fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3247 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3247 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #464.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That is one heck of a thin line in the sand

Errrr....no it isn't? Anything to do with the face is a REALLY important distinction for humans, so much so that facial recognition is hardwired into people's brains from birth. Not a thin line in the sand at all.

+1000000

You're drawing arbitrary lines in a continuum of anthropomorphic art for the purpose of kinkshaming (and artshaming), often across the same body of work. Ears but not nose. Fangs and horns but not jaw. Furry but not furry. It's a ridiculous cliche of a double-standard. And catgirls don't modify the face, oh really.

Of course facial recognition is hardwired in brains, which is why even cgi Paddington (really dumb design for the record) tends to rank higher in personability than mocap Tom Hanks.

Now of course, you can own your own particular piece of furry kink. I tend to go for Saga and not clop myself. But don't blow smoke up our collective assholes that cat girls are a fundamentally different category from Micky Mouse or Staples's spider centaurs because of "the face."

ayrt

I know absolutely nothing about catgirls (I was thinking more along the lines of centaurs or fauns or animal-demons or Saiyans with tails), but I do know two things:

1) Using big words doesn't make you right. They're still fundamentally different categories to the human subconscious, no matter how irrational or illogical the distinction may be when we describe it.

2) You sound reeeeeeaaaaaalllllly defensive and insecure. Cheer up hon.

(I was thinking more along the lines of centaurs or fauns or animal-demons or Saiyans with tails)

Yep, you're a furry.

1) My goodness, you're mixing Freudianism with your cognitivism and still? No, working with people who do character design professionally makes me right. Actually having read the primary research you're misrepresenting makes me right.

2) I'm sick of the second page of FS being a playground for trolls, ignorance, and kinkshaming.

nayrt

No, you're objectively incorrect. Furry is a distinct type of art that INCLUDES FACES. ALL of the furry creature is animal, just in a human shape.

Cat ears, tails, etc are more accessories than anything. In the case of someone finding a catgirl hot, it has nothing to do with being attracted to cats (or humanoid cats) but the aesthetic plus the well-developed concept of sexy, "catty" personalities (not actual cats but sly, sensual, etc). Anyway, any animal doesn't matter. If the animal part is merely accessory to an otherwise HUMAN looking character, it is not furry.

It's not even about kinkshaming. People who are into furry would even disagree with you.

Do I really need to point you to wikipedia on this:

"The furry fandom is a subculture interested in fictional anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics."

Note, face doesn't appear anywhere in the article in reference to what makes a furry character.

Or here http://furrydolphin.net/furry-dict.html

"1. Possessing human characteristics. These include the physical as human/animal hybrids (i.e. Centaurs, the Sphinx) and/or possessing qualities such as intelligence and/or human-like emotions and reactions to various scenarios (i.e. Lassie, Rin-Tin-Tin, Flicka, etc.)
2. The center of interest of Furry fandom"

Or here: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_fandom

"The general idea being a combination of human and animal attributes, for which there is no documented science regarding what degrees of mixture are required. Even characters like Josie and the Pussycats are considered of interest to furry fandom, though they only wear costumes with animal ears and tails."

Whether some furry people would disagree with me is irrelevant. The full spectrum of anthropomorphic art exists, and has been a feature of furry fandom since the early 90s. Crying "but not the face" is just constructing an arbitrary line across one part of the spectrum.

Bob damn it. On usenet and furry mush the fawns and centaurs walked to school, uphill, both ways, in the snow and we liked it!

[ SECRET POST #3247 ]

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?

Re: Does anyone find characters with animal-ish features or traits hot?