Should I go Furry?

[Sejon]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Then what's the definition of a furry according to those who identify themselves as such?

[Kire]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Being a furry is having an interest in anthropomorphic art and identifying yourself as such.

That's it.

You don't even have to be into the sexual side or any of the other crazy **** (fursuits, porn, stuff behind closed doors, etc), but you'll run into others into that, and whatever as long as they don't shove it down your throat. Only stuff that is mostly frowned upon is stuff that hurt others, especially beasteality. All public events are family friendly and will always be as such.

So there you go.

[Sejon]

Re: Should I go Furry?

So, by that definition, American Indians of the Pacific Northwest were furries?

What with their anthropomorphic totem poles and what have you.

(And Ancient Egyptians too, with their wacky Anubis and Horus.)

[DK]

Re: Should I go Furry?

I think the definition very clearly states that yes, they were.

[Kire]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Yes, the American Indians were total furfags.

[Sejon]

Re: Should I go Furry?

And...and Dr. Seuss? Him too???

My childhood!

[Goufunaki]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Cat in The Hat and Horton totally did the nasty together.

[Loki]

Re: Should I go Furry?

But Caciss! Why? You were the original Pav furry!

[The_Real_Crunk]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Anything that involved any kind of anthromorphic animals ever is furry, and even if you dont think its furry, furries have probably gotten off on it. You best distance yourself from it all, lest you be turned into one of them.

I blame Disney. Those sick bastards.

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Then what's the definition of a furry according to those who identify themselves as such?

Being a furry is having an interest in anthropomorphic art and identifying yourself as such.

That's it.

You don't even have to be into the sexual side or any of the other crazy **** (fursuits, porn, stuff behind closed doors, etc), but you'll run into others into that, and whatever as long as they don't shove it down your throat. Only stuff that is mostly frowned upon is stuff that hurt others, especially beasteality. All public events are family friendly and will always be as such.

That's pretty much it. Different people have different opinions on what defines a "furry," but the majority that identify themselves as such are effectively what Kire described: those that have an interest in anthropomorphic animal art, and I'm not even sure the "anthropomorphic" part is a total necessity. It's the definition I choose to use, for that reason.

I myself could probably be designated as a furry under my own definition, and while I don't really go around calling myself such, I'll accept that term if used to describe me by people that think it a neutral term. The people who use it as a negative term and call me a furry are the kinds of people I don't want thinking positively of me, anyway.

[Mcardy]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Im one of the only 5 members on this board thats straight, and isnt furry!

I guess since I came back you can make that 6. I didn't realize we have so many furries and/or gays here.

Are we sponsored by gaygamer.net instead of AGETEC now?

[Sejon]

Re: Should I go Furry?

That's pretty much it. Different people have different opinions on what defines a "furry," but the majority that identify themselves as such are effectively what Kire described: those that have an interest in anthropomorphic animal art, and I'm not even sure the "anthropomorphic" part is a total necessity. It's the definition I choose to use, for that reason.

I myself could probably be designated as a furry under my own definition, and while I don't really go around calling myself such, I'll accept that term if used to describe me by people that think it a neutral term. The people who use it as a negative term and call me a furry are the kinds of people I don't want thinking positively of me, anyway.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that such a definition seems a bit too loose as it encapsulates practically every cartoonist out there who has ever drawn anthropomorphic animal characters, such as Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Tex Avery, Robert Crumb, Don Bluth, and the list just goes on and on. None of whom I'd label as "furry".

I have a couple stories and tons of artwork involving anthropomorphic animal characters (although just as much artwork, if not more, that doesn't), yet I wouldn't consider myself a furry either. And as someone who developed all of this with blissful ignorance of the "furry movement" rampaging across the internet, I would rather not have my work retroactively categorized as part of something I feel I have no connection to.

Although I may often joke about the sexual fetishist subsection of the furry culture, I know not all self-identified furries ascribe to that. So my own personal definition of a furry is not exclusive to the more perverted variety.

How I personally identify a furry is from a moment many years ago when I stumbled across someone's art that was telling a story set in medieval times, with warring kingdoms -- a typical tale that could just have easily been visualized with human characters, except they had been substituted with humanoid foxes, rams, rabbits, etc. What species each character was had seemingly been chosen at random, and the fact that they were foxes, rams, etc., had no bearing on the plot or their interactions whatsoever. In other words, they were just animals for the sake of being animals -- a pure superfluity -- hence targeting other "furries", who would find such a thing inherently more appealing just for that very reason.

Now, Bugs Bunny had many gags and scenarios related to his rabbit-ness, but one can argue that under this definition a lot of Disney's work could be retroactively categorized as "furry" (I don't recall Mickey Mouse's mouse-ness ever being of any plot significance). But I'd argue otherwise because the animalizing of such characters was just a pure marketing scheme to appeal more to children who generally think of animals as cuter and funnier, whereas furries obviously belong to an older age-group than the one Disney had in mind (and more often than not, tend to have their animal characters in serious rather than classical cartoon-style humorous contexts).

Anyway, I'm sure this deviates from whatever "official" definition exists for it, if any, but I think it's better to have a more specific definition rather than one that includes practically every cartoonist out there (or by extension, as I said half-jokingly before, even the American Indians and Ancient Egyptians and various other cultures). Like many other trends in art, I think it's more about being consciously influenced and swept up by the particular movement and less about individual inclination. Just because someone paints scenes in bold, unrealistic colours and values doesn't make them a Fauvist; by that definition, any four-year-old with crayons would be a Fauvist. Likewise, just because someone draws anthropomorphic animal characters doesn't make them a Furry.

[Dusk Raven]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Well, the point I was trying to make is that such a definition seems a bit too loose as it encapsulates practically every cartoonist out there who has ever drawn anthropomorphic animal characters, such as Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Tex Avery, Robert Crumb, Don Bluth, and the list just goes on and on. None of whom I'd label as "furry".

I have a couple stories and tons of artwork involving anthropomorphic animal characters (although just as much artwork, if not more, that doesn't), yet I wouldn't consider myself a furry either. And as someone who developed all of this with blissful ignorance of the "furry movement" rampaging across the internet, I would rather not have my work retroactively categorized as part of something I feel I have no connection to.

I suppose you could also think about it this way - one might meet the definition of being a furry but not actually identifying as such, and therefore not being a part of it. Heh, I'm sure there's parallels in the history of art where an artist was categorized by the art layman as belonging to some art movement or other, but really wasn't.

How I personally identify a furry is from a moment many years ago when I stumbled across someone's art that was telling a story set in medieval times, with warring kingdoms -- a typical tale that could just have easily been visualized with human characters, except they had been substituted with humanoid foxes, rams, rabbits, etc. What species each character was had seemingly been chosen at random, and the fact that they were foxes, rams, etc., had no bearing on the plot or their interactions whatsoever. In other words, they were just animals for the sake of being animals -- a pure superfluity -- hence targeting other "furries", who would find such a thing inherently more appealing just for that very reason.

Now, here we have something interesting. This is the point at which I would no longer be considered a furry - in my works, if I have more than one species other than humans, that species is there for a reason. I would only have a nonhuman species in existence in my works, particularly my fantasy works, if the cultural or plot niche they fill simply could not be filled by a human culture, which simply does not happen often. I wouldn't populate my worlds with anthropomorphs willy-nilly (or my fantasy worlds with those damn elves, dwarves, and hobbits), and having furries for furries sake would be inconceivable to me.

I think one can find furry artists/writers with a similar outlook, or at least ones whose furries aren't just humans in animal skins. I suppose the main thing here is that one doesn't have to be a furry to draw/write furries that actually have a reason to be there - anyone could do it, but so can furries.

Now, Bugs Bunny had many gags and scenarios related to his rabbit-ness, but one can argue that under this definition a lot of Disney's work could be retroactively categorized as "furry" (I don't recall Mickey Mouse's mouse-ness ever being of any plot significance). But I'd argue otherwise because the animalizing of such characters was just a pure marketing scheme to appeal more to children who generally think of animals as cuter and funnier, whereas furries obviously belong to an older age-group than the one Disney had in mind (and more often than not, tend to have their animal characters in serious rather than classical cartoon-style humorous contexts).

One of my favorite Disney films, The Great Mouse Detective, fits your definition perfectly - it's effectively Sherlock Holmes told with anthropomorphic mice, and allegedly is quite popular among the furry fandom, as is The Lion King (though the latter is rather less anthropomorphic, needless to say). Considering either "furry" per se may be a bit of a stretch.

Anyway, I'm sure this deviates from whatever "official" definition exists for it, if any, but I think it's better to have a more specific definition rather than one that includes practically every cartoonist out there (or by extension, as I said half-jokingly before, even the American Indians and Ancient Egyptians and various other cultures). Like many other trends in art, I think it's more about being consciously influenced and swept up by the particular movement and less about individual inclination. Just because someone paints scenes in bold, unrealistic colours and values doesn't make them a Fauvist; by that definition, any four-year-old with crayons would be a Fauvist. Likewise, just because someone draws anthropomorphic animal characters doesn't make them a Furry.

We think alike. Thinking of it as an art movement, I agree, is probably better than thinking of it as an art style.

[jacquel]

Re: Should I go Furry?

Theres like, overwhelming evidence that fetishes are developed through basic conditioning principles, so when it comes to the "sexual" stuff then, um, yeah, you are choosing it

by *********ing to that stuff over and over again until its the primary stimuli that excites you

[Eschaton Orochi]

Re: Should I go Furry?

What has happened to here since my recent coming out of the furcoat closet???