Awwwww... Quiddit! (Scritches friendly tiger between the ears.)

Pretty well said Mr Foxy

I couldn't think up much more to say.

here here

Well, not always. Sometimes. Though, aren't all humans guilty of that?

I happen to be one too, although I do enjoy playing out my "Vupluloid" Fursona on this site. It helps keep my thinking fresh for my art and stories.

True, true. Such as, when scritching a human tummy versus a vulpine tummy, both kick, just one thumps cutely, and the other tends to kick for the goods.

... Now I'm just imaging Millie scritching Mr. Fox's tummy, but I don't think their relationship is quite at that point...

No. In fact Mr. Foxy is scared to death of Millie in some respects. They do get along as crewmates, but Foxy always has concerns Millie is always looking for an excuse to haul off and slug him. He has once worked up the nerve to ask Millie up to the Crew's mess for a slice of pie, but Millie had to decline because she wanted to get some shut-eye.

Heavens no ... there are any number of other sorts of weirdos!

Ha ha. One doesn't need to be crazy to enjoy the genre... But it helps.

Well said.

I got tired of the signs saying "Pity me! Give! Give!" but I'm not certain of how'd folks would react to this.

Yes, but those pesky humans: Every single human is a pervert :D

We ARE an odd lot, aren't we?

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign!

And the sign said, "Long-haired furry people need not apply"

So I tucked my suit head under my arm, and walked inside just to ask him why.

He said "you like a fine upstanding man, I think you do."
So I put on my head and said "imagine that, a fox workin' for you"

Thank you Lord, for thinkin' about me, I'm alive and doin' fine, whoo!

To tell you the truth, that's my favorite sign in the whole song.

It's a good song.

Problem is, the term "furry" has been irreperably associated with the sexual aspects of the art. Its the same thing that always happens, the degenerates always take over any fandom they latch onto because theyre the ones that both put a ton of money and time into it, and because they garner the most attention. Preventing that from happening would basically require banning ANY sexual stuff from conventions and whatnot.

Yeah. It was tried several tomes at the Comicon International during the mid 1990s. My favorite example was the "No nipples" rule banning showing of suggestions of nipples on female breasts in the art show. Ironically Michelle Light's pretty 'morph critter images were censored with black tape, while on the panel next to her's fan art depicted "Cable" being blown to bloody bits by unseen machine gun fire.

We later mused upon the idea of securing baby bottle nipples to a piece of cardboard in pairs, then putting black electrical tape across the tips as a sort of "Protest" piece.

Those San Diego City Clean up wags even wanted as far to suggest defiling the more than 100 year old statue of Diana in Balboa Park by removing the nipples off the Goddess. The statue wasn't even bothering anybody. It was nothing more than a rather tasteful bronze from a by-gone and elegant era.

I also seem to recall a fellow dressed in a "Sandman" outfit from Logan's Run with the legend "Nipple Inspector" neatly silk screened on his tunic. It was good for laughs.

you are correct. Only five of the eight pieces of art in my suscriptions at this moment are perverted.

Sometimes after an eight hour or so clearing session, I suffer after images of... Obscene things.

We can thank the liberal media for that mind set.

We can thank the conservative media for pointing that out.

(Apologies if this is just snark that I can't detect because Internet...)

It's corporate media, not liberal.

/\ What Azimuth sez. Corporate media. Both lib and con are only after pop and associated $$. Pick your flavor of rule, both taste like S__t.

This exchange is perfect! I don't think I can add more to it.

<joke> A side of fries, and a small coke? </joke>

small coke, nope- a short beer fer me

What counts as a s short beer, 1/2 pint?

sumpin like that... its a 50's thing I think.

Yes! Currently writing a report on this topic at school.

Ooooh! Good luck Sabrina. My friend Robert wrote a report in the very early 1990s about how "Furry" fandom was an "Adult" form of "Dress up games" like children enjoy playing. At least he got a good mark for his interpretation of the topic.

Yes, only furries are perverts. That's why there are simply no human porn sites on the internet, and why adult videos and pictures starring humans are just a worthless business that makes no money at all.

We get a bad reputation mostly because we tend to be much more open about sexuality in general. Many furs grew up being rejected by society, and so we have an aversion to rejecting those seeking our company (both because we crave companionship, and because we don't wish to put others through that same pain). This leads many to, in the rush of delight at being accepted, to be more open than maybe they should be. I'm not saying we should be repressed and closeted about sex like most of "normal" society is, that's just unhealthy. But between lack of experience in social settings, lack of social skill, and a rush of freedom that comes from the promise of an openly accepting community, we end up with a rather sizable "vocal minority". With sex being already such a taboo subject, it's going to gather a lot of attention very easily, as well.

On the plus side, maybe it's my imagination, but it seems like the furry community is much less a target of hate lately. Seems like the internet in general has decided we're not that weird after all, or at least not that fun to attack.

I'll opine that the apparent and possibly actual drop in Furry targeting is because the bullies and sociopaths are finally (and unconsciously) realizing that they don't actually understand us well enough to hurt us. They want targets they can harm; thus Gamergate and transphobic legislation.

I hjave a feeling it's that "Furry" fandom is getting more into "Mainstream" focus, and is getting more difficult to poke fun at. I believe it's the "Internet community" that makes the jibes and barbs less pointed, but they're still there. (Just out of curiosity, it might be interesting to find out how many Internet users on average are involved in "Alternate" Fandoms.)

Thank you good sir

You're welcome.

We, of the East Finchley Kit Scout Troop, are determined to stop perversion in East Finchley!

*hurray!*

D'h'uohhOHohh... Yew Suuure 'bout dat?

Standing next to me was a Polar Bear, cleverly disguised as a Human Being, without actually being one.

Grypipe heyah... Is not Finchley Obscene Enough? Oh I don't know...

Yesssss. We must have perversion STOP in East Finchley...and spend the afternoon. Eee-hee!

I went to a protest once. I didn't make my own sign, but I found one on the side of the road that said "END ROAD WORK" so I figured that was good enough.

I got in on a few "Protests" at ConFurEnce way back when. We organized a group for the "Free Art" campaign. I had no idea who "Art" was though.

From deep in the Cold War: "Free Soviet Jews!

...While supplies last"

Ha ha! Yeah, I've been noticing signs like "Free Tibet. Collect them all!"

There was one locally some years ago with 3 repeated versions of a picture of Mumia Abu Jamal and the legend "Three Mumia"...

...You silly, twisted... Major you.

*Snert*

Hankie?

No thanks, just my way of showin' I snorted with humor.

Heck...life is too short to be one-dimensional...

Agreed. That also applies to being two dimensional too. (I got the biggest kick from seeing your Avatar. It so well sums up the theme of the discussion.)

Quietly enjoying a sandwich. A little calm during a lot of drama.

Hear, hear!!!

Dominus tecum

I knew you'd know how to spell it right.

Indeed.

Of course, the only difference between "normal" and "pervert/freak" is individual perspective and moral/social values. There are no universals, and nothing is inherently "good" or "bad".

Remember "The Munsters" or "The Adam's Family" TV shows? It was the character's diversity and their trying to fit in as "Normal" which made the shows work.

Sadly, I missed out on both.

Xenophobia unfortunately seems inate to most of the human race. If something about a group of people is unfamiliar to them they often gravitate towards assuming the worst. If they *find* something, any little thing that seems innapropriate to them they will mark them as such for the rest of their lives. We've been branded as "perverts." It's probably going to take about 3-4 generations for people to wise up.

I like Uncle Kage's advice best: "Accentuate the positive eliminate the negative" - talk about the wealth of good things that furries have done for the world. There's a poster doing the rounds somewhere on the internet (I was only able to find a thumbnail when I tried just now) which sums it up perfectly: "Furries: Donated over 10 million dollars to autism and diabetes research while insignificant little pricks like you harass them for being who they are. This makes sense."

Yes! I must confess watching small children interact with "Furry" Costumed performers can be often amusing, and sometimes "Magical." Little ones who are shy or frightened of strangers seem to open up more to a performer wearing a friendly looking dog costume. I am very pleased to read about the donations and social work Costumed Anthropomorphic Animal Performers have been making recently, especially those towards saving or aiding injured or helpless animals.

And just a couple of months ago, I saw a toddler meet a guy wearing a cow fursuit at Chick-fil-A... and instantly break into screaming tears of abject terror.

Aha... Cows are scary, I'll grant you that.

Eeeyup, this is true.

Unfortunately, here we have the problem of the vocal minority, doing their damnedest to accentuate the negative aspects. It's a common thing, in this and other groups. For instance, when many people think of Christians, they think of Pat Robertson or other hateful, hypocritical, objectively awful people. (Fun fact: Jesus loved a whole lot of people, but He sure hated Him some hypocrites.) I really do have to wonder how so many people who claim to read the Bible and follow Jesus don't know what the Man Himself said i.e. Matthew 7:1-5

I suppose that's getting off topic, but I do think we need more followers of the path of the Reverend Fred Rogers (yes, he was an ordained Presbyterian minister, and instead of being assigned a parish, was charged with continuing his work in children's television) and fewer of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps.

As far as I'm concerned, if your particular kink doesn't hurt anybody, is consensual, and doesn't otherwise violate the law, it's nobody's business what you do in your spare time. That being said, my furriness is perhaps my most closely-guarded secret, and will be taken to the grave, and even further, if possible.

I now have three very good friends who have asked me to not refer to them by their "Con Names" or any references linking them with the Fandom now. I will do my best to honor you as a skilled machinist and historian.

Oh yeah... I had to look up Matthew 7:15. It is so apt, seeing that there's so many "Wolves" in the genre, but some are more like gentler creatures wearing wolf's clothing.

Well, I was referencing verses 1-5, actually, but that one is also good.

I don't think of Pat Robertson when I think of Christians...

Yeah. I usually tend to think of folks being fed to Lions for some odd reason.

Best thing to do to some.

No one's gonna miss 'em...
...And lions gotta eat!

It's none of the law's business either, if the law never finds out. As an example, the average American citizen commits an average of five felonies every day... and nobody ever knows, including the unaware lawbreakers. In some cases, doing the right thing may demand deliberately violating the law.

My point is that laws are dynamic and situational, applying only when and where they can directly be enforced. This should be common sense, but it's surprising how most people get stuck on the insane notion that a law is infallible and concrete and omnipotent. In reality, whenever a law cannot be enforced -- either because nobody knows about it, people do but nobody cares enough to report the violation, or everyone agrees the law is unjust and breaking it should be praised -- that law might as well not exist at all. In the end, it's individual morality that determines right & wrong, good or evil, permissible or taboo... and despite the dogmatic delusions preached in certain religions, there really is no universal standard for morality. Different cultures define morality totally differently, often incompatibly. Black and white, or orange and blue... what matters is that people be judged based on their own unique cultural morals, rather than having someone else's imposed on them.

I hear Christians frequently say and preach "treat others the way you wish to be treated". This is imposing your morality on someone who potentially does not share your moral values, making it automatically unjust and unfair to them, infringing on their natural rights and freedoms. Hiding behind religious texts to justify the original statement changes nothing about how wrong it still is, or how wrong that text is. Christians are wrong to say this, and this can only perpetuate violations of freedom and privacy and outrages against other forms of morality. Other religions have similar sayings, and are equally wrong.

The correct saying should be "treat others the way they wish to be treated". This is the most respectful and considerate course of action, even if the morals you'd have to follow are abhorrent from your perspective. Remember: "evil" is always and entirely subjective and open to interpretation, and it is literally a product of the way the mind interprets information; there is no good or evil in nature, and the every concept only appears when you apply it to your individual subjective opinion.

Food for thought, I hope.

Urp. (Excuse me.)

A very valid, and well thought out argument I must say. It seems my original comic intent has become distorted somehow, and I apologize for any misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

I'm pretty sure I've never committed a felony...well, except for that one time, and really, I can hardly be blamed for it. They're the ones who filled it with flammable liquid...amazing what you can do with a Leatherman, a match, and some newspaper....

Err, did I say that out loud?

But I might suggest that you are slightly missing the point, in that treating somebody as you would wish to be treated would generally be a good thing, unless you happen to be a masochist or something.I doubt anybody wishes for their privacy or freedoms to be violated, would they? Of course, this rule would also presuppose that one have some kind of positive morality to begin with, and I absolutely agree that positive behavior doesn't necessarily follow religious faith; there have been countless examples of people who (at least, according to themselves) are highly religious, and yet are otherwise objective horrible.

Or I just take the easy way out, and default to shyness and quietude. Typical cat...

I think you've completely missed my point. There is no such thing as a universal "positive morality" or "negative morality"; it's all based on cultural norms and practices, and thus completely open to debate.

You may call the cannibal tribes barbaric, but to them, YOU are equally wrong and barbaric, not to mention imposing your unwelcome "evil" ideals on them. Your pet cat quite enjoys slaughtering little rodents, for sport even, and leaves you her extra catches because she thinks you must be starving since she never sees you hunting your own food. Completely alien concepts of right and wrong. Consider the unfettered types of people... or the ubermensch... or even some furry lifestylers. Western culture defines a few common Eastern and African behaviors as pathological or criminal, and ditto in reverse. Consider the rights you take for granted and assume everyone has and wants: many of those rights do not exist in other cultures, and may even be criminalized to the extreme (for example, apostasy from Islam, or being homosexual or a transsexual, each of which carries a death penalty in several other countries, yet is considered a basic human right in others).

What you might call "negative behavior" may be regarded as purely positive behavior in another culture or by another species, and vice versa. It's all relative, and defining a morality spectrum is an invention of the mind.

Perhaps I have missed your point, but I still maintain that positively morality can be defined, at least in the context of a particular culture. I admit that there are perhaps no completely universal truths, but I'm sure that there are still areas of agreement, and I would think at least one of those areas of agreement is "don't be shitty", rather than some more stringent kind of, let's say, sexual morality or some such that some people definitely wish to impose. I actually intend to write a bit more on that in the next few days, starting with the shittiness going on in Indiana.

I would hope we could at least agree on something, my dear.

That's right, some of us are only perverts

You're right, not all of the fandom is about porn...

Just a vast, unfathomable sea-like amount of it is porn.

I can understnad this very well. The few of my friends who know about furries think I hate them - for the simple reason that I despised the integration of antropomorphic creatures as playable characters in the Dark Eye universe. I never set them right^^

I believe I missed my calling in not getting into the Video and RPG playing business. I was more interested in sculpting up the prototypes of the white metal figures as opposed to doing all the "Brainwork" behind it.

Isn't that the brainwork behind it?

*walks around with counter-protest sign*
"I'm the penguin furry your momma warned you about"

No body EVER suspects the Penguin.

The not always bit is definitely true.

Indeed! I am not a pervert and a freak 24-7! -That would just be exhausting!