On the subject of furries

[bzarcher]

I have about a half hour before I gotta go out to do some more appointments, and as such I have decided to write! I got asked the other day why I only have "some furries" in my interest list instead of "anthromorphs" or something similar. So I might as well take a sec to explain:

I am all for anthromorphs. I have no problem with them and never have. Where I draw the line is exaggeration or grotesquery.

(Yes, I am not a Winger fan. :D)

Plus, the attitude that some take to it makes the difference. When Supermegatopia draws Buxom Gal or Distraction Damsel, they're doing it to be funny, and it's funny. (Usually.) When someone's drawing people utterly out of proportion just to draw them out of proportion and claim that they should be arousing, I have to go, "ewww." Hermaphrodites...mmph. Depends. If it's drawn well and realistically, that's fine. If it's drawn just to draw it, that's something else.

So I guess I'm a discerning/occasional antrho fan? I just dunno if I am into it enough to call myself a full fan.

Comments

[gigerlicious.livejournal.com]

Realistically, the only animal that can be drawn as a hermaphrodite are annelids, a few onocophoryans and a handful of jellyfish. They do no exist in any of the higher animals whatsoever. For some reason, there's this hard and fast notion that there are such things naturally occurring, especially in mammals.

[silentsteel.livejournal.com]

You're not a fan, you're someone with an interest, and taste. :) Which ain't a bad thing. I admit, I do like Winger artwork . . . when he's not exaggerated things grotesquely far. A lot of his stuff can be quite cute (My Kinky Pony . . *snickergigglesnort*), and other portions of his artwork is no better and no worse on exaggerating bounteous bosoms than over 70% of the drawn erotica on the net. :)

Grotesquerie, and Erotica, are entirely personal views.

Hell, I get turned on by more than a few gargoyles. ^^;;

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

I have taste? Wow. :D There are quite a few who'd argue that. ;D

And I am sure you're right. For that matter, I haven't seen too much of his work, so I believe that he's done some work that I'd probably find great. Nobody can be all one thing all the time.

As to the rest, you're absolutely right. And I can't argue with being turned on by a gargoyle, as, well, women are turned on by me. ;D

[avylin.livejournal.com]

Everybody has their preferences and tastes. I'd be just as apt to putting 'some furries' in my interests, when I'm otherwise a full-blown, admitted, guilty Furry myself; specifically, I don't care for anthro felines.

But yeah. There's no official scales of furriness, so I wouldn't worry.

One thing people don't stop to consider often enough, though, is that anthropomorphism in general is about stuff that is not realistic. So yes, oversized chests, bulging crotches, and hermaphrodites aren't realistic... but no more unrealistic than a fox that walks on two feet, talks, and has opposable thumbs. Sexual characteristics should NOT be held to a seperate scale of how-unrealistic-is-too-unrealistic simply because of their more sensitive social aspects. They're just body parts.

If you ask me, it's a 'whatever floats your boat' thing. I like herm furs; other people like anthropomorphic persian cats. I don't begrudge them what they like even if I don't share that interest, I think they should afford me the same courtesy.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

*bows*

Once again, you inject reason and sense into my ramblings. :D