All ranting aside, Mouse has a few points. Namely, is there such a thing as a limit to acceptable behaviour? Or in the name of freedom, are we to allow everyone who wants to define themselves as part of a fandom to proclaim it high and wide, no matter how tenuous the link?
Having been involved in the fandom since 1987, I figure I have a slightly better historical perspective. There's been people boinking and lusting after real animals for a very long time, but as soon as the fandom grew enough in size to be visible, especially on the internet in the Big Expansion of 1993 onwards, some of them gravitated to it thinking they'd get "kindred souls" as they saw a few (and back then it was a few) drawings of sexualized, humanized animals, without making the cognitive distinction most people make (i.e. it's fantasy). They attached themselves to the fandom, and almost no one made a fuss.
In turn, as one kink tends to follow another, and as many kinks became more mainstream and accepted, BDSM elements gravitated in, and as it got assimilated, more and more extreme thrills were sought.
The costumers were always around. Even today, I see very few costumes that could even have a possibility of being anatomically modified or "correct", permitting what some actually believe goes on all the time at cons and gatherings - lurid sex in costume, usually between men. But again, no one made sure to explain it was a minority, they were not representative of the majority int he fandom, because we were accepting, inviting to all, and sex is an animal, natural trait.
But let's face it, lots of people have a sex hangup, and we live in that world with them. We cannot explain things to them with our jargon, it's a different language to them. It's like trying to explain computer knowledge writing in nothing but l33tspeak - you'll lose most people. But so, so few make the effort to learn how to explain it to them from their point of view, so we get their representation of what they see of us.
Suggestion: someone learns you're a "furry" and is shocked? Ask them what they heard about it and where. Question their sources. Vanity Fair, MTV, ER, CSI are not documentaries, they're fiction, or at the least very biased. MTV's bit was on "Sex2K", so anything they look at will be from the sex angle, especially the lurid weird sex - and let's face it, drawing a fox with breasts being coupled by a mice as large as her is unusual. Acknowledge it, don't get defensive that "they don't get it". They're not obligated to. ER is all about extreme traumas, not routine - routine doesn't sell advertisement. CSI is about crime in Las Vegas; people expect that city to have weird crimes. If someone seems to extrapolate as if it was a thoroughly-researched show meant to give truthful insights into the situations they play on, chuckle at them as the media sponges they are.
And for the record, the one fan's perseverance with the CSI team has resulted in a definite improvement over the first draft they were thinking about. The current write-up is very different than the one shown in September: it's now about a crime perpetrated in a strange community of fans, not about a community of fans that commit crimes.
And I've yet to hear of murder among our fandom, so it's doubly fictitious anyway...
All ranting aside, Mouse has a few points. Namely, is there such a thing as a limit to acceptable behaviour? Or in the name of freedom, are we to allow everyone who wants to define themselves as part of a fandom to proclaim it high and wide, no matter how tenuous the link?
Having been involved in the fandom since 1987, I figure I have a slightly better historical perspective. There's been people boinking and lusting after real animals for a very long time, but as soon as the fandom grew enough in size to be visible, especially on the internet in the Big Expansion of 1993 onwards, some of them gravitated to it thinking they'd get "kindred souls" as they saw a few (and back then it was a few) drawings of sexualized, humanized animals, without making the cognitive distinction most people make (i.e. it's fantasy). They attached themselves to the fandom, and almost no one made a fuss.
In turn, as one kink tends to follow another, and as many kinks became more mainstream and accepted, BDSM elements gravitated in, and as it got assimilated, more and more extreme thrills were sought.
The costumers were always around. Even today, I see very few costumes that could even have a possibility of being anatomically modified or "correct", permitting what some actually believe goes on all the time at cons and gatherings - lurid sex in costume, usually between men. But again, no one made sure to explain it was a minority, they were not representative of the majority int he fandom, because we were accepting, inviting to all, and sex is an animal, natural trait.
But let's face it, lots of people have a sex hangup, and we live in that world with them. We cannot explain things to them with our jargon, it's a different language to them. It's like trying to explain computer knowledge writing in nothing but l33tspeak - you'll lose most people. But so, so few make the effort to learn how to explain it to them from their point of view, so we get their representation of what they see of us.
Suggestion: someone learns you're a "furry" and is shocked? Ask them what they heard about it and where. Question their sources. Vanity Fair, MTV, ER, CSI are not documentaries, they're fiction, or at the least very biased. MTV's bit was on "Sex2K", so anything they look at will be from the sex angle, especially the lurid weird sex - and let's face it, drawing a fox with breasts being coupled by a mice as large as her is unusual. Acknowledge it, don't get defensive that "they don't get it". They're not obligated to. ER is all about extreme traumas, not routine - routine doesn't sell advertisement. CSI is about crime in Las Vegas; people expect that city to have weird crimes. If someone seems to extrapolate as if it was a thoroughly-researched show meant to give truthful insights into the situations they play on, chuckle at them as the media sponges they are.
And for the record, the one fan's perseverance with the CSI team has resulted in a definite improvement over the first draft they were thinking about. The current write-up is very different than the one shown in September: it's now about a crime perpetrated in a strange community of fans, not about a community of fans that commit crimes.
And I've yet to hear of murder among our fandom, so it's doubly fictitious anyway...