy them, because they
dont want to be involved in any way with the fandom that is backing them.
Its part of the reason more people read Usagi Yojimbo than say Katmandu or
whatever. ( i could also say quality, writing etc, but thats really not
what Im talking about here)
How many furry fans there are? lets just intentionally low ball it and say
10,000
I can understand not every furry fan is going to buy every furry comic that
comes out, but these places run off 2000 and you can still buy them
anywhere. I iamgine they only sell about 1000 of any given title up front.
The rest wind up in shops and warehouses where they sit.
Have you figured out yet why someone might want to keep thier distance from
furry fandom?
mouse
news:20040121014000...@mb-m15.aol.com:
> If you have that problem, Wanderer, you could still turn to mail-order
> company that deal with furry like Rabbit Valley and Second Ed. Or you
> could order stright from the publisher themselves (Shanda Fantasy
> Arts, MU, Radio Comix the Fanzines publishers.)
>
> John Shughart
And here we see another part of the problem is that furry fandom wants to
incestuously deal ONLY with itself. Those comics are not in stores, because
that is not largely where they are bought...thus they remain largely
invisible. No one can pick it up off the shelf and leaf though it and
decide they want it. They might see it in a catalog (and decide to skip it)
I really doubt non-furries go to RabbitValley to buy comic books. Maybe a
few manga fans well aquainted with furry fandom, thats about it
iBuck
>measured? The actual numbers, or just the ones who filled in the survey
>forms? I am certain that nowhere enough attendees actually particpated, not
>enough to any meaningful extant. That's the problem with surveys.
And even then, it's limited to conventioneers, who are just one subset of the
fandom.
Pepper
> <snip>
>
> To be a fair fur, comic books are still "furry" popular. The problem is,
> finding them can be difficult. My local comic store, just a mile down the
> road, carries every DC and Marvel comic, loads of RPGs and miniatures, even
> a truckload of the most otaku-drawing anime... but "furry" have they none.
> The closest they come is an occasional RPG.
I understand that comics are still popular, what I meant was that
comics used to be a huge, if not the biggest, focal point of the
fandom. Comics will always be popular, but these days I wouldn't call
it the focus of all furries.. if you are inclusive of all types of
furries.
I personally have noticed that finding furry fandom comics is pretty
much exactly the same in difficulty as it always has been for years.
Even though I haven't been actively looking for them, I've always
noticed if they were around or not whenever at the comics shop I'd
visit.
btw, I don't know if I'm misinterpreting your choice of wording, but
anime is about as popular in the mainstream, if not moreso these days,
than DC and Marvel. You don't even have to go to the comic store,
even going to any major dept store, retailer, or average bookstore,
something anime/manga will pop up at you. For me, it's hard to
comprehend how such a tiny outcast fandom such as anime became
mainstream over the past decade. Sometimes I still think no one knows
what it is, but I get a reality check just watching TV or going
outside. Anime is everywhere now and everyone knows what it is.
Pepper
> completely off my radar back when I was a kid, and stuff that is furry
> fandom specific that I like. But I mean most people dont want anything to
> do with it, you know?
Your random choices of furry comics to buy certainly was lucky. I
also know of Jason, and I wouldn't necessarily call him a 'furry'
artist. He's more of a generic cartoonist that has animal characters.
Anthro animals falls under the definition but if you aren't drawing
for the furry community....
> Also with you being away for so long, Im kind of curious, what made you
> want to check on things? Just one day figured you'd like to look around and
> see what was going on/whats changed?
An old and very good i-net friend, an artist who happens to live close
by nowadays, was getting upset by something that was fandom-related
recently and he showed me some anti-furry message boards he joined.
One of those situations where he was being treated badly because
people on some net community thought he was a "freaky" furry when he
was just drawing cartoons. Coincidentally, a few days later a
friend's innocent website, a person who used to be or is a rather big
name in furry art fandom (I will not disclose the name), was recently
labelled as fetish/sex/whatever by some kind of cartoon web linking
site simply because it was cartoon animals. So I looked through some
furry sites and almost immediately found the press about
somethingawful and some other bad press stuff from the past. I used
to draw too, but I gave that up in lieu of a different life.
Amazingly enough, that situation with the website also happened to me
back in 97 or so but it wasn't a big deal because I'd abandoned it
anyway.
I had originally left the fandom in the mid 90s and at that time I was
thinking about what might happen to it. I started making predictions.
Looks like all my predictions came true, so actually it isn't so much
a surprise - well, it is slightly. At the time, I recall many furries
were very much in denial. If I could go back and say "i told you so".
Lots of things changed. Different folks, different labels and other
things that I've seen in my perusal recently... but also lots of stuff
is still the same.. mostly the denial and the whining. Lots of furs
still wondering why others aren't open-minded. I wish people were
open-minded too, but realistically thinking, they aren't. Some
furries had come across to me as just ignoring that reality. People
classify and label you, put you all into one group - they don't care
about the little intricacies, and how are they supposed to know?
Think they'll look through the fandom and research it more than a few
minutes? Probably not. Maybe that's why the fandom is so
"incestuous" as you pointed out in another post. There is no
acceptance anywhere else, really.
> Yeah, furry fandom for me is kind of a big let down. Thats my fault for
> letting it be..but oh well. I have so many other interests I never needed a
> fandom for anything, I just feel they are nice for thier focus (which furry
> has lost or is losing).
If the fandom isn't something you weren't expecting, it's not your
fault. Maybe you missed out on the good old days but that happens
with lots of things in this life. Sometimes I discover things just to
find out I missed something great that USED to happen. Oh well.
Wanderer
> dish...@aol.com (DishRoom1) wrote in
> news:20040121014000...@mb-m15.aol.com:
> >
> > If you have that problem, Wanderer, you could still turn to mail-order
> > company that deal with furry like Rabbit Valley and Second Ed. Or you
> > could order stright from the publisher themselves (Shanda Fantasy
> > Arts, MU, Radio Comix the Fanzines publishers.)
> >
> > John Shughart
>
>
> And here we see another part of the problem is that furry fandom wants to
> incestuously deal ONLY with itself. Those comics are not in stores,
because
> that is not largely where they are bought...thus they remain largely
> invisible. No one can pick it up off the shelf and leaf though it and
> decide they want it. They might see it in a catalog (and decide to skip
it)
>
<snip>
Mouse, you seem to have overlooked a large part of my original message: My
local comic store is like this for *every* special order. Anything that
isn't already on the shelves, in other words, is a pain in my bushy tail (to
say the least)! I once ordered "Aliens Unlimited", a sourcebook for the
mainstream RPG "Heroes Unlimited". By the time it came in, more than a
month later, I'd already sent a letter to Palladium about it, telling them
my problem.
They were very nice... they sent me an autographed copy. Free.:) Of
course, since the book finally *did* come in at my local store, I bought it
from them, just to be fair... and to have one I could use without worrying
about collectible value.:>
I mean it, though: My local comic store will lie through their teeth to
avoid actually putting in a special order. But since they're the only game
in town...
Yours wolfishly,
The low-budget,
Wanderer
news:9213a070.04012...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> I personally have noticed that finding furry fandom comics is pretty
> much exactly the same in difficulty as it always has been for years.
> Even though I haven't been actively looking for them, I've always
> noticed if they were around or not whenever at the comics shop I'd
> visit.
Unfortunately, I have only one comic shop, because there's only one in all
of Mesquite, Texas.:/ And since they seem to have special-order-phobia...
>
> btw, I don't know if I'm misinterpreting your choice of wording, but
> anime is about as popular in the mainstream, if not moreso these days,
> than DC and Marvel. You don't even have to go to the comic store,
> even going to any major dept store, retailer, or average bookstore,
> something anime/manga will pop up at you. For me, it's hard to
> comprehend how such a tiny outcast fandom such as anime became
> mainstream over the past decade. Sometimes I still think no one knows
> what it is, but I get a reality check just watching TV or going
> outside. Anime is everywhere now and everyone knows what it is.
In fact, my words were exact. The store in question carries only what
anyone who'd ever talked to an otaku would tell them to buy: The anime with
the most fanservice. If you want "Maze", with its tentacle hentai, sure.
But you can forget "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kiki's Delivery Service"... I
think "Mononoke Hime" showed up once about ten years ago, and never again.
No "Ruin Hunters", no "Hyper Police", not even "Starship Yamato" (and they
carry the toys for that!). Even Robotech doesn't show up on the anime
shelf.
You begin to see what I'm dealing with...
Yours wolfishly,
The worn-out,
Wanderer
> >I think I remember seing that survey - the problem is, What is being
> >measured? The actual numbers, or just the ones who filled in the survey
> >forms? I am certain that nowhere enough attendees actually particpated,
not
> >enough to any meaningful extant. That's the problem with surveys.
>
> And even then, it's limited to conventioneers, who are just one subset of
the
> fandom.
>
>
I thought convention ears were what some congoers wore to the con... ?;)
Yours wolfishly,
The grinning,
mouse
> An old and very good i-net friend, an artist who happens to live close
> by nowadays, was getting upset by something that was fandom-related
> recently and he showed me some anti-furry message boards he joined.
> One of those situations where he was being treated badly because
> people on some net community thought he was a "freaky" furry when he
> was just drawing cartoons. Coincidentally, a few days later a
> friend's innocent website, a person who used to be or is a rather big
> name in furry art fandom (I will not disclose the name), was recently
> labelled as fetish/sex/whatever by some kind of cartoon web linking
> site simply because it was cartoon animals. So I looked through some
> furry sites and almost immediately found the press about
> somethingawful and some other bad press stuff from the past. I used
> to draw too, but I gave that up in lieu of a different life.
> Amazingly enough, that situation with the website also happened to me
> back in 97 or so but it wasn't a big deal because I'd abandoned it
> anyway.
Im really not surprised this happened. A lot of people (furry artists) get
pigeon holed in the process. And if these people are serious about what
they are doing (thier funny animal comics/cartoons), guess what happens to
them? They renounce fandom (usually as viciously as possible) and furry
fandom has earned an enemy for life.
Theres a lot of dumb people on ALL sides, they simply do not understand
what is 'furry' and what is not, or they refuse to recognize the
differences in the fandom, or barring all that - they just refuse to accept
that 'furry' stuff can be good (even if its incorrectly labelled)
and at this point , as furry fandom becomes more and more known, its going
to start causing SEVERE clashes. Basically somethings gotta give. I really
dont see how after a while things will be able to continue as they are.
Because its going to hit a point of saturation of people being aware of
furry fandom. Yet furry fandom isn't really defined...So guess what? A
definition (whatever it ends up being) is going to get slammed down on
furry fandom, whether furry fandom likes that definition or not.
Personally, as far as SomethingAwful and similiar sites and people go, they
all piss me off. I think SA, the humor is sub-par. Plus they've got a horde
of little kiss asses to go out and cause problems. The site is almost a
nuisance. I mean I usually dont agree with furries in cases like this, but
calling something awful an 'electronic street gang' is pretty close to the
truth. Its just a bunch of shit-talkers who think they are hard...whatever
guys. They got this elitist attitude cause ya gotta pay $10 to get into
forums where you will most likely be banned for the slightest offense. Most
of the 'forums goons' I've run across so far are first class morons. I mean
these are some DUMB motherfuckers. I imagine most people on that site feel
like part of a gang or a large group. Funny the similiarities between the
site and fandom are many.
mouse
> anime is about as popular in the mainstream, if not moreso these days,
> than DC and Marvel. You don't even have to go to the comic store,
> even going to any major dept store, retailer, or average bookstore,
> something anime/manga will pop up at you. For me, it's hard to
> comprehend how such a tiny outcast fandom such as anime became
> mainstream over the past decade. Sometimes I still think no one knows
> what it is, but I get a reality check just watching TV or going
> outside. Anime is everywhere now and everyone knows what it is.
And thats actually really important that you brought that up because Anime
and Furry Fandom kind of formed out from the same crowd. Not too many
people recognize it, but they are basically sister fandoms. If furry fandom
had not been led astray (or however the hell it happened) it may have
gotten as mainstream as Anime is now. But just way too much creativity
left, too little advancement, no scope, no vision, and here 20 years later
its worse off than when it started.
Its really a goddamn shame. Furry fandom really could have expanded
anthropomorphics as a whole (disney style cartoons, but more adult
oriented, funny-animal comics books etc.), similiar to the way Anime fandom
helped fund and grow japanese animation in the states. Now you got cartoon
channels playing them regularly, you got translated manga at Media Play
(practically at Wal-Mart at this point)...Im sure back in the early 80's
that vision would have been looked on as impossible.
In fact thinking about it, I'd like to someday look into what exactly was
going on in the comic industry at the time of that funny-animal boom that
was going on in the 80's before the black & whites imploded. While it would
be impossible to tell, Id like to know who largely was buying this stuff.
mouse
> I
> also know of Jason, and I wouldn't necessarily call him a 'furry'
> artist. He's more of a generic cartoonist that has animal characters.
> Anthro animals falls under the definition but if you aren't drawing
> for the furry community....
>
Oh yeah, also re: this
I wasn't sure if you would have known who JASON was, but thats exactly who
I had in mind when I was saying 'I later learned not all of these things I
bought were actually "furry"'
Theres also guys like Milton Knight. He animated Felix the Cat, and did
Hugo (fantagraphics in the 80's) which is now being published though Mu
Press. I dont think he was ever directly involved with furry fandom, i
could be wrong on that but wither way, a lot of those animators are
friends, and several of them used to be furry fans (if they are not now
e.g. Mike Kazaleh).
But Milton Knight is one of those guys that recognizes his audience which I
think is really cool. He's seems a really cool guy. Hugo is a great comic,
I actually hope there are going to be more than just the 2 that have come
out from Mu Press so far.
Anyway, he was posting messages to a whole bunch of newsgroups promoting
the one year anniversary of his website a short time ago
[www.miltonknight.net] and alt.fan.furry was one of those groups.
DishRoom1
pepperheart wrote --
>> btw, I don't know if I'm misinterpreting your choice of wording, but
>> anime is about as popular in the mainstream, if not moreso these days,
>> than DC and Marvel. You don't even have to go to the comic store,
>> even going to any major dept store, retailer, or average bookstore,
>> something anime/manga will pop up at you. For me, it's hard to
>> comprehend how such a tiny outcast fandom such as anime became
>> mainstream over the past decade. Sometimes I still think no one knows
>> what it is, but I get a reality check just watching TV or going
>> outside. Anime is everywhere now and everyone knows what it is.
>
>And thats actually really important that you brought that up because Anime
>and Furry Fandom kind of formed out from the same crowd. Not too many
>people recognize it, but they are basically sister fandoms. If furry fandom
>had not been led astray (or however the hell it happened) it may have
>gotten as mainstream as Anime is now. But just way too much creativity
>left, too little advancement, no scope, no vision, and here 20 years later
>its worse off than when it started.
I have to dosagree with what you and pepper have said to each other in the few
posts here. I don't think furrydom lost any scope and vision. We still have
some new good artists and writers, dispite that some few personalities left
from the fandom. I think anime got mainstream in part because it was brought up
by companies in Japan and America, while furry was built by fans who loved
mainstream furry fantasy and cartoons. But the fandom is holding well even
without being mainstream. In fact it's its nonmainstreamness that make it
unique from the other genre fandoms.
>
>Its really a goddamn shame. Furry fandom really could have expanded
>anthropomorphics as a whole (disney style cartoons, but more adult
>oriented, funny-animal comics books etc.),
O_O Ummm, but there are some artist who design their anthros inspired by
Disney and other cartoons (Terrie Smith for one.) and some talented writers and
artist create stories that are like more-mature Disney classics.. or even more
deeper than Disney even.
similiar to the way Anime fandom
>helped fund and grow japanese animation in the states. Now you got cartoon
>channels playing them regularly, you got translated manga at Media Play
>(practically at Wal-Mart at this point)...Im sure back in the early 80's
>that vision would have been looked on as impossible.
OK, so what big-time media company do us "sad directionless" furries turn to
help flurish furridom?
>
>In fact thinking about it, I'd like to someday look into what exactly was
>going on in the comic industry at the time of that funny-animal boom that
>was going on in the 80's before the black & whites imploded. While it would
>be impossible to tell, Id like to know who largely was buying this stuff.
One of the problems that led to the 1980s B&W boom feel apart because too many
guys were doing too many clones of the "Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtles" fad
rather than going off to do their own thing like Vicky Wyman, Steve Galicci,
Roz Gibson, and Richard Bartrop did.
John Shughart
mouse
news:20040122040259...@mb-m13.aol.com:
> the few posts here. I don't think furrydom lost any scope and vision.
> We still have some new good artists and writers, dispite that some few
> personalities left from the fandom.
Ok, what has furry fandom produced recently that can even hold a candle to
Captain Jack at this point? (or Albedo/Erma Felna or Xanadu) Hey , I liked
that stuff a lot, I just bought it remember...I just discovered this stuff.
too bad it was in the 80's.
Im not saying its all bad, Im saying furry fandom is not even competeing on
any level with anyone. Remember when I said even the porn sucks? Look how
you got all these Hentai and dojinshi books on the anime side. Furry cant
even do that right! And this fandom is obsessed with porn. It wouldnt even
be practical to try to run an Ecchi Attack-style furry porn bashing site,
because you're going to wind up reviewing genus and rarebreed...wow
you could try throwing in shitty fan-porn, keenspace webcomics, and
portfolios ..but cmon, that would be lame
> O_O Ummm, but there are some artist who design their anthros inspired
> by Disney and other cartoons (Terrie Smith for one.) and some talented
> writers and artist create stories that are like more-mature Disney
> classics.. or even more deeper than Disney even.
I said disney only to emphasize the US style cartoons, rather than anime.
I couldve said any other company, but they are biggest, and arguably have
the best looking U.S. cartooons (I personally like Tex Averys stuff better
all around, but I agree with the 'general concensus' that Disney is the
best looking, Warner bros has the best characters, and Tex Avery was the
funniest)
I like some anime too , again, its the larger point here
> OK, so what big-time media company do us "sad directionless" furries
> turn to help flurish furridom?
Gee, dude, I dunno,
correct me if I am wrong, a lot of anime fans and people involved in that
fandom started thier own companies and projects if I recall correctly.
Maybe people could have networked with some of the professional animators
that used to be in this fandom for advice to do something like that...too
bad most of them split.
> One of the problems that led to the 1980s B&W boom feel apart because
> too many guys were doing too many clones of the "Teenage Muntant Ninja
> Turtles" fad rather than going off to do their own thing like Vicky
> Wyman, Steve Galicci, Roz Gibson, and Richard Bartrop did.
I thought B&Ws were mostly other stuff in the 80's not mostly Mutant ninja
ripoffs. I was under the impression that funny animals - being mostly in
black and white went down with black and white...not because of an overload
of one type of funny animal comic.
Wanderer
<snip>
> I thought B&Ws were mostly other stuff in the 80's not mostly Mutant ninja
> ripoffs. I was under the impression that funny animals - being mostly in
> black and white went down with black and white...not because of an
overload
> of one type of funny animal comic.
Well, a lot of the B&W comics saw TMNT taking off and jumped on the
bandwagon. One of the knockoffs that actually lasted for a few issues was
"Mean, Teen, Dirty-Gene Kung-Fu Kangaroos". Add "Radioactive Mutant
Hamsters" and a few dozen others, not even counting the ones that knocked
off the style but were a bit more creative... though, sadly, didn't cover
their story bases as well as Eastman and Laird. (Note that Eastman and
Laird were the first ones to show mutation in an almost-correct light:
Splinter is mature when exposed, so the effects are minimal. The turtles
are still young, so experience a greater degree of change. They even
managed to justify the martial arts and human speech reasonably well.)
Yours with a remembrance of things past,
The wolfish,
Pepper
>Im really not surprised this happened. A lot of people
>(furry artists) get pigeon holed in the process. And if
>these people are serious about what they are doing
>(thier funny animal comics/cartoons), guess what happens
>to them? They renounce fandom (usually as viciously as
>possible) and furry fandom has earned an enemy for life.
Seems to be the consensus with many of my friends. They, and I,
maintain a respect for furry for being what it is and are openminded
enough to let it be, but at the same time, the fandom carried itself
rather irresponsibly and the media really didn't help either. Because
of this, we have bad tastes in our mouths because of the social
fallout from that rather flamboyant activity. We suffered because of
what they did, because of 'guilt by association'. In the case of my
good artist friend, it ruined a good part of his fan life and he felt
betrayed by the fandom. I actually went through the same thing he
did, but I wasn't affected so badly. I accept what the fandom has
grown into, but at the same time it appears too unstable to grow
responsibly to get the respect it should have gotten.
>Because its going to hit a point of saturation of people
>being aware of furry fandom. Yet furry fandom isn't really
>defined...So guess what? A definition (whatever it ends up
>being) is going to get slammed down on furry fandom, whether
>furry fandom likes that definition or not.
Interesting view you have there. That process has already begun in a
sense.
>I wasn't sure if you would have known who JASON was, but
>thats exactly who I had in mind when I was saying 'I later
>learned not all of these things I bought were actually "furry"'
It's interesting you say that because like I said before, anything
that was anthro animals fell under the furry label back in the old
days. Whether or not they knew it, people like that and others were
considered "furry". Nowadays it's questionable because furry fandom
changed. Now I understand many cartoon-loving furries out there still
do define things as "furry" that aren't made for the fandom and that
is fine. However, the fact that people come into this fandom and make
an assumption that something that has anthros but is not "furry" is
extremely telling of how this fandom seems to be changing, at least in
my viewpoint. When I recently looked through websites, "furry" seemed
to be a label that held a deeper meaning than the old 'it's just
anthros' definition that I learned it as when I was a kid. As if in
order to be "furry", there needed to be something to it that made it
furry.
I've been perusing some message boards and websites in the past few
days. I've seen kids these days saying "we don't like furry art" or
"I'm not a furry" but are drawing anthros themselves. This is kinda
why I asked the question in the first place. We're not talking Burned
Furs or any kind of extremists, just people trying to avoid the
fandom's label and the entire fandom period.
Saying what lots of folks here say - if you call yourself a furry then
you are one - that is a great explanation. I was just originally
wondering what the majority of the fandom believed in, in terms of who
they included.
mouse
> sense.
Yup, it should be interesting the next couple years.
> Nowadays it's questionable because furry fandom
> changed. Now I understand many cartoon-loving furries out there still
> do define things as "furry" that aren't made for the fandom and that
> is fine. However, the fact that people come into this fandom and make
> an assumption that something that has anthros but is not "furry" is
> extremely telling of how this fandom seems to be changing, at least in
> my viewpoint.
Just keep in mind, I personally came into furry fandom in an extremely
unorthodox fashion. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to learn I was the only
one. But most new furries at some point get directed to the furry FAQ,
which hasnt changed significantly in over a decade I'm sure. Its also
flawed in several ways. So I think its actually rarer for a furry fan to
say what we are saying here - that something isnt 'furry' unless its done
FOR the fandom. I mean even this is awkward, and doesnt really apply to
other fandoms but its partially because furry is almost a slur to some
people.
> When I recently looked through websites, "furry" seemed
> to be a label that held a deeper meaning than the old 'it's just
> anthros' definition that I learned it as when I was a kid. As if in
> order to be "furry", there needed to be something to it that made it
> furry.
I kind of know what you are talking about here, but I can't quite pin it
down. Although, again, i think this sort of thing is coming more from the
fringe element. For some reason when it comes to furry fandom - I have had
an extremely hard time pinning down exactly who is who. Its really really
hard to get a handle on who makes up the fandom. A.F.F is VERY different
than even any other furry forum. A lot of this stuff is moving over onto
other platforms like LiveJournal - probably largely because that service is
so interest oriented, it makes it very easy to form groups and network
around individual interests.
I don't use IRC either, but its my understanding there are also quite a few
furries there as well on furnet or yiffnet. im really not familiar enough
with it to really say what the servers are specifically. FurryMUCK is still
a pretty major spot , and the rest is mostly just private message boards
and forums. planetfurry.com, yiffy.net, furbox.net are just some off the
top of my head.
but basically I dont think this discussion we are having right now would be
taking place the same way on any other furry forum.
Also, thats why places like livejournal and people who use the internet for
that sort of thing (or for that matter that hang around humor sites, such
as PortalofEvil and SomethingAwful) where you are seeing a lot of clashing
with groups. Because livejournal isnt insular like most furry forums are.
Like I dont think there are really any furry chat channels on a regular IRC
server. I'm sure that its mostly restricted to those two mentioned prior.
For that matter, while I do use google groups for UseNet, I am now using
Xnews and going through news.critter.net and news.fur.com which feed only
furry related groups.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Unfortunately, I have only one comic shop, because there's only one in all
>of Mesquite, Texas.:/ And since they seem to have special-order-phobia...
The Internet is a wonderful thing. You can order all your
comics/gaming supplies/etc from one of a number of large online
vendors who will not only give you a big discount (20-30% off) but
offer free shipping. Tell your comic shop where to shove it if they
don't want to offer basic customer service.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>And thats actually really important that you brought that up because Anime
>and Furry Fandom kind of formed out from the same crowd. Not too many
>people recognize it, but they are basically sister fandoms. If furry fandom
>had not been led astray (or however the hell it happened) it may have
>gotten as mainstream as Anime is now. But just way too much creativity
>left, too little advancement, no scope, no vision, and here 20 years later
>its worse off than when it started.
You're right, although you won't get most furs to admit it. I was
there and involved in the beginnings of both fandoms (furry fandom, by
and large, started in the back of C/FO meetings) and furry fandom
could, and should, be where anime fandom is today.
Sure, you get the detractors claiming that anime had tons of
big-business anime shows available, but that's as much a curse as a
blessing. If you didn't like what was offered, you had no
alternatives. You couldn't produce your own. You had no say in the
production process. Anime fandom was largely a passive, couch-potato
fandom, watching whatever came out and made its way across the
Pacific.
Furry fandom had it's own big-business programming though. Decades of
Disney and Warner Bros., etc. were freely available. Hours and hours
of furry cartoons on TV every day and Saturday morning was packed with
it.
When you get right down to it, anime fans and furry fans had exactly
the same outlet for their own creativity: fanzines and comics. But
where you didn't see anime-style porn comics, you did see them by the
dozens in furry fandom.
Had furry gone the way of anime, we'd have big-screen furry movies,
mainstream furry television shows and a heck of a lot more acceptance.
Instead, furry is a tiny niche fandom that the world laughs at.
Wanderer
news:85r210picclcernor...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:10:08 +0000 (UTC), mouse <mo...@blackvault.com>
> wrote:
>
> You're right, although you won't get most furs to admit it. I was
> there and involved in the beginnings of both fandoms (furry fandom, by
> and large, started in the back of C/FO meetings) and furry fandom
> could, and should, be where anime fandom is today.
Well, not exactly.:) I'll explain below.
>
> Sure, you get the detractors claiming that anime had tons of
> big-business anime shows available, but that's as much a curse as a
> blessing. If you didn't like what was offered, you had no
> alternatives. You couldn't produce your own. You had no say in the
> production process. Anime fandom was largely a passive, couch-potato
> fandom, watching whatever came out and made its way across the
> Pacific.
True. Furry Fandom is in much the same boat, so far. We're stuck with what
WB, MGM, Harveytoons and the others already created. Throw in the fact that
the animation industry today doesn't want creativity as much as it wants
good tracing, and... (That last is from Aldi, who worked cleanup in Canada
before quitting.)
>
> Furry fandom had it's own big-business programming though. Decades of
> Disney and Warner Bros., etc. were freely available. Hours and hours
> of furry cartoons on TV every day and Saturday morning was packed with
> it.
<nod> Yes, just like the stacks and stacks of anime that were already made.
You could watch Bugs Bunny, Coyote and Roadrunner, Sylvester and Tweety.
You could watch Tom and Jerry. You could watch Mighty Mouse, Heckle and
Jeckle, Herman and Katnip. You could watch any number of Hanna-Barbera
formula shows, whichever formula they were on at the time. And after a
while, the lack of any new material just wears you away...
>
> When you get right down to it, anime fans and furry fans had exactly
> the same outlet for their own creativity: fanzines and comics. But
> where you didn't see anime-style porn comics, you did see them by the
> dozens in furry fandom.
That would be because of two things anime has that furry doesn't: Hentai
and Ecchi.:> Let's face it, if you had a choice between seeing a porn strip
drawn by an amateur or seeing a porn strip drawn *and animated* by a
professional artist, which one would you choose (assuming you were
interested in porn)?
>
> Had furry gone the way of anime, we'd have big-screen furry movies,
> mainstream furry television shows and a heck of a lot more acceptance.
> Instead, furry is a tiny niche fandom that the world laughs at.
Except that anime is only starting to get there now. Astro Boy is the first
new anime-style show in years (the last, oddly enough, being anime/furry in
style... SwatKats). It's the only one out this season, unless you have
cable and can pick up the Cartoon Network's constant rebroadcast of the
various anime... Yu Yu Hakusho, Inuyasha, Big O, Cowboy Bebop, etc.
And anime *still* gets laughed at! Allow me to provide you with some links:
http://www.angeltowns.com/members/qjphotos/anime_otaku.htm
"ANIME OTAKU - A sub-species of otaku (geek), the anime otaku devotes his
life to cartoons and especially cartoon women. These nerdy men can be seen
in their thousands in Akihabara or Den Den Town, searching for X-rated
computer games or videos. Many are said to prefer animated females to the
real thing because they do not have the flaws and imperfections that flesh
and blood women have."
(Note fur those who don't know: Otaku is a Japanese word, literally meaning
"you". It's used in this context because it's a rather old-fashioned and
formal word. Using the word "otaku" in everyday conversation is tantamount
to saying "thee" and "thou". Thus, someone who devotes his life to a hobby
so much that he doesn't know how to properly relate to others is an otaku.)
http://rinpu.com/storypages/shojo_rant.html
A rant against shojo anime (traditionally for girls).
http://www.livejournal.com/users/divalea/25043.html
A rant against fans of anime *and* furry.:)
See?
Yours honestly,
The running-to-the-toilet-because-I've-been-typing-too-long,
Arty McToon
There is that niche on one end and the mainstream kiddie and
teen-oriented anime on the other end.
Nice to have a balance in furry fandom, instead of adult themes
dominating (there is definitely some creative mindset of some that if
the characters are furry animals, they supposed to do something
suggestive or downright nasty).
DishRoom1
Brain Henderson wrote --
mouse wrote --
I'm both love furry and anime/magna. I am also of high taste in pop culture and
hate graphic gross out jokes. Which all and all makes me hated by all low-life
bullies. ^_^
John Shughart
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> I mean it, though: My local comic store will lie through their teeth to
> avoid actually putting in a special order. But since they're the only game
> in town...
Why is this? The CBS around my place seem to delight in serving the
customers.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Pepper
> And anime *still* gets laughed at! Allow me to provide you with some links:
I think the majority of us who have been around both fandoms knows
full well that anime otaku are laughed at in the same manner as
trekkies or any other fandom.
For the most part, anime fans are laughed at for being typical geekboy
fans. Furries are laughed at for more serious things - none of which
are even 1% true, we all know that. But let's face it, the fandom is
known most for it's notorious things, not good things. No one
realizes it's wonderful creativity, it's great comics, and all that
other great stuff. It's just got a lousy reputation, end of story.
People laugh at anime geeks, but it's on tv every day, it's got huge
business and money behind it, it's got lots of child-friendly material
and even parents know what anime is and that safe anime exists while
at the same time they can still sell the adult stuff in the bookstores
and blockbuster video.... i could go on and on. So anime otaku are
made fun of for being geeky fanboys - so what? Say the word "furry"
and people suddenly think you are something much worse than just a
fanboy.
It's like that old joke about that man who did all these wonderful
things to help his community but he was only known in his town as a
sheep fucker. A minority of furry fans went out of their way to
represent themselves in the worst possible way and continue to do so,
other people assumed the absolute worst, and the entirety of the
fandom was labelled for it. Other furries compound the problem
because they become so defensive about it, the cycle continues and it
just goes downhill.
To pull out of that bad reputation, something amazing has to happen.
Anime was able to do it (for the most part) due to various factors.
But I recall about 5-6 years ago when CN had the attitude that all
anime was horrible unless it was old school (heard that from an
insider back then). Looks like they've changed their tune.
Well it doesn't affect me. But I do like to study these kinds of
things, about fandoms. Anyway, that is how I've noticed it. Seing
what the anime fandom has accomplished, the reputation of being geeks
is almost inconsequential.. But in furry's case, the bad reputation is
a huge issue to its validity, and a huge obstacle for its acceptance
and tolerance from the world.
iBuck
>dozens in furry fandom.
You didn't look very hard, did you...
>Had furry gone the way of anime, we'd have big-screen furry movies,
>mainstream furry television shows and a heck of a lot more acceptance.
Oh, So Redwall, Home on the Range Brother Bear, The new TMNT, Realm of the
Claw, Beast Wars and the like, don't count? And don't tell me they're not
produced in the fandom, Anime -still- isn't produced in it's fandom in large
amounts by the US fanndom, and that's your point of comparsion...
As for acceptance, if you don't work to promote that stuff that you like, and
turn on other people on the fandom in a vain attempt to eliminate them, how the
heck can you expect to genreate, what you don't have yourself...
>Instead, furry is a tiny niche fandom that the world laughs at.
Get it through you head, furry -isn't- Anime, it's a diffrent fandom, with a
difrent nature of the draw, and that number of people who have that attraction
is pretty limited.
As much as you blither about Disney and Warner Brothers, and the fans of those
characters, I doubt if you asked around, that very many of those fans are into
the characters -because of their anthropomorphism-
The furry fandom is about anthro's for anthro's sake, and regardless about how
much you argue that the porn has sent the fandom down the wrong road, It's not
1/100 as important as the fact that the fanbase is tiny...
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>True. Furry Fandom is in much the same boat, so far. We're stuck with what
>WB, MGM, Harveytoons and the others already created. Throw in the fact that
>the animation industry today doesn't want creativity as much as it wants
>good tracing, and... (That last is from Aldi, who worked cleanup in Canada
>before quitting.)
That doesn't stop furs from working in the industry (and let's face
it, back in the 70s when all this started, the state of American
animation wasn't nearly as bad as it's become today. Had people
gotten in on the ground floor and made a difference, it might not be
the way it is today). The fact that we are getting high-quality
animation from companies like Pixar shows that creativity isn't quite
dead in US animation. Close, but not quite.
><nod> Yes, just like the stacks and stacks of anime that were already made.
>You could watch Bugs Bunny, Coyote and Roadrunner, Sylvester and Tweety.
>You could watch Tom and Jerry. You could watch Mighty Mouse, Heckle and
>Jeckle, Herman and Katnip. You could watch any number of Hanna-Barbera
>formula shows, whichever formula they were on at the time. And after a
>while, the lack of any new material just wears you away...
So let's throw up our hands and put out spooge art. Gotcha. There's
never been anything new coming out in the US at all. The Lion King
was a figment of our imagination. Same with Finding Nemo and dozens
of other movies that have been made since the 70s. If there was a
sufficiently large and vocal audience asking for new animation on
television, Cartoon Network would have a block of it. Toonami didn't
come about on a whim. Neither did Adult Swim. Their demographics
showed that this kind of programming would make them money and they
were right. Can we say that with furry programming? Absolutely not.
The reason we don't see furry programming is because there isn't a
viable furry fandom. Anime fans are the reason anime is so popular
today. They focused their attentions outward. Furry fans have
focused inward. That's why we're a niche and they're mainstream.
>That would be because of two things anime has that furry doesn't: Hentai
>and Ecchi.:> Let's face it, if you had a choice between seeing a porn strip
>drawn by an amateur or seeing a porn strip drawn *and animated* by a
>professional artist, which one would you choose (assuming you were
>interested in porn)?
Back in the 70s when it all started, there wasn't hentai or ecchi, or
at least not outside of the fanfic/doujinshi market. The earliest
animated hentai was Cream Lemon, back in the mid-80s and even then it
was a very tiny percentage of the total anime output. No one is
saying that porn shouldn't exist, but if 90% of what animators made
was hard-core porn, you sure wouldn't be seeing it on US television,
would you?
Anime fandom made choices to support mainstream animation and look
where it got them. Look where furry fandom is. Coincidence? I think
not.
>Except that anime is only starting to get there now. Astro Boy is the first
>new anime-style show in years (the last, oddly enough, being anime/furry in
>style... SwatKats). It's the only one out this season, unless you have
>cable and can pick up the Cartoon Network's constant rebroadcast of the
>various anime... Yu Yu Hakusho, Inuyasha, Big O, Cowboy Bebop, etc.
You can find anime on virtually every channel, network or cable.
While Cartoon Network isn't making many anime-style shows in-house
(why, they have a huge catalog and other companies are translating
faster than they can possibly show it), they certainly are doing
animation. It's not a big step from Powerpuff Girls to something
furry-related.
So when can we expect them to get to furry shows? Probably never.
There just aren't enough vocal fans.
Wanderer
<snip>
> ><nod> Yes, just like the stacks and stacks of anime that were already
made.
> >You could watch Bugs Bunny, Coyote and Roadrunner, Sylvester and Tweety.
> >You could watch Tom and Jerry. You could watch Mighty Mouse, Heckle and
> >Jeckle, Herman and Katnip. You could watch any number of Hanna-Barbera
> >formula shows, whichever formula they were on at the time. And after a
> >while, the lack of any new material just wears you away...
>
> So let's throw up our hands and put out spooge art. Gotcha. There's
> never been anything new coming out in the US at all. The Lion King
> was a figment of our imagination. Same with Finding Nemo and dozens
> of other movies that have been made since the 70s.
I was trying to make a point.:> Yes, there have been many good furry
movies, and movies with furry characters. The problem is, it comes out very
sporadically. We had "The Lion King", and "The Lion King II", and the TV
spinoff, "Timon and Pumbaa"... and then nothing, for quite a while.
> If there was a
> sufficiently large and vocal audience asking for new animation on
> television, Cartoon Network would have a block of it. Toonami didn't
> come about on a whim. Neither did Adult Swim. Their demographics
> showed that this kind of programming would make them money and they
> were right. Can we say that with furry programming? Absolutely not.
In case you missed it, both Toonami and Adult Swim contain non-anime as
well, such as Adult Swim's "Family Guy" reruns. Likewise, They've been
expanding the non-anime block with extra episodes of some of their
"original" works. I don't see them intercutting the old Bugs Bunny show to
make it sell...
>
> The reason we don't see furry programming is because there isn't a
> viable furry fandom. Anime fans are the reason anime is so popular
> today. They focused their attentions outward. Furry fans have
> focused inward. That's why we're a niche and they're mainstream.
<pumpernickel look... I'm out of wry>
Uh-huh. Right. Sorry, but anime fans are most noted for dressing up like
Sailor Moon... and those are the guys! The reason anime is so popular is,
oddly enough, that anime is pretty darn good! It has mature plotlines,
subplots, and good characterizations when you watch the best of it.
>
> >That would be because of two things anime has that furry doesn't: Hentai
> >and Ecchi.:> Let's face it, if you had a choice between seeing a porn
strip
> >drawn by an amateur or seeing a porn strip drawn *and animated* by a
> >professional artist, which one would you choose (assuming you were
> >interested in porn)?
>
> Back in the 70s when it all started, there wasn't hentai or ecchi, or
> at least not outside of the fanfic/doujinshi market. The earliest
> animated hentai was Cream Lemon, back in the mid-80s and even then it
> was a very tiny percentage of the total anime output. No one is
> saying that porn shouldn't exist, but if 90% of what animators made
> was hard-core porn, you sure wouldn't be seeing it on US television,
> would you?
You've never heard of the picture of Ariel without her seashells, have
you?:> Besides, read what you said: "outside of the fanfic/doujinshi
market", which most of the fans back then knew all about. And no, sorry,
"Lemon Cream" was not the first hentai anime: According to animeondvd.com,
that title belongs to "Yuki no kurenai kesho", though the quality and
content was apparently execrable. Besides, hentai was born of its manga
counterpart; manga aren't just for kids either, remember?
>
> Anime fandom made choices to support mainstream animation and look
> where it got them. Look where furry fandom is. Coincidence? I think
> not.
Error: You have misplaced two terms. Mainstream animation made a decision
to support anime fandom, and it's helped a little. Always remember: The
biggest market for anime is *not* the United States of America. The biggest
market for anime is *Japan*, I repeat, *Japan*, as in the country that
*produces* it.
Yeesh, thinking that US anime fandom birthed the revolution... make me feel
a little older, I'm still alive.
>
> >Except that anime is only starting to get there now. Astro Boy is the
first
> >new anime-style show in years (the last, oddly enough, being anime/furry
in
> >style... SwatKats). It's the only one out this season, unless you have
> >cable and can pick up the Cartoon Network's constant rebroadcast of the
> >various anime... Yu Yu Hakusho, Inuyasha, Big O, Cowboy Bebop, etc.
>
> You can find anime on virtually every channel, network or cable.
Yes, and all imported. America isn't making any, aside from brief attempts
like "SwatKats". And please note I said *NEW*. Most of the stuff they send
to us has been canceled.
> While Cartoon Network isn't making many anime-style shows in-house
> (why, they have a huge catalog and other companies are translating
> faster than they can possibly show it), they certainly are doing
> animation. It's not a big step from Powerpuff Girls to something
> furry-related.
Especially since it was all done by one man who sold them the series. Steak
Tartare-kofsky, anybody? It has limited animation and is almost completely
episodic in structure, but it sells.
>
> So when can we expect them to get to furry shows? Probably never.
> There just aren't enough vocal fans.
<rolls eyes> Only if you throw out all the ones who aren't you, that is...
Yours wanting to crack your head with the Clue Mallet Of Doom,
The wolfish,
mouse
> When you get right down to it, anime fans and furry fans had exactly
> the same outlet for their own creativity: fanzines and comics. But
> where you didn't see anime-style porn comics, you did see them by the
> dozens in furry fandom.
I agree with everything you are saying here, but I just want to make
sure...are you SURE that the quantity of furry porn way back when was
larger than in the anime scene? I imagine a lot of that hentai was just
over in japan. Or has that grown overall?
This is one of the major differences when Anime gets brought up that I
would like a lot more info on. Anime fans like japanese cartoons. To the
Japanese - In japan, its got to come across differently correct? At least
somewhat? Anime fans in the states would be like big Disney fans over in
japan. (??)
So Anime in japan is not a seperate thing is it? In the states its
considered a whole different thing.
Technically its all cartoons/animation. Just differnt styles and themes.
And in the case of anime culture is brought in.
> Had furry gone the way of anime, we'd have big-screen furry movies,
> mainstream furry television shows and a heck of a lot more acceptance.
> Instead, furry is a tiny niche fandom that the world laughs at.
Again, here I agree 100%
mouse
news:10167i5...@corp.supernews.com:
>> So let's throw up our hands and put out spooge art. Gotcha. There's
>> never been anything new coming out in the US at all. The Lion King
>> was a figment of our imagination. Same with Finding Nemo and dozens
>> of other movies that have been made since the 70s.
>
> I was trying to make a point.:> Yes, there have been many good furry
> movies, and movies with furry characters. The problem is, it comes
> out very sporadically. We had "The Lion King", and "The Lion King
> II", and the TV spinoff, "Timon and Pumbaa"... and then nothing, for
> quite a while.
>
You constantly want to fall back on major studio stuff , when this fandom
was putting out things that were really good.
Remember Sam and Max freelance detectives? I seen that show on tv years
ago. Then when I ran into furry fandom and started collecting critters
comics, I found at some time during the 80's Sam & Max were in there. So it
eventually succeeded. Critters wasn't a completely furry comic. And I dont
know off-hand who created Sam & Max, but that was back in a time period in
furry fandom when there were people in this fandom, professional enough and
creative enough to get thier comics into a publication like that. Some of
them are still around, some of them are not. But thats why I consider a
comic like Critters to be furry.
THeres not too much that is that good anymore. Or not in enough quantity. I
don't see anything on the horizon going to come from a furry publisher
thats gonna blow people away and get good reviews.
I mean there is the issue that a lot of this stuff IS fan work - therefore
it is no good. But on the other hand , when we are talking about furry
fandom specific things here - these are individual creatings, not true fan
fiction. So there is room for success in Furry Fandom just like there was
in Anime. I say the porn issue doesnt even matter that much, I read someone
someone was saying you buy Adult Anime or Hentai at some shopping mall type
retail store - so there ya go. It really doesnt matter that much - its the
quality that blows.
Pepper
in the US has flourished MUCH more and mocked FAR less than furries
are - end of story. I've read a whole lot of anti-anime stuff on the
net. The absolute worst anyone believes about otaku is that they
behave very annoyingly and obsessively watch too much. The absolute
worst things people believe about furries is considerably worse that
that. Though admittedly, comparing furry to any other fandoms is like
apples and oranges.
Wanderer
> > movies, and movies with furry characters. The problem is, it comes
> > out very sporadically. We had "The Lion King", and "The Lion King
> > II", and the TV spinoff, "Timon and Pumbaa"... and then nothing, for
> > quite a while.
> >
>
> You constantly want to fall back on major studio stuff , when this fandom
> was putting out things that were really good.
>
> Remember Sam and Max freelance detectives?
<snip>
Yes, and the comics were better.:/ Still, the computer game was fun... and
is finally spawning a sequel:
http://www.lucasarts.com/products/freelancepolice/
Oh, and the comic was created by Steve Purcell, who also created strips for
the LucasArts newsletters once "Sam & Max Hit The Road" was made:
http://www.armory.com/~grafter/samandmax.html
(Note that the two title characters make appearances in several different
games, and not just their own.:)
Also, please note that you can still buy "Sam & Max Hit The Road" as part of
the LucasArts Adventure Collection:
http://www.lucasarts.com/companystore/adventure/
Just in case you were wondering.:)
And I agree that the porn issue doesn't matter much. Unfortunately, both
cartoons and furry animals carry the "kiddie" connotation over here,
drastically limiting corporate interests and target audience. In Japan,
there's a wide audience, so they make a lot of anime, furry and non-furry
alike. Over here, most anime that shows up is non-furry, just to overcome
the problem of surmounting two barriers instead of one. (In fact, most
furry-featuring anime can still be found only in fansub: Villgust, Akazukin
ChaCha, and even KO Century Beast are still being put out by little places
like AD, rather than any large corporations.)
Fursonally, I still consider it a pity that SwatKats was so woefully
undernourished by Turner as part of the Hanna-Barbera lineup... it had some
real potential, and still has a good-sized fanbase.
Interestingly, anime holds the simplest solution to the production costs
problem for furry works:
http://www.huitula.com/productionIG2_page2.htm
Namely, many animators all working together, a limited non-animation staff,
and plenty of in-betweeners. Of course, anime still isn't profitable on the
production end:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/Business/2003/12/11/1071122882.htm
It is art, after all...
Yours with an understanding of artistry,
Wanderer
> in the US has flourished MUCH more and mocked FAR less than furries
> are - end of story. I've read a whole lot of anti-anime stuff on the
> net. The absolute worst anyone believes about otaku is that they
> behave very annoyingly and obsessively watch too much.
You seem to have missed the web-cite that referred to them as idealizing
fictional women, and a previous reference to a murder. But do continue...
> The absolute
> worst things people believe about furries is considerably worse that
> that. Though admittedly, comparing furry to any other fandoms is like
> apples and oranges.
Considering how much work the reporters had to put in to skew it that way,
you'll forgive me a bit of grudging respect. Interviewing half a convention
to find the five people that say sensational things must be tiring...
Yours with a clear view of the fandom,
DishRoom1
mouse wrote --
>> > I was trying to make a point.:> Yes, there have been many good furry
"Hyper Police" is somewhat furry too.
>
>Fursonally, I still consider it a pity that SwatKats was so woefully
>undernourished by Turner as part of the Hanna-Barbera lineup... it had some
>real potential, and still has a good-sized fanbase.
Never saw that show.
>
>Interestingly, anime holds the simplest solution to the production costs
>problem for furry works:
>
>http://www.huitula.com/productionIG2_page2.htm
>
>Namely, many animators all working together, a limited non-animation staff,
>and plenty of in-betweeners. Of course, anime still isn't profitable on the
>production end:
>
>http://www.etaiwannews.com/Business/2003/12/11/1071122882.htm
>
>It is art, after all...
>
Ought to check more on this.
John Shughart
Wanderer
news:20040125033941...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> Wanderer wrote --
>
<snip... and yes, Hyper Police is furry, but I couldn't buy that type before
somebody else got it.:>
> >Fursonally, I still consider it a pity that SwatKats was so woefully
> >undernourished by Turner as part of the Hanna-Barbera lineup... it had
some
> >real potential, and still has a good-sized fanbase.
>
> Never saw that show.
> >
<snip>
Well, it was set in a world of catmorphs, in Megakat City. The two main
characters, Chance and Jake (also known as Razor and T-Bone, their
callsigns) are former members of the Enforcers, a jet-flying police force.
*Former* because they happen to care more about doing their job than about
the mountains of paperwork and technical red tape involved in being an
Enforcer. So, operating out of a secret headquarters below the junkyard
where they work (I missed the first few eps, so don't ask too many questions
about where the HQ came from.), they take on the criminals that the
Enforcers, with their limited arsenal and tactics, can't.
The style was anime-influenced, though most characters were considerably
more animalistic than in Japanese illustrations. Jake and Chance were
perfect catmorphs, for instance... a bipedal cat without too much reliance
on the human shape. Likewise, the Kats' jet (the Turbokat) and weapons drew
from anime, and the aerial sequences were stunning. Here's a page:
http://www.yiffle.com/fandom/cartoons/bytitle/swatkats/
Just be careful which lynx you follow... as you might expect with those
claws, there's a lot of slash fiction out there...
Yours with a parting pun,
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I was trying to make a point.:> Yes, there have been many good furry
>movies, and movies with furry characters. The problem is, it comes out very
>sporadically. We had "The Lion King", and "The Lion King II", and the TV
>spinoff, "Timon and Pumbaa"... and then nothing, for quite a while.
There's still Lion King merchandise galore and Disney is still showing
Timon and Pumbaa regularly. Not bad for a movie that came out almost
10 years ago, is it? Try finding that kind of thing with any anime
movie (sequels, TV spin-offs, etc). The point is, there are companies
with big budgets who have and continue to produce furry-related media.
The fandom isn't "all alone" in this by any means.
>In case you missed it, both Toonami and Adult Swim contain non-anime as
>well, such as Adult Swim's "Family Guy" reruns. Likewise, They've been
>expanding the non-anime block with extra episodes of some of their
>"original" works. I don't see them intercutting the old Bugs Bunny show to
>make it sell...
They're not going to put a property without the demonstrated ability
to sell in their hottest programming block, it needs to build steam on
its own. Toonami didn't just appear full-blown overnight, it
developed over a number of years and became their most popular ratings
bonanza. Adult Swim actually branched off of Toonami to show
non-anime (such as Space Ghost: Coast to Coast), so it's hardly
surprising that it's showing non-anime, that's the purpose of the
block.
>Uh-huh. Right. Sorry, but anime fans are most noted for dressing up like
>Sailor Moon... and those are the guys! The reason anime is so popular is,
>oddly enough, that anime is pretty darn good! It has mature plotlines,
>subplots, and good characterizations when you watch the best of it.
People like that are justifiably thought of as freaks, just like the
fursuiters, just like the D&D geeks, etc. But for all their
'freakdom', they've got a HUGE marketing machine that is being catered
to, don't they? Anime in the US went from basically zip 20 years ago
to a multi-billion dollar industry. Many Japanese anime shows today
are made with the American secondary market specifically in mind.
Yes, some anime is really great (although I think that's fallen off in
the past decade or so). If you look back at the 70s and 80s, you do
find a lot of mature, intelligent plotlines, great characters, etc.
What you did not find is spooge and outright pornography There was
very little that had to be cut in 1984 when Robotech was brought out
in the US (most of what was cut was story related, not censorship).
So what's wrong with having furry stories that have mature plotlines,
subplots, and good characterizations? Why do furry stories seem to
require fan-service, massive bouncing breasts, etc? Are the stories
not enough? That's a shame.
>You've never heard of the picture of Ariel without her seashells, have
>you?:> Besides, read what you said: "outside of the fanfic/doujinshi
>market", which most of the fans back then knew all about. And no, sorry,
>"Lemon Cream" was not the first hentai anime: According to animeondvd.com,
>that title belongs to "Yuki no kurenai kesho", though the quality and
>content was apparently execrable. Besides, hentai was born of its manga
>counterpart; manga aren't just for kids either, remember?
Of course. I have a pretty decent collection of Disney fan art,
ranging from G to X-rated. But you don't find Disney doing that kind
of work, do you? Fans knew little of doujinshi back in the 70s and
80s, all they knew is what came on the TV screen. Doujinshi wasn't
available in the US unless you actually went to Japan, found some and
brought it back with you. Whatever fans in the US might have been
doing at the time, it certainly wasn't getting much circulation,
unlike the Japanese doujinshi.
Cream Lemon was the first "big budget" hentai that I am aware of.
There might have been smaller productions before that, but Cream Lemon
was the first to actually make a name for itself, both in Japan and
among fans in the US. Regardless, the percentage of hentai vs.
non-hentai was ridiculously small, certainly under 1% of the total
output. Can we say that of furry-related materials?
>Error: You have misplaced two terms. Mainstream animation made a decision
>to support anime fandom, and it's helped a little. Always remember: The
>biggest market for anime is *not* the United States of America. The biggest
>market for anime is *Japan*, I repeat, *Japan*, as in the country that
>*produces* it.
Anime is currently made with the American secondary market in mind,
simply because we are such a huge consumer. Back in the beginning, a
few shows made it to the US because it was cheaper to shred an
existing show and write your own dialogue than to animate one
yourself. We'd still be seeing that today if it wasn't for the anime
community demanding decent translations and having phenomenal growth
over the past decade. Anime fandom isn't a couple people huddled in
the dark in front of a TV anymore, it's a worldwide phenomenon that
you can see on virtually any TV channel, in any video store, in any
bookstore, etc.
>Yes, and all imported. America isn't making any, aside from brief attempts
>like "SwatKats". And please note I said *NEW*. Most of the stuff they send
>to us has been canceled.
No such thing as cancellation in Japan, really. Most shows have a
closed-ended run. They tell the story and it's over. We are getting
things that are still in production in Japan though, such as Inu Yasha
and Sonic X, as well as others are still running on Japanese TV,
albeit much farther ahead than we are.
To date, we haven't had a reason to do a lot of *NEW* stuff, although
you can look at Teen Titans and Samauri Jack and see the anime
influences.
>Especially since it was all done by one man who sold them the series. Steak
>Tartare-kofsky, anybody? It has limited animation and is almost completely
>episodic in structure, but it sells.
Yup, it sells. Blame the limited animation on Ren and Stimpy, that's
the show that proved that the American animation watcher would put up
with crap animation drawn by infants barely capable of holding a
crayon. How does that change anything though? Cartoon Network *IS*
making new cartoons.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>You seem to have missed the web-cite that referred to them as idealizing
>fictional women, and a previous reference to a murder. But do continue...
Please do point us to MTV programs on "anime sexuality" and Vanity
Fair spreads on how idealizing fictional women is a new kink. We'll
wait.
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>I agree with everything you are saying here, but I just want to make
>sure...are you SURE that the quantity of furry porn way back when was
>larger than in the anime scene? I imagine a lot of that hentai was just
>over in japan. Or has that grown overall?
It's hard to say really. Back in the "good old days", there was no
Internet so all distribution of artwork, stories, etc. was done by
snail mail in the form of fanzines and APAs. I'm sure there were porn
anime fanzines in the US, just like furry had "Q", I just don't
remember seeing any of them or hearing about them in anime circles.
The kind of art that appeared in "Q" was very tame, I'm sure they
wouldn't have printed the vast majority of the spooge nonsense we see
today.
As for Japan, they had tons of doujinshi that were, just like ours,
xeroxed fanzines, but they seemed to have a much larger distribution.
I remember seeing "catalogs" of doujinshi that you could order, with
several dozen shows being represented. I really don't know how it
actually was in Japan, whether these things were widely available in
bookstores or whatnot.
>This is one of the major differences when Anime gets brought up that I
>would like a lot more info on. Anime fans like japanese cartoons. To the
>Japanese - In japan, its got to come across differently correct? At least
>somewhat? Anime fans in the states would be like big Disney fans over in
>japan. (??)
There are tons of huge Disney fans in Japan. In fact, Disney was one
of the major influences on early anime back in the 60s, that's where
the big eyes came from. To be honest, Japanese fans loved anything
American. When we were trading video back in the 80s, they'd tape
anime off TV for us, and we'd send them Three's Company and Charlie's
Angels.
>So Anime in japan is not a seperate thing is it? In the states its
>considered a whole different thing.
It's part of their culture. They don't see animation as being just
for kids like we do, they have animation showing on prime-time
television, released in the theater, etc. regularly.
Pepper
> "Pepper" <peppe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9213a070.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > You're getting way too technical here. The point is the anime fandom
> > in the US has flourished MUCH more and mocked FAR less than furries
> > are - end of story. I've read a whole lot of anti-anime stuff on the
> > net. The absolute worst anyone believes about otaku is that they
> > behave very annoyingly and obsessively watch too much.
>
> You seem to have missed the web-cite that referred to them as idealizing
> fictional women, and a previous reference to a murder. But do continue...
Yeah, I think star trek, star wars, b5, SF, Harry Potter... hm just
about ANY fandom has this exact same "problem" with fictional women
worship. Even non-SF fandoms have this. EVERY media fandom does,
they are all the same. Yes, I've seen PLENTY of anti-anime sentiment,
including what you've pointed out. But that is nowhere near as bad as
what most people assume about furry, that they are weirdos who all
think they are animals and/or are sexually attracted to them... or
just any other horrible thing furries get accused of being/doing.
> Considering how much work the reporters had to put in to skew it that way,
> you'll forgive me a bit of grudging respect. Interviewing half a convention
> to find the five people that say sensational things must be tiring...
This is not about what you think about the fandom, mr. denial, nor
does it have to do with what we both know is the truth (that furries
are by and large fine folk who are fairly normal). No, this
discussion is about what OTHER people think of both fandoms, their
REPUTATION.
Most people think anime fans are geeks, but for the most part they are
widely accepted by US society in spite of that. Positive press about
the anime fandom abounds more than negative. It flourishes SO much
that there is literally almost 2 anime cons somewhere in the US per
each weekend. (http://www.anime-cons.com/events) Paramount's kings
dominion theme park even has an anime day. Yeah, people are obviously
hating on those guys for being obsessed with cartoon women - NOT.
I've been reading that pressedfur that was mentioned here. All the
major press about furries has been either 1. negative or 2. attempting
to be positive yet despite its best efforts still portrays furries as
oddballs anyway. And there is shockingly very little press about the
art and comics side of furry fandom. And for god's sake, each entry
in it has to have a rating for how pro or con the media is! Who in
their right minds would do that if not for the fear that the subject
is controversial and/or easily mocked or easily seen as strange by
others?
And again, it's this reputation that keeps furry down, keeps it from
getting well-deserved respect. I think it would be great if people
saw furries and just thought, 'hey, just another group of okay
people', or if furries didn't have to worry about people being
intolerant of them. I feel the same way about any group of people who
get misinterpreted a lot. All I'm saying is be realistic. Not
negative - realistic.
I think the other chap summed it up better than I could though.
Wanderer
<snip... and yes, there *was* porn anime, called hentai, in the Japanese
market>
> >You've never heard of the picture of Ariel without her seashells, have
> >you?:>
<snip>
> Of course. I have a pretty decent collection of Disney fan art,
> ranging from G to X-rated. But you don't find Disney doing that kind
> of work, do you?
<snip>
Um, the picture to which I refer hangs on a Disney animator's wall. Because
he drew it.:>
Yours wolfishly,
The grinning,
Wanderer
news:9213a070.04012...@posting.google.com...
> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:<101702s...@corp.supernews.com>...
way,
> > you'll forgive me a bit of grudging respect. Interviewing half a
convention
> > to find the five people that say sensational things must be tiring...
>
> This is not about what you think about the fandom, mr. denial, nor
> does it have to do with what we both know is the truth (that furries
> are by and large fine folk who are fairly normal). No, this
> discussion is about what OTHER people think of both fandoms, their
> REPUTATION.
>
<cocks head> Considering I was reciting what came from eyewitnesses of
media behavior at furry conventions, I'll thank you to keep that "Mr.
Denial" label someone so thoughtfully affixed to your backside, dear boy.
Yours politely (if only just),
Pepper
wrote:
>"Pepper" <peppe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:9213a070.04012...@posting.google.com...
>> "Wanderer" <wand...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
>news:<101702s...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>> Considering how much work the reporters had to put in to skew it thatway,
> > you'll forgive me a bit of grudging respect. Interviewing half a
>>>convention
>>> to find the five people that say sensational things must be tiring...
>>
>> This is not about what you think about the fandom, mr. denial, nor
>> does it have to do with what we both know is the truth (that furries
>> are by and large fine folk who are fairly normal). No, this
>> discussion is about what OTHER people think of both fandoms, their
>> REPUTATION.
>>
><cocks head> Considering I was reciting what came from eyewitnesses of
>media behavior at furry conventions, I'll thank you to keep that "Mr.
>Denial" label someone so thoughtfully affixed to your backside, dear boy.
No, no, you still don't get it. I'll just give up after this. I
dated a CBS news reporter, I know the business. Yes, that is exactly
how the press works. Unfortunately for your wildly off target
comment, that is absolutely not what I've been talking about, and in
fact it only helps my argument.
My argument was about the reputation of furry fandom and how the
skewed press affects it, the skewed press that we both very obviously
know about.
Final time: furry gets bad press and has a bad rep. other fandoms get
much better press and have better reps. There are exceptions but that
is the general overall outlook. tv, magazines, whatever. that's it,
that's all I've been saying.
You've skirted, ignored, or misinterpreted all the issues and
arguments I put forth, responded with things that have nothing to do
with the things I talk about.. but I expect no more answers anyway.
You may continue to live in your dreamworld, and since I never had any
intention of hurting anyone, I'll take my leave.
For everyone else except this chap, you all gave absolutely wonderful
answers and I'll have you know you all really helped me quite a lot.
I thank you all. May furry prosper.
Wanderer
Put bluntly, Pepper, I have watched the fandoms be cycled through one at a
time by the media... and, as your former SO should have told you, everything
comes in for its fair share.
After Columbine, fans of Doom and other first-person shooters were blasted
for "obvious tendencies to violence". Goths were suddenly the object of
real fear just because the Columbine shooters wore black.
For a long time, starting in the 70's, role-playing game players were the
focus. They were crazy, psychotic, delusional or suicidal, depending on
whether your source had been reading B.A.D.D. literature, "Mazes and
Monsters", or the latest report of "role-playing-game linked" crimes, up to
and including a robbery/murder in a strip mall (declared role-playing
connected by virtue of the one store that carried such games).
Currently, furry fandom may be credited with having captured MTV's
imagination long enough to get bad publicity. After all, we offer people in
costumes, funny terminology, and a random sampling of some of the naughty
bits. Better, because we throw animals into the mix, they can try to link
us with bestiality, throw in sex toys for a little kick, and ramble
aimlessly about the amorous possibilities of fursuits. And all wrapped up
in a neat little convention, ready for taping and drastic editing. (And
then they *still* had to pad out the program with crush fetishes... guess
we're not quite kinky enough.)
Over time, many fandoms have been connected with stalkers, murders, rapes
and mutilations. Because we hover at a reasonably safe size for them to
attack, they need never fear that we will get air time to dispute them... at
least, in prime time. (I'm holding out for Oprah.;) Therefore, they may
freely capitalize on the MTV special's information to provide sensational
splashes of half-truth.
Now, as for our reputation: At this time, we have very little reputation.
The MTV special was titled Sex2K... we're not going to draw the kiddie crowd
with that one. CSI had a better chance, and actually managed (by virtue of
a few furs' efforts) to put a better focus on the fandom than the source
material did. Put bluntly, however, we're just not weird enough to capture
the spotlight for long... we have a vanishingly small percentage of extreme
vices in the fandom, and if you remove the fursuit, we're not visually
interesting, either. Therefore, at this time we have no true
"reputation"... we're still an unknown quantity to Mr. and Mrs. John Q.
Public, and are likely to remain so for some time.
In short, we have been blasted by a tiny percentage of shows to a tiny
percentage of viewers, and most of the world neither knows nor cares about
furry fandom. So if you want to join the teensy little crowd of screaming
panic in worrying about the reputation of furry fandom that has not yet been
formed, go right ahead. I'll just keep telling people that we're all about
cartoon animals, real animals, and a love of both. That some of us even
like to dress up like animals. And that we write stories and draw pictures
about such animals. I'll keep telling little boys and girls that we like
Bugs Bunny and Scooby, Teacher's Pet and JoJo's Circus, PB&J Otter and Bear
in the Big Blue House. I'll keep inviting people to look at the beautiful
artwork, enjoy the lovely costumes, and have fun among my friends and peers.
So you can scream about furry's reputation all you want.
I'm doing something to shape it.
Yours having tired of your yelling,
Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony
> I've been reading that pressedfur that was mentioned here. All the
> major press about furries has been either 1. negative or 2. attempting
> to be positive yet despite its best efforts still portrays furries as
> oddballs anyway.
This is more a result of Pressed Fur not keeping their
editorializations away from the articles than a problem with the
articles themselves. The fact is that Pressed Fur, while a good
resource for articles, habitually trivializes or ignores the positive
coverage we have gotten.
Repeat, with feeling this time: The positive coverage we _have_
gotten.
Like this one:
http://www.jimhillmedia.com/articles/guest/colton.02032003.1.htm
And this one:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry/trivalley.htm
And this one:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry/olympian.htm
And this one:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry/furries.htm
And this one:
http://www.xydexx.com/anthrofurry/pri_interview_fc.mp3
There have been others, too. Just because the fandom doesn't put the
positive coverage we've gotten in the spotlight doesn't mean we don't
get any.
I'm almost tempted to include "When Weirdos Get Together" there, just
to tweak the noses of folks who equate being "odd" with "bad."
Hell, why not? It's one of my favorite articles anyway:
http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/humanity/weirdos.html
--
______________________________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen http://www.xydexx.com
Xydexx Squeakypony http://xydexx.livejournal.com
"When weirdos get together they order pineapple pizza."
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>Um, the picture to which I refer hangs on a Disney animator's wall. Because
>he drew it.:>
And you be sure to let us know when the Walt Disney Company releases
it officially, okay?
iBuck
>And again, it's this reputation that keeps furry down, keeps it from
>getting well-deserved respect.
The problem is that that reputation -does not describe the reality- so what do
you do to fix the reputation, without disturbing the reality unnescarrilly..
>I think the other chap summed it up better than I could though.
The problem with Mr. Henderson's veiwpoint is that he presumes the reputation
is the reality, and proposes measures from that point to alter the reality.
Wanderer
<raises eyebrow> What, and spoil a collector's item?:> Couldn't resist.
Anyway, I'm being mildly silly. While Ariel doesn't have herseashells on in
the picture, she's got her arms crossed to hide the obvious. The picture
sprang... er, arose... er, came up... (there is no good way to put this, is
there?) after the animators on "The Little Mermaid" discussed what was
holding Ariel's seashell bra in place.:)
Yours wolfishly,
The ever-loving,
Wanderer
news:24feb113.04012...@posting.google.com...
Widge (Rat): "... it was only half of Europe..."
"... and (the flying fox) is now hugging our interviewer"
<GLUMPH>
Interviewer: "Don't eat my microphone!"
HAAAAhahahahahaaaa... !:D
> There have been others, too. Just because the fandom doesn't put the
> positive coverage we've gotten in the spotlight doesn't mean we don't
> get any.
>
> I'm almost tempted to include "When Weirdos Get Together" there, just
> to tweak the noses of folks who equate being "odd" with "bad."
>
> Hell, why not? It's one of my favorite articles anyway:
> http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/humanity/weirdos.html
>
"And if they're like me then - come the last night of the party - it won't
be the puppet show, comic books, costumes, guests of honor, art gallery or
sketchbooks which they'll miss, but rather that omnipresent hum of fourteen
hundred other people who didn't need a lengthy exposition to understand why
you thought Maid Marion was kinda hot in Disney's Robin Hood."
Good positive media experiences, O inflatable one.:) (A real hoot
sometimes, too.;) I especially appreciated the interview with Uncle Kage.
Now if only they'll interview *me*... :>
Yours with a silly streak,
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>In fact, my words were exact. The store in
>question carries only what anyone who'd ever
>talked to an otaku would tell them to buy:
Guess I feel grateful to live in Toledo, Ohio with a good number of
stores to choose from.
>The anime with the most fanservice. If you want
>"Maze", with its tentacle hentai, sure. But you can
>forget "My Neighbor Totoro" and "Kiki's Delivery
>Service"... I think "Mononoke Hime" showed up
>once about ten years ago, and never again.
At least I got to see it in the theatres once in town (my city rarely
gets too many indie/foreign flicks, but they've been doing better
lately).
>No "Ruin Hunters", no "Hyper Police", not even
>"Starship Yamato" (and they carry the toys for
>that!). Even Robotech doesn't show up on the
>anime shelf.
You must mean "Uchuu Senkan Yamato" (Space Battleship Yamato), or as
some would call it under it's English dubbed name, "Star Blazers". I
was grateful to see a few stores with Star Blazers and Robotech vids for
sale.
>You begin to see what I'm dealing with...
>Yours wolfishly,
>The worn-out,
>Wanderer
If I wanted to really bridge the gap between furry and anime, I've kinda
been thinking in my head what a furry version of "Star Blazers" might
look like. ^_^
From the Master of Car-too-nal Knowledge...
Christopher M. Sobieniak
--"Fightin' the Frizzies since 1978"--
Chris Sobieniak
wrote:
>Its really a goddamn shame. Furry fandom really
>could have expanded anthropomorphics as a
>whole (disney style cartoons, but more adult
>oriented, funny-animal comics books etc.), similiar
>to the way Anime fandom helped fund and grow
>japanese animation in the states.
Pretty much how I wished it was too.
>Now you got cartoon channels playing them
>regularly, you got translated manga at Media Play
My Media Play already has a whole section devoted to manga/anime,
including snacks like Pocky.
>(practically at Wal-Mart at this point)...
Well I haven't spotted any at my Wal-Mart, but I have seen both Shonen
Jump and Raijin Comics being sold at the newstands of Kroger's
Supermarkets (I consider that a great accomplishment).
>Im sure back in the early 80's that vision would
>have been looked on as impossible.
Probably, though it seems that some European countries have beat us to
this already. We're just catching up now.
>In fact thinking about it, I'd like to someday look
>into what exactly was going on in the comic
>industry at the time of that funny-animal boom that
>was going on in the 80's before the black & whites
>imploded. While it would be impossible to tell, Id
>like to know who largely was buying this stuff.
I kinda miss those innocent days when I'd be walking down to the lil'
corner drug store and buy an issue or two of some Disney comic I liked
for under a buck. Too bad they don't sell them like that anymore
(mostly confined to comic shops where I come off feeling very geeky in).
Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony
> In short, we have been blasted by a tiny percentage of shows to a tiny
> percentage of viewers, and most of the world neither knows nor cares about
> furry fandom.
I'm in the mood the bury a few "furban legends," as it were, like that
CSI was this great Hiroshima Cluehammer that was going to destroy the
fandom forever because "now everyone will think we're perverts".
In reality, most folks who watch CSI regularly pretty much lost
interest in it once next week's episode rolled around. Some Valuable
Perspective can be gained from the Google Groups search I did from
September 1-November 30, 2003:
References to "CSI" on alt.fan.furry: 909
References to "furry" on alt.tv.csi: 31
The phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind.
There's another quote I like, too... the one about how you wouldn't
care so much about what your neighbor thought of you if you knew how
rarely he did. Something like that. It's late. -:)
It's sort of like the oft-quoted (but false) claim that Trekkies,
X-Filers, Lovecrafters all call Furries "skunkf*ckers." I remember
asking one of the Big Complainers about it once, about how often it
happened. "Once was enough," he said. Yeah, okay, but it hardly
seems like an epidemic. So I did a little further digging on Google
Groups to see how big of a problem this actually was. I mean, if all
these folks called us that, it should appear online, right? Imagine my
surprise when the overwhelming majority of hits came from
ALT.FAN.FURRY.
Like mayonnaise in an elevator at a furry con, we complain about it
more than it actually happens.
Yep, that's right. Trekkies, X-Filers, Lovecrafters are actually
pretty decent folks, and the _only_ people who are clueless enough to
call furries "skunkf*ckers" these days are Michael Hirtes and Ken
Pick. So that's another "furban legend" we can finally put to rest.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen http://www.xydexx.com
Xydexx Squeakypony http://xydexx.livejournal.com
"Stranger things have happened. I'll probably get blamed for them."
mouse
news:4015fe18...@news.verizon.net:
> arguments I put forth, responded with things that have nothing to do
> with the things I talk about.. but I expect no more answers anyway.
Thats all these guys ever do. ANYTHING to get away from the truth
Brian Henderson
>The problem with Mr. Henderson's veiwpoint is that he presumes the reputation
>is the reality, and proposes measures from that point to alter the reality.
In a lot of ways, it doesn't matter. Furry presents a public face to
the world and unfortunately, that public face isn't very pretty. Even
ignoring the bad press, which is certainly biased, we still have
people who are willing to jump up and down in front of a camera and
declare to the world that boinking badgers is what furry fandom is all
about. No matter how bad of a spin the news media might put on it,
without someone willing to stand there wearing fake teeth and claiming
to be a werewolf, their stories will go nowhere.
The problem is, there isn't a credible response to these morons from
the fandom itself. Nobody is willing to stand up and publically say
that these idiots are full of it. Certainly we know we're not going
to get on television with an opposing view, but you can certainly have
an upswelling of support for what furry fandom really is, and here's a
hint, it isn't a fetish factory, it isn't about screwing sheep, it
isn't about delusional idiots who think they have the heart of a
horse. It's about the enjoyment of anthropomorphics.
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
[...]
> This is more a result of Pressed Fur not keeping their
> editorializations away from the articles than a problem with the
> articles themselves.
Have pressed fur been updating? I've seen alot of furry related
articals that haven't been added.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
iBuck
>the fandom itself. Nobody is willing to stand up and publically say
>that these idiots are full of it.
Bullshit, It gets said -all the time- when furry's rep comes up in
discussion...
Where do you want to see it so that it's somehow official?
iBuck
>hint, it isn't a fetish factory, it isn't about screwing sheep, it
>isn't about delusional idiots who think they have the heart of a
>horse.
Funny, you'd never know it from listening to you talk, damn near every comment
out of your mouth is you proclaiming that that -is- what the furry fandom is,
and that's why you're not in it anymore... The problem is that that -isn't-
what the fandom is. Yeah we have some weirdos, with some sideline intrests like
what you've described, but can you at least conssider the posibility that they
have an intrests in anthropormorphics -too-.
If you want to see the people who are perpetuating the fandom's bad image, you
don't have to go any farther than your own mirror... YOU ARE AS MUCH A
PROBLEM TO THE FANDOMS REPUTATION AS CSI OR MTV OR VANITY FAIR...
>It's about the enjoyment of anthropomorphics.
Well, duh, you finally woke up to that, and realied it's about anthros, not
about being commercially sucessfull, or mainstream, having blocks of programing
on the cartoon network...
Brian Henderson
>Bullshit, It gets said -all the time- when furry's rep comes up in
>discussion...
In Usenet. Sure, that's a credible response. Where are the
consequences of acting like a moron in front of a camera?
Oh... you want to come to my convention? Hey, as long as you've got
the cash, I don't care how much of an idiot you've made us look like
or how much you've hurt the fandom, come on in!
iBuck
And in conversation with freinds and family with other congoers at a SF or
Gaming Con....
Or don't you ever stand up, and tell those "people you respect" that they're
wrong about what the fandom is about? I doubt it, you're too busy confirming
and building on it with your tales of years ago events...
I wore my pawboots to Ubercon back last November I think, the only comment I
got was "Those look like they hurt..."
>Where are the
>consequences of acting like a moron in front of a camera?
What should they be, other than -looking- like a moron, in front of a national
audiance ?
>I don't care how much of an idiot you've made us look like
>or how much you've hurt the fandom, come on in!
So what do we do to the guy who endlessly expounds on how bad the fandom is,
with it's fetistists, plushfskers, beastiality, and pedophilia?
But then you don't go to cons anyway....
Dan Skunk
"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in message
news:m31xpud...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> writes:
>
> > "? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote in
message
> > news:m3zncjd...@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
> [...]
>
> > > I don't think that this is the case. There are plenty of fans in the
> > > fandom and we seem to keep picking up more. The split isn't as
> > > concrete as one would seem to think. There are plenty of fannish
> > > lifestylers and lots of lifestylerish fans.
> > >
> > I suppose someone could be a lifestyler and a fan, yes. By "fan" I was
> > refering to people who are fans only.
>
> I feel that is an overly restrictive defition.
>
Perhaps.
> [...]
>
> > Like you have your "normal, well
> > adjusted, mature, human beings sharing an appreciation of
anthropomorphic
> > art being annoyed by a bunch of psychotic social misfits
>
> But not all "psychotic social misfits" are lifestylers and equally not
> all fans are properly socialized.
>
I know. Just illustrating an example. Put together a few bits and pieces
of things I've heard.
Dan Skunk
Not just about anthropomorphics to me or anyone I've met in person.
Why not just call yourself an anthropomorphic fan instead of a furry. No
one should misunderstand that.
iBuck
>one should misunderstand that.
>
A Rose by any other name...
Because it's self defined, you can't stop the twinks from calling themselves
Anthropormorphic fans also (Some of them god forbid actually -are-), or people
recognizing that the two are pretty much the same and because 'Furry" makes a
better buzzword...
And because he's unwilling to work to promote the furry stuff he likes, he'd
rather spend his efforts frothing about throwing people out of the fandom...
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
news:20040131105224...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Why not just call yourself an anthropomorphic fan instead of a furry. No
> >one should misunderstand that.
> >
>
> A Rose by any other name...
>
> Because it's self defined, you can't stop the twinks from calling
themselves
> Anthropormorphic fans also (Some of them god forbid actually -are-), or
people
> recognizing that the two are pretty much the same and because 'Furry"
makes a
> better buzzword...
>
"Anthropomorphic" sounds more professional to me.
> And because he's unwilling to work to promote the furry stuff he likes,
he'd
> rather spend his efforts frothing about throwing people out of the
fandom...
Heh.
That would seem to be more constructive than ranting and raving. I wouldn't
even know there was a problem if not of all the ranting and raving.
Also, it seems like it's really only a handfull of individuals and isolated
events that are a problem, but all the people ranting and raving about it
makes it seem like an epidemic--one would almost expect a furry conventions
to be full of furverts screwing in halls with how much people carry on about
it--even though that's not the way it is at all.
Xydexx The Silly Squeaky Pony
> In Usenet. Sure, that's a credible response. Where are the
> consequences of acting like a moron in front of a camera?
1. Google archives these messages forever, so anyone doing a search on
"furry" will find them, and
2. folks who read this newsgroup decide they don't want to attend
furry conventions because of your misrepresentations of them.
You can't say that TV coverage gives us a bad image, and then say
echoing that bad image on Usenet doesn't. This is the first place
folks will see when searching newsgroups for information about furry
fandom. What image are you presenting to them?
Stop being so selfish and think about how your actions affect others.
Dan Skunk
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wulf...@dm.net> wrote in message
news:h1uo10hmmnbciqibk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:10:56 GMT, "Dan Skunk" <_@rogers.com> (Dan Skunk)
> left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>
>
> > I don't think people would recognize the two as being the same thing.
> > "Anthropomorphic" sounds more professional to me.
> >
> the Talking Toaster from Red Dwarf, and the yellow smiley that does the
> price cuts for some hardware store...
>
Oh yeah. That's right too. Oops.
Brian Henderson
>Why not just call yourself an anthropomorphic fan instead of a furry. No
>one should misunderstand that.
Because it doesn't really matter what you call yourself. I am a fan
of anthropomorphics. In the vernacular, that's exactly the same as
saying you're a furry fan.
Dan Skunk
I don't know. I'm just thinking if you tell people you're a fan of
anthropomorphic animal art, you might get a different reaction than if you
tell people you're a furry.
iBuck
>anthropomorphic animal art, you might get a different reaction than if you
>tell people you're a furry.
Yes, you'll get a look of confusion... which will then be followed by an
explanation.. which will lead to the following line...
"Oh, you're a furry!"
Dan Skunk
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
lol. From my experience people don't know what a furry is.
I told my mom about it and she remembered it from CSI by didn't remember the
word.