Well, I’d be careful with that, because “murrsuit” is also used when talking about fursuits in a sarcastic way. It’s much less ambiguous to simply say that a suit has an SPH.
You lost me there, chief. And I don’t like to be the only one in the circle not laughing at the joke
Well, they used to until word got around about @nemomen’s suit.
Applying Occam’s Razor, can I assume that means “Sexual Penetration Hole”?
Oof. Sorry, didn’t mean to apply a razor so close to it…
While that isn’t me, I’d totally wear that for Halloween.
Incidentally, if you’re looking for a broader perspective on furry fandom, there’s a Canadian-American team of social psychologists who have been researching the fandom for over five years, producing some interesting data. They recently posted a PDF of some of their results on a website called “Fur Science!” (although last time I checked it had used up its monthly bandwidth) - but you can watch one of the team’s members give a presentation on YouTube:
I’ve never got the sheer boiling hatred that the furry fandom (and especially fursuiters) invoke from some parts of the internet.
If folks like it, just let them get on with it, Isn’t it supposed to be an American thing anyway? The fursuit of happiness?
There are less convoluted ways to be seen as the gender you identify with. But, whatever works for you.
Or “Strategically Placed Hole”.
Oooooh, kinky. Especially with those old-grandmother-style transparent vinyl slipcovers.
Wow… next you’ll be telling me that plushies don’t really have sex with stuffed animals!
Better do a Gurgle image search to be sure…
I saw Lou Seal – the mascot at the SF Giants games – get out of his suit after a hot day. The amount of sweat that came out of that suit was appalling. Could not have been very much fun at all.
Which is why you should never, ever sit on the couch if you see condensation under the slipcovers.
One thing i don’t get is why some people continue to believe otherwise that we have sex in our fursuits, even when i tell people that they’re wrong. I think it’s because of that CSI episode and people saw it and believe everything about furries from the episode.
OMG, CSI got something wrong? Next, you’re going to tell me that you can’t really get the fingerprint of a suspect off of the reflection from the sunglasses of a different suspect on a low-resolution webcam shot!
Yeah, CSI is pretty awful at getting things right. I’m not surprised that furries was one of them.
It’s the same reason some people think that Orthodox Jews have sex through a hole in a sheet, or any other number of things that aren’t true and can be easily disproven. It’s just plausible enough that someone can latch onto it to make fun of something they don’t understand to make themselves feel better.
I mean people shouldn’t believe everything they see on tv or in the movies. Like how in most movies if someone shoots at a car, it will explode. I think mythbusters proved that wrong. I think it would be good if mythbusters ever did something to debunk most of the myths about furry fandom.