# What do you think of furotica?



## PenAndPad (Apr 12, 2006)

Hi everyone,

I'm a journalist and I'm writing an article about furry culture and furotica for Scarlet Magazine. 

I hope you don't mind me just dropping in like this, but I've been looking at some of the pictures on the site and I'm really interested to know what your thoughts are on furotica. 

Some furries I've spoken to about it think furotica devalues the furry culture, so I'd like to know what you think of this view? And if you have created furotica yourself, what are your inspirations?

Laura


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Apr 12, 2006)

I honestly don't like it.  I have my mature filter up on the site so anything above G/PG, doesn't even appear when I browse however I can view things up to mature but not adult.

I don't like any type of porn in all honesty, and furry porn is no different.


----------



## Emerson (Apr 12, 2006)

Furotica? Oh, you mean anthro smut.

I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't hurt you, and doesn't hurt anyone else, it's fair game to enjoy. Just don't make a public parade out of it. That said, I don't see the smut 'devaluing' any part of furry, ah, _culture_. That kind of like saying that pornography about the cable guy coming to fix the cable devalues all films about cable guys, or fixing things.

As a creator of said smut, my only inspiration is: Is this hot? If I think so, and others think so, then all is well. If not, I'm a deviant and I'll just have to live with it.



_"He fixes the cable?" - The Dude_


----------



## Grave (Apr 12, 2006)

furry smut, as its more commenly known, doesnt devalue the "fandom" or its so called "culture". Why? Because there is nothing to devalue.

The "fandom" has gone down hill in recent years and it is now just full of porn. Most of it badly drawn and not very interesting in the slightest.

Yeah ive drawn the smut alot in my time, and im not proud of it. Im  still doing it on the are occasion for some reason, i still do not yet know why.

But my inspiration used to be my wife and the other great furry artists out there but recently i have lost nearly all interest in said artists, since many of them have also got fed up with the people in the fandom and left or they just got sick of drawing furry smut.

Thats another problem with the fandom, and what i think is the fandoms' main problem these days and a reason why so many are leaving, its full of assholes. Trolls ready to attack you and deem you as a bad person the second you say no to their request for free art or if you have a different opinion to them on a forum someplace (ahem).
Admins with god complexes on various sites taking away their right to freedom of expression and so fourth.

The fandom isnt glamorous and its not what it used to be. It continues to fall down hill every day in my eyes, and in many others'.

So when ya write that article try to not glamourise the fandom...if thats even possible.


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Hola, Laura!



			
				PenAndPad said:
			
		

> I'm a journalist and I'm writing an article about furry culture and furotica for Scarlet Magazine.


This one http://www.scarletmagazine.co.uk/ ? (adult link )

If ya don't mind sending one of us admins an email from a company addy just to confirm that, please.



			
				PenAndPad said:
			
		

> Some furries I've spoken to about it think furotica devalues the furry culture, so I'd like to know what you think of this view?


"Furry culture"? Define! 

Simplified response: "Does erotica devalue culture?"

I think in both a present day and historical context, it's safe to say that large elements within the "cultural domain" have an inevitable basis in sex and even when there may be reactions against those by some people (especially when they impinge on the "public domain"), that doesn't deny that such forces exist and contribute to the cultural whole.
Thus, "furotica" cannot "devalue" "furry culture", unless that term can be defined in a totally asexual context. And I can't see that happening any time soon...
q.e.d.?


----------



## TORA (Apr 12, 2006)

If this article gets published, I want to get a copy of the magazine. ROWR.


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Grave said:
			
		

> furry smut, as its more commenly known, doesnt devalue the "fandom" or its so called "culture". Why? Because there is nothing to devalue.
> 
> The "fandom" has gone down hill in recent years and it is now just full of porn.


_What's this tickling sensation of the hairs inside my nostrils? Ah, it must be Rome burning... Darn, those Christians again! _

The percentage of adult-rated material here is still running at around 15% (low side of that, I think, but I'd have to manually discount the RL pics)-- not vastly out-of-line with market/traffic on the web as a whole, given that this is concentrated onto the likes of VCL and FA as many otherwise "fur-friendly" art sites/communities do not permit posting of adult content.


----------



## Grave (Apr 12, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Grave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find only 15% porn on FA a very hard figure to beleive.


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Grave said:
			
		

> I find only 15% porn on FA a very hard figure to beleive.


I've quoted that before and you didn't cross-check, then? 

When the "Browse" comes back on line, do a quick tally of images without any filtering and I think you'll find the ratio is there-or-thereabouts.


----------



## Grave (Apr 12, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Grave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Never caught it the first time thats why. But 15% sounds like another SA estimate. They said the very same thing before they...well you know.

You assume i have nothing better to do but to browse through FA's galleries , getting nothing but system errors in the process, tisk tisk.


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Grave said:
			
		

> Never caught it the first time thats why. But 15% sounds like another SA estimate. They said the very same thing before they...well you know.


Or second time around, either, or when yak replied to one of your posts by pointing at my quote. 

Heh, heh... yeah, would've been about that percentage on SA, too.
Which is possibly one reason I guess they thought that could be cut out without harming the overall community?



			
				Grave said:
			
		

> You assume i have nothing better to do but to browse through FA's galleries, getting nothing but system errors in the process, tisk tisk.


Well, you quoted that 90% is porn. Was that just a "guess"? 

Sorry, you're not getting preferential treatment just now: we're all getting a fair share of system errors.
(I'd say, if in doubt, pick up other tasks and pop back tomorrow - the transfer is still ongoing, but I can't quote on time, unfortunately).


----------



## Captain Oz (Apr 12, 2006)

From my side o' the picture, anthropomorphic porn, while there is no doubting that I enjoy it, would never come to my mind when thinking of furdom were it not for those who constantly throw "furry smut" around as the cause of all our doom.  I enjoy furry because I think that werewolves are the most interesting of the three primary monsters (zombies and vampires being the other two) and because why have a painting, drawing, film, or other form of art involving humans when I can wander out my door a short ways and see a bunch of them?  I would rather see in art something I cant see every day, and to me, that is what the furry fandom provides.  Now, there is no denying that many out there enjoy furry purely for the sexual aspects of it, my roommate a prime example: if he's drawing something that doesn't have boobs or a vagina showing, its another penguin request from me.

I do not think that the sex is the true cause of any problems for the furdom.  Sex is a base part of any species' existence.  Without sexual drive, there would be no human race, no animal races, just a world of plants and amebas.  A sex driven species such as humanity is going to find a way to involve intercourse in anything and everything.  To say that something so deeply rooted in our genes is the reason for problems is just ludicrous.  It is because of people who toss around furotic images as a problem that furotic images have become a problem.  It is a self perpetuating symptom that once it begins, has no cure.


----------



## Moon-Baby (Apr 12, 2006)

the reason i call myself a fur is for my connection with animals, but the "erotic" aspect is kinda there too...the art is more about appreciating the strength, power, grace, and beauty of the animal and human form though.

do i think its brought things down?
has regular porn brought down what you think of humans?

you may think on a moral standpoint that porn is the cause of all the nations ills, if so, the same can be said about fur porn, i guess.


 :wink:


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 12, 2006)

PenAndPad said:
			
		

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm a journalist and I'm writing an article about furry culture and furotica for Scarlet Magazine.
> 
> ...



You posted the same thing on http://www.ukfur.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=3565&st=0 asking to come to a furmeet even.

Anyone who talks to a journalist should read private eyes "street of shame" section first and take heed of Glenda Slagg.



> I find only 15% porn on FA a very hard figure to beleive.



From what I have seen, on furbid, in terms of number items offered, adult commisions do not often reach more than half of clean commisions. ATM it's 30 vs. 108.

Although original artwork tends to have at least equal numbers.

As for furry erotica, it itself is not a problem, rather it's people who *say* that it's a problem who tend to cause the troubles, because they start screaming and shouting and getting in the way.

Of course the thing is, one must control peoples sexual desires and actions in order to attain a measure of control over them and one knows one has truly suceeded in that when ones pawns internalise those controls and try to imporse them on other pawns.

Groupthink, shame culture et al.

The key is taking a relaxed position (HO! HO!) When it comes to sexual matters and shrug ones shoulders and worry about more important things like how the king of Lagash dressed or what can change the nature of a man.


----------



## Pinkuh (Apr 12, 2006)

My question is where in the world did the term "Furotica" Come from, I have been around this fandom for a long time... and thats the FIRST time I have heard that terminology


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Pinkuh said:
			
		

> My question is where in the world did the term "Furotica" Come from, I have been around this fandom for a long time... and thats the FIRST time I have heard that terminology


Before 1990, IIRC. Referring somewhat more to literary work to begin with.


----------



## Pinkuh (Apr 12, 2006)

Ah... that explaines it.. Was around before I was


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Pinkuh said:
			
		

> Ah... that explaines it.. Was around before I was


Hmm... but the term has been used since. 
You've obviously been circulating in more "cultured" circles, friend! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




=
Interesting. I did have a quick thrash through the ol' Usenet groups on Google and was pretty much more towards to the art side all the way back.
Perhaps I was biased in my memories there, since I was more on the fic side back then.

Oh, and for fun; http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Furotica (yeah, Grave, we're #1 on the links provided )


----------



## Moon-Baby (Apr 12, 2006)

Pinkuh said:
			
		

> My question is where in the world did the term "Furotica" Come from, I have been around this fandom for a long time... and thats the FIRST time I have heard that terminology



furry+erotica=fur-otica :wink:


----------



## Grave (Apr 12, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Oh, and for fun; http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Furotica (yeah, Grave, we're #1 on the links provided )




BOOOOOM! lol


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 12, 2006)

Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> PenAndPad said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Likes cats?
Yeah, with you on that... 







			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> As for furry erotica, it itself is not a problem, rather it's people who *say* that it's a problem who tend to cause the troubles, because they start screaming and shouting and getting in the way.


Yep. Or trying to get "their way" to define "their" "culture".
That certainly seemed to be more of an issue a few years back (Burned Furs, et al).



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> The key is taking a relaxed position (HO! HO!) When it comes to sexual matters and shrug ones shoulders and worry about more important things like how the king of Lagash dressed or what can change the nature of a man.


As to #1, dunno, but Gudea sure left a lot of cuneiform "nails" around from the temple construction works he initiated.
On #2, once humans recognise that by nature they are wild animals (i.e. we've never been been domesticated/selected for tameness, etc.), we might have a level playing field from which to discuss 
Jm-02c. 

=

*carries-forward questions*


			
				PenAndPad said:
			
		

> *I've been looking at some of the pictures on the site and I'm really interested to know what your thoughts are on furotica.
> 
> Some furries I've spoken to about it think furotica devalues the furry culture, so I'd like to know what you think of this view? And if you have created furotica yourself, what are your inspirations? *


----------



## Edge (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm more concerned with the needless amounts of sex on an MTV music video than I am with porn in the furry subculture. On MTV sexual inneduendo is inescapable, but in the furry subculture it's easy to avoid if you don't want any part of it. The furry fandom can be as family friendly or as raunchy as you want it to be. It just depends on the furs you hang out with and the places you visit.


----------



## Edge (Apr 14, 2006)

By the way, I hope we'll get to see this article when it's complete. Or even before it's published. We've had problems with misrepresentation before.


----------



## Kanapi (Apr 14, 2006)

Since it's highly improbable we will be able to scroll through any material before it's published, I'd say not talk about "furry culture" at all. I've experienced many problems with misunderstanding.


----------



## Myr (Apr 14, 2006)

PenAndPad said:
			
		

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm a journalist and I'm writing an article about furry culture and furotica for Scarlet Magazine.[. . .]


Due to the conduct of many journalists, I have to first question the idea of even responding to this thread. The motives of journalists are often intentionally misleading in order to place their own personal bias on the issue. While I doubt any of the responses in this thread will change the way you plan to write the article, I'll answer the question anyway.

Does furotica devalue the culture? I think the answer is appearant when you consider my next question. Does human erotica devalue human culture? All forms of erotica have some sort of negative impact on any culture or fandom. They all have it and it's a fact of life. Behind whatever facade we place out about ourselves, be it furry, human, or something else, we all inside are beings that do get horny. The frequency and results of being horny change with each individual, but it's a fact of life for every creature on this planet by design.

I think that to a degree the furotica enhances furry culture by giving it another dimension, but this just like human erotica can be abused or go to far. I like fur porn, although I'm very specific as to what kinds and what subject matters I prefer. I don't see a problem with it and enjoy the fact that if I want to see this stuff it's not any more difficult to get to than human erotica is. Everything is pretty well balanced. People get upset about this stuff sometimes, but often hold a double standard against fur porn when compared to human porn. This is just another avenue of examining that inner horny-ness we all have. Some of us just don't identify with people and prefer the fur stuff.


----------



## RailRide (Apr 15, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Yep. Or trying to get "their way" to define "their" "culture".
> That certainly seemed to be more of an issue a few years back (Burned Furs, et al).



Correction: BF's only position regarding porn was that it be handled responsibly in public venues (i.e. cons). Their sole sticking point with the fandom was the efforts of some to redefine it as a lifestyle, with all its attendant fringe elements taking center stage, and edging out the core aspect devoted to artwork and similar media. (although never formally declaring myself a member of BF, I was close enough to their inner circle that I actually have video of their site's domain being registered during Anthrocon, so I know a bit about what I'm stating  8) )

Sure, the group's detractors worked hard to paint it as a bunch of wannabe jackbooted thugs, but so it is with these journalists painting furries as wannabe animals with weirdo sex practices. And we know how accuate _that_ is, don't we?


As for furry porn, after spending some time on image boards such as 4chan, Ko-chan, and usachan, I'm convinced that this "problem" isn't confined to furry alone, it's just more visible here because, most of it  being creator-owned material, doesn't infringe corporate trademarks, and thus doesn't have to keep a low profile to avoid obvious legal difficulties. (fanart on sites like FA being the exception--VCL disallowed them because they _did_ get cease-and-desist notices over them)

---PCJ


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 15, 2006)

RailRide said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correction, Correction: 
Not sure where I mentioned BF in the context of porn, there. In fact, the word "Or" should've made it clear I wasn't talking 'bout them from that p.o.v.
*
That discussion followed PenAndPad's original post and my question as to what "furry culture" "means" in the first place.

Your reply might be seen to imply (from that BF standpoint) that "furry culture" is more like some kind of formalised religion with central tenets that need to be upheld and that personal reinterpretation/redefinition is not welcome; indeed possibly to be considered as threatening ("edging out the core aspect").
Was not the "definition" of "furry culture"/"furry fandom" capable of expanding, instead, to reflect the reality of the wide interests that one might expect from ~100,000 unique people?


----------



## RailRide (Apr 17, 2006)

When it got to the point that any identification with furry causes others to ascribe everything _but_ an affinity for anthropomorphic media to one, it proved irritating to many of those whose only connection to the fandom is the art/stories etc.

It was such a misidentification that led to the creation of the group in the first place--a significant number of disaffected fans rallying around the document that first coined the term "burned fur" when it was accidentally leaked to the fandom.

Whether the definition of fandom is capable of expanding wasn't a question the group sought to answer. It existed to protest the "takeover" of the public definition of 'furry' (when it was aware of such a thing) by what we know to be furry lifestylism, and those not inclined to be percieved as lifestylers wanted to maintain a clear line between the two. If nobody had a problem with being seen as what we know to be a furry lifestyler (with all the attendant "strange practices" it encompasses) when in fact all they were into was the art, then BF would have never coalesced as an entity.

---PCJ


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 17, 2006)

RailRide said:
			
		

> When it got to the point that any identification with furry causes others to ascribe everything _but_ an affinity for anthropomorphic media to one, it proved irritating to many of those whose only connection to the fandom is the art/stories etc.
> 
> It was such a misidentification that led to the creation of the group in the first place--a significant number of disaffected fans rallying around the document that first coined the term "burned fur" when it was accidentally leaked to the fandom.
> 
> Whether the definition of fandom is capable of expanding wasn't a question the group sought to answer. It existed to protest the "takeover" of the public definition of 'furry' (when it was aware of such a thing) by what we know to be furry lifestylism, and those not inclined to be percieved as lifestylers wanted to maintain a clear line between the two. If nobody had a problem with being seen as what we know to be a furry lifestyler (with all the attendant "strange practices" it encompasses) when in fact all they were into was the art, then BF would have never coalesced as an entity.



I'm all in favour of critical thinking, however there is and was never any concerted "hostile takeover" of the furry fandom, simply because there is nothing that can be taken over or "suberverted".

Furry fandom is atomised into a thousand different parts, this prevents people trying to make other people follow their own difinition of what constitutes acceptable in regards to the aforementioned fandom.

Can someone take away your like for anthromorphic animal media? Can someone take away my like for it?

Nay. One is a free agent in this at least, let those other people do that, for I will do this.

I myself rarely ever see anything I dislike, because I don't actively seek it out and I ignore people who go "hurr, furries", because generally they are a distasteful and adolescent sought.

Because lord knows, when one is a teenager, one is not allowed to like or be enthusastic about anything.


----------



## Volk Quicksilver (Apr 17, 2006)

Personally I look at Furotica, not because it might contain sexual content, but it's a way that other "furs" like me show their artistic talents and what they believe is good art. This might sound weird, but I'm gay and I like to express myself through "yiff" art even if someone might find it objectionable; that doesn't mean I'm a bad fur for expressing my feelings and my ideas just because other people think that it's wrong; no it just means that people don't find it as "art" they find it as "degreating pieces of garbage."

The people that think that way about Furotica art in my mind should just "Piss off" ( No offence to any furs here that might disagree with me).

Love Ya  :wink:


----------



## Nox Fatalis (Apr 18, 2006)

Furotica, like any other form of explict media - must be taken with a grain of salt.

Contrary to Grave's point of view that the fandom is slowly burning on a pyre of fetish pets and pr0n, I must admit that as a whole it's come up quite a bit in my six-year absence, when I left you couldn't even type furry into google and find a clean picture.

Now I draw and write erotica, the image in my avatar is a cropped Pin-Up I did for a fellow gay male that I know of my character, I won't make any attempts to hide that I do indeed enjoy most mainstream forms of furotica.

However, saying that it devaules the culture is a bit shortsighted in light of real-world media like MTV and even Fox News, I daresay that furotica is at least SLIGHTLY more difficult to access then flipping a channel. Despite that there are some type of furry erotica that push the limits of most people's tolerences, even the msot lbieral of folks have a hard time with more hardcore kinks. I am of the personal opinion that we should at least tone-down the previlence of some more out in right-field fetishes (such as inflation, vore and the like) sheerly for the first impression's take.

Now I'm not saying we should govern people's tastes and preferences, as a homosexual male I've dealt with that in my entire 20 years of life and it's not fun nor needed, I mrely think the fandom as a whole could show a little more discretion towards the outside world - because they are many and have torches and pointy sticks.

To the base question however: No, I belive well-made furotica defines a new level of the culture through the carnal nature of both humanity and the furry character's as well; afterall, what would love be without a hug, kiss or tender embrace?

Or more to the point, a deeply satisfying lovemaking session?

I'd say withiout these things, the Furry fandom would be in all forms, nothign more then an episode of Looney tunes, except Bugs Bunny is a jaded and grouchy old hare with a bitchy atttitude.


----------



## RailRide (Apr 18, 2006)

Nox Fatalis said:
			
		

> I mrely think the fandom as a whole could show a little more discretion towards the outside world - because they are many and have torches and pointy sticks.



That's essentially the same line BF advanced, once it organized to the point of crafting a formal statement of purpose. That didn't stop its detractors from roasting it as a bunch of n*zis bent on Disney-fying fandom. Or to put it another way, "discretion=repression", if some of the opposition's arguments were/are to be believed.

---PCJ


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 19, 2006)

> That's essentially the same line BF advanced, once it organized to the point of crafting a formal statement of purpose. That didn't stop its detractors from roasting it as a bunch of n*zis bent on Disney-fying fandom. Or to put it another way, "discretion=repression", if some of the opposition's arguments were/are to be believed.



Well, the thing is, they were regarded as such a weak and feeble joke (although a vicious and ad hom & libellous spouting joke) that they couldn’t have repressed anyone if they tried, lest that person die from laughing.

They were told many times: "well, you go off and found your own furry fandom then". And where are they all now?

It is my opinion though, that the sort of person who decides to “clean up this town” ala Comstock is always on the fundamentalist spectrum and usually does it because they want to try and repress their own liking of say… anthro animal pr0n by taking the opposite stance to it.

How many anti-gay activists have been found to be gay?

Yea verily.


----------



## Nox Fatalis (Apr 19, 2006)

RailRide said:
			
		

> Nox Fatalis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except Burned Furs WAS a bunch of stiff-necked Nazis.

All I'm implying is that the last thing I'd want to see upon visiting my first furry site, or googling it as is the craze nowadays-Is hardcore, macro, Vore smut. That would kill some braincells in the average un-furry teen.

Just saying a BIT more seperation between the Adult section and not would be favorable, so we don't get another group of angry nazis, like BF.


----------



## InvaderPichu (Apr 19, 2006)

Burned Furs was nothing but a bunch of whiney furries. o.o


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Apr 19, 2006)

I didn't see anything wrong with BF.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions anyway and really all they could do was whine.


----------



## Ashkihyena (Apr 19, 2006)

Personally, I myself don't mind furotica, I mean, just have a look around my gallery and favs, and you'll see that.  However, I won't do like on that MTV deal and just go plastering anything I may have comissioned onto my walls, hell no, thats something I won't do.

Though, I'm not just into the p0rn.  I've had several non-erotic pictures comissioned, and will again in the future (way far in the future once I get a PS3 that is.)


----------



## RailRide (Apr 19, 2006)

I won't argue that some folks used the group as a launching pad for their own personal agenda. I know of at least one instance where someone was drummed out for using the group as a platform for his own anti-porn agenda. Being unable to to control who calls themselves one of your own was a problem there as well as througout the rest of fandom. That, I regard as the fandom's biggest liability, and part of the reason I never  self-identified as a furry--all I do is draw the stuff, which I did for a long time before I knew there was a fandom connected to it. 

So far I've only had to correct one hotel staffer's perceptions of what this fandom is about (she thought it was only about fursuiting), and I was for a while getting unsolicited IM's from some Philadelphia slacker who complains he'll have to travel to Pittsburgh to "make fun of the freaks" (at Anthrocon) instead of walking a few blocks.

So far as BF is concerned, it's history. All I'm recounting above is what I saw _inside_ the group while it was active. What it looked like to outsiders is well-known to anyone who was around at the time and doesn't need to be rehashed. 

---PCJ


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 19, 2006)

RailRide said:
			
		

> So far as BF is concerned, it's history. All I'm recounting above is what I saw _inside_ the group while it was active. What it looked like to outsiders is well-known to anyone who was around at the time and doesn't need to be rehashed.


*nod nods*. Yes, thanks for your perspective on that, RR.


----------



## Grave (Apr 19, 2006)

Ashkihyena said:
			
		

> Personally, I myself don't mind furotica, I mean, just have a look around my gallery and favs, and you'll see that.  However, I won't do like on that MTV deal and just go plastering anything I may have comissioned onto my walls, hell no, thats something I won't do.
> 
> Though, I'm not just into the p0rn.  I've had several non-erotic pictures comissioned, and will again in the future (way far in the future once I get a PS3 that is.)



Yay, PS3 will RAWK


----------



## Nox Fatalis (Apr 19, 2006)

BF's checkered past aside, we should put some perspective on seperating smut and G-rated material in the fandom.

You DON'T see Playboy sitting in the racks next to the checkout line at your grocery store, this sort of implies that children might see them.

Some Furry websites have already done what I view as plenty to satisfy my request, Yiffstar for example, has it's frontpage as a HUGE rating sign that says 'SEX AND BAD STUFF IN HERE, NOT FOR KIDDIES' more or less, and any parent worth their salt would be able to keep their kids away from this.

That's all I'm really askign for, just a warning for the passers by to bewar of spooge, of course with the MySpace controversy, we've proven that most parents don't give a rat's ass about what their kids do online.

And I find that troubling.


----------



## PenAndPad (Apr 21, 2006)

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your replies, they've helped me and I'm interested to hear more of your views. If any of you would be willing to talk to me and be featured (anonymously if you wish) in my article then I'd be very grateful if you would PM me. The main things I'd like to find out about are:

? In terms of inspirations, specifically which artists/writers have had the most influence on your furotica and why? Or which anthropomorphic creations in particular?

? For those who do enjoy furotic in a sexual way, what advantages, if at all, do you think it has over mainstream erotica? Is it just because, as Oznor said, in anthropomorphic art you see something you can't see everyday?

If anyone would be happy to have samples of their written/artwork featured in the article then please get in touch also. 

If the article gets the go ahead to be published I will drop a note on the forum to let you all know.

Thanks again for everyone's help and I hope you all had a nice Easter.


----------



## Diamond (Apr 21, 2006)

furry erotica you say?

well.. for me it's hard to find the tasteful kind  i tried playmouse but it turned from pin ups to same pr0n fest as FA has.


----------



## uncia2000 (Apr 21, 2006)

PenAndPad said:
			
		

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks for your replies, they've helped me and I'm interested to hear more of your views. If any of you would be willing to talk to me and be featured (anonymously if you wish) in my article then I'd be very grateful if you would PM me.


side note: Many thanks for the email, received yesterday, from your magazine addy.
Email headers tally AOK; and also with IP addys over here and on the main community. (For anyone who's feeling suspicious!).

Regarding your secondary question as to 'what portion of adult material (on FA) is produced by females', that's a difficult one.
The answer would be different by number of individuals vs. number of pics, I'm sure, but we also don't have a gender flag set (at present!).

Don't know whether _(*sticks finger in the air*)_ 20-25%, depending on the measure, might be accurate. Higher-end for number of individuals, perhaps.
Or whether that's truer of adult anthro artists IRL (ratio at AC, anyone?) than those most visible on the web.

Not too useful polling here either, I'm afraid, since the numbers on the fora are likely to be less (often seen as more confrontational?). Looking around, I don't see the likes of Micah, Little Blue Wolf, Tani, Ebby, Lyenuv or Sans Souci, for starters...

(aside: Interesting and old (1998!) newsgroup post ID'ing similar issues when considering what's being counted at a higher level. Could spend several lines discussing around such matters, alone. And how much that may have changed, since...


> ConFurence attendence:          85% men : 15% women
> Albany Anthrocon attendence:    65% men : 35% women
> Online activity:                90% men : 10% women
> Art contribution:               70% men : 30% women
> ...



_02c/fwiw, anyhow... And best wishes for the article._

Anyone else on those numbers??


----------



## TheListener (May 2, 2006)

*RE:*



			
				Diamond said:
			
		

> furry erotica you say?
> 
> well.. for me it's hard to find the tasteful kind  i tried playmouse but it turned from pin ups to same pr0n fest as FA has.



I agree... Personally, I love a good pin-up... something nice and tastefull that one would even consider actually printing. To me, erotica is best done with a paintbrush, not a sledgehammer.


----------



## goat (May 8, 2006)

its the only reason im even on this website for the most part. 



yeah..for the most part.


----------



## Thaily (May 8, 2006)

*RE:*



			
				Nox Fatalis said:
			
		

> Now I'm not saying we should govern people's tastes and preferences, as a homosexual male I've dealt with that in my entire 20 years of life and it's not fun nor needed, I mrely think the fandom as a whole could show a little more discretion towards the outside world - because they are many and have torches and pointy sticks.



I agree completely.

Though even when hidden people will whine about the mere existance of smut. I've had people work hard to find the obscure smutty section of my homepage just so they could run to an LJ community, hotlink images and go _"Eeeeew, furry porn!"_ at it.
Save for the bandwidth theft I think that's hilarious, people who scream the loudest that furry smut is bad seem to work the hardest to find it. 
I probably get more exposure and hits from anti-furry/porn people than fans 

I can't shake the feeling that somewhere deep down, buried under all the protests, they're enjoying the smut.

Smut, furry and otherwise, has a time and place. In every fandom, not just this one.


----------



## DarkMeW (May 9, 2006)

*RE:*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Grave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It seems to depend on what is considered as porn. If you include everything from mature/adult section as porn (which granted some of the mature labeled art work seems more towards the porn side) then it seems to be about 45-55 (rough estimate on several pages of browsing.) 15% does seem a little light but I'd easily take your word for it, since the browsing section doesn't have number of submittions in the category, but from the amount I ran into going through the latest submittions it seems like around there. 

I personally think it's more like it may be around 15% but it's something you notice more. If there is a gallery with 17 pg/pg13 pics and 3 that are characters with impossibly large genitalia covered in splodge, then it's still going to give the impression of a porn gallery to a lot of people.


----------



## Jirris (May 13, 2006)

Well, I'm not too keen on journalists reporting on the fandom, to be honest.  *laughs* A lot of sensationalist media portraying us mostly harmless internet dorks as a pack of slavering gimps clad in 40 pounds of protein-stained shag rugs.

Anyways, I don't think the porn is a bad thing.  

That said, it's part of the fandom.  I can't explain the fandom; the best explaination is that it's about idealizing anthropomorphics.  I don't think that pornography is or should be the focus, but the fandom is made of a rather nebulous mixture of individuals.  Some people are here for it entirely, but the fandom is a lot bigger than that.

That being said though, sexuality (and a lot of other things) are bared out in the open, and I think that's because the furry fandom's primary 'habitat' is the internet.  The internet is mostly anonymous and safe even though you are interacting with other people.

I don't draw pornography, technically.  I do pinups, and a little on the side that's more unusual.  My inspirations come from a wide variety of sources; I call a lot of my stylistic influences from anime, pin-up artists over the course of the 20th century, as well as little things I've picked up here and there from various artistic movements that have occured.

As for you second set of questions:

Most of my influence comes from outside the fandom.  Mostly comic book  and pinup artists, and as of late french art going from Impressionism to Art Nouveau.

Furry art, pornographic or otherwise, is silly and fun.  As I said before, there's a focus on idealism that occurs.  I have some aesthetic preferences when it comes to the figure of a lady, and honestly there's a lot more cute pinups of chubby furry gals than there are cute pinups of chubby ladies.

Go ahead and drop me a PM if you want to discuss this further.


----------



## Ethan (May 16, 2006)

*Obvious answer.*

I find it to be pretty gay, actually.


----------



## Jirris (May 16, 2006)

*RE: Obvious answer.*



			
				Ethan said:
			
		

> I find it to be pretty gay, actually.



Well, quite a bit of it is.

*snickers*


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 16, 2006)

*RE:  Obvious answer.*



			
				Jirris said:
			
		

> Ethan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



QTF


----------



## KiloCharlie (Nov 16, 2008)

i found this (robot chicken is a great! show) and noticed that this is how some ppl perceive us furries... http://www.adultswim.com/americalov.....sex/index.html particularly #'s 10,9,6,& 5... (the list starts w/ #10)this however is NOT the case in the majority of furries... those who enjoy furry porn are a small % of us furries... those who take it farther and actually yiff w/ other furries (not mates), even smaller %... and those who go even further and yiff around w/ real animals... an even smaller %...  however, trolls and other fur-haters extend the view of furries to the most extreme levels they can find... a poll i read about explained that the majoraty of furries don't even own a fursuit... and a [very]small % yiff in and with said suits [those suits are EXPENSIVE... why would we want to ruin them?] the show CSI has the perception of furry culture all wrong... ppl that see me in RL never guess that i am a furry... and the same is true of a lot of furries out there... please understand that most furries don't DO 'furotica'... and to some, it is no differnt than humans watching normal porn...


----------



## Azure (Nov 16, 2008)

Two and a half years.  I do believe this is a new record here.  You sir, fail epically.


----------



## Takun (Nov 16, 2008)

Epic.  In before the lock.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 16, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Epic.  In before the lock.


That lock might take a while. ^_^;

2006 necro... nice.


----------



## Kye Vixen (Nov 16, 2008)

lulz at the fail


----------



## WarMocK (Nov 16, 2008)

ROFL! Now THAT's a necro thread! xD


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 16, 2008)

I do wonder how people find these threads.


----------



## Xero108 (Nov 16, 2008)

Just going back a couple of pages and boom. Magical, ain't it?


----------



## StainMcGorver (Nov 16, 2008)

Wow. FAILLLL! EPPIICCCC FAIIILLL!!111


----------



## Tycho (Nov 16, 2008)

Holy shit, dude.

*golfclap*

Maybe they should remove the forum search feature.


----------



## makmakmob (Nov 16, 2008)

This thread is so old I feel nothing is appropriate anymore other than to shit all over it.

*insert unbirthing picture*
YO DAWG WE HEARD U LIKE VIXENS SO WE PUT A VIXEN IN YO VIXEN SO U CAN YIFF WHILE U YIFF.


----------

