41514505

<________________________________________________________ _________>.. So....... What the hell IS a furry?Furries, in short, are anthropomorphic characters - also known as animals with human characteristics or, conversely, humans with animal characteristics. The applied characteristics can be physical or mental, though some degree of physical animality tends to be the rule. (Purely mental anthropomorphs tend to define themselves more as weres, lycanthropes or transformation fans.) Mentally, furries are usually considered to have human or humanesque intelligence, though animal tendencies according to the species is quite popular. Thus, furries are NOT animals. A good way to think of them is as people with furry bodies. Examples range anywhere from Bugs Bunny to aliens resembling Earth animals (such as Larry Niven's Kzinti) to Omaha the Cat Dancer (an infamous '70s era small press comic book about the life and adventures of a stripper cat-girl during a tumultous political period) to genetically engineered people (i.e. The Island of Dr. Moreau) to talking rabbits (Watership Down, Alice in Wonderland).The word "furry" is also used as a term for 'furry fan,' someone who likes said anthropomorphic beings, and there are enough of us to form an actual fandom that's growing exponentially. The form of anthropomorphic appreciation varies amazingly throughout the fandom; no official statement about what furry fandom is or who furry fans are, beyond our appreciation for anthropomorphics, can really be made.This is my personal perspective.There is something primal, something aesthetic and magical about animals. They are at once exciting and comforting; they appeal to our better natures and our savage side. Their beauty makes us jealous and sadistic, their simplicity makes us arrogant and envious, their companionship gives us both superiority over and dependance upon them.Elegant, digitigrade legs, soft fur, mystifying patterns, piercing eyes. Freedom from the cages we have built around ourselves. Spiritually symbolic and carnally appealing, the nature of animals speaks to us both physically and mentally.But most of us do not want to be true animals, not really. For to do so would be to lose all of what we are, and no matter how much we despise or fear that, no one truly wants to lose everything that they are - for if we were to do so, we would lose that which causes us to wish we were otherwise, to even be capable of postulating another form of existence. Self-awareness, speech, grasping fingers, the comfort of technology whether in the form of a mechanistic battle suit or a simple gold earring, these are all things that are bound to us, inseperable from our very longing to be something else, something better. So, we combine. Face and fur of an animal. Intelligence of our own. Bipedal perspective. And, ultimately, the ability to appreciate the wild thing that we have become, to be humanly aware within those wonderous bodies - I believe this to be the true appeal of anthropomorphics.Why this obsession with non-human animals? Are humans not the pinnacle of evolutionary achievement? Is not an obsession with lower animals a debasement of the glory that is Homo sapeins? Well, there are other tool-users - otters use rocks to break open shellfish. We are not the only ones with traditions or culture - the hunting techniques of African hunting dogs vary from region to region and are passed down through generations. We are not the only ones capable of understanding symbolic language - some species of monkey have different vocal alarm calls for "snake" and "eagle" that do not in any way resemble the predator. The more we learn about the actuality of other species, the more we are compelled to re-define tools, culture, and language, until we even exclude some of our own. No definition of 'sentient' can exclude the African grey parrot without also excluding some human beings, yet still we try, we try as if our very egos depended on it, and perhaps they do. This, to me, seems incredibly hubristic - we search the skies for other intelligence, all the while ignoring that which shares our own sphere out of species-exclusive arrogance.We have indeed taken our natural primate abilities - most of which are shared by close relatives, or the more intelligent members of other biological families - to an extreme level. However, we are so self-absorbed that it is commonplace for the 'civilized' human to not know how to relate to anything but his own species - if even that. What happened to that tribal animism? What happened to seeing animals as our brethren and equals, to seeing them as slaves and robots, barely capable of feeling any but the most rudimentary of emotions? We have completely de-humanized them (an odd context, but appropriate), forgetting that they too have emotion and intelligence. Just because they are not able to express their thoughts exactly like us, we think that they cannot love, hate, wish, dream,(((Well me Im a Fox Normal Fox that you see here in washington. Redish furr with black boots, With Wings Like wings from a archangle, Big white fluffly wings But not to big so i can hide them under a shirt and i can fly i could fly with out the wings but than that looks tarded >^^< i keep my furr as soft and fluffly as i can. My tail is longer than normal, about 4 1/2 feet long , fluffly but not To fluffy. Eye color is Ice Blue. Ears longer than normal about an inch longer. Hmm what else I love to Cuddle, and other things only one person know about >^^< well thats about all i can say Hight is 6.3 And 157 Lbs))) desire... all the qualities that are most often praised as our most valuable, the most "human." Animals cannot speak English or write, but they have the most basic of communication systems that we, in our scientific Western detachment, have marginalized and nearly discarded - body language. True, it is different for every animal. But that does not mean that it is uninterpretable; likewise, the lack of written language and buildings and cars does not make a living creature any less amazing, valuable, or worthy of respect.In past times Native Americans and Africans were thought of as barely human by white conquerers, perhaps even as a missing link to or bastard breed of apes and monkeys, based on their cultural differences and physical dissimilarities. Their art and traditions were so dissimilar they were considered childish, and thus the individuals of those cultures were judged as mentally retarded, brutish, unrefined, animalistic, dangerous. Today such attitudes are shocking. We would not scorn a mute human; we would not scorn one who is illiterate; we would not scorn those who were simply born unable to do these things. So it ought to be with those who do not walk on two legs. Posession of bipedal locomotion, prehensile thumbs and linguistic skills are no more reason for ego-assuaging species superiority than buildings and cars are reason for rationalisation of cultural superiority.Yes, humans are not animals, nor animals human - any more than cats are dogs, or parrots are fish, or milipedes are whales. But I feel our differences are to be appreciated, studied and valued, not scrawled on the graffiti-ridden wall of conceit that seperates 'us' and 'them' in our Western ideology.It is truly a tragedy of our 'civilized' ideology that it has come to this. This is the fruit of our labor to be free from the stresses of life, the diseases, struggle and disasters. For truly, technology is a benefit, but it has come at a great price. It does not have to be so, I think. Houses and streets and cities do not have to shut out the primal connection. But, this is what man's domination over 'lesser animals' has wrought. For many of us, furry recconects us to that vital lifeline of the natural cycle. And they are also beautiful.Furriness, for me, is an expression of the kinship we rightly share with other species, and recognition that animals are more than what our culture would have us believe. A link between us, and that which has become separated from us. A mind we can relate to, the ability to speak to us on our own terms, and a body (and often some of the mentality) that hearkens to the animal. It is something greater than animal, more true than human.The Fandom in GeneralAnthropomorphization has existed as long as humankind's imagination. Ancient Egyptians worshipped animal-headed deities, Native Americans honored the spirits of the animals as brethren, Aesop's stories involving animals who acted like humans won him his freedom, and even Paleolithic cave paintings depict hybrid beings (though for what purpose it is impossible to know).Furry fandom as we know it started in the 40's, when doodling animators made sketches of cute cats with breasts. This was also the time of the first Disney cartoons, such as Steamboat Willie. The first true furry cartoon series ever was Kimba the White Lion, also known as Leo the Jungle Emperor, created by the legendary Osamu Tezuka. Kimba in it's original form can be found today on video, as produced by RealStuf.Though not the first appearance ever of an anthro in recent culture, Kimba was the first to take itself seriously. The difference between funny animal and furry (IMHO; definitions and opinions vary throughout the fandom) is that you are not supposed to sympathize with a funny animal. You're supposed to point at it and laugh. They're not real; they are freakish and funny, existing purely for your detatched amusement. On the other hand, furries are supposed to be sympathized with. You feel sorrow, joy, and anger for them. As characters, they deserve no less than the respect and sympathy we feel for other Homo sapiens - because, in intelligence and the ability to feel emotion, they are indeed our equals. Influential films include Disney's Robin Hood, The Fox and the Hound, and Bluth's The Secret of NIMH. Many furries also remember the 80's cartoon Thundercats with fondness, though due to the extremely low degree of anthropomorphization there is disagreement over weather they are really furries. Other fondly-remembered cartoons include My Little Ponies, Care Bears, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, classic Looney Tunes, Mighty Mouse, Fantastic Three, ecetera ecetera. (For a great timeline of the history of the fandom, starting with Kimba, check out Yarf's Chronology.)Furry fandom today started with the Cartoon-Fantasy Organization, which still meets in Southern California. A contingent of this group found that they had much more interest in anthropomorphic characters than in the rest of the material, and so split off a group to meet and discuss this subset of interests. Then, around the turn of the decade, they formed ConFurence 0. Many smaller cons have sprung up, and some SF cons (such as ConDor) have a large percentage of furry content. Californian cons include the original ConFurence and the well-run Futher Confusion. Mephit Furmeet is a very friendly, relaxed gathering, with loose programming and no art show. I attend all three when I can. Membership in the fandom has been dramatically bolstered by the proliferation of the Internet; like many other subcultures, our ranks are relatively few and far between (save for concentrations in southern California, the northern east coast, and southern Florida). The Internet allows us to find others who think as we do, to chat, to discover, to communicate about Furmeets and conventions. Also notable since the influence of the Web is the increase in spiritual furs who, like me, integrate furry concepts into their consciousness instead of viewing it as just a hobby - hence, the furry lifestyle.As you can tell, furry viewpoints are extremely diverse, as is the medium itself. Some furs came into the fandom as an offshoot of science fiction, interested in animalesque aliens or genetically-engineered people. Some furs prefer the fantasy approach. Some strongly identify with animals. Some identify with a species, or an individual of that species. Some believe that they are, spiritually, that animal. Some believe they were an animal in a former life, or were mistakenly placed in a human body. Some furs want to be that animal. Some are hostile towards mainstream religion. Some are Christians. Some are Pagans, Wiccans, Jews, Buddists, atheists, agnostics. Some love to write. Some love to draw. Some create fursuits (comparable to very realistic mascot costumes) because they love the craft, and some do so because they feel it gets them closer to the beings they admire. Some furs, yes, have sex in fursuit, while others are disgusted and horrified by the mere thought. Some furs are naturalists. Some furs are techies. Some love cartoons. Some furs are interested in anatomical details, the problems presented by muzzles and tails. Some furs are interested in 'furgonomics,' or how furniture and other mundane items would be built for anthropomorphs. Some are unimpressed with real animals. Some furs love stuffed animals (aka plushies). Some furs are vegetarian or vegan., and some are enthusiastic omnivores. Some furs love erotic artwork. Some furs are disgusted by it. Some furs (I would wager most) are very friendly, accepting, and affectionate. Some furs hate all those other furs and think they're deluded perverts.The only thing we really have can be said to have in common is a fondness or appreciation for the anthropomorphic medium. It can be just a hobby. It can also be an integral, inseperable part of who you are - i.e., a lifestyle. I define the term as the incorporation of furry media into the majority of one's home/social life, or the feeling that anthropomorphics express some deeper truths about yourself. It's an extension of furry into a deeper format. If you feel that furry is at your core, that in all liklihood you were *born* furry and it is an inseperable part of your personality... chances are you consider yourself a lifestyler. The term "lifestyler" tends to have spiritual connotations, but again, it all depends on the individual. Some conflicts have arisen because of this diversity and disagreements over what furry means.... If you go through the rest of the page you will invariably learn about those very quickly, as I'm quite outspoken about these furry politics. Me, I love the diversity, I wouldn't have it any other way. One does, however, have to be careful with general statements about the nature of furriness and the fandom, which is why this webpage only represents my perspective and viewpoint. Adjust your impressions accordingly. :)Furry SexFor me, an integral part of furriness is sexuality. While there are many myriad facets to furry fandom that are nonsexual, sexuality is nontheless an undeniable part of it. Most furries find tails, muzzles, whiskers, paws, and the like to be desperately attractive physical traits, while at the same time they are not attracted to bona fide animals. Being desireable and enviable physical traits to start out with, it is inevitable and indeed natural that a sexual expression and appreciation of these traits should come about.Animals don't have a problem with it; it is not sequestered off as shameful and embarrasing, something that one must pretend does not exist outside of the bedroom. Not even all human cultures have treated it as such. The carnality and beauty of animals has long been admired by humans; we even compare ourselves to animals when we wish to convey sexuality or sensuality (hence expressions such as "foxy lady"). To embrace the animal is to challenge these human taboos - especially those which make no sense and limit your own personal potential. Part of that is also to find what IS truly meaningful, and to get rid of that which represents the meaningful but which is in reality an empty gesture, as much of our cultural baggage appears to be today.Humans go through elaborate gestures and meaningless rituals; we forsake our natural capacities in the name of 'purity,' 'restraint,' 'civilization...' and we lose what is important. We suppress, hide, lie, fake, and then force others into the same patterns. It's high time to revert to the animal - to USE what abilities we have - to always question why, to embrace that which is taboo if we find it to be good, to do what we wish and what we feel and know is right for us and not what others tell us is so. It's time to trust ourselves. We are smart, rational beings capable of analyzing and evaluating the world around us for what it really is; so let's do it.Reasonable restraint should not be abandoned - that would be incredibly stupid - but unreasonable restraint, holding back for no good reason, should be discarded as the useless impediment to happiness and well-being that it is. You can decide what a good reason for restraint is, and what a bad one is. In my perspective, most of the restrictive moralities about sex that is part of our cultural baggage falls into the category of a bad reason. Yes, use protection, yes, be truthful to your partner, but be ashamed? Hide? Lie to yourself? Be embarrased of your natural instincts? I should hope not. Our culture is a cult of self-degredation and puritanical self-abuse. It doesn't have to be that way - and you don't either.Sex is good and natural and the suppressed mundanes have no right whatsoever to tell you what you can do with your own body, emotions, and mind. (Besides, they're missing out.) You can make your own judgements as to the morality, appropriateness, and healthiness of your actions and tendencies. Do what improves your life, your state of mind, and your emotional matrix - discard that which drags you down, whether it be sexual activity or sexual restraint. The only thing you have to lose is your unhappiness. Dr. Drew, eat your heart out. ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ I'll tell you what makes this world a better place for everyone to live in. It isn't hate, it isn't alienation, it isn't "throwing out people who don't belong." It's making an effort to understand and accept. It's challenging your assumptions. It's widening your horizons. It's education above ignorance, rationality over reaction, the courage to willingly give that which is repugnant to you a fair chance to be understood and accepted, and the honesty with yourself to acknowledge that you or your society may have been wrong. It is this sentiment which improves lives, which improves society. It is this which has furthered the cause of women's rights; this which has brought about civil rights; this which has brought about greater tolerance for homosexuals. The courage and honesty to give them a fair chance, to want to understand them and give them the opportunity for tolerance and equality if at all possible. If you cannot even give someone a fair and decent chance, then you are simply allowing your embedded social programming (also known as gut reactions) to make your decisions for you, and short-sighting your own potential as a thinking, rational, intelligent person...................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ One of the strangest permutations of human arrogance is the death penalty. We see fit to kill other humans because they have killed other humans... Does this seem illogical to anyone else? What this essentially says is that we make gods of ourselves to punish acts we disapprove of, but that we ourselves are above that law. In other words, people who commit such punishable acts are not human, and not worthy of the basic treatment and rights we accord all humans. But they are. I am not saying that individuals who we would punish with the death penalty should not be punished, or that what they have done is not wrong. But killing does not solve killing; it is a quick and knee-jerk reaction to rid ourselves of humans we find repulsive and disturbing. And, even worse, by killing killers it seems to mean that they are not human, that people who commit these acts don't have any worth as a living being themselves. We do not want to admit that they are indeed human, because that would be too close to admitting that we ourselves are capable of committing just the same acts.In a strange way, it is comparable to the extermination of wolves from North America in the 1800s. Humans killed because they were afraid; but even more, theie fear was because they saw a little bit of themselves in wolves. They have social systems like us, they are highly intelligent, their ranking is similar to ours, and even their eyes seem to resemble ours. The humans of that era would hardly know that, but one look at a wolf's eyes and you can see the intelligence within. Of course I advocate the kinship of all animals to humans, but wolves are among the most obviously similar to us, plus they are large carnivores. We could not stand the thought of being similar to 'bloodthirsty beasts,' and so we killed, becoming in the process worse than any wolf, even any wolf-dog hybrid (who are more aggressive and less afraid of humans) has ever been.Of course those who act out hate crimes and heinous murders are nothing like wolves. But the comparison is not between wolves and murderers, but in our reactions. If we find something disturbing, dangerous, and especially disturbingly similar to ourselves, KILL. Get rid of it, by any means necessary. Make it go away, put it out of sight, destroy it. Because otherwise we might have to look at our own true nature. Anyone - you, or I, or the person next door - if pushed hard enough, if in the right (or wrong) situation and psychological state, will kill. We like to say that it was the result of some internal deficiency of theirs, that they weren't really human. And in some cases it is indeed a result of their own true nature - bad brain construction, strange genes, warped chemistry, I don't know. But how much is the environment, the stress, the childhood, other factors? How are we to know that, having been given the same life they were, we would not do the same thing? How much do WE contribute to the factors that warped these people? Could we have given a kind word, a thoughtful hand, and prevented the desperation and alienation that drove them to their deeds? Were we the bullies, the faceless crowds, the arrogant imperialists? It is a terrible thought to have. And that, at least, is one reason why we kill. We cannot face the responsibilities, or the demons within ourselves.Killing is also easy. Much easier, indeed, to research and discover why and perhaps turn that individual into one with a conscience, or if they are past the point of recovery, to at least house them until they die naturally. Much easier than to bring education into backward areas to combat the environments which create racism and prejudice that inspire hate crimes. No, that takes too much energy, too many taxpayer dollars. The electric chair is much quicker, much easier, and much more comfortable to think about.Then there is the issue of basic human dignity. I have already said that by killing we deny that they have any basic human worth. But what is human worth if your actions can remove it? Is human worth dependent upon your activities, your moral (or immoral) beliefs? If so, then how can it be a basic thing which every human (and, I believe, every conscious being) can claim? Basic worth is not conditional, like your paycheck. It is automatic, it is given, it is yours just because you exist. No matter what actions you execute within that existence.What is this basic worth based upon? Kant said that rational nature - the ability to deliberately choose an action - was the only thing that had worth in and of itself. I am inclined to agree that is the core of basic worth. It is the ABILITY to choose an action. It does not matter what that action is. The fact that you can act, using the powers of your mind and influence of your emotions to determine which one you will take, is what is valuable. If you choose to do something terrible, well then you must suffer the consequences. But you had the choice, and you made a choice, and if you have the mere ability to do that you have basic worth. To contrast, we say insanity is a valid excuse; insane people are not in control of the choices they make, and so did not choose to do what they did. This does not mean that they do not have human worth, but simply that their actions cannot be judged as if they did have a choice. And we even treat them with a basic measure of human respect.So, every one, no matter what they do or think, has basic worth. (Otherwise it wouldn't be basic, would it?) And so we must treat them with a certain measure of respect. As I hinted at above, they must receive punishment for their actions, but at the same time we must respect their basic worth. We do not respect their actions, but we respect them because they still have the ability to choose to do good. I cannot stress the importance of this quality enough. While I am not sure of everything that this respect entails, but I certainly know that the death penalty is not it. We cannot respect their rational ability, their basic worth, if we destroy them.More, there is the legal issue that the death penalty is racist, as many legal processes in our system are. Black people are far more likely to get a death sentence than white people, for the same crimes; similarily, men are much more likely to be convicted (and to get stricter sentences) than women. Also, if you want someone out of the way for good, what better than to frame them for a crime (especially if they are black) that will get them on death row? The death penalty, even in a perfect world where only criminals who committed the crimes would get it, is unacceptable because of basic worth. What happens when people who not only have basic worth but who are not true criminals are set up? Or when mistakes are made, when evidence is improperly gathered, or lost, or deemed inadmissable? It happens, and it is happening. The death penalty is too powerful a political weapon, and innocents are routinely executed.Life is too precious a commodity to be thrown about by beings who make mistakes. It also does not serve as a good deterrant - for what criminal expects to get caught? If they thought they would get caught they probably wouldn't be criminals. As a deterrent it is useless. What I think is needed is an effective rehab program and programs instigating social change to ensure that less people have reason to break the law. If less people were hungry and desperate, don't you think there would be less crime? I do. Don't kill them when they are but the products of society - turn them around. This is not feasable with everyone, but I think it is with the bulk of the criminal population. All we must do is want to try, and not throw away their lives, for if we see them as disposable, how can we say that we are better, have acted more ethically then they? If we are not, then all that gives us the right to terminate their lives is the fact that we are in power and they are not - which gives us no right to complain that they killed those THEY held power over. This vicious circle of logic is most often ignored, and the result is barbarism.I think perhaps the most disgusting ratoinalization for the death penalty is financial. Some people state that criminals should be put to death because it is cheaper than supporting their natural life in prison. If financial gain or loss is an acceptable reason for murder, why punish one who murdered for money? Once again, this reasoning leaves us with no moral high ground, simply a position of power that, should it be reversed, would leave us no recourse for justice.In the rather extreme example of terrorism (which I have, unfortunately, due to the recent tragedy, have had much to think about), I believe the decision is less in our hands. A terrorist in these circumstances is somehow something more than a domestic (aka within the country) murderer. Either we allow them to kill thousands without dire reparations, or we violate the value of life ourselves. I believe that terrorism is more than simply an individual violating the standards of life we all hold sacred - they are someone who declares, sometimes individually, sometimes in a frighteningly organized fashion, war upon not only the military but the innocent citizens of their percieved enemy.I am a staunch proponent of self-defense; therefore, I believe that if it is necessary to kill to stop their actions, we must do so. Direct self-preservation must and ought always to be first and foremost; one can debate the morality later, frankly. However, if we wage all-out war and capture the guilty individuals, we control the situation and are no longer at risk. At that point we can step back and decide how to act according to the values we hold dear - the preservation and respect for life, any life. At all costs we must avoid creating martyrs, for that will only perpetuate the cycle of revenge and atrocity.An eye for an eye leaves a world of blindness. Atrocity for atrocity results in Taliban-style perpetual war and hatred. ............................................................ Break the cycle ................
 .......................................................... ...................................................... ge