Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Those Stupid Furfags

Yet again I saw a piece of art in someone's gallery that mocked 'furries'. The artist was cheered by many, most laughing at the 'stupid furfags' and gleefully arguing at anyone that commented that (while it was good art) why did it have to be anti-fur? Did it have to be anti-anything? They let their opinion out to be heard, but when anyone that had an opinion against theirs tried to comment that it hurt their feelings, they got slammed in the face and mocked.

What's the difference in calling someone a "furfag" or just "fag"?

Calling someone who is gay a "fag" is not socially acceptable. Yet everywhere I go where people make jokes and gags about furries and if anyone dares say anything in retaliation - 'hey, that's not very nice' for instance -- they're slapped in the face with a 'HAY LOOK ANOTHER FURFAG' comment!

Calling someone a "furfag" should also not be acceptable.

Now, in the age old claim the slander name biz, furries now call themselves "furfags". Just like the fabled N-word, we've tried to take down the stupid power from the nasty intent others have when calling us that. But why does it exist in the first place?

Hate vs. Peace.
Why do these people hate us? Why can't they accept other things besides what they know? Because people still fear what they don't understand. That's all these ignorant folks are doing, showing their lack of knowledge or just trolling along for the ride. Reading up on furs on Wikipedia does not make you an expert. (How I despise that site and all its false information is another rant all by itself). Seeing the shock sites and countless gallery pages of some far-gone people that haven't any morals does not mean that every single furry person is like them. Not all furries dress up in suits and screw each other in giant orgies. Furries are all about accepting each other as who (or what) you are inside - not what you look like on the outside.

Is that such a horrible idea?

People who are interested in the fur community usually have a strong affinity for animals and hate the baser side of human nature - the side that shows up when we draw a picture and someone tells us 'You suck, you furfag, die and rot in hell'. (I've touched up the grammar on that, believe me). It only proves what we believe in the first place.

Nowadays every teenager seems to want to be a furry. Back when I was first doodling my character as an anthro wombat (I settled into the nekomata later) it wasn't as popular as it is now. People were shocked and most thought it was an amusing concept. Omaha the Cat Dancer was a comic book that was being produced around the same time and on the whole "furry characters" were fresher than they are now. People hate what they see abused as "overly popular". That's another reason most people can't stand the human-like animal concept.

From my standpoint, however, I've liked anthros and animal drawings for a long time. Like my love of pirates, this fame has cheapened my inner fur - everyone has a fursona now. It's not original anymore, and that saddens me. But it's who I am and I won't change that just because some people do not think it's appropriate and others think it's cheap.

It's easier.
This argument makes my fur stand on end. Now, hush! I hear the non-furs grumbling under their breath at that comment. But it's true. I'm a freelance illustrator and I draw humans as well as "furries", anthros as well as kemonomimi (see below). None are "easier". Furries are not a "simple way out" for talentless hacks. Try drawing a well-designed, creatively put together furry person and see what I mean. It's easy for those that like to draw that way but it's not the 'easy way out'. It's easier to draw humans because they don't have that many accoutrements - and with animal/human hybrids, you have to imagine how parts would look and blend in.

Anthropomorphic or kemonomimi?
Do you know the difference? Many artists hate "anthro" art because they're labeling all 'furry' art anthro. There are different categories. The dictionary I have open at the moment before me states that anthropomorphic means:

  • 1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.

  • 2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving. 

Anthropomorphic, therefore, means something made to resemble a human being. It doesn't even need to be animal - a toaster can be made anthro, such as in the Disney movie "The Brave Little Toaster". Anthro art does not include the "human with ears and a tail" art. That is called kemonomimi (literally, "animal eared"). Catgirls fall into this category - just take a cute girl and add a bell around her neck, a tail and ears - boom. Kemonomimi. A lot of this art has the same flavor - crudely drawn big-busty girls with ears and tails "slapped on", as it were. And it means a lot of the artists that hate furries see it and instantly get their backs up.

Like all art categories, there will always be the obligatory art-tracers and hordes of big-boobed/other big-parts "drawing for pageviews" artists. (Once again, not going into that, it's another rant of mine.) And I'm not talking about the people that genuinely like drawing anatomy and do it well, either. I'm talking about when something doesn't have class. When every single piece in your gallery is a horse inside a shower stall graphicly humping another horse. Can't those folks think of anything but sex? I've had my hormone runs, a lot, heck, but I have a lot of pieces in my galleries that aren't sexual.

Yet you shouldn't judge everyone because some go "over the top". If we did that, hell - wouldn't you hate everyone? But isn't that what this is about?

I guess I'm just trying to say please stop all the hate-filled art and snide little works that get everyone in such a tizzy. Yeah, great, it's wonderful for your pageviews/popularity - but if that's all you're looking for I won't even try to describe what kind of a person you must be.

Really now.

Don't get my fur up again.

No comments: