Is Disney Responsible For The Boom In Furry Fandom?

[Tono Makt]

Responsible for? No, no no no. No. No.

Unintentionally contribute to? Yes.

Really, the only think responsible for the boom in furry fandom is the Internet. There have probably always been furries out there, but you might have one or two people who feel that way and were too scared to come out and tell others about it since, you know, anyone who isn't a furry tends to both laugh at them and/or call them sick perverts. Toss in 1 part anonymity, and 1 part "I can talk to people anywhere in the world", and suddenly that scared furry in Ontario, California is talking to someone in Oil Springs, Ontario about how they sort of sometimes feel like they're part animal, and like wearing something that reminds them of their favourite animal, and the person in Oil Springs says "I like to do that too!" and BAM!

Yiffing.

No internet, less yiffing.

 

[zehydra]

I never once thought Simba and Nala got naughty in that grass because of Nala's seductive pose.
You see in the next shot they lovingly hug each other. Plus, they had their cub when all the greenery grew back.

I remember in Lady and the Tramp when Lady ran away from the killer dogs because she was in heat. Then later on, the reason she felt so dirty was because she had not acted very lady-like and allowed herself to breed with Tramp. Hence why they had puppies at Christmas.

But to answer your question - I don't think Disney created furries. I don't see how you could find a cartoon lion physically sexy. I just to think Scar had a sexy voice (Jeremy Irons mmm)

Saying that Disney didn't make you a furry has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Disney HAS made people furries. (ultimately it's not really Disney's fault, but for the sake of the argument let it be so)

 

[Zeema]

According to fandom historian Fred Patten, the concept of furry originated at a science fiction convention in 1980, when a character drawing from Steve Gallacci?s Albedo Anthropomorphics started a discussion of anthropomorphic characters in science fiction novels. This led to the formation of a discussion group that met at science fiction and comics conventions.

Not really, its only a pretty small part, Also a lot of furries are not into the Sex and erotica of it mostly just the Artwork and the stuff involved in making it.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

No, I think it's been around longer than they started doing it.

Ugh horrible.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Well, a lot of people like animals, especially children, so anthropomorphic animals are a logical step to further that popularity. To be honest, I think a lot of people just like idea of a cross between a human and an animal, using the benefits of both species. I don?t think Disney are ?responsible? for furries or anything, though; it just happened to both be popular and include cartoon animals that?d appeal to children, who?d eventually grow up and maintain nostalgia for those cartoons. So I guess you could say they contributed to it, but they didn?t start it off.

Oh, and not all furries find anthropomorphic animals sexy. That?s only one subset of the vast furry fandom/community. Don?t listen to what the media tells you. It?s ironic that so many people are disgusted by furry porn, yet they seem to obsess over it by blacklisting all furries as ?depraved individuals?.

As for Jessica Rabbit, she isn?t even a furry. She?s just a cartoon woman who happened to marry a cartoon rabbit. Not to mention that it's obvious she was designed to be sexy, just like Lola Bunny or Rouge the Bat were. I mean, let?s face it; most of them look pretty human anyway, especially with the breasts, curves and all that stuff which ?defines? the female physique.

 

[Dtox333]

The fascination with anthropomorphism predates human civilization. It was possibly our first forms of philosophy, and possibly one of the first phenomena that helped in creating religion (giving human-like qualities to things that were inhuman, such as animals and inanimate objects).

The mainstream community that we know as the furry fandom today may have only risen since the past several decades, but the fascination has always been amongst people. It's just recently, due to the advancements in animation, art, social networking, and general communication, this fascination was able to be put into a tangible, accessible form for hundreds of thousands of people.

I have a certain respect for furries in general, and find it very unfair that their community is so often besmirched by ignorant people.

With regards to sexuality in the furry fandom, I really don't care WHAT form of sexual content one finds enjoyable. people shouldn't have to defend themselves with "we're not all like that!", instead people should just piss off and mind their own business.

EDIT: a little more on topic...I think that forces in animation, ESPECIALLY people like disney, have influenced great portions of the furry fandom. A lot of it could have possibly encouraged some people to practice the fascination, instead of ignoring it completely.

 

[Dragonclaw]

I don't pretend to fully understand the whole furry thing...never looked at a Care Bear or My Little Pony and said "man, I gotta get me some of THAT"...on the other hand I can certainly see Tigra as pretty damn sexy...I'd hit it

not sure you could say Disney STARTED it, though they have had talking, humanoid animals since the earliest days of media as we know it...they have certainly helped it along.

 

[Dtox333]

I really have to ask...

Why does the internet hate furries so much? I've looked into it before, and I can't really find anything about the furry fandom that is any more annoying or obnoxious than every other fandom on this series of tubes.

could be that furries have had decades of negative media attention, and that their interests are viewed as more than just a simple hobby.

They're also one of the largest fandoms, so anything that could be viewed as "creepy" or "abnormal" is more noticeable to the general public (an instance of the "vocal minority" taking precedence over the majority).

It all comes back to the fact that they're not just a group of people fixated on a specific show, style, or culture, but that their interests take the form of having a sort of identity, one that associates with animals, and that confuses people greatly.

 

[Froken Keke]

If Disney had anything at all to do about it, I'd say it's because of the early black and white cartoons, which starred several antropomorphic animals. Earlier those had mostly been reserved to fables and such, but characters like Felix the Cat and Mickey Mouse sort of established a cartoon norm of walking and talking animals. This evolved into the extended Disney cast with Donald and Goofy, the Loony Toons, Hanna-Barbera cartoons and so on.
It's usually not a single piece of work that makes someone a furry, it tends to be sort of the whole antropomorphic animal trope, which is used in A LOT of media, primarily aimed at children also, which sort of creates the lifelong exposure of them. Disney played a role in it, but there are more "responsible".

 

[Coolshark]

Not really, it's kind of like saying Stephen Hawking created atheists.

This.

Also, the topic had exactly 69 replies, and given the topic, I wanted to change that.

Anyway, Disney might have made more people consider it, in the same way sonic, ponies, and any other show with anthro stuff did. I don't think it's like it FORCED people to do it. Just made it more present in their mind.