The originals were both unforgettable for me. We have seen Moana and Zootopia many, many times at home. The songs to Moana are engraved in my memory, many in a language that I do not speak nor...
The originals were both unforgettable for me. We have seen Moana and Zootopia many, many times at home. The songs to Moana are engraved in my memory, many in a language that I do not speak nor understand. Zootopia had really well written plot twists and a cast of new and engaging characters. For all the eye-popping opening weekend figures, I wonder if the sequels will be rewatched in streaming in the same way the originals were.
I haven't seen a review thread here, so I'll drop my spoiler-free impression here. Zootopia 2 is a great experience. It has amazing, vibrant animation, fun action scenes, and funny gags and...
I haven't seen a review thread here, so I'll drop my spoiler-free impression here.
Zootopia 2 is a great experience. It has amazing, vibrant animation, fun action scenes, and funny gags and in-jokes. You will have a blast watching it. However, so much time is dedicated to these that there is very little time left for character or story. There is no mystery this time around - the villains literally burst in on Judy and Nick loudly expositing how evil they are, and that's the status quo for the rest of the movie. Nor is there much satisfying character work, as while there's setup for Judy having a hero complex and Nick getting increasingly worried about the danger she's pulling them both into...all the movie has time for is to say Nick's wrong and should risk his life more, and then, I am not kidding, have him and Judy yell their psychological issues at each other for a full thirty seconds before waving it off with "eh, we'll get therapy".
As someone who's been on the internet since the mid 90s, I've always found the distain for furrows to be kind of odd. They're like a 6/10 on the scale of weird/ disturbing things you can see online.
As someone who's been on the internet since the mid 90s, I've always found the distain for furrows to be kind of odd. They're like a 6/10 on the scale of weird/ disturbing things you can see online.
It's just a joke. But... Certainly anyone who's seen a Disney movie, especially as a kid, has had some kinda crush on a Disney character. Like Simba and Nala from the Lion King. Or like Lola Bunny...
It's just a joke. But...
Certainly anyone who's seen a Disney movie, especially as a kid, has had some kinda crush on a Disney character. Like Simba and Nala from the Lion King. Or like Lola Bunny from Space Jam? 😳
So that part isn't so weird. I think it's the fur suits that are taken as the weird part. Especially in public. Ofc, if consenting adults are enjoying themselves, then who are any of us to stop them? But it can still be weird, something that's pretty out of the ordinary like that. Though at this point, the novelty has started to wear off, given that furries are kinda mainstream. At least on the Internet.
Some of us have a generalized fear of mascots. Something creepy about not being able to see the human behind the suit. Now add a thick layer of sexuality to it, and you have a recipie for noping...
Some of us have a generalized fear of mascots. Something creepy about not being able to see the human behind the suit.
Now add a thick layer of sexuality to it, and you have a recipie for noping out. Very much a 'live your life, but I'll stay over here thanks.'
I think a few years ago there was an attempt made to have everyone be okay with overt sexuality in public. Something about being sex positive. That’s died out since it’s like, it’s fine to have...
I think a few years ago there was an attempt made to have everyone be okay with overt sexuality in public. Something about being sex positive. That’s died out since it’s like, it’s fine to have boundaries with what you see in public.
Reasonable compromises. Most people would probably not be OK with a man waving an erect penis around children. Most people should be OK with topless women if they are OK with topless men. The...
Reasonable compromises. Most people would probably not be OK with a man waving an erect penis around children.
Most people should be OK with topless women if they are OK with topless men. The problem is more the double-standard than the general boundry.
It is slightly more complicated when it comes to things like Pride parades. But the general rule should probably still be "If it's not OK for straight people to do." Unfortunately (as usual) the prudes tend to ruin it for everyone.
And that's the epitome of moral relativity. Pretty sure the National Guard would be deployed if stuff like that happened in Salt Lake City on the regular. If there's an established culture, you...
And that's the epitome of moral relativity. Pretty sure the National Guard would be deployed if stuff like that happened in Salt Lake City on the regular.
If there's an established culture, you don't get to move in and trample it. Incidentally part of why we're moving. Don't like the culture of the town outside the enclave of weirdos we've met.
Why? Women evolved enlarged breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic, after the switch to a bipedal gait meant the female ass was no longer at eye level. They exist in the state they do,...
Most people should be OK with topless women if they are OK with topless men. The problem is more the double-standard than the general boundry.
Why? Women evolved enlarged breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic, after the switch to a bipedal gait meant the female ass was no longer at eye level. They exist in the state they do, literally, to stimulate lust (tbc this is not a judgement on any woman or their intentions, just an explanation of what their body's function is). Men who aren't bodybuilders don't provoke that reaction.
Breasts are no more sex objects than elbows and ankles. Your entire arguement boils down to 'women must shield themselves from male lust' instead of the much more reasonable 'men should control...
Breasts are no more sex objects than elbows and ankles. Your entire arguement boils down to 'women must shield themselves from male lust' instead of the much more reasonable 'men should control their lust.'
Mammary glands are for feeding young, not reproduction. All it takes is sufficiently prolonged levels of prolactin, which all humans produce in low levels normally. Take a few pills or sufficiently prolonged stimulation and a man can nurse a baby.
To repeat: they have absolutely no involvement is sexual reproduction.
They became fetishized, but you'll notice this is a cultural development largely associated with patriarchal societies.
Tell me about all the reasons why it's unacceptable to demand women wear a hijab, and then I'll repeat back that point about every article of legally-mandated clothing. The only exception in public is a butthole cover to prevent disease spread. Even nudists carry a butt towel. Everything else is based on comfort.
I think we're talking past each other a bit? My point wasn’t that women must shield themselves from male lust, or that breasts ought to be sexualized - merely that they are. In human biology and...
I think we're talking past each other a bit?
My point wasn’t that women must shield themselves from male lust, or that breasts ought to be sexualized - merely that they are. In human biology and anthropology, female breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic that reliably evoke sexual attention in most heterosexual men, regardless of cultural context. That doesn’t mean they must strictly be “for reproduction”. Sexual signaling and parental provisioning are not mutually exclusive, and lots of our bodily bits serve multiple functions because much like any old legacy system, it's easier and more efficient to adapt than build a whole new organ for each one.
Saying breasts are no more sexual than elbows is a claim about how they should be seen, not how they are perceived by most people right now. You can call that cultural conditioning, but it’s very persistent cross-culturally and predates modern patriarchal norms. It doesn’t mean women need or deserve policing - just that the double standard isn’t rooted in pure irrational supremacism.
To be abolutely clear: I agree men should control their impulses, that women shouldn’t be blamed for. But that isn't the same as saying either should go around with their respective floppy bits hanging out (breastfeeding excempt ofc)
No, I'm not talking past you. I'm explicitly saying in the vast majority of human cultures, the breasts play no role in sexual attraction or sexual behavior. . It is a learned cultural behavior....
It is a learned cultural behavior. As such, it becomes impossible to study retroactively, like trying to perform before/after studies on television exposure. There is no control group, even in cultures where it was once common to be nude, because the answers become tainted by the current culture.
We're often relying on artifacts from before the culture was changed, and much like history is told by the victors, anthropology is studied through the lens of the current culture.
If there were truely a biological connection between sexual attraction and fertility, ability to feed young, you would expect a correlation between sexual attraction and breast size. But no such correlation exists.
I think there is a pretty long history of fetish art being terrible. Thing you don't like, plus it getting conveyed in a weird/off putting way really cranks up the creepy factor. That's not...
I think there is a pretty long history of fetish art being terrible. Thing you don't like, plus it getting conveyed in a weird/off putting way really cranks up the creepy factor. That's not exclusive to furry art, but furry stuff is in the sub section of kink that is entirely imaginary and needs some sort of arts and crafts to be expressed in any way. So all of the bad expressions of it are also "public" (online) expressions.
I took an art class in college and one of the pieces we saw from a grad students exhibit was a photorealistic portrait of a furry with BDSM equipment with a dead body next to it or something akin...
I took an art class in college and one of the pieces we saw from a grad students exhibit was a photorealistic portrait of a furry with BDSM equipment with a dead body next to it or something akin to that.
We had to write about the different exhibits and I called that one devoid of meaning and made just for shock value.
"Devoid of meaning" and "made for shock value" is a semantics circle one could dance around if they felt so inclined. I'd agree that such a concept of a painting seems low calorie. I'll admit to...
"Devoid of meaning" and "made for shock value" is a semantics circle one could dance around if they felt so inclined. I'd agree that such a concept of a painting seems low calorie. I'll admit to probably consuming more nsfw art than the average person, and the stuff thats tends to really pull me in has some sort of x factor in skill. Naked lady and naked lady (Frank Frazetta) can be conceptually the same, but have dramatically different results.
I think furry art falls into a good safe zone where it's weird, but not weird enough to require extra explanation. Its gross, but like wacky gross not "gross gross" in the way that something like...
I think furry art falls into a good safe zone where it's weird, but not weird enough to require extra explanation. Its gross, but like wacky gross not "gross gross" in the way that something like 2 Girls 1 Cup is.
I tend to liken the Furries to the BDSM community, because of how interconnected the sex and costume can be. As such, the more "complete" the costume in public, the more skeeved I can't help but...
I tend to liken the Furries to the BDSM community, because of how interconnected the sex and costume can be.
As such, the more "complete" the costume in public, the more skeeved I can't help but feel, and I think that's where the bulk of the disdain comes from.
The equation of all furries with public or inappropriate sexual behavior is so odd to me. I'm wondering how many folks with that opinion personally are friends with any furries. I've hung out with...
The equation of all furries with public or inappropriate sexual behavior is so odd to me. I'm wondering how many folks with that opinion personally are friends with any furries. I've hung out with a lot, and there's so much more non-sexual stuff in any category, from art to fursuits, that I don't get this assumption. Folks running around in public in fursuits are generally hanging out, not doing anything sexual. Especially in a full suit which are expensive, hot, and cumbersome.
155M of that was for the 5-day weekend, which makes it the second largest Thanksgiving weekend of all time following last year's Moana 2.
The originals were both unforgettable for me. We have seen Moana and Zootopia many, many times at home. The songs to Moana are engraved in my memory, many in a language that I do not speak nor understand. Zootopia had really well written plot twists and a cast of new and engaging characters. For all the eye-popping opening weekend figures, I wonder if the sequels will be rewatched in streaming in the same way the originals were.
Not Moana 2 but I think Zootopia 2 has a decent chance at being as streamed as the first
I haven't seen a review thread here, so I'll drop my spoiler-free impression here.
Zootopia 2 is a great experience. It has amazing, vibrant animation, fun action scenes, and funny gags and in-jokes. You will have a blast watching it. However, so much time is dedicated to these that there is very little time left for character or story. There is no mystery this time around - the villains literally burst in on Judy and Nick loudly expositing how evil they are, and that's the status quo for the rest of the movie. Nor is there much satisfying character work, as while there's setup for Judy having a hero complex and Nick getting increasingly worried about the danger she's pulling them both into...all the movie has time for is to say Nick's wrong and should risk his life more, and then, I am not kidding, have him and Judy yell their psychological issues at each other for a full thirty seconds before waving it off with "eh, we'll get therapy".
Have the furries become mainstream finally?
/s
As someone who's been on the internet since the mid 90s, I've always found the distain for furrows to be kind of odd. They're like a 6/10 on the scale of weird/ disturbing things you can see online.
It's just a joke. But...
Certainly anyone who's seen a Disney movie, especially as a kid, has had some kinda crush on a Disney character. Like Simba and Nala from the Lion King. Or like Lola Bunny from Space Jam? 😳
So that part isn't so weird. I think it's the fur suits that are taken as the weird part. Especially in public. Ofc, if consenting adults are enjoying themselves, then who are any of us to stop them? But it can still be weird, something that's pretty out of the ordinary like that. Though at this point, the novelty has started to wear off, given that furries are kinda mainstream. At least on the Internet.
Some of us have a generalized fear of mascots. Something creepy about not being able to see the human behind the suit.
Now add a thick layer of sexuality to it, and you have a recipie for noping out. Very much a 'live your life, but I'll stay over here thanks.'
I think a few years ago there was an attempt made to have everyone be okay with overt sexuality in public. Something about being sex positive. That’s died out since it’s like, it’s fine to have boundaries with what you see in public.
Reasonable compromises. Most people would probably not be OK with a man waving an erect penis around children.
Most people should be OK with topless women if they are OK with topless men. The problem is more the double-standard than the general boundry.
It is slightly more complicated when it comes to things like Pride parades. But the general rule should probably still be "If it's not OK for straight people to do." Unfortunately (as usual) the prudes tend to ruin it for everyone.
SF is more like “You could see any sex act at any time and it’s defacto legal because of lacking enforcement”.
And that's the epitome of moral relativity. Pretty sure the National Guard would be deployed if stuff like that happened in Salt Lake City on the regular.
If there's an established culture, you don't get to move in and trample it. Incidentally part of why we're moving. Don't like the culture of the town outside the enclave of weirdos we've met.
Why? Women evolved enlarged breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic, after the switch to a bipedal gait meant the female ass was no longer at eye level. They exist in the state they do, literally, to stimulate lust (tbc this is not a judgement on any woman or their intentions, just an explanation of what their body's function is). Men who aren't bodybuilders don't provoke that reaction.
Breasts are no more sex objects than elbows and ankles. Your entire arguement boils down to 'women must shield themselves from male lust' instead of the much more reasonable 'men should control their lust.'
Mammary glands are for feeding young, not reproduction. All it takes is sufficiently prolonged levels of prolactin, which all humans produce in low levels normally. Take a few pills or sufficiently prolonged stimulation and a man can nurse a baby.
To repeat: they have absolutely no involvement is sexual reproduction.
They became fetishized, but you'll notice this is a cultural development largely associated with patriarchal societies.
Tell me about all the reasons why it's unacceptable to demand women wear a hijab, and then I'll repeat back that point about every article of legally-mandated clothing. The only exception in public is a butthole cover to prevent disease spread. Even nudists carry a butt towel. Everything else is based on comfort.
I think we're talking past each other a bit?
My point wasn’t that women must shield themselves from male lust, or that breasts ought to be sexualized - merely that they are. In human biology and anthropology, female breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic that reliably evoke sexual attention in most heterosexual men, regardless of cultural context. That doesn’t mean they must strictly be “for reproduction”. Sexual signaling and parental provisioning are not mutually exclusive, and lots of our bodily bits serve multiple functions because much like any old legacy system, it's easier and more efficient to adapt than build a whole new organ for each one.
Saying breasts are no more sexual than elbows is a claim about how they should be seen, not how they are perceived by most people right now. You can call that cultural conditioning, but it’s very persistent cross-culturally and predates modern patriarchal norms. It doesn’t mean women need or deserve policing - just that the double standard isn’t rooted in pure irrational supremacism.
To be abolutely clear: I agree men should control their impulses, that women shouldn’t be blamed for. But that isn't the same as saying either should go around with their respective floppy bits hanging out (breastfeeding excempt ofc)
No, I'm not talking past you. I'm explicitly saying in the vast majority of human cultures, the breasts play no role in sexual attraction or sexual behavior. .
It is a learned cultural behavior. As such, it becomes impossible to study retroactively, like trying to perform before/after studies on television exposure. There is no control group, even in cultures where it was once common to be nude, because the answers become tainted by the current culture.
We're often relying on artifacts from before the culture was changed, and much like history is told by the victors, anthropology is studied through the lens of the current culture.
If there were truely a biological connection between sexual attraction and fertility, ability to feed young, you would expect a correlation between sexual attraction and breast size. But no such correlation exists.
Also the sex stuff with the costumes
I think there is a pretty long history of fetish art being terrible. Thing you don't like, plus it getting conveyed in a weird/off putting way really cranks up the creepy factor. That's not exclusive to furry art, but furry stuff is in the sub section of kink that is entirely imaginary and needs some sort of arts and crafts to be expressed in any way. So all of the bad expressions of it are also "public" (online) expressions.
I took an art class in college and one of the pieces we saw from a grad students exhibit was a photorealistic portrait of a furry with BDSM equipment with a dead body next to it or something akin to that.
We had to write about the different exhibits and I called that one devoid of meaning and made just for shock value.
"Devoid of meaning" and "made for shock value" is a semantics circle one could dance around if they felt so inclined. I'd agree that such a concept of a painting seems low calorie. I'll admit to probably consuming more nsfw art than the average person, and the stuff thats tends to really pull me in has some sort of x factor in skill. Naked lady and naked lady (Frank Frazetta) can be conceptually the same, but have dramatically different results.
I think furry art falls into a good safe zone where it's weird, but not weird enough to require extra explanation. Its gross, but like wacky gross not "gross gross" in the way that something like 2 Girls 1 Cup is.
I tend to liken the Furries to the BDSM community, because of how interconnected the sex and costume can be.
As such, the more "complete" the costume in public, the more skeeved I can't help but feel, and I think that's where the bulk of the disdain comes from.
The equation of all furries with public or inappropriate sexual behavior is so odd to me. I'm wondering how many folks with that opinion personally are friends with any furries. I've hung out with a lot, and there's so much more non-sexual stuff in any category, from art to fursuits, that I don't get this assumption. Folks running around in public in fursuits are generally hanging out, not doing anything sexual. Especially in a full suit which are expensive, hot, and cumbersome.