Poll: What do you think of furries?

[LunaSocks]

Someone post this on 4chan. NAOW. There will be massive lulz.

But honestly, there is nothing wrong about it. If people on here hated furries, then This Group [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Furrehs] probably wouldn't exist. So, case closed.

 

[HentMas]

Don't like them at all. I find them fugly and consider it bestiality.
After all, they ARE animals, are they not?

no they are not

they are "Anthropomorphic animals" reading ANTHRO as in "humanized" or "with features human like"

no one wants to get it on with your dog, we want to make a magic pill that makes us grow tails and fangs and fur and get it on among us X3

(regarding this aspect, its like saying we want to get it on with an alien, or Zeus, not exactly a real tangible being).

 

[RYjet911]

This is like me asking what do you think of vorarephiles or macrophiles, assuming I felt insecure about the acceptance of my own fetishes. Why need to seek acceptance? They're for the most part private, and I don't go spouting "I WANNA BE A GIANT AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME" on Youtube videos getting angry at non-macrophiles for mocking me for my outright strange and impossible fetishes.

I'm a bit of a furry too, but I HATE most other furries I've met because of the simple fact they don't shut up about it. Logging onto MSN some days I get bombarded with numerous fetish related posts, some of them role play related, that I really don't want others seeing, if only for my own personal secrecy.

Then again, if it weren't for the online social stigma that comes with these fetishes we wouldn't need to have these discussions, and we wouldn't have more open furries lashing out against it. Despite that, for the most part, the communities stay to their own sites, it annoys me people feel the need to invade those sites just to spout their disgust with it.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Don't like them at all. I find them fugly and consider it bestiality.
After all, they ARE animals, are they not?

no they are not

they are "Anthropomorphic animals" reading ANTHRO as in "humanized" or "with features human like"

no one wants to get it on with your dog, we want to make a magic pill that makes us grow tails and fangs and fur and get it on among us X3

(regarding this aspect, its like saying we want to get it on with an alien, or Zeus, not exactly a real tangible being).

Sounds like the same exact thing to me.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

What do I want to say to them? Stop being attention whores, most people don't really give a shit about what you're into.

What?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone being at all vocal about being a furry. I have a friend who is one and I didn't even find out until I'd known him for months. And even then it was only because a different friend put him on the topic.

My point is that the stereotype that they all go around raving about being a furry is completely wrong. Sure, theres a few. But the only reason that anyone thinks of them all like taht is because they only pay any attention to the ones who do.
You assume that all furries are attention whores because the only ones you've actually noticed are.

 

[bluewolf]

I don`t mind them, although they are a bit strange.

 

[HentMas]

snip

Cool story bro.

Except it's not biased is it? If you read the study and it's methodology then they've gone to specific non-sexual sites to ask their questions. You're attempting to distance the non-sexual furries from the sexual ones but they're asserting that when rolled together the sexual ones outnumber the non-sexual many times over. You're a non-sexual furry? Congratulations, but you're the minority.

See, when 'furry' is so badly defined you can't exclude groups to try and make your chosen subgroup look better, fact is that on non-erotic sites you're still outnumbered. That doesn't mean fursuiters or dog-botherers, it means anyone with a sexual interest.

So sorry, but the study's valid. The only reason I linked to a Wiki rather than the study itself is because most Escapists don't actually read studies...

its biased since they asked for their "sexual" interest in the fandom, because no one cares about the "sexual" interest of the other fandoms, and hell, i´m not the minority, i love me some furry sexual art, my point was, its in par with how people like "Hentai" (another thing i like) what is a "Dog-botherer"????? by the way???

ah, yes we are badly defined because well, no one actually cared about how they were calling themselves but my point still stands, ANY fandom is sexualized to some level, and i assure you there are even more sexualized out there than the furry fandom.

 

[Fursnake]

The whole concept seems creepy to me, but I just ignore it as best I can.

 

[BytByte]

I guess I could be considered one, but not one of those hardcore suit wearing ones. Those suits creep me out. Also, everyone has little kinks and stuff, so as long as they aren't flaunting it (whatever it may be), I think they are fine.

 

[Darks63]

Overall im pretty indiffernt to them my only exposure to them being that one CSI episode.

 

[Dragonborne88]

I know a few of them. They are genuinely some of the nicer people I know, and my first meeting of one resulted in me hanging out with him since I thought he was a complete goofball. So I don't mind them, they have their interests, I have mine. I respect that.

 

[HentMas]

Don't like them at all. I find them fugly and consider it bestiality.
After all, they ARE animals, are they not?

no they are not

they are "Anthropomorphic animals" reading ANTHRO as in "humanized" or "with features human like"

no one wants to get it on with your dog, we want to make a magic pill that makes us grow tails and fangs and fur and get it on among us X3

(regarding this aspect, its like saying we want to get it on with an alien, or Zeus, not exactly a real tangible being).

Sounds like the same exact thing to me.

well then, if thats what you want to hear, i wont pursue the subject, but if you ever felt sexually aroused by an anime girl, its the exact same thing, both are drawings of impossible/inexistent girls, the fact that one has ears and a tail doesn´t make her a "cat"

 

[kittii-chan 300]

well i thought this was about the pictures of naked furry animals doing disturbing acts that ive heard about but according to the other post theyre real people which iis kinda weird... can someone define this "furry" of which you speak, nashi? but i wouldnt count catgirl as furries because THEY DONT HAVE FUR. only ears and tails. i think furry is a hairy little fuzzball person. no im not defending myself!... ok, just a bit. i dont want to be killed with fire! ;(

 

[Biodeamon]

*shrugs*

I can't quite judge them seeing as i'm attracted to odd stuff too...i won't go into detail about it.

 

[Saulkar]

Non vocal furry here, thankyou for your time.

 

[Amphoteric]

I won't judge. I do however, find it really weird.

 

[darkbshadow]

I think they are kinda creepy sometimes but I can deal with it. However their are some really creepy Dragon furries that i find really disturbing.

 

[Mauso88]

Each to their own, besides, there are MUCH worse fetishes out there.

 

[Atmos Duality]

They're fine until they break into the realm of yiffing.
As a casual writer of original fiction, it would be highly hypocritical of me to ostracize fantasy creatures just because some real life people have perverted them.