![[Back to main page]](../pressed-1-small.gif)
If you'd like to submit an essay for consideration, see the FAQ for our contact address. We do not edit submissions other than for HTML formatting purposes.
"What is it that 'creates' a furry fan?"
Everyone knows that smut is what sells best in the furry art market, right? Think again.
In some ways this is a rebuttal to the point of view expressed in Word Games, but it's more than that. The author talks about what the word "furry" means to him, why he chooses to use it, and how he presents his involvement in the furry fandom to the rest of the world. Finally, he encourages other furry "lurkers" to be more open about their interests.
In this extremely literate analytical essay, Kincaid explores the similarities between the furry fandom and other similar subcultures (such as Goths and general sci-fi/fantasy groups) as well as the genre's uniquely post-modern and post-human aspects. Kincaid worries that in spite of all the imaginative play and interesting possibilities within the furry genre, little of it has actually manifested serious progeny (citing a lack of deep or relevant furry-themed literature). She theorizes that this may be due to internal groups restraining deeper intellectual and spiritual explorations, in an attempt to make the fandom look like a "normal hobby." We'd suggest the same sort of impediment exists from those in the furry fandom who are only interested in experiencing and depicting monotonous sexual indulgences. Kincaid closes by asserting that there is a much higher middle ground in Furry; a silent majority of people who are unafraid of sexual exploration, but have the maturity to keep it dignified and private.
"Here's your definition, folks. It shouldn't surprise anyone who has eyes and a brain."
This essay, written in 1996 by Chuck Melville (who also did a piece in Skunk), consists mostly of some general convention experiences and musings about problems plaguing the failing comic book industry (which have since grown much worse). The second half, however, recounts how suggestions of restraint in the display of erotic furry materials at conventions (so as to not alienate people interested in anthropomorphics for non-erotic reasons) were greeted not with civil and rational debate, but with outcries about censorship clearly intended to deflect the issue.
A brief, well-thought-out essay cautioning furry fans about talking to the media, and giving advice on what to keep in mind if they do. This should be required reading for anyone going to a furry convention or otherwise displaying their involvement with the fandom in public. Print out a few copies and hand them out next time you go to a con.
A very, very brief article that still manages to take a poke at the Burned Furs. Best quote:
"The very fact that the Burned Furs had to organize makes one doubt their proposition that Furryfolk aren't primarily in it for the eros. Nobody's had to form a group to convince people that concert pianists aren't sexual deviants."
Just a big organizational chart parody that attempts to show who thinks they're geekier than whom. Furries figure prominantly.
A masters thesis written by a Cultural Studies student at the University of Melbourne. It's included here mostly for the sake of completeness; it really is quite dry and long (around 72 pages, single-spaced) and references to FurryMUCK are spread pretty thinly, so we expect that few people will want to read it all the way through. It doesn't address furry fandom much, though it does note that FurryMUCK is "by far the most 'physical' of the MUDs" the author has encountered.
"Nevertheless, beneath the affectionate snugging and purring is a strong undercurrent of revelry in the decidedly beautiful and sensual nature of Furry bodies."
"FurryMUCK seems almost too good for cultural analysis to be true -- an imaginary world populated by conscious animals consciously sensualised, all represented by pure linguistic symbolism and represented within the confines of electricity, silicon and magnetism."
David J. Rust has recently completed a survey-based study in an effort to produce some statistics about the members of the furry fandom. In a subculture that is rife with misinformation and myth, it is pleasing to see that someone has taken the effort to actually collate hard numerical evidence instead of presenting vague personal impressions of what Furry fandom represents. It's a very interesting read; it'd be nice to see more studies like this done.
Full of amusing observations about the behavior of furry fans (referred to as "weirdos" in a semi-affectionate tone), this essay may well be the most positive piece about the fandom to date that doesn't resort to blatant omission of facts. It is clearly written by an insider with some personal distance from the subject. Unlike many other articles, there's a certain strong sense of wonder (as opposed to condemnation or bewilderment) involved in the shenanigan-watching, suggesting that for whatever sexual overtones there are here, no one attending has (for better or worse) ever truly grown up. Hannah Kincaid originally brought this essay to our attention, and her additional comments about the essay and the reaction it garnered are very insightful:
It's obviously referring to Anthrocon '01. Interestingly -- stupefyingly -- it's become the subject of some controversy on alt.fan.furry because some fans seem to have taken it as an attack, despite the wistful tone and insider knowledge of furry fandom. The authors have been accused of being "plants" and of having not actually attended the con, which is ridiculous, IMHO.
[...]
This article, and the resulting AFF [alt.fan.furry - Ed.] discussion might be interesting for three reasons in particular:
1) The eleventh paragraph (with the "babysit your kids" comment) raises the interesting question of how much fannish misbehavior is provoked by alienation. [...]
2) The objections to this article seem to be based on knee-jerk reactions to the wry tone of the article, its frankness about explicit furry art, the self-conscious use of the word "weirdo", and possibly even the title of the site itself. This sort of persecution complex seems to be increasingly common in furry, and of fringe cultures in general. I'm starting to see it as a defining trait, unfortunately.
3) Overall, the article is frank about the existence of "freaks" in the fandom but goes out of its way to humanize them. IMHO, this is a refreshing departure from the three usual responses to furry fandom: condemn its fringe elements, deny the existence of its fringe elements, or accuse everybody who does the former two of being a fascist.
She put it better than we could have. Clearly, more than a little willful denial is at work within the fandom of late, and one has to wonder if the haste with which some furry fans point their fingers at others may be because they want to draw attention away from the real problem: themselves.
This is a sarcastic column about "furry lifestylers," people who base their lives around the concept of furry fandom. Written by Nick Mamatas, who also wrote Three Feet High and Falling, it includes a list of links, some of which are also found here.
Nick also has a page with sample flames he's sent. The bottom-most one is in response to a furry fan's letter. Scott Malcomson, in his letter about "Three Feet High and Falling", makes some comments about this page as well. Nick, in turn, responds to Scott's comments in his letter.
Update: JD has written us about this review to clarify some of his points.
A set of moderate, concise essays, the three most generally relevant of which are linked below. The author goes to great, apologetic lengths to express that these are only his opinions about these things -- the "No One Truth" ideology that you find fairly common in the furry fandom holds strong throughout all of these essays.
This essay reflects the author's personal feelings on what being a furry fan means to him, and what differences he senses he has with other members of the fandom. In it, he muses about how he found Furry, about the "overaffectionate" nature of most furries, and his own "hobbyist" nature towards the fandom.
A discussion of the balkanization of furry fans into groups, mentioning past geographic divisions and present group-based separations. He relates current fandom groups to the regional differences of the early 90s, identifying the Burned Fur movement as expressing the old "East Coast" furry attitudes, and "furry lifestylers" as the ideological descendents of the "West Coast" furry fans. He compares furry fandom to other fandoms and relates a fairly elaborate report on situations he's seen regarding "emotional sensitivity" and "fear of talking," as well as suggesting there may be some deeper issues at work:
"Furries and reality do not mix. They often find their real lives unfulfilling and devoid of human contact. This is the motivation that drives them onto the mucks to form VR-friendships and relationships, to substitute for the lack they have in real life. This is also why furries, when they meet each other in real life, often form hasty relationships that do not last for very long. I also feel that it is the reason to the promiscuity among the so called lifestylers in the fandom. In short, insecurities make furries an 'easy catch'."
A discussion of a peculiar sort of "racist" (or perhaps "speciesist") behavior in furry fans online: Human (self) hating, often expressed by referring to humans with with the derogatory term "hooman."
"...there seem to be two kinds of people who tend to speak of 'hoomans': those who hate the human race for the damage they have done to the nature and themselves, and those who see themselves as flawed and hate themselves for it. It all comes down to hate though, and so it should - it is all about racism after all. Robed in fine ideals, mayhaps, presented with beauty and glory, often, but it still stinks if you ask me, especially when it is being done to promote a species that does not even exist."
These aren't by any means the only essays on this site worth reading. There's a lot of interesting stuff there to explore, including essays on furry MUCKs and conventions.
Update (2/21/2002): This site no longer exists. See the backlash section for more information. We will retain the entry as we feel it's of historical interest.
Update: On May 17, 2001, Eric Blumrich brought to our attention that he'd removed all the items we had linked to:
This would seem to be yet another stage in the continuing slow decline of the Burned Furs -- both of their major founders have now lost interest in the furry fandom, and as a result any relevance they once had is rapidly dissipating.Heads up- you might wanna remove my site from your breathtakingly Widlean exposee [sic] - I'm in the process of removing all fannish references from my site, which means that it really doesn't have a place on your site, anymore...
Fandom is a smoking pile of horse vomit, and cannot be redeemed- I've come to realize this. However, I've not lost my penchant for tilting at windmills, so you can count on a lot of green party propaganda on my site in the near future...
The original entry for Eric's site is retained below. Links to items that are no longer posted have been removed. Some of them were originally alt.fan.furry posts, so a Google Groups search could possibly turn some of them up if you're inclined to look for them.
- - -
Wiser anthropomorphic artists now steer clear of Furry, having been warned by the countless road signs provided over the last 5 or so years. The more gullible or ulteriorly motivated artists and their fans are the only residents left, except the brave Don Quixoites of Furry, Eric Blumrich and the Burned Furs.
There probably is no one who simultaneously hates furry fandom so much and yet feels so deep a love for anthropomorphics as Mr. Blumrich. Eric's work is exemplary within the furry community, but that is damning with faint praise considering the bulk of mediocre artistry and even weaker creative vision in the fandom. You have to know a little of Eric's history to understand why he's so passionate.
Eric predates the current furry fandom, which technically did not exist in its current controversial form until a decade ago. Before this, Eric worked on various anthropomorphic projects that met with critical success but commercial failure. Whatever hopes he had for success within his beloved old world fandom have died, yielding a harvest of very bitter fruits:
The best of a series of five comic-page style, acidic slams on Furry.
"In my mind they live and breathe. They can build empires that will last forever... They can fight wars neverending on worlds innumerable. They can embody our loves, our laughter. They can be me. They can be you. They can toy with magic and defy our imaginations with infinite possibilities... and the best thing -you- can think of... is to draw them without any clothing."
For a moment, the anger lifts completely, and Mr. Blumrich asks his critics a simple, very poigniant question. If there is any single piece to see, this is it. It is touching in a fashion, unlike his other more sardonic stabs, and asks: In a world of infinite possibilities, why are we so fixated on shallow and base needs?
This is probably the one piece that explains everything the best. Eric asserts that the fandom was calculatedly corrupted by unnamed individuals with specific sexual-political agendas, taking a small unknown subculture that was about "drawing these funny little people with animal heads and tails" and turning it into a forum for a variety of culturally frowned-upon sexual interests. This essay was originally written as an open letter to the San Francisco Bay Guardian, in response to an article they ran called "Animal Magnetism."
Less concise than the above, and full of fresh emotions after his experience at Confurence 9. It's all right to read through, but is really only interesting for the details that are condensed in "Drawing the Line".
It's hard not to commend Eric in an era where few people believe in standing up for anything, let alone the power of art. His more sane detractors, however, feel his energies would be better spent fending for himself instead of for a fandom that likely neither wants nor deserves to be saved.
An in-depth and balanced review of the fandom, laced with multiple short interviews. Delves especially within the sense of spiritual belonging that furry fans feel within their group and themselves, and accurately retraces the historical development of the fandom itself (in which it had originally arisen to address a lack of mature discourse using anthropomorphic characters to address political, social, and religious issues, and not simply to address sexual identity as it has become synonymous with over the last decade). A must-read.
The Furry FAQ could probably be considered the first true essay on the furry fandom. This FAQ is ancient by Internet standards, going back to the very early 90s, and little of it has been updated with the changing climate. It's not really intended to be deep or insightful -- just a generalized overview of Furry. It is rather interesting to note that even at this early time the hints of conflict were already being addressed, although in a dismissive tone (Subject 5). The 'catholic' all-encompassing definition of Furry has its roots here as well (Subject 9), utterly ignoring previously defined words in favor of a swallowing up of all anthropomorphics under the banner of Furry. Consider this rather calculated understatement from Subject 5:
"Some writers and artists who claim the term 'funny animals' for their subject matter don't necessarily consider themselves 'furry', though on the surface this might seem to be almost a synonym. This is largely because of the baggage the term 'furry' carries with it, as a number of people see 'furries' obsessed with the sexuality of their fictitious characters."
"When it comes to online gaming, I find that the MUD community is the best place in which to mate with animals."
GameSpy's "Daily Victim" feature takes a short, vicious poke at FurryMUCK. Even more vicious was Something Awful's forum about this item, which contained this rather disturbing quote:
"PLEASE please please leave the whole 'furry' scene as far away from gaming as possible! The disadvantages to even mentioning them are numerous:
1) Gaming becoming slightly more associated with anthropomorphic wackos. This may attract unwanted attention from 'US Senators.'
2) Kids whose strange attractions would have otherwise been suppressed forever instead may find people who understand and support them.
...
I hope you understand my concern. I feel it is paramount that we encourage the children of America and the world to treat the anthropomorphic internet culture...with prejudice and hatred."
An article about plushophila. Most notably, it gives the impression that ConFurence is a convention for plushophiles -- an assertion many attendees would strongly disagree with.
 |
Manawolf's Lair |
Counterpointing Eric Blumrich is Sarah Wheeler (aka Manawolf), a highly evangelistic furry fan associated with the Furs for Peace and related reactionary movements. She's been featured on Portal of Evil (principly for her precarious stand for bestiality) and has also written numerous furry lifestyle related essays. As she requests, we have linked to her warning page, but have also hyperlinked to her essays for ease of reading -- consider yourself warned about their contents.
Manawolf presents a powerful assertion -- that Furry's underlying power comes from a social-spiritual undertone of liberation from unnatural society-imposed mores about our sexuality and the belittlement of animals. She cites human history's less human-centrist religions of the past, and clearly sees Furry as a rebirth of these ideas in a looser intellectual-spiritual context. She covers the history of the fandom here reasonably well, and then praises the healthy, open nature of "Furry Sex" versus the controlled nature of "Western" sexuality. This is without a doubt Manawolf's best essay.
This essay is somewhat ironic considering her other essays. Whereas one might expect some sort of new-age justification about animal totems, Manawolf actually is quite the skeptical secularist. Her basic point here is if no one is being harmed, there's no reason to rob someone of their precious delusions. A noble point, if one can agree upon when someone is or is not being hurt by those delusions.
A clever parody of the Burned Fur Manifesto, her refrain at the end is very simple: We are all basically freaks outside of a "sick" mainstream culture, so we should all accept each other's differences. She groups comic book geeks, adult cartoon watchers, and people who molest their dogs into one big, happy family. This is the "all-encompassing" mentality of the furry fandom at work again: Because one is commiting a "socially criminal act" by merely being mildly different, one should therefore accept more gratuitious acts, even ones causing real harm, as well. By accepting people who have been thrown out of the mainstream for very good reasons along with those that have been persecuted for trivial ones, you sentence the group as a whole to the same doom.
* * *
Her non-furry-related essays are worth reading as well, many of them flawless executions on controversial topics such as polygamy, abortion, and the death penalty.
Her infamous
essay on bestiality, although not directly related to furry
fandom, is the model of the unfortunate "brilliant but flawed" Manawolf
essay; it is especially well-crafted, but spends all its energy attacking
the often cited arguments of consent and morality without considering the
deadly-serious microbiological hazards of bringing new
"crossover"
diseases to humanity. Intimate "fluid contact" with animals would be a very strong transmission vector for
these kinds of diseases. It has been theorized that AIDS and "mad cow
disease" are examples of illnesses which have crossed over from animals to
mankind in some way. Her endorsement of bestiality has also drawn fire from
a lot of furry fans who see bestialists (sometimes referred to as "zoophiles")
as exactly the sort of people that shouldn't be associated with the
furry fandom, lest the whole thing be tainted by association.
(One of our readers has written us to express his opinion about our review of this essay.)
More whimsical is her stand on feminine shaving. There are legitimate issues of unjust social pressures surrounding female beauty, but her implied comparison of "natural human beauty" to furry fantasy counterparts -- as if armpit hair is somehow supposed to measure up to a fox tail -- is somewhat lacking in effectiveness.
Sarah has to be given credit, though -- a lot more credit than her detractors would like. She's a brilliant and persuasive writer, and many of her essays are quite astute. Unfortunately, her tendency to blindly defend everything within the fringes of the furry fandom, without checking the non-subjective angles, has prevented her from being being a strong force towards the recognition of Furry as the serious social-spiritual movement that she'd like it to be. Perhaps she will grow wiser with age, but even as it stands she is an impressive defender of the furry lifestyle movement.
In this short essay taken from a USENET posting, Martin proposes a way of mitigating the constant conflict between the "lifestyler" and "fan" segments of the furry fandom. He suggests that the "non-fetishist" segments of the fandom create their own, seperate term for their interest (he suggests "Anthros" or "Morphs") to avoid all the baggage associated with the word "furry." He identifies the Burned Furs' attempt to retain the term "furry" as their own as one of the major reasons they've caused so much anger while accomplishing very little.
His logic seems good, though we'd argue that this isn't a new concept at all. Furry fandom, after all, started out as a subset of anthropomorphic animal fandom. His suggestion makes sense, but saying that creating a new fandom is necessary is like saying, "American culture is shallow and meaningless. Let's create a new country called England." What's needed probably isn't so much a split between two groups, but a recognition of the long-ignored fact that not everything that has anthropomorphic animals in it is automatically "furry."
Description of the Memphis Furmeet, and a brief introduction to the furry fandom. The basic aesthetics of what furry fans like and a tolerant "furry philosophy" are discussed, but the article doesn't go into a lot of depth. Interestingly, the article mentions that the Furmeet organizers had been given a tip that The Daily Show might send a reporter -- as far as we know, that didn't happen, though they did later cover Gaylaxicon 2000.
|
Mouth Organ |
Mouth Organ is an online magazine about "sex, gender, culture, and commentary." In August 1997 they ran a continuing monologue that commented on the author's experiences on FurryMUCK. The two most directly related columns are linked below. We've also linked to a later furry-related column.
A short, mostly positive overview of MUCKs, particularly FurryMUCK. Gender roles in furry art are also touched on. Overall the author seems to consider furry MUCKs a healthy way of expressing one's fantasy life. This article is somewhat unique, then, in being a positive one written by someone who was apparently not a "furry fan" to start with.
A continuation of the above column that discusses the social ramifications of furry MUCKs as a venue for virtual sex. The impact of the infamous "Wired article" is mentioned.
An essay about plushophilia, and specifically the Salon.com article "Cuddle Time". It's very sympathetic, in spite of the fact that the author is not a plushophile himself, and makes the point that plushophilia is pretty harmless as sexual fetishes go. He dismisses the Salon article as sensationalism, and also has some words about the Burned Furs, which he finds "inadvertantly amusing." He gives some insight into why so many furry fans find articles about plushophiles so offensive. His reasoning will probably be old news to those of you who have been involved in the furry fandom for a while, but relative outsiders will find it enlightening.
Subtitled "Adventures of a Feminist MUDder", this essay was originally published in a book titled Wired_Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace. It's about MUDs in general, and focuses on a system called BlueSky, but does talk about AniMUCK, which is furry themed. It concentrates mostly on how women are treated and portrayed online, and doesn't paint a very complimentary picture. It also mentions the highly sexualized way female characters are generally portrayed in furry art.
The essays about MUCKing in Mouth Organ were partly inspired by this essay.
Dan Savage pens a 'letters' column offering his advice to those with unusual sexual interests. A recent letter, called Furry Friends, was written by the boyfriend of a furry asking Dan's advice on how to deal with getting a 'fursuit' to amuse his companion. Dan's response started an enlightening, if uncomfortable, exchange between himself and an assortment of furry evangelists and "victims" of furries entitled Furry Fury. A fairly good gauge as to how poor the noteriety of furries as a whole has become over the last year (which is fursuit sex and plushophilia seem to be interchangible in the news media for "Furries").
An additional viewpoint of the incident, by L. Fitzgerald Sjöberg -- the same person responsible for the Brunching Shuttlecocks pieces about the fandom -- is called Furries Redux.
Linked from the (now defunct) About.com article on Furry Animal Comics, this essay shows how Furry is actually the basis for spirituality to some. It discusses the rebirth of animal-empathic faith, all but lost to the western world with the birth of more human-centrist (specifically Judeo-Christian) religions. It more or less accuses such faiths of putting humanity in a precarious situation with the ecosystem and alienating humanity from the other animals for the purposes of exploitation. The prolonged abuse, the author contends, has started to force an emergence of a spiritual longing for the animals that we no longer share our world as consistently with. At one point, he seems to suggest that, as people who are more in touch with nature, furry lifestylers are mankind's best hope for the future. The essay loses some coherence towards the end; the author says at one point he does not believe he has the soul of an animal, but then isn't so sure the next paragraph. One gets the impression the author is still grappling with this rather bold revelation.
A fairly reasonable outsider view, with a strong dose of tongue-in-cheek toleration. This is probably as dignified as it'll ever get, and you still can sense the embarrassed amusement here.