FA+
Shop
Furry charged with Xbox-Live Child abuse
14 years ago
http://kotaku.com/#!5793660/self+pr.....ve-child-abuse
I know I've been MIA for quite some time now, but I saw this article pop up quite recently, and I feel like exploring my feelings over the matter.
I understand that this could very well be an isolated incident, but it just strikes me that a lot of people associate 'Furry' and 'Phedophile' as one singular entity.
I think what particularly bothers me is the fact that a great volume of furries, undeniably, use the fandom for sexual escapism. It's such a wide subject, however, that it's hard to define it as merely just 'Sexual Role Play' when it can incorperate so many other elements unlike other erotic practices.
Phedophilia is disgusting. It is a disgrace. It's sickening. But why is it important that this person was a furry? The author of the article states that he has no intentional disapproval of the Furry community, as he understands there is an abundance of harmless members of the fandom. However, in his execution of this piece, it's obvious that a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact that this monster was indeed a member of our less-than-perfect internet society.
Why?
What is the reasoning behind 'Furry' being an important factor of this article?
If we look at this article from different perspectives, it's obvious why 'Self-Professed Furry' was necessary for the title- it grabs the attention of the reader. It peaks their curiosity. More obviously, there will be those (rightly) angered by the subject matter of the monster.
However, for a community that already struggles with a poor reputation, it's pretty damning that it is important for the reader that Monster was a furry. Again, this is all down to your definition of 'Furry'.
For example- for some who defines Furry Culture as a hobby, this would be the equivelent of saying ''Self-Professed LARPer'', whereas someone who finds furry as a sexual buzz might find it the same as ''Self-Professed S&M Lover''... and it's possible you could go to a bigger extreme, such as with those who dedicate a lifestyle to being a furry etc. It all depends on your interpretation of our fandom.
I don't think it needs to be said that this person is the lowest sort of life on this planet. I guess my rambling, babbling point is that yes; he is a furry. Sadly, yes- he is a Phedophile. But I think thanks to the media, it's too easy to identify 'Furry' and 'Phedophile' as the same thing, when 'furry' is so hard to define as one definitive culture on it's own. It sort of breaks my heart in a way, because since joining FA I've met so many different, funny and intelligent people, who all have their own ways of picturing the fandom for better or for worse- but to everyone on the outside, everything they know of us are the creepers, the phedos, and the despicable stories weaved by the media.
Sorry for ranting, I know I don't make much sense. That article just sort of got to me. Ack.
I know I've been MIA for quite some time now, but I saw this article pop up quite recently, and I feel like exploring my feelings over the matter.
I understand that this could very well be an isolated incident, but it just strikes me that a lot of people associate 'Furry' and 'Phedophile' as one singular entity.
I think what particularly bothers me is the fact that a great volume of furries, undeniably, use the fandom for sexual escapism. It's such a wide subject, however, that it's hard to define it as merely just 'Sexual Role Play' when it can incorperate so many other elements unlike other erotic practices.
Phedophilia is disgusting. It is a disgrace. It's sickening. But why is it important that this person was a furry? The author of the article states that he has no intentional disapproval of the Furry community, as he understands there is an abundance of harmless members of the fandom. However, in his execution of this piece, it's obvious that a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact that this monster was indeed a member of our less-than-perfect internet society.
Why?
What is the reasoning behind 'Furry' being an important factor of this article?
If we look at this article from different perspectives, it's obvious why 'Self-Professed Furry' was necessary for the title- it grabs the attention of the reader. It peaks their curiosity. More obviously, there will be those (rightly) angered by the subject matter of the monster.
However, for a community that already struggles with a poor reputation, it's pretty damning that it is important for the reader that Monster was a furry. Again, this is all down to your definition of 'Furry'.
For example- for some who defines Furry Culture as a hobby, this would be the equivelent of saying ''Self-Professed LARPer'', whereas someone who finds furry as a sexual buzz might find it the same as ''Self-Professed S&M Lover''... and it's possible you could go to a bigger extreme, such as with those who dedicate a lifestyle to being a furry etc. It all depends on your interpretation of our fandom.
I don't think it needs to be said that this person is the lowest sort of life on this planet. I guess my rambling, babbling point is that yes; he is a furry. Sadly, yes- he is a Phedophile. But I think thanks to the media, it's too easy to identify 'Furry' and 'Phedophile' as the same thing, when 'furry' is so hard to define as one definitive culture on it's own. It sort of breaks my heart in a way, because since joining FA I've met so many different, funny and intelligent people, who all have their own ways of picturing the fandom for better or for worse- but to everyone on the outside, everything they know of us are the creepers, the phedos, and the despicable stories weaved by the media.
Sorry for ranting, I know I don't make much sense. That article just sort of got to me. Ack.
The fandom suffers a terrible reputation. And as you rightly said, the article does not help this. It is morally vile to associate furries with pedos because being a furry causes nobody any harm, but paedophiles cause so much pain and scarring, it's not even worth thinking about.
What a fucking stupid world. >< That's why I don't read this shit most of the time.....it PISSES me off.
But that's just how it is in the media, unfortunately: do whatever it takes to get attention. In fact right now I'm doing a research paper for my college English course about how the furry fandom is falsely portrayed and some of the stuff I'm dredging up is just baffling in so many ways
this article might prove to be a good source for it as well, incidentally. Did you - any readers - ever see the CSI episode "Fur and Loathing"? It goes through all kinds of sexual antics furries do at conventions as if that's all they're about, and then it ultimately turns out that the case wasn't related to the topic at all - it was just another random accidental killing, and the victim happened to be a furry. It served as nothing more than to shine a light on a particularly extreme part of the demographic to gross everyone out.Trekkies were (and maybe still are) a target of the same kind of ridicule that furries (and anime fans) get nowadays. "Normal" society can't understand why people would dress up as a Klingon or as Sailor Moon or as an anthropomorphic creature. It's a spectacle, it's out of the norm, and that attracts attention. And if there's any sexual things to be found, be it the Star Trek slash fics or hentai or furry porn, it goes from oddity to sexual deviancy. And that's news. (And I'm speaking in the terms of the general public, not my personal views. Though I guess they're my personal views on the general public.)
You see an anthropomorphic animal, the first thing that pops into mind is "cartoon". Cartoons are usually aimed at the younger demographics. So here we are drawing them as more than just funny animals. We're making cartoon porn. We're dressing up in animal suits. It's strange. And since there's the whole "cartoon character" vibe to the thing from the outside perspective, it raises alarm bells. It could be skirting a line. Either way, it creates an uncomfortable feeling.
Suddenly one of us does something like this foul creature did and people can use him to paint us all the same way.
And sadly, there isn't much we can do about it because then we're getting into subjects like artistic rights and censorship and bla bla bla. People will think what they will think. And they will go out of their way to find the exception to the rule that proves them right. We just have to go about our lives and, when personally hit with this brush we be ourselves and let that prove that we, as individuals, do not match this stereotype.
What better way than to place in certain ideas that aren't at all related to the subject at hand?
"This man shot the president, and he JUST happpens to have a copy of 'Catcher in the Rye'!"