Skip to main content

In Praise of Furries

“No standard definition exists but generally furries are people who have a fascination with anthropomorphic animals. These are animals that are given human traits, like walking and talking. They can be anything from cartoons characters like Bugs Bunny to computer game personalities like Pokemon.”[bbc]

There’s much to be said for ‘furries’ or ‘furrysexuals’. Perhaps it is the disenchantment with a world of male and female humanoids whom distinguishable only by genitalia and little besides. After all, much of the feminist movement did fight for the right to be treated as men and were thus incorporated into a patriarchal scheme of things that thereafter turned ‘transvestriarchal’ given that women begin to take on a personality that would require quite a sizeable jockstrap to contain it. So we reach a state of affairs where a heterosexual’s only claim to being ‘straight’ is that he aspires to getting hitched to one resembling a woman but is more of a man than he is. So maybe ‘cosplay’, ‘furries’, amongst a whole slew of others are an attempt to break away from a reality where a penis can be simply described as an elongated clitoris and a heterosexual, a lesbian. Perhaps this whole transvestriarchal [author's term] scheme of things give men and women a bad name given that women might increasingly be taking on as distanced and self-absorbed a perspective as men. By anthropomorphising themselves through ‘furryism’, or dehumanising themselves through head-to-toe latex coveralls or gas masks, or even playing Mickey and Minnie in the boudoir helps them disassociate an increasingly uninspiring, uni-sexualised and uni-characterised humanity from their own humanity so that they can seek pleasure on another plane as something other than human. Perhaps that is the same perspective that founds the belief in aliens by some who wish that there was something more out there than what’s down here.

Personally, I prefer Klingon women.




Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…