![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beandelphikiSo I've recently seen a couple of people bashing otherkin/furries. (They get thrown together a lot, so I will just talk about furries from this point on.) Now this really ruffled my fur at first. And I'd like to get into the immediacy and intensity of my reaction to that. But not right now. There's some other things I'd like to talk about first. This might get rambly, just a warning.
Someone referred to otherkin as a "psychological perversion." They also clarified that "perversion" is not a bad thing. Which is good, although certainly not everyone thinks this way...and we tend to get lost in what we think language means, not what it really means. I'm pretty guilty of that, as well, since I took the "perversion" comment as an insult.
The definition of a perversion is: A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.
Since I think it is often difficult to determine exactly WHAT is a sexual act, I would leave that out.
So a perversion is something abnormal or deviant.
Abnormal: Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.
Deviant: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
So, by that definition:
- being furry is a perversion
- being gay is a perversion
- liking banana-and-chocolate-syrup sandwiches is one of the most disgusting perversions known to mankind. (Okay, I admit my bias...)
Furries/otherkin...a perversion? Guilty.
Well, then. Next, I think the charges laid were "crazy" or "mental."
"Crazy" is a word often used by members of the laity to describe any number of things they find excessive or incomprehensible. "Crazy" isn't a word used by medical professionals.
When we say that someone has a mental disorder, that means (as best as I can describe it) that:
1) Their subjective perception of reality differs from the norms of society
AND
2) Their level of functioning is adversely affected by their perception.
Obviously, then, mental disorders can vary from society to society. Example: people who believe they have animal spirits inside them might be viewed as "crazy" in our society, but there are probably groups of people - natives, possibly - whose view would be different.
One of the main problems psychology deals with is how a "disorder" that is informed by context is really a "disorder" at all.
The second problem is defining what is "impaired" functioning.
And here, I start to wonder about psychology in general.
At one point in my online readings - about a year ago, I suppose - I came across a group referred to generally as "wannabe-amputees." I can't recall exactly the technical term for it; but I wouldn't use it anyway, because these people are classified as being a "philia" and that's a misnomer.
Wannabes are people who have an intense desire to have arms or limbs amputated. They feel they were meant to be born physically handicapped.
Normally, I would have passed over this story, but it was brought to my attention rather forcefully because these people were being compared with transsexuals, and the comparison was apparently close enough for people to make a case that trannies are insane. Because, obviously, if people want to chop their arms and legs off, they must be insane.
I was pissed. How dare they compare those wackos to US? I thought. We don't want to cut off our legs, we're just being who we really are. They're INSANE, not US.
I decided to do some research on this little-known perversion, just to satisfy myself there was no correlation to be drawn.
What I found shocked me. Consider:
- wannabes usually know they want to be amputees from the age of six or seven;
- wannabes spend years hiding their desires and trying to match up with the norm;
- when in private, several have reported doing things to feel more like amputees, such as binding arms to their bodies, or tying up one leg behind them;
- some try to "pass" in public this way;
- some have reported that they loathe their unwanted body parts, while others have said simply that they don't hate their extra arms or legs- they just simply shouldn't be there;
- some have been desperate enough to try laying arms and legs across train tracks, etc. to amputate themselves;
- those lucky enough to find surgeons in Europe report that they feel fulfilled now as amputees, that they are more active, happy and productive post-surgery, and that they feel their bodies finally match their identities - as handicapped people.
Now, how much of that sounds familiar? Every one of those points have been applied to transsexuals.
Because this is so rare, it is hard to find sufficient information on it. But if I am to believe what I found, there ARE shocking similarities between wannabes and trannies.
So I did a 180 and asked myself WHY I felt it was "crazy" to think one of your legs doesn't belong on your body.
Undoubtedly,you could argue that it is crazy because we all NEED our legs. But DO we? Do we really? Have we not circumvented the necessity for legs somewhat?
I have a theory about the origin of transsexualism. It has to do with hormones affecting the brain of a fetus. The "gay gene" argument, to me, can't work because I don't think the idea reflects the complexities of gender and sexual orientation I see.
Part of the theory I developed has to do with the idea of the "body map." There are those who dispute the idea of the body map, but it makes sense to me. Essentially, your body map is your internal guide to where the various parts of your body are. It lets you know when something's missing. Without it, we technically wouldn't know if we were missing an arm...we wouldn't know where our arms were, period, which would make it impossible to move.
People born without arms often lay claim to "phantoms" - phantom limbs they can feel in the space where there is nothing. Trans people also report phantoms - phantom breasts, phantom penises.
I concluded that trans people must have their body maps affected by hormones...that the neurological patterns set down in the womb are wrong, and that is why I feel like I have a dick when I don't. Made sense to me.
I amended my theory when I ran across wannabes. They, I reasoned, must simply have damaged body maps, somehow. And since you can't change that...you might as well go with the flow.
Then along came...furries.
Here is an extremely diverse group of people. How to describe them? Well, let me focus for the moment on "furries" (and more hardcore furries, at that) rather than "furry fans." (So, my disclaimer is: this doesn't apply across the board.)
I've now seen people convinced they are, internally, everything from a dragon to a rat, and any number of hybrids in between. Some people think they have animal "spirits" - I've seen some who say this is because they were that animal in a past life. I've seen some who thought their DNA was more animal-ian than that of an average human. Basically, I've seen people who believe they were meant to be born animals, and think there are biological signs to support this.
And many of them also claim phantoms.
Have you ever felt that your ears should have a different shape and placement? Could you feel them there? Can you feel a tail, if you sit still and think?
If this is indeed the case - does that throw doubt on the concept of "body maps" for me? I mean, how the HELL can people gain phantoms of tails, anyway?
"It really ruffled my fur."
You know what that means, right?
Don't you?
What does it mean when you depend on context to inform the content?
If a little girl thinks she is a little boy, is she "crazy"? If a little girl thinks she doesn't want one of her arms, is she "crazy"? If she thinks she's a cat, is she "crazy"?
(Ironically, the last would be socially acceptable, but ONLY because she is a child.)
If you require an impairment in functioning to be mentally disturbed, what is an impairment?
If your subjective reality does not match the norm, then what is the norm of reality? Is there one? What is reality? Can we say that someone's reality is "bad"?
Someone referred to otherkin as a "psychological perversion." They also clarified that "perversion" is not a bad thing. Which is good, although certainly not everyone thinks this way...and we tend to get lost in what we think language means, not what it really means. I'm pretty guilty of that, as well, since I took the "perversion" comment as an insult.
The definition of a perversion is: A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.
Since I think it is often difficult to determine exactly WHAT is a sexual act, I would leave that out.
So a perversion is something abnormal or deviant.
Abnormal: Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.
Deviant: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
So, by that definition:
- being furry is a perversion
- being gay is a perversion
- liking banana-and-chocolate-syrup sandwiches is one of the most disgusting perversions known to mankind. (Okay, I admit my bias...)
Furries/otherkin...a perversion? Guilty.
Well, then. Next, I think the charges laid were "crazy" or "mental."
"Crazy" is a word often used by members of the laity to describe any number of things they find excessive or incomprehensible. "Crazy" isn't a word used by medical professionals.
When we say that someone has a mental disorder, that means (as best as I can describe it) that:
1) Their subjective perception of reality differs from the norms of society
AND
2) Their level of functioning is adversely affected by their perception.
Obviously, then, mental disorders can vary from society to society. Example: people who believe they have animal spirits inside them might be viewed as "crazy" in our society, but there are probably groups of people - natives, possibly - whose view would be different.
One of the main problems psychology deals with is how a "disorder" that is informed by context is really a "disorder" at all.
The second problem is defining what is "impaired" functioning.
And here, I start to wonder about psychology in general.
At one point in my online readings - about a year ago, I suppose - I came across a group referred to generally as "wannabe-amputees." I can't recall exactly the technical term for it; but I wouldn't use it anyway, because these people are classified as being a "philia" and that's a misnomer.
Wannabes are people who have an intense desire to have arms or limbs amputated. They feel they were meant to be born physically handicapped.
Normally, I would have passed over this story, but it was brought to my attention rather forcefully because these people were being compared with transsexuals, and the comparison was apparently close enough for people to make a case that trannies are insane. Because, obviously, if people want to chop their arms and legs off, they must be insane.
I was pissed. How dare they compare those wackos to US? I thought. We don't want to cut off our legs, we're just being who we really are. They're INSANE, not US.
I decided to do some research on this little-known perversion, just to satisfy myself there was no correlation to be drawn.
What I found shocked me. Consider:
- wannabes usually know they want to be amputees from the age of six or seven;
- wannabes spend years hiding their desires and trying to match up with the norm;
- when in private, several have reported doing things to feel more like amputees, such as binding arms to their bodies, or tying up one leg behind them;
- some try to "pass" in public this way;
- some have reported that they loathe their unwanted body parts, while others have said simply that they don't hate their extra arms or legs- they just simply shouldn't be there;
- some have been desperate enough to try laying arms and legs across train tracks, etc. to amputate themselves;
- those lucky enough to find surgeons in Europe report that they feel fulfilled now as amputees, that they are more active, happy and productive post-surgery, and that they feel their bodies finally match their identities - as handicapped people.
Now, how much of that sounds familiar? Every one of those points have been applied to transsexuals.
Because this is so rare, it is hard to find sufficient information on it. But if I am to believe what I found, there ARE shocking similarities between wannabes and trannies.
So I did a 180 and asked myself WHY I felt it was "crazy" to think one of your legs doesn't belong on your body.
Undoubtedly,you could argue that it is crazy because we all NEED our legs. But DO we? Do we really? Have we not circumvented the necessity for legs somewhat?
I have a theory about the origin of transsexualism. It has to do with hormones affecting the brain of a fetus. The "gay gene" argument, to me, can't work because I don't think the idea reflects the complexities of gender and sexual orientation I see.
Part of the theory I developed has to do with the idea of the "body map." There are those who dispute the idea of the body map, but it makes sense to me. Essentially, your body map is your internal guide to where the various parts of your body are. It lets you know when something's missing. Without it, we technically wouldn't know if we were missing an arm...we wouldn't know where our arms were, period, which would make it impossible to move.
People born without arms often lay claim to "phantoms" - phantom limbs they can feel in the space where there is nothing. Trans people also report phantoms - phantom breasts, phantom penises.
I concluded that trans people must have their body maps affected by hormones...that the neurological patterns set down in the womb are wrong, and that is why I feel like I have a dick when I don't. Made sense to me.
I amended my theory when I ran across wannabes. They, I reasoned, must simply have damaged body maps, somehow. And since you can't change that...you might as well go with the flow.
Then along came...furries.
Here is an extremely diverse group of people. How to describe them? Well, let me focus for the moment on "furries" (and more hardcore furries, at that) rather than "furry fans." (So, my disclaimer is: this doesn't apply across the board.)
I've now seen people convinced they are, internally, everything from a dragon to a rat, and any number of hybrids in between. Some people think they have animal "spirits" - I've seen some who say this is because they were that animal in a past life. I've seen some who thought their DNA was more animal-ian than that of an average human. Basically, I've seen people who believe they were meant to be born animals, and think there are biological signs to support this.
And many of them also claim phantoms.
Have you ever felt that your ears should have a different shape and placement? Could you feel them there? Can you feel a tail, if you sit still and think?
If this is indeed the case - does that throw doubt on the concept of "body maps" for me? I mean, how the HELL can people gain phantoms of tails, anyway?
"It really ruffled my fur."
You know what that means, right?
Don't you?
What does it mean when you depend on context to inform the content?
If a little girl thinks she is a little boy, is she "crazy"? If a little girl thinks she doesn't want one of her arms, is she "crazy"? If she thinks she's a cat, is she "crazy"?
(Ironically, the last would be socially acceptable, but ONLY because she is a child.)
If you require an impairment in functioning to be mentally disturbed, what is an impairment?
If your subjective reality does not match the norm, then what is the norm of reality? Is there one? What is reality? Can we say that someone's reality is "bad"?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 08:28 pm (UTC)I did mean "perversion" in the "deviant/abnormal" sense, not "crazy freak". And that is why I'm interested in psychology: the different ways we view ourselves and each other. Still, I feel really bad.
I'm truly sorry.
-Aerin-
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 08:35 pm (UTC)I get confused about this stuff, is mainly what I was saying. Is there such a thing as crazy, and where do we draw the line? When is something DEFINITELY crazy? You know.
It's good to ask sometimes...how far is too far in being understanding of differences? Is there really a point where we can definitely say, "You need help," and what is that point?
I think it's interesting to note there is a fair amount of overlap between furries and trannies...what does that say?
And the numbers of wannabes are too small to do anything with, but if they were larger, how many tranny and furry wannabes would there be?
I find it curious, the similarities between these seemingly unrelated groups.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 10:14 pm (UTC)I actually sorta expected derision about the whole 'species dysphoria' concept from 'real' transsexuals (You and Griff'n), given that unlike gender, ther'es no real mechanism for it, etc, etc, but have been pleasantly surprised to find it to be.. um.. quite the opposite. ;o) I can't really attest to anny wannabe furries; this is actually the first I'd heard of that particular phenomenon (Though I was aware of the more general amputation fetish idea) I do however know of furries who, in addition to wanting to be another species, want some other arguably handicapping feature; Being very small ( < 1 foot ) comes immediately to mind.
I'm totally at a loss (Though a fascinated loss, to be sure) as to why all this is; I'm starting to feel real mundane, by comparison. ;o)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 10:53 pm (UTC)*falls on the floor laughing*
Oh, god...
Well, I know several who aren't furry. (Naturally!) But I think I've read there is overlap...maybe less than I suggested in that comment, but it's apparently been enough to warrent comment from non-trans people.
And the handicap bit...when I was looking at that, I had to admit that when I was a child I was obsessed with being physically handicapped in some way (oh, and an otter, which is confusing to be sure...a handicapped otter? Huh?)
Overlap, overlap....
I'm starting to feel real mundane, by comparison. ;o)
Feel relieved. The more dimensions you add to your identity, the more you have to explain yourself to people who think you're a lunatic, nu?
Oh, and...
Date: 2002-09-07 11:00 pm (UTC)Now, the point of the post was that it was unfair that this man (who believed himself to be a cat) could get this surgery simply by slapping the bucks on the table...and we poor trannies have to leap through all kinds of hoops set up for us to get the surgery we want. I think the feeling was best summarized by the guy who said, "Fuck, at least I want to stay the same species!"
But the general consensus seemed to be that if this guy felt he was really a cat, well, then...it was very cool he could get surgery to be more cat-like and in line with his identity.
It's like I said in an earlier commnet to
Re: Oh, and...
Date: 2002-09-07 11:12 pm (UTC)I sorta have some reservations about the guy, myself... I suppose I'm not one to judge his inner motivations, but I guess I feel like he's pretty darn media hungry, and.. well.. It may sound bad to say, but.. I'd probably feel a lot better about him if what he was turning into wasn't so snarly and scary and sorta yucky. He doesn't look real human anymore, to be sure, but I don't really feel like he look smuch like a tiger, either.
*sigh* I'm just a jerk, I guess. :oP
Re: Oh, and...
Date: 2002-09-07 11:19 pm (UTC)And, well.. I'm not trying to denigrate him, certainly. He definitely has the right to be whatever he wants to be; real-tiger-looking, or not, I wish him all the luck in being what he actually wants to be. I guess I'm just expressing some of my personal reactions, I guess.
Fine. I'm a jerk. :oP
Re: Oh, and...
Date: 2002-09-07 11:40 pm (UTC)I don't think anyone in the ftm community cared enough to look it up, really, it was just being tossed around as an idea.
I mean, it was lumped in there with, "Well, any girl can get a boob job...any guy get a nose job...any dude can get a - er - tail job (???), but we can't get dick jobs..." That sort of thing.
Re: Oh, and...
Date: 2002-09-08 07:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 08:31 pm (UTC)You, sir, are brilliant! ::agrees::
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 08:39 pm (UTC)Er...then what was my point, again?
Honestly, by the time I got to the end of that, I was going in circles. Or it felt like that.My brain is puddy now.
But if it did something for you, that's just grand. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 08:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 10:02 pm (UTC)It's all good...
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 10:07 pm (UTC)Oh, and does that mean you definitely consider youself furry, now? :o)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 11:30 pm (UTC)Oh, man...
*will try not to write a master's thesis in response*
That's, um, complicated...?
I noticed a while back that I seem to be the only "not-positively-calling-himself-furry" person on your friends list (although I didn't look TOO closely) and I wondered... I wasn't sure if this meant that you hadn't noticed my lack of positive furry ID, or if it meant you had/have some sort of expectation of me...
I'll admit I was surprised myself by how much these posts made my hackles rise. I suppose I thought I was more indifferent than that...I've joined the furries.ca forum, but I've generally kept a certain distance from the furs there...I'm a specator at this point mainly.
(I'm using a lot of this: "..." I just noticed.)
A comparison: I've noticed in the
Then there are people who are exposed to it from someone else, and gradually seem to accept the idea for themselves, although there always seems to be the question (for quite a while, anyway), "Am I really trans? If I hadn't been told about this, how would my life have ended up?"
I remember when I read Dan's column, and I think I remember thinking the idea of having sex in a fursuit was kinda cool (although I somehow imagined they would look, um...sexier? Sleeker? I wasn't picturing google-eyed mascots.) If I hadn't run into you, what would have happened? My best guess is I would have kept on chalking up my feline-ness to being a "cat person" and that would have been the extent of it. So I suppose I feel somewhat foolish? Like I maybe jumped on this, but I don't know why.
I don't like the idea of jumping into something and having someone say, "No you're not this, what were you thinking, this'd just be cool?"
What got me was that while I didn't feel like I could say I was furry in any neutral place, it was, "Boy, whada buncha freaks," (I'm thinking more of
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 11:53 pm (UTC)Well, that's not entirely true.. Bitterguy isn't either.. Of course, I don't know him personally, I just came to read his journal through another (furry) friend. However, I do have a good number of non-furry friends too. So, it's neither. No assumptions, no expectations, I just happen to like reading your posts, actually. :o)
I agree there, actually. The fursuits I tend to like (in any sense of the word) are the more realistic ones..
I like to think there's not a lot of this in the fandom... Since it is such a personal thing, with, as I mentioned above, no real attempt at a physioogical basis, I think most furries are willing to trust someone's feelings aobut whether they are or not. I've said, on many occasions "It's not like there's an entrance exam; if you think you're a furry, you are." It IS a personal thing.
Of course, there are always elitist jerks who try to seperate the 'pure' furries from people who are just 'pretending'. But I don't think I need to draw the obvious societal comparisons to make it clear that that's not really a well-accepted practice. :o)
But honestly, how you feel about your furry status doesn't really matter to me; I asked more out of curiousity than anything else. I expect to keep reading your journal (And posting crazily like this) for a good long time. :o)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-07 11:56 pm (UTC)No more using <blockquote>, I guess. So much for seperation of style and content.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 12:04 am (UTC)I didn't suppose you cared THAT much, since in all the months I've had Griffen listed as a friend (and him me) I've never seen him post something furry...or maybe I TOTALLY missed it.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 12:12 am (UTC)Hey, speaking of mucks... I have two ideas about that. First, and ideally, you should see if outgoing port 23 (regular Telnet) is open. If so, I might be able to set you up with a shell account that you could run mucks and stuff from. The other thing is, you might want to see if you can connect to anything via this page: http://www.mudconnect.com/java/Telnet/ FurryMUCK is in that list, as is FurReality, where I'm an admin and can help you out. While crappy java telnet isn't exactly an ideal solution, it might be at least a way for you to get an idea of what I keep talking about here. ;o)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 12:57 am (UTC)*hears "wah wah wah"*
Right, and then we need to add more plutonium base to the carbonated processors or we'll lose power to the cell engines!
*clicks link* Oooh...s'got Star Wars ones... and DOOM!!! *squee*
In the info, under the "advanced search" stuff...do I need to worry about any of that?
What's "race selection"? Ansi color? And what's it mean when something is non-roleplaying? Finally, what's the player-kill thing? That sounds ominous. (Yeah, I got not all applies to the furry stuff, but I've never seen any of this before.)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 07:26 am (UTC)Maybe it's just me being misinformed again, but FurryMUCK has always had a bad reputation in the MU* community for being one giant yiff party. Perhaps that's not true, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 02:00 pm (UTC)Tapestries MUCK IS one giant yiff party, but then again, it's advertised as such. :o)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 01:57 pm (UTC)Were you able to connect to any of those through the Java thingie, though?
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 11:03 am (UTC)And while i'm on the post board, loved the post dan, but i'm not quite sure to say in response to it, so untill then (insert comment here)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 11:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-09-08 01:52 pm (UTC)