THE GOGGLES! THEY DO NOTHING!

| 92 Comments | 1 TrackBack

So. We're getting ready to leave Panera, and Weds just found (from various livejournals) the Add "Yiff" to the Oxford English Dictionary Petition.

I now know this exists.

My intention is to drive Weds and I smack into a concrete divider, ending our pain as cleanly as possible. Remember, everyone -- I always liked you. Be good to each other.

EDIT FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE on 22-June: I should make something clear, because it was pointed out that this post didn't (and no, I haven't changed anything in the above post. I'm just putting this clarification below it).

Weds and I didn't have to die a horrible automotive death yesterday because of the furry community. Or even because some furries have a sexual element to what they enjoy.

However, I actually have access to the online OED where I work. And I was able to confirm something I suspected in it.

The definition of furry in the OED does not contain any reference to the furry community.

Is this a bad thing? Probably it actually is. Furries exist. They're out there. And there is increasing reference to them -- references that could really use definition.

This petition is not about achieving recognition of the furry community. It is about achieving recognition of the specific sexual term in the community. (A term which is meaningless in a dictionary without the capacity to look "furry" up, I would add, since most of the definitions offered require the phrase "within the furry community" or some variation to make sense.)

That right there? That's creepy. You want your community to be recognized, whatever it is? Great. You want your community's sexual practices to be recognized? Ew, but whatever. You want your community's sexual practices to be recognized before seeking recognition for the community itself?

The goggles? They do nothing.

92 Comments

Surely that should be "ZE GOGGLES! ZEY DO NUSSINK!"

And now I know what 'yiff' means.

The knowledge does, in fact, burn.

Matt

www.likelystories.com

Because, you know, Online petitions always work.

Particularly online petitions from a very specific sexual group (yeah yeah furries aren't always sexual but this particular word is almost exclusively sexual so lets not split hairs). Is 'Furry' even in there yet, as in the people dressing up as animals meaning? I would have thought that should be put in before specific acts associated with that group.

So yiff being in the dictionary would be... bad?

*blink blink*

If merely knowing what "yiff" means and that some people are trying to get it in the dictionary horrifies you, you need to be REALLLLY careful on the internet. :)

I don't recall if the term "yiff" showed up on the CSI ep with furries, though. But the culture has impinged on mainstream media (MTV sex specials don't quite count as mainstream, I think).

I don't recall if the term "yiff" showed up on the CSI ep with furries, though. But the culture has impinged on mainstream media (MTV sex specials don't quite count as mainstream, I think).

Quote from the episode:

"I was only there for the yiffing!"

Or something like that.

But yeah, I don't even think furry is in there.

I am myself a fur. I don't dress up in fursuits and "yiff", I don't do fur piles (Which as far as I can tell, is the hardest thing to get into. It's like a secret sociaty in the furry community), I don't have sex with plushies.

Yes, there are some crazies in the community, just like there are in the Sci-Fi community and Web comic community. But there's a good majority of furries are "normal" people who just happen to like anthropomorphic art.

The people trying to get yiff in websters? They're the crazy ones.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the word yiff ending up in a dictionary, but I think it lacks priority, there is surely other more mainstream slang that isn't in there yet.

I would like to publically promise the world that despite doing a comic involving talking animals, the word 'yiff' will never, ever, ever appear in "Digger."

My only hope is that Randy Milholland is reading this entry, and treating it with the dignity he's always treated furries with.

And that he'll make it a comic coming up soon.

You know you're on the internet when someone posts about furrys starting a petition and the first post is correcting a simpsons reference.

UrsulaV:

I knew there was a reason I liked you. ;)

... bighorn pears and all.

Seems to me that this is just another attempt by a group that feels beleaguered, misunderstood, and marginalized to gain some small measure of implied legitimacy. I don't think I'd actually sign the petition, but I can't say as I can blame them for trying.

I'd sign that petition.

NOW EVERYONE JUST CALM DOWN. SIT DOWN-- SIT DOWN-- SIT.

This isn't a question of artistic merit or ickiness or whatnot. It's a question of usage. If you keep "yiff" out, you may as well keep "fuck" out (hey, a lot more people are offended by the latter than know the former). And what then?

It's a commonly used expression. It's been around for ten years at least. It has connotations and associations that NO OTHER WORD HAS. Well, except "yiffy."

You start protesting to keep words like that from the dictionary, and far as I'm concerned, whatever your intentions, you're playing right into the hands of the Orwellians who would love to eliminate all historical records of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

Now, I think what Eric's actually doing is protesting the circumstances which made "yiff" such an accepted term in the first place-- and that's another argument I'm NOT going to get into. But the news item itself just makes me say, "Yeah. About time."

Considering that most slang doesn't make it into the OED until it's become either commonplace or extinct, I doubt this has much of a chance. Not that any online petition has much of a chance.

Speaking of inappropriate cultural penetration, can I get a shout-out for my boy Misuse-of-a-Nominative-Case? You know it's widespread when phrases like

My intention is to drive Weds and I

can float across the blog entries of a bonafide certified genuine writer person (who may or may not have some sort of fancy degree in English).


a;lksdj kjajdfgalksdj


sorry

I think the OED needs as many words as it can get. They seem to be running out of them. For instance, the use of "grow" as in, "We're leveraging our assets in order to grow the company's bottom line," and the double-duty "paradigm" has been put to in expressing that it's a method much like the older one, with some slight differences instead of it's original definition (I swear I'll shoot the next Java programmer I hear saying, "It's a whole new paradigm.")

[Feh. Or the misuse of "it's" for "its"]

Apparently there is no place on the internets that DOESN'T hate Furries.

I'm an Ex one myself, which usually means I switch between saying really terrible things about them and feeling vaguely upset when other people do.

You know, I *hate* it when people discriminate against us Furries. I mean, sure, if I don't hose myself down with Nair before going to the beach, they think a hairball just rolled onto the beach, but still...

Oh. Wait. You're talking about people dressing up in furry costumes? Oh, those guys are weirdos!

BTW, I am joking about the Nair comment. After all, they banned me from the public beaches after a shedding problem... (joking! ^-^)

I seem to remember an aside to the furry crowd in Suburban Jungle: Tiffany rejects an offer to do a photo shoot for the apparently adult-audience "Yiff Magazine." Since I had just seen the CSI episode mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it got a chuckle out of me at the time.

I've always wanted to see that episode of CSI.

Geez, I seem to remember a time when being a Furry meant "liking a specific type of artwork" rather than "liking to dress up in animal costumes and hump each other" . . .

Ya know, I clicked around randomly on their signature pages and I don't think I saw more than ten actual signatures. Most were fake names, insults, and the occasional Bible verse. That does not bode well for the occurence of "yiff" as a dictionary word.

The Internet-wide hatred of furries is something that's always gotten to me (not accusing you of this, Eric, I'm just saying). Yeah, they're an easy target, but it's not like they're hurting anyone. Sometimes it feels like the Internet is my primary school playground, except huge, and idiots like Lowtax are the popular kids who beat up the nerds.

This may be small-minded of me, but I think that when your chosen hobby makes people who dress in Stormtrooper costumes, speak Klingon, and write pornographic Harry Potter fanfiction feel embarrassed to be around you, it's time to seriously reexamine the way you spend your free time.

Shit, I remember a while back there used to be this really cool ethos, how did it go? Something about not caring what other people thought of your hobbies...

... nah, it's gone. Stupid bloody furries/Star Trek fans/Wiccans/people who listen to the wrong kind of music!

Nice of those who deserve to die to compile their own list. That'll save time when the glorious day comes.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Lowtax is the scum of the earth.

Let me demonstrate just how far I'll go to make an intellectual point:

I think the uncomfortableness of the 'sexually active' furries is the sheer length they have to go to, in terms of concepts. It's starting off with pornography, but via both animals and anthropomorphism; on the other hand, slash fiction's pornography and popular-intellectual-property, which is only one extra concept. Anthropomorphic pornography (someone has to have seen the furniture sex site) and animal pornography (bestiality) get varying reactions, but it's still only one concept away from straight porn. And bestiality raises enough eyebrows.

Wasn't strictly necessary, but it's going to be harder to argue because it's so icky.

Also, I agree with Aerin - "yiff" isn't nearly in common enough usage to warrant inclusion in the OED. Most jargon words don't get into the OED either unless they receive wide enough usage, as with most Internet terms nowadays.

'I'd sign that petition...It's a commonly used expression. It's been around for ten years at least. It has connotations and associations that NO OTHER WORD HAS. Well, except "yiffy."' - TCampbell

It's certainly NOT a commonly used expression outside that... community. I think that's a good thing.

"Yiff" isn't common enough? I don't have an OED to hand, but I've got a Webster's here, and opening it to a random page I found nauplius ("a first-stage larva of shrimps, prawns etc that has three pairs of limbs and a single eye and is usually not divided into segments"). I'll bet you ten quid "yiff" is considerably more widely used and understood than "nauplius".

"I'll bet you ten quid "yiff" is considerably more widely used and understood than "nauplius"."

Yes! Science vs. Freaks :)

You learn something new every day.

I always thought there's nothing positive that could be said about those people running around proclaiming how their god hates "fags", but I've been wrong. They at least have the guts to attack an influential group with with a strong lobby, rather than resorting to bullying the weakest target they can find.

I just don't understand all the hatred. Anthropomorphic porn is pretty much the ONLY thing I've never accidentally come across when looking for something else with a Google search, save when I was maliciously led to it and naively went directly to it. That really says something to me, that they're not shoving it in anyone's faces and not making a big deal out of it. Given that you won't even come across it accidentally, it's pretty obvious that they're really not hurting or even bothering anyone, so why all the hatred?

I do so love how the biggest meanest geek insult these days is to compare someone to a playground bully.

Look, people, we all realize that you probably had a miserable time in grade school / high school / whatever. Lots of people did. I know I did.

But y'know what? We GOT OVER IT. You can too.

Fine, Nat, I'm going to go with Fabian and compare furry-bashers to gay-bashers. I think it's more of an apt comparison anyway.

Shit, I remember a while back there used to be this really cool ethos, how did it go? Something about not caring what other people thought of your hobbies...

It's not furries that have me commenting from beyond the grave this morning, Sean. Furries I have no problem with. I read furry comics. I know furries. With the exception of the curse a gypsy put on me that causes me to, unsolicited, be confronted with skunk porn at any convention I go to (I think I'd find it at a television repairman's convention I crashed) it just wouldn't have impact on my life.

But consider this. This petition's designed to define a term which has, in almost every definition provided, a meaning that relies on the phrase "within the furry community" or somesuch. The one exception -- the mating sound of a fox -- could conceivably be in use among naturalists or fox husbands, though I have no idea if it is or not. Regardless, it is a specialist term used within a specific community -- jargon.

However, this person doesn't have a petition going to expand the term furry to include the furry community.

(And no, "furry's" definition in the OED doesn't currently include the furry community's definitions of the term.)

That, in a nutshell, is what skeeves me about this. It's not that they're furries, it's that this is a drive to correct what they see as a lack of recognition for the specific sexual elements of the community without first driving to achieve that recognition for the community.

Furries aren't innately freakish and scary. This petition is.

That wasn't address at you, Eric, it was at another comment.

I didn't realise you were attacking the dude's lack of priority in his quest to alter the OED - your post didn't exactly make that clear. Yeah, an expanded definition of "furry" probably ought to be higher up on the list than the inclusion of "yiff". I'm just saying that the inclusion of "yiff" isn't a completely wacky idea. There's plenty of jargon in the dictionaries that is much more obscure and marginal.

Yeah, the thing that really weirded me out about this when I read this last night (decided not to post until I got an idea as to where conversation was going to go) was that, if the furry community is attempting to get widestream acceptance, why try to define what is probably the most charged furry term at all, the one that usually causes most people to get freaked out? Why not define, oh, what the community itself actually is first before getting into specifics of slang? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. (And no, I'm not anti-furry. I don't mind some anthro art and all that and I realize that not all people within the community are complete nutjobs but the ones that are, well, really freak me out to say the least.)

In response to the commonality argument earlier. You really can't compare the commoness of nauplius and yiff. One is a scientific term, whereas the other is slang. Scientific terms have a reason to be in the dictionary. If they weren't, we'd have a new name for nauplius every time a scientist found one.

Double posting again. I have to take shorter breaks.

The use of "Furry" as a group might not present in the OED due to the rigorous -- and incredibly slow -- editorial review process new words undergo before inclusion.

The term as used here is a relatively new one to the scene. Besides, from articles I've read that deal with the arcane practices of the editorial staff, I have a strong feeling they're just not web-savvy there. I got the feeling that IBM Selectric typewriters were still viewed as cutting edge technology and stil not fully trusted to take the place of the tried and true manual machines. Things may have changed, but at last report -- at least the one I read -- they were still using index cards to track words that were on the slate for possible inclusion.

I could be wrong, or it might be that you don't have the unexpurgated version of the OED at work. Pretty racy subject, after all.

Out of curiosity, did "trekkie" show up in the book?

There's been too much drama around lately: everyone leapt to the conclusion that this was to be another controversial argument about who we can abuse online when clearly it was just an english geek (meant with the greatest respect Eric), being anal retentive about the logical order of definitions for his language of choice.

And thats an i tag up there, because I haven't written any html since '98 and can't be having with your em nonsense.

If Chuck E Cheese turns your crank, you're a beautiful snowflake, but the idea of two guys dressed in Team Mascot outfits grinding away on the dancefloor is pretty weird and/or hilarious to most people.

"I do so love how the biggest meanest geek insult these days is to compare someone to a playground bully."

This is discussed as one of the 5 Geek Social Fallacies: #1: Ostracizers are Evil

"This may be small-minded of me, but I think that when your chosen hobby makes people who dress in Stormtrooper costumes, speak Klingon, and write pornographic Harry Potter fanfiction feel embarrassed to be around you, it's time to seriously reexamine the way you spend your free time."

People are perfectly willing to make exceptions for their own interests while gleefully crucifying everything they aren't familiar with.

Embarrassment is merely the feeling of being out of step with societal expectations. Since societal expectations aren't always the be-all end-all of what's valuable, I think we could all do with a little more embarrassment once in a while.

The edition of the OED we have includes "fistfucking." I take this to mean it's not the expurgated version. ;)

The OED does contain "Trekkie."

Oh, and I admit freely I'm an English geek, Doc. So agreed there.

Oh DOES it, Eric? Don't they realize that term's not PC anymore? We'll have to start an online petition to have it replaced with Trekker, by gum!

What I don't like about the internet -- among other things -- is that it gives rise to all these "minority" groups that are being "persecuted." A lot of people like off-the-beaten-path social and sexual practices, but not all of them are demanding to be able to wear a fursuit to work, because anything less is oppression.

Same goes for any subset of culture that a person decides to define themselves by. Is their whole identity wrapped up in being able to dress as a cat and roll around on a hotel room floor with others so dressed? And the same for Star Trek or Babylon 5 or skateboarding or movies or anything else!

I have nothing against furries, yiffiers or not. Yes, there are all sort of categories among them.

People having sex in furry suits/being turned on by anthro characters naked and doing the nasty? That's weird. But there are also a lot of other weird things on the internet. Like people who are turned on by body casts. Don't get me started. Compared to what you can *find* in the internet, furries of any kind are just harmless.

I sort of admire the chutzpah of a group of people who feel they don't need to bother with correct grammar or punctuation... in a petition directed at Oxford University Press, requesting an inclusion in the fricking OED.

(Wait, not "admire". "Despise". Yeah.)

I'm not sure people *has* to be allowed to dress like this or that to work. I mean, the people who gives you the job has to have a weight in that decision. Because if you don't like it you're just going to get fired. Why not? Lots of people out there can be bothered to make concesions on dress code when it comes to keeping their jobs. If you don't, you're out.

Trevor: You despise an entire group of people because a single member of that group published a badly written petition?

And, that aside, sexual furries have been called "crazy", "icky", "freaks" and "nutjobs" in this thread; they have been told to be ashamed of themselves, and one poster apparently called for concentration camps. Why are we still discussing side issues?

Trevor: You despise an entire group of people because a single member of that group published a badly written petition?

No, I despise the group of people behind that petition. I don't know whether said group contains only a single person or not, and the question doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.

And all that talk about whether furries are freaks or nutjobs is the side issue. The original point of this thread is the stupidity of this petition.

Fine, Nat, I'm going to go with Fabian and compare furry-bashers to gay-bashers. I think it's more of an apt comparison anyway.

Yes, because being made fun of on the Internet is just like getting dragged behind a pickup truck for miles.

Trevor,

No, I despise the group of people behind that petition.

Right, the unambiguous conflation of the petitioner(s) and the furry community as a whole I should have responded to was upthread.

And all that talk about whether furries are freaks or nutjobs is the side issue.

Here I disagree. Letting these attacks stand unrefuted suggests that the Websnark community as a whole supports them. Death threats, even if they are a supposedly funny exaggeration, make everything else a side issue.

Interesting discussion on MetaFilter about Bullying and Pagans -- although Furries are also mentioned.

Incidentally, I love how the peition refers to "yiff" as "The Word". Kinda gives new meaning to John 1:1, doesn't it?

Hmm, this discussion seems to be a demonstration of Lore's Geek Hierarchy in action.

I'm pretty live and let live, but I do feel for those people who are interested in furry art but are kept away by the people with spirit animals, and the fursuiters, and furry pornographers. It reminds me of what I disliked about the whole White Wolf vampire thing. (It was an interesting gaming system when I got into it in the early 90's, but it became so dominated by the LARP thing, and the people going around claiming to be vampires in real life, that I lost a lot of my taste for it.)

In all honesty the divide is not between the SF fans, and the comic fans, and the furry fans and the anime fans. It is between the fans and the people who treat their hobby as a lifestyle. Even that doesn't seem like the right wording, but I guess it will have to be close enough.

As has been mentioned above, as in just about any other discussion of this topic I've come across, there are plenty of other much more disturbing sexual practices out there. Why do furries seem to get singled out so much? I think it's the interlapping social circles involved.

Anthropomorphic animal art has been a part of comicdom pretty much since there were comics. It's an entrenched and mostly respected part of the medium. There are lots of artists who create anthropomorphic animals for lots of reasons: cuteness, symbolism or metaphor, the artistic flexibilty of drawing something that isn't expected to be an actual representaion of a real creature, because their favorite comics were of anthropomorphic animals, and probably tons of other reasons I'm not clever enough to think of at the moment. Likewise, lots of comics fans like anthropomorphic animal art for lots of different reasons. And a small percentage of each of these will be for sexual reasons.

Then you have the circle of fans who enjoy cosplay, or even just dressing up as their favorite comic characters for certain events. With the propensity of anthropomorphic animal comics, it's not surprising that there are those who like to dress up as furries for the same kinds of reasons that superhero fans dress up as superheros, or manga fans as japanese school girls.

In certain circles (such as, oh, webcomics fans and comic convention attendees), there is a sizable concentration of the kinds of people mentioned above. And those who find anthropomorphic animals sexually arousing will tend to frequent the same areas because that's where they can find what turns them on. Those who are "furries" in non-sexual ways are somewhat understandably upset or freaked out by ... the other kind. The fact that "furry" is used by all the various communities to identify themselves only makes matter more confused.

With furries, you've also got the connection that a lot of anthropomorphic animal art is thought of as for younger audiences. Authors of all kinds can get upset when their creations are used for pornographic purposes. If they're creating something they perceive as primarily for children, upset doesn't begin to cover it.

Those in the non-sexual category see the furry-fetishist as co-opting their work and/or terminology. To the point where many who might fit the loose definition of furry reject the term for it's association with the furry-fetish. Others see this and try to fight to take back the term for it's more general meaning... and feel betrayed by those who disavow the term or percecuted by those who use the term in a way that lumps them in with the fetishists.

To use the body cast fetish mentioned above, it's not like there's a sizable group of body cast fans or people who create body cast art. The same goes for every other fetish I can think of. (Except, maybe Japanese schoolgirls, but I think that's an image that's almsot always used in a way that contains an amount of sexual fantasy, at least in the US.)

Having said all that, outside of the comics/RPG community I think the furry-fetishists are still hardly more singled out than any of those other fetish groups. I'm fairly certain all my friends who don't go to conventions, roleplay or read more comics than are found in the daily paper (which is almost all of them these days) have no idea that furries of any kind exist. Comics and roleplaying are already so far down on most of society's radar that the furry subsections don't register at all.

This may be small-minded of me, but I think that when your chosen hobby makes people who dress in Stormtrooper costumes, speak Klingon, and write pornographic Harry Potter fanfiction feel embarrassed to be around you, it's time to seriously reexamine the way you spend your free time.

Only problem with that is, other people's embarrassment is not a reliable indicator of the virtue/vice status of one's passtime. Other people's embarrassment, as far as I'm concerned, falls into that category I call "Things you have no control over and therefore should not, beyond a certain point determined by whim and your own sense of tact, be something you give a shit about."

 

Fine, Nat, I'm going to go with Fabian and compare furry-bashers to gay-bashers. I think it's more of an apt comparison anyway.

Yes, because being made fun of on the Internet is just like getting dragged behind a pickup truck for miles.

ITYMTS "getting tied up to a fence, pistol-whipped, and left to die." The pickup truck dragging incident was a racism issue, not a gay-bashing incident. Get your hate crimes straight!

(Joking aside: Don't conflate the kind of bashing with the degree of bashing. It's not unfair to compare gay-bashing and furrysex-bashing inasmuch as both are kinds of bashing that turn on disapproval of one's sexual nature/habits. However, it would be silly to compare playground use of the "N-word" to the Texas dragging death, even though both incidents spring from racism.)

"In all honesty the divide is not between the SF fans, and the comic fans, and the furry fans and the anime fans. It is between the fans and the people who treat their hobby as a lifestyle."

Well said, I think that's the real point. You can enjoy whatever you want, but things change when you demand receive adulation and respect for it. "The persecution that transvestive BDSM furry macrovore boytaurs face each day is no different from the plight of the African-American slave, or the Jews during the Holocaust!"

Joking aside: Don't conflate the kind of bashing with the degree of bashing. It's not unfair to compare gay-bashing and furrysex-bashing inasmuch as both are kinds of bashing that turn on disapproval of one's sexual nature/habits.

Thank you, you put that better than I probably could. The comparison is still apt even though worse things happen to gays than furries.

Also - directed mainly at Straub here, but this is a widespread thing - I think that the entire furry community is getting tarred with the same brush as the very small subsection of selfrighteous loudmouths. Every subculture has its selfrighteous loudmouths, but furries are all getting depicted like that. The most obnoxious are always the loudest.

It's a commonly used expression. It's been around for ten years at least. It has connotations and associations that NO OTHER WORD HAS. Well, except "yiffy."



But that's what slang is for, isn't it? The Furry community (like most communities) has its own slang, partially for concepts and associations unique to the community, and partially to build a sense of belonging in people who use it. Neither of those uses needs a dictionary entry to reinforce it.

Slang isn't normally included in a dictionary until it's been around for a while (10 years or more) and has become common usage in society at large. That may happen eventually with "yiff", but it certainly isn't true at the moment. (Ask your neighbors, I'll bet most of them have never heard the term.) "Trekkie" from another post above is a good example - it's been around for 30 years and a large proportion of native English speakers will know what you're talking about when you use the word, so it makes sense to include it in a dictionary of English usage. "Yiff" hasn't gotten there yet.

As for "nauplius", that's jargon, not slang. Jargon makes it in not based on common usage by society at large, but based on whether you can meaningfully discuss a common profession or science without using it.

Every subculture has its selfrighteous loudmouths, but furries are all getting depicted like that.

What subculture doesn't get tarred with the brush of it's loudmouth extremists?

"The most obnoxious are always the loudest."

So be it, but unfortunately it begins to smack of the Adventures Into Digital Comics trailer. In other words, you've got this one breakaway unit, this initial noisy thrust out into the mainstream, whether or not it's sanctioned by the rest of the body. (In the case of furries, it's the loudmouths and they're not sanctioned, and in the case of the documentary, it was the trailer and it was.)

But like it or not, that is what is being presented, and mostly from this do people form opinions. In either case, it is hard to take a look at the vanguard, strongly disagree with it, and then later be told to withhold opinion because it's not the whole story. Especially when, sanctioned or no, the loudmouth furries claim to be backing the whole.

To me, even the term "furry" is ridiculous, alongside "Trekkie" or any other fandom nickname. I like Star Trek a lot, and I have been to two or three conventions. I will go to one this summer too. But I will be damned if I identify myself as a Trekkie. Why does my identity have to hinge from a TV show or a group of drawings?

So it is hard for me to hear "don't feel that way about ALL us furries," because even that someone would want to be DUBBED a furry is hard to understand for me.

Accepting a name doesn't mean your "identity hinges" on that thing. I'm European, but that doesn't define me, it's just factually accurate. Left-wing, liberal, comics fan, philosophy nerd, all these are labels that apply to me and that I'll happily wear, but that doesn't mean my personality is being forced into a restrictive pigeonhole. Sometimes a name is just a name.

Going on a tangent here, but I'd just like to add the reason I hate all fandom names.

Many years ago, in an issue of Star Wars Insider, someone wrote a letter asking what Star Wars fans were called, since Trekkies had a name. The editor replied that there was no name. Someone wrote in a reply that repudated the editor and stated:

", my friends and I call ourselves Warsies..."

And thusly, I was creeped out. Coming up with a name for your fan community just seems silly, because you have to tell others that name. In the case of ethnicity or gender, they know the name before hand.

Which brings up another point. Sometimes, it seems like people just name themselves so they can feel important. Like the couple who proudly announce that they are BDSMs. Or the woman who looks like a woman, yet insists everyone describe her as "gender netueral". (True stories)

Also, Transfan is the silliest fandom name I have ever heard. I'm sorry guys, but it is.

What is a Transfan? A fan of "Transmetropolitan"?

:)

er... That's odd. That quote above should read, "{Boy's name}, my friends and I call eachother Warsies..."

I don't know if being a fan of something is the same as being "into" stuff. I mean, being a fan of a particular piece of fiction work -say, Star Wars, or LOTR- is not the same as being into fantasy, sci-fi, or b-movies. And it's definitely not the same as a fetish.

Of course, some people combine all of them things. Like the people who're into LOTR slash fanfics.

By the way, don't anybody get upset over anything they think I implied. It was accidental. I found myself with numerous points and didn't bother trying to rewrite my post with a common thread. This happened a lot in school too. Everything I wrote had to be rewriten from scratch because I included too many superfulous points. :(

We'll have to start an online petition to have it [Trekkie] replaced with Trekker, by gum!
Seems to me, you learn more about people lettin'em call you what they want.

Say, I haven't seen that Simpsons. What's goggles got to do with it?

Renier Wolfcastle, The Simpsonverse Arnold Schwarzenegger, is supposed to be rescued during the filming of a scene. The scene involves an unstoppable wave of acid. He isn't rescued, but he is wearing safety goggles.

Let me just say that I don't actually know any Furries, so I really can't devote the energy towards hating them some people do. I don't hate harmless fetishizers in general. I do reserve the right to say 'ick.'

Matt

www.likelystories.com

"What is a Transfan? A fan of "Transmetropolitan"?"

Is it a weird internet fetish based on a childhood TV show?

Optmus Prime: "Autobots... Transform, and make out!"

Well, it is certainly true that most of my knowledge of things furry comes from the internet. The only person I know who is really associated with furrydom is a nice older gentleman who goes to the same SF club that I do as well as the anime showing I frequent more often. (and who regrettably had a stroke recently) I've seen a few people running around with fur tails at conventions, but heck an ex of mine used to wear fur on her backside so she could convince cute guys to pet it. (Not an ex I'm going to get into, but what perversions she had ran in other spheres) And compared to some of things I've seen at conventions it was barely noticeable.

I am a furry for some values of "furry"--I like talking animals, I think they're neat, I paint a lot of 'em--and not for most of the others--I do not believe I have the soul of a wombat trapped in a human body, so far as I know I don't have a spirit animal, and I have never once said "Dude, Simba's hot."

Generally, however, I find furry fans largely unobjectionable people, mostly indistinguishable from the normal run of fans of things, and marginally more likely to be interested in my idea of good conversation, which runs to things like "Guess what disturbingly cool fact I just learned about lobster skeletons?!"* And they buy my art.

However, I hate the word "yiff." It's not my place to care if people do it. I could not care less. Do it with whoever, however, whyever, whatever. It is so not my problem. I've sold my share of paintings of scantily clad tapir women. I have no objection to people thinking some talking animals are hot. Doesn't bother me. You want to do it in a fursuit? You cannot concieve of how little I care.

But I just plain despise the word "yiff" on a purely visceral level, for much the same reason I dislike "weewee" and "poopies" and all the other infantile euphemisms for various biological processes. It irritates me on a purely aesthetic level. Call it sex, people! If it's sex with hot fox women, then call it that! I also object to words like 'furson' and 'fursonality' and other brutalities against a language that never did anything to deserve such abuse. It's purely aesthetic. There is no rational reason for this. It just galls me.

*No, seriously. Their carapaces extend to their esophagus, stomach and anus, right? So when they molt, they actually have to haul themselves off the carapaces in their innards, and drag their bodies backwards off part of their own digestive tracts. Isn't that NEAT? (and disgusting!?)

Like the couple who proudly announce that they are BDSMs.

...that doesn't even work. "I am BONDAGE!" "YES WELL I AM MASOCHISM" "AND I AM DOMINATE LOL(*)"

(*) For some reason, all the really horrible ads for doms seeking subs on alt.sex.bondage back in the day tended to go: "I am a Dominate, and..."

... seriously, the first thing I thought of when I read "I am a Dominate" was "yeah, well I've got Auspex, Dementation and Obfuscate!"

I tend to agree with Dan Savage: you have the right to do any goofy sex thing you want, but the rest of the world has the right to find it funny. If you're going to trumpet your oddball turn-on to the world, be prepared for the harsh truth that people outside your LiveJournal community may laugh at you.

Honestly, I don't think the sex-furries would be so widely disliked by their fellow nerds if so many of them weren't so humorless about their comical fetish. At least the people who dress up as Klingons or Stormtroopers usually seem to have a sense of humor about it. When you poke fun at Klingon language camps, you don't immediately get thirty enraged nerds in wrinkly foreheads descending to clear their esophagi at you. Okay, sometimes you do.

And, yeah, "yiff" as a word is so very ick. Tonstant Weadew fwowed up.

People finding it funny, sure. Everyone has the right to laugh at others. But a lot of the time it seems to cross the line into genuine hatred and disgust, which makes me uncomfortable.

This is to say nothing of the fact that furries have been around for a number of years now, and the jokes at their expense are wearing somewhat thin from use.

Here here. Or is it "hear hear," I never learned. If you're going to like something that is really bizarre, don't expect applause when you demand that others take you seriously for it. It's the humorlessness I dislike.

In all honesty the divide is not between the SF fans, and the comic fans, and the furry fans and the anime fans. It is between the fans and the people who treat their hobby as a lifestyle. Even that doesn't seem like the right wording, but I guess it will have to be close enough.

Given the internet's marvelous ability to recreate, at blinding speeds, arguments and conflicts which once played out over the course of years* in the letter columns of pre-Star Trek fanzines, it's worth noting that this distinction was picked up on ages ago in SF Fandom as FIAWOL vs. FIAGDH: "Fandom is a Way of Life" vs. "Fandom is a God-Damned Hobby."

Of course, with the notable exception of Claude Deggler and a few other such troubled souls, no one actually believed the former.





* No, really — that whole Webcomics Documentary Dustup? Back in The Day, that would have been good for at least three or four years, the collapse of two or more fan clubs and one Worldcon bid, three major GAFIAtions (one permanent), and a three chapter addendum to The Immortal Storm. These days, if your computer goes down for a week, you may never even know that you've been insulted. By 2015 or so, we will be reduced to sub-nanosecond virtual donnybrooks with people who haven't even been born yet. Causal paradoxes will result in many people accidentally flaming themselves.

FIAWOL vs. FIAGDH: "Fandom is a Way of Life" vs. "Fandom is a God-Damned Hobby."

Of course, with the notable exception of Claude Deggler and a few other such troubled souls, no one
actually believed the former.
Oh, I dunno about that. I'd bet five dollars American most of us here went FIAWOL for the first five or ten years after our first convention.

Meanwhile, back on topic: When I look ahead to the days (if any) I feel up to attempting to run two webcomics at once, two of the elements of Arthur, King of Time and Space with which I'm considering having the second one contrast are its family-friendliness and the top-of-the-food-chainness of its cast.

Paul, I was about to say "they don't have to be at the same time - didn't you say that AKOTS is a limited-run strip?". Then I went back to the FAQ to check my facts. Twenty-five years, huh? I withdraw the thought, and admire your ambition. ;)

What bothers me isn't the idea as much as their definition. I mean, it's so informal, like they're explaining it to some schmuck rather than putting it in a dictionary. Something more like this:

yiff /jɪf/

[Onomatop™ic]

v.

1. To engage in intercourse, esp. while wearing animal costumes.

n.

1. Intercourse between wearers of animal costumes.

2. Intercourse between anthropomorphised animals.

3. Intercourse between foxes.

"Causal paradoxes will result in many people accidentally flaming themselves."

Heck, given causal paradoxes I would happily flame myself ON PURPOSE. I recall being an insufferable twit in my past, and happily plan on being one far into the future. Given the right sort of temporal anomalies, I could probably occupy myself quite happily for the rest of my life by having large flamewars where all the participants were me.

Choo-Choo Bear. Panels 8-11.

=P

The real problem has nothing to do with what's in the petition, or what they're petitioning for--the real problem is assuming that words are chosen politically for inclusion and that the way to get a word into the OED is by filling out a petition. The OED is a record of usage, not a popularity contest. The way to get a word into the OED is by filling out the submission form at http://oed.com/readers/submitform.dtl or writing a letter to the editors with a definition of the word and citations of several quotations that use the word.

Oddly enough, for what it's worth, the OED is currently making a specific effort to broaden their pool of terms from science fiction and Fandom, as a kind of "live beta" pilot project for soliciting public assistance on other fields of terminology in the future.

It's a fascinating project, and I try to check in on it every so often to see what new gems have been unearthed. I think it's just incredibly cool that we now appear to know the precise first occurrence of "fanzine," for instance, and who coined it (it's one of those magic cites, where the text actually comes right out and says, basically, "here is a new word I am creating for this purpose"). The ability to pin down, with somewhat less precision, the emergance of "slash" from the cocoon of "K/S" is just as fascinating in its own right.

So anyway, the notion of trying to get "furry" and other words associated with furries into the OED is, at the moment, nowhere near as farfetched as it might seem. That said, of course, "furry" itself is the appropriate first target, as Eric has pointed out.

Oh, and to hit upon a tangential issue mentioned above: As of the current best documented evidence, the term "trekkie" is, indeed, older than the term "trekker" — by eight whole words, as the earliest known cites for each are from the same sentence in the May 2, 1970 issue of the fanzine Deck.

Gasp! Eric Burns, a 4channer?!

It's easy to ask people to have a sense of humor about themselves, but there's a certain point where it's just not funny anymore. If you go to any group, be it gays, Jews, or furries, and start telling jokes about their ethnic group, you're going to get cold stares pretty quickly.

Ghastly's Ghastly Comics has had a character teach a four year old about sex, has had a transexual seduce an innocent boy, has had women demand to raped, and many other perverted situations, all treated light-heartedly. However, unlike all the other perverts that make up the cast of this strip, the furry has been assulted in every strip he's shown up in, sans one which said "God hates furries." Something Positive treated bestiality with no real hostility towards the character who had sex with a koala, but gets hostile towards furries.

If just about every non-gay webcomic on the web that had gay charaters, had them being beaten up by the protagonists of the strip or had them being insulted in every strip which they appeared, people wouldn't be telling gay people that their 'fetish' was bizzare and that they shouldn't expect people to take them seriously or even politely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiff

Gee, I was just going to mention bunny boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghastly's_Ghastly_Comic

http://www.ghastlycomic.com/images/cast/bunnyboy-1.jpg

A new usage for an existing term, furry, is less of an issue to lexicographers and sesquipedalianistas than the discovery/recognition of a new four letter word. I can't seem to find a good dictionary of four letter words, but the OED would do, e.g for scrabble.

http://www.monkeylaw.org/index.php?date=20050605

As somebody who has been an out bisexual for a couple dozen years, who hasn't yiffed yet but might like to, it is somewhat objectionable to be told you don't exist. I think the campaign for inclusion is a reasonable one. And that starting an online petition is trivially easy and not usually very significant except to the participants.

Cordially, an arbitrary aardvark

http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/arbi

Leave a comment

Logo: Sleeping Snarky

Recent Entries

By the way? The Soonrâ„¢ web services ending in 'r' stop dropping the 'e' before that r, the Bettrâ„¢.
The people who brought us Pirate Bay -- the very best in organized intellectual property theft -- have launched…
Charting a Course: Star Trek Online moving forward
It's been a while, yet again, and this time I have no good reason for it. It's not illness…
I suppose this means the U.S.S. Fort Kent needs to have natural lighting in the light panels
(All pictures are screenshots taken by me while in Star Trek Online. Click on the thumbnails to get full…