126 replies to this topic

[Nem]

Alias, on 7 Jan 2009, 19:36, said:

RaiDK, on 8 Jan 2009, 11:20, said:

I think the whole concept is slightly disturbing.

This.

I don't approve of the hardcore ones but the typically average ones are (usually) fine.

Agreed, Agreed, Agreed.

Don't have a problem with them but if this forum became overrun with them I would leave and never look back.

[CodeCat]

Vaughan, on 8 Jan 2009, 18:53, said:

Why are there never any fish furries? ... Or would they be, "scalies".

~V.

Yep.

[BeefJeRKy]

What about "featheries" ?

[Vaughan]

And don't forget the shellies for the tortoise-types.

~V.

[Stinger]

All right, enough of the spam or I'll eat your souls with my tea.

[Wizard]

Personally I'd like to know what the attraction to the whole "furry world" is for those that indulge in it. There are some lifestyle choices I have never fully understood, some I do understand, others I just simply go crossed eyed with. I think this might be one.

[Mr. Mylo]

"Ewwww get away from me!" was my vote.

Because:

-I am not furry
-I don't support any of such fandoms (I guess...)
-I don't support homosexuality or any other -philias I consider as weird

BUT: As long as nobody annoys me with it it's just perfectly fine. I can come along with nearly everybody as long he/she does not try to persuade me of the awesomeness of his -philia/fandom.

Mr. Mylo

Edited by Mr. Mylo, 08 January 2009 - 20:35.

[CodeCat]

Wizard, on 8 Jan 2009, 20:14, said:

Personally I'd like to know what the attraction to the whole "furry world" is for those that indulge in it. There are some lifestyle choices I have never fully understood, some I do understand, others I just simply go crossed eyed with. I think this might be one.

It's not a lifestyle choice for most people though. Take me for example: the only furry-related stuff I've done outside internet activities is meeting up with a bunch of them a few times, and going to a convention in Germany twice. A 'furmeet' is the equivalent of a LAN-party for furries, and a convention is quite similar to a computer/gaming convention in concept too.

[Wizard]

Interesting point I have noted from others, there seems to be a lot of "don't push it on me" issues. Whilst everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and I don't intend to change anyone's mind here, but don't you think that anyone who doesn't adopt a "I'm a hetrosexual, non-cross dressing, non-animal lovin, non-furry, non-trekkie etc" has everyone else's ideals pushed on them??? Is that fair?

EDIT: Code Ninja'd me! But you choose to take an interest in furry behaviour and activities. Isn't that to some extent a lifestyle choice. Not in the sense of "I'm gay and I'm gonna live a 100% gay lifestyle, clubs, bars etc" but it's sort of a lifestyle choice isn't it? You choose to interact with others of the same identity.

Edited by Wizard, 08 January 2009 - 20:53.

[Rayburn]

``but don't you think that anyone who doesn't adopt a "I'm a hetrosexual, non-cross dressing, non-animal lovin, non-furry, non-trekkie etc" has everyone else's ideals pushed on them??? Is that fair?´´

Well, personally, I'm not (intentionally) pushing my ideals on anyone, in fact, I'm not even 'normal' myself to begin with. The 'problem' is that most of the examples you mentioned are characteristics that describe the majority of the general public. Strictly speaking, these ARE the things you'd call 'normal' because they're shared by the majority. Such a large group will inevitably push its ideals on others even if they don't actually intend to do so because those who are different from the norm will stand out.

Edited by Rayburn, 08 January 2009 - 21:03.

[Wizard]

So ergo [and this is me just taking a discussion to a logical extent, and not me being deliberately argumentative btw] why is it a problem to have someone do the opposite and push their ideals on the "normals"?

[Whitey]

CodeCat, on 8 Jan 2009, 8:02, said:

Rorschach, on 8 Jan 2009, 5:31, said:

Well first answer me this: Why?

Because I can tell you why not.
-It's abnormal, not something that makes logical sense to the majority of us.
-It leads some to question your sanity.
-It costs money to produce fur costumes that could be better spent elsewhere, at least in my view.

I'll tell you my view: I don't have a "problem" with furries, but I find the idea of it utterly ridiculous and humiliating and I fail to understand why someone might want to commit to such a label/lifestyle/et cetera.

-Rorschach

-It makes no less sense than being an anime fan.
-Explain.
-Perhaps 20% of the furry fandom actually has a fursuit.

Rayburn, on 8 Jan 2009, 13:13, said:

Long answer:
No offence to anyone but our ancestors didn't develop sentience and go through thousands of years of evolution just so you can lead yourself to believe that you're actually "a [insert animal] on the inside". You AREN'T. You're a human being. One with an image of your self which is abnormal to say the least.
If you think it's good for you, fine, I can live with that but please don't bother me with your anthropomorphic fantasy world.

This has very little to do with actual furries and more to do with a stereotype. In fact, a lot of people here seem to have a stereotyped or at least untrue view of what furries are, and dislike them for that reason alone rather than actually finding out the truth.

A rule I like to keep in mind is the 'there's always one' rule: 'if you can think of it, there's always one that does it'. But just because a minority does something does not mean the entire group does it. Not all anime fans like hentai, not all modders are cheaters, not all open source developers or hackers are conspiring to overthrow the government, not all Americans are stupid, not all vegetables are horrible, etc. etc. Generalising a small group's behaviour to a larger group is stereotyping. And not finding out the truth from independent, reliable sources is as least as bad. The truth is, being a furry is just like being an anime fan. Nothing more. Anime fans like anime, furry fans like anthropomorphic animals. That's really all it is. There are always a few that take it further, and there are some that think they're animals inside. I also guarantee that there are some anime fans who think they're the next Goku or something like that. The thing to keep in mind is that these stereotyped views do not represent the majority of furries, to which the fandom is nothing more than a hobby or a personal interest, comparable with the interest in mods that brought you all to this forum.

I'll maintain that my position stands on the ground that being a "furry" and expressing an interest in anthropomorphic-animal art are two different things.

Am I a furry if I appreciate some pieces of anthropomorphic-animal art? I should think not, because I have seen some such pieces of art and enjoyed the style.

Perhaps it is just me, but the term "furry" seems to infer a sort of obsession with it. There is a difference between enjoying watching anime and wishing the world were like an anime show or comic or movie or any other such medium, no? I'd say it's not a spectrum, but rather, separate planes. This is to say that while I might watch a cartoon, and enjoy it, I do not obsess over that cartoon and I do not use that cartoon as a model for my life.

Please, clarify your definition of "furry". Otherwise, it is quite difficult to discuss.

EDIT: @ Wizard: Here's my view of that. Most of what is normal has always been normal, natural guidelines, if you will. With the progression of freedom of choice, most have remained relatively "normal" and some deviate. Those that tend to deviate for irrational reasons... well... there's my problem. And as I said above, yes, there are those that just appreciate the artistic style of it and do not make it a lifestyle choice. Those individuals are not included in this point. I mean the furries that are seen as the truly hardcore ones, the stereotypical ones that deviate not just from normal interest, but normal behavior.

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 08 January 2009 - 21:42.

[CodeCat]

I already clarified it, but I can't say much more if you just won't believe the description from someone who himself identifies as a furry (i.e. me).

http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Furry

Quote

Someone who says they are furry is generally expressing an interest in anthropomorphic animals and/or creatures.

[Whitey]

Define "interest".

-Rorschach

[Wizard]

Rorschach, on 8 Jan 2009, 21:35, said:

EDIT: @ Wizard: Here's my view of that. Most of what is normal has always been normal, natural guidelines, if you will. With the progression of freedom of choice, most have remained relatively "normal" and some deviate. Those that tend to deviate for irrational reasons
-Rorschach

And here is my problem. The definition of "normal" has changed over time. It hasn't remained static in anyway. In fact it is only since the industrial revolution that the concept of being a "child" was created and that it became "normal" for them to be treated as we do now. It was "normal" to have more than one wife. I think you understand my point, that "normal" is a very contextual term and imo isn't a word to adequately describe it's subject matter.

I also fail to see how an interest in anthropomorphic creatures can be described as deviant. I have an interest in cars. Does this mean I am deviant? I inhabit forums that talk about them. Are the members deviant? Are we deviant for taking an interest in modding? I think we could consider ourselves "modders". We extract and manipulate computer generated code for our own sordid pleasures. But we aren't strange or deviant. Are we?

The fact is, perhaps it's because it's something that you (generic term, not aimed at an individual) don't understand that makes it deviant and not the act of being a furry itself?

[Whitey]

Again, define "interest". I do feel that that is necessary. Because interest can range form "I find them cool" to "I find them sexually attractive" to "I wish life was like that".

And also, with the normality: Point taken. However, Still arguing on the basis of rationality, there is generally well-thought-out reasoning behind such changes in what is perceived as "normal". But how does the furry culture benefit the individual, the community, or the species. I see no benefit in any such category, and if there is personal benefit, then so be it, but please explain it to me.

-Rorschach

[Wizard]

Generally the same way it would being an emo, or mod or rocker. A sense of identity mainly. Finding yourself drawn to anthropomorphic creatures out of interest for their relationship to humans is ultimately benign, just as interest in a certain style of music imo. I truly see no difference between this and anything else that we might even classify as normal. Sure there are people that might take things perhaps too far, but there isn't one aspect of humanity that hasn't done that with anything to the degree that it actually creates more harm than good.

[Vaughan]

Let's say this; I do indeed appreciate and love animals. I think they're amazing creatures. You might even say I have an interest in animals. Does that make me a furry?

I would say, "No."

It's the people who give themselves "Fursonas", wear fursuits, and generally associate themselves with "Furry Fandom" who are described as "Furries". Furries are rampant in Second Life, for example. Most of them are "Furnatics", who wear furry avatars, and display traits of their respective avatar. Interestingly, they're 90% homosexual or bisexual.

~V.

[CodeCat]

Rorschach, on 8 Jan 2009, 23:14, said:

Again, define "interest". I do feel that that is necessary. Because interest can range form "I find them cool" to "I find them sexually attractive" to "I wish life was like that".

All of those, depending on who you talk to. The majority fall under the first category.

Vaughan, on 8 Jan 2009, 23:33, said:

It's the people who give themselves "Fursonas", wear fursuits, and generally associate themselves with "Furry Fandom" who are described as "Furries". Furries are rampant in Second Life, for example. Most of them are "Furnatics", who wear furry avatars, and display traits of their respective avatar. Interestingly, they're 90% homosexual or bisexual.

Someone who displays those traits is likely to identify as furry, yes. But furries do not necessarily display those traits (indeed, most don't dress up and some don't have fursonas either). As for the homosexuality and bisexuality, that's a common myth, actual research has shown a different story.

[BeefJeRKy]

AFAIK its more like 50% not 90%.

[Max Firestorm]

Furry and damn proud.

Hell, on a couple of IRC channels, no-body knew. So when they said "What? You're a furry?!" I changed my nick from Max|Firestorm to Maximal|Furrystorm for a laugh. xD

[Vaughan]

Scope said:

AFAIK its more like 50% not 90%.

I propose a new poll.

~V.

Edited by Vaughan, 08 January 2009 - 23:36.

[BeefJeRKy]

Go to some furry fandom forum and ask. I doubt you'd get the right statistics here.

[Vaughan]

By these statistics, it can be approximated that 43% of all active users on Fallout Studios identify themselves as furry. I think that's actually pretty surprising. :o

~V.

[Libains]

30% according to the poll.

Being a Furry is a way of life, and is a conscious choice of the individual, as is visiting this forum amongst millions of other possible interests. I choose to follow football, but that doesn't make me a bit odd - it just makes me human. The reason Furrys get bad press is twofold. Firstly, the stuff that is cooked up by some of the more sexually-orientated Furrys can be quite removed from what is real, and it's this sort of stuff that gets publicised more on search engines and the like, hence people see human/Furry creatures in anime/hentai doing all sorts of kinky stuff, and it pushes their boundaries beyond what they are capable of accepting, compared to their own life. Secondly, the world isn't really an accepting place at the moment. There will always be people that push boundaries at the moment, and Furrys are currently one of them, simply because of their open views, and their fondness for anthropomorphic creatures. I imagine that the reason people find these anthropomorphic creatures so odd is because of the human form that they bear - humans are humans and animals are animals etc. While it is fair to say nature never intended anthropomorphic creatures to be real, it's also fair to say that due to natural selection Golden Retrievers should be dead due to genetic issues with their bones that would never let them survive in the wild. But we as humans have altered nature - so why not allow people to think of something that pushes nature's boundaries, even if it is impossible? Changing the human form is one of those things that people cannot grasp without either an open mind/gradual integration, but it doesn't mean that it isn't right - the human mind does all sorts of stuff - so what if it sees anthropomorphic creatures as cool in certain people. It's their choice, not ours, and who are we to say otherwise?

Oh, and on a side note, isn't it interesting how most people aren't fond of Furrys, yet I'd bet that the majority of households in the world with a young child in them have the Disney film Robin Hood, with the two main characters being................... anthropomorphic creatures. Odd world we live in really, and this is seen as harmless, introducing our children to this sort of thing at such a young age, and yet it's 'awful' when they continue to see them as cool 20 years later..... I do wonder sometimes