Quote from: RedFoxAs Pundit noted, the sexualized furry fans essentially took over the fandom and have become entrenched. If you don't tow the party line, you're on the outs.

I don't understand this at all.  :confused:

What is towing the party line?  What is being 'on the outs'?

Quote from: RedFoxThat said, it's generally more tolerant than you'd suspect, in large part because of how the fandom's power structure formed.  As Pundit noted, the sexualized furry fans essentially took over the fandom and have become entrenched.  If you don't tow the party line, you're on the outs.

So that's a reason to tow the party line, or to spout relativistic crap about "Do what thou wilt and it harm none" (I realize you did not say this, but that amounts to the attitude being presented)? Is it, "If you can't beat them, join them?" That doesn't make any sense at all and is even more of a reason to distinguish "someone who likes anthopomorphic animals" - as in, sometimes thinks they're cool - from "furries". Otherwise you're saying that I'm on the same level as someone who writes furry porn because I enjoyed TMNT when I was younger.

Quote from: RedFoxI'm not engaged in a battle.

Then you've lost touch with the world around you and outside of your little club.

I know about 300 gamers. People I have met in person, and people I keep in touch with online through email, and various forums.

Universally the word furry is a derogatory term to them.

Just because you guys redefine terms to suite you doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to listen you, or care. (Which may not bother you, but I think that's poor form on your part.)

J Arcane and others have basically said "TMNT is cool, people who think they're TMNT and want to have sex with TMNT isn't." You reply "We're not all like that." They say "Well okay so there are Furries, who are just people like TMNT, and Furverts who are the creepy ones." You then get upset and say "But you're saying people in my hobby can be creepy!"

Well no shit. People in any hobby can get creepy. Unluckily for your hobby it spawned a term that has made it's way into popular use. I don't see how separating yourself from the small percentage of creepy furries is a bad thing.

QuoteI'm not going to change the definition of what I like for you or anyone else, and I doubt that the fandom at large will feel the urge to do so either.

You don't have to. We out number you. Just like people who don't role play out number people who do. You think black guys came up with the term nigger? You think gays popularized faggot as a fun way to identify themselves? Do you think nerds advertised for a name?

QuoteI understand that the fandom has an image problem, but trying to redefine the name of the fandom itself and a perfectly harmless term that defines its area of interest isn't going to fix anything.  The problem lies elsewhere.

I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'm willing to listen you. If you have anything to say.

QuoteIn fact, insisting that furry fans abandon the term "furry" because it has too much negative baggage in the public consciousness is only going to cause more harm than good.  If you knew anything about the fandom, you'd realize this.

What I know about Furries fit's in a thimble of piss, and what I want to know fits in less. It's just not my thing. I figure as long as you violate no laws, and don't bother me, what do I care?

I'm not insisting you guys rename yourself, but I am saying from where I sit it seems like a good idea.

Quote from: RedFoxI don't know of any actual psychological studies done of the fandom.  I'd be afraid that such a thing would lack a certain amount of integrity, as it would likely be done from a sensational or prejudgemental viewpoint.

That sounds a bit too defensive. Almost like you feel you're being persecuted. "No one can understand us!" Which is of course bullshit.

Some people may have an agenda to make furry's look bad, but not everyone can. Hell I could care less, as you guys do a great job of making yourselves look  colossally foolish. I'm sure someone out there could study furry "culture", but unless there's some money to be made why bother?

Quote from: StuartI don't understand this at all.  :confused:

What is towing the party line?  What is being 'on the outs'?

The party line is essentially that everything is permissable and tolerable.  There's an undercurrent of disatisfaction within the fandom at certain elements.  Essentially, what Wil's talking about.  But despite various attempts, not a lot of traction has been made.

What it boils down to is that the furry fandom is essentially a fetish scene, despite its stated general envelope.  People with no interest in the fetish scene (Pundit, Silverlion) are in the minority.

Now I've no problem with an active furry fetish scene.  The major problem here is that the furry fandom has been essentially converted into a furry fetish scene.

Imagine, if you will, that anime fandom as a whole were dominated by nothing but hentai.  That anime conventions involved little more than sex meet-ups and places to buy tentacle-rape artwork.

That's the current state of furry fandom, and has been ever since Mark Merlino and company essentially "took over" the fandom during its birth as an offshoot from indie comics fandom.

Quote from: RedFoxThat's the current state of furry fandom, and has been ever since Mark Merlino and company essentially "took over" the fandom during its birth as an offshoot from indie comics fandom.

And you wonder why someone would not, for example, put material on a website featuring anthropomorphic animals even if that is the only "furry" thing they've ever done? What you just said is exactly why.

Quote from: WilSo that's a reason to tow the party line, or to spout relativistic crap about "Do what thou wilt and it harm none" (I realize you did not say this, but that amounts to the attitude being presented)? Is it, "If you can't beat them, join them?" That doesn't make any sense at all and is even more of a reason to distinguish "someone who likes anthopomorphic animals" - as in, sometimes thinks they're cool - from "furries". Otherwise you're saying that I'm on the same level as someone who writes furry porn because I enjoyed TMNT when I was younger.

That's not relativistic crap.

How to make this clear?

I'm a pervert.  I'll admit it.  I get off on unusual stuff.  But I also don't shove that stuff in people's face because my sex life is my own private business.

Thus, I can't condemn pervy stuff, because hey I like that shit.

What I find frustrating is that the fandom has been essentially taken over and turned into a fetish scene, and that's not all that I like about furry stuff.  And I feel that other people who aren't comfortable with the furry fetish scene should feel comfortable in the fandom.

Right now, they aren't.  Not everyone wants to walk into a BDSM club to meet people who like leather, to make a poor analogy.  

I don't think anyone is saying you can't like whatever it is you like, at least I'm not.

Quote from: WilAnd you wonder why someone would not, for example, put material on a website featuring anthropomorphic animals even if that is the only "furry" thing they've ever done? What you just said is exactly why.

Who wonders?  I don't.  I know why they don't.

You're preaching to me as if I'm unaware of it.  As if the fandom were unaware of it.

It isn't.  There's been attempts to "clean up the fandom," but they went over as well as you'd expect them too.  Like lead balloons.

Why?  Because everyone has their pet kink and these things look like frickin' inquisitions.

Hell, look at how much crazy infighting goes on in the RPG fandom and multiply that with a really serious issue.  Defensiveness goes through the roof.  Overbearing "this doesn't belong in the fandom" shit pisses everyone off, and reasonable requests to tone shit down or keep it out of sight are often ignored or met with righteous indignation.

Is it any wonder I'm not active in the fandom anymore?  I haven't gone to a convention in about ten years.  I occasionally check out messageboards or a furry chat site, but nothing ever changes.

Wait.  I'm going to ask something and I'm really trying hard to determine if its right or not. So let me put it in a statement and RF can just say "No, that's not it."

Red Fox can't condemn the people who have turned Furry into a term synonomous with Fetish because he likes that stuff too.  So he can't very well condemn them for liking it. So he's making a distinction. What he's condemning them for is turning the entire genre/fandom into a fetish scene.

Like I said, it's not an accusation.  I could give a crap what Red Fox likes.  I just think that the assumption has been that RF is a fan-not-fetish guy, and that may be incorrect. I'm trying to read between the lines but there are subcurrents here that might be pointing me in a bad direction. It would explain the difficult position he's trying to discuss.

Quote from: James J SkachWait.  I'm going to ask something and I'm really trying hard to determine if its right or not. So let me put it in a statement and RF can just say "No, that's not it."

Red Fox can't condemn the people who have turned Furry into a term synonomous with Fetish because he likes that stuff too.  So he can't very well condemn them for liking it. So he's making a distinction. What he's condemning them for is turning the entire genre/fandom into a fetish scene.

Like I said, it's not an accusation.  I could give a crap what Red Fox likes.  I just think that the assumption has been that RF is a fan-not-fetish guy, and that may be incorrect. I'm trying to read between the lines but there are subcurrents here that might be pointing me in a bad direction. It would explain the difficult position he's trying to discuss.

I was typing up a long reply trying to explain just that, and apologize if any of my statements appeared incoherent and then you came along and posted this, so...

...in reply, yes.  You have it on the nose.

I'm a furry fan, but I'm also a furry fetishist (furvert, if you will).  I'm a furry fetishist who holds the unenviable opinion that the fandom at large shouldn't be dominated by the fetish scene, however.

Quote from: RedFoxI'm a furry fan, but I'm also a furry fetishist (furvert, if you will).  I'm a furry fetishist who holds the unenviable opinion that the fandom at large shouldn't be dominated by the fetish scene, however.

See, now this I admire.  You can recognoze the objective problem even though you have a subjective interest.

In Fighting Fantasy #3: Forest of Doom, there's a cat-girl illustration.  She doesn't look sexy -- she looks ugly/scary (as in Horror).  In the Doctor Who episdoe "New Earth" there are cat-women-nun-nurses.  Also ugly/scary.

I don't think anyone outside of the "Furry Fandom" would look at those things and say "Furry".  Perhaps the distinction is things made specifically to appeal to the "Furry Fandom" and things that are made for other reasons that the "Furry Fandom" happens to like.  I'd put kids shows and comics like TMNT in the second category, and artwork done by furry fans in the first.

Anyway, that's enough thinking about this topic.

Quote from: StuartIn Fighting Fantasy #3: Forest of Doom, there's a cat-girl illustration.  She doesn't look sexy -- she looks ugly/scary (as in Horror).  In the Doctor Who episdoe "New Earth" there are cat-women-nun-nurses.  Also ugly/scary.

I don't think anyone outside of the "Furry Fandom" would look at those things and say "Furry".  Perhaps the distinction is things made specifically to appeal to the "Furry Fandom" and things that are made for other reasons that the "Furry Fandom" happens to like.  I'd put kids shows and comics like TMNT in the second category, and artwork done by furry fans in the first.

Anyway, that's enough thinking about this topic.

Well the thing is that the definition as it stands doesn't really distinguish about quality or even amount.  You could put hands on a cat and call it "furry" and it would technically be correct.  That's the beauty of an objective definition.

Thing is, people outside the fandom aren't generally going to ever think furry, even when looking at something like Disney's Robin Hood.  That's because they're not furries, and don't think in those terms.

Other people have been exposed to furry stuff and come up with their own definition by inference.  Thus they might think something's "furry" because it's similar to whatever they were exposed to that was explicetly linked to furry fandom.  And (importantly) they exclude anything that they don't think should be connected with furry fandom.

QuoteI don't think anyone outside of the "Furry Fandom" would look at those things and say "Furry". Perhaps the distinction is things made specifically to appeal to the "Furry Fandom" and things that are made for other reasons that the "Furry Fandom" happens to like. I'd put kids shows and comics like TMNT in the second category, and artwork done by furry fans in the first.

See, this is exactly what I'm trying to get at.  There's a distinction, to me, and an important one.  Unfortunately, thanks to the exposure fo the more unpleasant segments of furry fandom, there are now a large number of people, furry fans or no, who see the second category, and automatically lump it into the first.

And I don't think that's fair at all.  I don't like getting looked at like I'm a fucking pervert because I happen to be a fan of a few things that fall into that second category.  And I doubt their creators care much for their art being dismissed even if it has nothing with the first category.