While I agree with the first part, I, personally, wouldnt say furry
is completely sexual, or "mundanes" are black-and-white anti-furry.
I'm sure theres a gray area (ie. a non-furry who accepts that it
exists and has no problem with it, however not one him/herself) as
with most ideas; and there are thousands of sites that are "furry"
and non-sexual, (take mine for example) at least they call themselves
that.
I'm not trying to argue, just my opinion. I've found that most people
miss that there is a gray area to just about everything, and very,
very few things are as simple as one side vs. the other.
eric
www.geocities.com/ifihadaflannelshirt/
--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_y..., Scrapper BlackDragon <scrapperbd_at_y...>
wrote:
> Splitting techicalities, being furry would mean you
> have a liking or leaning towards furry art (written,
> draw, created however). You don't need a "fursona" to
> be furry, though you would to "be a furry".
>
> Term generalisation is something like: anthro is
> charaters displaying both human and animal
> characteristics (eg, TV characters like Disney,
> Warner Bros etc). Furry is anthro with a sexual
> nature (eg: James M Hardiman, Desiree Lee, etc). You
> are correct though in saying people (and furs?) like
> to stereotype and place in categories. Sense of
> belonging thing that "makes people feel safe" is my
> guess.
>
> Mundanes are anti-furry. They dislike the concept of
> anthropomorphic animal sex and anything more than
> Donald Duck (who doesn't wear pants!) is considered
> offensive by them.
>
> General agreeance with this outline?
>
> Scrapper, Black Dragon, who is aware that he doesn't
> have fur, but is still a furry!
Received on Sun Feb 17 2002 - 22:49:06 CST