Another of "those" articles about Furry fandom
Posted by Fred Patten on Sat 19 Apr 2003 - 23:43
Here is another newspaper profile on Furry fandom for the general public, in the new "Los Angeles Alternative Press". At least this one is reasonably objective. It also includes a URL link to the website for ConFurence 2003, next week -- dunno whether this will hurt or help the ConFurence...
About the authorFred Patten — read stories — contact (login required)
a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics
Quick question: what constitutes one of "those" articles? Alternately, what would make it not one of "those" articles?
Anywho, the article gave me an idea for a new poll (because I'm tired of the current one.) "Would you identify yourself as a furry?" Possible answers could be:
You left out "Yiff!"
...maybe you did that deliberately?
No, not deliberately: just didn't think of it. Good call.
Yeah but what about the PG and R rated Furs?
"Another one of 'THOSE' articles"??? Looked to me like one of the fairest and most honest articles I've seen. Figures that the alternative press would actually dig deep enough to check the facts. And let's face it folks, the average person on the street may never totally "get" the obsession of the clean furry realm either, so if you happen to be homely, geeky, or totally obsessive toward your fandom, the average person (or reporter) will see it that way and say so. Deal with it.
One of the things I have learned about society's exeptance of odd things is that generally people will accept any thing you do as long as you look good doing it
This is yet another article more interested in ridiculing furries than in trying to find out what's appealing about furry. Only this one pretends to criticize other articles that do the same.
So yeah, it's another one of THOSE articles. Another one of those articles you can't show to your family or friends when they ask what this "furry" stuff is all about.
Well, I have to admit that I didn't much care for being called a
sexually-hopeless geek and lumped in with Trekkies. Still, this
article was a bit more sympathetic than most, anyway. And the author
has a point, we do tend to be a yiffy bunch -- which isn't
necessarily a bad thing; at least this article pointed to some
non-yiffy aspects of the fandom, too.
This is a ballenced, acurate, and over all sympathetic article. It points out the good and the bad in the fandom, and nothing in it is expoltative or invented.
This is exactly the kind of article we should praise, and pay atention to. Unfortunatly, it looks like a lot of the fandom will lump it in with 'The Press Conspiricy Against Us'.
Instead of decrying the article for pointing out our flaws, maybe we should do something about the flaws.
I must be missing something, because I thought the article was a total crock. Yet I keep hearing folks applauding this article as "fair" and "accurate." Then again, folks said that about the Vanity Fair article, too.Maybe someone can explain to me which part of this article---which said furries are homely, lonely, unimaginative, pathetic, MUCK-addicted, malcontented nerds who attend furry conventions to find acceptance amid the adult baby diapering sessions, Fursuit orgies, Plushie parties, and dealers room full of binders and binders of nasty furry art---was a "fair" representation of the fandom?Other articles have done a far better job representing the fandom than this one did.
Furry Fandom Infocenter
I've been to several cons, and I've seen every single one of the things you mentioned right out in the open. Walk into a furry con, and you get smacked in the face with the site of very ugly, obese people in bunny ears buying skanky porn. Hell, FC's in-con newsletter advertised a party for lonely toyfuc... er, plushophiles. You expect the author to ignore that and write about how furry fandom is Wonderful and Perfect and Not Embarrassing At All? Hey, it may not be fair, but it appears that the majority of con-goers fit that definition. Don't shoot the messenger.
Agreed. It certainly wasn't accurate, as the author forgot to include "profuse and intense levels of body odour" in their list.
Other than that, I'd say it was pretty dead on. As is obvious from the comments here, fairness is subjective, but the article does point out several times that the sterotypes which you mention - and that the majority of the media tends to focus on - are not representative of the entire fandom. I find that fair.
I think an article that did a fair representation of furry fandom would be one that didn't debunk one batch of sensationalist sterotypes just so it could replace it with another. That's just my opinion, though.Ohwell. Personally, it baffles me why folks seem to think this is such a great article. I just don't feel it accurately represents me or the reasons I attend furry conventions. To each his own. Since you think this article accurately represented you, I guess there's no reason for me to waste time arguing about it further.
Furry Fandom Infocenter
"I've been to several cons, and I've seen every single one of the things you mentioned right out in the open."
You and I must live on different planets, then. I've been to several cons and I ain't never seen no diapering sessions or orgies out in the open.
"Walk into a furry con, and you get smacked in the face with the site of very ugly, obese people"
Oh, yes! Those damn furries! How dare they be ugly and obese! Don't they know they're offending the rest of us? Well... offending you, anyway, Mr. Anonymous. What, they don't have a few thousand bucks lying around for plastic surgery and liposuction? How inconsiderate!
Diet and Exercise works too. Try it! ;)
Ooh, will that make me less ugly as well as less obese?
Obviously, sunshine, you've never fought "the battle of the bulge"
Good call, Lamar. Unfortunately, ask any ten furs what constitutes the biggest flaw in furry and they'll point to 'all those OTHER guys'.
That, and following the whole Burned Furs debacle, anyone who publicly stated that 'maybe the fandom needs to do some housecleaning' will get greeted with calls for a lynching. (Not that the BFs didn't do their own share of damage to the fandom, IMHO).
Anyone got any workable ideas for how we can clean up some of the fandom's little
'indiscretions' without turning it into jihad?
I don't understand why people feel the need to "clean up" the fandom. I really see no problem with fursuit sex, plushie sex, or basically any other fetish. Seems to me that if a person (or two people, as the case may be) wants to do it, and it doesn't hurt anyone else, then let them. I don't really see what's wrong with that Now, some of you will say that it hurts us because people group us with them, but apparently no one has thought to actually say "I'm not into that kind of thing." Seems pretty simple to me.
Oh, and if that's not what you were talking about, sorry for the small rant ^_^.
Actually, Rohein, what I meant was not so much 'chase these people out of the fandom' as try to find some way to prevent the fandom as a whole from shooting itself in the foot every time we open our mouths.
I've seen ridiculous behavior from both 'the fandom must be all-inclusive!' crowd and the 'who let them in?' outfit. Publicly damning the fandom as hotbed of deviants and/or a bunch of lousy anti-sex holy-rollers doesn't do us any good... especially when it happens right in front of a reporter.
That's the 'problem' I was referring to.
Enlighten me. What kind of ridiculous behavior comes from the anti-sex holy rollers?
I have some very real concerns. I just bought a Marylen head to use as part of a costume version of my Angel Bear character, and I've already committed myself to appearing at a church festival in Pennsylvania and the children's church service that comes before it. I'm going to be dealing with quite a few children. Last thing I need is the fursuiting art becoming so stigmatized that nobody will trust me around the kids.
If the public at large hears too much about people who don animal costumes to do the Horizontal Hula, they're gonna think that it's only a matter of time before a pedophile puts on a costume and leads away some very trusting victims. The way the media is today, it only has to happen once, and we become more feared than Catholic priests, in spite of the fact that the priests have done more damage.
I'm not a fursuiter myself, but I think it's safe to say that the rest of the fursuiting community shares your concerns.
I'm guessing the ridiculous behavior referred to in the previous message is the type of haranguing the Burned Furs did, where they tried to disassociate furry fandom from fetishes by loudly proclaiming to all who would listen that furry fandom is associated with fetishes. In other words, they were their own worst enemy.
Yes, KT, you caught what I meant. I knew people who would harangue random non-fannish folks at a con with horror stories of all the furverts and their sick fetishes. I can understand warning someone who thinks we're just like Disney, but must it be done like that?
And concerning 'fursuiter = NAMBLA-phile", that connection was already made in the latest edition of "Everything you wanted to know about sex (but were afraid to ask)". The author covers plushophilia and suiters (whom he describes as one and the same), and warns parents that they should keep their kids well away from any suiters, even inside theme parks. So that idea is already floating around out there. We've yet to see if anyone else notices.
lala 'freepress' didn't sound all that 'alternative' or 'free' to me.
just another pseudo-alternative (gbl but not otherwise all that immaginative management?) on a slow news day looking for an interest group flavor of the week to gawk at. looking and seeing with the eyes of what they had in mind to be looking for instead of what was in front of them.
i've seen much fairer and we've all seen far worse.
hey, guys who use machine tools to build little trains big enough to ride on are accused of being children who never grew up when seen through that same sort of mentality so it's not like we need to feel like furry is the lone ranger or anything.
i just wish all media would realize that majorities are simply collections of lots of different minorities instead of the warmed over oatmeal myth of a majority they seem to think will sell the most post toasties ... ~;)
Post new comment