Newbie Furry (insight and questions) ^_^
Angel Ryan
I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
books. After serching various web pages, I found out quite a bit about
the world of "furry fandom", and after reading Furnation's post of "You
Know You're a Furry Fan When..." (which I found both funny and
disturbing), I found myself more than a little intrigued.
The world of "furry" art is a strange one... But one which has most
assuredly caught my eye. Gazing upon the art form's portraits and
drawings, it seems as if there is so much more than just a picture of an
antrhopomorphosized animal. Beyond the surface, one can sense a mixing of
conflicting forces which coexist. (Seriously... Hear me out) On one end,
there's a childish sense of fantasy and imagination which manifests
itself in a fascination of animals and other foreign creatures. This is
indeed a childish ideal. Children at play are often pretending to be
animals (Both wild, and domestic), and afterall, what child has never
wished to be a cat, or a dog, or a bird? But... On the other end lay the
adult ideals and needs. The idea of communication and the need to
communicate with one another through speech... The idea of pride and the
need to work... The idea of justice and the need to enfoce what is right
and condemn what is wrong... etc. These ideals are all then incorporated
into the art form as well, giving it a sense of reality. Afterall, if a
creature exhibits human qualities, shouldn't it exist in a human
environment. Thus, it isn't enough for "furry creatures" to be able to
walk and talk. They also communicate intelligently, obtain employment,
pay bills, raise families, and even fall in and out of love... All of
which are real adult ideals, but... Which are made possible in through a
childlike respect for imagination and fantasy. Hence, two forces which
seem to oppose one another somehow coexist rather beautifully.
Clearly I have at least some interest and respect for such an art form.
But, despite all of the resources on "furries", there are still a few
things which I don't quite understand.
For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
"furry" and something that isn't? It's obvious that the
anthropomorphosized animals depicted in various children's cartoons are
"furries", but what about when you get more complex. I have come to
understand that even reptiles and *aliens* can in some ways be considered
"furries". Well, what about fish? If a fish was given human atributes
(No, not like a mermaid) would it be considered a "furry"? (In such a
case, the creature from the black lagoon would be a "furry"...)
Furthermore, if the only trait that limits a organism from being a
"furry" is that it be a living creature, then what is said about insects?
My initial inclination is to say that a human-like insect would NOT be a
"furry"... But... Then I think of a character like "Zipper" from the
"Rescue Rangers", and I'm not sure anymore. Getting even more complex,
what about things like amoebas and such? If an amoeba is given human
characteristics (Which has actually been done before by Gary Larsen)
would that amoeba be considered a "furry" of sorts? Could then someone's
"personal furry" be something along the lines of 'Amy Amoeba'?!?
My second question is far less complex. One of the things posted on "You
Know You're a Furry Fan When..." was:
- You know what 'yiff' means.
"YiFF", I understand is the sound a fox makes. (And I was furthermore
informed that it must be written exactly that way when used as a
statement... "YiFF") But, while running a search on a search engine, I
noticed a strong connection between that word and the um... Erotic side
of "furry" art... I doubt that this is a coincidence due to a particular
picture which depicted two foxes in several provocative positions with
the quote, "YiFF HARD... YiFF LONG..." written below. Can anyone shed
some light on this? And one more thing...
How does a yiff sound anyway? Is it pronounced sharply, the way "arf!" is
pronounced in a dog's bark? Or is it less of a word, and more of a sound?
(In which case, it would be more of a whisper... *YiFF*... Sorta like the
wind) Anyone know?
A wave file would be greatly appreciated! Heh... YiFF.wav
And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks? Not that I'm complaining...
Heh... I just wonder why its so. You could even do searches on the words,
"foxette" and "skunkette" (Don't try "vixen") and you will get more than
a few links. Though this category also includes one or two bunnies, a
cat, and a sultry mink, any combination of those words would not yield
similar results. I think I'm right here... Anyone have any insight?
Well... I guess I've taken enough of your time. Any responses I get will
be greatly appreciated (With or without answers). However, for those that
do respond, please send the response to my e-mail adress written below:
Thank you.
,Angel Ryan
--------------------------------------------------
"Ah... Fifi La Fume... Stinkly irresistable!" ^_^
--------------------------------------------------
Michael Russell (Netcom)
(( Posted to sender and group. ))
Howdy,
Welcome to the fun world of "furry" ...
> I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
> anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
Furry fans come from all areas. I discovered "furry" from
my love of funny animal animation/cartoons. And, a little
influence from the classic animal-based satire and stories,
such as Aesop's Fables, the Reynard stories, CS Lewis's
Narnia stories, and others.
> The world of "furry" art is a strange one...
It is. It covers all types of media, representations, and
forms. It goes from giving a little human characteristics
to animal or inanimate objects to giving a lot. Stories
cover the whole area of the written word -- from comedy
to drama, from adventure to horror, from teaching to
just mindless entertainment.
> For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
> "furry" and something that isn't?
This varies.
For some, "furry" is just a shorthand for "anthropomorphic". So,
for those who like this definition, a toaster, a lamp, a bug,
a car, a fox, a centaur, are all "furry".
For some, "furry" is a subset of "anthropomorphic" that limits
itself to just animals (real or fantasy). For those who like
this definition, a bug, a fox, a centaur are all "furry".
Finally, for some, "furry" is limited to just mammals and maybe
birds. Basically the animals that often appear in cartoons.
For those in this group, a fox and a centaur are "furry".
For me, I tend to use "furry" for anthropomorphic animals
(real and fantasy) and "anthropomorphic" for human characteristics
given to inanimate objects (car, toaster, etc).
> understand that even reptiles and *aliens* can in some ways be considered
> "furries". Well, what about fish?
It varies by the individual. Some would say "yes", some say "no".
Would the fish that the Don Knotts character turns into in the
Mr Limpett movie be considered a "furry"? This would be a case
of human-animal transformation. And, I know many consider these
(such as the classic werewolf and werefox transforms) as part
of the "furry" world.
I would consider fish in the fold of "furry".
> Furthermore, if the only trait that limits a organism from being a
> "furry" is that it be a living creature, then what is said about insects?
Insects are living creatures.
I would consider insects in the fold of "furry". Not a commonn
one.
Before I continue, I should point out that one major factor in
what animals appear as "furries" is something that wildlife
management experts call "The Cuddle Factor". It turns out
that most people associate with animal species that have a
high level of this "cuddle factor". This "factor" was first
discovered when the wildlife management agents noticed that
people would defend certain wildlife and ignore others.
> what about things like amoebas and such? If an amoeba is given human
> characteristics (Which has actually been done before by Gary Larsen)
> would that amoeba be considered a "furry" of sorts?
In my view of "furry", YES.
> Could then someone's
> "personal furry" be something along the lines of 'Amy Amoeba'?!?
Sure, why not!
> the quote, "YiFF HARD... YiFF LONG..." written below. Can anyone shed
> some light on this? And one more thing...
I haven't followed the evolution of "YiFF".
> And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
> revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks? Not that I'm complaining...
I haven't figured this one out, either.
My guess is that skunks are popular "sex objects" because of
the legacy of the ultimate romantic -- Pepe LePew. Those who
like the determination of Pepe have converted this into the
ultimate receptiveness of the sex craved skunkettes.
Regarding foxes, my guess is: (1) the appearance -- there is
just something attractive in the cat-like canine's colouring
and appearance, (2) the distortion on the word, "vixen", and
(3) popularity.
What I find funny is that both of these species, in reality,
only have sex once a year and are only in "heat" for a period
of a couple days.
On the otherhand, because rabbits go into "heat" immediately
after producing a litter, rabbits do make a better target
for those wanting to represent sex in their artwork.
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Ah... Fifi La Fume... Stinkly irresistable!" ^_^
> --------------------------------------------------
Oh, another Fifi LaFume fan! Coolness!
While I am a fox fan-atic, I think Fifi is really cute.
I've got a ton of animation cels with her.
--
Cheers - Mike "Flafox"
Staying "Tiny Toon'd" its:
Michael Russell # AS/400, AIX, and Multimedia
IBM Global Services # E-mail: mrus...@ix.netcom.com
Orlando, FL # or msru...@us.ibm.com
"The World of Vicki Fox" # http://people.delphi.com/msrussell
S. arsenault
Angel Ryan wrote in message ...
>I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
>anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
>books. After serching various web pages, I
>Well... I guess I've taken enough of your time. Any responses I get will
>be greatly appreciated (With or without answers). However, for those that
>do respond, please send the response to my e-mail adress written below:
>
>,Angel Ryan
>
yipes... no offense, but that's more deep insight to furry fandom right
there than i've made in my whole life... or care to think about. :)
There's some of us artists and writers out there, m'self included, that just
think it's neat to make funny animal cartoons an' stories.
in any case.. Welcome, Angel! Have an ice cream samwich!
S. arsenault - sully @ rat.org
Tales of the Fehnnik / heebas
Aetobatus
In article <MPG.f62f574d...@news.ucla.edu>,
Angel Ryan <it...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
>anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
>books. After serching various web pages, I found out quite a bit about
>the world of "furry fandom", and after reading Furnation's post of "You
>Know You're a Furry Fan When..." (which I found both funny and
>disturbing), I found myself more than a little intrigued.
I looked all over furnation and couldn't find this, but it sounds
interesting... Do you have a URL for it? Without seeing it, though,
I can imagine what it's like; I often find myself both amazed and
shocked at some of the stuff I encounter, and find very interesting. :>
I spent a long time denying furryness, and thinks I prefer to just
accept it now.
>The world of "furry" art is a strange one... But one which has most
I'd think one could say that about all art, or at least a large
portion of it. At least in my view, creativity goes hand in hand with
individuality.
>assuredly caught my eye. Gazing upon the art form's portraits and
>drawings, it seems as if there is so much more than just a picture of an
>antrhopomorphosized animal. Beyond the surface, one can sense a mixing of
>conflicting forces which coexist. (Seriously... Hear me out) On one end,
[...]
I think that's a very good statement of "furry" in general, in some
ways. It is something which the bulk of the population would qualify
as "childish" at best, though sometimes I'd have to question if being
childish isn't always a bad thing. What you are saying about the
"conflicting forces" isn't entirely unlike how I sometimes feel in general.
>For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
>"furry" and something that isn't? It's obvious that the
>anthropomorphosized animals depicted in various children's cartoons are
>"furries", but what about when you get more complex. I have come to
>understand that even reptiles and *aliens* can in some ways be considered
*Aeto preens his scales* They sure can!
>"furries". Well, what about fish? If a fish was given human atributes
>(No, not like a mermaid) would it be considered a "furry"? (In such a
>case, the creature from the black lagoon would be a "furry"...)
I always point people to Xydexx's page,
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm, though there's something I
just stumbled across recently, http://www.furry.com/whatisff.htm. On
top of that is the difference between the folks who are fans of furry
stuff, and those who consider "furry" a part of their mentality, or
some combination of the two.
In short, though, I think it is pretty universally accepted that
furries don't have to have fur. The alt.fan.dragons newsgroup once
debated what makes something a dragon; ultimately the best answer we
could give was "you are a dragon if you say you are." One could
potentially say the same about furries, perhaps.
>Furthermore, if the only trait that limits a organism from being a
>"furry" is that it be a living creature, then what is said about insects?
>My initial inclination is to say that a human-like insect would NOT be a
>"furry"... But... Then I think of a character like "Zipper" from the
>"Rescue Rangers", and I'm not sure anymore. Getting even more complex,
>what about things like amoebas and such? If an amoeba is given human
>characteristics (Which has actually been done before by Gary Larsen)
>would that amoeba be considered a "furry" of sorts? Could then someone's
>"personal furry" be something along the lines of 'Amy Amoeba'?!?
Or John the Germ? Sure, I suppose. :>
>My second question is far less complex. One of the things posted on "You
>Know You're a Furry Fan When..." was:
>
>- You know what 'yiff' means.
That's certainly one aspect of the furry fandom, though it is worth
mentioning not ALL furs are particularly yiffy... Not that there's
anything wrong with some yiffiness now and then, but I think it is
always worth mentioning that there's lots out there good to be seen by
a "general audience." Places like SCFA (www.rat.org) certainly
couldn't exist if that weren't the case.
>
>"YiFF", I understand is the sound a fox makes. (And I was furthermore
>informed that it must be written exactly that way when used as a
>statement... "YiFF") But, while running a search on a search engine, I
>noticed a strong connection between that word and the um... Erotic side
>of "furry" art... I doubt that this is a coincidence due to a particular
>picture which depicted two foxes in several provocative positions with
>the quote, "YiFF HARD... YiFF LONG..." written below. Can anyone shed
>some light on this? And one more thing...
You know, I remember asking someone "just what DOES yiff mean?" While
I don't think I ever did get a straight answer, you're on the right
track. :>
>A wave file would be greatly appreciated! Heh... YiFF.wav
I'm afraid. Very afraid. :>
>And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
>revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks? Not that I'm complaining...
>Heh... I just wonder why its so. You could even do searches on the words,
>"foxette" and "skunkette" (Don't try "vixen") and you will get more than
>a few links. Though this category also includes one or two bunnies, a
>cat, and a sultry mink, any combination of those words would not yield
>similar results. I think I'm right here... Anyone have any insight?
*ahem* *grin* Well, there are actually all sorts of the erotic furry
art out there, and I'd say that what you find depends on where you
happen to look, actually.
Aeto, not yiffy, REALLY. :>
--
Aetobatus, Kelekona a'a o' O'ahu, Hawai'i. http://www.lava.net/~aetobat/
Keeper of Alfandria, THE social Dragon MUCK.
http://alfandria.chameleon.net/alfandria/
telnet://alfandria.chameleon.net:8888
Dave Wright
>>> Angel Ryan <it...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
[Clipped a very insightful analysis of furries being a synthesis
[of childlike fantasy and adultlike reality.
» Clearly I have at least some interest and respect for such an art form.
» But, despite all of the resources on "furries", there are still a few
» things which I don't quite understand.
» For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
» "furry" and something that isn't?
Wherever one likes. There are some purists who insist that furries must have
fur and only fur, but generally, the combination of human and animal traits is
accepted as "furry". If the traits are physical, intelligence is irrelevant,
but if the creature is physically indistinguishable from an animal, it must be
shown to have at least a child's intelligence and personality. Arthopods,
reptiles, birds, mollusks, and fish are animals, so anthopomorphized versions
are usually considered furries. Examples would be Fish Police, Shanda's insect
roommate, Sebastian the crab, Squidly the octopus, etc.
Mythological creatures are more controversial. Classic centaurs, mermaids,
sphynxes, and others with distinct human and animal portions are more often
excluded from the definition of "furry" by those who consider us to be humans
sewn together with animals, furry wannabes. We disagree, of course. We are not
humans! We are animal beings! (Some of us get around the distinction by having
furry features instead of human, but still...)
I prefer the term "beastie" instead. It includes everyone.
» "YiFF", I understand is the sound a fox makes. (And I was furthermore
» informed that it must be written exactly that way when used as a
» statement... "YiFF") But, while running a search on a search engine, I
» noticed a strong connection between that word and the um... Erotic side
» of "furry" art... I doubt that this is a coincidence due to a particular
» picture which depicted two foxes in several provocative positions with
» the quote, "YiFF HARD... YiFF LONG..." written below. Can anyone shed
» some light on this?
YiFF is an acronymn for Young Incredibly F***able Fox. I think. A YiFF is a
furry hunk or babe. Someone who looks like one is yiffy. Having sex with
one is yiffing.
» And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
» revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks?
It's the tail. A large fluffy tail is sexual attractor much like breasts, hair,
and butts are.
--
:Dave Wright * Gentaur on FurryMUCK
DUELING MODEMS * http://www.dm.net * news://news.dm.net:120
Head Sysop, BESTIARIA Furry Forum & AH!LOGY Science and Research Forum
http://beastie.dm.net * news://news.dm.net:120/dm.ahlogy.*
--
The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30
years of his life. --Muhammad Ali
Solarfox
it...@rocketmail.com (Angel Ryan) wrote:
>For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
>"furry" and something that isn't? It's obvious that the
>anthropomorphosized animals depicted in various children's cartoons are
>"furries", but what about when you get more complex.
Well... you'll probably get a lot of different answers on this, but for my
money, the term "furry" is in many instances just a shorthand term for
"anthropomorph." Thus, reptiles, dragons, mermaids, and insectoids like
Alan Dean Foster's "Thranx" can be considered "furries" in that sense, even
though they aren't of the mammalian descent that the dictionary definition
of "furry" would tend to imply.
The basic requirement, I believe, is that one should be able to relate to
and interact with the creature in question on a more-or-less "human" level
- i.e. you can communicate with them (or try to), they exhibit intelligence
and a moral sense (although their morals don't necessarily have to be
congruent with ours!), and display some kind of recognizable civilization
and/or social structure. A purely instinct-driven creature like the Black
Lagoon fellow you mention probably wouldn't qualify under those terms...
>And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
>revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks? Not that I'm complaining...
>Heh... I just wonder why its so. You could even do searches on the words,
Well, I'm partial to bunnies, myself. :)
Frankly, I think the fox fixation comes because a lot of us were
"imprinted" at a young age by Maid Marian from Disney's rendition of "Robin
Hood." :) And Pepe Le Pew pretty much cemented the stereotypical
association between skunks and /amour/ singlehandedly. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"
"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Gadd
solarfox@/DON'T/MESS\WITH\texas.net (Solarfox) wrote:
>Frankly, I think the fox fixation comes because a lot of us were
>"imprinted" at a young age by Maid Marian from Disney's rendition of "Robin
>Hood." :)
That's the obvious explanation, and I'm sure it has some truth to it,
but it leaves the question of why Disney chose to use foxes in both
Robin Hood and 'Fox and the Hound' to represent such attractive male
and female characters. If people have a thing for vulpines, maybe it
goes back more than just one generation.
I know - Disney animators listened to too much Hendrix. 'Foxy Lady'
predates Robin Hood by about four years...
--
Tim Gadd
Hobart, Tasmania
Lupercal .com
@wolf-web
"Thoughts are the best form of insult."
- The Dog.
J. J. Novotny
Angel Ryan wrote:
> I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
> anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
> books. After serching various web pages, I found out quite a bit about
>
> the world of "furry fandom", and after reading Furnation's post of
> "You
> Know You're a Furry Fan When..." (which I found both funny and
> disturbing), I found myself more than a little intrigued.
(rest snipped)
Welcome to the fandom! Good to have you with us. Personally, I've found
the best way to learn about anthro stuff is just to look around (and to
buy stuff). Just listen in here on a.f.f. and keep touring through the
web and buying books. I think you're on to something with your theories,
but I've found that furry isn't typically intellectualized that much. It
seems to work best on an emotional level. Think back to when you were a
kid; did you ask yourself why you liked cartoons? Nah, you just had fun.
Certainly there is a great degree of depth to books like ALBEDO, SHANDA,
and GD, but most often any social commentary etc. is subtle and
secondary.
It's also hard to define "furrydom" in precise terms because it is so
wide-ranging. Ask a furry lifestyler, artist, MUCKer, and collector the
questions you asked and you might just get four different answers. My
view about what's a furry book sometimes varies and I've been reading
them for seven years.
Well, hello anyway. Hope we see you posting around here at least
occasionally.
Cheers;
J. J.
Angel Ryan
>
> Welcome to the fandom! Good to have you with us. Personally, I've found
> the best way to learn about anthro stuff is just to look around (and to
> buy stuff). Just listen in here on a.f.f. and keep touring through the
> web and buying books. I think you're on to something with your theories,
> but I've found that furry isn't typically intellectualized that much. It
> seems to work best on an emotional level. Think back to when you were a
> kid; did you ask yourself why you liked cartoons? Nah, you just had fun.
> Certainly there is a great degree of depth to books like ALBEDO, SHANDA,
> and GD, but most often any social commentary etc. is subtle and
> secondary.
>
Well... Thats somewhat disheartening... "Not intellectualized"? I'm going
out on a limb for a newbie here, but I strongly disagree. From the
responses that I've recieved, I agree with your statement that furry is
more of an emotional thing, and I can see your point in your childhood
analogy... But I can't find myself believing that it ends there. Sure,
actual enjoyment of furry art or a furry lifestyle exists on a very
emotional level (And a very childish one at that). But... The art itself
contains alot of depth.
The mere fact that furry art exists shows somewhat of a rebellion towards
humanity (And in a way, one towards adulthood too, which explains why
furry art is usually done in a cartoon fashion).
** I can already hear the sighs as I begin to fall into an
"intellectualized" mode **
You speak to me of furry being less intellectual, and more emotional. I
agree... In a sense. But (And you're not the first to answer in such a
way), am I the only one who looks a little deeper than appreciation on an
emotional level to the root of furry fandom's psychological core? Sure, I
enjoy furry art... And on an emotional level to boot. (Hrmm... I guess
that makes me a "furry" then huh... *shiver*) But, being uneducated in
anthropomorphic art, I simply wanted an explanation to it all... A "why"
and a "how"...
Perhaps its just in my nature. A little insight here... (Yes, I am going
to get personal *or FURsonal... as the cas may be* so if you don't care,
feel free to move on or just go to the next letter) I used to be a very
devout catholic. I followed the commandments, the sacraments, and even
went to catholic school. Then one day I snapped... (Blame education) And
I saw catholicism as nothing but insane hippocracy. So... I became a
christian. Why not an atheist? Because of my love or Christ. No matter
how much I grew to hate religion, I could not, or would not, let that
hatred near my belief and love of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, where
catholicism told me to ignore personal doubt, christianity pushed me to
face it. I would not abide a religion of hippocracy, but in moving away
from it, I was forced to face truth. Having done so, I came to the
conclusion that I could never acknowledge christianity as a valid
religion... Thus, my love of Christ was founded on something which I did
not even consider true.
Perhaps most of the people that post on this newsgroup are not religious,
but a few of you may be able to relate to the personal let down I felt
when this realization hit me.
Because of this (And similar life situations) I sometimes find myself
over analyzing things which I have any sort of a passion for (Hmmm... I
used the word "passion" to describe furry-ness... I'm starting to scare
myself). So... Maybe I went a bit overboard in my rantings and ravings
about furry art... My only wish was to understand as well as enjoy. Is
that so wrong =(...?
It is, as I stated earlier, disheartening, however, to see that most of
the responses to my thoughts on furry fandom were... Well... Not exactly
negative, but not exactly positive. I would have much more appreciated a
response telling me that all my thoughts were in fact WRONG and his/her
reason why. Instead, the majority of my mail stated that most furries
didn't want to delve into that side of the art. Yes, I feel a bond
emotionally to furry art... But I also seek intellectual insight. Am I
alone in this? From the mail I've recieved so far, the answer appears to
be 'yes'.
Perhaps then there is another newsgroup which should be started that I
can share my thoughts with... Maybe one like "alt.furry.insight"... If
such is the case, then I'm sorry to have bothered anyone with my posting.
(If I sound harsh and judgemental, I appologize... I really am not a mean
spirited person *or FURson... as the case may be*)
,Angel Ryan
or... "Caulfield" on SPR
** "Ah... Fifi LaFume... Stinkly irresistable!" **
Angel Ryan
I would first off like to thank you for being the first to lend much
needed insight on my thoughts and questions. The least I can do is help
you out in finding that list. I happen to have the URL right here:
http://www.furnation.com/mayfurr/ykyaffw.htm
It's a great read... Really. And there are even a few that I am thinking
of sending in myself... Like,
You know you're a furry fan when...
-You suggest for your significant other to dress up as a fox, cat,
skunk... etc. even when it isn't anywhere near Holloween.
-You saw the movie, "Wag the Dog" and immediately asked for your money
back and demanded that they change the title.
-At football games, you don't notice the young cheerleaders because you
are too busy eyeing the mascot.
Heh... Well, they are just some ideas...
,Angel Ryan
or "Caulfield" on SPR
"A hairy man with a shiny black helmet and a tail walked up to me and
said, 'Luke, you are the one true king!' then ran off laughing"
Randy 'Tremaine' Entinger
On Sun, 1 Mar 1998 04:33:32 -0800, it...@rocketmail.com (Angel Ryan)
wrote:
>I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
>anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
>books. After serching various web pages, I found out quite a bit about
>the world of "furry fandom", and after reading Furnation's post of "You
>Know You're a Furry Fan When..." (which I found both funny and
>disturbing), I found myself more than a little intrigued.
>
That's usually how it starts... :)
>The world of "furry" art is a strange one... But one which has most
>assuredly caught my eye. Gazing upon the art form's portraits and
>drawings, it seems as if there is so much more than just a picture of an
>antrhopomorphosized animal. Beyond the surface, one can sense a mixing of
>conflicting forces which coexist. (Seriously... Hear me out) On one end,
>there's a childish sense of fantasy and imagination which manifests
>itself in a fascination of animals and other foreign creatures. This is
>indeed a childish ideal. Children at play are often pretending to be
>animals (Both wild, and domestic), and afterall, what child has never
>wished to be a cat, or a dog, or a bird? But... On the other end lay the
>adult ideals and needs. The idea of communication and the need to
>communicate with one another through speech... The idea of pride and the
>need to work... The idea of justice and the need to enfoce what is right
>and condemn what is wrong... etc. These ideals are all then incorporated
>into the art form as well, giving it a sense of reality. Afterall, if a
>creature exhibits human qualities, shouldn't it exist in a human
>environment. Thus, it isn't enough for "furry creatures" to be able to
>walk and talk. They also communicate intelligently, obtain employment,
>pay bills, raise families, and even fall in and out of love... All of
>which are real adult ideals, but... Which are made possible in through a
>childlike respect for imagination and fantasy. Hence, two forces which
>seem to oppose one another somehow coexist rather beautifully.
>
Well put!
>Clearly I have at least some interest and respect for such an art form.
>But, despite all of the resources on "furries", there are still a few
>things which I don't quite understand.
>
>For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
>"furry" and something that isn't? It's obvious that the
>anthropomorphosized animals depicted in various children's cartoons are
>"furries", but what about when you get more complex. I have come to
>understand that even reptiles and *aliens* can in some ways be considered
>"furries". Well, what about fish? If a fish was given human atributes
>(No, not like a mermaid) would it be considered a "furry"? (In such a
>case, the creature from the black lagoon would be a "furry"...)
Well, you're not the only one that's stumped on this issue. It depend
a lot on who you talk to on what's considered 'furry' and what's not.
A Furry can be anything from an anime human with animals ears and a
tail, to an intelligent non-anthropomorphic animal, such as a fox that
can talk and think like a human would. Reptiles, aliens avians,
amphibians, insects could all be considered furry. Reptilian folks
have a subset in the furry world, called "scaleys" or "scalies", can't
remember the right word. Basically any anthropomorphic animal,
(which doesn't necessarily have to be a mammal) can be a furry. Some
folks don't think half-humans, such as centaurs or mermaids are furry,
but I disagree. If you've looked hard enough, you'll have come across
dozens of mermaid and centaur pictures. I've even seen anthropomorphic
vixen mermaids. Heck, anthro insects. I suppose when it comes down
to it, you have to decide for yourself what you consider to be a
furry.
>Furthermore, if the only trait that limits a organism from being a
>"furry" is that it be a living creature, then what is said about insects?
>My initial inclination is to say that a human-like insect would NOT be a
>"furry"... But... Then I think of a character like "Zipper" from the
>"Rescue Rangers", and I'm not sure anymore.
An insect is an animal, and 'morphing' it would would be considered
furry, IMHO. Furry doesn't have to be taken to a literal extent. As I
understand it, 'furry' just means an anthropomorphic animal.
> Getting even more complex,
>what about things like amoebas and such? If an amoeba is given human
>characteristics (Which has actually been done before by Gary Larsen)
>would that amoeba be considered a "furry" of sorts? Could then someone's
>"personal furry" be something along the lines of 'Amy Amoeba'?!?
>
Absolutely. Gary Larson often gave amoebas human qualities, such as
the abilities to think and speak like humans do. Even in the
microscopic world, they live as humans would. They were indeed
anthropomorphic, or given human qualities, so they could be 'furry.'
>My second question is far less complex. One of the things posted on "You
>Know You're a Furry Fan When..." was:
>
>- You know what 'yiff' means.
>
>"YiFF", I understand is the sound a fox makes. (And I was furthermore
>informed that it must be written exactly that way when used as a
>statement... "YiFF") But, while running a search on a search engine, I
>noticed a strong connection between that word and the um... Erotic side
>of "furry" art... I doubt that this is a coincidence due to a particular
>picture which depicted two foxes in several provocative positions with
>the quote, "YiFF HARD... YiFF LONG..." written below. Can anyone shed
>some light on this? And one more thing...
>
Heheh. This is a fun word, especially when newbies don't know the
meaning of it. ;) The following might be TMI for some folks...(Too
Much Information)
I attended Confurence 9, I went to a panel where folks could get to
meet the Wizards (Creators, janitors, etc) of FurryMUCK. Revar said
that he coined the word, 'yiff'. When he coined it, it simply was the
sound a fox makes.
Don't take my word on this, but I'm guessing something happened like
this: Someone kept the original meaning, but added something to it:
"A sound a male fox makes when mating an attractive vixen." At the
time, it was a noun. But it can also be used as a verb. To yiff
someone else: To have sexual intercourse. When you're feeling horny,
it can mean you're feeling 'yiffy'. To say that art is 'yiffy'
usually means it's pretty strong in terms of sexual content. 'Yiff'
typically is used more in terms of sexual related meanings. Also,
yiff isn't limited to foxes. It seems anyfur can use that term and it
means the same thing. Mostly sexual intercourse. How the word exactly
came to mean what it did today, I can't be certain. Oh, and that
picture you saw had a sexual meaning to the word yiff. Replace it with
another, less-innocent four letter word.
Yiff isn't used like it's English counterpart, the naughty F-word.
It's not used in insults..."Yiff you!" is just wrong usage.
>How does a yiff sound anyway? Is it pronounced sharply, the way "arf!" is
>pronounced in a dog's bark? Or is it less of a word, and more of a sound?
>(In which case, it would be more of a whisper... *YiFF*... Sorta like the
>wind) Anyone know?
>
You sort of shout it out, like a high-pitched yip. "YIFF!" Yes, it
still CAN mean a sound a fox makes. When I am gathered with other
furs, it's not uncommon for a number of furs to call out "Yiff! Yiff!"
Again, I suppose it depends on the context in which 'yiff' is used. :P
>A wave file would be greatly appreciated! Heh... YiFF.wav
>
I'm pretty certain SOME ONE has a .wav file out there somewhere. :)
>And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
>revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks? Not that I'm complaining...
>Heh... I just wonder why its so. You could even do searches on the words,
>"foxette" and "skunkette" (Don't try "vixen") and you will get more than
>a few links. Though this category also includes one or two bunnies, a
>cat, and a sultry mink, any combination of those words would not yield
>similar results. I think I'm right here... Anyone have any insight?
>
Well, I think part of it is stereotypical. Foxes seem to have
naturally fallen into the erotica side of things for a number of
reasons. I don't know if this is RIGHT, but these are my
ideas...mundanes (non-furry folks, not meant to be demeaning) often
use the word 'fox' or 'vixen' when describing a very attractive
person. "She's a fox!" So this translated easily into furry fandom,
and most people can relate to it. Plus, foxes are cute to begin with,
and some people seem to like the long fluffy tails. That's why I
suppose skunks are so popular, too. I suppose felines and other
species are just as cute, but, hey, I don't know any better than
anyone else.
*chuckle* While my own art is mostly foxes right now, I *do* want to
expand on other species. Especially some of the rarer ones. Anthro
gerbils, anyone? Cute, fluffy, snuggable? :)
Also, I've noticed artists seem to have a favorite species.
Everything else they draw tends to take on features of their favorite
species, too. I draw a lot of foxes NOW, but believe it or not, many
years ago I did nothing but rats, mice, chipmunks and squirrels. Hrm.
I'll have to start that up again.
Oh, and just while I'm thinking about it...I suppose this is part of
the fandom where the 'adult' part comes in. IMHO, it's okay, just as
long as folks are mature and responsible about it.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Ah... Fifi La Fume... Stinkly irresistable!" ^_^
> --------------------------------------------------
Odd...I seemed to have an attraction for her even before I knew about
the fandom. =^.^=
Here's another URL that I don't have in my sig, since I use that sig
for email, and I don't want mundanes frightened by the images they
might find... =~_^=
ftp://furry.olsy-na.com/pub/Images/Randy-Entinger/
Randy "Tremaine" Entinger <trem...@execpc.com>
http://rat.org/pub/furry/entirand/index.htm
(Soon to have an *ACTUAL* home page. Kewl beans.)
"If you don't like the news, go out and make some."
Yealurowluro
On <Mar 02 16:04>, solarfox@/DON'T/MESS\WITH\texas.net (Solarfox) wrote;
S>it...@rocketmail.com (Angel Ryan) wrote:
>For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
>"furry" and something that isn't? It's obvious that the
>anthropomorphosized animals depicted in various children's cartoons are
>"furries", but what about when you get more complex.
While it originally obviously referred to mammals, these days the term is
frequently used almost interchangably with "anthropomorph". So it rather
depends on who you're talking to. I tend to draw the line at living beings
- thus Amy Amoeba would be a "furry", but the Brave Little Toaster, while a
worthy enough anthropomorph in his own right would not be.
S>A purely instinct-driven creature like the Black
S>Lagoon fellow you mention probably wouldn't qualify under those
S>terms...
Purely instinct-driven? I'm not so sure - its not like he ever got much
chance to prove himself one way or another. I mean, here's this guy
relaxing in his sunken (literally) living room when all of a sudden a batch
of noisy new neighbors drive their powerboat right into the middle of it
and set up camp like they owned the place. When he goes up to complain
about the noise, the very first thing they do is shoot at him. How rude!
He spends most of the rest of the movie trying to communicate, and just
when he's finally managed to get the one member of the party who HASN'T
been trying to kill him alone, look what happens...
Tsk...
<g>
S>Frankly, I think the fox fixation comes because a lot of us were
S>"imprinted" at a young age by Maid Marian from Disney's rendition
S>of "Robin
S>Hood." :) And Pepe Le Pew pretty much cemented the stereotypical
S>association between skunks and /amour/ singlehandedly. :)
Foxes were popular well before "Robin Hood" (when it came out one local
Other Suns fan dubbed it "The Hegemonic SCA" :->)... I think it's the
combination of cuteness and wildness they represent.
Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
Aetobatus wrote:
> I always point people to Xydexx's page,
> http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm,
Dat's me! -:)
Other good "What Is Furry?" files out there:
What Is A Furry? by Capt. Pakrat
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/captpakrat/furry1.htm
What Is A Furry? by Watts Martin
http://www.mythagoras.com/falf/furry.html
What Is A Furry? by Adam Riggs
http://www.uop.edu/~ariggs/furfaq.html
What Is A Furry? by A. H. Fox
http://members.aol.com/ahfox/furrys.html
What Is A Furry? by Anomaly
http://home.earthlink.net/~anomaly2/furry.htm
About Furries by PeterCat
http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/intro.html
____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage [Squeaky-Squeak!]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm ICQ: 7569393
**[ Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ]**
Herman Miller
On Sun, 1 Mar 1998 04:33:32 -0800, it...@rocketmail.com (Angel Ryan) wrote:
>I am a college student who very recently stumbled upon the world of
>anthropomorphic art, or "furries", through my love of anime and comic
>books. After serching various web pages, I found out quite a bit about
>the world of "furry fandom", and after reading Furnation's post of "You
>Know You're a Furry Fan When..." (which I found both funny and
>disturbing), I found myself more than a little intrigued.
I'm reading this from alt.fan.furry, and since alt.lifestyle.furry doesn't
like crossposting (IIRC), I'm limiting my reply to this group.
>The world of "furry" art is a strange one... But one which has most
>assuredly caught my eye. Gazing upon the art form's portraits and
>drawings, it seems as if there is so much more than just a picture of an
>antrhopomorphosized animal. Beyond the surface, one can sense a mixing of
>conflicting forces which coexist. (Seriously... Hear me out) On one end,
>there's a childish sense of fantasy and imagination which manifests
>itself in a fascination of animals and other foreign creatures. This is
>indeed a childish ideal. Children at play are often pretending to be
>animals (Both wild, and domestic), and afterall, what child has never
>wished to be a cat, or a dog, or a bird? But... On the other end lay the
>adult ideals and needs.
I for one don't think that imagination and fantasy ought to be limited to
children. Or, for that matter, learning and play. I still enjoy watching
movies and reading books intended for children, if they are good stories.
_Poppy_, by Avi, is one that I read recently and enjoyed. (The main
character happens to be a mouse.)
>For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
>"furry" and something that isn't?
I think you'll find a number of different answers. But I don't see any
reason why fish and insects can't be considered furry. Charlie the tuna,
for instance. I would also include the characters in _James and the Giant
Peach_, for instance, even though they are insects and other invertebrates.
However, I think the category should be limited to animals, not talking
plants, or teapots, or anything like that. Whether or not an amoeba could
be considered "furry" depends on which classification of the animal kingdom
you want to use, but animals tend to be limited to multicellular life forms
in recent classifications. On the borderline are characters not intended
to represent any particular animal type, but which have some arguably
"furry" characteristics, such as H. Beam Piper's Fuzzies or the Wookiees
from _Star Wars_.
>And speaking of the erotic side of "furry" art, why does it seem to
>revolve around pictures of foxes and skunks? Not that I'm complaining...
>Heh... I just wonder why its so. You could even do searches on the words,
>"foxette" and "skunkette" (Don't try "vixen") and you will get more than
>a few links. Though this category also includes one or two bunnies, a
>cat, and a sultry mink, any combination of those words would not yield
>similar results. I think I'm right here... Anyone have any insight?
Different artists seem to have favorite species; some draw foxes and
skunks, but others draw wolves, rats, or centaurs. Foxes are brightly
colored (the red ones, at least) and have big bushy tails, two
characteristics which are visually appealing, and skunks tend to have
stripes (I don't recall any furry illustrations of spotted skunks), another
attractive feature.
I don't know why particular animals are more popular than others (why
aren't there as many raccoons or otters compared to foxes, for instance?),
but foxes are extremely common in non-erotic furry art as well. I don't
think that foxes are especially disproportionate in numbers in furotica
when compared to furry art in general, but I haven't actually counted them.
--
alien/fairy/furry art--> +----------<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/>----------
Thryomanes /"If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
(Herman Miller) / thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
moc.oi @ rellimh <-/ there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin
When sending email, please include the password GERBIL in the Subject line
to avoid the junk mail filter (http://www.io.com/~hmiller/junkmail.html).
Fhaolan
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 05:12:28 GMT,
Lupercal@_remove-this_wolf-web._thistoo_com (Tim Gadd) wrote:
>solarfox@/DON'T/MESS\WITH\texas.net (Solarfox) wrote:
>
>>Frankly, I think the fox fixation comes because a lot of us were
>>"imprinted" at a young age by Maid Marian from Disney's rendition of "Robin
>>Hood." :)
>
>That's the obvious explanation, and I'm sure it has some truth to it,
>but it leaves the question of why Disney chose to use foxes in both
>Robin Hood and 'Fox and the Hound' to represent such attractive male
>and female characters. If people have a thing for vulpines, maybe it
>goes back more than just one generation.
>
>I know - Disney animators listened to too much Hendrix. 'Foxy Lady'
>predates Robin Hood by about four years...
Fhaolan hrms, trying to order his thoughts while packing for his move
to BC. "I always thought they chose a fox tae represent Robin Hood
because tha fox is a classical representation o' thievery in English
folktales. Maid Marion had tae be a fox as well, because Disney
wouldn'a allow two differen' species tae be married at tha end o' tha
movie."
"They had tae be drawn attractively, because they were tha' heroes.
Jus' as tha' villians had tae be drawn un-attractively. Tha' sheriff
was tha' worst drawn wolf I had ever seen." :)
"Now, can I fit this toaster-oven in this box?"
*cram* *cram* *sproing*
"Nope....."
"Though, I've always wondered where tha' phrase 'foxy lady' first came
from....."
-Fhaolan, Celtic Wuf!
J. J. Novotny
Angel Ryan wrote:
> Well... Thats somewhat disheartening... "Not intellectualized"? I'm
> going
> out on a limb for a newbie here, but I strongly disagree. From the
> responses that I've recieved, I agree with your statement that furry
> is
> more of an emotional thing, and I can see your point in your childhood
>
> analogy... But I can't find myself believing that it ends there. Sure,
>
> actual enjoyment of furry art or a furry lifestyle exists on a very
> emotional level (And a very childish one at that). But... The art
> itself
> contains alot of depth.
>
Whooooah! Hold on a sec. My response was just the "Hi there, newcomer:
here's my two cents" sort of deal. It isn't the whole picture, of
course. You do raise some good issues here. I'm sorry you haven't gotten
the response you wanted. Maybe this'll help.
Where to begin. Well, one of the reasons I talked about emotionality is
because that's where, IMHO, the whole idea of furry gets a lot of its
power. It's my theory that the nature of anthro characters allows them
to make an "end run" around our emotional defenses -- our cynicism, our
rational responses, out prejudices, and the ingrained social standards
that we hold without sometimes thinking why we hold them. In other
words, anthrofurries are easily able to maintain and create "suspension
of disbelief". That's why we feel such a strong attachment to them.
Another reason to say they work best on any emotional level is that
furry books tend to be very character-oriented, driven by the
personalities of the leads. Some books are plot-driven and a few are
based around a mood or tone, but not too many are primarily about a big
idea or theme (perhaps ALBEDO .. and even there I think the characters
occupy center stage). To use an example, when we read about the
adventures of Brit' Diggers (in GD) we respond to her at face value, as
a unique person with an interesting and enthusiastic personality. We
don't immediately see her as a symbol or as a metaphor for anything.
This is not to say that you couldn't look for deeper meanings and
thematic issues. If you'd like you can do a structuralist reading of
Brit as a symbol of the post-colonial world in transition to technology
and modern life. But if that's the only level you want to understand the
book at, then I feel that you're missing the point.
A lot of this has to do with the fact that furry books depend heavily on
art ... and that this accounts for much of their emotional appeal. Even
more tellingly, furry artists often base their techniques on art styles
that predate the current rash of post-modernism: art nouveau,
impressionism, romanticism, realism, and neo-classicism all enter the
picture here. Most furry art looks a lot more like Bougureau then it
does like say ... West Coast Abstraction. (Unless Terrie Smith is going
to be representing Chester as a squiggly white line in the margins of
CHAOS INC. and I haven't heard about it ;) ) I have no doubt that if
Ingres were alive today and drawing furries that he'd be the guest of
honour at Conference. What does this mean? Well, these styles date back
to a time in art before emotion and thought became separated and before
the formal aspects of art overwhelmed its content. Thought and feeling
were "one" in those earlier paintings. A painting stood as an object
which generated an (emotional) reaction, and the viewer's thought about
the subject and the painting were interconnected together. Monet said he
wanted to paint with "thought and passion", and if you look at RAILWAY
STATION AT ST. LAZARE, I think you'll first be struck with how moving
and awe-inspiring the whole visceral experience is. I bet you *don't* at
first think "hmmm, this is an intellectualized account of the creeping
industrialization of the late 19-th Century" because that's just not the
way it works. And it's not really an intellectualized anything. It's
Monet's impression of light and tone. It's not abstract and it's not
analytical. Neither is furry art. Thought and emotion are tightly bound
together. To try to strip anthropormorphics of its emotional validity is
to lose something vital. That's why I say it seems to work best on an
emotional level. And I believe that this is the reason so many fans have
such a strong attachment to it, sometimes to the point of wanting to
roleplay or even *be* furries themselves.
Erf. I've really rambled on here. Ya asked for it, dontchaknow.
Do I win the "long-winded technical speech of the month" award for this.
I need something to put on my shelf? Or should I just shelf this? ;)
Cheers;
J. J.
P.S. Oh and you're not wrong. You can have passion and understanding,
too. Everything in proper balance, tho. Don't over-analyze.
P.P.S. You may want to think of this with regards to the issue of
"yiffiness" yor raised. If furry pix can easily bypass our social
judgments, then they can get past the shame and guilt we're
indoctrinated to feel about sex just as easily. Instead of seeing a
picture as pornography or something "dirty", it leaves our mind open to
see a work of erotica as a honest depiction of something natural and
beautiful. I'm a lapsed Catholic, too ... and we know all about guilt,
don't we? ;) Ever read ULYSSES?
Aaron F. Johnson
Yealurowluro <yealurowluro%5...@salata.com> wrote in article
<26e_980...@salata.com>...
> Foxes were popular well before "Robin Hood" (when it came out one local
> Other Suns fan dubbed it "The Hegemonic SCA" :->)... I think it's the
> combination of cuteness and wildness they represent.
>
I think that it might have had something to do with the stories of
Chanticleer and Reynard from European folklore as well. These legends have
been around for at least five hundred years, as Chaucer transcribed them
for publication back in the Renaissance.
Ebony
Jason Lescalleet
Randy 'Tremaine' Entinger wrote:
> >My second question is far less complex. One of the things posted on "You
> >Know You're a Furry Fan When..." was:
> >
> >- You know what 'yiff' means.
> >
> >"YiFF", I understand is the sound a fox makes. (And I was furthermore
> >informed that it must be written exactly that way when used as a
> >statement... "YiFF") But, while running a search on a search engine, I
> >noticed a strong connection between that word and the um... Erotic side
> >of "furry" art... I doubt that this is a coincidence due to a particular
> >picture which depicted two foxes in several provocative positions with
> >the quote, "YiFF HARD... YiFF LONG..." written below. Can anyone shed
> >some light on this? And one more thing...
> >
> Heheh. This is a fun word, especially when newbies don't know the
> meaning of it. ;) The following might be TMI for some folks...(Too
> Much Information)
(* NOTE: The following is NOT meant to be taken too seriously *)
Etymology of "Yiff"
-------------------
By T. Tyrell Ty-Leir
According to Dr. Victoria Vulpez of the UFM Linguistics department,
the word "Yiff" has its roots in Old Vulpine. Many words in O.V. were
pronounced in a way that could be written as "Yiff" and were
distinguished by subtle differences in pitch, inflection, facial
expression, and even the presence and abscence of certain pheromones.
Since Old Vulpine was not a written language, there was no confusion
resulting from information loss incurred when writing the words down.
One of these "Yiff" words did indeed refer to sexual intercourse.
In the transition from Old to Middle Vulpine, there were two main
changes which affected "Yiff." First of all, many of the homophones
(words which sounded the same or similar, such as the various "Yiff"'s)
became less distinguishable by sound, and "tags" were invented to
distinguish them. For instance, the word meaning "Sexual Intercourse"
became "Yiff-aff." Since this was the most common "Yiff" at this time,
the "-aff" was often dropped. The second change was the introduction of
a pictographic writing system, vaguely similar to the Chinese system in
which the symbols stood for words and had no relation to their
pronunciation. Thus, the symbol for "Yiff-aff" bore no relation to the
symbol for the other "Yiff" words (in actuality, the Middle Vulpine
symbol for this word looked somewhat like two foxes in the process of
mating (Vulpez, 1996))
The transition from Middle to New Vulpine brought about more changes.
With the exception of "Yiff-aff" and a few others, the "Yiff" words
were replaced by "Yrerf" words. Thus "Yiff-erf" (meaning "Anxious
Anticipation) became "Yrerf-erf." The "-aff" tag was dropped, and
"Yiff" on its own came to mean exclusively (except for a few archaic
definitions that are still a source of humor) "sexual intercourse" and
things related to it. The writing system became more phonetic and less
pictographic, and the "Yiff-aff" character became two characters "Yi"
and "Ff"
Finally, as more and more foxes began adopting human languages such as
English, the word "Yiff" entered human tongues, at least in those groups
of humans who associated with foxes and other animals. This final
transition abandoned all other meanings for the word, and in human
terms at least, "Yiff" is a word with primarily sexual meanings,
although foxes speaking their native tongue still use it for its other
purposes, (as in "Yiff-yarf," one of the words that did not undergo the
"Yiff --> Yrerf" transition, which means "General happiness"). Needless
to say, this leads to some confusion among non-foxes, and even among
foxes, especially those with extensive human contacts.
I hope this answers any questions that you might have had about the
origins of this often-misunderstood word.
Tyrell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(aka. Jason Lescalleet)
Aetobatus
In article <6dlc59$gal$1...@rat.org>,
Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>I walked that path for quite a while myself, Angel, and like you, I was rather
>shocked and disillusioned to find that I was the 'only' one who asked these
>kinds of questions. For many years, I was deeply obsessed with the "why" of
>furry art, concerning both myself and others, and for a while my search for
>answers led me to a conclusion about myself which in retrospect was more an
>appeasement to my intellect and soul than anything else. During that time,
It's funny... For years before I admitted to myself that, yes, I
could stand calling myself "furry," I found myself watching many of
the animations mentioned in the various FAQs here, looking through
fantasy art books (in the days before the WWW) and artists' WWW pages
(once it existed). I know I questioned WHY they seemed to attract my
attention, but I guess I kind of put those questions to the
background. Actually, I still kind of wonder the "why" of all this,
but don't worry too much about it.
>I had found that my exploration into 'the meaning of furry' led me hard-up
>against those familiar and time-tested inanswerables of humanity, you know,
>the 'who am I', the 'why am I here', the 'what does it all mean', albeit in
>a roundabout and fur-covered way. :) For me, furry is what you bring to it,
>and what you take from it, and in the end, your interest in furry
>art, furry fans, and furry fandom will prolly be just a neat and cute way of
>looking in the mirror. :)
You know, that's something I've come more and more to realize in the
last few weeks, since I really admitted to myself that I'd like to be
part of the whole "furry" existance (using that term to encompass all
of the others in use; fandom, mentality, lifestyle, etc...). No, I
don't agree with or identify with everything, but I think I do still
like the entire scene.
>The hard part is realizing that this is true for other folks, too, and that
>their reflections are as often as not vastly different from one's own.
And the fact that, for the most part, everyone can respect everyone
else's opinions and tastes certainly helps.
Aeto, feeling at home.
Solarfox
Lupercal@_remove-this_wolf-web._thistoo_com (Tim Gadd) wrote:
>>Frankly, I think the fox fixation comes because a lot of us were
>>"imprinted" at a young age by Maid Marian from Disney's rendition of "Robin
>>Hood." :)
>That's the obvious explanation, and I'm sure it has some truth to it,
Well, I admit I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek there... :) But,
considering the number of "how did you discover you were a furry fan?"
stories I've heard that mention Disney's "Robin Hood" as an early
influence, it seems as plausible an explanation as any!
>but it leaves the question of why Disney chose to use foxes in both
>Robin Hood and 'Fox and the Hound' to represent such attractive male
>and female characters.
That's easy. Robin Hood is, after all, a lovable rogue and an outlaw who
consistently gets the better of his enemies by being a clever, crafty
trickster. The fox has _long_ been cast as a "clever, crafty trickster",
not just in the relatively recent world of cartoons and comics, but in the
long-established body of traditional folklore, myths and legends; the
Disney animators were undoubtedly playing off of an already-established
stereotype in casting Robin. So Maid Marian, of course, had to be a fox as
well, because she's Robin's "serious" love interest (and wife, in the end),
and it seems to be a convention in most Disney cartoons that you don't see
inter-species relationships/marriages unless the mismatch is being played
strictly for its comedy potential.
Herman Miller
>*chuckle* While my own art is mostly foxes right now, I *do* want to
>expand on other species. Especially some of the rarer ones. Anthro
>gerbils, anyone? Cute, fluffy, snuggable? :)
Why not? I'd like to see more of a variety of species in furry art, which
is why I do the Infinite Difursity pages. In fact, I have one illustration
of gerbil people:
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/Samiji.html
Dan Pankratz
In article <MPG.f65783be...@news.ucla.edu>, it...@rocketmail.com (Angel Ryan) writes:
>
> You speak to me of furry being less intellectual, and more emotional. I
> agree... In a sense. But (And you're not the first to answer in such a
> way), am I the only one who looks a little deeper than appreciation on an
> emotional level to the root of furry fandom's psychological core? Sure, I
> enjoy furry art... And on an emotional level to boot. (Hrmm... I guess
> emotionally to furry art... But I also seek intellectual insight. Am I
> alone in this? From the mail I've recieved so far, the answer appears to
> be 'yes'.
I walked that path for quite a while myself, Angel, and like you, I was rather
shocked and disillusioned to find that I was the 'only' one who asked these
kinds of questions. For many years, I was deeply obsessed with the "why" of
furry art, concerning both myself and others, and for a while my search for
answers led me to a conclusion about myself which in retrospect was more an
appeasement to my intellect and soul than anything else. During that time,
I had found that my exploration into 'the meaning of furry' led me hard-up
against those familiar and time-tested inanswerables of humanity, you know,
the 'who am I', the 'why am I here', the 'what does it all mean', albeit in
a roundabout and fur-covered way. :) For me, furry is what you bring to it,
and what you take from it, and in the end, your interest in furry
art, furry fans, and furry fandom will prolly be just a neat and cute way of
looking in the mirror. :)
The hard part is realizing that this is true for other folks, too, and that
their reflections are as often as not vastly different from one's own.
Having said that and been there, I'd like to point out that I am still here,
albeit in a less gung-ho and obsessive manner than I used to be. I enjoy these
characters immensely for reasons I both understand and don't understand, and
while my interest seems to wax and wane in direct proportion to my satisfaction
with my reality, I nonetheless keep coming back in the end. I have no reason to
believe my interest will leave me one day, nor do I believe that I will one
day _finally_ figure it all out. At this point in my life, I'm content enough
to 'just be' when it comes to all things furry, and just enjoy the ride. :)
Heh... you caught me early in the evening, Angel. I'm not usually this casual
and introspective on Usenet anymore. :)
-Dan
--
'Cause the ocean is a desert with it's life underground
and the perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
but the humans will give no love...
-from "A Horse With No Name"
Dan Pankratz
In article <34FDBB...@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Jason Lescalleet <lesc...@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>
> Etymology of "Yiff"
> -------------------
>
> By T. Tyrell Ty-Leir
That was really, really clever. Reminds me a bit of that Ursula Leguin story
about the ant-poetry on the acacia seeds...
-Dan, drone
Angel Ryan
> To use an example, when we read about the
> adventures of Brit' Diggers (in GD) we respond to her at face value, as
> a unique person with an interesting and enthusiastic personality. We
> don't immediately see her as a symbol or as a metaphor for anything.
> This is not to say that you couldn't look for deeper meanings and
> thematic issues. If you'd like you can do a structuralist reading of
> Brit as a symbol of the post-colonial world in transition to technology
> and modern life. But if that's the only level you want to understand the
> book at, then I feel that you're missing the point.
I think you will agree with me then that it is indeed possible to
appreciate art on several diffent levels... Even if at the same time. The
issue which I brought up though is somewhat different. I never stated
that the ONLY level anthropomorphic art ahould be appreciated for was its
existance on a psychological level. On occasion, I too enjoy furry
artwork simply for its aesthetic value. I do think however, that for one
to fully appreciate an art form, they must take the time to analyze it
beyond its mere appearance. This goes for all art forms (IMHO).
> Monet said he wanted to paint with "thought and passion", and if you
> look at RAILWAY STATION AT ST. LAZARE, I think you'll first be struck
> with how moving and awe-inspiring the whole visceral experience is. I bet
> you *don't* at first think "hmmm, this is an intellectualized account of
> the creeping industrialization of the late 19-th Century" because that's
> just not the way it works. And it's not really an intellectualized
> anything. It's Monet's impression of light and tone. It's not abstract
> and it's not analytical. Neither is furry art. Thought and emotion are
> tightly bound together. To try to strip anthropormorphics of its
> emotional validity is to lose something vital. That's why I say it seems
> to work best on an emotional level. And I believe that this is the reason
> so many fans have such a strong attachment to it, sometimes to the point
> of wanting to roleplay or even *be* furries themselves.
I agree with your Monet analogy, but IMHO, I feel that the mere fact that
you interpretted Monet's use of light and tone as a moving and awe-
inspiring visceral experience, shows that what I have said is not wrong.
Sure, you didn't analyze Monet's brush strokes and attempt to delve into
his psyche... But in the very least, you went beyond the visual, and
looked at technique, even commenting on his impression of light and tone.
This was not a comment on the painting and its beauty... It was a comment
on Monet.
Furthermore, if you are going to deal with painters, I feel that the need
to analyze one's work is even more important. Look at the work of Andy
Warhol. When one see's Warhol's work for the first time, there isn't much
to appreciate... Strange colors... Repeating images... etc. But, if you
take the time to recognize what Warhol is trying to say in his artwork,
you realize just how much depth there is in his work and how it rebells
against the commercialized world of modern art. The same applies to Roy
Lichtenstein, who also attacked modern art with his work.
In spite of all I've said however, I still see the point you are making.
Over-analysis can be a dangerous thing... Especially when its done with
an art form tied in with childhood and imagination. (A few of the mails I
recieved from the lifestylers accused me of bursting their bubble) I have
though, recieved a few mails lending some very insightful thoughts about
furry art. Perhaps then, I was a bit hasty in my previos post, to which I
now appologize.
Anyways... Thanks for the reply.
,Angel Ryan
"Caulfield" ^_^
P.S. I'm still not altogether sure what "yiff" means... But I agree with
your statement about "yiffiness". Because of the existence of both
childishness and adulthood, as well as the differing images of mankind
and nature, erotic furry art doesn't seem to fall into the category of
erotica or pornography. It seems less like a "dirty" image and more like
a childish and imaginative one with an adult theme... And the connection
to nature makes it feel less provacative and more natural. Hrmm...
Richard Chandler
In article <6dln5n$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, it...@rocketmail.com (Angel
> In spite of all I've said however, I still see the point you are
> making. Over-analysis can be a dangerous thing... Especially when its
> done with an art form tied in with childhood and imagination. (A few
> of the mails I recieved from the lifestylers accused me of bursting
> their bubble) I have though, recieved a few mails lending some
> very insightful thoughts about furry art. Perhaps then, I was a bit
> hasty in my previos post, to which I now appologize.
If you burst their bubble, then perhaps they need something more substantial
than a bubble to base themselves on.
--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/ Gallery Web Page
"Yeah, I've got ADD, wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"
S. arsenault
Richard Chandler wrote in message <980305145...@marble.claris.com>...
>In article <6dln5n$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, it...@rocketmail.com
(Angel
>Ryan) writes:
>> In spite of all I've said however, I still see the point you are
>> making. Over-analysis can be a dangerous thing... Especially when its
>> done with an art form tied in with childhood and imagination. (A few
>> of the mails I recieved from the lifestylers accused me of bursting
>> their bubble) I have though, recieved a few mails lending some
>> very insightful thoughts about furry art. Perhaps then, I was a bit
>> hasty in my previos post, to which I now appologize.
>
>If you burst their bubble, then perhaps they need something more
substantial
>than a bubble to base themselves on.
>
>
oooooh.... good one.. :)
S. arsenault
sully @ rat.org
csa...@delphi.com
Fhaolan <ark...@istar.ca> writes:
>"Though, I've always wondered where tha' phrase 'foxy lady' first came
>from....."
"Fox" is (was?, these things change..) Black slang for a good-looking woman.
I vaguely recall seeing, some years ago, a beer ad campaign aimed at the
black neighborhoods that featured a woman who changed from fox to human.
*
Anyone else remember this one in more detail? It would have been sometime
in the 1970s.
J. J. Novotny
Angel Ryan wrote:
> I think you will agree with me then that it is indeed possible to
> appreciate art on several diffent levels... Even if at the same time.
> The
> issue which I brought up though is somewhat different. I never stated
> that the ONLY level anthropomorphic art ahould be appreciated for was
> its
> existance on a psychological level. On occasion, I too enjoy furry
> artwork simply for its aesthetic value. I do think however, that for
> one
> to fully appreciate an art form, they must take the time to analyze it
>
> beyond its mere appearance. This goes for all art forms (IMHO).
>
Thanks for your reply, Angel. I think that we actually agree more than
we first thought. Perhaps we just have different "first priorities".
After all, I never said that art of any type, including furry art,
shouldn't be analyzed beyond an emotional reaction. Even from my first
post I did say that some works could be understood on a deeper level,
and that analysis could add insight. The analytical reading of GD I
mentioned is a valid way of approaching it, but it is obviously
secondary. An emotional involvement is, IMHO, necessary, but in some
cases not sufficient. Some stories just want to tell a compelling
fantasy or fairy tale, and that's OK, and some stories and artworks are
more detailed.
Keep in mind, too, that an emotional understanding goes beyond a mere
surface-level appreciation, and that feelings don't preclude abstract
thought. I don't see these as opposites, but there is a danger of losing
personal feelings in abstraction. In many ways, feelings are "deeper"
than analysis.
I think everyone else's interest in this thread has expired. Perhaps we
could take this to e-mail if there is more to be said?
Cheers;
J. J.
William Haskell
Dan Pankratz wrote:
>
> In article <34FDBB...@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Jason Lescalleet <lesc...@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> >
> > Etymology of "Yiff"
> > -------------------
> >
> > By T. Tyrell Ty-Leir
>
> That was really, really clever. Reminds me a bit of that Ursula Leguin story
> about the ant-poetry on the acacia seeds...
>
Well, well...about a month ago I picked up a number of books at a local
library book sale - only just this afternoon got around to reading one
book in particular - Ursula LeGuin's BUFFALO GALS AND OTHER ANIMAL
PRESENCES - which contained, among many other *very* excellant items,
"The Author of the Acacia Seeds." Furry Bob sez, go fur it.
Srakkt Hrairh
Angel Ryan wrote:
<snip>
> For one thing, where does one draw the line between something that is a
> "furries", but what about when you get more complex. I have come to
> understand that even reptiles and *aliens* can in some ways be considered
> "furries". Well, what about fish? If a fish was given human atributes
> (No, not like a mermaid) would it be considered a "furry"? (In such a
> case, the creature from the black lagoon would be a "furry"...)
> "furry" is that it be a living creature, then what is said about insects?
> My initial inclination is to say that a human-like insect would NOT be a
> "furry"... But... Then I think of a character like "Zipper" from the
> what about things like amoebas and such? If an amoeba is given human
> characteristics (Which has actually been done before by Gary Larsen)
> would that amoeba be considered a "furry" of sorts? Could then someone's
> "personal furry" be something along the lines of 'Amy Amoeba'?!?
I think insofar as aliens are concerned, when an alien is particularly
animal-like, for instance, Niven's Kzinti, Cherryh's Hani, etc, they can
be considered "furry". At least, as a Kzintosh, I hope so.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Do you like your spleen? I would be happy to make a nice |
| little hat out of it for you." --Srakkt-Hrairh |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| James Scheffler | Srakkt@SPR,Tapestries,FurryMUCK,Furotica |
+------------------+ SilverCat on EFNet IRC channel #blackroses |
| E-Mail : sra...@tiac.net +-------------------------------------+
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | "Have you hugged your tiger today?" |
+----------------------------+-------------------------------------+