passing thoughts

Ogredude · Post by **Ogredude** » Wed Mar 14, 2001 7:39 am

Hey, I like this topic. I started one very similar a few days ago over on the Class Menagerie board.Unfortunately, there's not really been enough of the story so far to be able to clearly tell much about the world, but I can certainly say that Gene's got it all planned out in his head. We'll just have to rely on best guesses, and wait for more of the story to unfurl and expose the truth. I donno how much of this truth will be mundane little details like this thread's about, but hey, who knows. Gene's world is incredibly detailed, he goes the extra mile to make it three dimensional.Ergodynamics...In <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20000717.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20000717.html</A> we see folks in the third panel using what appear to be normal steno chairs. I donno if it's the distance or the fact that the folks with their backs to us have short tails, but I don't see any tails in that panel (except the one racoon tail). Either way, steno chairs wouldn't be a big problem, your tail could go next to the vertical post holding the chair back.In <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20000811.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20000811.html</A> we see Cotton sitting on what appears to be a normal cheap chair used in cafeterias across America. This wouldn't be a problem either, as these chairs have a large gap between the solid back and the seat. Possibly, the two struts holding the back of the chair up have been reduced to one, at the side, allowing a person to sit and rotate their tail into place under the chair back, rather than having to thread the tail through the hole.Unfortunately, in <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001002.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001002.html</A> we don't get to see the back of Ernie's chair. I'm assuming there's either a tail hole in it, or its back doesn't go all the way to the seat, providing a tail hole.Alright, now we make some headway. The chair that Cotton is beating I'Brolent over the head with in <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001011.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001011.html</A> quite obviously has a place for a tail to go! However, it looks like any chair you'd find in the human world as well.Another chair in <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001108.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001108.html</A> this one a folding chair, which also has a large tail hole built in.No chairs in <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001120.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001120.html</A> but the eyeball effect is still fascinating...Ah! Cars, obviously driven by furries, in <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001204.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001204.html</A> but unfortunately for we who are curious about Furriston ergonomics (and fortunately for Tavatiana), the traitor was captured by I'Brolent before we can see the inside of the car.In <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001211.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001211.html</A> we can see an easy chair in the third panel that doesn't have a tail hole. Well, it'd probably be comfortable enough in a padded chair to tuck your tail in behind you. Not having a tail personally, I can't test this.Here we go... Gene and CW sitting in the booth in <A HREF="http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001227.html" TARGET=_blank>http://genecatlow.keenspace.com/d/20001227.html</A> show exactly how tails would be handled in restaurant booths. Just lay your tail to your side.Well heck. No more furniture. Oh well, this gives us at least some ideas on the ergodynamics of Furriston.--OgredudeOh, BTW, I think in Furriston, nudity is not socially acceptable. Remember, back when Gene and CW were on the beach, it was unusual to see people behaving that way in public. Also, even the eagle Ted wears a shirt of sorts. I imagine they've come up with some different fabrics that don't chafe the fur off, and I certainly didn't notice any spandex being worn.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Wed Mar 14, 2001 10:52 am

Some things that have crossed my mind.Ergodynamics. How "different" are the Furriston furries from humans in this regard? They all dress in "human" clothes and work around "human style" buildings, desks, chairs, etc. It would follow that this would occur due to the prevalence of "humanocentric" culture and manufacture, but one would think there would be some necessary allowances for differences in physical design.
Such as greater or lesser hearing, sight, sense of smell, than human normal... would radios and TVs be played at a lower volume in Cotton Taylor's house, for instance? Lights dimmer or brighter? Would Gene have to buy electronic equipment specially built to omit the high-pitched electric "whine" that humans wouldn't notice-- but which would set *his* teeth on edge?
Would there be "no perfume" seating at restaurants?
What about vehicles and large machinery? the internal combustion engine exists, obviously-- but what do they run on? Petroleum byproducts stink to high heaven in HUMAN nostrils; how much more so in a furry's? (I'm thinking hydrogen-burning or hybrid vehicles?)
What about diet? How "human" is that? Cotton is a coffee fiend, obviously-- yet IRL caffeine is deadly for rabbits

What about chocolate?
Meat or veggies? Cotton and Gene strict herbivore and carnivore, for instance-- or can Cotton enjoy a chili dog, while Gene orders a salad? Would conscientious hosts keep a supply of soybean-burger on hand, so as to be prepared either way?
Shedding season?
How do they deal with clothing that scuffs away body fur in embarrassing places? Do they look at it like "Tan lines" in humans? Or do they just wear deceptively loose clothing? (Full body "hat hair"... imagine it.)Furry nudists? One reflects on the-- ahem-- amorous couple on the beach some ways back. How casually is THAT sort of thing accepted?On the other hand, Bev completely freaked when Cotton blurted out that she had a birthmark...------------------
Never attribute to secret conspiracy what can just as easily be attributed to common stupidity.
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com
http://UTLT.keenspace.com

Ogredude · Post by **Ogredude** » Thu Mar 15, 2001 1:23 am

OK, it makes sense now.I'd wondered why the lack of clothing in the Soul Sight hadn't bothered anyone, but I'd brushed it off as folks being more open-minded in the furry society.And yes, what I was unsuccessfully trying to articulate in my footnote was that Gene and CW didn't disapprove of the nudity but rather the behaviour in a public place in the beach scene...If I might ask, Gene, how long have you been developing this particular universe and the stories you'll tell in it? Also, where can I find this Time Wrinkle thing that everyone's talking about? First I'd heard of your work was when someone mentioned it over on The Class Menagerie's message board... I'm glad I found it though.--Ogredude

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Thu Mar 15, 2001 8:19 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by genecatlow:
Ergodynamic design as far as clothing goes is
generally less of a concern in Furriston
because the furries in their world dress
primarily out of convention and not out of
any particular fashion sense. As their
species attempted to blend in with humanity,
the attempt to dress like humas became more
or less a reflex for public behaviour. In
their own homes and in their own separate
groups the may dress differently or not at all.
But (in an unspoken way)I've been giving some
evidence of a particular aspect of their
society via the effect(s) of the Sight of the
Soul, and that is: For them to be viewed
without clothing doesn't provoke an unusual
reaction in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hm. Are you saying that they dont find nudity arousing-- or that they just don't find it shocking? (I'm assuming they at least find the sight of the opposite gender in the buff, shall we say, pleasing to the eye?)
Apparently they DO have some degree of societal nudity taboos-- the ancient rabbits Cotton saw in his vision all wore loincloth/diaperlike garments, and since presumably this was before human enroachment on their territory, it would be considered evidence of some level of nudity taboo (an example of a RL sociological phenomenon: in regards to clothing, the loincloth is always the last to go--- or the first to be applied, however you look at it.)
.... also, again, Bev freaked when Cotton blabbed about her birthmark. It's apparently in an, ahem, indiscreet location, and if being in the buff held no stigma, why would she care?
I do get the sense that, overall, they're more *easygoing* about that sort of thing (well, maybe except for BEV). Perhaps some species have stricter taboos than others?Worldbuilding does involve a degree of caution; It's certainly fun to speculate a world where the real-life social, ethical and moral codes are rewritten..... but if those rules are tinkered with too lightly, the fictional world collapses on its own illogic. A lot of the moral and ethical codes people considered-- and some still consider-- merely the artifact of an oppressive Victorian-era past, and therefore disposable, proved to have sound logical basis and served a vital role in society-- a role society didn't appreciate till those supporting structures were, in part, taken away. Basic rules, when writing a "new world":
You can't do just one thing.
Nothing happens for just one reason.If a society has "loose" nudity and public sex taboos, there have to be several underlying reasons.
In humans, the biggest sexual trigger is *sight* (one could argue that *imagination* is the trigger before the trigger, but leaving that aside...) hence, a state of undress is a visual sex cue-- what constitutes a state of undress being culture-variant and somewhat dependent upon acclimation. Sexual *behavior* is another cue (hence porn.) So one reason for a taboo on public nudity and sexual behavior is to prevent the sexual agitation of bystanders-- who would instinctively regard such display as an invasion of their personal boundaries.
Secondly, there is the primal urge for safety. You're incredibly vulnerable when naked-- (to physical criticism, if not actual physical damage) and when in coitus, you and your mate are at your MOST vulnerable, definitively. Senses down,reaction time down, alertness gone, sprawled in an awkward position from which you will NOT be able to defend yourself or your mate from harm. Seeking out a secure, HIDDEN place is only basic precaution. Yes, RL animals do it any old place-- but they also get pelted with rocks and shoes, attacked by children and predators, and doused with buckets of water without warning.
Yet they never learn. Small wonder they never took over the planet....
ANYway.Also, another problem with it; a "looser" attitude about public sexual display (nudity and public coitus) presents a rather casual attitude about the inherent values of sexual restraint and intimate commitment. Puritanical criticism? No; just an acknowledgement of a basic fact-- that advanced societies that exhibit a careless attitude about something with as many potential problems as sex don't tend to stay advanced for very long. IRL, the clinical evidence of the consequences of a society careless about sex is easy to see; our own American culture is reeling under a one-two punch of a relentless VD epidemic and massive unwed pregnancy, each of which is causing social, political, and economic troubles on a titanic scale.
Now, in a society where doing the Wild Thing in a public place is viewed as little more than an Miss Manners no-no.... what does that indicate about underlying attitudes about other issues of sex?
I'm not raving some puritanical sermon, here... I'm just pointing out that when you write something into the storyline, there are a lot of details after, before, around and underneath that automatically write *themselves.* Draw a car, the engine is a given, so to speak. Summation: Free love and skyclad life look great on paper-- but they don't work all that great when put into motion. The gears clash.Other questions that occurred to me:1)I'm sure there are humans in Gene Catlow's world who think that furries are just the KYOOTEST thing in the WORLD... especially furry cubs. Heck, I know people IRL who would spontaneously explode at the sight of a baby anthro bunny.
How do the furriston furries regard this? Are they insulted? Merely annoyed? Do they consider it racist(speciesist)? Or are they bemused? Perhaps amused? Perhaps some are simply pleased that many humans like them-- even if for such a trite and silly reason?2)PETS. Do anthros have pets? Does the idea creep them out?
------------------
Never attribute to secret conspiracy what can just as easily be attributed to common stupidity. <A HREF="http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com</A> <A HREF="http://UTLT.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://UTLT.keenspace.com</A> [This message has been edited by RHJunior (edited 03-15-2001).]

Ogredude · Post by **Ogredude** » Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:09 am

I think a presence of reliable, non-interfering birth control, and a general lack of disease would pretty much ruin your objections to public coitus...I'm thinking that for an anthro, scent may be more of a key trigger than sight... Pheremones and such... I agree that generally coitus is reserved for very serious relationships (or it *SHOULD* be... it's a growing-closer, and you don't generally want to do that with strangers or folk that you don't particularly care about).Yes, Gene, how would you handle humans of the sort that RHJunior mentions? And are there any human/anthro relationships?On another note, I recall a Winds of Change story where one character, an anthro bovine, had retained his human digestion... others at the table were extremely grossed out when he munched a hamburger with great gusto... --Ogredude
I had a point here but it's momentarily escaped me...

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Thu Mar 15, 2001 12:16 pm

Ergodynamic design as far as clothing goes is
generally less of a concern in Furriston
because the furries in their world dress
primarily out of convention and not out of
any particular fashion sense. As their
species attempted to blend in with humanity,
the attempt to dress like humas became more
or less a reflex for public behaviour. In
their own homes and in their own separate
groups the may dress differently or not at all.
But (in an unspoken way)I've been giving some
evidence of a particular aspect of their
society via the effect(s) of the Sight of the
Soul, and that is: For them to be viewed
without clothing doesn't provoke an unusual
reaction in them. I rather want that to be
clear before I go depicting any particular
areas of their city where clothing is optional.
(Incidentally, the reason Ted wears a
garment is solely to identify himself as a
member of the Mayor's security team. In their
own surroundings birds do not dress at all.)Ergonomic design: It hasn't been shown yet, but
Chariot Motors is a furry-founded company, and
their cars are designed for individual furry
body types. (The reason, in fact, for the
company's sucess.) And the architecture of
various furry locales is something that I will
be going into more detail about. (One hint
has already been given: the overall design of
the city of ancient Canovia; that is, tiered
open-air quarters, is actually much like many
of their *modern* cities, with the difference
of more modern building materials, of course.)Appliances and their effects: Some noises can
bother the sensitive hearing of some furries.
But media isn't as pervasive in their city.
Many furries don't watch (or even own a) TV.
Radio is just as big as TV there, and printed
media is often the preferred source of news.Diet: generally an acquired taste. It seems
that most herbivore/carnivore traits remain
true to their species, but hard and fast rules
don't seem to apply. The consumption of real
meat by furries is FAR less than it is in the
human world, however.Shedding season: goes unnoticed, more or less.
In a busy city, there's always stuff to be
cleaned up, loose fur is no exception.Furry nudity: strictly speaking, there isn't
any.. that is, to their way of thinking. Being
without clothing isn't inherantly salacious
or even suggestive in their own minds. But, as
I said, I have to establish that context first
before I go depicting anything that might be
taken the wrong way. There are public areas
where a minimum of dress is considered 'de
riguer' and out-of-the-way areas where no
clothing need be worn. What Gene and CW were
making note of, that weekend at Bayshore
beach, was about what the unnamed couple
were doing in a public area, not the fact that
they weren't wearing anything. It wasn't that
they were doing it outdoors, it was that they
were doing it in an area where it's specifically
designated that you shouldn't do it.
And even so, they weren't shocked, just mildly
disapproving. If they had been in such an
approved area, no notice would have been taken
of them. [This message has been edited by genecatlow (edited 03-15-2001).]

TimberBram · Post by **TimberBram** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 1:40 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ogredude:
I think a presence of reliable, non-interfering birth control, and a general lack of disease would pretty much ruin your objections to public coitus...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope not. It would be provide a relatively simple (and horrifying) way for humans like Mr. Nasty to deal with furs. Simply introduce a deadly STD of the HIV-family (there are existing forms that affect species other than humans, so gengineering might not even be needed). <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/eek.gif"> Given the long dormancy/incubation time of the disease, it would be widespread before it was even recognised as a problem. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Persuavively posited by Ogredude:
I'm thinking that for an anthro, scent may be more of a key trigger than sight... Pheremones and such...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This does seem likely. What's your verdict on this matter, Gene? Do furs in your world respond more in human or animal fashion? Or is it a hybrid situation? Or something else? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Entertainingly related by Ogredude:
On another note, I recall a Winds of Change story where one character, an anthro bovine, had retained his human digestion... others at the table were extremely grossed out when he munched a hamburger with great gusto...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is an interesting point, though it seems more likely that it would be a carnivore/herbivore situation. For example, would Cotton object if Gene felt like having hassenpfeffer? Or would the thought simply never cross Gene's mind? (I wonder if I just answered my own question there?)Anyway, I've rambled enough.Peace,
Tim Bram.

Howie · Post by **Howie** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 2:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RHJunior:

What about diet?
Meat or veggies? Cotton and Gene strict herbivore and carnivore, for instance-- or can Cotton enjoy a chili dog, while Gene orders a salad? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps- my pet cat likes oyster crackers, Pringles, and even cheese. Cats aren't as strictly carnivorous as one might think. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">------------------
Jason Furness (the "<A HREF="http://come.to/pixelated" TARGET=_blank>Pixelated</A>" guy)

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 5:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RHJunior:
Hm. Are you saying that they dont find nudity arousing-- or that they just don't find it shocking? (I'm assuming they at least find the sight of the opposite gender in the buff, shall we say, pleasing to the eye?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They do indeed! What I said was "unusual",
not "unappealing" or any other negaive term.
What they see, as well as what we see, is
weighed and judged by their own sensibilities
and standards of beauty (or lack of it).
 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Apparently they DO have some degree of societal nudity taboos-- the ancient rabbits Cotton saw in his vision all wore loincloth/diaperlike garments, and since presumably this was before human enroachment on their territory, it would be considered evidence of some level of nudity taboo (an example of a RL sociological phenomenon: in regards to clothing, the loincloth is always the last to go--- or the first to be applied, however you look at it.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not quite the right presumption... that
particular age wasn't before contact with
humanity, but afterward. And in this case,
the garments are more for ritualized behavior
and identification than for modesty. (During
the actual attending of the ceremony, the
ritual garments also include arm and leg
wrappings, if you check.) In more modern
furry societies, there turns out to be another
reason for wearing clothing, one that humanity
often takes for granted: pockets.
 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
.... also, again, Bev freaked when Cotton blabbed about her birthmark. It's apparently in an, ahem, indiscreet location, and if being in the buff held no stigma, why would she care?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
She cares solely about the birthmark itself,
(and having it widely known that she has it)
and not it's location itself. The reason why
she cares about that is a plot element for
another story - I'm simply referring to it
at this time. Whatever garment she would wear
that would cover the mark would be more or
less solely for that reason. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I do get the sense that, overall, they're more *easygoing* about that sort of thing (well, maybe except for BEV). Perhaps some species have stricter taboos than others?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Taboos would have probably something to do
with species; they would also have to do with
the individual infleunces on the culture that
affects that species. Simply looking at the
species alone is to disregard the interaction
of society on that species. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Now, in a society where doing the Wild Thing in a public place is viewed as little more than an Miss Manners no-no.... what does that indicate about underlying attitudes about other issues of sex?
I'm not raving some puritanical sermon, here... I'm just pointing out that when you write something into the storyline, there are a lot of details after, before, around and underneath that automatically write *themselves.* Draw a car, the engine is a given, so to speak. Summation: Free love and skyclad life look great on paper-- but they don't work all that great when put into motion. The gears clash.
 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only if you haven't seen the whole thing, or
have decided ahead of time what the sole
conclusion is. There are perfectly logical
reasons why a *human* society would have the
rules and taboos it does, and equally logical
reasons why a *furry* society would not. You
are assuming that sight is either the sole
cue, or at least the major one, for sexual
arousal-and in a human society, that is very
likely true. But in a furry society, that may
not be the case. The simple fact may be that
the sex drive of furries isn't as "24/7" as
it is in humans. The fact that the libido
occupies such a large percent of human thinking
does not automatically mean that furry thinking
MUST run along the same lines as well. And a
few other factors are also to be considered:
Pheremones, as Ogredude pointed out, play
their role (one of the reasons that TV isn't
as popular in furry society is because most
of them link sight with scent, and you can't
smell what's on TV). And another thing: not
every act of sex will result in pregnancy in
furry society. If the female isn't in estrus,
then she will probably not send any signals that
would arouse a possible partner anyway. I do
not take creating my world lightly, and I have
thought out a lot of what I put in my comic.
The big reason I haven't taken anything to
any extremes as far as what could be taken as
erotic content (or an abundance therof) is
because I want to establish the basics first,
before I do anything that would have any
reader going "Oooh look at the nakey furs".
That isn't what I'm after, and that's got to
be clear before I do anything else. The story
is about their world, but it isn't being read
by anyone from their world, it's being read by
the readers in *this* one. And it's far too
easy, unfortunately, for readers of webcomics
to get the wrong impression if they see what
appears to be anything salacious going on. So
I'd rather err on the side of caution if I
must. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Other questions that occurred to me:1)I'm sure there are humans in Gene Catlow's world who think that furries are just the KYOOTEST thing in the WORLD... especially furry cubs. Heck, I know people IRL who would spontaneously explode at the sight of a baby anthro bunny.
How do the furriston furries regard this? Are they insulted? Merely annoyed? Do they consider it racist(speciesist)? Or are they bemused? Perhaps amused? Perhaps some are simply pleased that many humans like them-- even if for such a trite and silly reason?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most of them regard it as inoffensive if not
overdone, but insulting if a habit is made of
it. For quite a few of them, it was the only
way to get along in human society, and though
most of them won't 'get an attitude' if a human
regards them as cute, if you go so far as to
try to hug or pet them (or, in some extreme
cases actually try to force such things on
them, as does happen occasionally) you'll see
a distinctly un-cute side of the furry
emerge. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
2)PETS. Do anthros have pets? Does the idea creep them out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some do, and some don't. There are non-sapient
animals on their world, but by and large they
only find themselves as pets of humans. The
furries that would be more likely to own a
pet are those that are less likely to have
been regarded as "cute" by humanity.
[This message has been edited by genecatlow (edited 03-16-2001).]

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 5:42 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ogredude:
I think a presence of reliable, non-interfering birth control, and a general lack of disease would pretty much ruin your objections to public coitus...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They have something like that already. A
female can only become pregnant when she is
in estrus, and the time period for this
varies from species to species. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm thinking that for an anthro, scent may be more of a key trigger than sight... Pheremones and such... [QUOTE]
Right again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that generally coitus is reserved for very serious relationships (or it *SHOULD* be... it's a growing-closer, and you don't generally want to do that with strangers or folk that you don't particularly care about).Yes, Gene, how would you handle humans of the sort that RHJunior mentions? And are there any human/anthro relationships? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
There will be. And I am really going to have
quite a lot to do in showing how both humans
and furries react to such things!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:05 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Persuavively posited by Ogredude:
I'm thinking that for an anthro, scent may
be more of a key trigger than sight...
Pheremones and such...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This does seem likely. What's your verdict on
this matter, Gene? Do furs in your world
respond more in human or animal fashion? Or
is it a hybrid situation? Or something else?

Umm.. the answer is "C". <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> There are many,
MANY different levels that the furries of my
world demonstrate and receive affection from
one another on, and actual coitus is only
one of them. They do react to each
other via input of scent, sight, and instinct
and they would in fact be more aroused by the
signals sent by a willing, receptive partner
who was fully dressed than a casually happy but
not-interested-in-actual-coitus furry wearing
nothing but his/her fur. Furries talk a lot
with their bodies (one of the reasons I LOVE
to draw them is because of that: I can do
more with a whisker twitch or a tail droop
than I can do with any human -but that's just
me... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> ) Also, furries react with a great
deal more enjoyment to physical contact that
is meant to convey pleasure and affection. A
nuzzle or an earlick means a lot more to them
than it would to a human, and for such contact
between partners to go no further than that
would not only be normal, it may often be
preferred by both. A human, upon seeing such
contact might ASSUME that they were about to
go "all the way" whereas neither of them
(having sent each other the right signals)
would have even been considering such a thing.
 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is an interesting point, though it seems more likely that it would be a carnivore/herbivore situation. For example, would Cotton object if Gene felt like having hassenpfeffer? Or would the thought simply never cross Gene's mind? (I wonder if I just answered my own question there?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To explain that, you'd have to have more of
the mindset that furries (and, therefore, Gene)
would have. They are completely aware of their
predator/prey history, and in fact in many
other furry societies elsewhere on their world,
that particular milieu hasn't changed. The
difference is, the furries who live there
don't fool themselves - they know what life
is like and they face it (and death) with a
completely straighforward attitude. Being in
a somewhat more civilized society, Gene would
not see his friends as food, per se, but the
instinctive understanding that everybody,
humans included, is on SOMEBODY'S menu (if
no one else gets you, the maggots will!) makes
the point a moot one. We *all* eat, and that
which we eat was once alive.
P.S. If you're ever read Mary Hanson-Roberts
brilliant story "Here Comes a Candle" you'll
see maggots can be furries too... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">[This message has been edited by genecatlow (edited 03-16-2001).][This message has been edited by genecatlow (edited 03-16-2001).]

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:12 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by howie:
 Perhaps- my pet cat likes oyster crackers, Pringles, and even cheese. Cats aren't as strictly carnivorous as one might think. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.g ... BLOCKQUOTE>
No, they aren't. I have known cats who would
eat *anything* edible - if you didn't watch
them, they'd jump up onto the dinner table
and go for your plate. O_O

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:36 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ogredude:
OK, it makes sense now.I'd wondered why the lack of clothing in the Soul Sight hadn't bothered anyone, but I'd brushed it off as folks being more open-minded in the furry society.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They are, to a great degree... though in fact
they *do* have their own set of taboos. They
just aren't exactly the same as a human
society would have. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
And yes, what I was unsuccessfully trying to articulate in my footnote was that Gene and CW didn't disapprove of the nudity but rather the behaviour in a public place in the beach scene...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, okay. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif"> Yes, affectionate contact is
fine in public (in their world), and even some
degrees of affectionate contact in the fur is
not wrong as long as you're not in direct
interferance with anyone. But anything taken
further than that, should be either in private
or an area set aside for it (which is pretty
much the same thing as private). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
If I might ask, Gene, how long have you been developing this particular universe and the stories you'll tell in it? Also, where can I find this Time Wrinkle thing that everyone's talking about? First I'd heard of your work was when someone mentioned it over on The Class Menagerie's message board... I'm glad I found it though.--Ogredude<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*goggles* Whooo boy... that's like asking how
long have I had Gene as a character! I've had
individual details of this world floating
around in my head for at least within living
memory, and if I could work up the nerve to
scrounge around in that awful pile of drawings
I did back when I couldn't draw, I could show
some examples of what it looked like that long
ago... >_< But to answer your second question:
the Time Wrinkle story was/is an ongoing work
that was initially started by me back in the
more halcyon days of Yerf. It seemed at that
time that there was a more convivial atmosphere
and a lot of artists were doing things in
trade with other artists. So the idea of a lot
of artists pooling their talents on a single
story really clicked for a long time. It may
again, in fact... but since I have a little
more control over my Keenspace comic, I'm
giving it priority. NOT that I've abandoned
the TW story-quite a few people want to see it
completed (including me). But there's got to
be more commitment on it than just me, now,
if that's gonna happen. A couple of those
involved in the story have put all the images
from all the contributors in order and put
them on a separate (from Yerf) site of their
own. One of them was (last time I checked): <A HREF="http://sirkain.erols.com/~tw?" TARGET=_blank>http://sirkain.erols.com/~tw/</A>
and the other was: <A HREF="http://www.furnation.com/Striker/time/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.furnation.com/Striker/time/</A> [This message has been edited by genecatlow (edited 03-16-2001).]

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 9:46 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ogredude:
I think a presence of reliable, non-interfering birth control, and a general lack of disease would pretty much ruin your objections to public coitus...

A lot of sociologists believed that about both the condom and the pill. However, it didn't work: in fact, with the introduction of generally effective and reliable birth control, unwanted/unplanned/extramarital births-- and vendereal disease cases-- have skyrocketed... because people felt "safer", and thus engaged in sexual activity more freely. And, since no birth control method is 100%--often far below it in fact ("condom pregnancy" rate is 15%, for instance), the increased degree of prevention was shot out of the water by the simple statistical odds.
This also ignores the fact that birth control doesnt always equal VD control-- or that birth control methods often have their own unpleasant side effects....
Like I said, you can't do just one thing, and nothing happens for just one reason.
I'm thinking that for an anthro, scent may be more of a key trigger than sight... Pheremones and such...

Possibly. But I've also heard arguments from science corners that an increase in intelligence and the resulting change in brain structure tends to downplay the importance of sense of smell(for the sake of a larger cerebellum, I believe the argument was), and increase importance of other senses such as sight-- of course, that's all speculation and smoke.
AromaPorn. hmmm.

I agree that generally coitus is reserved for very serious relationships (or it *SHOULD* be... it's a growing-closer, and you don't generally want to do that with strangers or folk that you don't particularly care about).

There's also sociopolitical reasons for it. Intelligent offspring take longer to raise and require more personal attention... for at the very least they have immeasurably more to learn. A committed mating *pair* is more effective at raising offspring... one hunts while the other nurtures, crudely put. (and any parent of more than one child can tell you-- an extra pair of hands is often heaven-sent!) So sex, romantic love, mated bonding, and the raising of offspring tend to come in a bundled package--- marriage/family <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">

Yes, Gene, how would you handle humans of the sort that RHJunior mentions? And are there any human/anthro relationships?

I'm inclined to think that it all depends on who's having the "cutesy pootsy" reaction.Politically Sensitive Male Rabbit:"All this 'aww, what a cute bunny!' It's demeaning! It's insulting! It's--"Baywatch Bikini babes: "Awww, what a cute bunny !" *group cuddleskritches on the Political Rabbit*Political Rabbit: "It's... umm... open to interpretation, I suppose...."
<IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">------------------
Never attribute to secret conspiracy what can just as easily be attributed to common stupidity.
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com
http://UTLT.keenspace.com

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Fri Mar 16, 2001 10:00 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is an interesting point, though it seems more likely that it would be a carnivore/herbivore situation. For example, would Cotton object if Gene felt like having hassenpfeffer? Or would the thought simply never cross Gene's mind? (I wonder if I just answered my own question there?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To explain that, you'd have to have more of
the mindset that furries (and, therefore, Gene)
would have. They are completely aware of their
predator/prey history, and in fact in many
other furry societies elsewhere on their world,
that particular milieu hasn't changed. [/b]Please tell me this isn't yet *another* anthro world where furries have each other for lunch-- even if it IS in some "elsewhere, elsewhen" corner of the world!
Gah.
I don't care how "kevin and kell" hip it is, one of the basic rules of sentience HAS to be "YOU DON'T EAT STUFF THAT CAN TALK TO YOU." One of the necessities of self-awareness is the ability to recognize *and empathize* with other sentience, to be able to tell the difference between "food/thing" and "person- not food/thing."... and exercise the crudest, most primitive version of that primal foundation of civilization: "Do unto others" by not eating that which has a soul like your own.Otherwise, you're just an intelligent, amoral monster--- one that OTHER species will gang up on to either rectify or eradicate for their own safety!------------------
Never attribute to secret conspiracy what can just as easily be attributed to common stupidity.
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com
http://UTLT.keenspace.com

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Sat Mar 17, 2001 2:36 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RHJunior:
Please tell me this isn't yet *another* anthro world where furries have each other for lunch-- even if it IS in some "elsewhere, elsewhen" corner of the world!
Gah.
I don't care how "kevin and kell" hip it is, one of the basic rules of sentience HAS to be "YOU DON'T EAT STUFF THAT CAN TALK TO YOU." One of the necessities of self-awareness is the ability to recognize *and empathize* with other sentience, to be able to tell the difference between "food/thing" and "person- not food/thing."... and exercise the crudest, most primitive version of that primal foundation of civilization: "Do unto others" by not eating that which has a soul like your own.Otherwise, you're just an intelligent, amoral monster--- one that OTHER species will gang up on to either rectify or eradicate for their own safety!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If, by "have each other for lunch" you mean
that a predator can just go out with a shopping
list and bag as many of the prey animals as
wanted without a fight, no. Definitely not.What I mean is, in some parts of their world,
furries engage in conflicts with one another.
And in the cases where the conflicts are
between what has historically been a predator
species and a prey species, the prey victims
can expect that any of their numbers taken
prisoner will not come back. It is not the
most laudable fact to have to admit, but it
is nonetheless a fact- all the furries on
Gene's world are not saintly, nor are all the
bad things that happen to them solely the
result of humanity. There are indeed a number
of amoral creatures among them, and it isn't
something that those who are striving for a
position of respect are proud of.

[This message has been edited by genecatlow (edited 03-17-2001).]

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Sat Mar 17, 2001 9:16 am

What I mean is, in some parts of their world,
furries engage in conflicts with one another.
And in the cases where the conflicts are
between what has historically been a predator
species and a prey species, the prey victims
can expect that any of their numbers taken
prisoner will not come back. It is not the
most laudable fact to have to admit, but it
is nonetheless a fact- all the furries on
Gene's world are not saintly, nor are all the
bad things that happen to them solely the
result of humanity. There are indeed a number
of amoral creatures among them, and it isn't
something that those who are striving for a
position of respect are proud of.
Considering the guards' reaction to Cotton's reference of the time when it was legal to HUNT furries, I suspect-- or at least hope-- "ashamed" would be something of an understatement for their reaction to furries hunting and eating furries. More like "horrified," "sickened", "revolted"...
I'm moved to recall the RL human history of cannibal tribes like the Anasazi, the human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the ghoulish and abominable acts of the Nazis (lampshades of human skin, pillows stuffed with human hair).... how humanity and society in general looks back on such things and shudders-- and hears of such things occurring in dirty little corners of the world today and is shaken with the horrors.
I'm assuming that you're saying that such things in the furry world are regarded with the same degree/perspective?

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:31 am

a quick redux to the whole clothing issue:Upon reflection, it seems to me that that the issue of nudity as provocation would be more an issue of *culture* than of *creature*... and cultural *context* with certain states and forms of dress.For instance: a woman dressed in,say, a silk teddy is just as "covered" as a woman in , oh, a tanktop teeshirt and shorts.
Yet a woman can feel perfectly comfortable in public dressed in tanktop and tee, and will generate no special interest-- yet a woman who suddenly found herself dressed in public in a lace teddy would be mortified-- and the interest level of every male within sight would go up a dozen notches.
Why? Mental associations.... and the power of suggestion.
Human culture, IRL, has a wide range of "nudity" standards--- but generally, harsher climes have stricter dress codes and tend to associate nudity-- or underclothing, for that matter-- with sexuality.
Why?
Cause in a COLD climate, someone doesnt generally get that nekkid unless they're up to something bawdy....while in a steaming jungle, someone getting that nekkid is just trying to avoid heat stroke. Not that the jungle native doesnt find the sight of the opposite gender pleasing-- but that he/she is in a world where there is a different plateu of "clothed from the environment."In, say, a temperate, northern European culture, the meme of "undressed=sex" would get accumulated and handed down through the culture-- and would be passed down to cultures influenced or derived from it. And in a primarily Eurocentric world.....Also, there's context. WHAT you wear,HOW you wear it, and WHERE you wear it, being just as important as HOW MUCH (lace undergarments in a boudoir vs swimsuit at the beach.)In short, nudity is all mental... or more accurately, meme-al. The power of suggestion.Now, given that a furry-human co-society is allegedly a pretty new thing, there hasn't been enough time for the concept of nudity as a sexual signal to be "picked up" by the furry community. Given ohh, about another hundred years, though, it'll be picked up, I suspect-- due to cultural "melting pot" influences, and the passing of memes from one culture to the other. Eventually it would become as ingrained as it is in humans-- or more likely a middle ground between the two would be struck.So why don't the furries *already* have a clothing taboo?
Well, like i said earlier on-- nudity taboos are tied to what amount of dress is comfortable for the climate (less than is comfortable for the average climate, means that the person is disrobing.) And when you're covered from head to toe with FEATHERS or FUR... your margin of comfort is a whole lot wider. So you'd have to remove a lot MORE clothing to be underdressed for the climate.....Hmm. In order for most furs to "feel naked," you'd probably have to shave them bald!Other thoughts:
One bit of proof that *sight* among furs is important as a sexual cue...The women have breasts <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">When a creature seeks a mate, it has two initial concerns: a mate that is
1)in good health. That's the REAL reason why physically fit athletic types attract the opposite gender more, folks.
2)Physically mature and fertile. Now, there are multiple ways to determine the general health and physical maturity of a potential mate... in creatures that rely more upon SIGHT, secondary sexual characteristics-- such as narrow waist, wide hips, and *permanent breasts*-- are the indicator.
If sight was relatively unimportant to furries, the females would not have breasts unless they were nursing, and the males would rely upon scent alone to determine the viability of a potential mate.
Also, for an intelligent being, finding a mate to have and raise offspring with is a *long term goal*... at the very least due to how long it takes to fully raise (and civilize!) intelligent offspring. (21 years accounted for, baby.) Obviously this is something that's going to have to keep your attention long *after* mating season and even nursing and weaning is over. Changing, staccato indicators of maturity and fertility, ones that disappear after the conception, birth and weaning of the offspring, generally tell the male that it's time to leave, your job here is done now.Permanent secondary sexual characteristics-- breasts, folks-- are an indicator to the mate that "okay, just stick around a while; I'm preoccupied with our first kid right now, and I don't smell *in heat* right now, but yes, I'm still fertile and we'll be able to start on another kid soon. This sterility thing is just temporary."
[This message has been edited by RHJunior (edited 03-18-2001).]

Genecatlow · Post by **Genecatlow** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:38 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RHJunior:

Considering the guards' reaction to Cotton's reference of the time when it was legal to HUNT furries, I suspect-- or at least hope-- "ashamed" would be something of an understatement for their reaction to furries hunting and eating furries. More like "horrified," "sickened", "revolted"...
I'm moved to recall the RL human history of cannibal tribes like the Anasazi, the human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the ghoulish and abominable acts of the Nazis (lampshades of human skin, pillows stuffed with human hair).... how humanity and society in general looks back on such things and shudders-- and hears of such things occurring in dirty little corners of the world today and is shaken with the horrors.
I'm assuming that you're saying that such things in the furry world are regarded with the same degree/perspective?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It would not make a great deal of sense for
them to resent being hunted by humanity so
deeply and at the same time regard themselves
hunting each other as perfectly all right, no.
They receive enough hypocritical treatment as
it is without legitimizing any of it by invoking
such an ugly double-standard.