7859
Views
Views
127
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Story / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 120 x 120
File Size 6.9 kB
See more from rickgriffin
File type: Text File (.txt) [Download]
-----------------------------------------
I think sometimes it gets confusing when we're discussing "furry" because the word covers several different definitions and literally nobody wants to be left out of including their Doom cyberdemon fancharacter and who are you to judge, anyhow?
Being an english major with an interest in linguistics, I find this is simultaneously a boon--as the lack of solid definitions for any of these prevents people from being shoved out the door for failing to meet that definition . . . but at the same time, it causes an enormous amount of confusion when we're talking past each other saying two (or fourteen) entirely different things with the same word.
Furry as it is used commonly means:
1 - The furry fandom in general. What this necessarily encompasses is hard to pin down; to some people you have to actually accept yourself as part of the fandom, but it's also possible to be a big fat geek about it and clearly be in denial of whether or not you are a furry.
1a - People who have freaky sex at conventions in costume. Usually the definition by people who literally have no idea what furry is and want something to ridicule, usually considered the unfair categorization inside the fandom as it reduces the breadth of the fandom to a few outliers. (people who do have freaky costume sex at conventions do not do so because they are furry so much as they like freaky costume sex and also furry seems to dovetail with that. They might "own" this definition but it's not any more correct/exclusive than others)
1 corollary - People who believe in an animal/nonhuman spiritual side to themselves--otherkin, totemists, skinwalkers, actual werewolves, etc. EXCEPT that very often the people who fall under these categories do not belong to the fandom in any other aspect. This does not exclude them from being furry, but it's usually incorrect to assume that it's invariably associated with furry. This is not a common definition because most people who make this confusion, I think, merely don't know there IS a distinction. Very few people INSIST on this definition.
2 - An anthropomorphic character made in the fandom, speaking exclusively. For some definitions, since furry is a fandom, furry characters are only encompassed by the fandom, and characters outside the fandom are not furry.
3 - An anthropomorphic character, speaking broadly. The fox version of Robin Hood was never intended for the fandom but still appeals to the fandom, as does the mythological god Anubis, etc; although some might argue the point, a completely identical fancharacter WOULD be considered furry, so . . .
3a - An anthropomorphic character that is sexualized AND NOT funny animal characters. People outside the fandom that perceive it as full of undesirables will usually insist on this definition, although it usually reduces to "Stay away from my childhood you perverts!" Not usually taken as a real definition inside the fandom as a basis for exclusion, only to differentiate the house style from classic funny animals. (see 4 corollary)
4 - An anthropomorphic character that sticks to the mode of the fandom. That is, the "house style" as I've been calling it, where you have a animal face put on a human body first, then usually comes body covering, a tail, animal feet, claws instead of finger nails, etc. to varying degrees depending on the taste of the artist. Basically this sticks to one kind of animal, but there's also nothing stopping hybrids or fictional species from getting the anthro treatment.
4 corollary - This has literally nothing to do with what some people draw as a dividing line between "furry" as in fandom-appealing, and their personal "not furry" category, such as werewolves. Within the fandom, if the werewolf fits the house style (wolf head AND NOT classic movie style, although see 7), it's usually furry whether you want the association or not. Any specific division of definitions here are on a per-person basis and are not usually accepted by the fandom at large.
4 corollary 2 - The degree to which any given character is described or detailed in hard sci-fi explanations, "realism", NON-realism, "tooniness", any kind of created-world explanations or lack thereof, ties to mythology, folklore, literary precedent, etc. also has very little to do with defining "furry" itself.
4a - Said mode of the fandom including non-animal objects being treated like they were superficially animals. Again, this usually starts with altering the face in order to fit the "house style" rather than pasting a ladyface onto the front of an aircraft carrier. (see 8)
4b - Said mode of the fandom including additions of sci-fi biology/mythology such as centaur bodies, etc. This is just an extension of "hybrids"; I'm only mentioning it to make sure it's covered even though it starts to get distant from "human".
4c - Invented fictional species that are not intended to be "human" or any particular animal or mythological creature, but nonetheless bear traits similar to that of the fandom mode, especially if they were invented inside the fandom (sergals, etc)
5 - The mode of the fandom plus "feral" characters. Anthropomorphism can literally be reduced to something having ANY human traits applied to it, so you only need to meet that minimum requirement. Or not. Some furries are very interested in non-human things, so they don't want their real-animal characters excluded. (Because "furry" brings to mind animals, not anthropomorphism). May include characters like, say, Godzilla, who are ambiguously anthropomorphic.
6 - The mode of the fandom only if they have fur. I find this one needlessly pedantic, even though I'm perfectly fine with the term scaley (settle on a spelling please) or avian.
7 - Any character with any degree of animal traits whatsoever, including aliens with animal traits, regular centaurs, mermaids, all sorts of mythological beasts that fall outside the fandom "mode", Naruto, etc. I find this one too broad not because I want the people who like this out of the fandom or anything, but usually it's because it's not what I'm talking about when I talk about furry . . . but really, what the crap do I know
8 - Any character with any degree of nonhuman traits whatsoever. This includes non-animal-like aliens, fey, humans with skin made of rock, Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, etc. Which this technically all fits the definition of anthropomorphism, it's so far away from common "furry" that I have no idea why people need to muddle the definition on this point. Should they be excluded from the FANDOM? No, of course not; besides just "animals" furry is often about an appreciation for human traits applied to nonhuman things. In the most broad sense, furry IS just an extension of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just a reaction to the human-centric mainstream.
But if definition 8 covers the possible extent of the entire discussion, then why is it that we're using the same terminology for it and much, much smaller subcategories?
-----------------------------------------
I think sometimes it gets confusing when we're discussing "furry" because the word covers several different definitions and literally nobody wants to be left out of including their Doom cyberdemon fancharacter and who are you to judge, anyhow?
Being an english major with an interest in linguistics, I find this is simultaneously a boon--as the lack of solid definitions for any of these prevents people from being shoved out the door for failing to meet that definition . . . but at the same time, it causes an enormous amount of confusion when we're talking past each other saying two (or fourteen) entirely different things with the same word.
Furry as it is used commonly means:
1 - The furry fandom in general. What this necessarily encompasses is hard to pin down; to some people you have to actually accept yourself as part of the fandom, but it's also possible to be a big fat geek about it and clearly be in denial of whether or not you are a furry.
1a - People who have freaky sex at conventions in costume. Usually the definition by people who literally have no idea what furry is and want something to ridicule, usually considered the unfair categorization inside the fandom as it reduces the breadth of the fandom to a few outliers. (people who do have freaky costume sex at conventions do not do so because they are furry so much as they like freaky costume sex and also furry seems to dovetail with that. They might "own" this definition but it's not any more correct/exclusive than others)
1 corollary - People who believe in an animal/nonhuman spiritual side to themselves--otherkin, totemists, skinwalkers, actual werewolves, etc. EXCEPT that very often the people who fall under these categories do not belong to the fandom in any other aspect. This does not exclude them from being furry, but it's usually incorrect to assume that it's invariably associated with furry. This is not a common definition because most people who make this confusion, I think, merely don't know there IS a distinction. Very few people INSIST on this definition.
2 - An anthropomorphic character made in the fandom, speaking exclusively. For some definitions, since furry is a fandom, furry characters are only encompassed by the fandom, and characters outside the fandom are not furry.
3 - An anthropomorphic character, speaking broadly. The fox version of Robin Hood was never intended for the fandom but still appeals to the fandom, as does the mythological god Anubis, etc; although some might argue the point, a completely identical fancharacter WOULD be considered furry, so . . .
3a - An anthropomorphic character that is sexualized AND NOT funny animal characters. People outside the fandom that perceive it as full of undesirables will usually insist on this definition, although it usually reduces to "Stay away from my childhood you perverts!" Not usually taken as a real definition inside the fandom as a basis for exclusion, only to differentiate the house style from classic funny animals. (see 4 corollary)
4 - An anthropomorphic character that sticks to the mode of the fandom. That is, the "house style" as I've been calling it, where you have a animal face put on a human body first, then usually comes body covering, a tail, animal feet, claws instead of finger nails, etc. to varying degrees depending on the taste of the artist. Basically this sticks to one kind of animal, but there's also nothing stopping hybrids or fictional species from getting the anthro treatment.
4 corollary - This has literally nothing to do with what some people draw as a dividing line between "furry" as in fandom-appealing, and their personal "not furry" category, such as werewolves. Within the fandom, if the werewolf fits the house style (wolf head AND NOT classic movie style, although see 7), it's usually furry whether you want the association or not. Any specific division of definitions here are on a per-person basis and are not usually accepted by the fandom at large.
4 corollary 2 - The degree to which any given character is described or detailed in hard sci-fi explanations, "realism", NON-realism, "tooniness", any kind of created-world explanations or lack thereof, ties to mythology, folklore, literary precedent, etc. also has very little to do with defining "furry" itself.
4a - Said mode of the fandom including non-animal objects being treated like they were superficially animals. Again, this usually starts with altering the face in order to fit the "house style" rather than pasting a ladyface onto the front of an aircraft carrier. (see 8)
4b - Said mode of the fandom including additions of sci-fi biology/mythology such as centaur bodies, etc. This is just an extension of "hybrids"; I'm only mentioning it to make sure it's covered even though it starts to get distant from "human".
4c - Invented fictional species that are not intended to be "human" or any particular animal or mythological creature, but nonetheless bear traits similar to that of the fandom mode, especially if they were invented inside the fandom (sergals, etc)
5 - The mode of the fandom plus "feral" characters. Anthropomorphism can literally be reduced to something having ANY human traits applied to it, so you only need to meet that minimum requirement. Or not. Some furries are very interested in non-human things, so they don't want their real-animal characters excluded. (Because "furry" brings to mind animals, not anthropomorphism). May include characters like, say, Godzilla, who are ambiguously anthropomorphic.
6 - The mode of the fandom only if they have fur. I find this one needlessly pedantic, even though I'm perfectly fine with the term scaley (settle on a spelling please) or avian.
7 - Any character with any degree of animal traits whatsoever, including aliens with animal traits, regular centaurs, mermaids, all sorts of mythological beasts that fall outside the fandom "mode", Naruto, etc. I find this one too broad not because I want the people who like this out of the fandom or anything, but usually it's because it's not what I'm talking about when I talk about furry . . . but really, what the crap do I know
8 - Any character with any degree of nonhuman traits whatsoever. This includes non-animal-like aliens, fey, humans with skin made of rock, Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, etc. Which this technically all fits the definition of anthropomorphism, it's so far away from common "furry" that I have no idea why people need to muddle the definition on this point. Should they be excluded from the FANDOM? No, of course not; besides just "animals" furry is often about an appreciation for human traits applied to nonhuman things. In the most broad sense, furry IS just an extension of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just a reaction to the human-centric mainstream.
But if definition 8 covers the possible extent of the entire discussion, then why is it that we're using the same terminology for it and much, much smaller subcategories?
I posted a journal about this and some people wanted me to make it into an actual submission. I'm toying with the idea of adapting this into a script and narrating it in the vein of that artist/commissioner etiquette flash
Category Story / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Gender Any
Size 120 x 120px
File Size 6.9 kB
Would totally be on board with this idea x3 Send me a holler if you want any co-narrator/scripter thing!
Primarily, I'd need someone who actually knows flash I think
Ah, I read it wrong then. I know next year I'll be learning flash (I'm dedicating this summer to C ), but I don't know it just yet v.v
Ohhhh, flaaaash. I'm learning its interface. I sorta already know how it's supposed to be worked ('cuz I know its cousin, After Effects), just that I don't know which levers to pull and such. darn.
We do have the ruling from the US supreme court. Vs Omaha the cat dancer.
Sticking cat ears and tail on a human does not make it a funny animal/furry.
it is still human porn.
Sticking cat ears and tail on a human does not make it a funny animal/furry.
it is still human porn.
I honestly am ok with this tidbit of information... Clears up a lot of questions i've had
wow, now that is interesting... quick! throw this in the face of all the neko lover!!!!11111 kidding. But still interesting nonetheless.
A wonderful breakdown of all the myriad thoughts and apparent possible definitions! :D
Amazing, Thank you, I now have a link to forward to all my confused friends...
I was doing "furry" stuff before I'd ever heard the word furry. I used the term "anthro/anthropomorphic" which seemed to make sense, but eventually the furry community found me and we very vocal that everything I did was "furry" and had to be labelled as such :/
A fantastic and thorough analysis of the various usages and definitions of the word furry. Top notch work! I typically stick to using 1 and 3 to define the fandom to people who don't understand it, but I may have to link them to this in the future!
Always interesting to read about these views. It's just something that's rather hard to define.
Now I got a list for thosewho bully furs to show the correct terminology.
I have read that the origins of furry may of came from a Philosopher. He would go out into the woods and live like animal in the woods. He would mimic(as one can mimic) whatever animal he had chosen and live exactly as it dose. He wolud practice this for a number of days up to a month or so untile he had reaced some form of enlightenment . I hope this information helps.
or in layman's terms - "furry" is a psychological disorder of pretending to be something you are not (an animal species that is not human) more often than it is necessary to carry out comical or theatrical needs.
Do not forget "therians" in that mix. They tend to be members of the furry fandom, but hold significantly more importance in personal spirituality (or believe it is some kind of body dysmorphia condition). Usually, though, furries look at therians as people who take it a little too far, or are looking for attention... and admittedly, to someone who has not spent much time in the community or has spent too much time with the "otherkin" tag on Tumblr, that is a rather reasonable definition.
Reminds me of a quote: "Unauthorized personnel only"
Furries have always resonated at a more spiritual, metaphorical level for me. I can recall drawing my fursona for the first time at age 13. Although I already had anthro characters of my own, there was something in particular about Brian that sent me on tangents. Now at 21 I see him (pretty much) as God me.
Most people I meet will come off to me in some animalistic way: could be their appearance, habits, jokes, anything. I can make some connections in seconds where others would take me years to conclude. My mind is almost always bringing anthro into real context.
I find the human aesthetic unattractive (although in very few cases stimulating). It could be for the better, since it levels my reception of first impressions; although I still sense a strong bias from girls when meeting new people. This has also made me search deeper into people to find their essence, demeanour, what have you.
Ultimately, these characters are just a form of self-expression. Its rather tragic the presentation of which has become controversial in mainstream media, but... people need to be offended every once in a while.
Most people I meet will come off to me in some animalistic way: could be their appearance, habits, jokes, anything. I can make some connections in seconds where others would take me years to conclude. My mind is almost always bringing anthro into real context.
I find the human aesthetic unattractive (although in very few cases stimulating). It could be for the better, since it levels my reception of first impressions; although I still sense a strong bias from girls when meeting new people. This has also made me search deeper into people to find their essence, demeanour, what have you.
Ultimately, these characters are just a form of self-expression. Its rather tragic the presentation of which has become controversial in mainstream media, but... people need to be offended every once in a while.
I see furries as anyone with a high interest in anthropomorphic animals. This doesn't include those who just enjoy AAs casually, or aren't very dedicated to them. You can determine what it qualifies to be a furry yourself.
I personally don't refer to the animals/characters that fit into this category as furries, but that's just me.
I personally don't refer to the animals/characters that fit into this category as furries, but that's just me.
Whoa. This is interesting. Fitting into the "house style" (I like that term) is probably the definition I subscribe to here, given a lot of times I feel you can look at different artist drawings of animals and tell which ones are furry.
Get FA 
Merch Store
Comments