A Furry Thing Happened...

6 views
Skip to first unread message

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/24/98
to
A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:

Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
Xydexx : "Hey, that's a funny picture of a fluffy pink bunnymorph
you drew. Good to see another new furry artist here."
ChicknLitl: "Well, I draw funny animals, but I don't call myself a
furry artist."
Xydexx : "Why not?"
ChicknLitl: "Because furry is all about sex."
Xydexx : "No it isn't. It's about anthropomorphics."
ChicknLitl: "I know, but everyone thinks it's about sex."
Xydexx : "Like you, for example?"
ChicknLitl: "No, I think it's about drawing funny animals."
Xydexx : "Then why did you just say furry is all about sex?"
ChicknLitl: "Because everyone thinks it's about sex."
Xydexx : "Does everyone include you?"
ChicknLitl: "Of course."
Xydexx : "So you think furry is all about sex."
ChicknLitl: "Right. I mean- no, wait.."
Xydexx : "Does everyone include me?"
ChicknLitl: "Of course."
Xydexx : "But I just said furry is about anthropomorphics."
ChicknLitl: "Well, everyone except you then."
Xydexx : "Everyone except me. And you, right?"
ChicknLitl: "Uh, maybe."
Xydexx : "C'mon, answer the question. Do you think furry is about
sex or not?"
ChicknLitl: "Uh, no... I guess not."
Xydexx : "Then why go around saying it is?"
ChicknLitl: "Because everyone else thinks so."
Xydexx : "Everyone except you and me, right?"
ChicknLitl: "Uh, yeah... I guess so..."
Xydexx : "So everyone else doesn't think furry is all about sex,
right?"
ChicknLitl: "Yeah, I suppose."
Xydexx : "I'd wager half the ones going around saying furry is all
about sex are just doing it to fit in and look cool, right? After all,
simply _everyone_ does it. Makes you wonder which is more important,
being like _everyone_, or being _yourself_..."
ChicknLitl: "As Winston Churchill once said, people would rather die
than think for themselves."
Xydexx : "Hey, can you draw a picture of me being friendly to Nate
Patrin and trying to shake his hand, and him being all grumpy and
grouchy at me?"
ChicknLitl: "Sorry, I don't do erotica."
Xydexx : "Oh, okay. I can be such a masochist sometimes."
ChicknLitl: "You must read alt.fan.furry a lot."
Xydexx : "Not lately. Been busy offline playing Transport Tycoon
until all hours of the morning, and watching old 1950s movies on AMC."
ChicknLitl: "Really? I find that hard to believe."
Xydexx : "Ever see Out-of-Towners? Some old movie with Jack
Lemmon. It was on last night. It's like a 1950s version of Clockwise
(starring John Cleese...)."
ChicknLitl: "I didn't know you liked old movies.
Xydexx : "Well, I haven't seen many, but I'm trying to see more."
ChicknLitl: "Have you seen Gone With The Wind yet?"
Xydexx : "Not yet, but I plan to. Like I said, I can be such a
masochist sometimes."

_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
(But Still A Pretty Nice Guy If You Actually Get To Know Him.)
"Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."

Syke

unread,
Jul 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/24/98
to

K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:

*Bunch of Gibberish*

Nice to see you still enjoy twisting things around to mean something
completely different.
*I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are a
lot of people
who are in positions that are important to me and other artists who DO think
this.
Therefore, I am not going to tell them I do "furry" art, instead, I'll say I
draw cartoons
and fantasy artwork. It's known as being SMART and knowing what to say.

> _______________________________________________________________
> Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
> No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
> (But Still A Pretty Nice Guy If You Actually Get To Know Him.)
> "Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That's Ms. Syke to you, Bud.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Homepage:http://www.FurNation.com/Syke/

My email is now PostPet friendly!

Places to Find Me Online:
ICQ:11325417
Transformers Genesis:mozzarella.wpi.edu port 2000
Quinn/Nightwatch/Darius/Syke
FurryMUCK:Syke, occasionally
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Jesse McIntyre

unread,
Jul 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/24/98
to

Syke wrote:

> K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>
> *Bunch of Gibberish*
>
> Nice to see you still enjoy twisting things around to mean something
> completely different.
> *I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are a
> lot of people
> who are in positions that are important to me and other artists who DO think
> this.
> Therefore, I am not going to tell them I do "furry" art, instead, I'll say I
> draw cartoons
> and fantasy artwork. It's known as being SMART and knowing what to say.
>
>
>

Ayep, well, time for me to pull myself outta the background and support Xydexx,
cause its me job. :)

Don't know what happened, don't care, don't want ta know. :) Not even saying Xy
was right 'bout whatever. Just supporting him. :) Go find 'nother scapegoat,
y'all. :) In fact... :) start a alt.fan.furry.xydexx.haters newgroup, and mail
it there. :)

Bye now. :)

Natchat-Riis. Offical Supporter of Xydexx Squeakypony, and general love
spreader. When he feels like it. :)

P.S. Syke, don't get mad bout this. :) It's my job, you might have been right.
:)


Ross Smith

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>
> ChicknLitl: "As Winston Churchill once said, people would rather die
> than think for themselves."

It was Bertrand Russell: "Most people would die sooner than think. In
fact, they do."

--
Ross Smith ..................................... Wellington, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s...@ihug.co.nz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"Remember when we told you there was no future? Well, this is it."
-- Blank Reg

Nate Patrin

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
article <35B92B...@spammy.aol.com>...

> A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
>
> Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
> ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."

Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.

> Xydexx : "Hey, can you draw a picture of me being friendly to Nate
> Patrin and trying to shake his hand, and him being all grumpy and
> grouchy at me?"

Heh heh. Sorry man, but I got a rep to uphold. I was wonderin' when you
were gonna bring that up.

> Xydexx : "Ever see Out-of-Towners? Some old movie with Jack
> Lemmon. It was on last night. It's like a 1950s version of Clockwise
> (starring John Cleese...)."

Actually, to th' best of my knowledge, it was released in about '70.

--
-Nate Patrin
======================================================
"Will I be drawing these damn rabbits forever?" -Matt Groening, 1990
n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.net

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
Jesse McIntyre wrote:
> Ayep, well, time for me to pull myself outta the background and support Xydexx,
> cause its me job. :)

Thanks, hon. You get hugs. -:)

> Don't know what happened, don't care, don't want ta know. :) Not even saying Xy
> was right 'bout whatever. Just supporting him. :) Go find 'nother scapegoat,
> y'all. :) In fact... :) start a alt.fan.furry.xydexx.haters newgroup, and mail
> it there. :)

Heh. Don't give them any ideas. Besides, alt.fan.furry without people
flaming me is like a sabre-tooth tiger without sabre-teeth.

_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

(But Still Proudly Calls Himself A Furry Fan Cuz Furries Rule.)

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
Nate Patrin wrote:
> > Xydexx : "Hey, can you draw a picture of me being friendly to Nate
> > Patrin and trying to shake his hand, and him being all grumpy and
> > grouchy at me?"
>
> Heh heh. Sorry man, but I got a rep to uphold. I was wonderin' when you
> were gonna bring that up.

Sorry to have kept you in suspense all this time. I don't read this
newsgroup that much these days.

> Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
> yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.

Yup. (Hey, I have a rep to uphold too, y'know?)

> > Xydexx : "Ever see Out-of-Towners? Some old movie with Jack
> > Lemmon. It was on last night. It's like a 1950s version of Clockwise
> > (starring John Cleese...)."
>
> Actually, to th' best of my knowledge, it was released in about '70.

Actually, now that I think about it, yeah, it did seem like it was later
than 1950s... that's odd. For some reason I tend to say any movie over
20 years old, be it 1930 or 1970, was released in "the 1950s". (And
usually I'm right --- give or take 20 years.)

_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

(But Still A Demented 1990s Version Of Mark Twain.)

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
Ross Smith wrote:
> K. Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> >
> > ChicknLitl: "As Winston Churchill once said, people would rather die
> > than think for themselves."
>
> It was Bertrand Russell: "Most people would die sooner than think. In
> fact, they do."

Oops. My bad.

"Now art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make
itself artistic." ---Oscar Wilde

_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

(But Keeps A Copy Of Bartlett's Book Of Quotations Nearby.)

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
Syke wrote:
> *I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are a
> lot of people who are in positions that are important to me and other
> artists who DO think this.

<REITERATE>


Makes you wonder which is more important,

being like _everyone_, or being _yourself_?
</REITERATE>

But never mind... rhetorical question at this point...

_______________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

(But Still Thinks Furry Is About Anthropomorphics Anyway.)

ilr

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
>
> Heh. Don't give them any ideas. Besides, alt.fan.furry without people
> flaming me is like a sabre-tooth tiger without sabre-teeth.
>
>
AFF without Flaming is just a trivial version of Fur.Announce.

Just for fun, lets twist some more words.
Whaddaya mean furry ain't bout sex?, Life is
about sex [no offense directed at the "Happy's"]
But nooo, for the sake of all it's artists who's
entire existence depends on being taken seriously,
it has nothing to do with anything degrading like
sex. Of course my twisted logic would whine that
if it's apart from sex, then it's apart from life.
And will only grow old and extinct with no additional
generations evolving. [Yeah, this is turning into a stupid Rant]
The next generations would have been new younger artists
attracted by the more racy issues, rather than quality art
which they were not yet capable of. But the racy issues
weren't there, it was just a bunch of old humans happy
as hell that the fandom was cleansed of spooge, and it
eventually died with them. And no one said "Oh mah
God, They killed Furry Fandom!" because its few surviving
fans were raised on 1950's movies and hated smut.

And everyone has to decry smut every chance they get too.
Lets pretend that they all accepted what Picasso was doing
at his time. A lot of artists here(highly respected by me
unfortunately) like to act like they're creating classic-friggin
-art or something. Picasso would have died a no-name (with
the exception of his earlier work) if they accepted what he
did. They thought it was perverted, if not downright satanic.
In the Future when they're having death sex, body modification,
and a ton of other things we can't imagine, this "Smut" might
be considered classical.
Stop trying to wash the spooge out of my Fur
-ilr


================================
"What's a revolution without a revolt?"
i...@rof.net
Website: none, just track me down on yiffco
===================================

Don Sanders

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
In article <35B92B...@spammy.aol.com>, xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com wrote:
>A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
>
**** the dialog that was here was snipped to preserve it in the archives to
keep it 's orginal content (wow, such big words from a little chow;))****

Ya know I had to put m .02 cents in, cause I could not spend it at AAC.
Anywho, it seem strange that these days, folks equate furry with sex.
It seem like only yesterday, like 30 or 40 years ago, nah, lets say the early
to mid 70's, a lot of us who were into underground comixs saw a lot of furry
images. I can imagine back then, if there was a internet and a open fandom,
some folks would say, that furry equates to drugs. Hehehe, Right! I can now
imagine the next century when Furry equates to (add your own fears and self
doubt here).

Well, I had my say, guess I will return to the studio and draw some more naked
bunnies :) But I can say for myself, Furry is not all about sex, well, not
all about sex, er I mean only a little about sex, um... Nevermind, hehe .


>Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
>No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

>(But Still A Pretty Nice Guy If You Actually Get To Know Him.)

> "Remember back when 'gay' meant 'happy'? It still does."

Former? how about Ambassador without Porfolilo(sp?), it sounds better, more
important, and since the fandom has no defined bounderies, more less likely to
be recalled. have fun.

Don Sanders

Dsan Tsan on #furry and on FurryMuck
Valsen Tsan on Tapestries
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
In article <35B95749...@geocities.com>,
Jesse McIntyre <natcha...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Natchat-Riis. [...] general love spreader. [...]

I tried that new spreadable love, but it tasted just like margarine, so
I went back to the old stuff even if I do have to leave it out half an
hour before using it.

--

This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document


David Tapia

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
In article <01bdb780$655973e0$38db96ce@n8rich>,

"Nate Patrin" <n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.spammers.smoke.crack.net> wrote:
> K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
> article <35B92B...@spammy.aol.com>...
> > A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
> >
> > Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
> > ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
>
> Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
> yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.
>

Too bad you didn't take a boom box to the con with you Nate. Anytime Xydexx
attempted to approach, you could have just blasted him with some Merzbow and
said "Keep away ya freak!" Of course you might have cleared up the entire
hotel if you had played Merzobw for 30 seconds. Next year Nate. Next year.

Hmmm...anybody up for watching 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' at next
year's con?


--
David Tapia

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
article <35B978...@spammy.aol.com>...

> Syke wrote:
> > *I* do not think furry is about sex, what I do think, is that there are
a
> > lot of people who are in positions that are important to me and other
> > artists who DO think this.
>
> <REITERATE>
> Makes you wonder which is more important,
> being like _everyone_, or being _yourself_?
> </REITERATE>
>

Foolish question. She's already stated the answer. She wants to be
herself and not be inappropriately mislabeled with a misleading term,
especially if it could cost her a promising job or career.

--

-Chuck Melville-
"We'd like to buy a cat. Preferably one with a history of mental illness."

Elf Sternberg

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
In article <6pcof7$a...@bonkers.taronga.com>
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>I tried that new spreadable love, but it tasted just like margarine, so
>I went back to the old stuff even if I do have to leave it out half an
>hour before using it.

Yeah, cold love just isn't any fun. It does take a little
warming up. 'Course, you could just use the Microwave o' Foreplay.

Elf

--

Elf M. Sternberg - www.halcyon.com/elf

I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore


Peter da Silva

unread,
Jul 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/25/98
to
In article <6pd7pb$ukk$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> Yeah, cold love just isn't any fun. It does take a little
>warming up. 'Course, you could just use the Microwave o' Foreplay.

Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!

I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".

"Where do you want to go today?"

"Third Base!"

(cue Abbot and Costello)

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
article <35B925...@spammy.aol.com>...
> One of the more fascinating paradoxes I've observed on this newsgroup
> over the past two years is how a lot of the folks who don't want to call
> themselves "furry" because "it's all about sex, et al." are quite often
> the same people saying furry is all about sex, et al. in the first
> place.
>

Well, shucks, Xxydex, a lot of the folks who don't want to call themselves
'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex... we have plenty
of other
folks out there gleefully pointing it out to the whole world at large. For
a point in example, try the latest issue of BIZARRE
(http://www.bizarremag.com/)
for an article on fetishes, with an excerpt on plushies and furries that
makes Confurence sound like a sleazy attraction on Times Square.

Elf Sternberg

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
In article <6pdhe4$g...@bonkers.taronga.com>
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <6pd7pb$ukk$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, cold love just isn't any fun. It does take a little
>>warming up. 'Course, you could just use the Microwave o' Foreplay.

>Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!
>I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".
>"Where do you want to go today?"
>
> "Third Base!"

Microsoft Foreplay? That's where they give the executives
money before they fuck the developers...

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
Chuck Melville wrote:
> Well, shucks, Xydexx, a lot of the folks who don't want to call themselves

> 'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex...

I know, they don't _have_ to. But they still do anyway. -:P

> For a point in example, try the latest issue of BIZARRE
> (http://www.bizarremag.com/) for an article on fetishes

Xydexx quickly dons his dark sunglasses and runs from the gathering
papparazzi.

"I have no comment on that at this time." -:)

_______________________________________________________________


Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom

(Only Grants Interviews If You Ask Him Really Really Nicely)

K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
article <35BAFF...@spammy.aol.com>...

> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > Well, shucks, Xydexx, a lot of the folks who don't want to call
themselves
> > 'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex...
>
> I know, they don't _have_ to. But they still do anyway. -:P

Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
-isn't- about sex.

And before people start reacting in knee-jerk fashion, yes, I'm aware that
furry ostensibly -isn't- about sex... but what you always glibly avoid is
the concrete fact that the -perception- from outside -- and that includes
the reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom -- is that it
-is-. And that's where the harm is. And that's why every outside article
about furrydom has centered squarely on the sleaze factor. And that's why
professional writers and artists looking for jobs in the animation field,
selling books to publishers, or what-have-you always have to contend with
stiff resistance from potential employers; because of the image problem the
fandom has obtained, and perversely clings to.

By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true, but
ignoring that it is perceived by others as being about sex -- and there
appear to be many here who feel that that -is- what it's all about -- then
you are making a sin of omission, and are only helping to perpetuate the
harm.
But then, considering how you are also mentioned and quoted in the
article, I guess you have your own interests to protect as well.

> Xydexx quickly dons his dark sunglasses and runs from the gathering
> papparazzi.
>
> "I have no comment on that at this time." -:)

Small wonder.

Dan Pankratz

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.net> writes:


> the concrete fact that the -perception- from outside -- and that includes
> the reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom -- is that it
> -is-. And that's where the harm is. And that's why every outside article
> about furrydom has centered squarely on the sleaze factor.

Acknowledging that the "reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom"
are almost always from publications that specialize in sensationalizing
sleaze should help put things in perspective. It's a bit of a biased sample,
don't you think?

> And that's why
> professional writers and artists looking for jobs in the animation field,
> selling books to publishers, or what-have-you always have to contend with
> stiff resistance from potential employers; because of the image problem the
> fandom has obtained, and perversely clings to.

Is it the /fandom/ that has the image problem, or the /genre/? Is it the
people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter. Every non-fur I've ever shown
furry art to has picked up on the fact that it screams sex- and I have yet to
show an outsider anything that would garner an NC-17 rating in the CF artshow,
or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this? I'm
convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw a
halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing people
will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The second is
of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there you have
it- furry = sex.

Granted, not all furry art is equally embedded in a sexualized context- a good
example of the latter, unsexed furry art is that recent ZU cover I mentioned by
Heather Riesen. But art like that is an exception, not the rule.

Who outside the fandom, in the animation industry, for instance, has ever heard
of Jim Groat? Or Steve Gallacci? Or more appropriately, Mark Merlino? I bet you
could count those who are familiar with these names on one hand. Ask this same
pool of people whether they've heard of furry art, and you'd get quite a
different response, I'm sure. It's not the people, and what we may or may not
have to say, it's the art. The art speaks for itself.



> By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true, but
> ignoring that it is perceived by others as being about sex -- and there
> appear to be many here who feel that that -is- what it's all about -- then

I'm not convinced that what we, the fen, decide furry fandom's about makes
much of a difference at all. It's how outsiders, who have no point of
reference, perceive it that matters, at least when it comes to issues of public
relations.

And all they have to do to form _that_ opinion is take a peek.

-Dan

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Repeat after me: us, them... uuuussss, _them_..."
-The Truth About Cats and Dogs

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote in article
<6pfpco$ikh$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...

> In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
<cp...@zipcon.net> writes:
>
>
> > the concrete fact that the -perception- from outside -- and that
includes
> > the reporters and/or journalists that write up the fandom -- is that it
> > -is-. And that's where the harm is. And that's why every outside
article
> > about furrydom has centered squarely on the sleaze factor.
>
> Acknowledging that the "reporters and/or journalists that write up the
fandom"
> are almost always from publications that specialize in sensationalizing
> sleaze should help put things in perspective. It's a bit of a biased
sample,
> don't you think?

Is it? Consider that the -only- publications writing about furry appear
to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK? Where are the more specialized
mags like COMICS JOURNAL or STARLOG? Why isn't there any interest from the
SF magazines like ANALOG, SCIENCE-FICTION CHRONICLE, or, more
appropriately, REALMS OF FANTASY? Granted not all of these publications
are going to have an interest in furry, and furry may not be appropos to
the title for reasons of timeliness or topic -- but -none- of them are
writing or publishing articles about furry, whether it be about the fandom,
the art, the stories, the people, etc. If you have only sex mags writing
about furry, then there is a definite bias at work, but it is one of
perception -- the perception that it is a sex fantasy.

> > And that's why
> > professional writers and artists looking for jobs in the animation
field,
> > selling books to publishers, or what-have-you always have to contend
with
> > stiff resistance from potential employers; because of the image problem
the
> > fandom has obtained, and perversely clings to.
>
> Is it the /fandom/ that has the image problem, or the /genre/? Is it the
> people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter

Both. Quite often, the two are indistinguishable to outsiders. One
follows the other, in their estimation.

>Every non-fur I've ever shown
> furry art to has picked up on the fact that it screams sex- and I have
yet to
> show an outsider anything that would garner an NC-17 rating in the CF
artshow,
> or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this?
I'm
> convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw
a
> halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing
people
> will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The
second is
> of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there
you have
> it- furry = sex.
>

Why does that naturally follow, unless you show a picture with a detailed
rendering of humanoid aspects? Do you get that reaction, say, from showing
an OZZY AND MILLIE strip to a non-fur? Or a KEVIN AND KELL? There are
several artists who tend more towards broader cartoon characters; I doubt
many of those would garner the same reaction. (At least, I hope not!)
I do gather your point, though, as there is a lot of material that skirts
along the edge, in portraying furry morphs (or similar); there's no
escaping that. But those portrayals shouldn't of themselves lead to the
kind of exclusive interest we seem to garner among the sleaze mags. What
other genre or sub-genre is -only- written up in sex mags, outside of
sexually oriented interests?

> Granted, not all furry art is equally embedded in a sexualized context- a
good
> example of the latter, unsexed furry art is that recent ZU cover I
mentioned by
> Heather Riesen. But art like that is an exception, not the rule.

If art like that was an exception, I'd have had -no- covers for ZU. Or
interiors. Neither would FURRLOUGH.

> Who outside the fandom, in the animation industry, for instance, has ever
heard
> of Jim Groat? Or Steve Gallacci? Or more appropriately, Mark Merlino? I
bet you
> could count those who are familiar with these names on one hand. Ask this
same
> pool of people whether they've heard of furry art, and you'd get quite a
> different response, I'm sure. It's not the people, and what we may or may
not
> have to say, it's the art. The art speaks for itself.

It's not just the art that garners the attention, though. It wasn't art
that attracted the attention of LOADED, but the fetshism. It wasn't the
art, but the extreme behavior of a small segment of con-goers that drew the
focus of BIZARRE.

> > By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true, but
> > ignoring that it is perceived by others as being about sex -- and there
> > appear to be many here who feel that that -is- what it's all about --
then
>
> I'm not convinced that what we, the fen, decide furry fandom's about
makes
> much of a difference at all. It's how outsiders, who have no point of
> reference, perceive it that matters, at least when it comes to issues of
public
> relations.

Yes. Exactly so. But if those perceptions are continually validated by
the more visible and outrageous factions, then the perception will never
alter, and furry will continue to play damage control into perpetuity.

William Haskell

unread,
Jul 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/26/98
to
David Tapia wrote:
>
> In article <01bdb780$655973e0$38db96ce@n8rich>,
> "Nate Patrin" <n8r...@pioneerplanet.infi.spammers.smoke.crack.net> wrote:
> > K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
> > article <35B92B...@spammy.aol.com>...
> > > A Furry Thing Happened On The Way To The Dealer's Room:
> > >
> > > Xydexx : "My, those are some big pants Nate Patrin is wearing."
> > > ChicknLitl: "Someone could get lost in them. There ought to be a law."
> >
> > Ohh, phblt. You're just upset you couldn't get a clear view of my butt for
> > yer gawkin' pleasure. Perv.
> >
>
> Too bad you didn't take a boom box to the con with you Nate. Anytime Xydexx
> attempted to approach, you could have just blasted him with some Merzbow and
> said "Keep away ya freak!" Of course you might have cleared up the entire
> hotel if you had played Merzobw for 30 seconds. Next year Nate. Next year.
>
> Hmmm...anybody up for watching 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' at next
> year's con?

That depends whether it runs before or after 'Meet The Feebles.'

David Tapia

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <6pg8du$lg$1...@news.hal-pc.org>,
"forban"@[204.52.135.1] wrote:
> David Tapia wrote:

<snipped a lot>


> >
> > Hmmm...anybody up for watching 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer' at next
> > year's con?
>
> That depends whether it runs before or after 'Meet The Feebles.'

What would necessarily be the difference for you if 'Henry' were show before
or after 'Feebles'?

Now that I think about it maybe a Peter Jackson festival would be a nice to
have (all his films except for 'Frighteners'- bleech!)

The following day the films to be screened could include (not necessarily in
this order): 'Trainspotting', 'M', 'A CLockwork Orange', 'Welcome to the
Dollouse', 'Martin', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Man Bites Dog' (French Film), and of
course 'Henry'.

Any additional suggestions to add to the festival?

Dan Pankratz

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <01bdb8c5$0dcdc860$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.net> writes:

> > Acknowledging that the "reporters and/or journalists that write up the
> fandom"
> > are almost always from publications that specialize in sensationalizing
> > sleaze should help put things in perspective. It's a bit of a biased
> sample,
> > don't you think?
>
> Is it? Consider that the -only- publications writing about furry appear
> to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
> years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
> mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK? Where are the more specialized

I don't know. I don't have many very good ideas as to why we're not covered in
the mainstream press, but I'm not convinced that it's because of some sexual
reputation which we may or may not have among the press corps. I think it has
more to do with our size. YMMV, of course... this is very subjective territory.
Any evidence one way or the other would be much welcome.

> the title for reasons of timeliness or topic -- but -none- of them are
> writing or publishing articles about furry, whether it be about the fandom,
> the art, the stories, the people, etc. If you have only sex mags writing
> about furry, then there is a definite bias at work, but it is one of
> perception -- the perception that it is a sex fantasy.

As I suggest above, I'm not convinced that it immediately follows that just
because furrydom is only treated and publicized by the exploiters of sex that
furrydom is necessarily nothing but sex. I'm not even convinced that this is a
perception that these magazines are attempting to portray. All I think it
suggests is that folks who are looking for a new sexual fantasy have a good
chance of finding something of interest to them in furrydom, and that the editors
and reporters of these sexually-targeted magazines have shrewdly picked up on
this element of furry fandom. This doesn't necessarily mean, however that
furrydom is exclusively about sex. It's like a magazine that caters to collectors
covering a civil war convention... sure, for some folks, collecting civil war
memorabilia is the reason for their involvement in the "civil war commmunity",
for others it might be the rendezvouses (!) or the reenactments or the general
historical interest of the thing that holds the appeal. Granted, it may in fact
be a very small percentage of the participants of a civil war convention who are
there to collect memorabilia, but they are there nonetheless and outsiders who
like to collect may enjoy taking advantage of the opportunities their presence
affords. That doesn't mean that's all there is to a civil war convention,
though... and I don't think most folks reading such an article would necessarily
assume such right off the bat, either.

Yeesh. Here's hoping the analogy holds... :)

> > Is it the /fandom/ that has the image problem, or the /genre/? Is it the
> > people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter
>
> Both. Quite often, the two are indistinguishable to outsiders. One
> follows the other, in their estimation.

Granted, a self-identified furry artist choosing to bring erotica to a job
interview paints an unflattering portrait of not only the furry genre but the
producers of it as well. But still, most outsiders when exposed to something
like a genre of art for the first time are going to generate opinions about the
genre first, long before they generate opinions of the purveyors of said genre.

I'm sure folks have much more fully formed opinions about pornography than they
do about the people that produce it... I'm sure folks' opinion of the latter
would definitely be open to interpretation on an individual basis, and dependant
upon some first-hand knowledge or experience dealing with a particular
individual.



> > or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this?
> I'm
> > convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw
> a
> > halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing
> people
> > will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The
> second is
> > of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there
> you have
> > it- furry = sex.
> >
>
> Why does that naturally follow, unless you show a picture with a detailed
> rendering of humanoid aspects?

I don't know! All I'm saying is that from an empirical stance, it seems to.
Maybe because the pairing of human physical sexual cues and animal esthetic
elements is so unusual.

> Do you get that reaction, say, from showing
> an OZZY AND MILLIE strip to a non-fur? Or a KEVIN AND KELL? There are
> several artists who tend more towards broader cartoon characters; I doubt
> many of those would garner the same reaction. (At least, I hope not!)

Can't say I've done that experiment. I like pinup, the stuff that Michelle Light
and Wookiee and Terrie Smith do a lot of, and it's my collection of (mild!)
color prints that I'm most likely to show off to an outsider curious about all
the stuff on my walls. Maybe that's the problem, maybe I've biased it from the
outset. Maybe I should be handing them all a stack of PawPrints. :)

> I do gather your point, though, as there is a lot of material that skirts
> along the edge, in portraying furry morphs (or similar); there's no
> escaping that.

You're right, there is no escaping it. Once we admit to ourselves
that that there is sex in furrydom, we can then /move on/ and figure out how to
best present the sexualized aspects in as positive a light as possible, without
creating the impression that this is all there is to furrydom.

/This/ is how we're going to solve the "image problem", not by burying our heads
in the sand and shouting "furry is not about sex!!". We need to fess up, say
"yeah, there's sex in furrydom, quite a bit, but that's not all there is to it...
in many cases, it's just an unfortunate byproduct of the genre. Please look past
it if it bothers you; there's a lot of good stuff here to be found if one
can come to grips with the sexual element."

> > Granted, not all furry art is equally embedded in a sexualized context- a
> good
> > example of the latter, unsexed furry art is that recent ZU cover I
> mentioned by
> > Heather Riesen. But art like that is an exception, not the rule.
>
> If art like that was an exception, I'd have had -no- covers for ZU. Or
> interiors. Neither would FURRLOUGH.

I'll take your word for it. Maybe I'm a bit too immersed in the pinup ghetto. :)

I for one would love to see more art like that cover.



> > different response, I'm sure. It's not the people, and what we may or may
> not
> > have to say, it's the art. The art speaks for itself.
>
> It's not just the art that garners the attention, though. It wasn't art
> that attracted the attention of LOADED, but the fetshism. It wasn't the
> art, but the extreme behavior of a small segment of con-goers that drew the
> focus of BIZARRE.

Yes, but this focusing happened after the fact. It did take place, but that's
because it makes for good sleaze, and only after we had first been called to
their attention. As many others have said here in months past, it happened
because it was sensational, not because it was representative. It's unfortunate
that it happened this way, but it's to be expected given the nature of the
publications doing the coverage. It still doesn't mean that this is all we're
about, though, and it could be argued as to whether these publications /really/
create the impression that this /is/ all we're about.

*hic!* Pardon me... I'm on my second hefeweizen. ;)

> > I'm not convinced that what we, the fen, decide furry fandom's about
> makes
> > much of a difference at all. It's how outsiders, who have no point of
> > reference, perceive it that matters, at least when it comes to issues of
> public
> > relations.
>
> Yes. Exactly so. But if those perceptions are continually validated by
> the more visible and outrageous factions, then the perception will never
> alter, and furry will continue to play damage control into perpetuity.

Hmm. I'm not so sure that it follows that these "outrageous factions" have that
much power to make or break our image when it comes to the personal context.
Anyone with half a brain showing up to a convention or a furmeet or a furry
room party will be able to figure out that it's /not/ all about sex, even if
there are some elements in the fandom that appear to fixate on those elements.
As for the need to play damage control, well, I think that would be a bit easier
if we'd all just admit that the element is there in the first place, rather than
denying it outright like a bunch of two-bit politicians. At least then we'd be
leaving the PR starting blocks on the right foot. Or paw, as the case may be.

Okie, I've lost my eloquence for th' evening. Off to the showers with me. :)

Doodles

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
On 26 Jul 1998 18:41:10 GMT, "Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:

>Where are the more specialized mags like COMICS JOURNAL or STARLOG?

I can't speak for any of the other mags you mention, but the Journal's
website did make mention of their opinion of the fandom not very long
ago. With a very small number of exceptions, they find development in
the genre moribund and uninteresting, an assessment I'm hard pressed
to challenge. Face it, furry has one hell of a lot higher goals to
strive for compared to the typical spandex action. All one has to do
is hold up a copy of MAUS...

Tom Spurgeon [Editor in Chief for the Journal at the time] posted a
couple of messages about their opinion on the subject here on a.f.f.
A brief search of Deja News should find them.

Unca Spooge, watching things progress.

Doodles

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:00:52 GMT, David Tapia <tap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Now that I think about it maybe a Peter Jackson festival would be a nice to
>have (all his films except for 'Frighteners'- bleech!)
>
>The following day the films to be screened could include (not necessarily in
>this order): 'Trainspotting', 'M', 'A CLockwork Orange', 'Welcome to the
>Dollouse', 'Martin', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Man Bites Dog' (French Film), and of
>course 'Henry'.

Keeping things furry, how about "Silence of the Lambs?" =};-3

Unca Spooge, with some fava beans and a /nice/ chianti...

Ron Orr...& Tirran

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:

> Ack. MORE WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!
>
> I read that as "Microsoft Foreplay".
>
> "Where do you want to go today?"
>
> "Third Base!"
>

> (cue Abbot and Costello)

After waiting an hour or so to let my sides heal... that is
_the_ funniest thing I've seen on Usenet in months...

Ron
A&C fan

David Tapia

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <35be0ba8...@news.primenet.com>,

doo...@cheezies.primenet.com (Doodles) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:00:52 GMT, David Tapia <tap...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Now that I think about it maybe a Peter Jackson festival would be a nice to
> >have (all his films except for 'Frighteners'- bleech!)
> >
> >The following day the films to be screened could include (not necessarily in
> >this order): 'Trainspotting', 'M', 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Welcome to the

> >Dollouse', 'Martin', 'Apocalypse Now', 'Man Bites Dog' (French Film), and of
> >course 'Henry'.
>
> Keeping things furry, how about "Silence of the Lambs?" =};-3

Nice film but a bit too 'safe' (i.e. Hollyood-ish) in comparison to the other
films I suggested. And if you looked at the list carefully, there is the
French film 'Man Bites _Dog_' if you want to keep things furry. Thanks for
the suggestion anyway. Shouldn't this discussion be splitered off from this
thread now?

Richard de Wylfin

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <01bdb8c5$0dcdc860$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
<cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:


~to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
~years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
~mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK?


Maybe you don't remember the brief bit in the New York Times Magazine
a while ago, showing James Firmiss in his skunk suit. No mention of
sex whatever.

^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://i.am/a.furry.fox

Locandez

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
<cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:

> By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true,

Not all furry characters are _funny_ animals...


Locandez


--
Blank Furvey: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lyndale/home/surveys/furvey.txt

My email address has been deliberately modified to prevent spam. If you would
like to send me mail, replace the 7 random letters in the address with the
word 'lyndale'.

"Canine, feline; Jeckle and Hyde. Wear your fake fur on the inside" - "A Change Will Do You Good"


Mutt

unread,
Jul 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/27/98
to
> By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true,

I wouldn't say that. There's lotsa serious & realistic animals too.
--
^v^
Blessed be,
Mutt the Pagan Fur
http://www.flash.net/~kitsune


Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
I don't see the New York Times Magazine here in Seattle, so I was unaware
of the article. What was the gist and the focus of the article?
--

-Chuck Melville-
"We'd like to buy a cat. Preferably one with a history of mental illness."

Richard de Wylfin <dwy...@usa.net> wrote in article
<dwylfin-2707...@1cust65.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net>...
> In article <01bdb8c5$0dcdc860$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
> <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>
> ~to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple of
> ~years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
> ~mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK?

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote in article
<6ph8c1$qla$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...

> > Consider that the -only- publications writing about furry
appear
> > to be sex mags. The only exception was the WIRED article of a couple
of
> > years ago, and even that was slanted towards sex. Where are the more
> > mainstream press such as TIME or NEWSWEEK? Where are the more
specialized
>
> I don't know. I don't have many very good ideas as to why we're not
covered in
> the mainstream press, but I'm not convinced that it's because of some
sexual
> reputation which we may or may not have among the press corps. I think it
has
> more to do with our size. YMMV, of course... this is very subjective
territory.
> Any evidence one way or the other would be much welcome.

Considering the number of furry conventions in existance, and those new
ones cropping up -- and the fact that Confurence is approaching its tenth
year -- and the number of furry books that have been published over the
past decade, and that there is an active fandom, I find it odd that there
have been only two articles written about furry fandom over those ten years
(AMAZING HEROES #129 and the more recent CBG this past year). At the very
least, its strong and growing presence on the internet alone should warrant
curiosity by one or another magazine.
But it's the sexual aspect and presence that gets the notice, and
therefore winds up being written about.

> ... I'm not convinced that it immediately follows that


just
> because furrydom is only treated and publicized by the exploiters of sex
that
> furrydom is necessarily nothing but sex. I'm not even convinced that this
is a
> perception that these magazines are attempting to portray. All I think it

> suggests is that folks who are looking for a new sexual fantasy have a
good
> chance of finding something of interest to them in furrydom, and that the
editors
> and reporters of these sexually-targeted magazines have shrewdly picked
up on
> this element of furry fandom. This doesn't necessarily mean, however that

> furrydom is exclusively about sex.

No, but it -does- indicate that the editors and writers of those
publications apparently -believes- that it does.

> It's like a magazine that caters to collectors
> covering a civil war convention... sure, for some folks, collecting civil
war
> memorabilia is the reason for their involvement in the "civil war
commmunity",
> for others it might be the rendezvouses (!) or the reenactments or the
general
> historical interest of the thing that holds the appeal. Granted, it may
in fact
> be a very small percentage of the participants of a civil war convention
who are
> there to collect memorabilia, but they are there nonetheless and
outsiders who
> like to collect may enjoy taking advantage of the opportunities their
presence
> affords. That doesn't mean that's all there is to a civil war convention,
> though... and I don't think most folks reading such an article would
necessarily
> assume such right off the bat, either.
>
> Yeesh. Here's hoping the analogy holds... :)
>

I'm afraid that it doesn't.

Civil War afficiandos are interested in all aspects of the War: the
history, the people, the weapons, the battles, etc. There is little to
nothing about sex involved with the war: you won't see a lot of Civil War
eroticism, therefore no reason to believe there is anything sexually sleazy
about the Civil War.

> All I'm saying is that from an empirical stance, it seems
to.
> Maybe because the pairing of human physical sexual cues and animal
esthetic
> elements is so unusual.
>

I wonder what it is that you mean by 'sexual cues'? Are you referring to
secondary sexual characteristics, like female breasts, or (as I generally
understand the phrase) implicit or explicit body language? If the latter,
these are only going to be seen in the risque and adult material; if the
former, I fail to understand why anyone should interpret a humanoid
construction as being -sexy- unless the sexual characteristics were being
deliberately overemphasized.

But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains sexual
cues. Where was it in LION KING, a
story of intrigue and murder (unless you include the -romantic- interlude
with Nala? Not really sexual.)? Where are they with ITCHY AND SCRATCHY?
SONIC THE HEDGEHOG? Putting a pair of breasts on a female funny-animal
isn't so much a sexual cue as it is a recognition that the character -is-
female. 'Sexual cue' is reading too much into it.
Usually, anyway.

> > I do gather your point, though, as there is a lot of material that
skirts
> > along the edge, in portraying furry morphs (or similar); there's no
> > escaping that.
>
> You're right, there is no escaping it. Once we admit to ourselves
> that that there is sex in furrydom, we can then /move on/ and figure out
how to
> best present the sexualized aspects in as positive a light as possible,
without
> creating the impression that this is all there is to furrydom.
>

That wasn't quite what I'd had in mind. The sexualized aspects get quite
enough free press on their own. Rather, we need to figure out how to best
present the -rest- of anthropomorphics in as broad and as positive a
fashion as possible.

> /This/ is how we're going to solve the "image problem", not by burying
our heads
> in the sand and shouting "furry is not about sex!!". We need to fess up,
say
> "yeah, there's sex in furrydom, quite a bit, but that's not all there is
to it...
> in many cases, it's just an unfortunate byproduct of the genre. Please
look past
> it if it bothers you; there's a lot of good stuff here to be found if one
> can come to grips with the sexual element."
>

I'm pretty much in agreement here, except I don't see a need to mention
the sex aspect right off. It'll get noticed, and it can get introduced
by-and-by; best not to squick outsiders right off the bat -- let them warm
up by seeing the -rest- of the furry works -first-. It may make the sexier
stuff a little easier to handle.

> > It's not just the art that garners the attention, though. It wasn't
art
> > that attracted the attention of LOADED, but the fetshism. It wasn't
the
> > art, but the extreme behavior of a small segment of con-goers that drew
the
> > focus of BIZARRE.
>
> Yes, but this focusing happened after the fact. It did take place, but
that's
> because it makes for good sleaze, and only after we had first been called
to
> their attention. As many others have said here in months past, it
happened
> because it was sensational, not because it was representative. It's
unfortunate
> that it happened this way, but it's to be expected given the nature of
the
> publications doing the coverage. It still doesn't mean that this is all
we're
> about, though, and it could be argued as to whether these publications
/really/
> create the impression that this /is/ all we're about.

As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's the
-perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for the
sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for any
other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a sexfest.

It occurs to me that the -only- positive comments about the con are
usually posted here on the newsgroups, where it falls on the ears (eyes?)
of the already converted, but never to the general public. One interesting
project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
feature article for one of the SF or Fantasy magazines. -That- would be a
major step in producing a positive overview of Furry, and -might- (I only
say -might-) turn the tide how we're perceived and reported upon in the
future.
It might be an uphill battle, but the results might be worth it in the
long run.

> Hmm. I'm not so sure that it follows that these "outrageous factions"
have that
> much power to make or break our image when it comes to the personal
context.
> Anyone with half a brain showing up to a convention or a furmeet or a
furry
> room party will be able to figure out that it's /not/ all about sex, even
if
> there are some elements in the fandom that appear to fixate on those
elements.

Anyone who walks into the dealer's room might only just have their first
impressions cemented once they see the availability of suggestive and
explicit material at most dealer's tables. Or in the art show.

> Okie, I've lost my eloquence for th' evening. Off to the showers with me.
:)
>

And eloquent it was. You do good conversation/discussion.

xyd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
Chuck Melville wrote:
> It occurs to me that the -only- positive comments about the con are
> usually posted here on the newsgroups, where it falls on the ears (eyes?)
> of the already converted, but never to the general public. One interesting
> project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
> those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
> feature article for one of the SF or Fantasy magazines. -That- would be a
> major step in producing a positive overview of Furry, and -might- (I only
> say -might-) turn the tide how we're perceived and reported upon in the
> future.

Great idea. Sounds strangely familiar.

It would certainly do more to improve furry's image than the ongoing flamewars
here would.

How does that saying go again? "If you don't like what's being reported on
the news, go make your own..."?

Or words to that effect.

Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C.

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to


> Chuck Melville wrote:
> > It occurs to me that the -only- positive comments about the con are
> > usually posted here on the newsgroups, where it falls on the ears
(eyes?)
> > of the already converted, but never to the general public. One
interesting
> > project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
> > those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a
> > feature article for one of the SF or Fantasy magazines. -That- would
be a
> > major step in producing a positive overview of Furry, and -might- (I
only
> > say -might-) turn the tide how we're perceived and reported upon in the
> > future.

Oooh! A challenge :) Make a furry con report that the SciFi magazines
(such as Analog I suppose) would accept. Talk about writing for a hostile
audience! Still, I'll give it a shot after MFM.

What is the typical wordcount of such a review? And does anyone have
a similar review handy that I can look at for starters?

Allen Kitchen (shockwave, ever writing, usually code...)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/


Farlo

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
>Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C.
>

Reverend? As in, "Give us this day our daily Squeaky Toy?"?

=:)

I know what K.F.C. stands for - what's K.S.C.?

-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon

Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX
-------------------

xyd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
Farlo wrote:
> Reverend? As in, "Give us this day our daily Squeaky Toy?"?

Yes.

> I know what K.F.C. stands for - what's K.S.C.?

Keeper of the Sacred Clydesdale. -:)

Wanderer

unread,
Jul 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/28/98
to
Chuck Melville wrote in message <01bdb98f$222a47a0$LocalHost@kathleen>...
(snip)

> As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's the
>-perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for the
>sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for any
>other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
>major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a sexfest.
>
(snip)
To be honest, Chuck, I don't know that the articles everyone here keeps
talking about are all that "mainstream". Certainly, *I* never heard of them
before I arrived on AFF and saw everyone complaining about them. The only
one that seems "mainstream" from my recent-outsider point of view would be
the TV news report on furryfans ... and, be fair, they completely glossed
over any possible sexual connotations. Of course, they made it pretty darn
clear that they consider furryfans to be a bunch of harmless crazies ... but
they never mentioned sex!;>

Wired, Loaded ... these magazines don't exactly have a wide circulation here
in Texas, so I couldn't tell you how big an impact they'll actually have on
the public in terms of overall distribution. And, fursonally, I've never
run across anyone in my area that equates furries with sex ... usually, they
equate furries with children's books and cartoons in my area (around here,
RPGs are the big bugaboo ... we get a lot of Chick tracts).

So bear in mind in the future (though I'll wolf it in mind, myself;) that
the picture we, as furry fans, perceive is one miniscule portion of what the
"outside world" sees ... and we're just not a very high priority compared to
Kenneth Starr, Monica Lewinsky, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Muammar
Quaddafi, and cloning.

Yours with the big picture,

The wolfish,

Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
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!

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to

Locandez <wgi...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in article
<na.8d2457486c...@argonet.co.uk>...
> In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"

> <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
> > By saying only 'furries is about funny-animals', which is true,
>
> Not all furry characters are _funny_ animals...
>

I won't quibble over the term; call it anthropomorphics if you prefer.
Anything to keep from being sidetracked from the main context.

--

Dan Pankratz

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
In article <01bdb98f$222a47a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.net> writes:

> Considering the number of furry conventions in existance, and those new

<snip>


> past decade, and that there is an active fandom, I find it odd that there
> have been only two articles written about furry fandom over those ten years

As do I...

> But it's the sexual aspect and presence that gets the notice, and
> therefore winds up being written about.

Yes, but it's not like Newsweek did an article on us that emphasized the sex.
It's Loaded doing an article on us that emphasizes the sex, and it think it's
important to realize that it's the slease mags doing the biased reporting.
DeWylfin mentioned the NYT article and I think he said that they did a
relatively even-handed job of it, without mentioning the sexual fetishism that
sometimes accompanies fursuiting. I'd be curious to see how more mainstream
publications chose to cover us... and I suspect strongly that they would do a
much less biased, much more professional job, Wired notwithstanding.



> > and reporters of these sexually-targeted magazines have shrewdly picked
> up on
> > this element of furry fandom. This doesn't necessarily mean, however that
>
> > furrydom is exclusively about sex.
>
> No, but it -does- indicate that the editors and writers of those
> publications apparently -believes- that it does.

Or, that they believe that this is what they can sell to their readership.

> about the Civil War.
>
> > All I'm saying is that from an empirical stance, it seems
> to.
> > Maybe because the pairing of human physical sexual cues and animal
> esthetic
> > elements is so unusual.
> >
>
> I wonder what it is that you mean by 'sexual cues'? Are you referring to
> secondary sexual characteristics, like female breasts, or (as I generally
> understand the phrase) implicit or explicit body language?

Both...

> If the latter,
> these are only going to be seen in the risque and adult material; if the
> former, I fail to understand why anyone should interpret a humanoid
> construction as being -sexy- unless the sexual characteristics were being
> deliberately overemphasized.

I'm not saying that slapping on breasts always makes a drawing "sexy", what I'm
saying is that it makes the drawing _sexed_... it gives sex to a creature with
animal attributes, which, while not quite as extreme and novel (to an outsider)
as making a creature with animal attributes sexy, it is nevertheless on the same
continuum, and may be enough to trigger the "WTF? That cat has tits!" reflex in
somebody.

Obviously, we're now talking about the gray area of furry art. For instance, many
of the morphs in PawPrints have obvious female secondary sex characteristics and
modes of dress, yet they are almost never extrovertedly erotic. Is this enough
to trigger the "furry = sex" knee-jerk? At this point it probably depends a whole
lot on both the viewer and the piece in question.

> But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains sexual
> cues.

Of course. And many of the works you mention, TLK et al, don't offend folks'
sensibilities when it comes to sex. But let me add one thing... while furry fans
might call them furry, it is important to realize that these are examples of
_mainstream_ furry art... art designed for "consumption" by non-furry fans. It
would make sense for them not to trigger people's sexual buzzers.

> Putting a pair of breasts on a female funny-animal
> isn't so much a sexual cue as it is a recognition that the character -is-
> female. 'Sexual cue' is reading too much into it.
> Usually, anyway.

Yeah, but the funny-animal so depicted is female /in a human way/. That's where
things, in the mind of a mundane, can get weird... Nala and Pinky aren't really
female and male in a way that one would call human; at least as far as their
bodies are concerned, they're little more than talking, thinking animals.
They're /certainly/ not human in the way that Chester is.


> > You're right, there is no escaping it. Once we admit to ourselves
> > that that there is sex in furrydom, we can then /move on/ and figure out
> how to
> > best present the sexualized aspects in as positive a light as possible,
> without
> > creating the impression that this is all there is to furrydom.
> >
>
> That wasn't quite what I'd had in mind. The sexualized aspects get quite
> enough free press on their own. Rather, we need to figure out how to best
> present the -rest- of anthropomorphics in as broad and as positive a
> fashion as possible.

Yeah, but to me, if you never mention it, it's like you're hiding something.
I personally never like it when someone in a position of spokesperson
intentionally leaves something out... in our case, it might imply that we're
embarassed or shamed by it, and while we may or may not be on a personal level,
(I'm not) I think it's dangerous to create the impression that we are... for
the simple reason that this gives the impression that human-sexed furry art is
something to be ashamed of.

_That's_ my biggest concern... if we go around acting like the sexy stuff is
perverted, then the folks whom we introduce to the fandom can't help but to pick
up on that. If we are open about it and brush it off like the minor and
not-a-big-deal kind of thing that I feel it is, they will be more likely to have
a more harmless opinion of it. At least, that's my feeling for things.



> I'm pretty much in agreement here, except I don't see a need to mention
> the sex aspect right off. It'll get noticed, and it can get introduced
> by-and-by; best not to squick outsiders right off the bat -- let them warm
> up by seeing the -rest- of the furry works -first-. It may make the sexier
> stuff a little easier to handle.

Yeah, okay, but when the time comes to say "oh yeah, by the way..." I think it's
important not to present it like it's something to be ashamed of /in general/...
individual modes of expression may be more or less distasteful, but the
idea in general of sexualized furry art should not be.

There's nothing inherently wrong with our genre, folks. We have nothing to
be ashamed of. Let's not give the rest of the world the impression that we are,
hard as it may be sometimes.



>
> As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's the
> -perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for the
> sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for any
> other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
> major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a sexfest.

How can you say that this is what _all_ outsiders think we're about when not
all outsiders have spoken? Only a subset of the media universe have given us
press, and it's a subset who are biased towards the marketing and exploiting of
sex... it's not a random sample of all media publications that have some
hypothesized uniformly sex-biased view of this fandom.



> of the already converted, but never to the general public. One interesting
> project for an industrious furry writer might be to compile several of
> those reports (with permission from the contributing posters) into a

Great idea!

> And eloquent it was. You do good conversation/discussion.

Gosh, thanks! :)

Now, if only some progress comes from all this...

xyd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
Dan Pankratz wrote:
> Now, if only some progress comes from all this...

Nah, this is alt.fan.furry. It's a time-honored tradition in this newsgroup
that people should complain about articles that focus on the sexual part of
furry fandom, but not do anything about it except conjure up images of mass
graves and other final solutions.

I mean, if someone really wanted to have magazines like TIME and NEWSWEEK
write articles about furry fandom, it couldn't hurt for them to Do Something
Productive like... gee, I dunno... write up a press release to get the
media's attention...

<SARCASM>
But that'll NEVER work, since it doesn't involve flaming people.
</SARCASM>

XYDEXX'S HANDY PRESS RELEASE FORM:

(Your Organization)
(Street Address)
(City,State,Province,Zip,Postal Code)

(TITLE OF YOUR PRESS RELEASE)
(Subtitle, optional)

For Immediate Release
(Date)

Contact: (Your Name)
(Your Organization)
(Your Phone Number)

(City) --- (Type the body text of your press release here)

William Haskell

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
Wanderer wrote:
>
snip-1

> Wired, Loaded ... these magazines don't exactly have a wide circulation here
> in Texas, so I couldn't tell you how big an impact they'll actually have on
> the public in terms of overall distribution.
snip-2

I've had a subscription to WIRED for several years, I make a point of
reading issue from cover to cover at least twice (usually with a cruel
smirk on my face at the bombastic predictions that somehow never quite
come off) and I be dam'd if I can remember seeing anything about furry
fandom in any issue. Maybe I missed it - but in any case, it certainly
must not have been particularly lurid enough to draw my attention.

LOADED I would never have heard of at all if someone had not been
kind(?) enough to raise a whoop here on AFF about an article that
appeared in one issue.

So much for the power of the press. >:D

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to

xyd...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6pq8io$auf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...


> Dan Pankratz wrote:
> > Now, if only some progress comes from all this...
>

> Nah, this is alt.fan.furry. It's a time-honored tradition in this
newsgroup
> that people should complain about articles that focus on the sexual part
of
> furry fandom, but not do anything about it except conjure up images of
mass
> graves and other final solutions.

Complaints -can- give way to intelligent discussion and tentative actions;
I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.
Of course, we -could- just bray about how all the sexual excesses being
reported on just don't really exist...

> I mean, if someone really wanted to have magazines like TIME and NEWSWEEK
> write articles about furry fandom, it couldn't hurt for them to Do
Something
> Productive like... gee, I dunno... write up a press release to get the
> media's attention...

A press release is -not- what we want. Nothing sounds or smells phonier
than a press release; they're generally snow jobs, glossing over everything
and projecting only a glorified version of a product. And that is not what
we're trying to achieve.
We want to present the full range of anthro fandom: the books, the art,
the websites, the fans. We want to make it known that the fetishism so
prominently displayed in the sex mags is an incredibly minor segment.
While the sexier stories and art should be played down, they can't and
shouldn't be ignored, and need to be approached carefully.

> <SARCASM>
> But that'll NEVER work, since it doesn't involve flaming people.
> </SARCASM>
>

Ah. And you're supplying the flames to make it official, then?

--

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to

Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote in article
<6pma10$q0o$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>...

> In article <01bdb98f$222a47a0$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville"
<cp...@zipcon.net> writes:
>
> Yes, but it's not like Newsweek did an article on us that emphasized the
sex.
> It's Loaded doing an article on us that emphasizes the sex,

It's the numbers that count. If three or six sleazy mags write about
furry, and one or two mainstream mags write about furry, there's an
unhealthy tipping of the scales there, and that does influence opinions,
even if unfairly.

> > No, but it -does- indicate that the editors and writers of those
> > publications apparently -believes- that it does.
>
> Or, that they believe that this is what they can sell to their
readership.
>

Same difference. One follows the other.

> I'm not saying that slapping on breasts always makes a drawing "sexy",
what I'm
> saying is that it makes the drawing _sexed_... it gives sex to a creature
with
> animal attributes, which, while not quite as extreme and novel (to an
outsider)
> as making a creature with animal attributes sexy, it is nevertheless on
the same
> continuum, and may be enough to trigger the "WTF? That cat has tits!"
reflex in
> somebody.

Which I find to be an odd reaction, unless the cat was unclothed and it's
tits were exposed... in which case, it -would- be a sexed drawing. I've
never known anyone to have that reaction otherwise. Gender is gender.

> > But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains
sexual
> > cues.
>
> Of course. And many of the works you mention, TLK et al, don't offend
folks'
> sensibilities when it comes to sex. But let me add one thing... while
furry fans
> might call them furry, it is important to realize that these are examples
of
> _mainstream_ furry art... art designed for "consumption" by non-furry
fans. It
> would make sense for them not to trigger people's sexual buzzers.

But what about Sawyer in CATS CAN'T DANCE? She's sexy, and this was a
mainstream film.
I think the problem here is we're putting too much emphasis on the
physcial appearance when we're trying to define a character's sexiness (you
can tell we're a couple of guys, can't ya?) -- sexy is a projected
attitude. Mae West was sexy. Brigitte Bardot was sexy. Madonna is --
well, she's Madonna.

Well, I don't mean that it should be brushed off. I agree that it would
be worse for us if we tried to do that. All I'm saying is that it be
downplayed, addressed only if brought up, or displayed for discussion in
small doses until it became more generally understood. However...

> > I'm pretty much in agreement here, except I don't see a need to
mention
> > the sex aspect right off. It'll get noticed, and it can get introduced
> > by-and-by; best not to squick outsiders right off the bat -- let them
warm
> > up by seeing the -rest- of the furry works -first-. It may make the
sexier
> > stuff a little easier to handle.
>
> Yeah, okay, but when the time comes to say "oh yeah, by the way..." I
think it's
> important not to present it like it's something to be ashamed of /in
general/...
> individual modes of expression may be more or less distasteful, but the
> idea in general of sexualized furry art should not be.
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong with our genre, folks. We have nothing
to
> be ashamed of. Let's not give the rest of the world the impression that
we are,
> hard as it may be sometimes.
>

...as to having nothing to be ashamed of, I think this brings us back to
the original discussion of why I prefer not to call myself a Furry.
Becaue, in part, I think there -are- aspects and works that we -should- be
ashamed of.

> >
> > As far as outsiders are concerned, it -is- what we're all about. It's
the
> > -perception-, remember? I agree the articles were written cheifly for
the
> > sensationalism... but there are no countering reports being written for
any
> > other magazines, and consequently nothing to indicate that there -is- a
> > major fallacy to those articles labeling the cons and fandom as a
sexfest.
>
> How can you say that this is what _all_ outsiders think we're about when
not
> all outsiders have spoken? Only a subset of the media universe have given
us
> press, and it's a subset who are biased towards the marketing and
exploiting of
> sex... it's not a random sample of all media publications that have some
> hypothesized uniformly sex-biased view of this fandom.
>

Rumors travel. Besides, again, if the majority of articles written about
furry emphasize the seamy side, then that's the only opinion that will take
seed and be remembered. And this is an opinion already held by
professionals in the book publishing and animation fields, as already
mentioned here in the past by those who have had dealings there.

Dan Pankratz

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
In article <01bdbbe0$c329b200$LocalHost@kathleen>, "Chuck Melville" <cp...@zipcon.net> writes:

> > > But, however you interpret the phrase, not all furry work contains
> sexual
> > > cues.
> >
> > Of course. And many of the works you mention, TLK et al, don't offend
> folks'
> > sensibilities when it comes to sex. But let me add one thing... while
> furry fans
> > might call them furry, it is important to realize that these are examples
> of
> > _mainstream_ furry art... art designed for "consumption" by non-furry
> fans. It
> > would make sense for them not to trigger people's sexual buzzers.
>
> But what about Sawyer in CATS CAN'T DANCE? She's sexy, and this was a
> mainstream film.

I suppose she was. I didn't find her physically attractive, though I did very
much like her character... she and Danny were too cartoony for me. (Remember, I'm
a big fan of beef/cheesecake...) A little bit of 'toon can go a long way to
blunting any sexual realism. But I digress.

> Well, I don't mean that it should be brushed off. I agree that it would
> be worse for us if we tried to do that. All I'm saying is that it be
> downplayed, addressed only if brought up, or displayed for discussion in
> small doses until it became more generally understood. However...
>

<snip>


> > There's nothing inherently wrong with our genre, folks. We have nothing
> to
> > be ashamed of. Let's not give the rest of the world the impression that
> we are,
> > hard as it may be sometimes.
> >
> ...as to having nothing to be ashamed of, I think this brings us back to
> the original discussion of why I prefer not to call myself a Furry.
> Becaue, in part, I think there -are- aspects and works that we -should- be
> ashamed of.

*sigh* There are things going on in the fringes which squick /me/ all to hell as
well. I have my personal mores, as does everybody; I just try to avoid letting
them color what I have to say to outsiders when I'm in the position of spokesfur,
that's all. I'd rather try to give these outsiders as good a chance as possible
at forming an opinion of furrydom's elements as true to their own selves as
possible, and as free from the taint of any of my own prejudices as I can manage.
Well, as free from the taint of my own /negative/ prejudices, anyway. I'll rave
like a madman about something I like with a clear conscience anyday. :)

I however don't let the presence of these elements make me ashamed to
self-identify as a furry fan... or I try not to, anyway. For me, it is
important to keep in mind that, despite what can seem at times to be a yawning
moral chasm between me and some other folks, there is a good chance that we
share something in common- something furry. We may like the same book, or
appreciate the same artist. We may both post to a.f.f., or have spent time on
a.l.f., or maybe even both have a thing for coyotes. For me, those things in
furrydom which appeal to me touch me on such a deep level that I am instantly
willing to cut a great deal of slack to someone professing to have a similar
affectation, slack I might never cut a non-fan. But hey, such are the perils of
being touchy-feely. :)

Chuck Melville

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
William Haskell <"forban"@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in article
<6pr965$t0s$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...

> I've had a subscription to WIRED for several years, I make a point of
> reading issue from cover to cover at least twice (usually with a cruel
> smirk on my face at the bombastic predictions that somehow never quite
> come off) and I be dam'd if I can remember seeing anything about furry
> fandom in any issue. Maybe I missed it - but in any case, it certainly
> must not have been particularly lurid enough to draw my attention.

March, 1994. Cover blurb: "MUDs: Sex with the FurryMuckers" The article
is on page 92, titled: "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers"
Ironically, the article focusses more on LambdaMOO, but does eventually get
around to discussing FM.

--

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to

Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote in article
<01bdbbe3$343b1720$LocalHost@kathleen>...


> William Haskell <"forban"@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in article
> <6pr965$t0s$1...@news.hal-pc.org>...
>
> > I've had a subscription to WIRED for several years

> March, 1994. Cover blurb: "MUDs: Sex with the FurryMuckers" The


article
> is on page 92, titled: "Johnny Manhattan Meets the FurryMuckers"

This can also be seen online at
http://www.wired.com/wired/2.03/features/muds.html

I found it very amusing that he came onto FM as a tuna, and the wolves
tried to
eat him. Pure propoganda! Everyone knows it's the felines who love tuna!
:)

Allen Kitchen (shockwave, a wolf who hates seafood)
http://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/


Peter da Silva

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
In article <01bdb8b1$aab431a0$LocalHost@kathleen>,
Chuck Melville <cp...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>K. Xydexx Jorgensen <xydexx-the-...@spammy.aol.com> wrote in
>article <35BAFF...@spammy.aol.com>...
>> Chuck Melville wrote:
>> > Well, shucks, Xydexx, a lot of the folks who don't want to call
>themselves
>> > 'furry' don't even -have- to say furry is all about sex...
>>
>> I know, they don't _have_ to. But they still do anyway. -:P
>
> Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
>-isn't- about sex.

God damn, Chuck, that's a lame debating trick... he says Firry isn't
"all about sex", and you come back with the claim that he said it wasn't
"about sex". There is a significant difference between these two
statements. And it's not that you don't have a case without resorting
to unfair tactics... it's just not as strong as you'd like, or something.

(I mean, we've been over your mitivations in the past and I sure don't
claim to understand them...)

(But regardless, this IS a lame debating trick)

--

This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document


Peter da Silva

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
In article <6pfpco$ikh$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
Dan Pankratz <rans...@au-au.extern.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>people, or the art? I'm convinced it's the latter. Every non-fur I've ever shown
>furry art to has picked up on the fact that it screams sex- and I have yet to
>show an outsider anything that would garner an NC-17 rating in the CF artshow,

>or anything that wouldn't be accepted at the AAC artshow. Why is this? I'm
>convinced it's an unavoidable byproduct of the genre... any time you draw a
>halfway decent human physique with fur, ears, and tail, the first thing people
>will cue on is the fact that it's a human physique, and a sexy one. The second is
>of course the fact that this "human" is part animal as well, and there you have
>it- furry = sex.

Bah. Humbug. There's plenty you can find that doesn't scream sex if you look
for it. Steve Gallacci can do sexy stuff, but most of his ouvre is straight
military-SF action/adventure, for example.

Peter da Silva

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
In article <35bd09be...@news.primenet.com>,

Doodles <doo...@cheezies.primenet.com> wrote:
>I can't speak for any of the other mags you mention, but the Journal's
>website did make mention of their opinion of the fandom not very long
>ago. With a very small number of exceptions, they find development in
>the genre moribund and uninteresting, an assessment I'm hard pressed
>to challenge.

90% of everything is crud, and when the 100% isn't that big there's going
to be more trouble finding the 10% good stuff.

And since furry does seem to attract more marginal artists (possibly because
it's easier to hide skill problems if you're drawing something that doesn't
exist in reality... that's certainly MY excuse for my own shortcomings in
that area) the 10% is even smaller than that.

As for stories, let's see what we have:

1. Stories that happen to have furry characters instead of humans,
but don't otherwise take note of the species of the characters.

This works well in comics (Albedo, Omaha, Maus, etc) because you
can use the species as a visual analogue of race (which was most
obviously done in Maus and Fritz the Cat, and Disney even played
with this in Dumbo) or to help cue people in as to temprament and
attitude (as in Shanda, though it doesn't really fall into this
category, or Robin Hood).

It's less useful in print. You end up with a story that has random
references to fur or ears or "the Fox drew his bow and fired at
the fleeing Cat" but little more.

2. Stories like the above, that really use the species characteristics
as part of the story.

The Independant Lepine Republic has nothing rabbity about them.
Their being rabbits is a visual tag, not part of the story. The
animals in Maus... same deal. Something like Shanda, though,
flirts with this with the whole deal about "panda scent"... it's
not necessarily a real reflection of the way real pandas respond,
but it does have an effect on the society.

In writing, damn, I'm ashamed to admit I forgot the title or author,
but that story about the fox-taur fits into this and does it pretty
well. This stuff works in print, and I wish there was more of it.

There's a bit of this in Elf's Journal Entries, too.

3. Stories about how furries came to be.

Interesting, but not really enough to support a story. I started
writing one of these, but without something else to hang the story
on ... well ... it's been done too often.

4. First Contact stories.

Some of the stories in category three work as first contact stories.
The "Human Memoirs" takes this and combines it with the "Connecticut
Yankee" genre rather well. I like first contact stories (furry or
not, Invader is as cool as Pride of Chanur).

Anyway, where am I going with this? I've probably missed a few variants,
but where I'm going is simply that too many furry stories are either category
one or category three. Just having furries isn't enough to turn a bad story
into a good one, and until people learn this furry is going to continue to be
seen as moribund and uninteresting.

xyd...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
Chuck Melville wrote:
> Complaints -can- give way to intelligent discussion and tentative actions;

Only if directed at the people responsible or in a position to do something
about it.

> I happen to think there -is- some progress being made here.

I would, if I wasn't able to search DejaNews and cut and paste replies I made
two years ago to save me the trouble of repeating myself when these same tired
old flamewars come back again.

> Of course, we -could- just bray about how all the sexual excesses being
> reported on just don't really exist...

Well, at least -you- could.

I won't, because -I've- never said they don't really exist.

> A press release is -not- what we want. Nothing sounds or smells phonier
> than a press release; they're generally snow jobs, glossing over everything
> and projecting only a glorified version of a product. And that is not what
> we're trying to achieve.

If you say so. Let's hear your alternative.

> We want to present the full range of anthro fandom: the books, the art,
> the websites, the fans. We want to make it known that the fetishism so
> prominently displayed in the sex mags is an incredibly minor segment.

Ah. In other words, you want Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage. Duly noted.

> While the sexier stories and art should be played down, they can't and
> shouldn't be ignored, and need to be approached carefully.

Here, at least, we agree.

> > <SARCASM>
> > But that'll NEVER work, since it doesn't involve flaming people.
> > </SARCASM>
> >
> Ah. And you're supplying the flames to make it official, then?

Over two years of reading this newsgroup has convinced me that -any-
discussion --- regardless of how calm, reasonable, eloquent,
well-thought-out, or intelligent --- is a "flame". I can recall my previous
attempts at rational debate in this forum have been met with claims that I'm
organizing a boycott of MU Press, that I'm wearing rose-colored glasses and
ignoring problems, that I support bondage in public, that I have zoo links on
my webpage, and of course that I'm a fanboy.

I think you should worry more about the log in your eye rather than the
splinter in mine, Chuck.

Allen Kitchen

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to

Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in article
<6psq37$s...@bonkers.taronga.com>...


> 1. Stories that happen to have furry characters instead of humans,
> but don't otherwise take note of the species of the characters.

Depends on the story. I've seen plenty of these, yes. If the plot and
characters are interesting, I can pretend species isn't important.

> 2. Stories like the above, that really use the species characteristics
> as part of the story.

These take more skill, but are more fun to write IMHO. The captain
of a sinking vessel is an otter, even though otters aren't typically
disciplined for a life in the service. So why did I make him an otter?
Simple. He stays onboard the ship with his incapacitated wife,
even though he could easily escape. He dies with her. It adds to
the romantic tragic clencher at the end.


> 3. Stories about how furries came to be.
>
> Interesting, but not really enough to support a story.

Again, that depends on the story. I forget who did them, but the
stories with "the left hand of fate" could easily be published as a
scifi novel, and sell to non furrys. Especially today, with all the
hooplah over human gene tampering.

> 4. First Contact stories.

Usually limited to the SciFi crowd. "Double Stripes" is a
very good version of numbers 3 and 4.

> Anyway, where am I going with this? I've probably missed a few variants,
> but where I'm going is simply that too many furry stories are either
category
> one or category three. Just having furries isn't enough to turn a bad
story
> into a good one, and until people learn this furry is going to continue
to be
> seen as moribund and uninteresting.

Everyone has to start someplace. Characterization and development
don't just pop into a writer... they must be learned. And writers learn by
doing, just like artists do.

There are lots of furry stories now. 2-3 years ago, that was hardly the
case. I'm glad to see the genre grow to include and respect the stories
my friends and I dream up. Furry is in the same position that SciFi
was in the 50s. It will see an incredible transformation over the next
decade, with new blood and new ideas. And some of our writers and
artists will become big names in SciFi and furry one day, just as
Ellison is in SciFi today.

Me? Oh, I'll probably just keep plunking away for the fun of it :)

Allen Kitchen (shockwave)


K. Xydexx Jorgensen

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98
to
Chuck Melville wrote:
> Sure. In order to point out the lie in your repeated claims that it
>-isn't- about sex.

Are you calling me a liar, Mr. Melville? It sure -sounds- that way.

I am of the opinion that furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.
Period.

However, if that makes -me- a liar, then clearly that means -you- think
furry fandom is about sex. In which case why are you complaining about
articles like the one in Loaded?

Consider, for a moment, that unlike you, I do not make a distinction
between "furry" fans and the so-called "funny animal" fans, because
anthropomorphics are anthropomorphics.

Now consider, in the wave of notoriety surrounding my recent, unexpected
appearance in Bizarre, I was contacted by a German TV show called Peep.
I don't know much more about them, aside from the fact that they would
like to interview me.

I haven't given them my answer. Yet.

As you apparently believe furry fandom is all about sex, I'm sure you
won't mind a _funny_animal_fan_ like me granting them an interview to
tell them _all_about_furry_fandom_, right?

At least then you'll be able to flame me for something I actually said,
right?

Or do you owe me an apology?

__________________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
No-Longer-Obligated Former Ambassador To Furry Fandom
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Think about what that means, okay?)
"Remember back when 'furry' meant 'funny animal'? It still does."

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Jul 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/31/98