fchan

discussion

Horrifying look at furries: funny or mean?

Pages:1
1Report
Speet! at 16 Mar 2006: 18:20

I took the advice and moved this from /b/.

Shawn Keller's comicbook and flashsite: is it good-natured kidding or mean-spirited taunting? Is it funny, nasty, both, or neither?

He's a talented artist and animator who's been with the fandom in some way for at least 2 decades. He is not an outsider. He has made and/or worn an anatomically correct fursuit (unverified, I saw pics or vids of a suit but identity is only hearsay), but in that case I understood the joke. "Furries", however, seemes to tickle the mean bone more than the funny bone. I realize he's not as harsh as some others might be, but so what? I never truly understood his reason for drawing "Furries" as anything other than just being mean.

2Report
Foxstar#3GqYIJ3Obs at 16 Mar 2006: 19:09

Some people would say it's both. I think it's the former, but largely the things it makes fun of are rooted in truth. Nasty slimy truth. And he delivers his jabs with less fire behind them then most.

3Report (sage)
at 16 Mar 2006: 22:41

>>2 "...but largely the things it makes fun of are rooted in truth. Nasty slimy truth."

I think it's that kind of thinking that's up for debate.  By my reckoning (which I could type out if I thought anyone actually cared) there's not a lot of 'truth' in what he makes 'fun' of - At least not any more 'truth' than there would be in making fun of any other fat, stupid example of the human species _without_ the furry trappings. 

I tend to think of Keller the same way I think about comedians that belabour racial/ethnic stereotypes for laughs (only a lot of it isn't even as funny as a well delivered joke about mexicans can be).  I also think, that like most folks that poke at the furry fandom, he likely only does it because the fandom almost guarantees a great (IE:  overblown) reaction on an almost regular basis. 

Does that make him nasty, or mean?  I dunno...  Depends how funny you think racist jokes are, or fat jokes, or jokes about retarded people. 

Personally, I think being funny without resorting to belittling or signaling out any particular group of follks takes way more talent and effort than taking shots at the easy targets, and while the occasional joke at someone else's exspense is expected (and even sometimes okay, or even 'good') if the entire routine hinges on it, the comedian in question becomes fairly boring fairly fast in most cases. 

4Report
at 17 Mar 2006: 03:10

Hm...  this two cents of mine may draw some flames, but here goes.  Hope this isn't too dull...

I'm 40, probably about the same age (more or less) as Keller, although I can't say I was "into furry" untill 2001.  Back in the early 80's when comics had their black and white boom (when I was in my teens), the ones that grabbed my attention the most were usually anthro ones such as Capt. Jack, Red Shetland and especially Albedo.  (Ah, serious, thoughtful Albedo.  It should be reprinted in harcover volumes for new generations of furryfans like Carl Barks' work is, but it seems largely forgotten).  Then in 2001 I stumbled across furry online and got all caught up in it. 

But this fandom seemed a bit different than it was (or as I perceived it to be) in the past - it was intensly focused on sex, in as many flavours as you can think of and about 23 more you never would have.  Perhaps that sort of gap I had from the late 80s or so to 2001 is what makes this apparent shift seem more visible to me.  Discounting Crumb's work (which I don't feel has influenced furry much), the "worst" example of strong sexual content I can think of from the past was Capt. Jack, but it barely holds a candle to today's level  (oh wait, Omaha The Cat Dancer.  Ick.  That never impressed me.  Maybe it was more influencial that I'm willing to give it credit for, but anyway).  This perception of mine was reinforced by a friend who sent me his entire net-derived archive of artwork which reaches back to the mid-90s; the sexual element, although frequent, was not so all-consuming as it seems to be now.

So, I can imagine that Mr. Keller *might* be in something of the same boat I am, "whoa, where'd all this spooge come from?  Ew."  And seeing as how Keller's still actively participating in the fandom - especially if that IS him in the rabbit suit - I can only guess probably enjoying the stuffin's out like I am and is either deriding the extremes of the fandom or is poking fun at all the fandom including himself; probably some mix of the two.

I mean, have you SEEN that rabbit suit???

5Report
nobuyuki#GfMr2LTKW. at 17 Mar 2006: 15:03

Question:  I've been looking for "Horrifying Look" in stock somewhere to get a copy of.  Anyone know where?  (Rabbit Valley or wherever that place is doesn't have 'em in stock).

I need a good laugh.

6Report
at 17 Mar 2006: 17:16

While I may not have the age to see the time change like #8, I don't really understand as much as some others may as to why the 'dirty, porny' or whatever you wish to classify it is so...bad.

I think this because...as I've been a teenager in recent years, kids these days are much more...mmm 'sexually oriented' people say the world is driven money but damn today's world seems like sex is in a close second. The things I hear 13 year olders and other young kids say...I'm amazed at how...drained society has become.

I personally don't mind the art being more about sex? Why? Well maybe because I was part of what I see as a society having a sexual shift...but mostly because I believe that large amounts of the art drawn is still quality art. You don't have to agree with the sex part...but you can still acknoledge that the artist does have skill in which they choose to create.

My two cents anyway. Not trying to attack anoyone in saying so either.

7Report
Rainhopper Roo at 18 Mar 2006: 02:00

on the keller site I believe its funny and at the same time sadly a bit true. If we look real close we can almost call out the names of the furs hes run into thaat fit the stereotypes. the problem is we try to supress and deny that stuff like that exists in the fandom. it really does exist, like any society it does exist in the furry fandom, but furrys have little to no inhabitions. we arent afraid to speak openly about anything, taboo is a line of thought that should have disappeared a long time ago. to go the otherside yes, there is alot of permiscuity going around becasue alot of these younger furs dont seem to realize that not everyone is into the whole yiff scene. some like the art, love the get togethers, but practice monogamy. this confuses a few people =) BUT I say this is ok. I may personally not agree with some of the elements being trophied by the media and people outside the fandom, I believe its a step forward to let them free range the fandom.

The fandom is built on many things but the most cherished and least recognized of all is our tolerance. for those who make fools of them selves and for those who tread on our paws from time to time.

all things said, of all the sci fi, religious or geek groups out there the furry fandom is one of the most tight knit, well networked and open armed groups on the planet. noone else can lay claim to our vast collection and its a level of togetherness not achieved since the anti war protests or the "hippy" movement of the 60's when much like today one could hop in a bus and travel across the country with only a few dollars in thier pocket, and a net connection replacing the identifiers of the brotherly drifter look.

I wonder if anyone has really looked at the fandom, I mean really looked at what we do beyond the internet, its almost a comunistic society in a functional form

8Report
at 18 Mar 2006: 02:38

>>4
I'm even older, and I remember things like the Zap Comix, Shelton, S. Clay Wilson and the Checkered Demon, Jolly Cap'n Jack and The Pirates, Cocaine Comix, and a host of others. A LOT of others, in fact. I also remember a lot of very short run "Special" Fanzines dealing with superheros and SciFi.  I can also remember a lot of what followed. A very large portion of it could be declared Furry today with not a peep of argument.

Anyone that can say with a straight face, "It wasn't until Furry came along that you started seeing all this emphasis on bizarre sex! It wasn't like this in The Good Old Days!" is either ignorant of the past forty years of the history of the various related genres or has a rather selective memory. It's always been there. It's just become lot easier and cheaper to find - or stumble over- nowadays, now that the sluicebox of the Net has opened.

9Report
at 19 Mar 2006: 11:42

>>8
My knowledge of the history of comics does reach back that far.  My underground collection alone numbers like 400 copies of various and sundry.  But I was trying to say that I don't believe that material (mainly Crumb who did a LOT of anthro animals and sex) had much of an influence on the developement of furryfandom as we know it; I was not tyring to say that sexualy themed anthropomorphics never existed until furry fandom came along.  Most furryfans couldn't name any character Robert Crumb created, but every furry knows Disney, Sonic and so on.

If you'd like to discuss if that sort of thing did have some formative influence, please start a new thread - I'd find that pretty interesting actually :).  Maybe we can find some Tiujuana Bibles of Mickey Mouse or Krazy Kat even, something that goes back REALLY far.

I guess this discussion could be boiled down to the way furryfandom tends to claim anything if it contains animal anthropomorphics - whether or not it was originally created by/for the fandom or not.  I prefer to keep the two ideas seperate.

10Report
at 20 Mar 2006: 00:31

You've missed the point. What you're saying is rather like stating that until the Science Fiction fandom came about there was no science fiction. All the aspects of Furry fancom were already in place excepting the fans themselves, mostly due to the lack of effective communication and (literally) no networking of the period. It was (and still is, really) a niche fandom of mostly seperated individuals - small groups of people at best - that liked that sort of stuff. Once people started finding others of like mind- mainly through things like BBS and the network - the start of a (somewhat) organized fandom came about. Suddenly, that "I really like this stuff!" had a name to it: Furry. Many have noted that as went the Net, so went the fandom.

It's a fandom. Nothing more than that. It has all the ingredients of all the other fandoms; from people that society deems "normal" to hard-core fans that make it a portion of their life as a serious hobby to the cellar-dwelling types that obcess over it, with most having at best a casual interest in whatever part of it happens to catch their attention.

Any element of Furry fandom has its equivalent in Science Fiction/Fantasy fandom (not the genre itself, but the fandom). For every yiffy fanboi you can point out, I can point out several Klingonese spouting leather bois with a thing for Data. For every fursuit you can point out, I can point out dozens of Klingons, Stormtroopers, Benders and guys dressed up as Xena, Warrior Princess. SciFi's 'saving grace' is that it has a much larger fanbase and wider appeal with the mainstream public at large. And that's just one other (admittedly larger) fandom. I won't touch on Manga-ese. And if you're going to bring Fan Politics into it, and go on about Fans and Lifestylers, keep in mind that the FIAWOL/FIJAGH argument has been around since the early 1930's.

As for, "...the way furryfandom tends to claim anything if it contains animal anthropomorphics..." I'll just remind you that Tolkien and a lot of other authors were declared SciFi/Fantasy territory by the fans even though the authors probably never even heard of the thing. When you're a fan of something, it means you're a fan of it, no matter its source.

11Report
Chatter-Kat at 20 Mar 2006: 04:14

>>10 Let me quote my last post, "I was not trying to say that anthropomorphic animal art ("AAA" hereafter) with sexual themes never existed until furry fandom came along."  My point was that the work by Crumb (and his ilk) really had no formative affect on furrydom, even if he did draw furry critters doing it (again, see quote).  Crumb and the other underground comix artists had different aims for their art than furries do.  They were rebeling against the repressed nature of the times they lived in - they were being political, not "yiffy".  Many of them were connected and knew each other, but they didn't sit around "wow, Bugs Bunny is so hawt!  Look, I drew a picture of him sticking it to Spiro Agnew... I jerked to it," like today's fandom might.  They were aiming to be satricially funny and socially relevent (mostly - Crumb is kind of a wierd exception here, probably worthy of his own thread).  Because of this I don't feel we can call that work "furry" as I rather doubt that can "furry" really is as large a genre as "science fiction" is. 

I see it this way: "furry" is a relatively new, focused subset of AAA - all furry is AAA, but not all AAA is furry because of the aims of the artists.  Art created by and for furrydom is primarily focused on portraits of furry personas and fap material; both aims fetishise the furry anthropomorphic character itself, whereas I think most (previous) AAA was only using the animal characters as stand-ins for human beings or mankind in general.  These narrowly focused aims for furrydom create a new subcatagory of AAA. 

Not long ago on 4chan's /b/ board there was a thread started with a picture of some Disney animal character and the comment "Disney created furry."  One of the responces was a picture of what I'm guessing was a Japanese scroll painting that had anthopomorphized animals dressed in clothes and fighting with swords, along with the comment "I blame the Japanese." (or something like that)  So can "furry" legitimately claim a Japanese scroll that I would guess dated back to at least the late 1800s?  Can we legitimately claim that scroll had some influence on the creation of furry fandom?  My opinion is no.  Perhaps we need to start another one of those "what is furry?" threads...

To swing this back to the original topic (if weakly so), I think Keller's found some easy satire targets of his own within this newly created subcatagory of AAA, having been there to see it solidify into what it is today.  Really, anything sexual is loaded with great potential for humour and the more seriously it's taken, the easier it is to rankle with satire.

12Report
at 20 Mar 2006: 08:31

>>11
So, early anthro comics are not "furry" because they were not created by or for furry fans?

Then what about anime? Most Japanese animation is created by corporations for a general (and usually younger) television audience. The corporations weren’t thinking about American anime fans. Only a minority of Japanese animation (usually OAVs) are even created with Japanese otaku in mind.

Or Star Wars. The original movies were created for a general movie-going audience. The Star Wars fandom was formed after the release of the movie. And when Lucas created the prequels, he didn’t fit them to the fandom’s expectations.

In both cases, fans latched onto something pre-existing that was never made for the fans. But no one argues that Japanese animation should not be called "anime" because it was not created by or for anime fans.

13Report
at 20 Mar 2006: 09:16

Out of order for a reason, and too long because I'm a talkative bastard, so we'll start with, "Art created by and for furrydom is primarily focused on portraits of furry personas and fap material"  The reason for that is that good ol' society provides an abundant wealth of safely acceptable and generalized material. Anthropomorphic characters are everywhere you look. However, going by the supersaturated amount of 'ALL STARZ PORN ALL THE TIME!' you see, a lot of people also like to see the objects of their affection getting nasty. The skewed view you see online and in the fandom almost certainly developed because the fandom is almost the sole source for that sort of thing, having to roll their own due to folks like Warner not devoting resources towards satisfying that guy that does think Bugs Bunny is hawt and his wishing to see The Little Grey Rabbit getting it on with Daffy. Compare and contrast with the numerous porn sites and the greater number of glossy periodicals and specialty magazines available only from behind the counter, usually with a plain brown wrapper hiding a large portion of the cover. It's amateur efforts, in the original sense of the word.

I also draw your attention the much larger amount of Superhero, SciFi, Fantasy, Media Star and Hentai porn soaking up a larger part of the intarweb than Furry every will, and challenge you to perform a survey of usenet binary groups to see just how much of the stuff there really is. I'm also certain you'll find each and every fetish represented in all those genres as well, and perhaps a few that haven't yet made the cut in Furry Fandom. Just because you see a lot of it around Furry doesn't mean it's anything special in a larger sense. Also keep in mind that most members of Fandom can watch 'The Lion King' without masturbating in the theatre much like a SciFi fan can watch 'The Matrix' without handling themselves whenever Trinity shows up dressed in tight leather (What both do later when safely in the privacy of their home is a different story). Deciding that Furry is nothing but a method of obtaining a fix for your fetish's craving is a little bit of cart before the horse, I feel.

As for the Japanese scroll's effect... It may have, if someone saw it, liked it, and developed a taste for that sort of thing. In fact, going by the amount of sexualized and/or anthropomorphized animals imagery you find in history, it might be more accurate to say that there's always been Furries but it's only recently that they has been given a name and have networked enough to have formed a fandom. While not the foremost theme of any culture's art, it's a universal one and is seen throughout history.

To get to Crumb- while some of his work might fit well within your take on it, he had also used anthropomorphic characters, replete with naughty dangly bits, well before any thought of going Underground and Fighting The Man- not that he was big on that. You may want to look at his 'Big Yum Yum Book' from his pre-underground days. Read some of his interviews, and you'll see that the greater portion of his work was him working out his own inner demons along with his sexual kinks. If you're going to subscribe to Funny Animals being shorthand for us plain folks, remember that we also come with those naughty dangly bits and that they often have been transferred to those creations.

However, you did touch upon the crux of things- or so I feel. "What is Furry?" In that question lies most of the carrying on you see. The definition seems to vary so much so as to be different from individual to individual. I think that's where our main difference of opinion lies.

14Report
at 20 Mar 2006: 12:46

>>13  I think it's pretty clear that "furry" as practiced and exemplified by Fchan and so on represents a much different type of art with different aims than 18th century Japanese scrolls do, or even Sonic The Hedgehog.  Further, to describe that Japanese scroll using the "furry" genre-heading because of it's use of anthorpomorphic animals is terribly and unfairly revisionist (and somewhat laughable as well) in my mind, not to mention clouding descriptions that should be made more clear by applying a label. However, both furry and that Japanese scroll seem to fit well under the genre heading of "anthropomorphic animal art", for lack of a better term.

So yes, I "do not think that early anthro comics are 'furry'", *indeed because* "they were not created by or for furry fans".  I label something furry when it obviously came from the fandom.  As you pointed out "furry" didn't start to come into being untill the advent of the internet.  I see the net as one defining aspects of "furry" (there are more, but let's use this one), in both it's creation and continued existence.  The same cannot be said for a Japanese scroll from the 1800s.  So to call it or The Yum-Yum Book furry is in my mind imprecise, no matter how many danlgey bits they had painted on them or not.  I especially find it sloppy thinking to say it is furry when it's an arguable point that neither the scroll nor the Yum-Yum Book had much if any part to play in the creation of what we know as furyfandom.

Bla blah blah...  I think we need a new thread for our verbal diarreha.  So exactly how many angels *can* dance on the head of a pin?  =D

15Report
at 21 Mar 2006: 07:17

You blinked first! I win teh Internet! But, to be serious- from that last post, I see that the problem is indeed one of definition.  You seem inclined to define it rather narrowly as, 'The sort of people you find in fchan.' To me, Furry has  much wider definition as 'Fans of Anthropomorphic Animals.' Believe me, it's not any weakness of thought that caused me to arrive at that definition, but direct observation and interaction with a much larger number of people than just the ones you find here. Constraining Furry to mean only those with a narrow focus on a miniscule part of the much larger whole is a mistake, in my opinion. I think you're confusing the label for the thing.

I also feel your inversion of fan and subject is much akin to declaring any attempt to have Jules Verne fall into the definition of his being a science fiction author wrong, because the very term itself didn't exist when he wrote his stories and he couldn't possibly have been writing for that fandom. Co-opting previous art that fits into the area of interest is a time-honored tradition, as exemplified by the prototypical SciFi fandom- though there's been arguments even there as to definitions and what falls under its umbrella as well (Harlan Ellison, during his push for the term 'speculative fiction' to replace 'science fiction', once made a compelling argument that the film 'The Conversation' was science fiction, as it fit all the then current definitions of the genre). Despite such antics, much like Furry, SciFi fans generally know it when they see it and usually agree as to what isn't it as well no matter what the original label was.

Fandoms arrive after the object of their adoration comes about, not before. Calling the artist that created that scroll a possible furry may sound revisionist, but if you define Furry as 'someone that really likes anthropomorphic animals much more than the average person' then it's just an updating of the nomenclature to a shorter form. Declaring that it had no possible influence on the creation of Furry Fandom, especially as it wasn't created by or for that fandom, is not only making for a dandy case of circular reasoning but also makes moot all the other previously existing influences and factors that may have contributed to its coming about and is demonstrably wrong. The fandom did not arise from a vacuum, springing full-grown from the brow of Mark Merlino or the loins of Steve Gallacci.

Told you I was a talkative bastard. Now, putting that away, hopefully until aff freezes over, and going on to the much more important topic of dancing angels and pinheads... The number depends upon whether the music they're dancing to is a waltz or a polka.

16Report
at 21 Mar 2006: 11:01

I think he's funny and he animates better than 90% of the world.

17Report
Bizzle at 21 Mar 2006: 16:37

Shawn Keller is a brilliant comedian.  His flash films are elaborate and well-voiced, and the jokes hit home in the way that good satires do.  His portrayals are over-the-top, which is quite an accomplishment given the subject matter.  They are so over the top in fact that, even though they are pointed squarely at the fandom's hilarious excess, they do not apply to any individuals in particular (not counting the Blackberry cartoon).  We all can sit back while we watch one of his furry characters look like a total fool and say, "I know some guys like that" but never quite be that guy.  Sure, you share some of the same ...um, interests, but you're not *that* rediculous!

I know that many in the fandom are actually offended by his jokes.  These people take themselves too seriously.  Furrydom is profoundly absurd on so many levels that it simply begs to be lampooned.  That's not to say that it's bad; there's always humor to be found in any fetish.  Accept it.  Enjoy it even.

18Report
at 21 Mar 2006: 18:50

>>17
"Shawn Keller is a brilliant comedian."  Sorry, no. He's a highly talented animation artist that has some talent for caricature, but brilliantly funny he ain't. He does try, though. Unlike other people, I don't think he's being mean-spirited. I do think he's bad at the writing end of things, though. Art Buchwald he ain't.

I think that he desperately needs a writer that has some handle on what humor can be to teach that him that TEH FUNEY isn't an overly broad caricature made as repellent as possible, needing only to have some fart noises added to become brilliant, scintillating satirical wit. He almost gets it at times, but rarely gets past the 'OMFG! He's ugly and farting! Farts are the funniest thing evar!' level of humor.

19Report
Bizzle at 21 Mar 2006: 22:24

Come now, his murder mystery was a classic!  Admittedly, it's low-brow humor, but there's nothing wrong with that.  Some of the greatest comedians of all time have appealed to our bawdy, unsophisticated senses of humor.

There's a part of us that will always laugh at the immature and the disgusting.  Say what you will about the laughs being cheap; it takes talent to wring funny out of punchlines that are essentially as old as humaity.  Fart jokes and repulsive old pervert jokes aren't funny unless they have a sufficient amount of context and framing to them, and that is where Shawn succeeds.

But then in all fairness, you are dealing with a man who holds Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back as has favorite movie of all times.

20Report (sage)
at 22 Mar 2006: 08:21

I'm not saying he can't be funny. Some of his stuff has absolutely inspired moments. They're unfortunately few and far between.

Saying he's a "brilliant comedian" just isn't so. I mean, satire is a lot more than turning up the dial on the ugly and dubbing sounds of gastrointestinal distress over funny voices with bad accents. Often, a bit that would work decently all on its own goes flat because he just couldn't seem to resist tossing a few too many fart noises in, trying to force the chuckles. I have nothing against low brow humor, but c'mon- most people grow past thinking that's the height of hilarity once they get past elementary school. Repulsive old pervert jokes eventually wear thin if that's all you hear.

He's a very good animator but not a very good writer. It's not that he's awful, it's that he could do a lot better.

21Report
at 23 Mar 2006: 05:48

Furries, like any group that takes itself too seriously, make themselves a target. Everyone gets snickered at for some reason or another, but when furries see it as 'hate' or 'persicution' and react... well.. like they did at 2004's Texas Fur Con, they paint a big bullseye on thier backs and it becomes open season

For example, Something Awfull posted a furry 'Awful Link of the Day'; it got some chuckles and that would have been it, but some furries caught wind and gasped "its an attack on the fandom! to Arms!", and a whole mess ensued, making furrydom a constant object of ridicule because of it, and other image boards joined in while others refuse to allow it to avoid negative attention or spam.

Anyway, SA folk went to the 2004 Texas Furry Convetion to get a look at a con, but a group of furries one upped them shamefully and gave the site plenty of hilarious footage and stories to confirm how crazy we are.

Link to video and explinaion of the 'altercation' can be found here:
http://www.nothingkat.com/confession/somethingtexas.htm

22Report
Bizzle at 23 Mar 2006: 15:48

Dude, that's embarassing.  It's really amazing how stupid some people are.  He should have run the fools down.

While these particular individuals are an extreme example, furries in general do tend to have rice paper-thin skin.  It's a very real problem and probably the greatest obstacle that the fandom faces in regards to public acceptence.  An average Trekkie wearing a Klingon costume knows he looks rediculous, or at least amusing, and doesn't get all pissy when he hears somebody snicker.  Furries need to achieve that mindset.  Crying about "discrimination" does nothing but make them look pathetic.

23Report
at 23 Mar 2006: 17:11

>>22

yea, I think the fandom has finally hit its low point, and starting to try and improve the public image that the furries themselves created by looking like a haven for every sexual fetish under the sun, rather than a group that takes an interest in anthro-art and the like.

I don't want to worry about some horrified reaction if I tell my friends I like the art, and I don't want them to think I'm some horrible sexual deviant. True, I can be a kinky bastard, but thats not something that needs to be thrust into the public like the plushie humping weirdo in Vanity Fair, or the fursuiters in bondage gear, or even the latex furries that look like they belong in an underground fetish party!

-Sci-fi fans aren't called 'alien fuckers'
-Trekkies, for all the gay kirk/spock slash written, still aren't looked at the way furries are
-Anime fans aren't called 'shitting tenticle dick-nipple lovers'

so this is something the furries need to work on themselves, realize that ciricizm isn't persecution, and decide to push the sex to the private rooms were it belongs.

But I'm just a fan

24Report
Spee! at 25 Mar 2006: 07:30

Sounds like you're afraid of guilt by association. Sexual deviation need not be considered "horrible", just different, especially when it's only imaginary.

I'm dismayed only in that the deviant desires and interests are
sometimes shared so openly, with little discretion. But that's why Fchan has /a/ and /ah/, and convention art shows have a separate NC-17 gallery.

Copied from the CYD thread, posted here for relevance:

"The difference that sets furry apart from other fandoms is that sex appeal is such a major part of it. If that were removed from the equation it would be a vastly different fandom with perhaps only half as much art as it supports now. For many if not most fans, discovering furry fandon meant finding erotic furry art for the first time."

BTW, the "skunk fuckers" slur dates back at least as far as BayCon, 1988.

Criticism isn't persecution, but "Furries" isn't honest criticism. It's assault on character. "Skunk", the MU Press comic from 1993, that's criticism.

25Report
at 25 Mar 2006: 13:27

Improve furrys public image?. Much too late for that, I'm afraid. The damage is irreversible. :P

26Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage