Vanity Fair protected Epstein two years after sensationalizing furries in infamous Pleasures of Fur article

It is now March of 2026, and a story over two decades old has now been given new life and a new perspective when it comes to the behavior of media organizations in the early 2000s. At this time furries faced a hostile media landscape which included many infamous titles, such as “that one episode of CSI” by the name of Fur and Loathing.

This story is in regards to another of these publications, which was an article published by Vanity Fair by the name of “Pleasures of the Fur” this article went into very adult aspects of the fandom in a particularly sensationalist way that many furries of the time felt was inappropriate. The article was released in March of 2001 by George Gurley. It is a very raw, gonzo style piece that talks with furries and locals around Midwest Furfest in the year 2000, back when as the article mentioned, only 400 were in attendance.

Two years following this article, another piece would be released by Vanity Fair that was far more reserved in its approach. In fact the article didn't make the cover unlike our own. This hushed article of praise would end up changing the trajectory of an entire country toward one of its darkest chapters. This article covered the billionaire by the name of Jeffery Epstein. Recently it has come to light that the original author for that piece had their story reshaped and partially redacted when she found a thread of abuse perpetrated by the billionaire. Now in 2026, these are allegations that we are all too familiar with in the modern day after Jeffery’s conviction and death in prison.

Like other things around this story, reader discretion is advised as this covers topics such as abuse.

When Vanity covered up crime with vanity

The article in question was written by Vicky Ward and released back in March of 2003 by the name of “The Talented Mr. Epstein”, an article that is now, of course, behind a paywall. Fortunately, however, we don’t need this access to note the dereliction of duty by the publisher here. The author of the piece herself has come out recently to publicly speak out against her former editors about their handling of the more problematic items she uncovered while doing her story of the, then, mysterious figure.

In an interview done with Amy Goodman for independent journalism group Democracy Now!, Vicky discussed her attempts to uncover the story of a young lady, Maria Farmer, who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffery and his partner in crime Ghislaine Maxwell. She goes over how Mr. Epstein was able to shut down the publication of those elements of the story after meeting with her editors at the paper.

As we were closing the piece, a factchecker sent me a note saying “You’re not going to believe who’s now in the office of Vanity Fair.” It was Jeffery Epstein [...] [meeting with] Graydon Carter, the editor of the magazine. I do not know what was said in that meeting, I will say, Amy, that I was at home on bed rest [about to give birth to twins]. I thought we were done with this piece.

I did find in [the Epstein Files], when the first batch that was released, that there was a section in a binder containing photographs that was called ‘Vanity Fair’. I did notice that the photographs in that binder in that section were the ones that were used [to accompany] my piece in the magazine– which is very unusual because Vanity Fair normally prides itself on its photography as much as it does its words. So one has to assume that [Epstein and Maxwell] provided the photographs. One has to ask what was the quid pro quo?

[When] my piece finally ran, the Farmer sisters and their allegations were not in it…
– Vicky Ward (at 11:17)

After this Vicky went on to say that the FBI had contacted her about the interview with the Farmer sisters, who she felt bad for exposing for no return as her story was hamstrung. Vicky indicated that in the currently released files the interview she had with the FBI about her story does not exist, which provides evidence that not all the information of the case was released at this time despite the claims of the federal government.

No Furries in the Epstein files

Note, this is for the release of the files in late February, the library seems to be active with things being added and removed, with the latest update being March 7th, it doesn't change much for the conclusions in the article though.

Fortunately for us in the fandom, while Epstein did have his hand in the pot when it came to gaming and the usage of micro transactions to financially exploit young gamers, it doesn't seem he had any ties to furry events. A search of the files for the word "furry" returned 74 results, the plural version of “furries” returned nothing. Of those 74 results (at time of writing) only one file used the term in a way which would tie it to animal costuming, but not to the type our fandom is known for. In this file Jeff and another were discussing an earphone product that had animal ears attached to them. It feels weird to read a conversation with people not affiliated with the fandom using furry as an adjective to describe an animal costume type item. Guess it's safe to say that it's now an official adjective to describe wearable items with animal attributes.

A pie chart of the different uses of the word furry is provided here. A breakdown of what each of these categories mean are found below:

• Adjective / Fandomesque - 1 result - Discussing earphones with animal ears on them.
• Adjective / Body - 5 results - Furry used as a descriptor of a body part. Furry tummy, furry eyebrows, etc
• Adjective / Object - 8 results - Furry used as a means of describing that an object had a fuzzy texture. Furry shoes, furry blanket, etc.
• Pejorative - 2 results - Furry used in relation to human beings in such a manner to dehumanize them as less than human.
• Duplicative - 25 results - A file that is the exact same item as another file (even if format is different)
• Continuative - 11 results - Similar to duplicative category, only the file *contains* the elements already reviewed, but have more information than its reference. Usually a continuation of an email thread that contained a statement already reviewed.
• Synonym for Pet - 20 results - "Furry" used in reference to pets such as cats and dogs. Furry friends, furry family, etc.
• Typo - 2 results - When "furry" was used but another word was meant to be used. In both cases it references the book "Fire and Fury" released in early 2018.

The file I created to break down the results with links to the files can be found at this file. More details of what I found in the readings for each type detailed below.

Duplicates/Continuations

It must be noted that a majority of the results were direct duplicate files or files that were continuations of other files that existed. This accounted for 36 of the 74 results, which is basically half of the results. While this may seem boring, and it was for sure, it must be noted that the Department of Justice had noted that all the files were released and that those unreleased were because there were duplicate files. It is exceptionally clear from my review that the existence of duplicate files had no impact on the release of the current files. This along with the quote from Vicky not seeing her interview with the FBI in regards to her Epstein piece indicates that there is certainly information missing from the currently available files.

Synonym for pets

The majority of furry's usage was to refer to pets. This was usually very boring day to day references to domesticated animals that included: advertisements for pet products, some Blue Buffalo stock newsletters which seems to indicate Epstein may have been a stakeholder in the company, and spending statements from JP Morgan that indicated he shopped at a pet store called "Furry Paws X" in New York City. Again, this kind of non-sequitur information was claimed by the DOJ at the link above to be excluded from the files not given, but clearly are in the files that were.

Furry as an Adjective

Furry was also used as an adjective to describe the textile feel of things. I separated the body and object meanings because they were distinctive enough. Object usually went over discussing items owned or to be utilized such as furry shoes, or jackets. Body was a bit more cringe as it was usually swooning over furry tummies and other such physiques.

Typo

Two typos came from an order Epstein made to buy multiple copies of the book "Fire and Fury" that was released in early 2018. This book was written by Michael Wolff and discussed Donald Trump's first term that was in progress. Of course because it sought a realistic depiction of the White House at the time, Trump wasn't a fan.

What makes this a little more interesting is that Epstein was buying multiple copies of the book, at least six according to the files. Given this is the same year that Trump's first term justice department went after Jeff for what would be his final conviction, and that the FBI had this information, well, let's just say that just because you have read about and disseminate information about the fire and fury of an “old friend”, doesn't mean you are protected from it.

Pejorative

The two pejorative uses were also interesting and abhorrent. It is easily the most disturbing part of the files under my research jurisdiction. One of them was from a file that seemed to be the entire book of "Eviloution". The book is one that discusses how evolution byproducts in humanity lead toward evil. It wasn't necessarily supposed to be a how to guide, but given where I found this, well, what will be will be. In chapter three it uses "furry animal" as an example of what xenophobes had used against people in out-groups to dehumanize them. So it's more of a technical explanation on the existence of the pejorative.

And as if on cue, the second instance came from a letter from a redacted individual who did just that. The unknown author was discussing their time in the United Arab Emirates in late 2010 as they were getting renovations done. It starts off with a nasty statement of them trying to run over some Arabs whom the author then dehumanizes with the phrase "furry mammals". Aside from the confession of attempted vehicular homicide, the individual also bragged about being bratty to the contractors to get them to bend over backwards for them.

While the name of the author is never revealed, the timing and context of the letter leads me to believe that it could have been written by (or related to) Erik Prince, the founder of Black Water, who according to Aljazeera fled to the UAE during the Obama administration due to fears of being held to account for items done under the Bush Administration.

But that is speculation, we don't really know who wrote it. What must be noted is that whoever the author is, is clearly no victim of Epstein, so they were not supposed to redact the name. On the other hand, the email didn't really have anything to do with the case at hand either, but neither did almost all the files reviewed.

Editorial decisions and their consequences

For people interested in non-fiction work and for furries an important lesson can be gained from this event. This one choice by Vanity Fair’s editor Graydon Carter to work with Epstein behind closed doors to protect the billionaire from his own transgressions had created the environment in which Donald Trump was able to be elected President of the United States in 2016 in the first place. Had this story been released without those redactions, it could very easily have expedited the investigations of Epstein and his co-conspirators during the Bush administration, instead of having them purely pushing the War on Terror after 9/11 which was what our federal folks were focused on at the time.

Should this have happened the ties with Trump could have been discovered sooner, perhaps even before his show, The Apprentice, was able to take hold of the American consciousness back in the mid-2000s. This show basically propagandized his persona of success to the Millennial generation. Given Bill Clinton’s connection with the Epstein files, the Bush Administration would certainly have other incentives to go after this crime group more aggressively.

A butterfly flaps its wings and thus a tornado. A Canadian editor of a magazine worked with an American billionaire criminal to stifle the words of a British investigative journalist, and that one vote cast was what allowed millions of American citizens to move forward blindly to the option that was put before them. Voting in those elections for a person that raged in anger at the system that was rigged, but hiding that very rigging was created by this behavior perpetrated by them and their friends. The warmth of the frustration caused by the very people stating they would cure it was the foundation this administration’s success in politics was built upon.

While it is true that in the business of non-fiction, to sometimes get information you have to gain rapport with people who certainly are not saints, that should be done with the sole purpose of getting information that will help your readership, not yourself. As soon as you have evidence of crimes being committed by those folks you built up a relationship with, it's time to cash in that rapport to help ensure justice is done for their victims and cut off the possibility of future exploitation. Building the relationship further in the face of this does no good, because you’ll then just become another card for their hand they can play.

At Flayrah, we have had pieces in the past that covered problematic figures in the fandom when they have been arrested for criminal actions, though more often then not after authorities had already taken action. Other furry news sites also cover such stories of vigilance in communities and coverage of individuals who have done wrongs. Such articles can cause frustration by those in the fandom as being “just drama” or that “it makes us look bad so it should not be published”. This event shows why the publications of such difficult things are important in spite of the fears that discussing them can cause blow-back.

Those with power and prestige will only go for more. And if you are hesitant to bring forth corruption in them now, it will only be harder to address later after they have acquired more power and prestige. I am proud of furries making informed choices and having people discuss things on the internet, despite how hard it can be. It is what has allowed our community to grow from its 400 attendees gatherings to now approaching the 20,000 mark at those same places.

Sadly, for the non-furries, that properly guided vigilance and systems to support such things still needs much more work. They could start by disbanding Vanity Fair. While the leader that caused this situation is no longer there, the stain on the brand from this transgression should never leave it, no matter what staff changes occur. If there are good folks there they should welcome the destruction of the name, and for it be a signal to all non-fiction publications to be wary of the deals they make can have on the future of their brand.