THE PACK Message Boards

("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.

Make it half a heartbeat and call me in. I can not agree more with that!

I’ve never seen myself as a furry, but while drawing anthropomorphic others did and eventually I deleted the artwork concerned from the dA gallery.

Virtual Net-Culture Civil War? Hell yeah!

i im not a furry or a huge fan like you but ill will support your decision since it only seems fair and i help my friends in times of needs since i dont know about you but i considered you a good friend and a pool of knowledge since you are older and im only 15 and your line of thinking is alot like mine

Oh geeze, here we go....
The term originally was for anthro characters, not fans. But as fans created their fursonas, they began calling themselves furries. So yes, the meaning has changed so that is mostly refers to fans now, but the original meaning was the character.

PariahPoet wrote:Oh geeze, here we go....
The term originally was for anthro characters, not fans. But as fans created their fursonas, they began calling themselves furries. So yes, the meaning has changed so that is mostly refers to fans now, but the original meaning was the character.

Hmmmm....I didn't know the term was originally for anthro characters and not the fans.


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


I'm in the same position as Vuldari. I've been confused from the start. I may have some similarities as the furries. But I'm not going to call myself one because of it.

This is how I see it.

Its kinda like that wolf and goat in "One Stormy Night." They had many similarities. So they became friends. But if they try to be more like the other, it just won't work out. For example. The wolf eats meat and the goat eats grass. Thats something that can't be changed.

I'm a werewolf fan. I'm going to stick with that term. I won't change it.

"Furry" is an extremely loosely defined term. When speaking of art all it means is "anthropomorphic animal". That's it. There's not fancy list of requirements that says they have to walk on two legs, or have DDD chests, or any such crap like that. ANY human feature makes an animal character anthropomorphic - even something as simple as talking. Since furries in art are anthropomorphic chracters, whether you like the fact or not, all anthros are furries.

Don't b**** at us because the sky is blue. It's the same s***.

Set wrote:"Furry" is an extremely loosely defined term. When speaking of art all it means is "anthropomorphic animal". That's it. There's not fancy list of requirements that says they have to walk on two legs, or have DDD chests, or any such crap like that. ANY human feature makes an animal character anthropomorphic - even something as simple as talking. Since furries in art are anthropomorphic chracters, whether you like the fact or not, all anthros are furries.

Don't b**** at us because the sky is blue. It's the same s***.

You're so CUTE when you talk that way.


I'm not against furries in any way. I just don't understand whats going on. I'm still learning here.

HOU LA!!!!!

Ew. How many times do I have to - oh, feh. You're hopeless Fig. *wipes off slobber*

Figarou wrote:I'm not against furries in any way. I just don't understand whats going on. I'm still learning here.

There's nothing wrong with that. I just think it's rediculous to get in such a huff over things like this. Really...what difference does calling something "furry" or not make? It's not like anyone's trying to strap Vuldari to a table, put him into a dog suit and make him watch Bambi until he passes out. Comparing us furs to a cult is a little harsh. (So I'm not going to be nice if he pushes it any further. Just a fair warning.)

The term "furry", when applied to people, is just as loosely defined as when speaking of art. The ONLY thing it means is "a fan of anthropomorphic animals". Theoretically, you could be considered a furry, Figarou. However it's normally only used for the people who want to go by that label. If you don't want to be called a furry, generally, we're not going to call you one. Most of the time furs only do that to annoy people who are being obnoxious about the whole thing. (Like Jakkal.)

Vuldari wouldn't give a damn if any of us said The Lion King is an anthro movie. It is. But the moment we say it's a furry movie, which it is, we end up with a topic like this. They mean the exact same thing. Why get your tail into a knot over it? It's so utterly pointless.

hmmm. interesting points, vuldari.

and yes, some furries are like that. and yes, you don't gotta be a furry to like the lion king or john talbain. you are very right.

but not all furries are like that, vuldari. just because i want to wear a fursuit doesn't mean i want to take over the whole anthro universe.

see, until i came to this site, i was basically the only furry i knew, and i don't think that everybody who hits the anthro scene should be called a furry. until recently, i didn't realize that there was a problem like this, and i am pretty sure that at least some other furries feel the same way.

and you go, set! tell it like it is!

Woah, I'm staying way out of this one. ( But that doesn't mean I won't spectate)

hehe...spectate
So long as you don't expectorate.
I'm right with you, Set. Why spazz over semantics? No reason why a simple term should be such a bfd.

I personaly dont even like using the term furry. Like Set said, it is a extremely loose used word and there for it shouldnt even be used at all.

Bugs bunny and Daffy Duck shouldnt be called furries, they were around before the term furry is even used. Its so rediculous that when ever an animal so much as walk upright is automaticaly consider a furry. You might aswell call most of goldenwolf's art furry cause some of them live and act like native americans. So I believe that the term furry should be used as little as possible.

If this coup is to really move like clockwork, any collateral damage of any kind will severely stain my trust in joining.

Shadow Wulf wrote:I personaly dont even like using the term furry. Like Set said, it is a extremely loose used word and there for it shouldnt even be used at all.

By your logic, the term "anthro" shouldn't be used either, because it's not specific enough. It refers to ANY human trait - not specifying which doesn't make it useless.

Goldenwolf's art is furry, FYI. Just like it's also anthropomorphic. Synonyms are interesting little buggers like that.

No they are werewolves for the most part, Set.

So werewolves don't have human traits, then? That's what you're saying. "Shifting" doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Shifting is the difference. A Furry or anthro are always in the animal form.

Werewolves are people who turn into animals. They are people with special abilities, thats where it draws the lines

Tell me this. Would you have known those were "werewolves" if she didn't specify that they were?

What would you have called them then?

Never mind the fact people can't agree on what exactly a werewolf even IS... I mean, how many debates have all of us had about that subject?

I prefer to call drawn furries "kemono".


If a furry can't change, i call them "kemono". If they can change into any shape, i call them "youkai", "hanyo" or "jyuujin".

Otherwise i just call them by names from my native tongue.

Well, my art and various works describe me to be a furry. However, given what some people label furries ( conceived of being perverted in a sexual manner) as around my home state , I denounce being one. You might call me a person intrigued in the subject of canid transformation and the subject of anthropomorphized canids meanwhile possessing an "Anthropomorphical alter ego". But heaven forbid someone calls me a furry and labels me as a porn addict.

kitetsu wrote:I prefer to call drawn furries "kemono".


If a furry can't change, i call them "kemono". If they can change into any shape, i call them "youkai", "hanyo" or "jyuujin".

Well, there's some bizarre word usage...

"Youkai" refers to an evil spirit of some sorts. Essentially, it's the Japanese word for demon.

"Hanyo" is basically a half-demon. The other terms I admit I'm not too familiar with, though the use of "kemono" here seems strange to me as I keep wanting to assume you meant "bakemono", which gets back around to the whole evil spirit thing.

*bows and wanders off now*

yeah. i have totally told people that i was not a furry so that i was not labeled as a porn addict. i don't watch porn, i don't like porn, and i have no interest in watching porn. but that doesn't mean i can't be a furry. i don't like it when people can't understand that.

Gentlemen, gentlemen... and ladies, too...

As we can see, categorization about furriness is notoriously controversial. There's bound to be disagreements.

There are those who use smaller inclusion criteria, in part because they don't want to be themselves categorized as furries, even though it's a perfectly respectable genre, because they associate furries in general with the weird extremists. (Yiffofacists?)

There are those who use broader inclusion criteria, in part because they are furries, and they have no problems with it.

Some of us are in that gray, fuzzy area. (They'd call us "fuzzies," except I'm sure that already means something else.) By some accounts, we're closet furries that just won't admit it. By others, we're something else. Therians are examples, though the general consensus is that therianthropy and furry fandom are two different Internet movements, though not neccessarily mutually exclusive.

The Lion King is well-loved by furries. But, it wasn't made specifically with the furry fandom movement in mind. For that matter, I don't think any movie has yet to be made specifically for the movement--at least no full length mainstream feature. Albee's Kaze: Ghost Warrior is probably the closest thing, and it's twenty minutes. (I'm likely to spawn some debate even on this point, since Kaze is by no means cute and features no oversized eyes.) I consider furry fandom one of the great untapped marketing venues where some people could make a fortune. Hopefully at least a few of those people are some independent filmmakers here.

This soul-searching is of significance to me personally, since I personally can fit into that quantum furry field. It dawned on me during the course of this that if I'm getting an outfit, have a thing for wolf-human hybrids, and the like, then the only thing missing is the cuteness. And, not all furries are into cuteness. I may soon have to come out of the furry equivalent of the closet.

Set wrote:

kitetsu wrote:I prefer to call drawn furries "kemono".


If a furry can't change, i call them "kemono". If they can change into any shape, i call them "youkai", "hanyo" or "jyuujin".

Well, there's some bizarre word usage...

"Youkai" refers to an evil spirit of some sorts. Essentially, it's the Japanese word for demon.

"Hanyo" is basically a half-demon. The other terms I admit I'm not too familiar with, though the use of "kemono" here seems strange to me as I keep wanting to assume you meant "bakemono", which gets back around to the whole evil spirit thing.

*bows and wanders off now*

akjsaslkdfhkjsdhjsdhgjksdfhgshdf

You got it all mixed up, but i think i understand why.

According to wikipedia, Youkai is actually a supernatural creature, not to be confused with demons, and Hanyo being the half-born. If it was demon, then it's actually the word "Ma", which means "demon"/"evil". Like for example, "Maou"/"Maoh" literally means "demon king" ("Ma" = "Demon" + "Ou" = "king"), or coloquially, "Overlord". Half demons are called "Hanma".

Full details.



PS: I know how awkward it is for me to refer lycanthropes as supernaturals, but i personally feel that lycanthropes are "extraordinary", and so i associate "extraordinary" with "super natural".