--- Since the dawn of time, humanity has had a strong link to animals - envying their strength, speed, stamina, cunning, agility, endurance, whatever. Arguably the first form of religion amongst humanity was worship of some sort of anthropomorphic pantheon - the notion that these hybrids of man and animal had the best qualities of both. It was a method of drawing strength; of identifying with he characteristics that one most desired to emulate, and often gave a focus to allow someone to transcend normal psychological limits. With the development of agriculture, settlement, and a movement away from hunter-gatherers, the old animist religions mutated into more formalized rituals and codified beliefs - the first "true" religions. These too carried the elements of anthropomorphics - the presence of anthropomorphic deities in Sumerian, Babylonian, Tolto-Olmec, Egyptian, Mycenaean, and even proto-Hindu and Shinto beliefs is plain as day. The animalistic nature of these beings set them apart from humanity, as again possessing something better - a characteristic that was somehow more refined and elevated than those that were attainable by "mere" humans. The animals became a symbol of association with the strengths that humans often desired. Consider the wisdom of Athena's owl, or the strength and savagery of Artemis's hounds, the proclivity of Tiamat, the serpent mother of Sumer who gave birth to the World Egg, or the cunning and strength of the jaguar represented by Tezcatlipoca, Keeper of Secrets and Smoking Mirror of the Aztec. As societies became more and more strict, a second urge was born - that to separate from the mass of humanity around oneself. This was the birth of the "back to nature" groups - the ones that sought a measure of individuality by leaving the bounds that a growing society was imposing on them. In a world of increasing complexity and codification, there was an added allure to the animalistic nature - that of wildness, of freedom without forethought, of a sort of savage innocence. Free from moral concern, the hunter-cum-wolf could revel in the thrill of the chase, without the fear of guilt or morality in the simple pursuit of biological imperatives. Fairy tales and children's stories have long capitalized upon the primal associations that animals are somehow less constrained and freer to express themselves. Often these stories also contain some measure of a warning of the consequences - the Big Bad Wolf gets killed in Little Red Riding Hood, for example. But the animalistic iconography is evident at the base levels of our psyche, common mythology, and our society itself. In this day and age, with a swirling mass of increasing confusion as to what rules apply (The Constantans had nothing over the US legal code for "Byzantine"), with conflicting moral statements growing increasingly more conflicting and drifting towards the extremes (Li'l Kim vs. Rev. Phelps, for example), there is a certain simplicity in "transcending" conflicting moral codes. The simplicity of existence driven by imperatives - When one is "acting like an animal", it is without restraint, without thought to consequence. Living in the moment, instead of for tomorrow. The draw of modern anthropomorphic fandom is often that element - the natural being simpler, yet transcending that which we can attain in society because of the very weight we carry around known as "the future". It is indeed a mask - one that most people can put on and take off freely, drifting from the unrefined state to normal civility. In a society where sex sells, but is "wrong", it is a simple way for some people to avoid guilt in physical expression - the comforting touch of another being, covered in the iconography of animalistic expression - most people will seek some sort of physical contact internally, but cannot come up with any way to express it in a "socially acceptable" manner - or how many stilted forms of physical contact we have developed as global societies to express any sort of physical contact while keeping it totally restrained and refined. The handshake, the peck on the cheek, holding hands... This form of reassurance is biologically driven - the touch of another IS comforting. Yet the restraints society imposes makes finding it very difficult. By shedding humanity" by covering it in the iconography of zoomorphism, one can more easily express this need for touch - for play. One can see this sort of "more acceptable" physical contact in most sci-fi fandoms - consider the "backrub chains" that form at some cons, and the free expression of hugs, with no sexual connotations, in many fandoms. Since they are already "outside the mainstream", there is a bit more license to express these normally restricted desires for physical contact. By embracing a more raw, natural sexuality inherent in animals, there is indeed a more directly sexual element to furrydom - but only because the choice of iconography is both so powerful and so drawing to many people on a basal level. Consider on the reassurance factor as well - when we're children, we are exposed to thousands of images of animals and anthropomorphs in comforting, reassuring, fun and carefree roles - Robin Hood is a good example of this, and the one most often cited. Many people in Furry Fandom are very expressive, creative types or very technically oriented - people who spend a lot of time dealing with constant strictures and barriers imposed seemingly ad hoc by society. In such a group, where individuals are constantly running up against the restrictions of society, the allure of a strong level of reassurance and the inherent freedom of therianthropism (the "spiritual"/psychological process of expressing an animalistic 'totem') can be strong indeed. But just as the freedom associated with it can be a strong draw, it can also cause a lot of fear and negativity - those who fear the "irresponsible" expression of anything, or that fear in a more personal sense their own potential to "lose control." We are taught to fear our instincts, to fear becoming "the beast" - yet the chemistry that drives this is still a part of us. This conflict is often unfortunately resolved through sudden, violent expression in strongly repressed individuals. Furries, in general, express these feelings more readily, and while this often gives an outlook at a crystallized society (and the sneering "mundane" title) as somehow separate, confining and antithetical to existence. If the fear of "the beast" in every man was actually what it is said to be, wouldn't there be more concern over Furry mass-murderers than about people who dress up in suits and have sex? The reactive fear is that of toppling assumptions - people who express such animalistic tendencies should be violent, depraved, lawless and dangerous, yet they tend to be docile and passive more often than not in society. Consider the question of: which do you want more in society, violence or sex? Which one of them is really the bigger threat? And why is it that you can rent a movie that shows graphic dismemberment from any Blockbuster (Hannibal), yet to rent anything involving sexual penetration you need to go to a specially licensed retailer in a seedier part of town? --- -- Takel Windfeather - Gryphon Wizard Takel on FM and Tapestries ICQ# 145608211Received on Thu Jan 10 2002 - 21:13:08 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sat Nov 30 2019 - 17:51:25 CST