3 ms·

> Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it? Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry se

> Was "furry" sex also considered normal before we had a name for it? Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill: > Like other lovers, they invented pet names for each other. Clementine was “Cat”, or “Kat”, Winston was “Pug”, then “Amber Pug”, then “Pig”. Drawings of these animals decorated the margins of their letters to each other, and at dinner parties Winston would reach across the table, squeeze her hand, and murmur “Dear Cat”. [...] > These were not one-offs, taken out of context. Due to Churchill’s odd schedule and frequent travels, he and his beloved Kat didn’t see much of each other, and even while living in the same house they wrote each other frequent letters. Practically all of them are full of love—and they’re equally full of what we today would recognize in a heartbeat as typical anthropomorphic on-line role-play. http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-and-fur/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2012/12/28/blood-toil-tears-...

foldr 10y ago
You can't really be comparing pet names based on animals to furry sex?
- wolfgang42 10y ago
  I glossed over this in the parent, but how exactly are you defining "furry sex"?
  - foldr 10y ago
    People having sex while dressed in big furry animal suits.
    - wolfgang42 10y ago
      That's not nearly as common as you might think--among other things, it's a good way to ruin a several thousand dollar fursuit. (The best analogy I've heard is "Yes, there are furries who have sex in fursuits, but probably not more than people who have sex in space suits."[1]) The furry fandom is much less inhibited than general society--members tend to be willing to discuss sexual topics in a way that most people aren't. (This probably also accounts for the higher incidence of homosexuality[2], since it's not felt to be something that needs to be hidden.) However, the vast majority of furry-related sexual expression (as opposed to two people who happen to be furries having otherwise non-furry sexual relations) comes in the form of various types of media--published stories and images, but also private roleplay. In this regard, pet names based on animals are absolutely a part of "furry sex", certainly more so than dressing in animal suits during the act. 1: http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-the-furry-fandom/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-... 2: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; poorly-formatted PDF at https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3 https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3. "...they are less likely to be heterosexual compared to other males in the study."
dpark 10y ago
> Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill I think you're answering a much different question than what I asked. You seem to be answering whether it existed before it had a name. I was asking whether it was normal before it had a name. I have no idea whether Churchill was actually a "furry" but I don't think giving it a name suddenly made it abnormal. To whatever extend "furry" behavior is normal or abnormal, it was the same before and after it had a name.
- wolfgang42 10y ago
  Admittedly I did not make this point particularly clearly. [I also realized as I was writing this reply that I made a possibly unwarranted assumption: that Churchill's actions were well-known and generally accepted at the time. I took from the quote that he was doing this at dinner parties, but have no idea what the public scope was. The remainder of the reply continues with this assumption, but I would want to do more research before continuing to use this particular example.] I'm interpreting "normal" as considered not out of the ordinary by a reference group (as opposed to e.g. within one standard deviation of the mean). This brings the opinions of the group (here the general public) into play. I argue that giving it a name did, in fact, make it abnormal. It is difficult to discuss anything without having words to describe it with, in part because no clear boundaries have yet been defined. As a result, these sorts of things fall into a grey zone where they can't really be described as "normal" or "abnormal" (even if individual instances could be called "unusual"). Once they have been classified, they can be given a name (e.g. "furry"), and also the group as a whole can then be easily classified as normal or abnormal.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Holding someone's hand and calling them a pet name at dinner is not the same as having one's private sex/romance practices publicly known. I doubt that if Churchill was engaging in furry fetishes that it was well known. But even if it were well-known that wouldn't mean it was generally accepted as normal. But it's weird debating Churchill since I have no idea if it's even true or if it's made up or or wildly misinterpreted. I don't agree with the naming argument. It might be harder to discuss something without a label on it but the underlying behavior can still be seen as normal or abnormal. We didn't have a real word for cisgender until recently but it doesn't seem to have made a difference in how cisgender people are perceived. We still don't have a word for people who are sexually excited by Ikea couches but it's pretty unusual/abnormal regardless. (I don't see unusual and abnormal as meaningfully different here.)

foldr 10y ago

You can't really be comparing pet names based on animals to furry sex?

wolfgang42 10y ago
I glossed over this in the parent, but how exactly are you defining "furry sex"?
- foldr 10y ago
  People having sex while dressed in big furry animal suits.
  - wolfgang42 10y ago
    That's not nearly as common as you might think--among other things, it's a good way to ruin a several thousand dollar fursuit. (The best analogy I've heard is "Yes, there are furries who have sex in fursuits, but probably not more than people who have sex in space suits."[1]) The furry fandom is much less inhibited than general society--members tend to be willing to discuss sexual topics in a way that most people aren't. (This probably also accounts for the higher incidence of homosexuality[2], since it's not felt to be something that needs to be hidden.) However, the vast majority of furry-related sexual expression (as opposed to two people who happen to be furries having otherwise non-furry sexual relations) comes in the form of various types of media--published stories and images, but also private roleplay. In this regard, pet names based on animals are absolutely a part of "furry sex", certainly more so than dressing in animal suits during the act. 1: http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-the-furry-fandom/ http://www.adjectivespecies.com/2015/08/29/yiff-murr-sex-in-... 2: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; https://doi.org/10.1163/156853008X323376; poorly-formatted PDF at https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3 https://archive.org/details/pdfy-vF2uQGRhrwdL1oe3. "...they are less likely to be heterosexual compared to other males in the study."

dpark 10y ago

> Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill I think you're answering a much different question than what I asked. You seem to be answering whether it existed before it had a name. I was asking whether it was normal before it had a name. I have no idea whether Churchill was actually a "furry" but I don't think giving it a name suddenly made it abnormal. To whatever extend "furry" behavior is normal or abnormal, it was the same before and after it had a name.

wolfgang42 10y ago
Admittedly I did not make this point particularly clearly. [I also realized as I was writing this reply that I made a possibly unwarranted assumption: that Churchill's actions were well-known and generally accepted at the time. I took from the quote that he was doing this at dinner parties, but have no idea what the public scope was. The remainder of the reply continues with this assumption, but I would want to do more research before continuing to use this particular example.] I'm interpreting "normal" as considered not out of the ordinary by a reference group (as opposed to e.g. within one standard deviation of the mean). This brings the opinions of the group (here the general public) into play. I argue that giving it a name did, in fact, make it abnormal. It is difficult to discuss anything without having words to describe it with, in part because no clear boundaries have yet been defined. As a result, these sorts of things fall into a grey zone where they can't really be described as "normal" or "abnormal" (even if individual instances could be called "unusual"). Once they have been classified, they can be given a name (e.g. "furry"), and also the group as a whole can then be easily classified as normal or abnormal.
- dpark 10y ago
  Holding someone's hand and calling them a pet name at dinner is not the same as having one's private sex/romance practices publicly known. I doubt that if Churchill was engaging in furry fetishes that it was well known. But even if it were well-known that wouldn't mean it was generally accepted as normal. But it's weird debating Churchill since I have no idea if it's even true or if it's made up or or wildly misinterpreted. I don't agree with the naming argument. It might be harder to discuss something without a label on it but the underlying behavior can still be seen as normal or abnormal. We didn't have a real word for cisgender until recently but it doesn't seem to have made a difference in how cisgender people are perceived. We still don't have a word for people who are sexually excited by Ikea couches but it's pretty unusual/abnormal regardless. (I don't see unusual and abnormal as meaningfully different here.)