(Warning: RANT) "Furries". What is...what is Not?

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:34 pm

Ah...it seems mebbe you've let your internet life start affecting your real life? Don't get me wrong, I'm a furry online and off, but what happens online stays online, at least for me. I'm only a flaming fur online, I'm a closet fur offline.

But it sounds like your internet life with the furry culture has hurt your real life.

My suggestions:
1. Turn off your computer for a while (or at least, only visit sites where you won't encounter the furry culture).

2. Go do something (whether it be finding a hobby, meeting a new group of friends, adopt a new pet, regularly go for hikes in some local woods, etc.). Become so absorbed in your real life that when you get on the internet, you can get offline later without letting it get to you and hurt you.

I've fallen into this trap before. There was a point in my life where I just had to realize that my internet life was encroaching up and damaging my real life (part of the reason for my two month absence). I'm not saying everything is peachy-keen now, but it's at least better.

nachoboy · Post by **nachoboy** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:43 pm

hmm. i like that advice, renorei. very mindful of you. makes lots o' sense. i'm glad you did come back, and i hope you stay.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:12 pm

Welcome Back Renorei!

Im glad your here agien for the time being, hopefully youll stay for a while or atleast visit a little more ocassionaly. And I know exactly what you mean about the internet affects you real life, which is why I hang out at my friends house alot or draw.

I must say though. the lion King is not a furry, Its a cartoon. It isnt fair for bugs bunny and daffy duck and simba to be labled as furries. if you look at it, most regular people dont consider those characters as furries, its mostly the furries that say it. Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck has been around much longer than the name furry has, so its just not fair to give it that defenition.

nachoboy · Post by **nachoboy** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:53 pm

just because they were around before the term wsa invented doesn't mean they fit the definition.

i'm not saying you're wrong. i don't think they do fit in the "furry" category. yes, many furries like them or whatever, but that doesn't make them furries.

all i'm saying is that your argument doesn't make much sense. before gravity was discovered, did it not exist? the earth existed before anyone ever called it "earth." does that mean it doesn't really fit the name "earth?"

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:01 pm

Thanks for the warm welcome, everybody!

Just because an object preceded a word that can describe it, doesn't mean that word to describe it can't apply. Think about the oldest anthromorphic animal character in human fiction and mythology...I'm not sure what it would be (probably a trickster in native american tales or something like that), but this character would have had to exist before the word "anthromorphic" did. Does that, by default, mean that it isn't anthromorphic?

When furries say that The Lion King is a furry movie, that doesn't mean that it was made for furries, or that only furries would appreciate it. It just means that it contains anthromorphic animal characters, which can also be called "furries", and is one of the definitions of the word "furry". Therefore, it is a furry movie. Just as it is also an anthromorphic animal movie.

You guys need to learn to separate the word "furry" from the negative connotations associated with it, and to understand when those connotations apply. The word "furry" does not necessarily imply the presence of perverted cartoon animal porn. Furry can imply the presence of perverted cartoon animal porn, and sometimes does, but not always.

Furry is a word that means a lot of things, and it's important to be able to distinguish when it means which definition. Sometimes, it just means anthromorphic animals, and nothing else, no inappropriate sexual perversion involved. Don't let all your negative connotations of the other usages of "furry" muddle you up if someone says The Lion King is a furry movie. What they are saying is that it is a movie that contains anthromorphic animal characters.

nachoboy · Post by **nachoboy** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:05 pm

see, i know what you mean. i, myself, am a furry, and i am not at all interested in yiff/hentai or animal porn or anything like that. i don't like it when people think like that either, renorei.

Lupin · Post by **Lupin** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:12 pm

Renorei wrote:You guys need to learn to separate the word "furry" from the negative connotations associated with it, and to understand when those connotations apply. The word "furry" does not necessarily imply the presence of perverted cartoon animal porn. Furry can imply the presence of perverted cartoon animal porn, and sometimes does, but not always.

As with any group with a very vocal minority, that's easier said than done.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:21 pm

Well, I know what you all are saying and I agree. And I dont think that furry is bad. But its just that since theres no definite definition and any animal that talk automaticaly gets put in the furry category I just hate. A furry is a anthro a anthro is a furry, Set thinks that a werewolf is a furry which is really not. I guess what i am trying to say is that all these cartoons and creatures are just being labled as furry when the shouldnt. Cartoons, fine but mythological creatures such as werewolves and merpeople is what gets me agitated. Again Set said this one comment saying if Goldenwolf never would have told us her art are werewolf would you even tell? My answer is yes, they look just like werewolves, civilized werewolves but werewolves, not furries. There has to be a limit for what a furry can be.

Agien most people (that arent furry or antrhos) Wont even consider all these cartoons as furries really, even if they do know exactly what a (and not portraying to the yiff) furry is.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:24 pm

Renorei wrote:Ah...it seems mebbe you've let your internet life start affecting your real life? Don't get me wrong, I'm a furry online and off, but what happens online stays online, at least for me. I'm only a flaming fur online, I'm a closet fur offline.

But it sounds like your internet life with the furry culture has hurt your real life.

My suggestions:
1. Turn off your computer for a while (or at least, only visit sites where you won't encounter the furry culture).

2. Go do something (whether it be finding a hobby, meeting a new group of friends, adopt a new pet, regularly go for hikes in some local woods, etc.). Become so absorbed in your real life that when you get on the internet, you can get offline later without letting it get to you and hurt you.

I've fallen into this trap before. There was a point in my life where I just had to realize that my internet life was encroaching up and damaging my real life (part of the reason for my two month absence). I'm not saying everything is peachy-keen now, but it's at least better.

Very sensible advice.

Also easier said than done.

To stay away from sites where I encounter Furries would mean staying away from HERE unfortunately. I have not been communicating with therians and furries anywhere else since joining this forum.

...though I lurk elsewhere around art and story/comic sites consistantly...

Keeping my Net-life and Real-life seperate has admitably been very hard on me.

Having all these thoughts and ideas going through my head all the time, but only being able to share them through the computer, under an alias name, and not in public because of fear of public humiliation is painful.

...all because "Furries" have made those things look really scary to everyone else. And for good reason. Furries scare me too.

I don't want to be a Furry...but I want to continue with the passions and ideas that originally lead me to them.

--------------------------------------------

I know I am not the only one in this situation.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:31 pm

You dont have to stay away form the site, just keep your mind focus on other things, hobbies, games. Chatting with friends on regular everyday thing.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:01 pm

Lupin wrote:
Renorei wrote:You guys need to learn to separate the word "furry" from the negative connotations associated with it, and to understand when those connotations apply. The word "furry" does not necessarily imply the presence of perverted cartoon animal porn. Furry can imply the presence of perverted cartoon animal porn, and sometimes does, but not always.
As with any group with a very vocal minority, that's easier said than done.

Exactly.

However, I still think it may be possible to accomplish this If a new term is created and used instead.

...IF the ones who coin the new term come to a mutual agreement that any and all subjects they apply to that term fall under thier mutually agreed upon guidelines that content of *this* and *this* and *this* nature is strictly "Forbidden" for this specific new category, then the possibility of such a distinction could finally become a reality.

As in...the content guidelines would acually be part of the words definition.

Just as "Yiff" refers to content of a very specific nature...perhaps we need a word that specificly means "Not-Yiff". Or even further, "Non-Yiff, non Religious, Non-cultrural propaganda - General Anthro", with all works breaking from the guidelines being considered thier own category, like "Yiff" is.

As it currently stands...the word "Furry" is being used as a blanket term for ALL OF THE ABOVE, including "Yiff", "Vore", and other categories I wish I didn't know about, plus some of the fans themselves.

I think I am finally narrowing this down a little more.

What we need is a term and category that specifically means:

"Non-Controversial Anthro Content".

...now what to call it...

If the guidelines are contained, and written in stone within the terms definition, the need to try to make it unnatractive sounding would no longer be neccesary either.

The genre NEEDS such a category. It seems so obvious to me now. ...I'm shocked that no one thought to do this YEARS ago.

PariahPoet · Post by **PariahPoet** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:20 pm

Vuldari wrote: ...all because "Furries" have made those things look really scary to everyone else. And for good reason. Furries scare me too.

For good reason.

*chases Vuldari around with a baseball bat*

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:23 pm

Vuldari wrote: To stay away from sites where I encounter Furries would mean staying away from HERE unfortunately.

I didn't actually mean to stay away from HERE. Yeah, there are furries here, but not the perverted, mentally unhealthy kind.

Vuldari wrote: ...now what to call it...

Good luck with that one.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:51 pm

PariahPoet wrote:*chases Vuldari around with a baseball bat*

...AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGG...!!!

*Runs Away...trips...gets back up, and keeps running*

23Jarden · Post by **23Jarden** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:12 pm

What about.... Danger Dan! jk jk

hmmm.... I was gonna say Dom actually...

nachoboy · Post by **nachoboy** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:09 pm

i dunno what you wanna call it, but i like your idea.

PariahPoet · Post by **PariahPoet** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:45 pm

I just don't understand why this is even a debate. Furries came up with their own terminology, they define it.
Like I told Scott, it is understandable that he doesn't want to call his movie a furry movie, but I think what most people mean by 'furry movie' is not a movie made for or about furries, it's a movie that furs would enjoy. So by that definition it *is* a furry movie whether you want to call it that or not.

I guess all I've been trying to say is if you don't like something being called furry, then don't call it furry. That doesn't mean we can't.
I'm just really tired of people lumping all furs together. I am not a pervert, I am a feline in spirit, that doesn't mean I an crazy. I have a perfect grasp on reality. I'm in psychology for heaven's sake! What's the big huge horror with someone being inhuman in mind or spirit? I think everybody just needs to tend their own business and quit interfering with everybody else. I don't demand that everybody accept what I am, all I ask is to not be put down and to be given the same respect as everyone else on the board.

There's my two cents.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:04 am

So when you call a movie a movie like the lion king a furry movie, cause furries would like it. Just like a chick flick movie, Something that chicks usauly enjoy. I still think we shouldnt call it a furry movie. it already has its own genre, just like action flicks, and horror flicks.

PariahPoet · Post by **PariahPoet** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:24 am

Just explaining why I call it that. And I think that is the reasoning for most people.
But why not call it a furry movie? What genre would that be? I've never seen any movie made for furries other than Kaze...a handful of movies doesn't really make a genre.

neoritter · Post by **neoritter** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:48 am

Vuldari wrote:("Rant" extracted from "Say Hello to Smoke" thread.)
------------------------------------------

I disagree with the use of the Word "Furry" earlier in this thread. "Furry(s)" are a certain group of eccentric fans of "Anthropomorphic" Animal characters. Thier Avatars ("Fursonas") and the characters they create specifically for thier Furry worlds are also "Furries", but I HIGHLY OBJECT to the continued mis-labeling of ALL Anthropomorphic characters as "Furries".

'The Lion King' was NOT a "Furry" movie. It just happens to be a film featuring Anthropomorphisized Animals which is one of, if not The most popular amongst Furries, and Furry Fans.

I'm really getting sick and tired of Furries acting like they OWN that movie now...and everything else that happens to involve animal characters of any kind, for that matter.

Because the Furries so loudly and obnoxiously insist that everything Anthropomorphic is theirs (which it is NOT), and that everyone who happens to like anything that involves Animals in even a slightly anthropomophisized manner is a "Furry Fan" (IE: "One of THEM"), they are making it absolutely impossible for anyone to show any reasonable amount of support for the genre any more without being blacklisted as a member of this, often allmost 'Religious' seeming CULT.

The Furries are ruining the whole genre for All of Us.

Most Anthropomorphic works are NOT "Furry" works.

Most Antrhopomorphic artists, writers and fans are NOT "Furries".

...when I first stumbled into the internet scene, I saw all these people calling many of my favorite characters, and the people who liked them "Furries", and so I incorrectly assumed (as many do) that this was just the general name for "Anthropomorphic"* fans. (*A word I did not learn untill later). In response to this discovery, I quickly latched onto the word and went about thinking of myself as a Furry for about two years or so.

...but now as I have had time to get to know a great many people who are actually involved in the Furry "Culture" ...not just a Fandom, but an entire Culture, (which was, "More than I signed up for", to use a popular phrase), it has become clear to me that I am most definately NOT a Furry, and honetly...even though we like alot of the same shows and characters...most Furries really creep me out a little bit.

I am NOT one of them... "Watership Down" does NOT belong to them... Not every costume Designer in the world who creates characters with feathers, scales or fur is a "Fursuiter"...

...this is just out of controll. It has to end.

I still like people who are Furries, and have at least a dozen (online) Furry friends, (some of which are right here)... but this possesive attitude of the Furry Cult is really killing the genre.

"Anthropomorphic" Artist/Writer/Fan =/= "Furry"

PLEASE ... I implore to them ... let us NON-FURRIES enjoy our cool looking, and/or funny animal characters in peace with out being forcefully initiated into your anti-human counter culture. Many of us just don't like that, or want anything to do with it.

Furries are NOT the only variety of Anthropomorphic Fans in the world...many of us are Different than them.
-----------------------------------------------

I'm sorry if this rant seems a little out of line. I have actually been thinking deeply about this subject for a few days now, and this 'off topic' discussion provided me an opportunity to share my thoughts.

Something that I have concluded is that someone (Possibly even ME) should create a NEW title, and classification of Anthropomorphic themed creative works and it's fans ... one that has nothing to do with belief systems, "True Selves", and all of the other sorts of things that make the genre look unattractive and slightly disturbing to others.

- An "Official", Blunt, Cut-And-Dry classification. -

I would declare myself a Fan and Creative Artist of That. ...and I think a great many, many other fans of Non-Human characters, (and creative works that contain them), who have been forced to stand in the same crowd as those who refer to thier own race as "hyoomans", would be more than eager to abandon the old leaky, smelly "Furry" ship in a heartbeat and come aboard. ...leaving the title of "Furry" behind forever.

Essentially, I am calling for a coup d'etat against the entire Furry Sub-Culture in an effort to Take Back the Anthropomorphic genre for the rest of us. ...because I think the Furries are doing a TERRIBLE job of being spokesmen for the genre.
--------------------------------------------

Any thoughts? Support for a Non-Furry Anthropomorphics Genre?

...Condemnation for making such a flame-worthy rant in a forum and group frequented by a significant percentage of members of the sub-culture in dispute?

I feel like I am trying to start a Virtual Net-Culture "Civil War" here...

...but I just really think that people like Me, and Figarou, and Jakkal, and Millions of others like us deserve the right to be fans of Anthropomorphic characters without being lumped together in the same corner of the social pool with the ("...We hate Hyoomans...I have a phantom purple skunk tail...") Furries.

I think many, many people who currenly call themselves Furries (including possibly some of you here), don't really want to be a part of this culture anymore, but feel that they NEED to in order to not abandon thier favorite genre. Those people are not my enemies. It is the Furries that don't like being associated with those 'other' people any more that I consider my greatest Allies in this struggle.

Just say "Enough is Enough". Turn around to the eccentrics who are making the rest of us look bad and tell them that you will have nothing to do with them any more. Take off that "Furry" badge you have been wearing for so long and toss it in thier faces.

Proove to the World that you don't need to be a Furry to think that Jon Talbain is a cool character, or that The Lion King was your favorite movie.

We just want our respect and Dignity back.

Bravo, well done. Somethingawful.com has spent some time on this subject as well. Thanks to the internet we have what used to be small minority weirdos, for lack of a better term, grow tramatically. And yes its very annoying. I can think of examples outside of the "furry" culture about claiming things as "theirs" when its not. Emos, will say Nine Inch Nails is emo music. I'm sorry people its not. Industrial rock/ techno. Get it right. Same with Linkin Park.

Its annoying and bothersome. What happens I think with any group is that they make their guidelines as to what makes someone part of their group. And to explain in programming terms, instead of making if statements that require all or most conditions to be met, they simple go with if one is correct. So someone is surfing the web meeting new people, etc etc. And someone notices they like Lion King to cite an example from your post Vuldari. That person says, "Hey you must be a furry, because you like the Lion King." And this person not knowing better gets drawn into that group and in cases becomes what they actually weren't, just so that they can fit into a group and "belong" to something. Its a pathetic predicament in my opinion.

Figarou · Post by **Figarou** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:08 am

Renorei wrote:
Furry is a word that means a lot of things, and it's important to be able to distinguish when it means which definition. Sometimes, it just means anthromorphic animals, and nothing else, no inappropriate sexual perversion involved. Don't let all your negative connotations of the other usages of "furry" muddle you up if someone says The Lion King is a furry movie. What they are saying is that it is a movie that contains anthromorphic animal characters.

Ok....I'm confused.

1st off... is anthromorphic spelled correctly? My search says its spelled as "anthropomorphic."

Next.....take a lion from "The Lion king." Now take a real lion and put them side by side. Whats the difference between the 2? They both look like lions to me. The only difference is that one is real and the other is drawn to resemble a real lion.

Now....I want you to point out the human characteristics in that lion from "The Lion King"

The only human characteristics I can find is that the lion from "The Lion King" can speak the human tongue and the REAL lion can't.

Is THAT what makes it a furry? That it can speak the human tongue? Just so you know, that lion is NOT speaking. Somebody else is speaking for that lion. Its called "prosopopoeia."

Now let me throw this at you.

What if "The Lion King" was live action and they used REAL lions. The only thing thats not real is the lion's lips because they use CGI to make it seem as if its talking. Are those "real" lions considered a furry because they can talk? Or is "prosopopoeia" in use?

Please end my confusion.

Kirk Hammett · Post by **Kirk Hammett** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:59 am

That is why I think a group OTHER than the "Furries" is needed.

Thats a good idea, but I think (And this is coming from my distaste for music sub genres) maybe there could be just no term for it at all.

I dunno...that's not gonna happen since termonology is loved and people love to categorise, since it simplifies communication (Something everyone learns back in kiddy school).

So therefor, maybe 'furry' just has to be a sub genre of anthropomorphic fandom. Perhaps furry is the culture, and anthropomorphic the generic word including furries plus everything else anthro.

And ugh Neoritter

Emos, will say Nine Inch Nails is emo music. I'm sorry people its not. Industrial rock/ techno. Get it right. Same with Linkin Park.

Emo's make me cringe. I might dress a bit like an 80's musician, but I don't say "Iron Maiden is mine." They really are sad aren't they. I also saw a sad thing when someone drew a werewolf similar to Goldenwolf's...well it wasn't -that- similar, and they were abused by some idiot with too much time on their hands. Goldenwolf wouldn't claim that all as hers. There are lots of designs of werewolves that are similar.

Renorei · Post by **Renorei** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:19 am

Figarou wrote:
Renorei wrote:
Furry is a word that means a lot of things, and it's important to be able to distinguish when it means which definition. Sometimes, it just means anthromorphic animals, and nothing else, no inappropriate sexual perversion involved. Don't let all your negative connotations of the other usages of "furry" muddle you up if someone says The Lion King is a furry movie. What they are saying is that it is a movie that contains anthromorphic animal characters.
Ok....I'm confused.

1st off... is anthromorphic spelled correctly? My search says its spelled as "anthropomorphic."

Next.....take a lion from "The Lion king." Now take a real lion and put them side by side. Whats the difference between the 2? They both look like lions to me. The only difference is that one is real and the other is drawn to resemble a real lion.

Now....I want you to point out the human characteristics in that lion from "The Lion King"

The only human characteristics I can find is that the lion from "The Lion King" can speak the human tongue and the REAL lion can't.

Is THAT what makes it a furry? That it can speak the human tongue? Just so you know, that lion is NOT speaking. Somebody else is speaking for that lion. Its called "prosopopoeia."

Now let me throw this at you.

What if "The Lion King" was live action and they used REAL lions. The only thing thats not real is the lion's lips because they use CGI to make it seem as if its talking. Are those "real" lions considered a furry because they can talk? Or is "prosopopoeia" in use?

Please end my confusion.

I am sorry, you are correct. My spelling of anthropomorphic was indeed flawed.

Anthropomorphism can include more things that simply walking on two legs or talking. Basically, any fictional animal character that humans project human traits onto can be an anthro. For example, the lions in The Lion King feel complex emotions that real lions wouldn't feel, but that humans would. Also, the TLK lions are monogamous like humans, whereas real lions aren't like that. In a real lion pride, the male will breed as many females as he wants. Realistically, Simba and Nala would not be the only cubs. Also, I know the lions themselves aren't actually "talking", but it still counts as them talking, even if it's just human voice actors. There are a whole bunch of other things about TLK lions that aren't like real lions, that is a result of the creators projecting human traits on them.

Fenrir · Post by **Fenrir** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:26 am

hey Renorei, welcome back

MoonKit · Post by **MoonKit** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:22 pm

This is some complicated stuff.

THE PACK Message Boards

(Warning: RANT) "Furries". What is...what is Not?

Re: (Warning: RANT) "Furries". What is...what is