Slight problem, never owned or used one, but I know someone personally who makes them.

That's not exactly a problem, per se ... I know there are people who make 'em, actually. My subject was just click-bait, not meant to be literal. ;)

It's just not relevant to Kalira's debate in this case. The assertion I think was that "50% of fursuiters own or have used a murrsuit."

It is more likely less than 20%

I found a semi old stats poster that someone actually sat down and analyzed all the art and posts and etc. and I think it was like 12% own murrsuits.

i would love to talk to them i want one made just can't seem to find a maker

They go by Sparkle Kreations.

Whats a murrsuit?

From what I gather, a fursuit made for adult attentions.

Fursuit sex to put it bluntly

I always figured with the cost & cumbersome nature of any fursuit, that it would most likely be a minority.

I will just say... whatever two consensual adults do behind closed doors, is of nobodies business.. unless third parties are harmed... and an icky feeling at the thought about something does not count as harm D:

i highly doubt that HALF of fursuiters have murrsuits. it's ridiculous for that guy to pull that 50/50 stat out of his ass.

Yay, I can participate :D

Do they mean suits designed explicitly for the purpose of sex, and built in such a way to make it possible? Because if so then that statistic is a monstrous load of shit. I don't know a single one, but I can name over a hundred tame suits.

I feel similarly, although if one person owns 12 suits, and only one of those suits is a 'murrsuit' that they never take out in public, they count as 1 fursuiter who owns/has used a mursuit", not 1/12. So that makes the statistic appear quite a bit different than reality.

Still, 50% is way too high, I think.

Again, I know a hundred suiters, and while admittedly it's not something people talk about, I don't know any of them with a murrsuit. Hell most fursuiters can only barely afford one suit to begin with, they usually don't have the cash to splash on a second suit that no one will ever see in public and they're rarely if ever get to wear.

Which leads to another kinda-crazy statistic that a friend of mine once claimed.

You know the fursuit parade at Anthrocon? Well, it breaks records for attendance virtually every year. The number of suits in the parade tracks to about 20% of the overall attendance.

You might think this means that 20% of attendees own a fursuit.

But that's not accurate, because of a few factors:
1) Not everyone who has a fursuit brings it to the convention
2) Not everyone who has a fursuit and brings it to the convention is in the parade
3) Not everyone in the parade owns the fursuit they're parading in

My friend's assertion is that the number of people in #1 and #2 is FEWER than the number of people in #3. He believes that a good number of fursuiters bring many suits with them to the convention, and get other people to wear them. And this dilutes the meaningfulness of the parade count as being at all representative of the fraction of the community who own fursuits. He posits that the net effect of all these factors brings the "20%" figure down by about half, to "10%". Meaning, "Only 10% of congoers own a fursuit."

I contend that #1 is a lot bigger than he thinks, because traveling to the con with a full fursuit is pretty challenging, expensive, and actually risky (it could get damaged or lost by the airline, or it could get parts lost or stolen at the convention, etc). There are lots of deterrents for people to leave their suit at home. Heck, every other year I go, I don't bring any of my suits.

I contend also that #2 is a lot smaller than he thinks. If 10% of fursuit-bringing parade-marching people bring, on average, 1-2 extra suits, and if half of those extra suits get worn in the parade, that still only 'deducts' about 10% from the overall fursuit parade count. So, "20% of attendance" becomes "18%".

I know of one fursuiter who has like 8-10 suits. He brings maybe 2 or 3 of them to the convention, tops (again, because it's logistically difficult). And for someone else to wear them, they'd have to be over 6 foot tall, which cuts down on the pool of potential fill-ins who could pull it off without it looking like they're wearing a tent, and tripping over their own feet.

I also know that there are a number of dealers and artists who don't participate in the parade because they're working (though some do!). And there are a number of panels going on at the same time that have audiences, and some of those audience members brought fursuits, but are not bothering with the parade.

I also know that there are some fursuiters who just don't want to participate in the parade because of the health risks. And still others who don't participate in the parade because they're recovering from a nasty hangover. ;)

My take on it is that the fursuit parade -to- attendance ratio is probably about the same as the fursuit owner -to- attendance ratio. Meaning that the net effect of the above bullets probably balances out. I feel that's a conservative take - the actual percentage could be even higher.

......

So taking all that into account, if 20% of attendees own a fursuit, and this friend of Kalira's is right and half of all fursuit owners also own a murrsuit, that would suggest that something like 800 people at Anthrocon own a murrsuit. To say nothing of the number who have used one that they did not own, which is also part of Kalira's poll.

That number seems very high to me. Am I naive? Am I too much a prude? Am I just completely detached from the fandom? Or will the poll betray the claim? Admittedly, the poll is incredibly non-scientific. Maybe the University that studies furries would have some more meaningful statistics on this.

I would say that the number of fursuiters at Anthrocon is probably a little bit higher than their "final count", because I doubt the fursuit parade has 100% attendance. Every time I've seen a fursuit parade, there have been suiters ambling around beyond the parade itself. Also, Anthrocon actually has numbered fursuiter badges, which I believe is how they actually get their official "final count", and I know not every fursuiter gets a badge since they have a tendency to run out of badges and they require you to be in suit when you show up to get the badge.

On a related note, since people tend to use that 20% statistic to say "20% of furries own a fursuit", there is the issue that a truly staggering number of furries out there can't or won't attend AC, with this likely affecting those who cannot afford a fursuit moreso than those who can, so it's probably more accurate to say that somewhere around 10% of the fandom owns a fursuit. Considering how few murrsuiters there seem to be out there, this might make it somewhat more reasonable to say that 50% of fursuiters have or have used a murrsuit. However, I still doubt that the percentage is that high, and it definitely is not that high if you are counting suits instead of suiters.

Also, technically, partial suits could be used as murrsuits despite the fact that they were not designed as such (being only partial suits), which could skew the numbers as well.

In short, this is a really complex question, and I don't think the answer matters enough to go through all of the effort it would take to properly answer it.

The numbered fursuit badges is not how they get their official count. They get their official count by having someone posted at the exit of Hall A (where the fursuiters gather) with a clicker. I think there's a second person with one, also, for corroboration.

I have participated in many parades, and only have one fursuiter badge, because to get one you have to go to Con Ops while in your suit. I am usually running the Artists' Alley (though not this year), and so the only opportunity I get to suit is during the parade. Can't stop by ConOps, gotta go back to work, so ... no badges for me, mostly.

I don't follow your logic about the 50% thing. There is a truly staggering number of furries out there who can't or won't attend AC, but there's no doubt that AC is the most attended con. So you could say that the number of furries not attending, say, RMFC, or FC, or EuroFurence, is even more staggering. So that would suggest the fursuit representation at those cons would be substantially different than the representation at AC. But that's not so. The fursuit density is about the same at the smaller cons, give or take a little, suggesting that the ratio of congoers with fursuits is fairly consistent.

And I think Kalira's poll is meant to count suiters, not suits. But that's a valid point to make: even if, by some strange manner of statistic, half of all fursuit owners had or used a murrsuit, that doesn't say anything about the ratio of fursuits that are murrsuits.

What I was trying to say is that the ratio of congoers with fursuits is not necessarily the same as the ratio of furries with fursuits, and that furries who don't go to cons are probably more likely to not have a suit than furries who do go to cons.

That's a fair assessment. And if it is right, it says that he ratio of fursuit owners to non-fursuit-owners is less than 20%. But it says nothing about the ratio of types of owners.

For example, take the murrsuit part out of it, and replace it with toony suit. If it is a fact that curries who don't go to cons also are less likely to own a fursuit, what does that say about the ratio of fursuit owners who own or have worn a toony suit vs. those owners who have no toony suit, and haven't worn one?

I know two personally that got murrsuits.
but my look if that want they want to do let them not hurting anybody else.

Right. And we're not debating the right or wrong of the practice. We're just settling the ratio of ownership.

When I first joined I thought it was just a rumor that people have sexy in them, I was certainly wrong about that but I still feel it is a small number. So far it's at 20% which is still pretty high but definitely not 50%!

FIVEL! *fuzzle* Good to hear from you. :)

The public narrative of furries will say, repeatedly, that fursuits are too expensive, too delicate, and too hot to be dealing with the effects of having sex in them. That's been Uncle Kage's claim in a number of interviews about the subject, back when Vanity Fair and CSI were spoiling the good name of furries with their edgy depictions.

It's obviously not entirely true. But as with every narrative of every topic, there are nuances and truths that are trivialized or flat-out denied in order to establish the principles of the narrative and project from them.

For example, take the narrative of global warming. Those who believe it's a thing, and believe it's caused by humans, may not all agree on the extent, and may not all agree on every little nuance and mechanic, and may not be able to explain all the counter effects in the world ... but such details are largely trivial or even irrelevant to the principle that they believe in, the principle that demands humans become better planetary custodians. Even if global warming turns out to be a complete fraud, or turns out to be completely corrected by the movement, it doesn't matter: the principle is solid, and so the narrative is used to convince people to buy that principle.

Similarly, the narrative of "There's a little Furry in all of us, come join us!" requires that we trivialize the adult aspects of the fandom in order to project the fandom as welcoming and comfortable to a larger audience. This narrative is used by the leaders and figureheads of this fandom because they want this fandom to grow, they want it to become more mainstream, less fringe, more welcoming, and maybe some day it can establish a positive role in the world of art, entertainment, and culture. It's why many furry cons feature a charity drive, and why the adult themes are hidden away or at least separated from the general audience themes. Art shows have adult sections, dealers tables have rules about covering naughty bits, etc etc.

The adult aspect will always be there. It won't go away. It may even some day evolve from societal vilification such as that depicted in CSI to become as acceptable as 'normal' adult themes are, perhaps some day even being tastefully featured in award-winning films and prized works of contemporary art.

But the fandom will never reach such lofty goals by spreading erroneous rumors about the fandom, such as that there are as many pervy fursuiters as there are non-pervy fursuiters.

I think that bottom line might be why it spurred Kalira to make a poll about it. I happen to agree.

I'm only against murrsuits if they are used in public.
Some stuff should just be kept in the bedroom.

This. If consenting adults want to do whatever in the privacy of their own space, no worries. However, I find the idea of a murrsuit worn while interacting with the general (and unsuspecting) public really squicky.

(I personally own a fursuit, no "murr" at all.)

Alright, cool. You hit the survey, yeah?

Thank you! :)

I can't see how anyone could have sexual conduct using suits wouldn't it get claustrophobic and nasty? D:

I don't want discussions of details here, but I bet if you are nice about it, you could note Double_D for questions of practicality. :)

mmm, maybe its best not to find out

and I don't think I'd be too nice about it. I have a tendency to be explosive about some topics (not necessarily these types of suits, but other things like TF or the behaviour of some people really get me fired up)

Ah, you know yourself well. That's a good thing.

Really, you get riled up about TF? I apologize, then, for the 15% or so of my gallery that features such. ^_^

well its not TF itself, its more the fans. I've met some who act like posh twits, sniffing down at you for liking something different. They can also be inhuman; lacking warmth and just being cold and even cruel at times.