fchan

  So I'm just curios what does everyone actually define as furry in terms of art and literature? I mean obviously anthro/were creature art and stories would probably be included but what about animals with human intelligence and speech such as the legend of coyote? Please keep it civil I dont want to start a fight thanks.

>>1

LOL @ >>2 . TMNT aren't "furry", Digimon aren't "furry", Anubis isn't "furry", Robin Hood isn't furry, blah blah etc. These popular mainstream characters could never be "furry" (ick!). No Never. Just nearly every furry has been brought into this fandom by said creatures and without these popular mainstream characters, their wouldn't be much of a furry fandom at all.

Seriously, furry is -- anthropomorphic animals/zoomorphic humans. Anything. Anything at all. Slap a pair of bunny ears on something and it's furry.

Anthropomorphism: n. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

Sane people, like >>2 , don't like being associated with "furry" because pedos and bestialists can slap on bunny ears and be furry too. What these people fail to realize is that furry is NOT a institution. There is no "doorman" to furry. The doors are wide open because anyone can attribute any type of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena and call it furry and accurately fit the definition.

>>4 You haven't been aware of furry fandom long enough. Taking animal characters beyond the familiar venues and exploring deeper, more mature content with animal identities is an appealing idea to most of us, it just turned out that sex is the most popular of the mature themes. It's one facet of multiple possibilities for furry characters.

Re: ALBEDO, but also Omaha the Cat Dancer.

you are the one who's misinformed. furry is anything to do with anthropomorphic creations. this includes drawing, costuming, and occasionally porn.

>>7

What you meant is furry is anything to do with anthropomorphic fetishism, which includes drawing porn, costuming (frequently to the purpose of acting out sexual fantasies) and occasionally sex parties. The definition of "furry" you're attempting to promote is superfluous to "cartoons and comics." The only reason furry exists as "furry" is because it's about sex and porn of anthros. If it weren't, it would just be called "cartoons."

>>8

I've done my research, by talking to people who were in the fandom around the time of its beginnings. I haven't relied on rose-tinted misinformation campaigns like wikifur.

But whatever. You all can go on calling a pear a potato. I say call a pear a pear.

Once again, I state: Furry=Anthropomorphics. It encompasses everything with half animal, half human.

>>11

This is also the truth. Just the smut is now the core of furry fandom, and everything else is considered superfluous.

Quick example: check out the guests of honor lists of various furry conventions. You will see furry porn artists line them all.

Humans are sexual creatures by nature, so it should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that something created by humans, particularly if it is a fandom, has some amount of sexuality within it.

However, to say that the entirety of the furry fandom is nothing but porn, smut, yiff, sex, or whatever, is simply ignorant and decidedly small-minded. It is arguable whether or not sex is a large part of this particular fandom or not-seeing as how no one could possibly know the entirety of it inside and out-but there is enough non-sexual, purely legitimate parts of it to say that there is more to it than just sexual fantasy.

There are just far too many people who think that they have a genuine connection with animals (spiritual, physical, mental, or otherwise) to just knock them off as merely "fur-suiting fruitcakes" with a hard on for anything with fur! Or scales!

None can base an entire community off of a few groups within. Just because the nerds in the movies wear glasses does not mean that all nerds wear glasses.../crappy metaphor]

The furry fandom is still legitimate...just look at some of the good, clean art.

>>15

Everywhere I go, there is always a thread like this; it's like people can't just accept that it is a broad concept that includes anything with an anthropomorphized animal.

I guess people really want to know...or need assurance that they identified with the right crowd.

This is probably a biased thread anyway since it is of course on a porn based imageboard...

>>22

IS YERF OR NOTHING!!!

Alright, two. That makes two. Out of dozens.

>>24

i was reffering to that old slogan for nerf ball commercials.

>>28

OP asked how we define furry in terms of art and literature. I told him my opinion and I supplied the reasons I hold it. Furry is animal-person porn. If it's not porn, it barely qualifies to be called "furry."

The furry fandom began in the late eighties when a bunch of guys got kicked out of some sci-fi or anime convention for drawing animal-people cartoons that were more sexualized than the rest of the people were comfortable with. That was the genesis of "furry." Before that, there was no such thing as "furry" and there was no such word as "furries" as we use it here.

To say anubis, the minotaur, pan, and all those other figures are from "furry," is incorrect, disrespectful of the ancient cultures they came from, and stupid. To call those figures "furries" is inaccurate and dishonest because it implies that they are from "furry."

1) It might force some of you to stop deluding yourselves into thinking this is anything more than a fetish subculture.

2) Yes, they were. Also especially see Mike Merlino, who got kicked out of an anime thing and then co-created the furry fandom with the sci-fi rejects.

3) Yes it does because it's using the jargon of the fandom to appropriate things that had little or nothing to do with it. Like I said earlier, if it were just anthropomorphic animals we'd be talking about "cartoons" "fantasy" "sci fi" or in this case "myth." The only reason the "furry" moniker exists is because it denotes the sexualization of these types of character.

4) Yes but he implied with the part that I quoted in >>29 that this constitutes the origin of "Furry." It doesn't.

5) You too.

6) How much earlier? A year? A decade? A century? A MILLENIUM? Why do you think furry conventions started? It was because the sci-fi and other cons wouldn't accomodate the furry shit. They did before, didn't they? Why do you think they stopped? They stopped because it was getting too sexualized. Stop trying to build up this fake legitimacy for the furry fandom- it doesn't work and it's dishonest.

7) If I knew how to do italics on fchan I'd use'em but I don't so caps it is. And writing in numbered lists makes me more right than you too.

....Now I'm really confused...I don't know what to believe...I think some of you even don't know the truth, too...
I always thought, that e.g. a fox, standing on 2 legs is a furry...Am I right?... :(

>>34
I know... but not especially Starfox or something like that...

>>36

Look up the definition for 'fetish'.  It doesn't necessarily imply 'sexual fetish' (although that is one definition) -- it is an 'obsession' or 'irrational devotion' to something.

Yes... you can draw an animal character and NOT be a furry.  Graphic artists do this all the time when they have to make some new cartoon logo for a box of cereal or something.

However it takes a 'furry' to be obsessed with them.  To draw almost nothing but animal characters, to collect almost nothing but animal character pictures, to want to 'be' or 'live with' an animal character, or to have 'animal properties' of their own.

But to define a furry character as a 'sexualized animal' is more of a 4chan/something-awful/encyclopedia-dramatica/lulz ism  (I don't care which... there is a lot of overlap anyway).  Their goal is to promote 'furry as a sexual thing' and thus to declare all furry fans 'perverts'.

>>36

1) They're in the wrong subculture. They've been an infinitesimal minority since at least the mid 90s and they're shrinking all the time. Part of the reason they're still around is because most of the rest of us do such a great job of convincing them that this all isn't actually about porn and fetishes- even though anyone who hasn't already come to the conclusion that it's not can see that it is.

2) Understand that the fandom had to separate out of the anime and sci-fi/fantasy venues because it was focusing too much on sexuality. It always had the fetish of sexualized anthro characters at its core, and the fact that they were forced to start doing their own parties and conventions is a reflection of that- the other convention goers didn't want that shit out in the open at their con. So yes, the first furry conventions started in response to the furry fandom's existence as being based around a fetish for animal-people. If it weren't a fetish this would all most likely just be a subset of sci-fi/fantasy fandom.

3) "toons"  "beastmen" "aliens" and "monsters" all work just as well in the different genres you listed, respectively. People who stop at "liking" this type of character need only go as far as that. The only reasons anybody comes to the furry fandom are if they have an animal-person fetish, want to make some cash doing porn for people with animal-person fetishes, or if they've been mislead to believe that this is actually an extension of the cartooning subculture and not a fetish subculture by individuals like yourself.

4) I can only assume that's because you want so badly for the people who share your position to not be idiots.

5) The fandom started with Mark Merlino and the people from the sci-fi cons most of whose names I can't remember. The Fanzines came later after the fandom was established- although the fanzines themselves might not have carried porn there was still plenty being drawn already (a name to look around for would be Reed Waller) and after a few years in the very early 90s when pretty much everybody realized they were in it for the same reason (the fetishism) the fanzines started carrying porn, and from there it has continued.

6) <I>testing</I>

You're asking me to prove the obvious. Despite the most popular artists in this being popular for being or having been overwhelmingly focused on producing porn, and despite the most popular author (Kyell Gold) being well known for his erotica, despite the most popular furry fiction site having a name that can be translated from fandom vernacular into "fuckstar dot com," despite the people in this very topic being at this point unable to name more than <I>two</I> "furry" sites that don't focus almost entirely on porn, and despite the furry fandom in its very beginnings being partitioned off from sci-fi and fantasy for being too sexual, you're saying that furry somehow isn't based around and focused on animal-person fetishism.

I can sit here and ask for proof that the background of fchan on my computer is blue and declare that since nobody can prove it I don't have to believe it, and then when they say "Look at it" pretend I don't see the color blue. Being disingenuous doesn't make your position, which flies in the face of even the barest research on what "furry" is, (except for what you'd find in the pile of misinformation that is wikifur) more credible. By the way, has the irony of arguing your position on a site dedicated to furry porn occurred to you yet?

I've lead you to water but I won't presume to be able to force you to drink. Go on thinking whatever you want, but I hope you know what an ass you're being when you try to convince somebody that doesn't already know the history and nature of this fandom that it's actually completely legitimate and that the sexual aspect isn't monumentally greater than any other aspect. It's tantamount to dressing someone up in crotchless chaps with no underwear, and see-through shirts, and telling them it's actually the latest fashion, it's not fetish clothing, and there's actually nothing sexual about it- and then watching them go out in public with this attire on and humiliate themselves without even knowing it.