Gormless Noodle
Member
From early caveman drawings to certain gods of Egypt, to contemporary movies, cartoons and games, they've always been there.
Before the internet age, it was quite popular since these kinds of characters transcended racial and gender boundaries quite effectively and had a very broad and child friendly appeal to them.
You probably already see where I'm going with this, but during the internet boom we got a phenomenon called furries. Somehow this relatively tiny subculture managed to make such an uproar that anything depicting anthropomorphic animals is now automatically called furry and also receives the associated stigmas.
I find it problematic that everything gets lobbed together under that moniker, since it should be quite obvious that there's a big difference between anthropomorphic animals and sexual deviants. Not that I'm calling all furries that, I'm just saying it all gets thrown together.
I see furries getting mentioned whenever there's a game with anthro characters in them. From Total Biscuit feeling the need to explain that there isn't any furry porn in Dust an Elysian Tail, to Tim Schaefer saying on a podcast on GT that he refuses to play Khajiit characters in Skyrim because he doesn't want to have anything to do with furries.
Automatically relating these characters to sexual deviants seems batshit crazy to me. Perhaps it's a dumb example, but I more or less see it as someone saying "I don't watch Indiana Jones because it has whips in it and s&m is disgusting".
But perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way. So I'd like to ask, do these types of characters such as Sonic, Star Fox, the Khajiit race in the Elder scrolls etc. Appal you so much that it influences your buying decision? And if so, why does it?
Before the internet age, it was quite popular since these kinds of characters transcended racial and gender boundaries quite effectively and had a very broad and child friendly appeal to them.
You probably already see where I'm going with this, but during the internet boom we got a phenomenon called furries. Somehow this relatively tiny subculture managed to make such an uproar that anything depicting anthropomorphic animals is now automatically called furry and also receives the associated stigmas.
I find it problematic that everything gets lobbed together under that moniker, since it should be quite obvious that there's a big difference between anthropomorphic animals and sexual deviants. Not that I'm calling all furries that, I'm just saying it all gets thrown together.
I see furries getting mentioned whenever there's a game with anthro characters in them. From Total Biscuit feeling the need to explain that there isn't any furry porn in Dust an Elysian Tail, to Tim Schaefer saying on a podcast on GT that he refuses to play Khajiit characters in Skyrim because he doesn't want to have anything to do with furries.
Automatically relating these characters to sexual deviants seems batshit crazy to me. Perhaps it's a dumb example, but I more or less see it as someone saying "I don't watch Indiana Jones because it has whips in it and s&m is disgusting".
But perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way. So I'd like to ask, do these types of characters such as Sonic, Star Fox, the Khajiit race in the Elder scrolls etc. Appal you so much that it influences your buying decision? And if so, why does it?
