CSIs Find 'Fur And Loathing' In Las Vegas

[CSI Files]

If you think "Slaves of Las Vegas" had some of the weirdest sexual situations on primetime television, you ain't seen nothing yet. In "Fur and Loathing", CSI: Crime Scene Investigation enters the world of "furries" and "plushies", people who have sex disguised as animals.

It all starts when a man called Bob Pitt is found dead at the side of a road, dressed in a raccoon costume, according to CSI Files sources. Bob's somewhat unusual get-up leads Grissom and Catherine to this year's "Fur Con", an annual convention in which ordinary people put their lives as "skins" on hold to dress up as furry creatures. Having found blue fur in Bob's vomit found near his body, the CSIs are on the lookout for any furries who might be sporting a blue costume.

Grissom, in full scientist mode, finds the event fascinating, but Catherine finds the whole experience too weird for words. It isn't long before they find a potential suspect, Miss Kitty, who is spotted slinking down the catwalk of the furry fashion show in her neon blue costume. Kitty refuses to take off her mask at the convention, so she's hauled back to the police department for questioning.

Fed up with interrogating a pussy cat, Captain Brass orders Miss Kitty — who likes to be known as Sexy — to take off her mask. But when the deputy does so, a quiet-spoken, middle-aged man named Bud Deaver is revealed. Rather embarrassed and withdrawn without the support of his feline alter ego, Bud says he and Bob Pitt (known in the furry world as "Rocky Raccoon) were "skritching", or rubbing their faces up and down each other's fur.

But when Grissom finds Bob Pitt's semen on the Miss Kitty costume, Bud has to confess what really happened when furries get intimate. And what goes on at those conventions has to be seen to be believed...

Please note that these plot details have not yet been confirmed by CBS, Bruckheimer films or Alliance Atlantis and until such time you should treat this information as you would any other rumour. Also, please be aware that these details come from an early draft of the script, and elements may chance before the episode goes to air.

"Fur and Loathing" will likely air in late 2003.<center></center>

 

[Guest]

I heard Marg talk about this during the Emmy Pre-Show...

 

[Bad_Bishop]

I've heard of all kinds of perversions. But until about six months ago I didn't know that the "furry" fetish even existed.

It seems that there are no bounds to the creepy weirdness of human beings. CSI might as well be the show that reveals this fetish to middle-class society.

 

[Guest]

Speaking as a furry...

...I think there's some *serious* clearing up to be done here.

As I say, I'm a furry. And I've never had sex in an animal costume in my life. Those of you with enough sense not to believe everything you read on somethingawful.com or see on MTV, and who are therefore still here, read on.

"Furry" is a useful shorthand for the anthropomorphic animal fandom. Anything to do with such creatures is on-topic, as it were, whether watching them in cartoons, drawing them, writing about them or whatever. Bugs Bunny is a furry animal, for example, as are the Redwall books' characters, and if you enjoy that sort of thing, then you are, whether you like it or not, a furry fan.

The other side to furry is the "furry lifestyler", often shortened to "fur". These are people who in some way shape or form feel a strong emotional and/or spiritual connection to animals, generally one specific species. It may or may not have a religious aspect. For example, although I'm an atheist, I feel an intense and visceral affinity with rabbits, and so consider myself a fur.

The reason most people haven't heard much from furries is that we're generally extremely wary of the media - and it's not hard to see why, given that the vast majority of stories have been so sex-obsessed it's untrue. Of course, we've been shooting ourselves in the foot a bit there by allowing ever-wilder misinformation to float about unchecked - that's one reason I'm posting this now.

I suppose the most hideous thing lifestylers get is accusations of bestiality from people who (wilfully?) misunderstand what we mean when we say we feel close to animals. For heaven's sake, we're furs because we feel a close affinity with "our" species - can you *imagine* how hurtful it is to be effectively accused of abuse and cruelty towards them? It's unbearably upsetting.

There are an awful lot of furries, and like any other group of people there are those within the group who are unpleasant characters. But *please* don't assume that we're all insane kinky fetishists, because to 95% of us, whether we treat furry as a fun hobby or as an integral part of our lives, it's not a fetish at all.

That was a Public Information Announcement.

 

[Guest]

Posted by Bad_Bishop:
I've heard of all kinds of perversions. But until about six months ago I didn't know that the "furry" fetish even existed.

You admit that you don't really know what furry is, yet you seem to have an opinion about it. In truth, the perverted or fetish-oriented people you're thinking of are as rare in the "non-furry" populace at large as they are in furry circles.

You just happen to associate them with furs in general because that's likely the only context in which you've ever heard of them. There is such a thing as bad publicity, and it seems to be the only kind that furs get.

It seems that there are no bounds to the creepy weirdness of human beings. CSI might as well be the show that reveals this fetish to middle-class society.

As Loganberry mentioned; furry in general is a fandom, not a fetish. It's often referred to as a minor offshoot of Sci-Fi fandoms, though most see it as it's own entity.

It's unfortunate that all many people seem to remember is unflattering attention such as the extremely slanted Vanity Fair article or the Mtv "Sex2K" episode. Obviously they were trying to sell something, and sex sells easier than the truth.

There's a plethora of information online about furs and furry in general so I'll spare readers further lecturing. But in the future you'd benefit if you didn't confuse an interest in cartoons or other anthropomorphic animals with a sexual fetish.

KO

 

[Guest]

Time for this furry to drop his 2 cents in.

It seems Loganberry got his confirmation e-mail before me, and already covered most of what I wanted to say but I'm going to reply anyways.

I personally hope that this episode does not get aired. This post right here has been reason enough for me and many of my fellow furries to boycott CBS and write angry letters. Do I seriously think this will make a difference? No, but I sure hope it does. We already have plenty of bad press, and to be quite honest, we don't need more.

Also, I am furious that we were described as "people who have sex disguised as animals". This is so amazingly wrong that I'm surprised I'm not at SomethingAwful.com. If you would like to learn more about furries, I have several links which I am going to provide:
-alt.fan.furry semi-FAQ
-Mongoose.net - Introduction
-Furries for Dummies

I ask that, if you are going to judge us, at least have the courtesy to do it on acurate information. (This means you, Bad_Bishop.)

It seems everything else I have to say has already been said by Loganberry and KOakaKO, so this is where I leave. Good bye.

 

[Shawk]

Woah, maybe we should all see the episode first.

All fandoms have the potential to go very, very strange places, and CSI is about strange, strange crimes. Of course CSI is going to focus on the bizarre; that's part of the show. That doesn't mean that every furry or indeed every person in a fandom is bad or perverse. The majority of any fandom is relatively sane, and if people in the viewing audience aren't smart enough to get that, I really don't see how to change them.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Shawk:

Woah, maybe we should all see the episode first.

All fandoms have the potential to go very, very strange places, and CSI is about strange, strange crimes. Of course CSI is going to focus on the bizarre; that's part of the show. That doesn't mean that every furry or indeed every person in a fandom is bad or perverse. The majority of any fandom is relatively sane, and if people in the viewing audience aren't smart enough to get that, I really don't see how to change them.

Yes, but when 95% of the viewing audience has never even heard of the furry fandom before, and suddenly get exposed to the darker side of it right off the bat, what are they to think?

Murreow, most furs are very pessimistic about the media because all that's ever been filmed of us has been negative. In my opinion, the true furry fandom has yet been filmed; only the 'furry fetish' has been in the spotlight. ...And this episode sounds to be no exception either. -_-

~Voychael~

 

[Shawk]

Posted by KittyboyVoy:

Originally posted by Shawk:

Woah, maybe we should all see the episode first.

All fandoms have the potential to go very, very strange places, and CSI is about strange, strange crimes. Of course CSI is going to focus on the bizarre; that's part of the show. That doesn't mean that every furry or indeed every person in a fandom is bad or perverse. The majority of any fandom is relatively sane, and if people in the viewing audience aren't smart enough to get that, I really don't see how to change them.

Yes, but when 95% of the viewing audience has never even heard of the furry fandom before, and suddenly get exposed to the darker side of it right off the bat, what are they to think?

Murreow, most furs are very pessimistic about the media because all that's ever been filmed of us has been negative. In my opinion, the true furry fandom has yet been filmed; only the 'furry fetish' has been in the spotlight. ...And this episode sounds to be no exception either. -_-

~Voychael~

I'm not saying that you're wrong about what this episode could be like, and as a member of several fandoms (theatre in particular), it's easy to be sensitive about how one is portrayed (we're not all psycho stalkers, thanks). And it is alarming to think that some people will come away from this episode with, "Aha, furries are all insane people who have sex while dressed up as blue cats." But honestly, anyone who thinks that is not really thinking.

I'd like to hope that there are other representations in this episode, though. For example, in "A Little Murder," I certainly didn't come away with the impression that the show presented all of the characters in any particular light, good or bad. There were good people and bad people, messed up people and nice people, just like there are everywhere.

So yes, the episode could be overly-sensational and bad. But it could not. CSI is generally about bizarre crimes, and it's about entertainment; perhaps it should have a responsibility to be balanced, but that's not its main aim. Honestly, CSI isn't the first place I would look to find balanced information about any fandom shown, but I think we should at least give the episode a chance and see.

 

[Guest]

Posted by CSI_Files:
enters the world of "furries" and "plushies", people who have sex disguised as animals.

I doubt just by their description of furry that they mean to be truthful; they could at least have said that it was only some extreme furries who do this, and not the whole fandom.

Posted by CSI_Files:
"skritching", or rubbing their faces up and down each other's fur.

You'd think they'd have at least bothered to get their facts right. I too wrote an angry letter, and CBS is a channel I'm not going near now. The ignorance of some and the willingness of channels to choose sensationalism at the price of a fandom's name is appalling.

 

[Shawk]

^ I don't think this is an official CBS or show info packet, merely rumors based on an early draft of the script.

I'm not saying that this episode couldn't be horrifyingly bad and offensive to the fandom. However, waiting for an official release of info about the episode and perhaps even seeing it before taking measures against the show and station might be a good idea.

 

[Bad_Bishop]

Interesting that all of a sudden there are at least 3 furries/furs/whatever who've arrived to defend their hobby/lifestyle. They don't seem to have posted in any of the other forums. There must be a furry/fur information network in operation.

If I expressed surprise at the weirdness described above my reaction was at least honest. I am actually open to the idea that the furry/fur lifestyle can be completely benign or devoid of sexual elements.

I was reacting to the episode description as given. If you thought that the episode details were offensive you should at least wait until it airs and then complain to CBS. They would love to get your hate mail.

If CSI depicts something that doesn't exist, meaning a subset of furries/furs who have sex with each other while wearing funny costumes, perhaps you have reason to be offended.

On the other hand if people like this do exist they are fair game for a CSI episode. The drama, after all, frequently visits situations that are outside of society's norms.

 

[Guest]

Actually, there has been a pretty long thread about this episode on at least one other CSI site (red background, yes?). But yes, there is indeed what you might call a a furry network. We're quite a close-knit community on the whole, despite being a broad church. (Takes some doing, that! :lol And word gets around extremely quickly on the rare occasions the mainstream(ish) media intends to cover us.

It's a fair point to say that CSI wouldn't get very far if every episode featured Mrs Bloggs down the road who liked eating cheese sandwiches for lunch. But we're (overly?) sensitive to how furry is portrayed, because coverage in the past has overwhelmingly concentrated on the sexual aspects. Sure, they exist. Every fandom has them. But they're one among many aspects, not the central obsession that tends to be made out. And the headline on this very site equates furries with people who have sex dressed up as animals, which is simply inaccurate. "Is a small subset of" is not at all the same as "equals"!

 

[Bad_Bishop]

OK, now I get it. The CSI episode is about "furverts" :lol: and not "furries" per se (I did a quick Google search to learn a bit more about the whole subculture). Is it politically incorrect to say that furverts are freaks?

I've also read about "plushophiles." They are at least equally weird. Fortunately for them, they may escape the uncomfortable scrutiny of CSI.

 

[Bad_Bishop]

I thought I'd bump this one up. Other members of the furry community can now more easily review the earliest "Fur and Loathing" posts at this site.