What's up with furries?

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:22 pm

Linux doesn't fight PCs, it fights Microsoft Windows. I'm sorry, Micro$oft WinBLOWS. Ha ha ha ah ah aha ha haha aha ha h *falls over*

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:23 pm

Dr Neo Lao wrote:Why is there never a PC vs Linux or Mac vs Linux flamewar? Or a PC vs Mac vs Linux threesome? Linux is like the poor cousin that gets ignored at the family reunion but who goes about doing all the dishes and ignoring the fact that they're being ignored...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BQECwm3erEs

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:12 pm

I don't see why it's so surprising that there are furries. People are in general fascinated by animals. They try to understand animals. They are the beings that share this planet with us. They have an important part in our culture and lives. We've been personificating them since forever. When you have a pet rabbit, don't you sometimes assign it more human-like characteristics than they actually have? Don't you sometimes talk to them or expect them to understand you? I can imagine that first cartoon with antropomorphized animals happened when some loony cartoonist started imagining that his pet was more intelligent than it really was (although first anthro animal in cartoons was Windson McKay's dinosaur if I remember correctly, so my scenario most likely isn't true).
What about animism. In one of our many attempts to understand animals, we assigned them mystical powers and connected certain human characteristics to them. In fact, if I was guessing that animism was the start of the long line of anthporomorphized animals, the most recent instance of which is furries.
It's simply one reocurring topic for humans every since the beginning. And given the importance animals have in our lives, not the illogical one.

Now, why are furries popular? Well things get popular, and then fade out of popularity. Many people are sheeps that follow the herd. One Britney Spears becomes popular and suddenly millions of girls want to look just like her and sing like her, and thanks to scavenger agents, some of them do. Then a few seasons later, noone remembers that he ever liked her, and someone else is in the spotlight. Same thing with furries, or just about any trend out there. Of course, there are people who like furries, or listen to Britney Spears (no relation intended) because they genuinely like to, not because of trend.

[AlmightyPyro] · Post by **[AlmightyPyro]** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:14 pm

Linux is the smarter little brother that's laughing at everyone else.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:37 pm

I always found that "furry" is also a way to describe a very specific genre and style of cartooning. The best way for me to illustrate this is with a chart.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 6:11 pm

So while I think that furries are animals with boobs, you think that furries and animals with big boobs.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:09 pm

mcDuffies wrote:So while I think that furries are animals with boobs, you think that furries and animals with big boobs.

Those aren't boobs.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:26 pm

The Neko wrote:
mcDuffies wrote:So while I think that furries are animals with boobs, you think that furries and animals with big boobs.
Those aren't boobs.

Those are furry moobs.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:34 pm

rkolter wrote:Those are furry moobs.

HAWT

oh noes how far have i fallen

Sortelli · Post by **Sortelli** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:31 am

I can't accept "funny animal" as a way to distinguish Bug Bunny or Donald Duck from the creepy psychosexual undertones of Kevin and Kell* because of Omaha the Cat Dancer, which billed itself as a funny animal comic. And was pretty much flat out porn.

* And seriously, Kevin and Kell? You know that guy is into the vore, for all the devouring that goes on in his comic's universe.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:04 am

I've read that "Kevin and Kell" is secretly a nazi comic... and you know I kind of agree with that.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:25 am

I advertised on Kevin and Kell once, and got a lot of hits from people who wanted to know how ABOLs breed.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:36 am

Very carefully, I would suspect.

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 12:12 pm

ryclaude wrote:
Dr Neo Lao wrote:Why is there never a PC vs Linux or Mac vs Linux flamewar? Or a PC vs Mac vs Linux threesome? Linux is like the poor cousin that gets ignored at the family reunion but who goes about doing all the dishes and ignoring the fact that they're being ignored...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BQECwm3erEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av6fWfmugds

the best thing about those Mac v. PC ads is John Hodgeman.

Mvmarcz · Post by **Mvmarcz** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:33 pm

Jim North wrote:I got into furrydom via Sonic the Hedgehog. He's like the gateway drug or something.

Anyway, my personal draw to furries came specifically from watching the SatAM Sonic cartoon and trying to imagine the civilization that the Mobians would actually have if there weren't any Dr. Robotniks around to fuck it up. Because furries represent both the familiar and the exotic, I saw several interesting possibilities. There would parts of it that would emulate human culture and habits, while others could be completely and distinctly alien to our own way of thinking.

It's not always a gateway drug

My brothers and I were VERY into Sonic way back in "the day" We had all the games, almost all the comics(I was more a knuckles girl muhself though)

The first thing I ever really drew was a picture of princess sally out of the comic. I pretty much only drew sonic type characters for a few years after that. After I got into drawing other things I started drawing furries of my own design.

Now I hardly ever draw anything anthropomorphic. I can appreciate furry art but I'm really not that into it anymore. My brothers however LOVE furry art...especially of the porn variety. My furry art was never that good though...just looked like people with poorly done animal faces and tails...

But just as everyone said. It's a fandom just like any other. And just like any other it has a range of enthusiasts ranging from the casual to the bizarre.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:09 pm

Sortelli wrote:I can't accept "funny animal" as a way to distinguish Bug Bunny or Donald Duck from the creepy psychosexual undertones of Kevin and Kell* because of Omaha the Cat Dancer, which billed itself as a funny animal comic. And was pretty much flat out porn.

* And seriously, Kevin and Kell? You know that guy is into the vore, for all the devouring that goes on in his comic's universe.

True. There is also an "intent" part of the art that dictates whether something is just art and "furry art". But I find that there is some kind of visual characteristic that makes you think "furry art" even without knowing the author's intent. It's a really blurry line.

Dr Neo Lao · Post by **Dr Neo Lao** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:30 pm

Considering the stigma some people put on furry comics, I wonder if anyone has made a CGI furry comic?

Or gone for a CGI, fanfic furry comic for the trifecta of "most hated"?

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:41 am

Furry Magical Girl Manga?

MixedMyth · Post by **MixedMyth** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:53 am

I generally think of it all in the same way Neko illustrated, as far as I can tell.

Kevin and Kell always kind of disturbed me somehow on a vague level that's hard to define. Ever notice how all the animals who are eaten in the comic are less anthropomorphized than those that are not? And tend not to wear clothes as often? They're more 'animally.' They're just extras there to be eaten. And you know, I always did wonder what would happen if everyone in Kevin and Kell were human. I mean, when you stop an think about it, the world is pretty creepy. O_o Someone living in that world would have to constantly worry about not coming home to their family because of the high risk of DEATH and being eaten as they make their way home from work. "Sorry, little Billy, but papa was murdered by a large leopard today. But don't worry, it's all part of the circle of life. If you want, we can view his body in our neighbor's fridge."

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:28 am

MixedMyth wrote:Kevin and Kell always kind of disturbed me somehow on a vague level that's hard to define. Ever notice how all the animals who are eaten in the comic are less anthropomorphized than those that are not? And tend not to wear clothes as often? They're more 'animally.' They're just extras there to be eaten. And you know, I always did wonder what would happen if everyone in Kevin and Kell were human. I mean, when you stop an think about it, the world is pretty creepy. O_o Someone living in that world would have to constantly worry about not coming home to their family because of the high risk of DEATH and being eaten as they make their way home from work. "Sorry, little Billy, but papa was murdered by a large leopard today. But don't worry, it's all part of the circle of life. If you want, we can view his body in our neighbor's fridge."

See, that's what I'm thinking too. There are main characters in "Kevin and Kell" they are intelligent, wear clothes, act more humanly, and are always well-intended. There are extras who act more like animals, often are stupid and evil. The divite between those two types of characters is suspiciously strict, implying over and over again that the first type is superior to the second one, but things get more creepy because when a character of the second type gets eaten, that's no big deal, it's an event worth of two panels of comic, it's like squashing a big. On the other side, it's implied that characters of the first type never get eaten, or if they did, that would be a big deal, a tragedy.
One of the episodes that ring most unpleasantly (as far as I remember) was when Kevin took a loan, and then when he wasn't able to pay it up, his kid just ate sharks he took a loan from. If you think any more deep into it, you have to wonder, what right does it give him? Kevin is given a moral superiority by the author here, but objectively, he doesn't have it - he's the one who took the loan, he's the one who couldn't pay up. But author gives his loaners an "evil face", even though they did nothing evil, and with that justifies their killing. One also wonders how comes there's never any police to investigate murders.