fchan

discussion

EVERYTHING is furry, wtf?!

Pages:1 41
1Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:05

You are a furry if you..
-Like Disney movies with talking animals
-Like any movie with talking animals or anthros
-Like Egyptian mythology
-Like talking to your pets
-Like animals in any way
-Like videogames with anthro characters
-Like any fantasy material with any mythical creatures

And so on and so forth. What the hell is up with all this retroactive branding? I'm tired of furries telling me i'm a furry just because I like something that was never even considered furry until furries came and kidnapped it to make themselves feel more normal. The only thing furries created is FURRY PORN. That is it. Everything else existed long before there was such a thing as 'furries'. Get over it, move on and shut the hell up, thank you.

2Report
LLz at 18 Mar 2008: 22:12

And homosexuality existed before there was such a term as "homosexuality", racism existed before there was such a term as "racism", and etc.

I'm not saying that the definition is right or wrong, but just because something existed beforehand doesn't mean it cannot be retroactively labeled.

3Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:18

>>2
Homosexuality had a term for it and so did racism. Those terms and ideals have simply changed over time in terms of wording but the basic ideal is the same. Furries are trying to reach across all mediums, myths and history to try and say billions of people are furry when they are not.

If someone wants to label themself a furry that's fine but don't try to label me a furry to justify your sexual part of the fandom by saying i'm just like you. I'm not like you, get over it.

4Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:19

>>2
They used to call it sodomy, references to that (and mroe specificlly the Sodomites it was named after) are found in the bible, old testament too at that which dates it well over 2000 years ago.

It's not the same thing. What the OP means is that if you used to like an anthro character in a video game and drew a fanart piccy then you liked an anthro character in a videogame and had drawn a fanart piccy. NOW if you like an anthro character in a videogame you are assumed to be a sexual deviant who fucks dogs.

(By contrast if you used to like mens bottoms 2000 years ago you were a disgusting freak of nature, now you just have an alternative sexual preference)

5Report
LLz at 18 Mar 2008: 22:26

>>4
And homosexuality dates a LOT longer than that. Seeing that not only humans practice such. Especially in the case of Sodomites and Sodomy: isn't the term Sodomy named AFTER the basis of them accepting homosexual relationships, and not that the term existed, then applied to them? Isn't that retroactive branding?

And again, I was never saying that the definition is right or wrong, just that you cannot use the basis that the term being invented later to exclude older behaviour/works.

6Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:30

>>5
Furries come up with a new definition daily. If they could stick to a set of ideals then we wouldn't be having this conversation. At first being a furry was only liking anthromorphic characters which I could accept even though I still wouldn't want to be called a furry. But then furries started saying egyptian gods counted as anthros and were thus furries. Then furries started saying animals that exhibited human social behaviour counted as furries too. Then suddenly mythological creatures that don't even behave as humans in any way are furries. And now if you own a pet and care for it you are a furry!?

Furries just keep throwing out the net wider and wider. They use no form of logic to actually determine what a furry is and isn't.

7Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:34

Oy vey, listen up: the world is furry. Anthropomorphic animals and zoomorphic people throughout all history and cultures are furry. NOT everything considered furry is exclusively a sexual preference, or hangup if you prefer. Furry can be entirely non-sexual too, or haven't you considered that possibility? You're sticking to a very narrow and very recent definition of furry, whereas many of us who have been tuned into this interest far longer than you see something furry in nearly anything that can be described as having an animal identity. Furry is not some squicky stigmatizing label that you have to fear unless you insist on thinking narrowly and making it one!

8Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:39

>>7
Pretty good troll, got me raging a little.

7/10

9Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:45

>>7
Tell that to 99% the people outside the fandom.

Furry is a VERY stigmatising label, I was doing furry related stuff long before I'd every heard of a furry in fact the only reason I ended up connecting WITH the community was because I kept being harrased by people outside who were convinced I was some kind of deviant even though my art and stuff was completely clean and innocent in intent (Whereas obviously the furry community were a lot more appreciative)

I still to this day do only clean non-sexual stuff, but I've given up trying to tell people I'm not some sexual deviant, because anthro = furry = pervert = dog fucker in their minds and telling them otherwise just throws fuel on the flames.

10Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:50

Troll? I though the person who's interested in furry things but despises being considered a furry is the troll here, and I rose to the bait in order to stick up for the greater fandom at large.

11Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 22:54

>>9 I'll be happy to tell them. By being harassed, do you mean by chickenshit ananymous online strangers? Does anybody even participate somewhere off of their computer anymore?

12Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 23:02

>>11
Furries aren't important enough to troll IRL. It's like trolling homosexuals who think every straight man is just a gay man waiting to be turned. It's a waste of time even dealing with garbage like that.

>>7
You can't even admit that some things aren't furry can you? It's much easier feeling accepted when you can say billions of people are just like you but refuse to acknowledge their furry nature.

>>9
I'm sorry you have to suffer because of the loud minority of dumbshits in the fandom causing people to want to lash out. If it makes you feel better I don't consider you a furry because you didn't consider yourself a furry before you were forced into the fandom against your will. Thank you for not being one of the "the world is furry" activists.

13Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 23:15

It's not like I'm trying to artificially inflate the ranks of furries or force people into the fandom against their will, despite what you may think. I'm saying that the human imagination at large will readily anthropomophize animals or zoomporhize people and generally accepts and understands cartoon animals and enjoys them. That's my broad definition of furry, which includes thinking of them as sexual caricatures somewhere in there. Yours seems to be narrowed down solely to "dog-fucker". If the first thing that makes these characters appeal to you is that they turn you on, that's fine, you're a furry, but one who ought to broaden his or her view of what furry can be. Fella, this is a discussion. We don't have to come at this like we're enemies.

14Report
LLz at 18 Mar 2008: 23:21

>>7
I prefer a more substancial term that's actually useful to accurately determine what is and is not furry. It's just like how everyone can critique art, but not everyone can/should be called an art critic. In the same sense, People can like furry, but that doesn't mean they should be called furry.

I'd base my claim on priority:
To be considered furry, one must:
a) (in terms of beliefs) Have a strong personal belief of an innate portion of themselves being an anthromorphic (not just sapient) creature.
b) (in terms of artist) A majority of works must contain anthromorphic creatures not representing symbolism. (meaning this excludes religious works) (incidently, this also excludes creatures drawn purely to symbolize sexuality)
c) (in terms of purveyor) A significant amount of works collected purely because of anthropomorphic characteristics (including artistic renditions of animalistic traits on such characteristics), as opposed to symbolism, narrative, or other qualities.
d) (in terms of works) Contains an anthropomorphic creature in which (1) animalistic traits play a pivotal role (meaning not tacked on), and (2) is not symbolistic in any form other than being animalistic. (e.g. cheetah = fast: accepted, owl = wise: not accepted)

I'd think this would greatly limit this catagory to a more substancial basis. It also cuts doen a LOT of "furry" works, but in my opinion, a lot of furry works just have furry attached for no real reason anyway.

15Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 23:30

I got into this scene 20 years ago when being a furry was pretty much the same as being an anime fan, or a sci-fi fan or a comic book fan. I blame the anonymity of the internet for encouraging people to abandon discretion and share their most far-out sexual notions, and thus all things furry gradually became increasingly skewed towards sexual deviancy, especially when viewed solely through the distorting lens of the internet. I still insist that furry is what we make it, not necessarily what others label it as. Even vanilla anthropomorphic characters are still furry, especially if you like them because what makes them special to you is they've got animal identities, not whether they're sexier that way or not.

16Report
at 18 Mar 2008: 23:47

>>1

You are 100% correct, but you are also BAAAAAAAAAAAWing.

17Report
at 19 Mar 2008: 00:48

>>1 Actually, furries didn't invent furry porn, either.

The good news is, just because furries didn't invent it doesn't mean it's not furry.

Have a nice day.

18Report
Sen at 19 Mar 2008: 00:52

The only person who can tell you you're a furry is you. Never forget that, and never cave when someone constantly tries to label you as something you don't believe you are.

19Report
at 19 Mar 2008: 00:59

>>15  I agree with your post 100%, and share many of the same sentiments.

20Report
at 19 Mar 2008: 11:16

There was no 'retroing' the term.  From the very beginning of Furry Fandom, which had its roots in the 70's, the term was coined to refer to anything anthropomorphic in nature, in part because it was simpler to say than 'anthropomorphic', in part because it was more accurate than 'funny animal' (not all Furry material was humorous, as exemplified by Usagi Yojimbo or Albedo), and also in part to differentiate from simpler, child-oriented fare.  Generally, Furry refers to slightly more adult anthropomorphic material; not necessarily meaning, but certainly including, sexual material.

Even so, it was used, even right from the beginning, to refer to anything that was anthropomorphic in nature, whether it was Mickey Mouse or Andrew Swan's novels, or ancient animal-based god mythology.

It eventually also came to mean those who enjoyed and appreciated such works.

I think where it ultimately deviated from the original intentions was when it was stretched to include what became known as 'furry lifestyle', which was a completely different matter altogether, and became the source for several years of divisive bickering.

That 'furry' had any connection with any outright sexual connotations, such as somehow being all about fursuit sex (as an example) is something that was imposed from outside, as a result of misunderstandings caused by magazines articles that misunderstood the phenomenon from the get-go, and from shows like CSI that deliberately misrepresented the fandom for the sake of a story.

Trying to say NOW that furry doesn't include anything that is of its own nature animal-anthropomorphic is the true retroaction -- an act of desperate denial.

21Report
at 19 Mar 2008: 15:54

>>20 (Just an addendum not an arguement against ;p)

The "burned fur" movement attempted to makea new catagory to that end - "burned" fur, referring to people who wanted to be known as the pre-lifestyler era furries but that movement degenerated into infighting to because as we all know, Drama is super effective Vs furries of both types.

It'd still be nice if there was some differentiation (Fuzzy instead of furry... or "non lifestyler" furry.), if only because it's annoying having someone else ruining my reputation with their antics; I'm perfectly good at ruining my own reputation kthnxbye.

22Report
at 19 Mar 2008: 16:48

>>21

It was tried.  The word 'Antrho' was offered as a term to differentiate from 'Furry', as the latter was thought to have been corrupted as a term, but some individuals didn't want, and didn't believe there should be, any differentation, and so either ignored 'Anthro' or blended the two together ('Anthrofurry'), thereby keeping the tensions and confusion in play.

23Report
LLz at 19 Mar 2008: 20:08

(Based on >>14)
I just differenciate between 5 types:
1) Lifestyle/Belief
2) Artist
3) Consumer/Purveyor
4) Works
5) (not really furry) Specific style/character/work fan

I think this is the easiest way to properly segregate the different classifications to limit confusion

24Report
at 19 Mar 2008: 22:44

In some ways Furry has suffered a similar but opposite phenomena as Roleplay games.

These days any game with a role is considered an RPG - Oblivion is an RPG because you can make a character... nevermind it plays like a first person game (albeit with numbers), or Final Fantasy being a "J-RPG" or World of Warcraft being a "MMO-RPG", when in fact none of those "RPG" titles have anything to do with roleplaying.

If playing a character makes it a roleplay game, then Donkey Kong was a roleplay; you played the role of a fat italian plumber bent on saving his damsel from the gorilla... thing.

In much the same way, furry now gets used to cover everything involving anthropomorphic animals, the only problem is whereas RPG is synomous with sex (Well, maybe not but everyone likes to say they play RPGs), being furry is a bad thing not good.

25Report
Some Random Cheetah at 19 Mar 2008: 23:06

>>24

i've got to agree with you there, the term furry has been overused and broadened to what it means far too much, people just throw it around carelessly and people forget what it really means.

also i should point out the differentiality of furry and yiffy, furry more commonly reffering to the "clean" sects of the fandom while yiff(y) reffers oppositely to anything sexual, or even the act of sex.

>>1 all in all this comes down to the interpretation of the people seeing your work, not the community, simple as that.

26Report
at 20 Mar 2008: 14:09

I try so hard not to hate furries but then they start talking about how the world is furry and it makes me want to actually fursecute their ass IRL but then I remember those are just the loud ignorant outspoken minority and realize I don't hate furries, I just hate morons.

27Report
at 20 Mar 2008: 15:10

>>26 LOL at you for not wanting to hear their reasons and not trying to counter-reason, just skipping ahead to the hating.

28Report
at 20 Mar 2008: 15:46

>>27
LOL at all the points have already been made and furries have chosen to disregard the elements that destroy their argument that the world is furry.

29Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 11:40

I don't remember anyone arguing that the -world- was furry...

30Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 14:26

>>29
read
>>7
"Oy vey, listen up: the world is furry."

31Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 14:50

>>1 "The only thing furries created is FURRY PORN."
The only thing Japanese Otaku created is hentai.
The only thing American Anime fans create are cosplay costumes.
The only thing Trekkies/Trekkers created is fan-fiction.
The only thing sports fans create is noise.

Every fandom associates themselves with something created before or outside of their fandom (e.g. Japanese cartoons, StarWars). Every fandom claims ownership of something produced by major corporations (e.g. the way sports fans say "we won" even though they don't play on the team and had absolutely no influence on the game's outcome). And most fandoms produce porn (e.g. Anime hentai, StarTrek slash-fiction).

32Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 17:13

>>30

Okay.  One guy said it.  One guy is everybody?

33Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 17:38

>>32
It's also been brought up in countless other threads with multiple statements expressing the world is furry. It was even recently mentioned in a furry news story about how they let some protestors inside when it was raining and they had no umbrella's. The guy said "everyone is a furry, if you've ever talked to your pet and thought they cared then you are a furry"

Point is it's a common viewpoint among furries that the world is furry.

34Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 18:32

The world is Weeaboo.

35Report
LLz at 21 Mar 2008: 20:57

And well, everyone's insane. Not that it matters.

36Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 23:25

>>33

Hm.  Okay.  Maybe they do have a point, I guess.

37Report
at 21 Mar 2008: 23:28

>>36
Hey, I don't know -- those statements sound pretty general to me, and not so literal.  And maybe they're the wrong kind of furry, you know?  Like lifestylers or something.

38Report
at 22 Mar 2008: 01:50

Thing is nobody has a 100% for sure defintion of furry. Go to any 50-100 websites with a 'What is furry' section in it, and... Wow look. No two explanations are the same. I dont have a correct answer, and neither do any of you.

39Report
at 22 Mar 2008: 04:00

Meh - furry is just a lable, and lables are just concise discriptors handy for organising the world for easy refference. They all mean different things to different people, some more variable than others.

They don't define you unless you let them, and I always get a laugh at people who get upset over such trivialities.

40Report
at 22 Mar 2008: 08:01

Why are people trying to redefine "furry"?

I don't see anime fanatics trying to redefine "anime" to be focused on cosplay. I don't see yaoi fans arguing with lolicon fans over which are the true anime fans. And I don't see anime fans arguing over whether or not cartoons produced by big companies should be called "anime".

If anime fans can be happy to let their word refer vaguely to their genre, why can't furry fans also just leave their word alone and just let it refer to the genre as described by >>15 and >>20?

60Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage