A slight concern

First topic message reminder :

This is a quick question regarding the book I've been working on. There's a particular aspect - quite a prominent one - that's sparking a little uncertainty for me.

The central species which inhabit the story's world and serve as main characters are called the Vulshiera. Appearance-wise, they're quite similar to anthropomorphic foxes.
Now, assuming there isn't a speck of suggestiveness or sexuality to be found, do you think they'd be looked at in the same light as furry fandom? (Let's face it, suggestiveness is mainly responsible for the fandom's shaky repute.)
I've nothing against furries (In fact, I once knew a few. Nice people.), but I do know how controversial a subject it is over the net. And considering the net's the major gathering point for audiences and opinions, I think it's wise to wonder what the general reaction might be.

So what do you think? Am I just paranoid here, or is an anthro-animal-esque look enough to divide an audience and grant it sceptical thoughts?

If you know the movie Avatar, you'll agree with me when the Na'vi come to mind. If you don't refer to them as antromorphologic, it shouldn't be a problem. Also, Trixtor has a point, rational people won't have a problem. I mean, it isn't porn...right?

Hopefully Zavionce isn't porn!

But I know it must exist. Remember that yiff discussion, 3mpty?

Publish it! You NEEEEEED that yiff!

I am not enforcing rule 34 on Zavionce!

No, Handeth, there's certainly no. . . adult-themes. . . in this particular work.
Avatar was something I always kept in mind; the Na'vi are pretty much anthroparmorphic cats, but, from all I've heard, no one's really paired them to said fandom. (Even though they're certainly scantily-clad enough for it.)

And no, I would most certainly not like to see Rule 34 of Zavionce any time soon. <.<

I think the distinction is skin and fur though...

The distinction between what exactly?

Between whether it's considered disgusting or just what rocks your boat.

Well, you know what folk are like. Some just let those who like it get on with it, others despise it.
I hope that mainly just applies to sexuallity though. I wouldn't want a rift split over the fact the vulshiera are simply furred.

How can anyone think it wrong?. It's a humanoid body, just with a different face. Some people find it much easier to look at, because they cannot bear to have a human face put onto an exposed body and others prefer it, because you fantasise over it without feeling as much guilt.

I don't really understand how others would disaprove either, but I know it can happen. Perhaps it's just my paranoia that makes me wonder whether it'll be seen as part of furry fandom. Again, I've no gripes with furries whatsoever, but it's unstable stance on the net tends to get me thinking.

Okay, I know this might be bad for some to hear, but I consider the sexualisation of furries to be...questionable. I'm fine with the idea that: here are anthro-animals, they exist in my fantasy, so they have sex lives. But what I find disturbing is the actual fetish because to me that's one step to bestiality, which I think is essentially animal abuse.

I don't think it stretches as far as that, Dark. It's just an "exotic fantasy" as far as i can see. I doubt many would try anything with an actual animal.

Anyway...

3mptylord wrote:Anyway...

Yeah, let's not go there...
Anyways, you think there could be a problem, Glad?

I think he was merely highlighting that a problem just arose on this thread, and so it's reasonable to assume other people will make those connections.

But we're intentionally looking for problems, as requested.