![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
A reporter from the Santa Fe Reporter, an independent alternative paper, did a piece on the furry fandom, and it hit the stands (and web) today. It's a pretty fair and balanced article IMO. Overall I'm happy with the way it turned out. Once again the sex aspect is brought out, but I think he did a good job on covering it matter-of-factly. Let me know what you think.
Article found here
October 10 2007, 17:48:32 UTC 4 years ago
I'm not sure what else to say. It was a very good read.
October 10 2007, 18:43:38 UTC 4 years ago
Unless I'm completely misinterpreting what they mean by that. In which case, never mind!
Anyway, other than that, it's awesome.
October 10 2007, 19:10:57 UTC 4 years ago
I mean I look at yiff art time to time. And even I can't stand it when people draw it so the furries are anatomically correct. D:
Hell even now when I say I'm an animal lover I feel compeled to say "Not sexual of course." I'm not sure if I should keep saying it that way or change it all together. I mean I love my cat. I play with her, I lay down next to her and pet her happy. But I could never EVER look at my cat and think "Oooh sexual object!" It hurts me deeply to ever think someone could hurt an animal and it's trust that way.
Now I'm just ranting. I'll stop.
October 10 2007, 20:44:51 UTC 4 years ago
Not to mention how it glorifies NM furs while denigrating the rest of the fandom.
What the heck is a "flushophile"?
For every good sentence or fact, there's double the misinformation and sexual innuendo.
October 11 2007, 17:31:26 UTC 4 years ago
Agreed.
I'd like to have a word with this Clayton Hedgepath fellow.
4 years ago
October 18 2007, 05:39:34 UTC 4 years ago
I think the boy confused Confurence with Woodstock...
October 27 2007, 09:40:15 UTC 4 years ago
Mark Merlino.
4 years ago
October 10 2007, 20:52:11 UTC 4 years ago
From the Reporter
Hi Furs,This is Dave, the writer from the SF Reporter. I just wanted to thank you for reading and discussing it here. Feedback's always appreciated, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Re: The bestiality thing. I was a bit hesitant to bring it up, but I was hoping that people would take it with a grain of salt since it is indeed coming from a 19-year-old who tends to overexaggerate (400-lb men, for example - I imagine that two of them would be much heavier than the standard elevator capacity). I also hoped that it would be counteracted by Sabot's animal-rights volunteer work.
Rigel - I'm sorry you thought it was 50 percent atrocious. I think flushaphile was a typo that accidentally made it through. As did "Antonio" instead of "Antoine." Much apologies.
October 11 2007, 17:46:57 UTC 4 years ago
Re: From the Reporter
> I was a bit hesitant to bring it up, but I was hoping that people would take> it with a grain of salt since it is indeed coming from a 19-year-old who
> tends to overexaggerate
Here's what's going to happen: people are going to point to your article, specifically his section, and talk about over and over, for YEARS. Case in point, people are still bringing up the Vanity Fair article.
I'd also like to point that many furry conventions have a fairly strict code of conduct to does not allow the sorts of things that Clayton Hedgepath alleges.
I am simply astonished that you printed the things he said, without any supporting details/verification.
October 12 2007, 02:10:37 UTC 4 years ago
Re: From the Reporter
>Here's what's going to happen: people are going to point to your article,>specifically his section, and talk about over and over, for YEARS.
For what it's worth, that isn't the reaction I've heard so far. Most people seemed to identify with Jaie and Sabot. But for the record, I did run a few things Gryphon by other furries to determine whether it was off base or not.
But please, please do write a letter to the editor disputing Storm Gryphon. Mail is good!
October 27 2007, 09:46:30 UTC 4 years ago
Re: From the Reporter
ahahaha jesus christ I was about to tell you that it wasn't really his problem because he can't change what people thinkbut man after reading what that guy said about furry conventions
I think he just trolled the reporter
October 12 2007, 02:54:17 UTC 4 years ago
Re: From the Reporter
Of the hundred of furs I have met, I've only known one to be in any way a zoophile... And this fur will remain nameless as this fur is a good friend of mine.That does not mean I condone the sexual acts performed with animals.
Simply my take on the beastiality part of the article. The wording is very poor. The following is not true: 'Furries keep it[beastiality/zoophilia] a deep dark secret'. Individuals who are zoophiles keep it a deep dark secret. You imply that all furries are zoophiles in that line.
I love my pets as though they were my own children, not as sexual objects. I think you'll find the same is true for most of the furry community.
Not all furs are zoophiles, likewise, not all zoophiles as furs.
October 10 2007, 21:15:35 UTC 4 years ago
October 10 2007, 21:49:46 UTC 4 years ago
October 12 2007, 02:46:39 UTC 4 years ago
October 10 2007, 22:10:40 UTC 4 years ago
Poppycock!
I love it when that word comes up.October 12 2007, 02:44:38 UTC 4 years ago
And the last line... *facepaw*
Stupid.
As for the thing about Relationships troubles... Um, isn't the divorce rate up in the 60% range for this country now? Um, yeah, so if the whole country is having domestic issues then certainly the furry community will as well. I wouldn't sweat it. At least the article shows the full gamut of the fandom, even if the examples are a smidge skewed...
October 12 2007, 04:37:23 UTC 4 years ago
innocent/evil
Yeah, I can see that.As far as the last line ... well, that was indeed the last line of anything that happened. It can only end how it ends, right? I mean, I asked. If I'd been given another answer, it would've been a different ending.
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
October 12 2007, 04:29:11 UTC 4 years ago
zoophiles etc
In 2007 we used a Kinsey type scale and included an option for "Other" and asked participants to indicate what "other" meant. We had about 540 furries participate. Approximately 10% used the "other" option for their sexual orientation. However only 4 (less than 1% of the total number of respondents mentioned anything about being a zoophile.We will never know for sure if we have a representative sample, but based on our sample zoophilia, does not appear to be common.
By comparison...
According to Hani Miletski, who wrote "A history of betiality" for a recent special issue (2005) of the scholarly journal Anthrozoos, in the Kinsey data from the mid 20th century " one American man in about 13 had sexual experience with animals", which they estimated to be about 8% of the US male population, the estimate for females "having sexual contact with animal" after they reached adolescence was estimated at about 4%.
October 12 2007, 13:53:25 UTC 4 years ago
Re: zoophiles etc
I did my own very unscientific poll on LJ many months ago about what type of anthro character furs would fantasize about having a sexual encounter from 100% animal to 100% human. I expected the typical bell curve with most fantasizing about a 50-50 hybrid. I was surprised that the curve was skewed toward to 100% animal side. There was a key word in my poll, however, and that was "fantasize." I think the curve would be more normal if I had said something like "definitely would have sex with."The whole sunbject of bestiality in the fandom is a very tricky one. One of the reasons people call themselves furry is because we admire the animal form. The human form is boring. Animal ears, eyes, tails, fur, etc., are very attractive to us. If we say that an animal looks sexy because of its sleek form or muscular stature, that would probably be considered "bestial" by "normal" folks. This is amusing since many of the "normal" people are out there kissing and snuggling with their cats/dogs/rabbits/etc.
The subject is so taboo that it's hard to have an open and honest discussion about it. If there was a dog that had the exact same intelligence as a human who knew right from wrong, had feelings and emotions, and perhaps even believed in Jesus as lord, what would make him different from us but his form? And if form is the biggest reason why sex should not occur, then would it be wrong for a black midget to have a relationship with an Asian giant? Of course I'm using ridiculous extremes, but it makes one think about our reasoning about what is right and what is wrong.
Also, I don't want to tick off the moderators by starting a huge thread about this in this community. This is really not the forum for such posts. My apologies.
October 12 2007, 13:57:34 UTC 4 years ago
Re: zoophiles etc
I understand. But most yiffy art, or sexy anthropomorphic art, involves humans with animal characteristics: it's the human attributes that make the figure sexy.I'm sure these furs wouldn't be as turned on by the images if they were animals with the heads of people, or strictly animals alone.
October 18 2007, 06:32:50 UTC 4 years ago
An good article, overall, but with a few stinkers that had they been left out, would have made it an excellent article.
I take issue with Mr. Hedgepath's statements, particularly since he has NO idea of what he's talking about. I mean, please...1970's? I'm 37-I'm not old!-and I was still in diapers in the 1970! Hedgepath wasn't even a thought in his father's BRAIN, let alone his gonads.
As for the rest of what he said?
Well...seeing as I've been in the furry community since 1996, I'd say the boy is just plain full of crap. Sure, there are a few tiny nuggets of truth to SOME of what he said, but the overwhelming majority of what he said is just plain crap.
I'm all for pointing out the negative aspects of any community, because anyone who tries to tell you that their particular community/fandom/group is all happiness and light is feeding you crap.
But to have someone-who bills themselves as a promotions director of the FBC no less-slinging about such vitriolic slime?
Very poor form.
I feel that Mr. Hedgepath took advantage of the author of this piece. He held a position of trust and authority, and abused that position to promote his own jaded and ignorant views of our community. We're not perfect, that's for sure, but we are NOT anything even CLOSE to the pap that Mr. Hedgepath supplied to the author.
As for the author engaging in a little "fact checking", to perhaps call "Bullshit" on Hedgepath?
80% of my feeling on this is that Hedgepath abused his status and position.
But 20% is left giving the author a measure of "stink eye" for not running a few numbers in their head before laying out Hedgepath's words as canon.
October 27 2007, 09:51:34 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
October 18 2007, 14:40:47 UTC 4 years ago
October 30 2007, 14:14:36 UTC 4 years ago
Furries are all about anthropomorphics, anything else is something else.