FA+
Shop
Fuck the media (Warning: Rant)
8 years ago
By now, you've probably heard the unfortunate story about a boy who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by three people with fursuits who were allegedly members of the furry fandom. As you can imagine, my research team and I have been dealing with media inquiries as a result.
I found one of them in particularly to be quite galling, and I couldn't resist answering them with a bit of snark. Here's how I responded:
Dear ***********,
Dr. Courtney Plante here, Dr. Gerbasi's research collaborator and lead author of the book Dr. Gerbasi cited. I'd like to add to what Dr. Gerbasi said and respond to your questions.
- Can this subculture (Furry) be considered just a 'sexual fetish'?
In a word, "no". Furry is no more a "sexual fetish" than is being a "sport fan", "science fiction fan", or "gamer". Some people are fans of science fiction stories. Some people are fans of sports. Furries are fans of media that feature walking, talking animal characters, the sort of thing you'd see in films like Zootopia. To put it simply, "furry" is not a fetish because the vast majority of furries say their interest in furry is non-sexual or not driven predominantly by sex, something you wouldn't expect to find if it were a fetish.
- Is having these types of sexual fetishes normal or does it indicate any sexual disturbance?
Again, I disagree with your premise. Furry is not a fetish, so it doesn't make sense to ask whether it is normal or indicates sexual disturbance. If a football fan decided to rape someone while wearing their favorite player's jersey, would it make sense to say that person had a "football fetish?" Would you ask whether football fans were all "football fetishists" prone to sexual disturance? We can say that these three individuals clearly have some problems, but their behavior does not say anything about what furries in general are like. Otherwise, we would have to admit that if any sport fan murdered or raped anyone ever, it tells us that all sport fans are prone to murdering and raping.
- Can pedophiles attract minors more easily with such practices?
As far as I know, no one has ever run that sort of study, in the same way that no one has ever a run a study to see how effectively you can lure children into the back of a van with promises of puppies and candy. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of this question is. Child molesters may employ a variety of insidious tactics to lure or persuade potential victims. Frankly, I think it makes more sense to point to the culprits themselves than it does to demonize the entire internet, public playgrounds, costumes, or any other factors that may be incidentally related to cases that involve individuals committing horrific acts of abuse.
And finally, in response to this: “Furries” are members of a subculture who take on identities based on anthropomorphic animals, called fursonas. It may involve wearing mascot-like costumes. The attorney general’s office noted that a subset of furries do so as a “sexual fetish.”
I'll point out that only about 20% of furries actually owns a fursuit, which they typically wear at public gatherings like parades, zoos, conventions, etc. As for the attorney general's office noting that a subset of furries do so as a sexual fetish, I would sincerely like to know where they got their data. As a researcher studying this fandom for six years, I have never once come across the numbers on this topic. I could similarly argue that some subset of sport fans have a "cheerleader fetish", or that some subset of car aficionados have a "car fetish", and I wouldn't be wrong: as long as even one person in those groups engages in that behavior, I would be correct. The statement by the attorney general's office is thus completely meaningless and irrelevant to the current story.
Though I'm sure that won't stop anyone in the media from ignoring this fact so they can write an exciting story.
- Dr. Courtney Plante
I found one of them in particularly to be quite galling, and I couldn't resist answering them with a bit of snark. Here's how I responded:
Dear ***********,
Dr. Courtney Plante here, Dr. Gerbasi's research collaborator and lead author of the book Dr. Gerbasi cited. I'd like to add to what Dr. Gerbasi said and respond to your questions.
- Can this subculture (Furry) be considered just a 'sexual fetish'?
In a word, "no". Furry is no more a "sexual fetish" than is being a "sport fan", "science fiction fan", or "gamer". Some people are fans of science fiction stories. Some people are fans of sports. Furries are fans of media that feature walking, talking animal characters, the sort of thing you'd see in films like Zootopia. To put it simply, "furry" is not a fetish because the vast majority of furries say their interest in furry is non-sexual or not driven predominantly by sex, something you wouldn't expect to find if it were a fetish.
- Is having these types of sexual fetishes normal or does it indicate any sexual disturbance?
Again, I disagree with your premise. Furry is not a fetish, so it doesn't make sense to ask whether it is normal or indicates sexual disturbance. If a football fan decided to rape someone while wearing their favorite player's jersey, would it make sense to say that person had a "football fetish?" Would you ask whether football fans were all "football fetishists" prone to sexual disturance? We can say that these three individuals clearly have some problems, but their behavior does not say anything about what furries in general are like. Otherwise, we would have to admit that if any sport fan murdered or raped anyone ever, it tells us that all sport fans are prone to murdering and raping.
- Can pedophiles attract minors more easily with such practices?
As far as I know, no one has ever run that sort of study, in the same way that no one has ever a run a study to see how effectively you can lure children into the back of a van with promises of puppies and candy. Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of this question is. Child molesters may employ a variety of insidious tactics to lure or persuade potential victims. Frankly, I think it makes more sense to point to the culprits themselves than it does to demonize the entire internet, public playgrounds, costumes, or any other factors that may be incidentally related to cases that involve individuals committing horrific acts of abuse.
And finally, in response to this: “Furries” are members of a subculture who take on identities based on anthropomorphic animals, called fursonas. It may involve wearing mascot-like costumes. The attorney general’s office noted that a subset of furries do so as a “sexual fetish.”
I'll point out that only about 20% of furries actually owns a fursuit, which they typically wear at public gatherings like parades, zoos, conventions, etc. As for the attorney general's office noting that a subset of furries do so as a sexual fetish, I would sincerely like to know where they got their data. As a researcher studying this fandom for six years, I have never once come across the numbers on this topic. I could similarly argue that some subset of sport fans have a "cheerleader fetish", or that some subset of car aficionados have a "car fetish", and I wouldn't be wrong: as long as even one person in those groups engages in that behavior, I would be correct. The statement by the attorney general's office is thus completely meaningless and irrelevant to the current story.
Though I'm sure that won't stop anyone in the media from ignoring this fact so they can write an exciting story.
- Dr. Courtney Plante
Only thing I might have added somewhere is that yes, having an interest in "furry" whether sexual or not is completely normal and has been an established part of human history for millenia. But I think saying more just gives them more ways to twist it into what they want to print...
In an era fill with science deniers at the helm of positions of power and influence, to read of an actual scientist stating tested hypothesis and recorded statistics is not just refreshing, it offers hope in the darkness that is the New Political Landscape.
Dr. Courtney Plante, the service you provided is not simply welcome, it is respected and loved. I cannot thank you enough. You have my respect and admiration. Thank you for all that you do.
OneOfMany
Nuka, thank you. It's times like this when Furry really needs the data you and the IARP have collected.
"When did you last beat your wife, Dr. Plante?"
Still, for most, adult content was not "the most important part", and I imagine that's still the case. Likewise, there's a big jump from "liking pictures of kinky sex" to statutory rape - about as far it is from "liking pictures of in-game violence" (such as in American football or ice hockey) to murder.
But seriously, I'd like to point out that Nuka is actually speaking from his data points - there are a lot of people who find the 'adult' side of the fandom something they tend to leave alone. In all the conventions I gone to now, I've not done any of the 'adult' panels except one (which was more of a 'reasons why' than an actual adult event). The most risque thing I do at cons is WotDA or Karaoke - and that's my main 'consumption', or indulgence in the fandom at large.
Furry is more to me than perhaps a lot of 'newer' furs, but it does not revolve around anything sexual or adult. Or maybe saying it like this helps - I'd give just about anything to live in Zootopia. A real, complete Furry world...all of life, it's pro's and con's, trials and triumphs, but with the difference that everyone has fur (and tails, ect). I AM furry - and sex/erotica has nothing to do with it. And I know I'm not the only one - Nuka has surprising stats about that. ;)
K Fox
The question is where you draw the line on furry being a fetish. Nuka is arguing that it has to be the most important thing about furry for these people, in which case we're probably talking about ~10% of furs, or less. I disagree with that, because I don't see why furry can't be a fetish for people as well as being a thing they generally appreciate. (I know he was reacting to the proposition that it is "just a fetish", but I feel it led to him going too far to dismiss the concept of furry fetishism.)
Sexual fetishism is "a sexual fixation on a nonliving object or nongenital body part". Furries are mostly about the non-genital body parts (although the genitals do come into it sometimes - perhaps they would have done better to say "non-human genitals"). So if the idea of furry characters helps to get a person aroused, I'd call that a fetish, regardless of whether they also like furries in general. One might also call it an expression of partialism if we're talking specifically about, say, fuzzy ears or tails.
To put it another way, on a slightly different topic: liking plush toys in general does not require you to be sexually attracted to plush toys, but it also does not preclude it. Indeed, I suspect most plushophiles are also plush collectors for the purpose of general appreciation.
The issue may also be confused by furry characters representing specific people. Is it a furry fetish if you like to fantasize about your girlfriend or boyfriend's character? (Maybe if you think about it while you're having sex...)
"The question is where you draw the line on furry being a fetish. Nuka is arguing that it has to be the most important thing about furry for these people, in which case we're probably talking about ~10% of furs, or less."
The first bit is truly the question if you want to then quantify 'how many furries see this as a fetish' so you can decide whether or not the fandom as a whole is a fetish. And that exactly where it gets both dangerous and silly - dangerous because we're talking about the mainstream media here, and not the more reasonable types either - this is likely the most sensationalist one. It's also silly to try to boil something as complex as the furry fandom in it's current state to so simple and basic an idea. There's far too much going on here, with far too many people involved for varying reasons to make 'simple' generalizations like "it's a fetish" or not.
Thinking in that light, you can't really squeeze in thinking along the lines of;
"I disagree with that, because I don't see why furry can't be a fetish for people as well as being a thing they generally appreciate."
This kind of thinking (which btw, I don't disagree with) is just too complicated for the kind of answer, and more importantly the consequent media coverage that will be done from the question asked to Nuka. It's a no win, really.
It's kind of like this - giant hulking warrior is swinging a 25lb sledgehammer at you, and you have a collection of sewing needles to respond with - it's not the same game. Best to just dodge the hammer than to try to deflect it with the needles... but if someone wanted to actually discuss the situation, they'd be interested in the details (needle apprecaition). That's how I see this whole thing, and why I agree totally with Nuka's response - he wasn't asked a legitimate question, so he can't give a real answer.
K Fox
How are you doing, by the way?
Otherwise, fine. :)
Admittedly, the results were initially more balanced, and the current popularity of the last option is likely skewed by people actively searching for "fursuit sex".
I have a feeling you may have seen more murrsuits, you just don't know it. Most are not obvious. Of course, it depends on how you define the term - used for a sex act of some kind vs. designed (or modified) for sex to be possible vs. possessing fake animal genetalia . . .
Bah - it sours the taste of the word Fox...so not fair.
K Fox (just getting my about monthly check of things while I'm home...)