I don't know what your theories are but my theory is that early media representation was biased for fursuiting and other costuming, partially for the visual factors, partially because furries were and still are terrible at getting anything across to anyone, especially the media. I believe a lot of early reporters attended furry conventions and came out completely unaware that there was any art or literature, because nobody pointed it out to them. And then we didn't like the articles, so we banned the reporters, who then never really had a chance to correct their mistakes.
Nowadays, furries do try and highlight the art and stuff, but it's too little, too late; to the mainstream, furries don't mean "anthropomorphic animal fans." Furries means "those guys who wear fursuits (and maybe have sex in them, but that's off point)." So, new kids are coming in believing that's what furry is. They're sold on fursuits, not art.
Okay, getting back on Patch's topic (before he gets rightfully pissed we've all derailed the discussion he wanted to have with something else), I would like to point out, approximately 100% of my furry spending is outside the fandom; i.e. movie tickets, DVD/Blu-Rays, rentals, comic books and some collectibles. This is partially due to a general apathy for the fandom's products, partially due to when something does catch my interest, it's already free, anyway.
I'm guessing that there are other furries who are not contributing to the furry economy, even when, like me, we're at least contributing to the culture, as it were. An interesting question might be "How are furries contributing to the economy outside the fandom?"
Ooh, Fred just got serious.
I don't know what your theories are but my theory is that early media representation was biased for fursuiting and other costuming, partially for the visual factors, partially because furries were and still are terrible at getting anything across to anyone, especially the media. I believe a lot of early reporters attended furry conventions and came out completely unaware that there was any art or literature, because nobody pointed it out to them. And then we didn't like the articles, so we banned the reporters, who then never really had a chance to correct their mistakes.
Nowadays, furries do try and highlight the art and stuff, but it's too little, too late; to the mainstream, furries don't mean "anthropomorphic animal fans." Furries means "those guys who wear fursuits (and maybe have sex in them, but that's off point)." So, new kids are coming in believing that's what furry is. They're sold on fursuits, not art.
Okay, getting back on Patch's topic (before he gets rightfully pissed we've all derailed the discussion he wanted to have with something else), I would like to point out, approximately 100% of my furry spending is outside the fandom; i.e. movie tickets, DVD/Blu-Rays, rentals, comic books and some collectibles. This is partially due to a general apathy for the fandom's products, partially due to when something does catch my interest, it's already free, anyway.
I'm guessing that there are other furries who are not contributing to the furry economy, even when, like me, we're at least contributing to the culture, as it were. An interesting question might be "How are furries contributing to the economy outside the fandom?"