Thoughts on the Meaning of Furry: An Essay

[Summercat]

Hello all! I've been working on an essay about how I define Furry for about 2 years (admittedly, abandoned for most of that time), and finally posted it the other day. I figured I'd link it here for those who might be interested in reading it.

Furaffinity: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/19567559/

Weasyl: https://www.weasyl.com/submission/1236336/thoughts-on-the-meaning-of-furry-an-essay

Would like to know what you guys think. Thanks!

[Saxon]

Why do you randomly capitalise some nouns and make so many syntax errors? 

I think this essay generally picks low-hanging fruit and makes some bizarre comments, such as 'a common thread of furry culture is their dislike of animal abuse'...one may as well say that English people's culture is defined by their strong dislike of ritual human sacrifice and confused sentences like 'What is a fetish, after all, but enjoyment of an object or aspect to such a degree one would enjoy things more with it present? 'A sexual fetish is an erotic fixation on a subject that is not inherently sexual; we don't need to muse on 'what a fetish is' because it is already well defined. 

There are also technical errors, such as the confusion of the concept of the Id, which is the primal and instinctual element of the psyche, with the concept of the inner child. 

The Id is not an immature true self that retains childlike innocence; we might describe murderers and rapists as 'being controlled by the Id'. 

I can only struggle to stifle laughter when your conclusion reads 'I could be wrong about all of this...I feel that I am right...'

You don't reach any observation or conclusion which isn't immediately evident from a cursory knowledge of the furry fandom; that it generates a lot of artistic and literary content and that at least some of this content is sexual. 

I'm going to end my criticism by quoting one of your final comments. 'In the future, Furry may one day develop to the point where I will say there is it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion...'

No. Furry is not going to become a religion. 

[Strongbob]

Interesting essay, I need to agree with Saxon a bit because you didn't go very deep into any of these, but it is a fair introduction to the different meanings of the word.  I may suggest that you did miss one though, that being furry as a literal description of a fictional character.  When you put all of these different meanings together you could end up with some terribly confusing sentences like:

"I read a furry book about a furry who saw a furry furry getting off to furry."  

 

[willow]

it kinda seems like the developments of a much longer essay. or just the main points and I think it would be interesting to go into more finer details about why certain people identify one way but have fursonas that contradict that. I know the shorthand answer is wish fulfillment but I don't really think the whole straight guys with gay OCs is that common to any other group

44 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I think this essay generally picks low-hanging fruit and makes some bizarre comments, such as 'a common thread of furry culture is their dislike of animal abuse'...one may as well say that English people's culture is defined by their strong dislike of ritual human sacrifice and confused sentences like 'What is a fetish, after all, but enjoyment of an object or aspect to such a degree one would enjoy things more with it present? 'A sexual fetish is an erotic fixation on a subject that is not inherently sexual; we don't need to muse on 'what a fetish is' because it is already well defined.

the phrasing is a bit vague but I think what he was trying to say is that furries feel more strongly about animal abuse. like to a point where people will legitimately cry if you accidentally run over an animal. while people think it's sad and terrible it happens, some people really don't care all that much about animal abuse to the same capacity they may care about child abuse because they're just animals. I mean, you see how people in this fandom react when someone even implies they think bestiality is okay. so there's a difference in the range of emotions.

as far as the fetish thing goes, I honestly think it is a good idea to ask what a fetish is. because there's a lot of overlap that goes on given that vore or paws are both categories of art but also fetishes. and when do they go from being something you really like to being an actual fetish? or are they always fetishes?

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, willow said:

it kinda seems like the developments of a much longer essay. or just the main points and I think it would be interesting to go into more finer details about why certain people identify one way but have fursonas that contradict that. I know the shorthand answer is wish fulfillment but I don't really think the whole straight guys with gay OCs is that common to any other group

the phrasing is a bit vague but I think what he was trying to say is that furries feel more strongly about animal abuse. like to a point where people will legitimately cry if you accidentally run over an animal. while people think it's sad and terrible it happens, some people really don't care all that much about animal abuse to the same capacity they may care about child abuse because they're just animals. I mean, you see how people in this fandom react when someone even implies they think bestiality is okay. so there's a difference in the range of emotions.

as far as the fetish thing goes, I honestly think it is a good idea to ask what a fetish is. because there's a lot of overlap that goes on given that vore or paws are both categories of art but also fetishes. and when do they go from being something you really like to being an actual fetish? or are they always fetishes?

On this subject, I was surprised to find furries are no more likely to be vegetarian than anybody else. 

Also, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that a significant portion of the negative reaction towards bestiality in this fandom comes from users who want to convince outsiders that furries don't condone bestiality. I think most furries think it's gross, just like the rest of the public, but a small contingent think bestiality is okay and most of the rest of the furries desperately want to drown them out. 

 

 

[willow]

8 minutes ago, Saxon said:

On this subject, I was surprised to find furries are no more likely to be vegetarian than anybody else. 

Also, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that a significant portion of the negative reaction towards bestiality in this fandom comes from users who want to convince outsiders that furries don't condone bestiality. I think most furries think it's gross, just like the rest of the public, but a small contingent think bestiality is okay and most of the rest of the furries desperately want to drown them out. 

I guess because most people don't consider eating meat to be abuse or as long as the animals didn't feel any pain it's okay. that's a different argument for a different thread though.

and I think that's part of the reason, but people have also sort of latched onto the idea that furries condone bestiality because of porn and also because murrsuiting apparently corresponds to similar real life acts. which isn't anything new or even specific to this fandom.

though honestly, I think trying to downplay or outright deny it kind of hurts the fandom in a way. mostly because people get so defensive about it.

[#00Buck]

It is your opinion.So it is what it is. 

Thanks for sharing. 

[Strongbob]

39 minutes ago, willow said:

I guess because most people don't consider eating meat to be abuse or as long as the animals didn't feel any pain it's okay. that's a different argument for a different thread though.

and I think that's part of the reason, but people have also sort of latched onto the idea that furries condone bestiality because of porn and also because murrsuiting apparently corresponds to similar real life acts. which isn't anything new or even specific to this fandom.

though honestly, I think trying to downplay or outright deny it kind of hurts the fandom in a way. mostly because people get so defensive about it.

That why it's hard to talk about the fandom with a lot of people.  You can't talk about furry without someone bringing up sex and then a lot of people instantly make a connection to bestiality.  Then we get all offended and say 'no, it's not like that' when we all know the denial is not entirely true.

[ArielMT]

No small part of why the furry fandom is so hard to define is the fact that furry is an almost entirely self-created fandom.  We don't have a specific central theme, canon, or brand around which the entire fandom is structured or rallying.  Without a force more unifying than the abstract idea of anthropomorphized animals (and sometimes not even in physically anthropomorphic forms), it's no wonder that being a furry can mean such wildly different things to two people.

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, willow said:

I guess because most people don't consider eating meat to be abuse or as long as the animals didn't feel any pain it's okay. that's a different argument for a different thread though.

and I think that's part of the reason, but people have also sort of latched onto the idea that furries condone bestiality because of porn and also because murrsuiting apparently corresponds to similar real life acts. which isn't anything new or even specific to this fandom.

though honestly, I think trying to downplay or outright deny it kind of hurts the fandom in a way. mostly because people get so defensive about it.

There is a 'lady doth protest too much' effect. 

I can sort of understand how some furry porn leads people to believe furries generally condone bestiality; some of the porn has dog penises in it after all (which I personally think are gross...I just don't understand that). 

It is really confusing that some outsiders think that costumed sex means furries condone bestiality, because the fursuit sex happens between humans. 

[willow]

37 minutes ago, Strongbob said:

That why it's hard to talk about the fandom with a lot of people.  You can't talk about furry without someone bringing up sex and then a lot of people instantly make a connection to bestiality.  Then we get all offended and say 'no, it's not like that' when we all know the denial is not entirely true.

which is why, whenever the topic comes up, I usually just say 'yeah it's a thing that happens' and leave it at that. and then you have those people who go out of their way to shove examples of how the fandom is totally not about the sex in people's faces, which makes it seem more like you're really trying to hide something

19 minutes ago, Saxon said:

There is a 'lady doth protest too much' effect. 

I can sort of understand how some furry porn leads people to believe furries generally condone bestiality; some of the porn has dog penises in it after all (which I personally think are gross...I just don't understand that). 

It is really confusing that some outsiders think that costumed sex means furries condone bestiality, because the fursuit sex happens between humans. 

because it's weird and raises a lot of whys and whats. like what's the point and why do you like that? you could say that people just want to pretend to be animals and that it's fun roleplaying; in which case, that's a hell of a commitment to the part

and to be even the slightest bit fair, what other conclusions are you supposed to draw from a fandom where one of the third most popular commodities is animal shaped dildos?

 

[Summercat]

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

Why do you randomly capitalise some nouns and make so many syntax errors? 

I think this essay generally picks low-hanging fruit and makes some bizarre comments, such as 'a common thread of furry culture is their dislike of animal abuse'...one may as well say that English people's culture is defined by their strong dislike of ritual human sacrifice and confused sentences like 'What is a fetish, after all, but enjoyment of an object or aspect to such a degree one would enjoy things more with it present? 'A sexual fetish is an erotic fixation on a subject that is not inherently sexual; we don't need to muse on 'what a fetish is' because it is already well defined. 

There are also technical errors, such as the confusion of the concept of the Id, which is the primal and instinctual element of the psyche, with the concept of the inner child. 

The Id is not an immature true self that retains childlike innocence; we might describe murderers and rapists as 'being controlled by the Id'. 

I can only struggle to stifle laughter when your conclusion reads 'I could be wrong about all of this...I feel that I am right...'

You don't reach any observation or conclusion which isn't immediately evident from a cursory knowledge of the furry fandom; that it generates a lot of artistic and literary content and that at least some of this content is sexual. 

I'm going to end my criticism by quoting one of your final comments. 'In the future, Furry may one day develop to the point where I will say there is it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion...'

No. Furry is not going to become a religion. 

Heyas, thanks for responding. Let me take this point by point!

Why do you randomly capitalise some nouns and make so many syntax errors? 

1: "Why do you randomly capitalise some nouns and make so many syntax errors? "
If there are any syntax errors, my two editors would like to know! As for the random capitalization, I'll have to check if I missed something, but if you're refering to Fandom, Genre, Fetish, and Culture, that was when I was refering to specifically Furry Fandom, Furry Genre, Furry Fetish, and Furry Culture. Similarly for other terms being discussed as Furry.

2: "I think this essay generally picks low-hanging fruit and makes some bizarre comments, such as 'a common thread of furry culture is their dislike of animal abuse'...one may as well say that English people's culture is defined by their strong dislike of ritual human sacrifice"

I personally don't think it's a bizare comment. Perhaps not as detailed as I like, but I am not discussing or attempting to go into depth about how I see the three topics I am discussing; simply stating my viewpoint that they are separate, and attempting to give a definition for them.

3. "and confused sentences like 'What is a fetish, after all, but enjoyment of an object or aspect to such a degree one would enjoy things more with it present? 'A sexual fetish is an erotic fixation on a subject that is not inherently sexual; we don't need to muse on 'what a fetish is' because it is already well defined. "

See, you defined sexual fetish. Whereas I simply said fetish, which has a larger definition than just the sexual. Nor was I defining it for the purposes of discussing it, as you are quoting a line from my conclusion.

4. "There are also technical errors, such as the confusion of the concept of the Id, which is the primal and instinctual element of the psyche, with the concept of the inner child. The Id is not an immature true self that retains childlike innocence; we might describe murderers and rapists as 'being controlled by the Id'."

I stand by my understanding of the concept of the Id, which admittedly I learned back in 2002. Pulling from Wikipedia, "The id (Latin for "it")[4] is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human's basic, instinctual drives. Id is the only component of personality that is present from birth.[5] It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives." 

While perhaps not precise for a psychology paper, I think that most people would get the idea and what I meant by the passage.

5. "You don't reach any observation or conclusion which isn't immediately evident from a cursory knowledge of the furry fandom; that it generates a lot of artistic and literary content and that at least some of this content is sexual. "

My conclusion is that the three things I mentioned are not a single whole, but seperate items. You seem to be reacting to my observations, which are certainly not new, novel, original, or unique.

6. "I'm going to end my criticism by quoting one of your final comments. 'In the future, Furry may one day develop to the point where I will say there is it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion...' No. Furry is not going to become a religion. "

You bolded the second part, "I will say there is it is", apparently without catching both the 'may one day'. You also seemed to miss the spirituality part, nor addressed the paragraphs addressing religion and spirituality, and why I currently feel there is no Furry Spirituality or Furry Religion, despite previous attempts to make one.

 

5 hours ago, Strongbob said:

Interesting essay, I need to agree with Saxon a bit because you didn't go very deep into any of these, but it is a fair introduction to the different meanings of the word.  I may suggest that you did miss one though, that being furry as a literal description of a fictional character.  When you put all of these different meanings together you could end up with some terribly confusing sentences like:

"I read a furry book about a furry who saw a furry furry getting off to furry."  

 

This is meant to be little more than discussing the fact they are separate items, different definitions. I neglected the individual definition of Furry, of which there are two - the characters, and the members of the fandom - simply out of brevity. This is meant for members of the fandom, and I think everyone already parses those two differences.

And technically your confusing sentence would be correct! It was that thought that prompted me to write this, and its confusing when the same word has multiple definitions or nuances.

3 hours ago, ArielMT said:

No small part of why the furry fandom is so hard to define is the fact that furry is an almost entirely self-created fandom.  We don't have a specific central theme, canon, or brand around which the entire fandom is structured or rallying.  Without a force more unifying than the abstract idea of anthropomorphized animals (and sometimes not even in physically anthropomorphic forms), it's no wonder that being a furry can mean such wildly different things to two people.

Indeed we have no central authority or canon, despite prior attempts at such. I think the Burned Furs movement of the late 90s was one such attempt, but in retrospect, that seemed much more flash-in-the-pan than anything else. There have been some recent attempts, but there's been pushback against it.

I use the term "Non-canonical" to describe Furry, and in terms of genre would be less equivalent to "My Little Pony" or "Transformers" than "Scifi" "Fantasy", etc (One of the reasons I decided to dispense with calling it a sub-genre or a co-genre). 

And yes, it is the diffuse nature of the fandom that gives is strength, but also a lack of cohesion. Despite this, there are common trends I've seen, as I mentioned in the section talking about it, which lead me to believe there is an underlying culture separate from the fandom. 

[Saxon]

To be honest I think you've just ignored the criticisms. I can't believe this took 2 years to write. O_o 

[Summercat]

Just now, Saxon said:

To be honest I think you've just ignored the criticisms. I can't believe this took 2 years to write. O_o 

Your criticisms were not ignored. Your points were addressed, some obvious misconceptions were corrected, and one was responded to with a question asking you to elaborate. 

But if you don't really have a response to that, well, I guess that means your points were properly handled and addressed! :3

[Saxon]

3 minutes ago, Summercat said:

 

But if you don't really have a response to that, well, I guess that means your points were properly handled and addressed! :3

Literally just as retarded as your essay. :\ 

 

Look, you wrote a rambling essay that both Strongbob and I agree is superficial. It contained confusing ambiguities like conflation of Sigmund Freud's concept of the 'id' with that of an inner child. Using the word 'id' is going to confuse most readers at the best of times, because few people have a good understanding of Freud's ideas anyway. 

Your conclusion has a really weird syntax error 'there is it is a'; this would be clearer if you had just written 'it is a'. 

Like this: "Furry may one day develop to a point when I will say it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion, or a Furry Market." 

Better yet. "The furry fandom may one day become elevated to a religious like status by developing its own spiritual lore,"

Describing furries as 'unified by their dislike of animal abuse' is just...down right odd. 

These errors mean that the text loses coherency, a predicament which becomes manifest when you unironically admit that you think the furry fandom might turn into a religion one day. 

 

[Clove Darkwave]

Let's play nice folks, you can do better than that.

[Saxon]

10 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

Let's play nice folks, you can do better than that.

Saying that comments like 'if you don't respond it means that my essay must be perfect' is 'retarded' is a valid point of view and does not constitute harassment. 

I did not call summercat retarded. I thought his essay had some big holes in it and that his means of dealing with criticism was wanting. 

[Summercat]

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Literally just as retarded as your essay. :\ 

 

Look, you wrote a rambling essay that both Strongbob and I agree is superficial. It contained confusing ambiguities like conflation of Sigmund Freud's concept of the 'id' with that of an inner child. Using the word 'id' is going to confuse most readers at the best of times, because few people have a good understanding of Freud's ideas anyway. 

Your conclusion has a really weird syntax error 'there is it is a'; this would be clearer if you had just written 'it is a'. 

Like this: "Furry may one day develop to a point when I will say it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion, or a Furry Market." 

Better yet. "The furry fandom may one day become elevated to a religious like status by developing its own spiritual lore,"

Describing furries as 'unified by their dislike of animal abuse' is just...down right odd. 

These errors mean that the text loses coherency, a predicament which becomes manifest when you unironically admit that you think the furry fandom might turn into a religion one day. 

 

1. "Look, you wrote a rambling essay that both Strongbob and I agree is superficial. It contained confusing ambiguities like conflation of Sigmund Freud's concept of the 'id' with that of an inner child. Using the word 'id' is going to confuse most readers at the best of times, because few people have a good understanding of Freud's ideas anyway. "

I read Strongbob's comment that he felt I could have gotten deeper into the topic, but that "it is a fair introduction to the different meanings of the word". You seem to be focusing on the id comment, are you perhaps a psychology major? This is the first I've seen with someone not get my point or become confused by that point, and that passage has been in there from the start.

2. "Your conclusion has a really weird syntax error 'there is it is a'; this would be clearer if you had just written 'it is a'. "
That would be what's known as an "editting artifact", and I am slightly embaressed it is there, and surprised that nobody has caught it until now.

3. "Like this: "Furry may one day develop to a point when I will say it is a Furry Spirituality, a Furry Religion, or a Furry Market." 
Better yet. "The furry fandom may one day become elevated to a religious like status by developing its own spiritual lore," "

Disregarding the fact that your suggestion isn't what I was saying, the layout of the sentence is a matter of opinion. You can dislike this particular one, however it passes muster overall. (In this case, I am disregarding your comment, because it's literally style opinion)

4. "Describing furries as 'unified by their dislike of animal abuse' is just...down right odd. "

If I had described furries as that, you would be correct, that would be off. The full relevant passages, speaking solely about how I'm defining Furry Culture:

"There do seem to be a few common threads, such as an acceptance of the odd and the strange, a dislike of abuse (especially towards animals), an expectation that a member of the Fandom is to create their own character and setting, and an encouragement for creating more content for the Genre aspect of Furry.
    
Another common thread is a greater acceptance of the discussion of topics more traditional groups would keep behind closed doors."

This is speaking as to the common threads of culture that I find commonly within Furry communitiies, not universal "Every furry has this." It is vastly different than saying "Furries are unified by their dislike of animal abuse".

5. "These errors mean that the text loses coherency, a predicament which becomes manifest when you unironically admit that you think the furry fandom might turn into a religion one day."

I think you're no longer responding to the actual text (see both 3 and 4), but rather what you think the text says. I would suggest a re-read of what I actually wrote. Similarly, nowhere do I admit that I think that one day, the "Furry Fandom" will turn into a religion, nor do I suggest anything like that at this time.

My thesis for this paper is that there are multiple items called Furry, that are separate entities and items, and specifically label the Genre, Culture, and Fetish as developed enough to be treated individually. I then address other commonly brought up ideas and thoughts, and explain - briefly - why I do not suggest them as items at this time. 

I do suggest that this may chance in the future, that one day there may be a 'Furry Religion', but suggesting it is a possibility is leaps and bounds from saying that it will.

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Saying that comments like 'if you don't respond it means that my essay must be perfect' is 'retarded' is a valid point of view and does not constitute harassment. 

I did not call summercat retarded. I thought his essay had some big holes in it and that his means of dealing with criticism was wanting. 

I went down your points, one by one, and addressed or responded to the ones of substance. I have responded to your posts assuming that you are posting them in good faith, and have remained civil while doing so. 

Calling something "retarded" is not a valid criticism. 

[Saxon]

I'm not a psychology major; I just happen to know a little about psychology. I'm actually a geology undergraduate. I suspect few people raised this point because 'id' is not exactly a day to day word, which people would feel confident defining. 

Thanks for recognising the editing artifact. 

My choice to rephrase the sentence was not stylistic; I removed 'I' from the sentence in order to remove ambiguity. 'I may say it is a religion' is different from 'It would be considered a religion', because 'I may say' implies that it could just be your personal opinion, rather than some significant change. 

For example if an economist wrote 'the economy may well slow down until it enters what I would say is a recession', you'd be able to see that the sentence would be better phrased as 'the economy may well slow down until it enters recession'. 

Your last comment:  "My thesis for this paper is that there are multiple items called Furry, that are separate entities and items, and specifically label the Genre, Culture, and Fetish as developed enough to be treated individually. I then address other commonly brought up ideas and thoughts, and explain - briefly - why I do not suggest them as items at this time" is really clear and concise. This should be how the essay starts. 

I still think that musing that the furry fandom might become a religion in the future (emphasis on the word might, which does not mean 'it will') is silly. I would describe that sort of conclusion as retarded, because it's just not going to happen any more than twilight is going to become the next global religion. I think your essay should end on a substantiated footing, which summarises what you've found, rather than speculating about the outlandish. 

I mean, I think that's only sensible, right? 

[Summercat]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

I'm not a psychology major; I just happen to know a little about psychology. I'm actually a geology undergraduate. I suspect few people raised this point because 'id' is not exactly a day to day word, which people would feel confident defining. 

Thanks for recognising the editing artifact. 

My choice to rephrase the sentence was not stylistic; I removed 'I' from the sentence in order to remove ambiguity. 'I may say it is a religion' is different from 'It would be considered a religion', because 'I may say' implies that it could just be your personal opinion, rather than some significant change. 

For example if an economist wrote 'the economy may well slow down until it enters what I would say is a recession', you'd be able to see that the sentence would be better phrased as 'the economy may well slow down until it enters recession'. 

Your last comment:  "My thesis for this paper is that there are multiple items called Furry, that are separate entities and items, and specifically label the Genre, Culture, and Fetish as developed enough to be treated individually. I then address other commonly brought up ideas and thoughts, and explain - briefly - why I do not suggest them as items at this time" is really clear and concise. This should be how the essay starts. 

I still think that musing that the furry fandom might become a religion in the future (emphasis on the word might, which does not mean 'it will') is silly. I would describe that sort of conclusion as retarded, because it's just not going to happen any more than twilight is going to become the next global religion. I think your essay should end on a substantiated footing, which summarises what you've found, rather than speculating about the outlandish. 

I mean, I think that's only sensible, right? 

1. "I'm not a psychology major; I just happen to know a little about psychology. I'm actually a geology undergraduate. I suspect few people raised this point because 'id' is not exactly a day to day word, which people would feel confident defining. "

Except id is commonly used, imprecisely, as I used it. Certainly have seen it anywhere else, and again - the technical definition of a term refering to impulses and emotions (imprecise) is irrelevant to the larger point, which comes across regardless. You can feel free to disagree, but you also understood what I meant.

2. "My choice to rephrase the sentence was not stylistic; I removed 'I' from the sentence in order to remove ambiguity. 'I may say it is a religion' is different from 'It would be considered a religion', because 'I may say' implies that it could just be your personal opinion, rather than some significant change." 

There was more than a style difference as your revision changed the entire meaning and was invalid as per my thesis. While you may feel one way is superior to another, in the specific context I prefer the one I used. 

3. "Your last comment:  "My thesis for this paper is that there are multiple items called Furry, that are separate entities and items, and specifically label the Genre, Culture, and Fetish as developed enough to be treated individually. I then address other commonly brought up ideas and thoughts, and explain - briefly - why I do not suggest them as items at this time" is really clear and concise. This should be how the essay starts. "

You mean something like "It is these subtle yet distinguishable definitions of Furry that have led to a lot of confusion within the Furry Fandom as a whole. We are a Fandom of multiple things called Furry, each with the common thread of anthropomorphic animals.", perhaps?

4. "I still think that musing that the furry fandom might become a religion in the future"

Again, I never said the Furry Fandom might become a religion. I said there might develop a Furry Religion. And if you think simply allowing for the possibility is "retarded" (which is not a valid critique), then you are rejecting prior attempts to that very end, as well as not addressing I give it the same treatment towards Spiritiality, and Market.

Thinking something isn't a thing now means it never will, is assuming things never change. They always do, and I felt that it is a likely enough possibility to address, even if it's to reject it for the current status quo.  

As for my conclusion, perhaps I should have written something like "For me Furry is all these things at the same time, a series of distinct yet overlapping sets on a Venn Diagram of the population of "Furries": fans of the Genre, members of the Culture, and those who enjoy the Fetish. Furry is not a single piece, a single whole. We are a Fandom of multiple things called Furry, each with the common thread of anthropomorphic animals."

[MuttButt]

Hey @Summercat, I dig your essay so far, is this the final draft? 

I actually wrote a very similar paper as a final paper for a psych class. If you're interested I could send you a copy of it to read. It's more of an exploratory/scientific paper and it heavily references scholarly articles and surveys taken of furries. It's also aimed at an audience that I'm assuming doesn't even know what a furry is, and so it's way less in depth about specific attributes of the fandom. I'd love to hear what you think of it and maybe even provide some inspiration for future papers or revisions of this paper~

[Saxon]

Lots of people using the word 'id' incorrectly doesn't make it any less weird or confusing when you also use it incorrectly. :\ 

I think that the summary you came up with just now is a better introduction than the one you actually used. The introduction you used was okay, but the new one you just wrote is better. 

I am not sure what you mean by 'you are rejecting prior attempts to that very end'; do you know what that means? Suggesting that there may one day be a furry religion is akin to suggesting that coca cola is going to start a new-age death cult and establish a caliphate like ISIS. Those kinds of comments are fantasy. 

I think your conclusion, that you think furry is an aggregate of discreet interacting components, rather than a unified collective, is sensible. I would caution that putting 'for me' is inadvisable. If you find out the sky is blue then it is not 'blue for me' (and presumably green or purple for everyone else?); it's blue for everybody. 

 

Hey @Summercat, I dig your essay so far, is this the final draft? 

I actually wrote a very similar paper as a final paper for a psych class. If you're interested I could send you a copy of it to read. It's more of an exploratory/scientific paper and it heavily references scholarly articles and surveys taken of furries. It's also aimed at an audience that I'm assuming doesn't even know what a furry is, and so it's way less in depth about specific attributes of the fandom. I'd love to hear what you think of it and maybe even provide some inspiration for future papers or revisions of this paper~

That actually sounds pretty interesting. 

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Saxon

[Summercat]

Just now, MuttButt said:

Hey @Summercat, I dig your essay so far, is this the final draft? 

I actually wrote a very similar paper as a final paper for a psych class. If you're interested I could send you a copy of it to read. It's more of an exploratory/scientific paper and it heavily references scholarly articles and surveys taken of furries. It's also aimed at an audience that I'm assuming doesn't even know what a furry is, and so it's way less in depth about specific attributes of the fandom. I'd love to hear what you think of it and maybe even provide some inspiration for future papers or revisions of this paper~

After two years of it sitting on my desktop and being worked on slowly, I got a little antsy. It'd already been through two major re-writes and two and a half or so editing passes (two different editors). Probably still could have used some more polish but I hadn't written a formal paper since 2006; most of my essays since have been written while reacting to my medication (It makes me manic for about an hour).

I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote; thus far I'm the only person I've seen come (publicly) to my conclusion. 

I do intend to write more on the subject, eventually this morphed from stand-alone to really an introduction exploring things further.

[Summercat]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Lots of people using the word 'id' incorrectly doesn't make it any less weird or confusing when you also use it incorrectly. :\ 

I think that the summary you came up with just now is a better introduction than the one you actually used. The introduction you used was okay, but the new one you just wrote is better. 

I am not sure what you mean by 'you are rejecting prior attempts to that very end'; do you know what that means? Suggesting that there may one day be a furry religion is akin to suggesting that coca cola is going to start a new-age death cult and establish a caliphate like ISIS. Those kinds of comments are fantasy. 

I think your conclusion, that you think furry is an aggregate of discreet interacting components, rather than a unified collective, is sensible. I would caution that putting 'for me' is inadvisable. If you find out the sky is blue then it is not 'blue for me' (and presumably green or purple for everyone else?); it's blue for everybody. 

 

1. "Lots of people using the word 'id' incorrectly doesn't make it any less weird or confusing when you also use it incorrectly. :\ "
Lots of people commonly using a word with an incorrect definition means that when I use the word as that definition, they understand it. If it was a more scholarly/exploring paper on that topic (or even if I went into more depth as what to what I mean, as I fully intend to do in the near future), I would take care to use the professional definitions rather than the common ones. 

2. "I think that the summary you came up with just now is a better introduction than the one you actually used. The introduction you used was okay, but the new one you just wrote is better. "

You may be correct, however I feel my current style of it is acceptable. Should I decide to polish this up for submitting for publication, I may revisit it. Your original point asked why I didn't say anything like that at all, though.

3. "I am not sure what you mean by 'you are rejecting prior attempts to that very end'; do you know what that means? Suggesting that there may one day be a furry religion is akin to suggesting that coca cola is going to start a new-age death cult and establish a caliphate like ISIS. Those kinds of comments are fantasy. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgdjRlo36h0

Amusing clip aside, there have been attempts to make a Furry Religion, and it's a topic I've thought on myself, on what a Furry Religion would be like (mainly to help identify if there was anything that would fit the concept). However, the likely sequence of events is someone taking an emerging Furry Spirituality (which you do not seem to be addressing) and using that as the basis of a more formalized religion. Your analogy would be better served if someone who enjoyed Coca Cola products found a "deeper meaning" within them, and spread it as faith - not Coca Cola founding a Vatican. 

(For the record, my thoughts ran less towards the Abrahamics and more towards a synthesis of concepts between Hinduism and Shinto).

"I think your conclusion, that you think furry is an aggregate of discreet interacting components, rather than a unified collective, is sensible. I would caution that putting 'for me' is inadvisable. If you find out the sky is blue then it is not 'blue for me' (and presumably green or purple for everyone else?); it's blue for everybody. "

One thing I am a jealous guardian of is the decentralized nature of the Fandom. I like it, to the point where I restrain myself from efforts and actions that may jepordize it, or think it might. I am leery of any attempt to centralize or impose a hierarchy on the fandom as a whole, and wish to make absolutely clear that I am speaking for myself, and these are my thoughts and conclusions - not that these are facts. These are my conclusions and I want to invite debate and discussion on it.

If I was publishing this formally, I'd probably go take all that out - but then ahve to put somewhere that I am speaking for myself, and my conclusions, not on behalf of the Fandom.

Just now, Summercat said:

Lots of people commonly using a word with an incorrect definition means that when I use the word as that definition, they understand it. If it was a more scholarly/exploring paper on that topic (or even if I went into more depth as what to what I mean, as I fully intend to do in the near future), I would take care to use the professional definitions rather than the common ones. 

 

Reiterating:

Starbucks calls a latte a frapp (or vice versa). It's the incorrect term but anyone who goes to Starbucks knows what it is.

Some barristas in other places pitch a fit when their customers get it wrong. I suggest that if it's commonly understood as something, perhaps make an allowance and account for it.

[willow]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

Saying that comments like 'if you don't respond it means that my essay must be perfect' is 'retarded' is a valid point of view and does not constitute harassment. 

the way you worded it does sound like you're calling him retarded though...

but aside from that I'm assuming OP doesn't really like that word in reference to anything in general, so let's avoid that word altogether 

 

[Summercat]

Just now, willow said:

the way you worded it does sound like you're calling him retarded though...

but aside from that I'm assuming OP doesn't really like that word in reference to anything in general, so let's avoid that word altogether 

 

More along the lines I prefer things to remain civil. Throwing around words like that is not civil, nor is it critique. 

[Feelwell]

Can be much deeper, and go into more detail, with more supporting evidence

Furthermore, the whole "choosing a character" thing isn't wholly prevalent, and having a fursona or character is a choice rather than an expectation.

Finally, the species chosen need not be because they share physical traits or hold traits in high regard. Most species in the genre have taken on their own stereotypes and traits. (huskies are commomly loyal, dragons lustful, lagomorphs sluts.) Some chose the animal based on the sterotypes from the fandom, or because of past experiences with said animal.  (I.e pets.) 

Still, not bad. Can always be better but wasn't just random gibberish.

[Summercat]

12 minutes ago, Feelwell the Rabbit said:

Can be much deeper, and go into more detail, with more supporting evidence

Furthermore, the whole "choosing a character" thing isn't wholly prevalent, and having a fursona or character is a choice rather than an expectation.

Finally, the species chosen need not be because they share physical traits or hold traits in high regard. Most species in the genre have taken on their own stereotypes and traits. (huskies are commomly loyal, dragons lustful, lagomorphs sluts.) Some chose the animal based on the sterotypes from the fandom, or because of past experiences with said animal.  (I.e pets.) 

Still, not bad. Can always be better but wasn't just random gibberish.

Making a character isn't an overt expectation in a checklist, but often one of the first questions is about a fursona or character. "Oh, so what species are you?" as an example. It's an assumed bias within the culture.

"Choosing the species" is something I probably could have worded better, as I was addressing the claim that Furry is a Spirituality, with the "choosing a species" being the basis for that claim. It is something I see commonly, but not universally (and thus why I rejected Spirituality).I'll have to make a note of that for later.

I hope that helps!

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, willow said:

the way you worded it does sound like you're calling him retarded though...

but aside from that I'm assuming OP doesn't really like that word in reference to anything in general, so let's avoid that word altogether 

 

No, let's not be language police. 'The action of the breaks retarded the car'. 'Delays at the post office retarded the parcel's arrival'. 'The patient was diagnosed with a mental retardation'. 'The skateboard fail was retarded'. 

But you know, I'm glad that the best argument anybody can muster is 'it sounds like you insulted summercat'. Yeah, sounds like isn't 'did'. 

 

More along the lines I prefer things to remain civil. Throwing around words like that is not civil, nor is it critique. 

Do you think saying 'if you don't respond then it means your criticisms were invalid' isn't a retarded idea? 

I mean, I bet you knew that was stupid even as you were writing it. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Saxon

[Onnes]

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

No, let's not be language police. 'The action of the breaks retarded the car'. 'Delays at the post office retarded the parcel's arrival'. 'The patient was diagnosed with a mental retardation'. 'The skateboard fail was retarded'. 

But you know, I'm glad that the best argument anybody can muster is 'it sounds like you insulted summercat'. Yeah, sounds like isn't 'did'. 

There are two ways to interpret this. The first is that you yourself do not recognize the difference between the word "retarded" in technical literature and "retarded" in common English. Because in common English it is almost exclusively used as a pejorative referencing intellectual disability, a pejorative so prevalent and maligned that it's not only been deprecated as a reference to actual disability but effectively banned in formal contexts. The second option is that you believe the other posters here, almost all of whom are fluent in English, do not recognize this word and its function.

Neither of these are good for you.

(I apologize to the rest of thread for continuing this nonsense.)

[Saxon]

Just now, Onnes said:

There are two ways to interpret this. The first is that you yourself do not recognize the difference between the word "retarded" in technical literature and "retarded" in common English. Because in common English it is almost exclusively used as a pejorative referencing intellectual disability, a pejorative so prevalent and maligned that it's not only been deprecated as a reference to actual disability but effectively banned in formal contexts. The second option is that you believe the other posters here, almost all of whom are fluent in English, do not recognize this word and its function.

Neither of these are good for you.

(I apologize to the rest of thread for continuing this nonsense.)

I was using the word as a pejorative to say that I thought dismissing criticisms, because 'if you don't respond then it means they're not justified' is a stupid and foolish comment.

This was demonstrated, because summercat used that justification to dismiss a significant syntax error, which I emboldened so that he could see it. He accused me of just quoting the text incorrectly and explained that, unless I could defend my criticism, that he would assume there weren't any mistakes. So I had to bring it up twice for him to acknowledge that the error was present in the text. :\ 

This is foolish and stupid stuff; it is retarded. He could have just checked the text to find the error. I went to the trouble of reading through the text and finding all the mistakes, so that they could be patched, and the response I got was just 'well I don't believe that any of those errors are there'. 

[evan]

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I was using the word as a pejorative to say that I thought dismissing criticisms, because 'if you don't respond then it means they're not justified' is a stupid and foolish comment.

This was demonstrated, because summercat used that justification to dismiss a significant syntax error, which I emboldened so that he could see it. He accused me of just quoting the text incorrectly and explained that, unless I could defend my criticism, that he would assume there weren't any mistakes. So I had to bring it up twice for him to acknowledge that the error was present in the text. :\ 

This is foolish and stupid stuff; it is retarded. He could have just checked the text to find the error. I went to the trouble of reading through the text and finding all the mistakes, so that they could be patched, and the response I got was just 'well I don't believe that any of those errors are there'. 

You also called his conclusion retarded, which has some bearing of condescension beyond the matter of the text itself. You're taking an integral conclusion of the work, one that I don't imagine that he'd be intent on changing, and practically mocking it. At some point there isn't going to be compromise on this, because you essentially invited him to find your reasoning derogatory instead of pragmatic.

 

Anyways, it's likely that now that I've said something there will be an attempt to continue this, so after this post I'm just going to focus on the essay itself.

[Saxon]

Just now, evan said:

You also called his conclusion retarded, which has some bearing of condescension beyond the matter of the text itself. You're taking an integral conclusion of the work, one that I don't imagine that he'd be intent on changing, and practically mocking it. At some point there isn't going to be compromise on this, because you essentially invited him to find your reasoning derogatory instead of pragmatic.

 

Anyways, it's likely that now that I've said something there will be an attempt to continue this, so after this post I'm just going to focus on the essay itself.

I put it to you that suggesting there could be a furry religion one day is retarded. I mean, come on. 

[evan]

Just now, Saxon said:

I put it to you that suggesting there could be a furry religion one day is retarded. I mean, come on. 

Give me a chance to re-read the essay and I'll at least attempt to defend that conclusion based on his reasoning. It certainly isn't necessarily my decision if the author's intent is to communicate that idea, is it?

[Saxon]

Just now, evan said:

Give me a chance to re-read the essay and I'll at least attempt to defend that conclusion based on his reasoning. It certainly isn't necessarily my decision if the author's intent is to communicate that idea, is it?

I don't think it's your decision. I think that it's a silly and foolish conclusion to come to. It was especially frustrating that this was part of the conclusion, because weird stuff like that is a distraction which detracts from the main point, which was actually pretty sensible. 

 

[Terminal7]

So now quality writing is determined by the principles you follow, not the rules you've made?

Oh boy. 

When I get the chance I'll read it. I'll leave my questions. Based off of what I'm seeing here, I assume the essay is supposed to be thought-provoking(?). 

[ArielMT]

16 hours ago, Summercat said:

Indeed we have no central authority or canon, despite prior attempts at such. I think the Burned Furs movement of the late 90s was one such attempt, but in retrospect, that seemed much more flash-in-the-pan than anything else. There have been some recent attempts, but there's been pushback against it.

I use the term "Non-canonical" to describe Furry, and in terms of genre would be less equivalent to "My Little Pony" or "Transformers" than "Scifi" "Fantasy", etc (One of the reasons I decided to dispense with calling it a sub-genre or a co-genre). 

And yes, it is the diffuse nature of the fandom that gives is strength, but also a lack of cohesion. Despite this, there are common trends I've seen, as I mentioned in the section talking about it, which lead me to believe there is an underlying culture separate from the fandom. 

Good points.

I missed the Burned Furs movement (though not by much) when I joined the fandom and never did conclusively find out what it was really all about.

Your use of "non-canonical" and its context are pretty much what I meant: furry quickly outgrew its SF/F origins to the point it's no longer recognizable.

I'm aware of what you mean by an underlying culture separate from the fandom, or at least the foundations of one, but I'm not conscious of it enough to put my finger on it.

More generally, I think your essay feels both too large and incomplete, and that it may be better served if it's broken up into a tightly related series of essays, each exploring a thought on what furry means in more detail.

[willow]

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

No, let's not be language police. 'The action of the breaks retarded the car'. 'Delays at the post office retarded the parcel's arrival'. 'The patient was diagnosed with a mental retardation'. 'The skateboard fail was retarded'. 

this isn't really policing so much as you need to respect OP's wishes. unless you're saying the conclusion is physically slow, it's really obvious from context what you actually mean and as mentioned, OP doesn't want it being used here

we've already asked twice already (and now a third) that you respect OP's request to be civil and use different phrasing. this is nonnegotiable so consider this a final warning 

[Summercat]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

I was using the word as a pejorative to say that I thought dismissing criticisms, because 'if you don't respond then it means they're not justified' is a stupid and foolish comment.

This was demonstrated, because summercat used that justification to dismiss a significant syntax error, which I emboldened so that he could see it. He accused me of just quoting the text incorrectly and explained that, unless I could defend my criticism, that he would assume there weren't any mistakes. So I had to bring it up twice for him to acknowledge that the error was present in the text. :\ 

This is foolish and stupid stuff; it is retarded. He could have just checked the text to find the error. I went to the trouble of reading through the text and finding all the mistakes, so that they could be patched, and the response I got was just 'well I don't believe that any of those errors are there'. 

Perhaps you should re-read the thread and review the timeline..

1. You simply mentioned "syntax errors" in your first post, to which my reply was "If there are any syntax errors, my two editors would like to know!" It wasn't until your third reply to me that you elaborated on what you meant. 

2. The only thing you bolded in your first post was my line "I will say there is it is a" in reference to a possible Furry Religion. That is not a syntax error, and pointing out the critical "may one day develop to the point that" in front of the bolded statement is not a dodge or a quibble; it's pointing out I am simply stating a possibility, not a fact of eventuality. 

3. The only real mistake was an editing artifact that somehow survived repeated reviews. Which, as soon as you actually pointed out (your third reply), I found, admitted, and explained what it was. For a few points, I did say that I would consider a re-write should I publish this (elsewhere than Facebook, Furaffinity, and Weasyl), but that would be the case regardless.

4. Your quibbles about the precise definition vs common definition of terms are irrelevant to point.I am trying to make, and I explained why in each case. Conflating the 'id' and 'inner child' concepts due to similar attributes (unchecked or unrestrained impulses and emotions) is in a single line:

Quote

The public outing of innermost feelings can be construed to indicate that the Id or inner child of those in the subculture is in control, leading to accusations of immaturity. “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” is often a cornerstone of thought in Western cultures.

The rest of the paragraph concerns itself with addressing and disagreeing with the point raised, which is 'the accusation that those in the Fandom are immature and need to grow up'.Your complaint equivalent to me calling a vehicle a car, and you saying it's a Ford F150 Truck, and therefore I'm wrong about using it to drive to the store. 

5. In several of your posts, you quoted several lines as if they were what I said in my paper - lines that did not exist, nor were part of my point or conclusion. I don't know what else to call that other than misquoting the text.

6. I responded, point by point, to your first post. Your first reply was "To be honest I think you've just ignored the criticisms." I do not know how responding point by point, such as suggesting that you are using a specific definition for "sexual fetish" whereas I talk about the more general "fetish", explaining why certain terms were 'randomly' capitalized, or mentioning that I felt you had mistaken my observations for my conclusion - is in any way ignoring what you brought up.

Since I had gone through your points to address them, and your response was "I think you've just ignored them", the only logical conclusion was that as you brought nothing else up, I had properly addressed your points. 

7. Each time you mentioned something specific, I went back and checked my text. Thus me explaining why I capitalized Genre, Fetish, and Culture (and related terms as they came up). Thus me pulling out exactly what I said in a few places.

--

This is not dodging your points or avoiding criticisms. Going through your points raised, despite your uncivil tone and approach, is responding to criticism and critique. 

Requesting people to civil and courteous is in no way demanding that all responses be "This is perfect!" and to ban everyone who simply disagrees with me. It means avoiding insults and derogatory statements, as well as responding to what was actually written. 

1 hour ago, ArielMT said:

Good points.

I missed the Burned Furs movement (though not by much) when I joined the fandom and never did conclusively find out what it was really all about.

Your use of "non-canonical" and its context are pretty much what I meant: furry quickly outgrew its SF/F origins to the point it's no longer recognizable.

I'm aware of what you mean by an underlying culture separate from the fandom, or at least the foundations of one, but I'm not conscious of it enough to put my finger on it.

More generally, I think your essay feels both too large and incomplete, and that it may be better served if it's broken up into a tightly related series of essays, each exploring a thought on what furry means in more detail.

Heyas Ariel;

1. The Burned Fur movement was an early 'drama' that had a disproportionate impact on early online Furry. The conclusion was: "There's too much porn in Furry". Their solution was to flame and harass people who drew porn to get them to leave. The result was the movement dying out quickly and members making themselves not welcome. The lasting impact was a reinforcement that adult and pornographic art was part of Furry. It was also technically before my time as well, as I was only in the fringes of Furry in late 1999 and 2000. 

2. Didn't we talk about this, years ago back when we were both FA staff? Goodness knows I've been promoting the idea for a very long time.

3. Furry Culture isn't technically separate from the Fandom, just the Genre and Fetish. I was looking for common threads, concepts, terms, and ideas, a collection of assumptions and information that are either broadly present or universal. My second and third paragraphs for the Culture section briefly list them.

4. The more I get this response, the more I have to think how to address it in another version. The point of the essay isn't to define and explore each of the three Furry things I mention, but rather just to define them well enough to support my claim that they are separate. I did want to include a line to reflect that, but nothing I could come up with would pass muster. 

Exploring and addressing each of the Furry definitions I've outlined isn't the goal of this specific essay, which is meant to talk about the concept of them being separate. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Summercat
clarifying the Ford F150 thing

[Rabbit Head]

Hmmmmmm....

Edited April 5, 2016 by Rabbit Head

[Xaende]

On the one hand, trying to define furry is fun. On the other hand, I've yet to hear a definition that I consider entirely accurate or sufficient. Talking animal people, or fans of talking animal people, is the common thread... but it can be as shallow or deep as you're willing to scratch.

[Summercat]

3 minutes ago, Xaende said:

On the one hand, trying to define furry is fun. On the other hand, I've yet to hear a definition that I consider entirely accurate or sufficient. Talking animal people, or fans of talking animal people, is the common thread... but it can be as shallow or deep as you're willing to scratch.

But how do you feel about this attempt?

[Xaende]

2 hours ago, Summercat said:

But how do you feel about this attempt?

Well, for starters, I like how you emphasized that this is what furry means from your point of view. You're not trying to take an authoritative approach to something so inherently subjective, and I appreciate that.

To me, furry is primarily a genre of fiction, an aesthetic, and perhaps some kind of primitive identity or appreciation for our own animal nature. A narrative device, interesting to look at, and at times an escapist fantasy, but not like a foot fetish or whatnot. Although I certainly like some of the adult material, and even had a "porn" artist account at one point, the sexual angle strikes me as more of a carryover from human sexuality. Like if I was asexual, I'd still be into furry, but I might not pay much attention to the more adult side of the art scene. I suspect that I'm not alone in this. These are fantasy creatures, and as such it seems natural to me for them to have sexualities. I think the sexy stuff just comes with the territory because that's what people do, rather than inherently being a fetish in and of itself.

As far as furry as a culture is concerned, I don't have much to add. Although I've been in and around the fringes for about as long as you, I haven't been as involved with the community. Aside from a few art websites/forums, Second Life, and one convention, I've mostly kept it to myself. Most who are close to me know I like animal characters, but as part of my general interests in science fiction and cartooning, rather than as part of a fandom. This hasn't been intentional so much as lack of convenience.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Xaende

[Rabbit Head]

I cannot finish reading this fucking essay. 

It either says stuff I've already known after being apart of the furry scene for a THIRD of the time the author claims to have been. Or makes weird generalizations and mistakes. It's also really awkwardly written. I can't put my finger on why tho...

 

1. "There do seem to be a few common threads, such as an acceptance of the odd and the strange, a dislike of abuse (especially towards animals), an expectation that a member of the Fandom is to create their own character and setting, and an encouragement for creating more content for the Genre aspect of Furry."

Hatred of animal abuse is not a furry exclusive thing, dude.  

 

2. indicate that the Id or inner child of those in the subculture is in control, leading to accusations of immaturity

"According to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality, the id is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs and desires. The id operates based on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification of needs."

^The actual definition for id if any one wants to see it. 

 

3. My favorite sentence in this whole thing:  Words have meaning and that's the point of language. 

Amazing and not redundant at all. I'll put that sentence right on my shelf next to this beauty: 

UUUGGGGHHHHH...

I'd offer more constructive criticism than what I gave, but as shown with this the author's talk with saxon, he's just not interested. I've seen that kind of dodge-and-weave mixed with constant excuse making before with awful artists that can't accept criticism either.. It's also a tell tale sign of a not-so-bright individual.

Or somebody who acts... retarded?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Rabbit Head

[Summercat]

50 minutes ago, Xaende said:

Well, for starters, I like how you emphasized that this is what furry means from your point of view. You're not trying to take an authoritative approach to something so inherently subjective, and I appreciate that.

To me, furry is primarily a genre of fiction, an aesthetic, and perhaps some kind of primitive identity or appreciation for our own animal nature. A narrative device, interesting to look at, and at times an escapist fantasy, but not like a foot fetish or whatnot. Although I certainly like some of the adult material, and even had a "porn" artist account at one point, the sexual angle strikes me as more of a carryover from human sexuality. Like if I was asexual, I'd still be into furry, but I might not pay much attention to the more adult side of the art scene. I suspect that I'm not alone in this. These are fantasy creatures, and as such it seems natural to me for them to have sexualities. I think the sexy stuff just comes with the territory because that's what people do, rather than inherently being a fetish in and of itself.

As far as furry as a culture is concerned, I don't have much to add. Although I've been in and around the fringes for about as long as you, I haven't been as involved with the community. Aside from a few art websites/forums, Second Life, and one convention, I've mostly kept it to myself. Most who are close to me know I like animal characters, but as part of my general interests in science fiction and cartooning, rather than as part of a fandom. This hasn't been intentional so much as lack of convenience.

Aye, I wanted to make certain this was my POV. Argued with an editor about that for a bit, in fact, he felt I should be more assertive with it than I've been here.

35 minutes ago, Rabbit Head said:

I'd offer more constructive criticism than what I gave

When you offer actual constructive criticism, I'd respond. Otherwise, you're repeating the same thing that Saxon said. In fact, you only brought up one thing that he did not, and that was a single line that you didn't like and decided to mock.

Perhaps when you finally decide to read the entire essay (which you have said you did not), you might have something I can reply to that was not already addressed in this thread.

And once again: Responding to and addressing points is not dodging and weaving, unless the only response you will accept is "You are 100% right". 

[evan]

So, I'm going to post several sentences because while I don't like Fallow's tone, I do think he is right about your syntax in that it is hard to follow. If you can clarify the grammatical structure, or perhaps denote if there is an error in some way for these sentences, it'd be appreciated.

I once posted a journal on Fur Affinity asking [is this meant to be in quotes?] what did Furry mean to people, and got several differing responses

and while the responses to my journal were not indicative of the general population of the fandom, they did break down into what I felt to be the definitions of what Furry means.

Certainly, attempts to define what is 'Furry' have been floating around since the mid-1980s

 A Furry race is simply an another invented race, a shorthand that can be used by a creator to express multiple aspects of a character, e.g. cats are aloof, dogs are loyal, otters are playful; and you can reverse or invert these traits. 

One aspect that I often see is Furry as a Spirituality, based upon that one way of making a Furry persona is choosing an animal we identify with, whose qualities we see in ourselves, or desire to emulate, or hold in high regard.

 

The actual nuance of discussion is relatively interesting and also pretty invested. I'm a little pressed on the grammar, is all. 

I also think, in context, some of the "sins" mentioned are less damning and play into pacing in some ways.

 

I'm gonna read it one more time later.

[Summercat]

2 minutes ago, evan said:

So, I'm going to post several sentences because while I don't like Fallow's tone, I do think he is right about your syntax in that it is hard to follow. If you can clarify the grammatical structure, or perhaps denote if there is an error in some way for these sentences, it'd be appreciated.

I once posted a journal on Fur Affinity asking [is this meant to be in quotes?] what did Furry mean to people, and got several differing responses

and while the responses to my journal were not indicative of the general population of the fandom, they did break down into what I felt to be the definitions of what Furry means.

Certainly, attempts to define what is 'Furry' have been floating around since the mid-1980s

 A Furry race is simply an another invented race, a shorthand that can be used by a creator to express multiple aspects of a character, e.g. cats are aloof, dogs are loyal, otters are playful; and you can reverse or invert these traits. 

One aspect that I often see is Furry as a Spirituality, based upon that one way of making a Furry persona is choosing an animal we identify with, whose qualities we see in ourselves, or desire to emulate, or hold in high regard.

 

The actual nuance of discussion is relatively interesting and also pretty invested. I'm a little pressed on the grammar, is all. 

I also think, in context, some of the "sins" mentioned are less damning and play into pacing in some ways.

 

I'm gonna read it one more time later.

Aye. Some of the wording, if you excise it from the whole, can be a little odd and off. This is, quite honestly, how I write and talk. Placed within the larger whole, and it works a whole lot better.

Well, IMO at least.

And thank you. You've actually brought up some specific things as part of your point and explained what you meant. Most of the wording and framing I've posted I'm happy with (The Spirituality line you mentioned might need some polishing, because at least one person thought I was implying that was how ALL fursonas were chosen, whereas I was trying to say that some people think X is a thing, and therefore Y.

[Thundeere]

I can't read...

[evan]

8 minutes ago, Summercat said:

Aye. Some of the wording, if you excise it from the whole, can be a little odd and off. This is, quite honestly, how I write and talk. Placed within the larger whole, and it works a whole lot better.

Well, IMO at least.

And thank you. You've actually brought up some specific things as part of your point and explained what you meant. Most of the wording and framing I've posted I'm happy with (The Spirituality line you mentioned might need some polishing, because at least one person thought I was implying that was how ALL fursonas were chosen, whereas I was trying to say that some people think X is a thing, and therefore Y.

In my opinion there could be compromises made. I have certain "stutters" that cause me to repeat grammatical structures, and when I turn a work in for formal analysis from other peers, it becomes instantly recognizable that there are a number of redundancies in my speech. Sometimes I like the pace, but the reality is that I need to ensure that the idea is communicative. Imo it's best to homogenize your listener's perception with your own style of writing. The approach is one that acknowledges the fact that your perception is not the lens with which your reader interprets your prose, but also realizes that you need to simultaneously represent your perception.

Edited April 6, 2016 by evan

[Summercat]

Just now, evan said:

In my opinion there could be compromises made. I have certain vocal stutters that cause me to repeat grammatical structures, but when I turn it in for formal analysis from other peers, it becomes instantly recognizable that there are a number of redundancies in my speech. Sometimes I like the pace, but the reality is that I need to ensure that the idea is communicative. Imo it's best to homogenize your listener's perception with your own style of writing. The dilemma is one that acknowledges the fact that your perception is not the lens with which your reader interprets your prose, but also realizes that you need to simultaneously represent your perception.

Aye, which is why I went through two editors. Trust me, this is already *vastly* different from what I sent the first editor, and the first semi-formal (that is to say, not off the cuff) non-fiction writing I've done in about a decade. 

The other thing is, I wasn't really posting this here for grammatical checking and proofreading. I was posting this here to discuss the concepts and ideas. I am willing to consider some changes, but I'm also going to explain why I did things the way I did, as some of it seemed to be a misunderstanding or misreading. 

Sadly, intentionally so in some cases, it appears. :\