“Hell Hath No Furries”

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=3873  The title of this article is pretty funny.  In this age of “anything goes,” there are still some true-blue, bona fide perverts out there.  That’s what this article is about:  people with a big damn problem:  perverts.  I didn’t read the article carefully.  Once I realized what these people were into, I surfed away.  Hey, they’re perverts, and that’s their “right.”furby(Uh, that last bit was for A’s enjoyment.)(Hmm, I wonder if anybody will take my bait and try to defend the perverts??)

Advertisements

15 Comments

  1. lefalcon

     /  March 10, 2009

    When I wrote “that last bit,” I meant the word “right” (not the picture of Furby, although he is pretty cute).

    Furby is ridiculous, but of course that’s a whole nuther topic from “furries.”

  2. cymast

     /  March 11, 2009

    ACK! The cephalopod beak!

  3. cymast

     /  March 11, 2009

    “Check out my engorged, pendulous udder and my regurgicud! Pretty bovine, eh?”

    “MOO!”

  4. cymast

     /  March 11, 2009

    Oh I almost forgot:

    … …

    Are those opinions a satire of something?

  5. cymast

     /  March 11, 2009

    *RIM SHOT*

  6. lefalcon

     /  March 11, 2009

    Yeah they “are” in a way, a satire … of a recurring, epochal, multi-part controversy that I was involved in with some friends: one side said that furries were perverts, the other that “normalcy” is socially-constructed. This isn’t, to be honest, a question I care very much about. But as an added layer of humor, a couple of us got confused about terminology and started calling furries, FURBIES. But obviously a “furby” is some kind of odd child’s toy. Anyhow, the whole thing is just too hilarious.

  7. cymast

     /  March 11, 2009

    Doesn’t “pervert” imply some kind of deviant sexuality? The author of the article admitted to finding nothing any more sexual than you would find at a STAR TREK convention . .

  8. acilius

     /  March 12, 2009

    The behavior at the convention may not have met the author’s definition of sex, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t sexual to the people engaging in it. I think of some of the phone sex services you (cymast) have told me about, such as the line where the guys pay to be ignored by the operator. If that can be a form of sexuality, then what the furries do can be a form of sexuality as well. As for Furbys, they’re just a sickness.

  9. cymast

     /  March 12, 2009

    Well, then according to your reasoning, anything could be sexual.

    The ignore lines operate within a sexual context where everybody knows the “ignoring” is done to cater to a sexual fetish.

    I guess I mean the convention didn’t appear to be sexual to the article author, or the outsider.

  10. acilius

     /  March 12, 2009

    “Well, then according to your reasoning, anything could be sexual.”

    Ay-yep, sure could. I suspect it’s all about the context.

  11. lefalcon

     /  March 12, 2009

    I think something is getting missed. What does it mean to say “Anything could be sexual” ? It’s like saying “Anything could be delicious.” An eraser could be delicious. To a dog. Or some insect.

    If I put an eraser on a table, and everybody starts drooling .. that “chemistry” is the product of the encounter of an eraser with people who (oddly, I might observe) like to ingest erasers. You need both parts.

    Sure, the furby convention could be a big erotico-sexual thing .. or could not be. I kind of doubt whether the author of the article was hung up on some definition of “sexual.” You don’t really need a definition. If you’re surrounded by perverts in velour animal costumes who are getting some weird sexual charge out of what their doing .. uh .. I think you’ll sense that that’s going on. (No Webster’s necessary.)

  12. cymast

     /  March 13, 2009

    “If you’re surrounded by perverts in velour animal costumes who are getting some weird sexual charge out of what their doing .. uh .. I think you’ll sense that that’s going on.”

    I think you nailed it.

  13. lefalcon

     /  March 13, 2009

    And I would add: Far be it from me to ‘judge’ anybody … but when the guy in the blue velour elk costume with the crotch cut out, starts edging my way …

    I believe I’ll just quietly slip out the back exit … and return to a different, albeit equally-insane world (but one which familiarity has rendered less disturbing) … (That being the world where Wolf Blitzer is constantly shouting at me for no apparent reason, but is NOT clad in brightly-colored velour) … (Uck, what a tableau) …

  14. cymast

     /  April 12, 2009

    I opened my QPB mailer today and saw some really ridiculous images. I don’t know if it’s supposed to be a joke, but the furverts- er, the furries are mad.

    http://www.chroniclebooks.com/index/main,book-info/store,books/products_id,7893/path,1-7-44/title,Furverts/

  15. acilius

     /  April 12, 2009

    From the tone of the first reader review (“and tell them, ‘This is Star Trek'”) it sounds like they have a right to be mad. I can’t claim to understand the furries, but I’m against unfairness.

%d bloggers like this: