Comic Genesis Forums

Furries belong in cages, not comics.

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:

vulpeslibertas wrote:When members of the public at large see something fuzzy and imeadiately start equating it with deviant sexual acts

But they don't.

But they do:

yeahduff wrote:If people get a furry feeling from it, make no mistake, a lot of people will dismiss it outright, whether warranted or not.

I was talking about funny animals, yeahduff was talking about furries. Not the same thing at all.

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:There are plenty of valid and popular works featuring "fuzzy" characters, and people don't think "porn" when they read Garfield or watch Bugs Bunny.

Ah, but Fabio Ciccone does:

Fabio Ciccone = the public at large?

vulpeslibertas wrote:the portion of the general public that knows that the word "furry" applies to a genre happen to associate it with porn. Therefore people try to avoid the label at all costs.

You certainly don't avoid it. So you must like to be associated with teh furry pr0nzors.

vulpeslibertas wrote:The "furry" community created a label to describe themselves.

The furry community? So you admit you're a clique of animal fetishists? It's all coming together now.

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:Remind me, why did anyone need another term than good old "funny animals" in the first place?

Maybe if you read the portion of my post that you just quoted, you would have seen why:

vulpeslibertas wrote:"Funny animals" is a weak term at best. I don't draw funny animals, I draw fox-girls in tights. Not exactly looney-tunes, but I'd like to think it's a bit of a distance from animal porn.

You're right, fox-girls in tights don't sound like funny animals. Those are clearly serious animals. My bad.

Jim North wrote:"Continuing to use the fetishist definition when talking with furries themselves is to add connotations that are not there" is the part I'm guessing you're talking about. This is one of the places where I should have said "denotation" instead of "connotation", as I mentioned in my previous post.

I noticed that. It doesn't change that the fetishism is there, no matter the amount of semantic flip-flopping you do.

NakedElf wrote:I'm very glad at least one person understands the purpose of this thread--entertainment.

What makes you think everyone else aren't highly entertained? We're talking cartoon animals here. This is not a serious issue.

Paul Escobar wrote:You're right, fox-girls in tights don't sound like funny animals. Those are clearly serious animals. My bad.

Haha, this made my day.

And it makes a good point, because furries take their comics (or whatever) way too fucking seriously.

you know, all this discussion about a genre of media just makes me sad. A lot of people are putting WAY too much thought into their points, about something that can be easily shrugged off and ignored.

most of the very same arguements can be applied to any other genre, Anime stylings, or god knows what.

really guys, get over it already. So some folks take their subject matter a little too seriously, the same can be said for more "traditionalist" comic-creators whom flip at the slightest hint of negative discussion about them.

Turnsky wrote:you know, all this discussion about a genre of media just makes me sad. A lot of people are putting WAY too much thought into their points, about something that can be easily shrugged off and ignored.

People are thinking before they post? Good Lord, what's the world coming to.

Paul Escobar wrote:

vulpeslibertas wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:There are plenty of valid and popular works featuring "fuzzy" characters, and people don't think "porn" when they read Garfield or watch Bugs Bunny.

Ah, but Fabio Ciccone does:

Fabio Ciccone = the public at large?

Doom, I say! DOOM!!!

MWA-HA-HA-HA!

oh lord, it just occurred to me, Anubis is a furry!

I was thinking more of Esop's fables, but ok.

Paul Escobar wrote:There are plenty of valid and popular works featuring "fuzzy" characters, and people don't think "porn" when they read Garfield or watch Bugs Bunny.

Ah, but Fabio Ciccone does: (And the only reason you don't is that you were in diapers when Walt Disney started doodling Mickey Mouse)

Fabio Ciccone wrote:I think furries are the spawns of satan and all those who draw 'em will forever suffer in hell.

Doom for all o' you perverts!

Fabio Ciccone was obviously joking.

mcDuffies wrote:I mean, it is a big deal if your niche is conservatives who like to moralize and generalize a lot,

...And that's not a generalization

It's as much a generalization as when you say that all webcomickers draw comics and then post them on internet.

vulpeslibertas wrote:*Ahem* Before I begin, please understand that I say this out of the depths of my little black heart. I don't particularly care about the issue, nor do I take offence at anyone here or their opinions, but Gee Wilikers it's fun to argue!

...

For the record, I really find this debate humorous. I truly do respect the opinions of everyone, but that doesn't make for good forum reading. Let's face it, it's not like anyone is going to convince anyone else...

I on the other hand don't find the direction you're steering this discussion humorous or amusing. I like to read a good debate, not in order to get anyone convinced (cause this is not a sport match, you know) but to hear other people's view of the subject. You know, people who actually have something to say about the subject. If I want to hear people pissing around, well there's plenty of off-topic threads around.

Paul Escobar wrote:I noticed that. It doesn't change that the fetishism is there, no matter the amount of semantic flip-flopping you do.

I never said that there aren't any furry fetishists. Not even in the parts where I mixed up my wording. I did say that "furry" does not automatically mean "fetishist", but this doesn't stop a furry from being a fetishist. I did say that the original meaning of "furry" is not strictly fetishistic, but this does not mean that fetishists do not also fall under that definition. I did say that the fetishistic connotations were added later, but I did not say that the fetishists themselves were added later and that they weren't part of it before. I did say "there aren't furry fetishists in the fandom", but that was preceded immediately by "this is not to say that" and followed by "of course". I did point out that many who are considered furry fetishists actually aren't, but I did not say that all of them weren't.

Never, not once at any point, did I ever say that there weren't any furry fetishists at all within the furry fandom.

Before, I actually thought you were confused by my word choice mistake (and it was a mistake, not flip-flopping), but now I can see that you're just being an ass. Good day.

And this, of course, is why I didn't want to get serious in this again. Fucking ridiculous.

Jim North wrote:I never said that there aren't any furry fetishists. Not even in the parts where I mixed up my wording. I did say that "furry" does not automatically mean "fetishist", but this doesn't stop a furry from being a fetishist. I did say that the original meaning of "furry" is not strictly fetishistic, but this does not mean that fetishists do not also fall under that definition. I did say that the fetishistic connotations were added later, but I did not say that the fetishists themselves were added later and that they weren't part of it before. I did say "there aren't furry fetishists in the fandom", but that was preceded immediately by "this is not to say that" and followed by "of course". I did point out that many who are considered furry fetishists actually aren't, but I did not say that all of them weren't.

Never, not once at any point, did I ever say that there weren't any furry fetishists at all within the furry fandom.

I wasn't trying to contend any of that. What I'm saying is that a fetish is implied in "furry" - in the original fandom use of the word, that is.

This is what is technically known as disagreeing. If you think that equals being "an ass", feel free.

Paul Escobar wrote:This is what is technically known as disagreeing. If you think that equals being "an ass", feel free.

I disagree!

You sound like Jim.

thank you.

"thats" what i dislike - in general i dont care what the charcters are "Unless" its for the flat out reason of kink - furry kink to me is ( censored for security reasons ) and ( censored for security reasons )

but all joking aside i dont mind non-human charcters when the charcters are needed - having a furry in a comic sets the tone for me and makes is very hard to empathize with them - in otherwords most of the time i would rather see them BBQed with a side of baked potato -

there ARE exceptions ( unstuffed / and one or two others )
there are a few that outright disgust me ,

but as anything it needs to be judged on individual comic by comic
and not globaly Booed ...

Paul Escobar wrote:

NakedElf wrote:I'm very glad at least one person understands the purpose of this thread--entertainment.

What makes you think everyone else aren't highly entertained? We're talking cartoon animals here. This is not a serious issue.

I said "at least one"! Just trying not to make incorrect assumptions. Some people seemed downright unhappy at the beginning.

datachasers wrote:"thats" what i dislike - in general i dont care what the charcters are "Unless" its for the flat out reason of kink -

Why do you hate me? *Wah* :P



On Topic: I would wager that actually, a fairly high percentage of the 'reading populace' is not really familiar with the term 'furry'. That is, if you call a comic 'furry', most people will just think 'um, yeah, the animals have fur...' A bigger percentage are vaguely familiar with the term, and think 'porn!' when they hear it. (This is not always a *negative* thought, mind.) And a smaller percentage realizes that 'furry' is a subculture/style of drawing which arose from the earlier 'funny talking animals' of a lot of cartoons, and some of it is pornographic and most of it isn't.

Even the people in this discussion who think that furry=porn or at least sexual fetishization of some sort *know* that other people are not using the word that way. Which means that some sort of more flexible definition has to be kept in mind, otherwise they're going to get awfully confused when talking to people.

Personally, though, I generally wouldn't consider a character 'furry' if it didn't have *fur*. Talking dragons are fantasy animals. Anthropomorphic slimes are not furry. They have no fur.

NakedElf wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote:

NakedElf wrote:I'm very glad at least one person understands the purpose of this thread--entertainment.

What makes you think everyone else aren't highly entertained? We're talking cartoon animals here. This is not a serious issue.

datachasers wrote:"thats" what i dislike - in general i dont care what the charcters are "Unless" its for the flat out reason of kink -

Why do you hate me? *Wah*

aw i dont hate you elfy girl -

besides i class yours as People ( elves ect ) rather than "furrys"

see the thing that bugs me the most and ill admit that im biased is human/animal sex .. besides im not into beastality and thats how i view "furry" comics - they just turn me right off , now if the comic is about anthro "people" who just happen to look like furry animals why didnt they use humans instead ?

im really reluctant to use examples because i dont want to pick on anyones comic but there is one whos sole reason is to show sex and furry animals getting it on ( its not wrong par say ) but it makes me disgusted..

im kinda used to this because the same kinda bias exsists between hand drawn and CGI comics , some people wont even look at a cgi comic be cause ( oh thats cheap or its gotta be poser porn or some such ) so im unwilling to comdem all antropromorphic animal comics for that reason alone ( doesnt mean ill read them though )

garfield is a cat , he talks , he stands but there is no question that he IS a cat NOT a person ..
on the other hand mr " im a furry animal dressed in clothing and can talk " is STILL a animal NOT a person , and thats how ill see it , there needs to be certain things in order for it to no longer a animal
and standing on two legs and talking isnt it ..

mind you this excludes gods , dietys , aliens ( that happen to look like hybrids ) and to some extent shapeshifters .. ( they are pretty much anything ) also werewolves .. *sigh*

pretty much there is no right or wrong to this . just personal taste. ]

PS : i still dont hate you

NakedElf wrote: On Topic: I would wager that actually, a fairly high percentage of the 'reading populace' is not really familiar with the term 'furry'. That is, if you call a comic 'furry', most people will just think 'um, yeah, the animals have fur...' A bigger percentage are vaguely familiar with the term, and think 'porn!' when they hear it. (This is not always a *negative* thought, mind.) And a smaller percentage realizes that 'furry' is a subculture/style of drawing which arose from the earlier 'funny talking animals' of a lot of cartoons, and some of it is pornographic and most of it isn't.

Even the people in this discussion who think that furry=porn or at least sexual fetishization of some sort *know* that other people are not using the word that way. Which means that some sort of more flexible definition has to be kept in mind, otherwise they're going to get awfully confused when talking to people.

Personally, though, I generally wouldn't consider a character 'furry' if it didn't have *fur*. Talking dragons are fantasy animals. Anthropomorphic slimes are not furry. They have no fur.

You know how many people watch CSI a week? This is America's exposure to the furry scene.

And having your work loop in with porn when it in fact is not porn is definitely problematic.

datachasers wrote:

NakedElf wrote:

Paul Escobar wrote: What makes you think everyone else aren't highly entertained? We're talking cartoon animals here. This is not a serious issue.

datachasers wrote:"thats" what i dislike - in general i dont care what the charcters are "Unless" its for the flat out reason of kink -

Why do you hate me? *Wah*

aw i dont hate you elfy girl -

besides i class yours as People ( elves ect ) rather than "furrys"

see the thing that bugs me the most and ill admit that im biased is human/animal sex .. besides im not into beastality and thats how i view "furry" comics - they just turn me right off , now if the comic is about anthro "people" who just happen to look like furry animals why didnt they use humans instead ?

im really reluctant to use examples because i dont want to pick on anyones comic but there is one whos sole reason is to show sex and furry animals getting it on ( its not wrong par say ) but it makes me disgusted..

im kinda used to this because the same kinda bias exsists between hand drawn and CGI comics , some people wont even look at a cgi comic be cause ( oh thats cheap or its gotta be poser porn or some such ) so im unwilling to comdem all antropromorphic animal comics for that reason alone ( doesnt mean ill read them though )

garfield is a cat , he talks , he stands but there is no question that he IS a cat NOT a person ..
on the other hand mr " im a furry animal dressed in clothing and can talk " is STILL a animal NOT a person , and thats how ill see it , there needs to be certain things in order for it to no longer a animal
and standing on two legs and talking isnt it ..

mind you this excludes gods , dietys , aliens ( that happen to look like hybrids ) and to some extent shapeshifters .. ( they are pretty much anything ) also werewolves .. *sigh*

pretty much there is no right or wrong to this . just personal taste. ]

PS : i still dont hate you

Oy.

Furry fetishism is not related to bestiality. One enjoys humans with animal characteristics, the other just likes animals.

And sorry, your stance on furry comics is identical to the CGI stance you resent so much. You ARE condemning them all out right. I mean, why are furry artists stylistic decisions in question while yours are not? Why do CGI when you can just hand draw?

...

where did i say they are "wrong" ?
i gave "my" reasons for not liking

You know how many people watch CSI a week? This is America's exposure to the furry scene.

yes and sadly its a true depiction of the worst furry has to offer

6ft raccoon in body condom gets shot and ran over --- snirk-

Oy.

Furry fetishism is not related to bestiality. One enjoys humans with animal characteristics, the other just likes animals.

And sorry, your stance on furry comics is identical to the CGI stance you resent so much. You ARE condemning them all out right. I mean, why are furry artists stylistic decisions in question while yours are not? Why do CGI when you can just hand draw?

your first - yes thats what it makes "me" think of sorry .. if you dont want me thinking it then leave sex out - if i see a girl / guy in bed with a 6ft wolf then yeah... if they are making eyes then im just calling it like i see it -

and this isnt the place to debate the cgi vs handdrawn >> see my thread for CGI bashing please

and ALSO as i said , there are ones out there ( furry animal comics ) that are DAMN GOOD anmd there are strips that have non-human charcters in them that do NOT count as Furry im useing "furry" in a very narrow term ( that is to describe the animal fetish porn comics )

did you want salt with that?

yeahduff wrote: You know how many people watch CSI a week? This is America's exposure to the furry scene.

I don't think I actually know anyone who watches CSI, except maybe some folks I've met through the internet.

Oh, wait, I have an ex who's seen that episode... of course this is the ex with whom I discussed the kind of heavy-kink BDSM stuff which would make most people go a bit pale and leave the room, so I have ample reason to believe that he specifically sought out the episode.

And having your work loop in with porn when it in fact is not porn is definitely problematic.

You do realize that porn is extremely popular and that people specifically seek it out, right? I don't actually consider my comic to be porn, but the vast majority of my hits do come from people looking for naked elves.

Furry fetishism is not related to bestiality. One enjoys humans with animal characteristics, the other just likes animals.

X has aspects of Y, but X is not related to Y? I honestly find that hard to believe. Now, me, I couldn't care less--hell, I've a friend who thinks dogs are sexy. But I *do* think someone who routinely draws horse-people fucking *does* in fact draw some enjoyment from the animal parts of the pictures. If it were *just* the human component of the sex which is interesting to them, why would they put animal parts into it? If I'm going to bother to draw porn, I'm going to do my best to make it the best sexy picture I can. I'm not going to put things in the picture which are a turn off to me.

And sorry, your stance on furry comics is identical to the CGI stance you resent so much. You ARE condemning them all out right. I mean, why are furry artists stylistic decisions in question while yours are not? Why do CGI when you can just hand draw?

You know he can't hand draw, right? His hands were hurt in a car accident.

Did you mean fries?

mcDuffies wrote:I on the other hand don't find the direction you're steering this discussion humorous or amusing. I like to read a good debate, not in order to get anyone convinced (cause this is not a sport match, you know) but to hear other people's view of the subject. You know, people who actually have something to say about the subject. If I want to hear people pissing around, well there's plenty of off-topic threads around.

It's my opinion that anyone here who had a real opinon to say about this whole issue said it in the first half of this thread (before the "No, I'm not the one who doesn't understand, you are" and "are not/are too" kicked in). Beyond that, this debate has been repeated in many threads on many forums for many years. If anyone had anything important to say, it's been said by now. This topic is a dead thread.

After 7 pages of "no, my definition is right" then it's either become a sporting match or a heated argument. It certainly isn't a debate because nobody's listening to anyone else. The whole disclaimer was to blow off steam and keep it from being a heated argument. Disclaimers are cheesy, I know.

Dirrection I'm taking it in? Naw, not really. Generally, I like to pick my points for their ring as well as their ideological merit. I'll even argue against my own side if 1. It's funny enough and 2. The point hasn't been effectively made yet. No one should ever take their own point of view so seriously that they become a babbling moralizing idiot.

If anyone has anything actually worth saying about furries/whatnot, then by all means speak up, but I'll not be disuaded from giving a sarcastic poke here or there. I don't consider this a pissing match. As a show of good faith, I wont even respond to all the wonderful quotes of my previous post. Also note, that any provokative behavior I've expressed is limited to this thread and this thread only. I'm not out to get anyone, don't want anyone out to get me, and I really do respect everyone's thoughts and opinions.