The State of the Furry Fandom

[Tom Mazanec]

Well, homophobic was the "aura" I picked up from reading it...maybe I just read something in it that was not there. And as for the linguistic divide, I think this is good (although I admit it is a spectrum). The general public is probably soured on the term "furry" anyway, thanks to bad publicity. And "anthropomorphic" has 5 syllables, which is 1-3 more than some of the "bad guys" can handle. As well, its length helps counter the child perception (I once was asked by a supervisor how I could be interested in Sonic the Hedgehog when I was so smart. And Einstein once left a science lecture early to catch Beany and Cecil). And although I am not a convention goer, I am glad the conventions are finally cracking down. The nature of this particular fandom makes it especially liable to this sort of abuse (zoophilia and fur fetish), so they should be MORE strict than, say, Trek conventions.

[Doink]

I can personally attest to this, having been the "priest" that "married" Mitch Beiro and Minerva Mink. The entire thing was a send-up from start to finish, an hour-long string of jokes, rotten puns, and skits including a faux duel. No one who watched it could possibly have thought it was serious --- but CYD published an article attacking Mitch Beiro on grounds that the wedding was supposed to be real.

Oh yeah! I remember reading your rebuttal on that article!

I swear, some people take thing way too seriously.

Burned Fur was NEVER anti-gay. I was a member, and I can direct you to every official statement that ever came out of the group, and none of it suggests that gays have no place in Furry Fandom. SOME members --- literally one or two --- did indeed say things on public forums that could be taken as anti-gay. But a large percentage of the members were, themselves, gay or bisexual. Boiling it down, Burned Fur's position was "Got kinks? Then get a room and stop scaring off the mundanes!".

Yeah, not even CYD milked that point. As far as I recall, their objection was that Burned Fur was attempting the impossible, trying to redeem the fandom. The same complaint they used against Ralph, if I recall.

CYD picked the perfect logo to represent themselves, if you ask me.

CF did not just accept promiscuity, it promoted it. Lewd acts and displays routinely occurred in public areas, even when CF8 was held at the Knott's Berry Farm hotel. Complaints were routinely ignored or rebuffed, even when they came from people who were highly revered throughout the fandom. CF did not publish any guidelines regarding public behavior until the last few years, when it was being actively boycotted by hundreds of otherwise regular attendees. Meanwhile, virtually every convention in Sci Fi Fandom has published public decorum rules for decades, knowing fans can get out of hand otherwise. CF's attitude was that they did not want to rock the fannish boat by implementing rules.

See, that's a problem. Even the most tolerant person (excluding those who are out of their tiny little minds) has to draw the line somewhere.

Today, many Furries are surprised to discover that the fandom has other things to offer, or that it originated as a subset of Comic Book Fandom.

You can say that again. I've seen lots of things that I sincerely doubt I would encounter outside the fandom, from the psionically gifted Siracs of the Cyantian Chronicles to, say, the concept of cigar-chompin' unicorn drill sergeants.

What it all comes down to is that this is the way the fandom was marketed to the outside world. So long as people refuse to speak up and market what the fandom actually IS, it will continue to be thought of in the terms that it has been branded with.

Well, as long as we don't seem TOO out-of-sync with society (coghOtherkincough), and if we treat this as a hobby rather than a lifestyle, I think we'll make some headway.

[BrockthePaine]

I am not a "furry" or "anthropomorphic fan" or whatever you wish to call it. I AM a fan of good, relatively clean humor, good plots, etc. That was what brought me to Tales of the Questor, and eventually forwarded me on to Nip & Tuck and UTLT/GH. Whether the comic has fuzzy racoons or foxes in it doesn't really factor into my estimation: I ask, is the story good? If it is, then I'll read it.

Like the others, I'd like to tack on my thanks to Ralph for not drawing smut.

[Tom Mazanec]

Yes, THANK YOU!

[Straw]

This subject never gets old does it? Always somewhere on the net this same conversation lights up about once every six months or so. Still it offers some insight to people new to the fandom and it's a good way to clear the air. I think that most of the major points have already been made in this thread.

Though I don't really understand people going to the extent of thanking Ralph for not drawing smut. It's the artist's choice and drawing stuff with a NC-17 label on it doesn't make them any less of an artist or a person. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that he should draw smut, far from it. I'm just saying that don't go bashing those who do. Most of them are pretty nice and 'normal' people no matter what the good folk of CYD and SA say when not trying to present the rather loud minority of this fandom as the majority. /defence mode

[RHJunior]

Because, Straw, no matter what people may say, when they discover that someone who they have watched for years has begun appealing to low, prurient interests, a certain part of the respect they had for that person dies forever. It taints everything they do from then on, and everything that they have done in the past.

[Lwj2]

Because, Straw, no matter what people may say, when they discover that someone who they have watched for years has begun appealing to low, prurient interests, a certain part of the respect they had for that person dies forever. It taints everything they do from then on, and everything that they have done in the past.

Ralph hit it square on there, respect is earned, not assumed. One can respect an individual and gradually -- or quickly -- have that respect, or parts of it, diminish because of that individual's values changing.

I know one person, whom I still respect as a skilled, talented, creative photographer, but whose personal lifestyle has changed to the point that I really don't care to associate with them anymore.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

[Bengaley]

Next time I talk to Mark Merlino, I'll ask him about the promiscuity of ConFurance, as he was the one who was in charge of placing the ads.

I know this, because it came up in a conversation at a party at the Prancing Skilltaire several months ago, in which the topic veered to the fact that people claimed that Mark turned the furry fandom gay by advertising in male magazines.

I attended Califur, which if my brain works properly at this time of night after three weeks of morning shifts, is the successor to ConFurance... and I didn't see anything out on the floor other than hugging and scritching. *shrug*

As for 'those freaks of the fandom', I guess I could fall within that catagory. *shrug* I don't like catagorizing myself, but I apply labels upon me for others to better understand me. At first.

Example, I call myself an Anime fan (Not Otaku, though..), a Trekkie (I don't understand the difference between Trekkie and Trekker... Like all hte branches of Christianity, we all have the ultimate same motivation), and a Furry. Amoung other things.

I don't know what the point in this post it. *shrug* Just thought I'd chime in about the ConFurence thing, because the topic had come up in a conversation I was in, and didn't mention anything like that.

As for CYD or the Burned Furs... Well, CYD is full of people who need some serious soul-searching. As for the Burned Furs, I agree with their basic idea, but their methods have appeared to have backfired.

Being that as it may, I NEVER got the idea of homophobia from the Burned Furs, although that particular fire died out before I joined the overall fandom.

A purpose to this post! Ralph, I've a question for you, concerning your stance on an issue touched on in here. Would you like me to e-mail you the question, or post it on the forum?

[NydaLynn]

As someone almost entirely outside the furry culture I'm curious as to what the term covers. I can think of several examples that may or may not qualify. Which are and which are not furry?

Werewolves
Engineered species (Freefall, uplifted species in Schlock Mercenary)
Aliens concieved as completely unrelated to terran animals (Wookies)
Wizards' familiars
gods (The Zeus-Europa incident)
Anthopomorphic non-mamals or anthropomorphic cetaceans
There are also some miscelanious properties that come from outside furridon and aren't clearly associated therewith, but seem to fit the obvious defenition (Planet of the Apes, Wargs as portrayed in The Hobbit, if cetacians qualify then some of the Pern books)

Personally, I would consider just about all the examples you mentioned as 'furry'. Well... the wookie and werewolf might be in a little gray area in my mind. Just becuase of the compleatly non-terran correlation of wookies (aside from sasquatch) and the fact that werewolves are not animal based -all- the time. But that's just my own opinion, I am sure others would include both as 'furry'.

Wikipediahas an information filled article on the furry fandom. Some history and examples of what is considered 'furry' and what isn't.

According to the Mirrian-Webster Online Dictionary,
The word anthropomorphic has two meanings:
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes <anthropomorphic deities>
2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things <anthropomorphic supernaturalism>

Personally observed points:
*Any animal character that is portrayed as sentiant or has human-like characteristics can be considered 'furry'.
*It doesn't matter wether it is a normal looking dog that talks, or a bipedal fox that wears clothes and lives like any human would, or anything in between or above and beyond.
*Any animal, including insects and aquatic life, can be considered 'furry' if it has any anthropomorphic attributes previously mentioned.Though most people cretaing thier own characters usually stick with mammals.
*The most common are canines and felines (both domestic and wild), but that does not exclude more unusual varieties like birds, lizards, insects, marupals, platipi, or even imaginary animals like unicorns, dragons, or gryphons.

And finally, when we consider that 'furry fandom' is largly fan based, you can find that many inside the fandom would consider various characters 'furry' even though they have not been created as such. Examples could well include the dragons of Pern, various sci-fi alien races, or even any animal character that is portrayed as being smarter than thier human companions. (This might be a bit obscure, but Ein from Cowboy Bebop comes to mind.)

And as I did not intend to make a novella... I hope this helps clarify without causing eye-strain. ^.^

[LoneWolf23k]

Because, Straw, no matter what people may say, when they discover that someone who they have watched for years has begun appealing to low, prurient interests, a certain part of the respect they had for that person dies forever. It taints everything they do from then on, and everything that they have done in the past.

I, personally, respect artists and writers based on their skill and attitudes, not their "cleanliness". Even though I've never seen John Byrne draw or write one bit of porn, he's lost a lot of my respect over the years because of his obsession with rebooting everything and completly messing with continuities. Meanwhile, I greatly respect artists like Jay Naylor because they're great artists, porn or no porn.