Exactly.
I'm a furry, and I can assure you that I'm not a pervert. I simply have a greater-than-average appreciation for the anthropomorphism of other animals (particularly canines.) It doesn't inherently have anything to do with sexuality; that's just the aspect that's been played up, because let's face it--you can grab people's attention by tying sex into anything. And yes, it's there; that's undeniable. But it's not nearly as "bad" as it's made out to be. It's merely...different from non-furriness. That's all, really.
I've met far more furries who are intelligent, friendly, kind, funny, interesting, talented, good-hearted, decent, and all-around awesome people, than ones who are creepy and sex-obsessed. "Normal" might not quite be the right word for us, since we tend to have many quirks and idiosyncrasies that set us apart...but on the whole, we're no more likely to be "perverted weirdos" than your average Joe off the street.
And frankly, if people get turned on by characters, and like to yiff in their fursuits...so what? That's not wrong. What's actually pervy about it? You can name just about anything under the sun, and somebody somewhere has likely got a fetish for it. They use whatever it may be to get stimulated. So long as no other creature is being abused, harmed, or violated in the process, then nothing is wrong with that. Furryism is light years away from zoophilia or bestiality (the act of actually violating a real, live animal in a sexual manner, or having the desire to do so.)
Just about everyone appreciates anthropomorphism to some degree. If you've ever enjoyed a Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny cartoon, you're familiar with its appeal. It's also undeniable that many such characters are deliberately designed to be attractive. (Who's going to say that Minerva Mink or Lola Bunny or Sasha LaFleur isn't sexy, or supposed to be sexy?) Whether it's a girl dressed as a cat, or a character (or deity...) blending human and non-human traits in some combination, this idea has always been around. Furryism really isn't all that strange, if you ask me. I wasn't even aware that there was a term or a worldwide community/fandom for it until 2003, when a new friend exposed me to that and I went, "Omg!! Brethren...!!" Obviously, I'm sure I would have found out not too long afterward, anyway. Something like that (and otherkin) couldn't continue to remain unknown to me.
It's the anthropomorphism and the fictionality that are key. You're appreciating all aspects of the characters, even if human speech is the only anthropomorphic quality. When you find a "furry" character "hot," I find that you're typically a) envisioning yourself as a fellow anthro, thereby making it totally okay, b) conceiving of a world in which anthros are essentially human equivalents (such as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"), thereby making inter-species relationships involving humans fully acceptable and unquestioned, and/or c) simply appreciating the characters for who they are and saying, "Yes, this one is certainly attractive for the ones with whom s/he is interacting in this story/world."
Rule 34 would hold true without help from furries, I'm quite certain. It's rather amusing how folks can make such claims as this above:
Most furry art is made by "furverts," and a lot of them are NOT teenagers. Most of them started masturbating to Disney cartoons when they were teenagers instead of human beings, and now they see it as a "lifestyle" rather than just a sick fetish. Someone who has to expose themselves publicly is not part of the "flasher lifestyle," they simply have a sick need to expose themselves in order to be sexually aroused.
Oh, yes? You have spoken to every furry artist and, by virtue of your nonexistent degree in Psychology, deemed the majority of them "furverts?" True, LOTS of sexual furry art exists. No one could deny this. Plenty of explicitly sexual art exists, period. And true, we cover all age groups. But such pointless, juvenile, groundless assumptions are laughable. Try to explain to me what exactly is "sick" about any of this? An exhibitionist creates a problem for all the others around him or her who very much do not wish to witness flashing. A furry who is so much a "lifestyler" that he or she requires elements of furriness in order to become aroused (and that would account for only a portion of furries, definitely not all--because I, for instance, am not one) doesn't bother anybody else. There's no harm there for anyone.
It would be a different story if somebody got all up in your face, getting naughty with their fursuits in public, forcing you to look at erotic imagery against your will--but that's by and large not the case at all. If you want to see the sexual side of furriness, you've got to look for it deliberately, or at least visit a website at which it's present. If someone's forcing unwanted furry stuff upon you, then odds are, it's their OTHER issues (exhibitionism, narcissism, histrionic behavior, perhaps?) that constitute the REAL problem.
I like you, Um. I like largeness...
reply
share