What have you learned from being furry?
Warren Forest
pretty confused about who or what I was. Now, however, I feel I am
slightly less confused. But only slightly.
When I first came here to a.l.f., I had a whole ton of questions about
myself. I didn't know why I had always felt so much closer to animals
than to my fellow human beings. I didn't know why I found furry art/
movies/books/stories so captivating.
Looking back, I think I can really only say I've found a few answers.
Mostly, though, I still don't know a lot of things.
For example, I now know that for me *personally*, animals and/or furry
represented a more ideal social world because I could make sense of
animals and their motivations more easily than I could understand
people. Animals (and their associated archetypes) were metaphors that
I could relate to, but people were just mysteries. So I looked at
animals/furry as being better because I believed that they made more
sense. Yes, I know that this was an over-idealization on my part, but
nevertheless that was the appeal.
However, there are still big questions about being furry that I
haven't figured out at all.
The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
with all the Yiff?" Seriously. Furry is, by far, the most highly-
sexed sub-culture I've come across. I'm guilty of it too, but I still
have no idea why.
So, anyway, I wonder what kinds of things have other furs learned
about themselves and why they feel the way they do.
я黨wぃf
of<1187764128....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> I've been a furry for just over six years now. Before that I was
> pretty confused about who or what I was. Now, however, I feel I am
> slightly less confused. But only slightly.
>
Dont you have some people to preach at?
Besides us?
:)
> When I first came here to a.l.f., I had a whole ton of questions
about
> myself. I didn't know why I had always felt so much closer to
animals
> than to my fellow human beings.
You probably had a bad childhood. People who get kicked around by
"society" often see animals as more "friendly" and so they latch on to
them. Its just a short hop from there to rejecting ones own humanity.
Basicaly its this: you were emotionally abused and or neglected.
Welcome to the fucking club.
>I didn't know why I found furry art/
> movies/books/stories so captivating.
>
Its non threatening and presents an idealised world for you to forget
the pain of your own existence. Again, if reality sucks, you're gonna
make up a "better" reality to replace it to prevent yourself from going
"crazy"...usually that means getting pissed off enough to act out your
pent up anger.
> Looking back, I think I can really only say I've found a few answers.
> Mostly, though, I still don't know a lot of things.
>
Kewl,. your not omniscient :)
> For example, I now know that for me *personally*, animals and/or
furry
> represented a more ideal social world because I could make sense of
> animals and their motivations more easily than I could understand
> people. Animals (and their associated archetypes) were metaphors
that
> I could relate to, but people were just mysteries.
They were "mysteries" because you were neglected/ abused in some way.
In a healthy family you would have formed more normal human
relationships. Your parents may havecome from abusive families and they
might not have *abused* you in a direct sense but they might have been
emotionally unavailable for you so it was a form of neglect.
No blame, just answers :)
So I looked at
> animals/furry as being better because I believed that they made more
> sense. Yes, I know that this was an over-idealization on my part,
but
> nevertheless that was the appeal.
>
Yep.
> However, there are still big questions about being furry that I
> haven't figured out at all.
>
> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
> with all the Yiff?" Seriously. Furry is, by far, the most highly-
> sexed sub-culture I've come across. I'm guilty of it too, but I
still
> have no idea why.
>
People who are emotionally abused often have that aspect.
Its a boundary issue. We equate sex with love.
We never learned the diff.
:)
> So, anyway, I wonder what kinds of things have other furs learned
> about themselves and why they feel the way they do.
>
>
If you get kicked in the nuts by the world often enough you'll
eventualy turn away from it.
:)
HTH
HAND
Ricochet
Warren Forest wrote:
>
> I've been a furry for just over six years now. Before that I was
> pretty confused about who or what I was. Now, however, I feel I am
> slightly less confused. But only slightly.
When I found "furry" on the net eleven years ago, I was a dog. I found
all these peeps playing animals on the web, and some felt the way I did,
not a "play" issue, not a "cartoon" issue, being a wolf or a dog or a
fox or whatever is what corner of the net we occupied. Furry then made
the rest of what I am now. It was a huge change in outlook, and took a
lot of weight off my head.
> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
> with all the Yiff?"
With the animal world, is they do it to have offspring and by out of
instinct. Sure they must enjoy it too but who knows, but it's instinct
first. With furries, it's all pleasure, more acute because "we're all
furry" and we like furry creatures therefore we have the same base
feelings inside. That's all. Too simple to explain all of the
differences, but I feel that's the root.
-Ric
Snow Leopard
"Warren Forest" <warren....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187764128....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
The short version, not that this forum necessarily needs or wants short
versions, is what I would call a balancing of instinct and intellect. I'd
say that, since the Enlightenment, there has been an overemphasis on
intellect (Reason), and a de-emphasis on instinct (or Passion). This has
gone back and forth some, but the basic sundering of what Thomas Aquinas
called "ratio" (an intellectual capacity that was seated in the heart) into,
essentially, Mind and Heart, has left its scar on Western culture ever
since. The Classical era trumpeted Reason; the Romantics rebelled against
it. Romantic philosophers were aware of this rift, and sought to repair it
by returning to archetypes, but the issue is now pretty much lost in the
fray.
Whether the era favors Mind or Heart, the point is that the separation makes
its opposite into a parody of itself. Thus, when Reason is in ascendancy,
Passion comes out in neurotic ways, due its being culturally second-class.
So also with Mind, when Passion takes over. The current emphasis on extreme
(sports, Doritos) seems an expression of neurotic passion having an outlet.
Furry offers a correction to this. The image of the anthropomorphic being is
a literal combination of human and beast; it's not a beast (instinct), and
its not a human (intellect), but a happy combination of the two. The image
heals the rift created by the Enlighten, or offers an image of healing
anyway.
In practical terms, this means that boundary-setting for example, which
animals are experts at and which we, as either doormats or overbearing
assholes, are exceptionally poor at, becomes something available to us as
individuals. When dogs growl over a food bowl, the boundary is clear and
decisive, but no feelings are hurt. One dog can say, "This is mine," and
after all that growling, the dogs remain buddies. It's been my experience
that many Furries (such as when living together) exhibit something of the
same behavior.
Critters, of course, don't have social taboos merely because someone says
they must. Maybe there are genetic or behavioral limits on what various
critters will do, but they don't arise from some arbitrary fiat, e.g., you
cannot stick your penis in an anus or all Hell will rain down from the
Heavens. critters have sex because it feels good, sometimes very
consciously (dolphins, primates), or maybe primarily for reproductive
purposes. (It's difficult to tell. When a male deer is sexually aroused,
does he mount the doe or something else only because it serves reproduction,
or is he motivated by the pleasure of it, and her too, with reproduction as
merely a secondary and convenient byproduct?) In any case, the casual
attitude toward sex exhibited by Furry, and thus the very high percentage of
it, could result from an instinctually healthy attitude toward sex, rather
than a neurotically repressed social version of sex.
As far as all of the yiffy art, though, there are a couple of additional
things to bear in mind. It is clear that, so far as the fantasy of being an
actual Fur goes, it's not currently possible. With mundane pornography, one
might admit that those studs or those babes would NEVER hop in the sack with
the likes of you, still and all, the possibility is not completely zero. As
such, fursuit sex videos aside, if the sexual longings of Furs are going to
be appeased, it must necessarily be visual or textual.
It may seem to be a curious fact that many of the Furry porn artists who do
gay male stuff are female. I don't find this strange. In mundane gay
pornography, there is frequently some pretense of a storyline, however
brief, however slight. In the overwhelming majority of heterosexual
pornography, this is not the case; it's right to the sex, and no fucking
around beforehand, pun intended. I think this is because the gay community,
for many years, found their longing for relationships appeased also by porn.
The gay encounter isn't just a glory-hole suck off, often, but is an
encounter between two men, however briefly.
It's a cliché, as well, to say that women are more inclined for
relationships, while men are not. There are plenty of exceptions, but the
statistical norm will still provide more females who are more oriented
toward relationships, and thus female-authored or -drawn pornography of gay
males will have, precisely, more of a sense of relationship than pure
fucking porn, that men will be more inclined to draw. Of course, some men
are more feminine; some women are more masculine, and this will provide
exceptions, which is all to the good.
What this is all to say is that I don't find as much raw fuck-pornography,
of the type feminists may rightly decry as dehumanizing. While there is
plenty of furry porn that is, indeed, merely genital in orientation, there
is a surprisingly high quotient of (implied) relationship, even in drawings;
at least in the gay porn. Characters will be looking at one another in
playful, knowing, longing, sensuous, or aggressive ways, and so forth.
Focusing on just the sex in the picture misses this, especially since I
think it is the longing for relationship (a hot fucking relationship with a
studly tiger with 9", sure) that helps to generate so much of the yiff
surrounding Furry.
If it's not clear from the cerebrality of the foregoing, I find Furry to be
liberating. Passion and Reason coexist in me now, and mutually inform and
assist one another, rather than canceling one another out, at least ideally.
I don't manage it all the time. I feel more balanced and integrated as a
person, someone who is both a person and a snow leopard.
I think the anthropomorphic image is the image of what human should be.
Being a person is only half of the picture; being an animal is also only
half. And both halves are not only incomplete, but dangerously misleading,
and parodies of one another. Being only one or the other makes for neurotic
and unhealthy behavior. Being Furry allows me to be human, as human should
really be.
Snow Leopard
"Ricochet" <woofings...@nospamwoofarfinc.com> wrote in message
news:46CC94E8...@nospamwoofarfinc.com...
>
>
> Warren Forest wrote:
>>
>> I've been a furry for just over six years now. Before that I was
>> pretty confused about who or what I was. Now, however, I feel I am
>> slightly less confused. But only slightly.
>
> When I found "furry" on the net eleven years ago, I was a dog. I found
> all these peeps playing animals on the web, and some felt the way I did,
> not a "play" issue, not a "cartoon" issue, being a wolf or a dog or a
> fox or whatever is what corner of the net we occupied. Furry then made
> the rest of what I am now. It was a huge change in outlook, and took a
> lot of weight off my head.
>
>
>> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
>> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
>> with all the Yiff?"
>
> With the animal world, is they do it to have offspring and by out of
> instinct. Sure they must enjoy it too but who knows, but it's instinct
> first.
Instinct first is certainly true, but I think reproduction is a byproduct.
The female goes in heat; the male animal is aroused, nad he "thinks," AHA
... some nice pleasure to be had. PLEASURE. ... oh look, offspring. Hmm ...
How do you like that.
Since there are animals that masturbate (dolphins, humans, primates), since
there are animals that do not always procreate from mating (dolphins,
humans, primates at the very least), and since there are at least two
species that have sex recreationally (humans and Benobo Chimps, and I'm sure
there are more; one doesn't need more to make the point), it seems that
pleasure is more of a motivator than an "urge to reproduce".
In fact, my guess would be that it is only humans who have sex TO reproduce;
certainly amongst some of the Christian cultists, the pleasure of sex is
actually a problem in this regard.
*mew
Skytech
> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
> with all the Yiff?" Seriously. Furry is, by far, the most highly-
> sexed sub-culture I've come across. I'm guilty of it too, but I still
> have no idea why.
>
So you've never experienced the wonderful world of manga/anime fandom? I'd say
they make furry sex stereotypes tame and insignificant by comparision both in
quantity and subject intensity. There are quite a few fandoms that get the
'they're so obsessed with sex' label. We're sensitive to it because furry fandom
and lifestyle is very near and dear to us.
> So, anyway, I wonder what kinds of things have other furs learned
> about themselves and why they feel the way they do.
>
I've been a fur all my life. I discovered it had a name only about twenty five
years ago and there were a whole bunch o' us since the days of GEnie not that
long after. Furry is my lifelong bond with nature. My personal fur is the hybrid
of that bond and my imaginative externalization of how I relate to, in this
case, my fascination for animals in general and vulpine in particular.
--
Skytech
^^
<@@>
.]
Skytech
> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
> with all the Yiff?" Seriously. Furry is, by far, the most highly-
> sexed sub-culture I've come across. I'm guilty of it too, but I still
> have no idea why.
>
So you've never experienced the wonderful world of manga/anime fandom? I'd say
they make furry sex stereotypes tame and insignificant by comparision both in
quantity and subject intensity. There are quite a few fandoms that get the
'they're so obsessed with sex' label. We're sensitive to it because furry fandom
and lifestyle is very near and dear to us.
> So, anyway, I wonder what kinds of things have other furs learned
> about themselves and why they feel the way they do.
>
I've been a fur all my life. I discovered it had a name only about twenty five
Warren Forest
> You probably had a bad childhood. People who get kicked around by
> "society" often see animals as more "friendly" and so they latch on to
> them. Its just a short hop from there to rejecting ones own humanity.
> Basicaly its this: you were emotionally abused and or neglected.
> Welcome to the fucking club.
My childhood was pretty good. No direct abuse or neglect. However, I
did feel alienated and that resulted in the same sorts of problems.
>From what I've read, it's fairly common for children who are labelled
as gifted/smart/advanced/whatever by their parents and/or teachers to
become social misfits as a result.
Basically, the child feels so much pressure to live up to the
expectations of always being brilliant that they tend to pull away
from anything that is a challenge (like developing social skills) and
only do things that they find easy. That's what I did, and that's why
I tended to be a loner.
> Your parents may havecome from abusive families and they
> might not have *abused* you in a direct sense but they might have been
> emotionally unavailable for you so it was a form of neglect.
> No blame, just answers :)
Sure, I suppose I felt emotionally detached, because I was trying hard
to be brilliant all the time, and so I'd bottle up my feelings and try
to pretend everything was OK all the time. But of course being smart
doesn't make confusing feelings and emotions magically disappear.
Probably my relating to animals was a way to try to make sense of my
emotions. Human beings tend to be an emotional cauldron where learing
to manage emotions in a healthy way is probably more practical and
realistic a goal than trying to logically make sense of them. But
with animals their behaviours and emotions seem to be more
straightforward and easier to understand.
Snow Leopard
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:fai7o0$2s2k$1...@corvus.critter.net...
> >
>> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
>> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
>> with all the Yiff?" Seriously. Furry is, by far, the most highly-
>> sexed sub-culture I've come across. I'm guilty of it too, but I still
>> have no idea why.
>>
>
> So you've never experienced the wonderful world of manga/anime fandom? I'd
> say they make furry sex stereotypes tame and insignificant by comparision
> both in quantity and subject intensity. There are quite a few fandoms that
> get the 'they're so obsessed with sex' label. We're sensitive to it
> because furry fandom and lifestyle is very near and dear to us.
While true, this point is only saying, "Hey, we're not the most oversexed,"
which admits the charge, and attempts to excuse it by pointing to someone
else. That really won't do as a "defense". What else ya got?
Snow Leopard
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <baron.w...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:faj6hk$mgu$1...@corvus.critter.net...
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 06:28:48 -0000, a carrier pigeon sent by Warren
> Forest <warren....@gmail.com> delivered the following in
> alt.lifestyle.furry:
>
>
>> The biggest one for me *personally* (and I stress that word lest
>> anybody think I'm painting all furries the same) is still, "What's
>> with all the Yiff?" Seriously. Furry is, by far, the most highly-
>> sexed sub-culture I've come across. I'm guilty of it too, but I still
>> have no idea why.
>>
Warren Forest
wrote:
> not a "play" issue, not a "cartoon" issue, being a wolf or a dog or a
> fox or whatever is what corner of the net we occupied. Furry then made
> the rest of what I am now. It was a huge change in outlook, and took a
> lot of weight off my head.
I can relate to the feeling of a big weight being lifted. At first,
though, I was disgusted when I saw "furries" for the first time
because I didn't want to liken myself with them.
It wasn't until later when I decided to just accept that I for
whatever reason can relate to these people, not because of any
particular issue, that my outlook changed too.
Snow Leopard
"Warren Forest" <warren....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187764128....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> pretty confused about who or what I was. Now, however, I feel I am
> slightly less confused. But only slightly.
>
> When I first came here to a.l.f., I had a whole ton of questions about
> myself. I didn't know why I had always felt so much closer to animals
> than to my fellow human beings. I didn't know why I found furry art/
> movies/books/stories so captivating.
>
> Looking back, I think I can really only say I've found a few answers.
> Mostly, though, I still don't know a lot of things.
>
> For example, I now know that for me *personally*, animals and/or furry
> represented a more ideal social world because I could make sense of
> animals and their motivations more easily than I could understand
> people. Animals (and their associated archetypes) were metaphors that
> I could relate to, but people were just mysteries. So I looked at
> animals/furry as being better because I believed that they made more
> sense. Yes, I know that this was an over-idealization on my part, but
> nevertheless that was the appeal.
It's always easier, and therefore psychologically less work, to carry on an
imagined relationship with something that can't talk back, than something
that can. When my cat licks herself, I say, "She's cleaning herself," or
maybe, "She's masturbating" (this occurs to me less frequently), but in
fact, I don't know why she's doing it, and can never know. In this respect,
animals are far more permanently mysterious than humans, and believing the
reverse to be the case arises from failing to see the one-sided nature of
the "relationship".
It's like in dreams; I can speak German just fine, because I'm not actually
speaking German to someone who really speaks German. Or when I speak
Vietnamese, as long as I ask questions and keep them short, I can get
answers, but when the Vietnamese person starts expanding on their answer,
I'm immediately lost.
I'm not being critical that you found animals easier to relate to; you
admitted it was an idealization. I think online relationships are largely
very similar, and the internet culture of Furry helps to play into it as
well.
Warren Forest
wrote:
> Furry offers a correction to this. The image of the anthropomorphic being is
> a literal combination of human and beast; it's not a beast (instinct), and
> its not a human (intellect), but a happy combination of the two. The image
> heals the rift created by the Enlighten, or offers an image of healing
> anyway.
I've thought about this same theme of reason/passion<->human/animal
and the synthesis that furry provides. When I've had the occasion to
explore it during my academic studies, I've used it as a basis for
presentations or papers very effectively. But of course I've had to
express these furry ideas using more familiar terms and images, such
as werewolves.
> One dog can say, "This is mine," and
> after all that growling, the dogs remain buddies. It's been my experience
> that many Furries (such as when living together) exhibit something of the
> same behavior.
Hmm... I have to admit that my experience has been different. I've
seen many furries holding long, irrational grudges and playing all-too-
human social politics. There's a whole lot of "furry drama" out
there. I can't say that my experiences represent all of furrydom,
though.
> In any case, the casual
> attitude toward sex exhibited by Furry, and thus the very high percentage of
> it, could result from an instinctually healthy attitude toward sex, rather
> than a neurotically repressed social version of sex.
It's a good question whether or not furries, as a group, have
healthier sex lives.
My experience with Evangelical Christianity was that yes, there was a
lot of repression and an irrational distaste for any form of sexuality
not kept hidden behind closed bedroom doors, but overall I couldn't
really point to anybody whose life was being destroyed because of
sexual disfuntion.
By contrast, I can think of many furries who sexually are completely
tied up in knots and unable to function. For example, one
heterosexual male virgin in his mid-20s constantly pined for sexual
contact with a woman. Yet when the opportunity presented itself to
him in a non-threatening situation, he literally fled from her back to
his computer so he could work on yet another drawing of a giant-
breasted female anthro instead.
Now, having said all that, I wouldn't claim furries are worse off
sexually than Evangelical Christians, because of course in my
Christian circles if anybody was having trouble then nobody would have
known about it. The fact that many of my former co-workers were later
outed as pedophiles would seem to confirm this.
> What this is all to say is that I don't find as much raw fuck-pornography,
> of the type feminists may rightly decry as dehumanizing. While there is
> plenty of furry porn that is, indeed, merely genital in orientation, there
> is a surprisingly high quotient of (implied) relationship, even in drawings;
> at least in the gay porn.
Interesting! My mate, Avenging Lioness, has a much larger furry porn
collection than I do. I tend to only be interested in furry porn that
has the implied relationships that you describe. In fact, I don't
find the heavily explicit art sexy at all.
The running joke between us is that I'm the feminine lesbian woman in
a man's body while she's the masculine gay male in the woman's body.
> I don't manage it all the time. I feel more balanced and integrated as a
> person, someone who is both a person and a snow leopard.
>
> I think the anthropomorphic image is the image of what human should be.
> Being a person is only half of the picture; being an animal is also only
> half. And both halves are not only incomplete, but dangerously misleading,
> and parodies of one another. Being only one or the other makes for neurotic
> and unhealthy behavior. Being Furry allows me to be human, as human should
> really be.
I think I wrote almost the same exact sentiments here on a.l.f. once.
Skytech
> While true, this point is only saying, "Hey, we're not the most oversexed,"
> which admits the charge, and attempts to excuse it by pointing to someone
> else. That really won't do as a "defense". What else ya got?
Really? Did I say all that? Wow, I never was very good at reading between the
lines and here I am saying things between the lines even *I* was unaware of!
Must be like that whole war definition thing.
Warren Forest
> So you've never experienced the wonderful world of manga/anime fandom? I'd say
> they make furry sex stereotypes tame and insignificant by comparision both in
> quantity and subject intensity. There are quite a few fandoms that get the
> 'they're so obsessed with sex' label. We're sensitive to it because furry fandom
> and lifestyle is very near and dear to us.
Good point. I think, though, that anime still has the ability to say
that hentai and such is the sub-sub-culture. A lot of times in furry
I get the impression that the yiffy stuff is the normal stuff, while
if you want "clean" you're part of the sub-sub-culture. ;-)
Snow Leopard
In response to "Why is Furry oversexed" you said, "Lots of fandoms are
oversexed". That doesn't answer why.
Snow Leopard
> On Aug 22, 1:10 pm, "Snow Leopard" <SpottyGoodn...@SnowLeopard.dxt>
> wrote:
>> Furry offers a correction to this. The image of the anthropomorphic being
>> is
>> a literal combination of human and beast; it's not a beast (instinct),
>> and
>> its not a human (intellect), but a happy combination of the two. The
>> image
>> heals the rift created by the Enlighten, or offers an image of healing
>> anyway.
>
> I've thought about this same theme of reason/passion<->human/animal
> and the synthesis that furry provides. When I've had the occasion to
> explore it during my academic studies, I've used it as a basis for
> presentations or papers very effectively. But of course I've had to
> express these furry ideas using more familiar terms and images, such
> as werewolves.
Werewolves are a poor substitute for furry though, on a number of counts.
Werewolves originate in sorverers who transformed themselves into wolves so
as to ravage the countryside. Among the therion community, as best as I can
tell, the weres are permanents weres (ironic that were is the abbreviation,
since were means "man"), and are not necessarily out to destroy society,
although there is frequently a very pronounced alienation froim society, the
sharp distinction between them and us, a critique that they (humans) have
fucked up the world, etc.
Were in a more neutral sense is simply a lifestyler, and one can be Furry at
that without necessarily adopting the designation "were". Where exactly the
line is between were and furry lifestyler is blurry, it seems.
Really, cartoon animals are better sources for what Furry "means" at root
than "werewolves" (the standard mythological meaning of werewolves, I mean).
>
>
>> One dog can say, "This is mine," and
>> after all that growling, the dogs remain buddies. It's been my
>> experience
>> that many Furries (such as when living together) exhibit something of the
>> same behavior.
>
> Hmm... I have to admit that my experience has been different. I've
> seen many furries holding long, irrational grudges and playing all-too-
> human social politics. There's a whole lot of "furry drama" out
> there. I can't say that my experiences represent all of furrydom,
> though.
There's always all this talk of Furry drama. Comparatively speaking, I find
"gay" drama to be more prevalent, and more socially destructive amongst
people. Sure there are grudge-holders everywhere; maybe it's just that was
Pacific Northwest Furries are a more laid back bunch than elsewhere?
>
>
>
>> In any case, the casual
>> attitude toward sex exhibited by Furry, and thus the very high percentage
>> of
>> it, could result from an instinctually healthy attitude toward sex,
>> rather
>> than a neurotically repressed social version of sex.
>
> It's a good question whether or not furries, as a group, have
> healthier sex lives.
>
> My experience with Evangelical Christianity was that yes, there was a
> lot of repression and an irrational distaste for any form of sexuality
> not kept hidden behind closed bedroom doors, but overall I couldn't
> really point to anybody whose life was being destroyed because of
> sexual disfuntion.
It must be noted that repressing one's sex drive it not anti-sexual--it's a
very distinct form of sexual kink, one well-known version of which is orgasm
denial. Certainly if one insists taht sex must ONLY be expressed in
reproductive heterosexuality, you create a tremendous sexual pressure and
tension,a nd thus a heightened sexual experience. This also includes the
terrible guilt one experiences with masturbation.
It's not healthy, I'd say, but it's certainly intense. And is also
definitely a crontributor to the high number of sexual criminals who are
religious, most notoriously, the pedophiles.
>
> By contrast, I can think of many furries who sexually are completely
> tied up in knots and unable to function. For example, one
> heterosexual male virgin in his mid-20s constantly pined for sexual
> contact with a woman. Yet when the opportunity presented itself to
> him in a non-threatening situation, he literally fled from her back to
> his computer so he could work on yet another drawing of a giant-
> breasted female anthro instead.
I know a non-Furry version of this. Furries are in general also more
affectionate than most people. Naturally, this greater affectionateness
will lead to those who are avidly "anti-hug". The greater ease of sex will
also sprout those more definitively "anti-yiff". Whenever you have a norm in
culture, those who are against it will resist it the more sharply that norm
is considered a given.
It's also a bit non-sequitor to suggest that refusing a safely offered woman
for a drawing of a big-boobed woman represents a sexual dysfunction. In the
case of my heterosexual, non-Furry friend who sounds like the fellow you are
describing, the issue is not reluctance, it is a refusal to accept that sex
with a real person will not be the perfect dramatic fantasy that he imagines
it to be in his art. It's the old saw: men want women to be saints in
public, and whores in bed. A woman offering herself sexually, in public, is
not a saint; she's a whore, and as a whore, as not a Madonna, she becomes a
Jezebel, someone to be fled from. He'll never find someone to have sex
with, because anyone who says "yes" will denote someone he doesn't want to
have sex with.
That's how it seems to me. It's infantile fixation--wanting everything to
be exactly as HE wants it, without having to take anyone else (i.e., her)
into account.
<snip>
>> I think the anthropomorphic image is the image of what human should be.
>> Being a person is only half of the picture; being an animal is also only
>> half. And both halves are not only incomplete, but dangerously
>> misleading,
>> and parodies of one another. Being only one or the other makes for
>> neurotic
>> and unhealthy behavior. Being Furry allows me to be human, as human
>> should
>> really be.
>
> I think I wrote almost the same exact sentiments here on a.l.f. once.
Independent proof from an alternative source.
*mew
я黨wぃf
>On Aug 22, 7:03 am, я黨wぃf <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> You probably had a bad childhood. People who get kicked around by
>> "society" often see animals as more "friendly" and so they latch on
to
>> them. Its just a short hop from there to rejecting ones own
humanity.
>> Basicaly its this: you were emotionally abused and or neglected.
>> Welcome to the fucking club.
>
>My childhood was pretty good. No direct abuse or neglect. However, I
>did feel alienated and that resulted in the same sorts of problems.
>From what I've read, it's fairly common for children who are labelled
>as gifted/smart/advanced/whatever by their parents and/or teachers to
>become social misfits as a result.
>
>Basically, the child feels so much pressure to live up to the
>expectations of always being brilliant that they tend to pull away
>from anything that is a challenge (like developing social skills) and
>only do things that they find easy. That's what I did, and that's why
>I tended to be a loner.
>
Gee, I wish I was a smartie like you :)
>
>> Your parents may havecome from abusive families and they
>> might not have *abused* you in a direct sense but they might have
been
>> emotionally unavailable for you so it was a form of neglect.
>> No blame, just answers :)
>
>Sure, I suppose I felt emotionally detached, because I was trying hard
>to be brilliant all the time, and so I'd bottle up my feelings and try
>to pretend everything was OK all the time. But of course being smart
>doesn't make confusing feelings and emotions magically disappear.
>
So you were *smart*, but not smart enough to reason that out at the
time.
Hmmm...
>Probably my relating to animals was a way to try to make sense of my
>emotions. Human beings tend to be an emotional cauldron where learing
>to manage emotions in a healthy way is probably more practical and
>realistic a goal than trying to logically make sense of them. But
>with animals their behaviours and emotions seem to be more
>straightforward and easier to understand.
>
Warren, the dog-whisperer :)
я黨wぃf
pile of<vrGdnST7YOlvz1Pb...@comcast.com>:
I think its utter fucking bullox..."fandoms" want the label "oversexed"
so they appear to be the KEWL crowd.
Who the hell thinks trekkies are "oversexed"?
Since when are basement dwellers playas?
Mheh.
я黨wぃf
of<1187895674.9...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>:
So you look down on everywon cause yer *smarter*....kewl :)
Warren Forest
> So you look down on everywon cause yer *smarter*....kewl :)
Ick! When I see "smart" people looking down on others, it ticks me
off. I'm pretty bitter at the people who labelled me as being
"smart", because I was never as brilliant as they kept telling me I
was, so I couldn't live up to their expectations. But if I ever *did*
succeed at something, they'd dismiss the accomplishment as, "well of
course you can do that, you're a genius so it's easy for you." That's
a lose-lose situation.
By association, I tend to also be bitter at anybody who holds up
intelligence as a way of saying one person is better than another.
Maybe this is part of why animals appealed so much to me. With
animals, people usually don't judge them based upon their intelligence.
v_dragon
...
Been trying to come up with a responce to this...
lots of words spoken already.
..Easiest thing to say is...don't know...
Had dreams all my life of my dragon self...I'm more Therien than
furry.
"discovered" furry only about 10 years or so and attached myself to it
these past 5 or so years.
...and all the yiff...hehe...no not really, i'm only just barely sexed
atm.
What have i learned...i'm not totaly strange. others are far far worse
(^_^)
я黨wぃf
>On Aug 24, 7:02 am, я黨wぃf <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> So you look down on everywon cause yer *smarter*....kewl :)
>
>Ick! When I see "smart" people looking down on others, it ticks me
>off. I'm pretty bitter at the people who labelled me as being
>"smart", because I was never as brilliant as they kept telling me I
>was, so I couldn't live up to their expectations. But if I ever *did*
>succeed at something, they'd dismiss the accomplishment as, "well of
>course you can do that, you're a genius so it's easy for you." That's
>a lose-lose situation.
>
I see :(
If you ever get the time research "perfectionism" on the intanets
tubes.
FYI
>By association, I tend to also be bitter at anybody who holds up
>intelligence as a way of saying one person is better than another.
>Maybe this is part of why animals appealed so much to me. With
>animals, people usually don't judge them based upon their
>intelligence.
>
>
"My dog is smarter than your dog."
"Our cat is dumb but our dog is smart."
Hmmm...you've never heard that eh?
:)
Snow Leopard
"я黨wぃf" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:famoau$ufa$3...@news.datemas.de...
The opposite of http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bunny
>
> Who the hell thinks trekkies are "oversexed"?
> Since when are basement dwellers playas?
> Mheh.
In WOW, online, in their heads?
Snow Leopard
People who are disenfranchised will often look down on others they perceive
themselves as superior to for the sake of compensating. It doesn't have to
be just because of intelligence.
Snow Leopard
On Aug 24, 7:02 am, я黨wぃf <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote:
> So you look down on everywon cause yer *smarter*....kewl :)
Ick! When I see "smart" people looking down on others, it ticks me
off.
=========
In the United States, being smart is a very dubious honor. Everyone pretends
that smart people are cool in some way, even "dumb" people idolize the
smart, but being an actually one of hte smart people is typically a very
mixed bag. People resent intelligence as well and, most pertinently, aren't
interested in actually putting that intelligence to use. Politiclaly,
inteligence is used most frequently to justify the nepotism and corruption
of other people who want to maintain the status quo, or exploit people to
benefit themselves. In other words, intelligence is good for spin, but not
for actually coming up with solutions that would work, or would benefit the
most people. This is an over generalization in part, and I'm still sleepy,
so tease out the details and specifics.
So, smart people looking down is compensating for inadequacy elsewhere. Or
just because they're an orrogant prick. But sometimes that looking down is
a response to the ambivalent staus that intelligence has in this culture.
On the flip side, when people say they're dumb, I tell them, "Then you're
not qualified to say so, are you." People saying they're smart or dumb
exposes that this is a social phenomenon, not a biophysiological one; and if
intelligence was a biological "something" then it'd be no more remarkable
than greater height, skin color, or eye color. Humans have occasionaly felt
that skin color indicated superiority, but the fatuousness of htat (again)
exposes the social quality of the issue, rather than the biological fact of
the issue.
I'm pretty bitter at the people who labelled me as being
"smart", because I was never as brilliant as they kept telling me I
was, so I couldn't live up to their expectations. But if I ever *did*
succeed at something, they'd dismiss the accomplishment as, "well of
course you can do that, you're a genius so it's easy for you." That's
a lose-lose situation.
========================
I agree with you that labels are bad, and at the same time remind you that
the label you suffered under is less damaging than being labeled "dumb" or
in need of special education. Studies have demonstrated the depressing
effects of teachers who "know" their kids are special education; they
exhibited lowered expectations, and the kids meet those lowered
expectations. By contrast, high expectations tend to drag kids up to those
expectations as well. Not to say that there cannot be expectations that are
too high, or that ovrely high expectations can't be problematic, but aiming
high is certainly the preferable mistake to aiming low.
By association, I tend to also be bitter at anybody who holds up
intelligence as a way of saying one person is better than another.
=====================
Since intelligence is not a measurable quantity, and is not even defined by
the bozos who claim to measure it, to judge people based upon intelligence
is indeed a completely fatuous adventure into mythology. One can attack the
notion by saying there are multiple kinds of intelligence, or that wisdom is
preferable to intelligence, but either way, you are still talking about
something that is imaginary as a quantity.
Maybe this is part of why animals appealed so much to me. With
animals, people usually don't judge them based upon their intelligence.
=========================
I think most people don't just animals based upon their intelligence because
they assume they're dumb in the first place. The only time I hear people
talk about animals as intelligence, in general, is with respect to their
favored pet. People like to imagine that their pit bull is brilliant,
apparently as a reflection of them. (Like your parents and their children as
well). People say that dolphins and chimpanzees are very nearly like human
intelligence, usually as an argument against human arrogance, or to defend
those animals from being killed or experimented upon. The implication is
that other animals are not as intelligent, and therefore subject to
slaughter and experimentation.
Of course, the main problem with that is that by the same argument, some
humans are less intelligent than others, and so are subject to
experimentation and slaughter. Thus Dr. Mengele justified his atrocities,
above and beyond any sadism he might have experienced. But also the
treatment of the mentally ill in the US (at least, I'm familiar with that),
where lobotomies were common, along with involuntary castration, if you
tested low enough on an IQ test.
Humans also discern intelligence in animals that they like. It's no
accident that dolphins are "smart" while sharks are "stupid". Wolves are
thought of as "cunning" rather than "intelligent"; same with hyenas. In
India, elephants and tigers are considered superior beings; a case of
tigrine cunning becoming so impressive that humanity was forced to bow to
it, while the patient of elephants and their cleverness makes them an
example to other humans. Etc. People think of possums as stupid, and rats
certainly aren't smart. Mice? Smart or not, one should poison them as
quickly as possible, as disease carriers, and so forth.
So, humans may not typically judge animals based on intelligence, but that's
because there's already the baseline assumption that they're animals,
therefore less intelligent (if not stupid), and therefore exist primarily
for the use of humans. Would we eat so much beef if we thought cows weren't
so stupid? It's a cliche that pigs are the smartest barnyard animal, but we
salguther them in mountains. We think cows are stupid; India thinks cows
are sacred. There's a nice clear illustration of the whole thing.
Snow Leopard
"§ñühw¤£f" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:fapdcl$pc8$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Warren Forest <warren....@gmail.com> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<1187976073....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>> So you look down on everywon cause yer *smarter*....kewl :)
>>
>>Ick! When I see "smart" people looking down on others, it ticks me
>>off. I'm pretty bitter at the people who labelled me as being
>>"smart", because I was never as brilliant as they kept telling me I
>>was, so I couldn't live up to their expectations. But if I ever *did*
>>succeed at something, they'd dismiss the accomplishment as, "well of
>>course you can do that, you're a genius so it's easy for you." That's
>>a lose-lose situation.
>>
> I see :(
> If you ever get the time research "perfectionism" on the intanets
> tubes.
> FYI
>
>>By association, I tend to also be bitter at anybody who holds up
>>intelligence as a way of saying one person is better than another.
>>Maybe this is part of why animals appealed so much to me. With
>>animals, people usually don't judge them based upon their
>>intelligence.
>>
>>
> "My dog is smarter than your dog."
> "Our cat is dumb but our dog is smart."
> Hmmm...you've never heard that eh?
> :)
My dog is smarter than your dog is covert Christian ego-building. :p
Snow Leopard
"v_dragon" <v_dr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:90suc3hmb8lsg8rcq...@4ax.com...
It makes me sad, that it's necessary to justify (is that the right word)
one's strangeness by saying there are others who are worse. If that is so,
I hope that I am one of the far, far worse.
Realistically speaking, that your freakiness is less than some other
people's freakiness will not keep those in jackboots from hauling you in
with the rest. But also, it seems like petite bourgeois preciousness,
keeping ahead of the Jones as it were.
There's more I could ramble about, but I won't. It's just sad.
я黨wぃf
"Snow Leopard" <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote:
As usual...I have *no* idea wtf you mean by that.
In other news I just realised that one of our cats is really
missing...for like 6 days :(
я黨wぃf
"Snow Leopard" <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote:
Its not like Ive never felt more intelligent than others myself...I
often think people are easily duped by politicians :)
WHERES MY FUCKING CAT?!!?!?!?!?
Snow Leopard
"§ñühw¤£f" <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:snuhwolf5150-9FB3...@yellow.octanews.net...
My god is smarter than yours ....
Sorry about your cat; you have a mess of things out there that might've
taken it out huh? *poor kitty*
*pats a Snuhwulf too.
Snow Leopard
> In article <Ya2dnepGf-6y_03b...@comcast.com>,
> "Snow Leopard" <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote:
>
Feeling more intelligent than others is different than feeling superior
because of that intelligence.
People like to mistake mere knowledge for intelligence also, and get on
their high horse about that. "You don't know about X?!?" etc.
>
> WHERES MY FUCKING CAT?!!?!?!?!?
I don't know!! :(
я黨wぃf
"Snow Leopard" <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote:
Wouldja rather have him feel miserable?
People use differnt coping tools to deal with their own self-percieved
inadequacies.
I tell meself Ima smartie iam when it comes to politics :)
> Realistically speaking, that your freakiness is less than some other
> people's freakiness will not keep those in jackboots from hauling you in
> with the rest.
Dont make faces in the fucking airport...the TSA has been told to look
for people who "look unhappy" and single them out for FULL BODY CAVITY
SEARCHING.
> But also, it seems like petite bourgeois preciousness,
> keeping ahead of the Jones as it were.
>
The joneseses are a bunch of pussies...were way more freaky than they
are.
HA! I scoff at their faux freakyness.
> There's more I could ramble about, but I won't. It's just sad.
No, loosing your godammed lazy ass black cat is SAD.
FYI
я黨wぃf
"Snow Leopard" <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote:
> "я黨wぃf" <snuh...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:famoau$ufa$3...@news.datemas.de...
> > Snow Leopard <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> pinched out a steaming
> > pile of<vrGdnST7YOlvz1Pb...@comcast.com>:
> >
> >>
> >>"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >>news:faku9e$h75$1...@corvus.critter.net...
> >>> >
> >>>> While true, this point is only saying, "Hey, we're not the most
> >>>> oversexed," which admits the charge, and attempts to excuse it by
> >>>> pointing to someone else. That really won't do as a "defense".
> > What
> >>>> else ya got?
> >>>
> >>> Really? Did I say all that? Wow, I never was very good at reading
> > between
> >>> the lines and here I am saying things between the lines even *I* was
> >>> unaware of! Must be like that whole war definition thing.
> >>
> >>In response to "Why is Furry oversexed" you said, "Lots of fandoms are
> >>oversexed". That doesn't answer why.
> >>
> >>
> > I think its utter fucking bullox..."fandoms" want the label "oversexed"
> > so they appear to be the KEWL crowd.
>
> The opposite of http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bunny
>
I'll have to remember to look at that link on modern equipment...
> >
> > Who the hell thinks trekkies are "oversexed"?
> > Since when are basement dwellers playas?
> > Mheh.
>
> In WOW, online, in their heads?
Just read an article on the register about a potential protest by IBM
employs who will show up to picket in avatar costume from their WOW
activities! IBM'rs hang out on WOW...
grepping you a URL...
http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/24/ibm_italy_strike/
I like the subtitle :D
v_dragon
<snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As usual...I have *no* idea wtf you mean by that.
>In other news I just realised that one of our cats is really
>missing...for like 6 days :(
*hugs* then smacks you in the back of the head wif his tail...it took
you 6 days to notice...tsk tsk tsk
v_dragon
<SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> Been trying to come up with a responce to this...
>> lots of words spoken already.
>> ..Easiest thing to say is...don't know...
>> Had dreams all my life of my dragon self...I'm more Therien than
>> furry.
>> "discovered" furry only about 10 years or so and attached myself to it
>> these past 5 or so years.
>> ...and all the yiff...hehe...no not really, i'm only just barely sexed
>> atm.
>>
>> What have i learned...i'm not totaly strange. others are far far worse
>> (^_^)
>
>It makes me sad, that it's necessary to justify (is that the right word)
>one's strangeness by saying there are others who are worse. If that is so,
>I hope that I am one of the far, far worse.
>
>Realistically speaking, that your freakiness is less than some other
>people's freakiness will not keep those in jackboots from hauling you in
>with the rest. But also, it seems like petite bourgeois preciousness,
>keeping ahead of the Jones as it were.
>
>There's more I could ramble about, but I won't. It's just sad.
>
mebe i should learn to keep my muzzle shut (^_^)
..
The far worse part was a hap-harazard joke.
The rest is that i feel no longer a freak or a total stranger to
scociety...i found a place to fit in...sometimes at least..or maybe i
don't...*shrugs*
я黨wぃf
pile of<DeidnbdfbquYAk3b...@comcast.com>:
Its *fun* to have invisible friends...
>Sorry about your cat; you have a mess of things out there that
might've
>taken it out huh? *poor kitty*
>
Big kitties...industrial sized ones :(
I didnt really think about it much till a week passed as cats will do
that dont show thing for a few days...maybe its hanging out at somwon
elses house and inhaling lots of food there?
One hopes.
>*pats a Snuhwulf too.
>
<sigh>
:[
я黨wぃf
of<9oj1d39dbi0d4r8k9...@4ax.com>:
I'm not the one who feeds him...my dad mentioned him being missing in
action but you know cats: they wander.
v_dragon
<snuh...@netscape.net> wrote:
>v_dragon <v_dr...@bellsouth.net> pinched out a steaming pile
>of<9oj1d39dbi0d4r8k9...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:20:39 -0700, §ñühw¤£f
>><snuhwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As usual...I have *no* idea wtf you mean by that.
>>>In other news I just realised that one of our cats is really
>>>missing...for like 6 days :(
>>
>>*hugs* then smacks you in the back of the head wif his tail...it took
>>you 6 days to notice...tsk tsk tsk
>>
>I'm not the one who feeds him...my dad mentioned him being missing in
>action but you know cats: they wander.
nods...
Hopes for the best - i had one that liked to take a month off every so
often then would just show up...
я黨wぃf
Maybe somwon "found" him and decided to keep him inside their house?
<shrugs>
The add is goin in the papers lost & found section, thats fer sure.
Warren Forest
wrote:
> People say that dolphins and chimpanzees are very nearly like human
> intelligence, usually as an argument against human arrogance, or to defend
> those animals from being killed or experimented upon. The implication is
> that other animals are not as intelligent, and therefore subject to
> slaughter and experimentation.
You make very good points.
I'd also add that people like to associate intelligence with free-will
and self-awareness. Without getting off-topic into the realm of
philosophy, free-will, or lack thereof, is then used to decide who
gets to suffer and who doesn't.
For example, the philosopher Kant was by all accounts a gentle and
moral person, yet he had no qualms about doing live dissections upon
dogs. The dogs would, of course, howl in absolute agony, yet Kant
reasoned that since dogs are not capable of rational thought,
therefore they had no free-will and weren't actually self-aware and
thus were feeling no pain. To him, the howling, squirming, and signs
of suffering were just the mechanical responses of a biological
machine with no feelings.
While most people today wouldn't take this extreme position,
nevertheless the notion that the wants, desires or feelings of beings
that are considered less intelligent are commonly deemed to be
irrelevant by those who think they are smarter.
Warren Forest
> WHERES MY FUCKING CAT?!!?!?!?!?
I hope you find your kitty. I had a cat that disappeared for two
weeks, which wasn't uncommon for her, and then my dad found her locked
in my brother's broken down car. She must have snuck in when my
brother was working on it.
я黨wぃf
Ive looked in the barn *twice* :(
Dan Skunk
Yuck... This Kant guy seems like quite an exceptional idiot.
Free-will is a stupid idea anyway. There's no such thing. We are all a part
of the universe around us, and therefore, all our decisions are also a part
of that universe and governed by the laws, thereof.
There is no magic that makes our thoughts somehow independent from outside
influence. In fact, everything action we choose to make is a reaction to an
outside influence. We are every bit as mindless and mechanical as anything
else in the world.
That, however, does not mean we aren't responsible for our actions--if
someone does something wrong, they did it, they have a perpencancy to behave
that way and a likelyhood to repeat it and we should do what we can to
prevent it's repetition if it's dangerous enough.
It's just some kind of philosophical paradox. It gives people excuses to do
stupid thing like thinking they're better than other animals or absolving
themselves of responsibility for their actions. In my opinion, any
paradoxical thinking is just the exposition of a missunderstood flaw in the
argument.
Dan Skunk
"Snow Leopard" <SpottyG...@SnowLeopard.dxt> wrote in message
news:TuKdnZnZ4LyrBVHb...@comcast.com...
> The short version, not that this forum necessarily needs or wants short
> versions, is what I would call a balancing of instinct and intellect. I'd
> say that, since the Enlightenment, there has been an overemphasis on
> intellect (Reason), and a de-emphasis on instinct (or Passion). This has
> gone back and forth some, but the basic sundering of what Thomas Aquinas
> called "ratio" (an intellectual capacity that was seated in the heart)
into,
> essentially, Mind and Heart, has left its scar on Western culture ever
> since. The Classical era trumpeted Reason; the Romantics rebelled against
> it. Romantic philosophers were aware of this rift, and sought to repair
it
> by returning to archetypes, but the issue is now pretty much lost in the
> fray.
>
> Whether the era favors Mind or Heart, the point is that the separation
makes
> its opposite into a parody of itself. Thus, when Reason is in ascendancy,
> Passion comes out in neurotic ways, due its being culturally second-class.
> So also with Mind, when Passion takes over. The current emphasis on
extreme
> (sports, Doritos) seems an expression of neurotic passion having an
outlet.
>
> Furry offers a correction to this. The image of the anthropomorphic being
is
> a literal combination of human and beast; it's not a beast (instinct), and
> its not a human (intellect), but a happy combination of the two. The
image
> heals the rift created by the Enlighten, or offers an image of healing
> anyway.
I can agree with that. :)