This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Obviously this discussion page is heavily trafficked and the subject is contentious. As a total outsider coming in and reading the discussion, it seems like people are thinking that there's NPOV, and then there's "anti-furry", or visa versa. I just wanted to point out that although sexuality has a large section in the article, it's not mentioned at all in the introduction which is all most users are likely to read. This seems like a costly omission when the prevailing view of most (albeit mislead) people is that being a furry is nothing but a sexual kink. If no one corrects this, I'll go ahead and add something to the introduction (toward the end) to the effect of "The prevailing view among the general population, especially in non-furry related internet communities, is that being a 'furry' is simply a sexual fetish, and that its central activities are sex, and the production of anthropomorphic porn. (and then some references) While some who describe themselves as furries enjoy these practices, the community encompasses many other aspects." Youdontsmellbad 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the article a couple of times, I have to say I feel a pro-furry POV is present in this article. I would like to discuss the possibilities of a re-write with those who edit this page.
Please note that I am not talking about sources or adding an 'anti-furry' section or a 'criticism' section. If they can't be sourced, then they can't go in. What I am talking about is merely re-writing the article to make it a dispassionate review of what is known about the fandom.
I am not a furry myself, but with the amount of anti-furry feeling online I can understand that furry editors may feel they have to 'redress the balance' in the eyes of readers. I would argue that Wikipedia is not the place for that, and the furry fandom can best be served by having a dispassionate and objective article. Man from the Ministry ( talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some redundancies in the article that could be cleaned up. I don't have a Wiki account, so I can't edit the page. Perhaps one of the editors could make things more concise?
"from the subculture term "Yiff" referring to sexual activity or arousal, supposedly derived from the sound Arctic foxes make when mating" is redundant with "The explanation offered for the etymology of the term within the subculture is that it is an onomatopoeia for the sound foxes make when mating."
These four can probably be combined: "from the subculture term "Yiff" referring to sexual activity or arousal" and "The term is most commonly used to indicate sexual activity or material" and "This applies to sexual activity and interaction within the subculture whether online or offline" and "it is also applied to sexual arousal and to erotic material causing it." Yiff = sexual activity/arousal/interaction and erotic material. Don't need four sentences to browbeat readers with the same definition. - Rigel 71.171.103.70 ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out why there is so much heat against furries, plushies, etc. I didn't even know they existed until I happened to catch the C.S.I. about them and everywhere I've gone for information is (like this article) fraught with vandalism and flaming. I've seen some pretty hard-core fetishism sites that didn't get this much emotional response. The first thing someone says that might be considered positive is considered pro and the first thing someone says that might be negative is considered anti. Sci-fi cons and Sturgis don't seem to illicit this kind of emotion. My question is why this article doesn't address the clear-cut, across the board emotionalism? I'm not pro or con, I just want to know. 121.118.169.69 ( talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Curious
To put it bluntly, people hate, because they can, and because they refuse to accept things that are different from the norm. Being as many Furries are artists and similer things, they're thus easier targets for harassment, due to being more prone to overeation, generaly if you ignore the Furry haters, they go away. Also the constant media bias directed at us doesn't help the image in the least.. as for the article, I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, due to it possibly being biased from either side, and is such a rather difficult thing to do neutraly.*I appologize for spelling and grammer, I ain't the best at writing a long responce* 72.91.158.226 ( talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
", of their characters."
whatever that means.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"supposedly derived from the sound Arctic foxes make"-- the link to Wikitionary actually says that this explanation is apocraphayl, and that the word originally derived from a term in the foxish language. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Will this be a permanent thing, based on the controversial nature of the subject (just like George W. Bush)? 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (Interesting to note that a courageous 5-10% of furries are conservatives: More power to them!)
Media (books, video, etc) with furry characters (anthropomorphic animals) has often been labeled as a metagenre (?). Personally, I would include furry characters with science fiction (because future methods could create furries) or fantasy (because furries are not real). Furries could be in a wild west story and be seen as a Western, but the same is said of Westworld of cyborg cowboys.
Because metagenre is not a defined word, where do furry characters fit in with other genres? frank ( talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does the article Furry have to be Disambiguation.
>Furry is an adjective referring to something covered in fur. People would look up fur
>As a slang word, furry may also refer to:
> * A member of the furry fandom—fans of artwork, stories, and related products (comics, movies, costumes, etc.) which feature anthropomorphic animals This page
> * An animal character with anthropomorphic characteristics also known as: > o Funny animal in cartooning (which may have human type characters and fandoms referred to as Skins.) old term for furries
> o Talking animal similar category as furries.
>The Furries may also refer to the Super Furry Animals, a Welsh rock band.
could be added to header —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fsuarez2005 (
talk •
contribs)
11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sexual attraction to anything other than your own species is a sickness. Since furries often embrace a sexual side to their "lifestyle"... why hasn't it been discussed as a psychological disorder? Many furries are perfectly happy as they are, of course, but they'd still be wired differently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.173.169 ( talk) 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fox Wolfie Galen had never traveled much beyond his hometown until four years ago, when he went to a furry convention in California with another plushophile he had met on-line. Since then he has made it to conventions in Toronto, Chicago, and Albany, New York. Plushophilia began for him when he was around seven years old, even though he didn't own any stuffed animals. "It wasn't like I couldn't get them. I was interested; I just didn't make the connection. I knew I liked them, because I'd seen them on TV, or if I visited somebody else's house and they had plush. Or if somebody came along in a furry-animal costume, like a high-school mascot, I'd always sit close to where I'd think they'd be coming out." After pep rallies he would find himself so aroused that he would have to walk through the school's hallways with a book bag held in front of him. Growing up, he never fantasized about women. "If a mascot walked into a room surrounded by naked women, I'd be thinking about the mascot," he said.
[Scientist Katharine] Gates admitted she was a pervert, but only in the fantasy realm. "Little Red Riding Hood", for example: "I think that's incredibly sexy, and when I was a kid I used to masturbate to the fantasy of being eaten by a pack of wolves. And I still find that sort of an exciting image I can call that into my head when necessary." She likes Furry stuff, too. "Take my word for it, I've got a really dirty mind, and my dirty mind has gone to places that are beyond the pale. I think amputee stuff is hot, I think furry stuff is hot, I think slash fiction's hot, but as far as acting stuff out ... I mean, I've ridden pony boys and pony girls" -- people dressed up with bridles and saddles, etc -- "and I found that very exciting, but I'm uninclined to ask my husband to put on a saddle. And we find the ordinary, old vanilla stuff completely satisfying and very, very perfect." She considers the plushophiles to have a lot in common with practitioners of vanilla sex. "They may think about sex as often as we do, which is often, and they may think of stuffed animals instead of Pamela Anderson, but they're very ordinary people," she said. "Sex is not just what happens to the genitals. Everything is fetish fodder. I can't think of anything in this world that couldn't be sexualized by somebody."
This page is 79 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussions into an archive subpage. — Ochlophobia ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How about we ask for User:MiszaBot for help? It's a bot, it'll do this stuff automatically.
I propose this setup:
|algo = old(60d) (Anything more than 60 days old)
|archive = User talk:Furry_fandom/Archive %(counter)d (Creates new Archive section)
|counter = 9 (Starting with 9 since we already have 8)
|minthreadsleft = 5 (Always leave at least 5 discussion on Talk page)
Might contain technical mistakes; if anyone is actually willing to archive pages manually, please do. --
Draco 2k (
talk)
13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Obviously this discussion page is heavily trafficked and the subject is contentious. As a total outsider coming in and reading the discussion, it seems like people are thinking that there's NPOV, and then there's "anti-furry", or visa versa. I just wanted to point out that although sexuality has a large section in the article, it's not mentioned at all in the introduction which is all most users are likely to read. This seems like a costly omission when the prevailing view of most (albeit mislead) people is that being a furry is nothing but a sexual kink. If no one corrects this, I'll go ahead and add something to the introduction (toward the end) to the effect of "The prevailing view among the general population, especially in non-furry related internet communities, is that being a 'furry' is simply a sexual fetish, and that its central activities are sex, and the production of anthropomorphic porn. (and then some references) While some who describe themselves as furries enjoy these practices, the community encompasses many other aspects." Youdontsmellbad 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the article a couple of times, I have to say I feel a pro-furry POV is present in this article. I would like to discuss the possibilities of a re-write with those who edit this page.
Please note that I am not talking about sources or adding an 'anti-furry' section or a 'criticism' section. If they can't be sourced, then they can't go in. What I am talking about is merely re-writing the article to make it a dispassionate review of what is known about the fandom.
I am not a furry myself, but with the amount of anti-furry feeling online I can understand that furry editors may feel they have to 'redress the balance' in the eyes of readers. I would argue that Wikipedia is not the place for that, and the furry fandom can best be served by having a dispassionate and objective article. Man from the Ministry ( talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some redundancies in the article that could be cleaned up. I don't have a Wiki account, so I can't edit the page. Perhaps one of the editors could make things more concise?
"from the subculture term "Yiff" referring to sexual activity or arousal, supposedly derived from the sound Arctic foxes make when mating" is redundant with "The explanation offered for the etymology of the term within the subculture is that it is an onomatopoeia for the sound foxes make when mating."
These four can probably be combined: "from the subculture term "Yiff" referring to sexual activity or arousal" and "The term is most commonly used to indicate sexual activity or material" and "This applies to sexual activity and interaction within the subculture whether online or offline" and "it is also applied to sexual arousal and to erotic material causing it." Yiff = sexual activity/arousal/interaction and erotic material. Don't need four sentences to browbeat readers with the same definition. - Rigel 71.171.103.70 ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out why there is so much heat against furries, plushies, etc. I didn't even know they existed until I happened to catch the C.S.I. about them and everywhere I've gone for information is (like this article) fraught with vandalism and flaming. I've seen some pretty hard-core fetishism sites that didn't get this much emotional response. The first thing someone says that might be considered positive is considered pro and the first thing someone says that might be negative is considered anti. Sci-fi cons and Sturgis don't seem to illicit this kind of emotion. My question is why this article doesn't address the clear-cut, across the board emotionalism? I'm not pro or con, I just want to know. 121.118.169.69 ( talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Curious
To put it bluntly, people hate, because they can, and because they refuse to accept things that are different from the norm. Being as many Furries are artists and similer things, they're thus easier targets for harassment, due to being more prone to overeation, generaly if you ignore the Furry haters, they go away. Also the constant media bias directed at us doesn't help the image in the least.. as for the article, I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, due to it possibly being biased from either side, and is such a rather difficult thing to do neutraly.*I appologize for spelling and grammer, I ain't the best at writing a long responce* 72.91.158.226 ( talk) 16:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
", of their characters."
whatever that means.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"supposedly derived from the sound Arctic foxes make"-- the link to Wikitionary actually says that this explanation is apocraphayl, and that the word originally derived from a term in the foxish language. 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Will this be a permanent thing, based on the controversial nature of the subject (just like George W. Bush)? 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 05:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (Interesting to note that a courageous 5-10% of furries are conservatives: More power to them!)
Media (books, video, etc) with furry characters (anthropomorphic animals) has often been labeled as a metagenre (?). Personally, I would include furry characters with science fiction (because future methods could create furries) or fantasy (because furries are not real). Furries could be in a wild west story and be seen as a Western, but the same is said of Westworld of cyborg cowboys.
Because metagenre is not a defined word, where do furry characters fit in with other genres? frank ( talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does the article Furry have to be Disambiguation.
>Furry is an adjective referring to something covered in fur. People would look up fur
>As a slang word, furry may also refer to:
> * A member of the furry fandom—fans of artwork, stories, and related products (comics, movies, costumes, etc.) which feature anthropomorphic animals This page
> * An animal character with anthropomorphic characteristics also known as: > o Funny animal in cartooning (which may have human type characters and fandoms referred to as Skins.) old term for furries
> o Talking animal similar category as furries.
>The Furries may also refer to the Super Furry Animals, a Welsh rock band.
could be added to header —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fsuarez2005 (
talk •
contribs)
11:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sexual attraction to anything other than your own species is a sickness. Since furries often embrace a sexual side to their "lifestyle"... why hasn't it been discussed as a psychological disorder? Many furries are perfectly happy as they are, of course, but they'd still be wired differently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.173.169 ( talk) 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fox Wolfie Galen had never traveled much beyond his hometown until four years ago, when he went to a furry convention in California with another plushophile he had met on-line. Since then he has made it to conventions in Toronto, Chicago, and Albany, New York. Plushophilia began for him when he was around seven years old, even though he didn't own any stuffed animals. "It wasn't like I couldn't get them. I was interested; I just didn't make the connection. I knew I liked them, because I'd seen them on TV, or if I visited somebody else's house and they had plush. Or if somebody came along in a furry-animal costume, like a high-school mascot, I'd always sit close to where I'd think they'd be coming out." After pep rallies he would find himself so aroused that he would have to walk through the school's hallways with a book bag held in front of him. Growing up, he never fantasized about women. "If a mascot walked into a room surrounded by naked women, I'd be thinking about the mascot," he said.
[Scientist Katharine] Gates admitted she was a pervert, but only in the fantasy realm. "Little Red Riding Hood", for example: "I think that's incredibly sexy, and when I was a kid I used to masturbate to the fantasy of being eaten by a pack of wolves. And I still find that sort of an exciting image I can call that into my head when necessary." She likes Furry stuff, too. "Take my word for it, I've got a really dirty mind, and my dirty mind has gone to places that are beyond the pale. I think amputee stuff is hot, I think furry stuff is hot, I think slash fiction's hot, but as far as acting stuff out ... I mean, I've ridden pony boys and pony girls" -- people dressed up with bridles and saddles, etc -- "and I found that very exciting, but I'm uninclined to ask my husband to put on a saddle. And we find the ordinary, old vanilla stuff completely satisfying and very, very perfect." She considers the plushophiles to have a lot in common with practitioners of vanilla sex. "They may think about sex as often as we do, which is often, and they may think of stuffed animals instead of Pamela Anderson, but they're very ordinary people," she said. "Sex is not just what happens to the genitals. Everything is fetish fodder. I can't think of anything in this world that couldn't be sexualized by somebody."
This page is 79 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussions into an archive subpage. — Ochlophobia ( talk) 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How about we ask for User:MiszaBot for help? It's a bot, it'll do this stuff automatically.
I propose this setup:
|algo = old(60d) (Anything more than 60 days old)
|archive = User talk:Furry_fandom/Archive %(counter)d (Creates new Archive section)
|counter = 9 (Starting with 9 since we already have 8)
|minthreadsleft = 5 (Always leave at least 5 discussion on Talk page)
Might contain technical mistakes; if anyone is actually willing to archive pages manually, please do. --
Draco 2k (
talk)
13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)