# Werewolves, furries or not?



## TransformerRobot (Apr 28, 2014)

Are werewolves eligible to be considered furries?

We've been calling them werewolves because the "were" means "man-like".

Furry characters are essentially animals with humanoid attributes.

That's why I think yes, yes they should be considered furries.


----------



## VintageLynx (Apr 28, 2014)

Whilst I am tempted to say yes I vote no. Reason being that only modern stories about them have made them see the furry way (Twilight and similar). A few years ago they were depicted as an animalistic man that was often hardly wolf at all. Sometimes it was just like being possessed by a wolf.


----------



## DrDingo (Apr 28, 2014)

Well, you gotta remember that a furry is a fan of anthropomorphic art, and anything that is described as 'furry' is something designed specifically to cater to members of this fandom. 
Werewolves _have_ been used to cater to the interests of this fandom, but not all werewolf characters _are_ made for furries!


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Apr 28, 2014)

Personally, I'd consider them to be RIGHT on the fringes of the fandom.

I say this because often people who haven't found the fandom yet can be all "HURR WEREWOLVES", and can act as... a short of nudge in the door to the actual fandom where all the true furry stuff is kept.

As for the beings themselves? Not so much. Furries are about imagining yourself as an animal person, and if people wish they could be/interchange with their anthro characters, it's liberating and fun. But werewolves aren't often portrayed as that, many werewolf stories seem to be that someone is attacked/cursed, and is left with something they can't control, and they'd do anything to be rid of.

And most importantly, werewolves aren't often sentient beings, they are just wild animals that are derived from people.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

I guess it would really depend on context.

If we're talking about this:






Yeah, definitely furry.

If we're talking about this however:





Nope. Probably not.



AlexxxLupo said:


> many werewolf stories seem to be that someone  is attacked/cursed, and is left with something they can't control, and  they'd do anything to be rid of.


Well, just because you can't control something doesn't mean you don't  like it. Some werewolves revel in their transformations. Or perhaps they  didn't like it at all at first, but then they slowly become seduced and  accustomed to it.

Werewolves really aren't explored enough at all.


----------



## DrDingo (Apr 28, 2014)

Anyway, werewolves are not anthropomorphism. They are zoomorphism, which is the opposite.


----------



## Mr. Sparta (Apr 28, 2014)

"This is a humanoid animal, therefore it must have been catered specifically to our internet fanbase"


----------



## TransformerRobot (Apr 28, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> I guess it would really depend on context.
> 
> If we're talking about this:
> 
> ...



I was thinking of the first one.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 28, 2014)

werewolves are literally giant fucking furry wolf anthros with superpowers


----------



## Kitsune Cross (Apr 28, 2014)

Ehhhh, sure why not


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 28, 2014)

Hmm, to say yes is to miss the entire point of anthropomorphism in the furry fandom. So, no. Furries need to stop trying to fling their name on everything that looks fuzzy and part human. It's furry when its made for and by furries. Anything else is just something furries actually like but has fuck all to do with our fandom.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Apr 28, 2014)

I say no, werewolves are something different.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 28, 2014)

Werewolves as a whole aren't even remotely furry. however, people puck them as their furry personas doesn't mean the monster itself belongs to the fandom. 
Furries happen to like them, that's all.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's furry when its made for and by furries. Anything else is just something furries actually like but has fuck all to do with our fandom.








The furry fandom are fans of animals/beings (besides humans obviously) that are anthro in some way. Wikifur defines a furry character as "... anything classified as an anthropomorphic animal and/or creature..." Sometimes werewolves fit that bill since some variations of them are anthro and some are not. But to write off werewolves completely as having nothing to do with the fandom because they weren't explicitly made for furry fans is nonsense.

Some of them are anthro and can therefore be classified as furry. Some are not and can be classified as something other than furry. It's not a cut-and-dried yes or no answer.


----------



## Hjoldir-Hildwulf (Apr 28, 2014)

Come on guys don't get all Lycanist on me :V

In all seriousness, I class my fursona as a Lycanthrope, not a werewolf. Simply because a lycan or lycanthrope to me is a person who can choose to transform into said beastie, where as a Werewolf, as I class it at least, is a cursed soul. 
One gains the abilities of a wolf but retains their humanity. The other is a tortured being who is forced into a form in which they lose all sense of right and wrong, a base creature. 

So to answer your question, no. A werewolf is no more than a man who is forced into a wolf hybrid form. 
A lycanthrope is a yes. A person who when they feel the need, can change shape and retain their human mind.

Because isn't an anthro wolf, basically a wolf with a human form, that has the intelligence and reason of a person? The only difference in my mind is the interpretation of shape and grounding in a world with human beings.

Feel free to disagree and debate the issue, this is after all, just one Lycans interpretation 

Some arguments from others on the issue:-

Link 1

Link 2

P.S.

Batsy, can I use this in signature form please?



Batsy said:


> Werewolves are literally giant fucking furry wolf anthros with superpowers!



Edit: For the poll, I did vote yes, but in terms of what I state above.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 28, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> The furry fandom are fans of animals/beings (besides humans obviously) that are anthro in some way. Wikifur defines a furry character as "... anything classified as an anthropomorphic animal and/or creature..." Sometimes werewolves fit that bill since some variations of them are anthro and some are not. But to write off werewolves completely as having nothing to do with the fandom because they weren't explicitly made for furry fans is nonsense.
> 
> Some of them are anthro and can therefore be classified as furry. Some are not and can be classified as something other than furry. It's not a cut-and-dried yes or no answer.



No.



Hjoldir-Hildwulf said:


> Come on guys don't get all Lycanist on me :V
> 
> In all seriousness, I class my fursona as a Lycanthrope, not a werewolf. Simply because a lycan or lycanthrope to me is a person who can choose to transform into said beastie, where as a Werewolf, as I class it at least, is a cursed soul.
> One gains the abilities of a wolf but retains their humanity. The other is a tortured being who is forced into a form in which they lose all sense of right and wrong, a base creature.
> ...




I do have to debate that link a lot because there are many folkloric variations, including Native American versions on Werewolves and Lycanthropes.

Lycanthropes and werewolves had a synonymous meaning, since one was more of a Latin term with originated from "Lycaon", the man who was cursed by Zeus for giving the god human flesh to eat and turned him into a monster for the king's transgressions. While the other was an old European/Germanic term for men who can change their shape to wolves. The word itself is no different than Loup garou, jÃ© rouges, Wendigo, etc..etc.. 

There's no difference. However, once the Underworld and WoD subculture began to surface, people started to diverge the meaning from one another. Otherwise, it's just semantics and fandom subculture shit.

The variations of how it is and how it affects an individual varies between regions and how the lore of that region treats them. A four-legged wolf would still have the intelligence of a human and change at will, while another may be a bipedal 7'4" killing machine that has little to no control over him/herself.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> No.


Epic argument, bro. I'm devastated.


----------



## Ayattar (Apr 28, 2014)

Werewolves are like pineapples. Not pines and not apples.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 28, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> Epic argument, bro. I'm devastated.


I gave myself a pat on the back for those two letters. :V

In long terms: not everything is furry or furry related just because it has ears and a tail and can or able to walk on two legs. By that logic, this is furry, despite it is not.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> In long terms: not everything is furry or furry related just because it has ears and a tail and can or able to walk on two legs. By that logic, this is furry, despite it is not.



Well, since there is a human face there which is a human attribute (and I'm assuming it behaves somewhat human at least as well) then very technically yes, it is furry. Sorry man, I'm just going by the definition. This fandom has always been an incredibly large and encompassing one just simply because of that.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 28, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> Well, since there is a human face there which is a human attribute (and I'm assuming it behaves somewhat human at least as well) then very technically yes, it is furry. Sorry man, I'm just going by the definition. This fandom has always been an incredibly large and encompassing one just simply because of that.



By your opinion, yes. But by Dune's it isn't.


----------



## Duality Jack (Apr 28, 2014)

Otherkin werewolves? I'd call em people with Body dysmorphic disorder, more than furries.


----------



## Machine (Apr 28, 2014)

No. Whereas furries just fuck everything in sight, werewolves kill and eat everything in sight.


----------



## Ayattar (Apr 28, 2014)

And what about were-humans? Those poor animals bitten by that terrible two-legged creatures, now cursed to turn into quasi homo-sapiens at  every new moon?


----------



## Hjoldir-Hildwulf (Apr 28, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> I do have to debate that link a lot because there are many folkloric variations, including Native American versions on Werewolves and Lycanthropes.
> 
> Lycanthropes and werewolves had a synonymous meaning, since one was more of a Latin term with originated from "Lycaon", the man who was cursed by Zeus for giving the god human flesh to eat and turned him into a monster for the king's transgressions. While the other was an old European/Germanic term for men who can change their shape to wolves. The word itself is no different than Loup garou, jÃ© rouges, Wendigo, etc..etc..
> 
> ...



Its a fair argument. 
Though in terms of the naming of Werewolf and Lycanthrope, one being old english manwolf, Were Wulf. The other wolfman, from the greek _lykos __anthrōpos. _I know I may just be arguing semantics, but part of the very name from the Ancient Greek indicates an anthropomorphic quality. I mean its in part the same wording in the greek, _anthrōpos, _Human, _morphē_, Shape or form. That and Lycanthrope was used first, anthropomorphism wasn't used proper until 1700.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 28, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> And what about were-humans? Those poor animals bitten by that terrible two-legged creatures, now cursed to turn into quasi homo-sapiens at  every new moon?



Faeries and shite. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 28, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> The furry fandom are fans of animals/beings (besides humans obviously) that are anthro in some way. Wikifur defines a furry character as "... anything classified as an anthropomorphic animal and/or creature..." Sometimes werewolves fit that bill since some variations of them are anthro and some are not. But to write off werewolves completely as having nothing to do with the fandom because they weren't explicitly made for furry fans is nonsense.
> 
> Some of them are anthro and can therefore be classified as furry. Some are not and can be classified as something other than furry. It's not a cut-and-dried yes or no answer.



Ahem, who died and made Wikfur the gospel of the community? Truth is that they are not entirely accurate all the time, and the people who tend to lord over those articles only keep up what makes them happy. What makes some people happy, and what is the truth can often be two different things. I have been in the community for over ten years, and I have established connections with people who were here from the very beginning. Having a good understanding of history within the community I cannot accept the silly notion that we can call things furry nillywilly like many tend to.

Our community is not about liking animals. It never was. It is just one of those interests that a lot of people share. Our community is about a shared interest in anthropomorphic animal content. That at the core is it. However, if you take the time to look at where we began we never actually had our own canon. When Lion king was made, or when the Redwall books became popular, no body sat there and called these things "Furry characters". When the original science fiction writers started popularizing anthro-animal character due to them being fun and new to draw, no one called those furry characters.

Truth of the matter is no one ever called or made anything "Furry" until furry came into existence as a community. Even then no one in the gaming world really makes a game to cater to furries. No major animation studio makes animal flicks to cater to us. No movie producer, no cartoon creator....no mainstream people make things for us specifically, or use our terms to characterize their content. It is not our place to sit there because we like it and force something that had a different target audience to suddenly wear our name, and our flag.

There are other communities that get to call their content by their name because that cannon was made for them and it is mutually accepted. Anime was a term made for a type of content from japan, and the creators readily accepted that name. The world of Video Gaming not only accepts these labels, but some companies generally seek to cater to a specific group within. Such as MMORPGers, or Platformers, or Live Action Roleplay. The same thing exists within Science Fiction, and Fantasy.

Furry doesn't have a mainstream media that caters to them. We are a self producing fandom and the only content that is ever truly furry, is the content we make for ourselves. This concept has become muddled over the years as some people can't tolerate the idea that we don't have a canon and insist on forcing people into our labels regardless of if they consented or not. Others, simply refuse to acknowledge the idea of a proper definition of our fandom. They are selfish and wish to refer to the community by their own narrow interests. Regardless, Werewolves are not furry. Gex is not furry. Lion King is not furry. Star Fox is not furry.

Blotch's artwork is furry. Bedfellows is a furry comic, and you can find animated shorts on Youtube. Red Lantern is furry. Ringo is not. Scooby is not. Neither is Robin Hood that disney animated flick with a fox playing the protagnoist.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Ahem, who died and made Wikfur the gospel of the community? Truth is that they are not entirely accurate all the time, and the people who tend to lord over those articles only keep up what makes them happy. What makes some people happy, and what is the truth can often be two different things. I have been in the community for over ten years, and I have established connections with people who were here from the very beginning. Having a good understanding of history within the community I cannot accept the silly notion that we can call things furry nillywilly like many tend to.
> 
> Our community is not about liking animals. It never was. It is just one of those interests that a lot of people share. Our community is about a shared interest in anthropomorphic animal content. That at the core is it. However, if you take the time to look at where we began we never actually had our own canon. When Lion king was made, or when the Redwall books became popular, no body sat there and called these things "Furry characters". When the original science fiction writers started popularizing anthro-animal character due to them being fun and new to draw, no one called those furry characters.
> 
> ...


... wut?

You went on that long spiel about how there has never been an exact definition for what is furry and what isn't and not even a sentence after, you immediately start taking it upon yourself to label what is furry and what is not. So let me direct your question back at you. Who died and made you the one who decides what's gospel in the community?

Wikifur's definition of furry may not be everyone's definition. I realize that. But at this point, it's the best we got. If we start aguing over that, we might as well just stop replying to this thread right now because we're never gonna have any baseline we can use to assess just how furry certain werewolves really are.


----------



## Icky (Apr 28, 2014)

Quick definitions of what we're actually discussing here, because semantics are getting in the way of a lot of ideas.

An *anthro* animal/whatever (short for anthropomorphic) is a character that has humanlike attributes. The abbreviated version used in the fandom usually refers to animals that are built like humans and can think like humans.

A *furry* is a fan of said anthros. Furries are the actual members of the fandom. If we use this as an adjective, it describes something that is part of the specific fandom.

Star Fox is not a furry. Star Fox is an anthro, but he is not a furry.

The Bedfellows characters and comics are anthros AND they are furry. They are people-shaped animals that are specifically created by furries, for furries.

SO, using these definitions, unless a werewolf character was specifically created for the fandom, it's not furry. 



Hybrid Persona said:


> ... wut?
> 
> You went on that long spiel about how there has never been an exact definition for what is furry and what isn't and not even a sentence after, you immediately start taking it upon yourself to label what is furry and what is not. So let me direct your question back at you. Who died and made you the one who decides what's gospel in the community?
> 
> Wikifur's definition of furry may not be everyone's definition. I realize that. But at this point, it's the best we got. If we start aguing over that, we might as well just stop replying to this thread right now because we're never gonna have any baseline we can use to assess just how furry certain werewolves really are.



Uhm...no, she explained how certain people "refuse to acknowledge the idea of a proper definition". Her listing examples after that was just trying to demonstrate that something's only "furry" if it's made specifically for the fandom.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 28, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> ... wut?
> 
> You went on that long spiel about how there has never been an exact definition for what is furry and what isn't and not even a sentence after, you immediately start taking it upon yourself to label what is furry and what is not. So let me direct your question back at you. Who died and made you the one who decides what's gospel in the community?
> 
> Wikifur's definition of furry may not be everyone's definition. I realize that. But at this point, it's the best we got. If we start aguing over that, we might as well just stop replying to this thread right now because we're never gonna have any baseline we can use to assess just how furry certain werewolves really are.



Clearly you need to read a bit better.

First let us make something very clear. In order for a definition to be legitimate, it needs to more or less encompass what it is trying to describe. Is this not a reasonable expectation of a label? If you call something a video game, you expect it to be well a game that is played through visual media that you directly interact with via some form of computer and or electronics right? If you call something a clothing, you expect it to be something worn on the body? You don't sit and call a board game a video game, or a computer a piece of clothing. This is language. Words have meaning. Labels need to properly describe what they are supposed to describe.

Let me see if I can dumb this down so that even a person who knows nothing about the furry community can understand. Furry as a community started in the science fiction realm. We saw people come together because collectively they saw something in some media that they all liked. Part of this was due to people wanting to try something different especially with comics. Doing these species and character creations based on humans with animal traits opened up a world of freshness and creativity. So some artists within the Science Fiction community began to do this more often. What followed was a mini gathering. People who came together realized that they didn't just like this particular set of artists and what they create. There was this kinship over seeing anthropomorphic animal media. This led to the creation of the Furry Fandom.

I don't remember exactly how we finally sided with the term "Furry" but once it stuck you will notice something very different. When Anime became it's thing (as I referenced before) people called the content Anime, and the people who adore it called themselves Anime fans. Same thing happened with video games. Gamers called themselves gamers and would later self identify with specific subsects that all have names. People who adore Star Trek would create the whole Trekkie fandom.

This never happened with Furry. Furry never developed into a mainstream canon. It doesn't have a main stream canon. When we sit and judge whether or not something is furry, we need to properly understand where we came from, and what we are, and what we are not. Too many furries do not understand this and yet still fling around our name onto anything and then throw a fit when someone throws out a voice of reason pointing out "Uh no, not every anthropomorphic animal is furry". We also need to understand what we are looking at, where did it come from, what was it intended for? What was the intention of the creators?

Lastly, if you are going to give furry a defination, it needs to encompass us all. You can't dispute what I have to say. If I say "Furry is community centered around a shared interest in anthropomorphic media in various forms" you cannot contest that. Not based on history of the community, and not based on it's current standing. Furthermore it applies to everyone as a proper definition should. There are different ways of wording that but it's a hell of a lot better than what a lot of people try to do. I've seen people so often sit and state that furry is "insert personal interest here" instead of explaining what it really is. Ever met the furry who sits and goes "Well furry is about fetishes!". They say that because that's what they are into it for, and disregard the fact that every furry is into fetish's. Some furries are asexual.

You get the ones who go on about how furry is all about porn! Really? Last I checked not everyone is into porn. I've even met furries who insist it's all about wearing fur-suits. That's just silly. Not everyone wants to own a fursuit. I digress I must get back on topic.

The point is you need to stop and think about other people when you state what furry is. That's just one half of it. It is asinine to sit and demand that suddenly all anthropomorphic animal characters, are now called furry, or furries. Which is the core problem with the kind of question we see here. Are werewolves furry?

Well, were they made by furries? The answer to that is no. Were they made for furries? Huh, the answer to that is a no as well. If it's not made for us, and not made by us, we have no business calling it by our name. Besides, we don't have canon where main stream media chooses to cater to the "Furry community". The only people who truly create furry content is us. So, take this lesson where you will.

If you want the definition to be proper, and you want to be respectful of history, culture, religion, and people's individual rights to their own content (and you want to be mindful of our beginnings and our history)...you don't consider anything furry unless it's makers intend it thus, and you don't consider your own personal interest what the entire community to be about.


----------



## Hjoldir-Hildwulf (Apr 28, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Ahem, who died and made Wikfur the gospel of the community? Truth is that they are not entirely accurate all the time, and the people who tend to lord over those articles only keep up what makes them happy. What makes some people happy, and what is the truth can often be two different things. I have been in the community for over ten years, and I have established connections with people who were here from the very beginning. Having a good understanding of history within the community I cannot accept the silly notion that we can call things furry nillywilly like many tend to.
> 
> Our community is not about liking animals. It never was. It is just one of those interests that a lot of people share. Our community is about a shared interest in anthropomorphic animal content. That at the core is it. However, if you take the time to look at where we began we never actually had our own canon. When Lion king was made, or when the Redwall books became popular, no body sat there and called these things "Furry characters". When the original science fiction writers started popularizing anthro-animal character due to them being fun and new to draw, no one called those furry characters.
> 
> ...



I fully accept this argument. However:

As for your first paragraph, I fully agree, the internet, especially sites which can be edited freely, are perhaps not the best sources of a stalwart definition of terms. However the fandom surely has an ability to self regulate its own definitions. And even if what is written is incorrect to one notion, it must be correct to another. 

For your second, in the strictest of terms, yes its not about liking animals. But its very difficult to find anthro content which does not contain animals or animal references. Yes anthro content is the core, but then how is it, that a Wolf, modeled on a human form is ok. Until you call it by a different name, which allows for a rich history, with fantastic legend and myth. If I create a new fursona which is an anthro wolf and make up a completely new genus for it, then make up a back story which involves a painful transformation into a human on moonless nights, would that be ok? I'm not saying a werewolf has or will ever be original furry content, but how it can't be definable in terms of an appreciation of anthro art is far beyond my comprehension. Its a Were (man) Wulf (Wolf) for petty sake. 

And saying that there was no canon to start, surely must mean that our definition is our own to forge. We are not bound by a set notion, therefore we are able to adopt, shape and create what we consider to be furry. The fandom is ours to make as we will it.  

Your third paragraph speaks some truth, there isn't much in the way of content produced specifically for furry audiences, except which we produce ourselves (and college humours "Furry Force"). Then again if being a furry at its core is about loving anthro animal content, how the heck are we NOT in some part the target audience. I'm not the target audience for diet coke, sure as hell doesn't mean I won't buy and enjoy it, even though coke markets zero at me. I'm not saying that just because something is anthro it is defiantly furry and we must immediately stick a flag in it, but we can appreciated it in our own way for certain.  

In your forth you state that they had canon made for them. Canon being definable as "A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged". So if the core of being furry is indeed a "shared interest in anthropomorphic animal content" then by all rights anything which can be classed as anthro can be judged to be furry canon. We judge the thing to be anthro, therefore we as a general principle can judge it to be furry. 

In your fifth, you say we don't have canon, and therefore have to force people into our labels. When was the last time you witnessed a furry force anyone to do anything. We don't invade other cultural groups and stake a claim because they have in some way similarities to our interests. They come to us, and bring with them their own history and back stories. I.E. I like and work with cows, therefore I'm going to make a cow fursona. Not, we can create anthro cows, therefore dairy farmers are furries now. 

Well if the community edited definition was created by selfish, narrow minded people who only wish to define by their own interest why haven't the vast majority sorted the issue. And by what authority do you claim to hold the true definition. 

Might I also add that on a thread in which we were debating whether a werewolf was a furry by rights or not, you spent five and a half paragraphs arguing about the definition of a furry in general. Mentioning the word "werewolves" once out of 550 words. That, a compelling argument for your point, does not make.

Edit: 

After reading your further argument, I would like to make clear that I fully realise that, not every one is suited to define what a furry is and what we as a group are. I by no means claim that ability myself. I would however suggest that while respecting somethings intent is proper, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A werewolf/lycanthrope has just as much right to be referred to as furry media, not because it was created specifically for the fandom, but that it meets all the all encompassing criteria by which you state we should define the fandom. A shared interest (many people in the fandom believe the werewolf to be included) of anthropomorphic media (its a ruddy wolf modeled on a human form, and shares it etymology in part with the word anthropomorphism) in various forms (there are stories, drawings, animations and other works of media in droves on FA alone!). Tell me that doesn't match your definition. 

I have a Lycanthrope fursona. Call me a poser and blaggard if you wish, but don't expect me to believe for one second that a dragon has any more right to be classed as furry, by these very rules in which you imply a werewolf is not.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Clearly you need to read a bit better.
> 
> First let us make something very clear. In order for a definition to be legitimate, it needs to more or less encompass what it is trying to describe. Is this not a reasonable expectation of a label? If you call something a video game, you expect it to be well a game that is played through visual media that you directly interact with via some form of computer and or electronics right? If you call something a clothing, you expect it to be something worn on the body? You don't sit and call a board game a video game, or a computer a piece of clothing. This is language. Words have meaning. Labels need to properly describe what they are supposed to describe.
> 
> ...


But you're still setting the terms. Whether they're good terms or not is irrelevant. A chunk of furries, as you so pointed out, will probably not agree with the terms you have. Some want to call any anthro being besides humans furry and leave it at that. I understand your point of what the makers intend their art for, but there's one thing you also need to understand.

Why should the maker or his fans care if a fandom he doesn't intend his art for, label his art as furry, as long as it's not some sort of derogatory term and the definition of furry technically fits his or her art? When the fandom calls something furry (under the 'any anthro being' definition), they are (or should be) just stating a quality of the art. They're not stating that that's the dominating quality of it. And I think that there is what's annoying you so much. Where some furries are 'claiming' various pieces of art by saying they're furry.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 28, 2014)

Hjoldir-Hildwulf said:


> However the fandom surely has an ability to self regulate its own definitions.



I am not all too certain this is true if I am understanding what you are saying. The community is or has been very poor at self regulating itself, and depending upon where you are it's down-right horrible about it. Take a look at this really strange notion that furry is about "being tolerant and accepting". I can't even begin to tell you how fast that spread, and how bad the community was about facing this and the problems it created. Even now you find groups here and there that heavily enforce this to the point of becoming intolerant of difference (which is ironic). If you wanted to PM me I could tell you a true story that reflects the dangerous part of the communities inability to regulate itself (and it involves something that happened early on that I don't feel like writing a tl;dr here).



Hjoldir-Hildwulf said:


> For your second, in the strictest of terms, yes its not about liking animals.


 I understand furry comes with a like of animal likeness and seeing it mixed in with humanoids. What I mean is that furries by default are not animal lovers (and I mean that in the most platonic sense). it is not uncommon to find furries who only like a specific animal, and don't really care too much about others. It's more than liking animals, it is this concept of animals with human attributes. At that point they are not even animals anymore. They are more like some made up groups of species in an alternative dimension, where many animals went through the human path of evolution.



Hjoldir-Hildwulf said:


> And saying that there was no canon to start, surely must mean that our definition is our own to forge. We are not bound by a set notion, therefore we are able to adopt, shape and create what we consider to be furry. The fandom is ours to make as we will it.
> 
> Your third paragraph speaks some truth, there isn't much in the way of content produced specifically for furry audiences, except which we produce ourselves (and college humours "Furry Force"). Then again if being a furry at its core is about loving anthro animal content, how the heck are we NOT in some part the target audience. I'm not the target audience for diet coke, sure as hell doesn't mean I won't buy and enjoy it, even though coke markets zero at me. I'm not saying that just because something is anthro it is defiantly furry and we must immediately stick a flag in it, but we can appreciated it in our own way for certain.



I don't disagree with this. The community is ours to make. We made it by our own hands, which is something quite special really. Some people however are really intent on making furry out to be their own narrow interest. I have seen this quite a few times and it always strikes me as interesting. There are people who simply refuse to acknowledge that their own narrow interest does not describe the entire community and then have the gall to consider those who are not into what they are into as not real members of our community. It's really strange. I look at it not unlike when you are running a raid group in a game. Your group makes the experience, but be wise in who you are following as your leads in the raid. Some people are interested in the best interests of the entire group, while others only care what they can get out of it.



Hjoldir-Hildwulf said:


> In your forth you state that they had canon made for them. Canon being definable as "A general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged". So if the core of being furry is indeed a "shared interest in anthropomorphic animal content" then by all rights anything which can be classed as anthro can be judged to be furry canon. We judge the thing to be anthro, therefore we as a general principle can judge it to be furry.
> 
> In your fifth, you say we don't have canon, and therefore have to force people into our labels. When was the last time you witnessed a furry force anyone to do anything. We don't invade other cultural groups and stake a claim because they have in some way similarities to our interests. They come to us, and bring with them their own history and back stories. I.E. I like and work with cows, therefore I'm going to make a cow fursona. Not, we can create anthro cows, therefore dairy farmers are furries now.



Perhaps you have not had experiences with furries doing this. I have quite the opposite experience. A good example would be were-artists. There are people out there who make anthropomorphic animal content but not for the same reason furries do. Therians sometimes express their spirituality through the art they produce which can involve content similar to what furries like. We have as a community upset such artists by pretty much insisting that those people are furries. They insisted that...these spiritualists are furry, and that their content is furry because...of a definition we made up?

Furries frequently mistep when they start making art based on sensitive cultural icons. This has in the past led to drama between the community, and people from those cultures who felt disrespected, or people who are well versed in those cultures/religions/etc felt as though there was great disrespect was given. Furries have invaded content made for other people to the point that they have made the original fans uncomfortable. I'm sure quite a few people were not happy to stumble upon content that so blatantly disrespects both it's creators, and it's fans. And yes, I have met furries who will sit and insist that you cannot like anthro animal content and not consider yourself a furry, and will insist that anyone who draws such content is furry.



Hjoldir-Hildwulf said:


> Well if the community edited definition was created by selfish, narrow minded people who only wish to define by their own interest why haven't the vast majority sorted the issue. And by what authority do you claim to hold the true definition.
> 
> Might I also add that on a thread in which we were debating whether a werewolf was a furry by rights or not, you spent five and a half paragraphs arguing about the definition of a furry in general. Mentioning the word "werewolves" once out of 550 words. That, a compelling argument for your point, does not make.


 It's not simple for the vast majority to sort out issues in this community. Not this community at least. It doesn't help that the most charismatic people, are not always honest but still have many people following their every word like they are some furry pope.

That aside, unless you understand with a reasonable amount of knowledge what furry is, and how it came to be, you can't really make an intelligent argument on if werewolves are furry or not. In these paragraphs I would imagine I have said enough to help explain why something like Werewolves isn't furry. I could go into the history of werewolves, the myth, the lore, and even the science (at least on the side of how a fungus helped drive the belief in werewolves in the past). I could bring up the ties into spiritualism for some groups of people (and by default the other animals that have were counterparts through out the history of cultures such as the were cats, were jaguar, were lizards). There are a lot of ways to go but that seems unnecessary to mean when you break down what furry really is.

I will say this. Furry typically deals with things that are kind of already it's own different species. When we take an animal (lets say a wolf) and we combine it with human traits, we create a creature that isn't quite wolf, but it's not human either. It's like a whole new species in an alternate dimension. It's not humans turning to animals, or animals turning to humans. Unless you get into transformation but even that isn't a furry fandom original and still has important differences.

In general, furry characters don't come into being by a human turning into something. So the entire concept of were creatures doesn't really fit. Were animals start as human. They go through a physical transformation. They also go through a mental and intellectual one that usually involves a degradation of human sentience and thought. The mind turns bestial, to being completely devoid of human attributes. This is very different than what furry traditionally is, which is a anthropomorphic animal. It's a living thing with human attributes including human thought, emotion, and often human social constructs.

When you look at it like that, it's not really the furry characters we are used to. By lore Werewolves don't have much in the way of human attributes once they transform, and neither much control either.



Hybrid Persona said:


> But you're still setting the terms. Whether they're good terms or not is irrelevant. A chunk of furries, as you so pointed out, will probably not agree with the terms you have. Some want to call any anthro being besides humans furry and leave it at that. I understand your point of what the makers intend their art for, but there's one thing you also need to understand.
> 
> Why should the maker or his fans care if a fandom he doesn't intend his art for, label his art as furry, as long as it's not some sort of derogatory term and the definition of furry technically fits his or her art? When the fandom calls something furry (under the 'any anthro being' definition), they are (or should be) just stating a quality of the art. They're not stating that that's the dominating quality of it. And I think that there is what's annoying you so much. Where some furries are 'claiming' various pieces of art by saying they're furry.



Like it or not, when you call something "Furry" you are linking it into our community. Not all creators care. Some end up being special guests at furry conventions are happy to see they have a fan base they didn't even know existed. But, due to the adult nature we have in our community there are people who choose to not want to associate with us. There is still a struggle even now for people to see furry porn as anything other than bestiality. Can't you imagine how it may make people uncomfortable to have their work associated with us with these connotations?

I'm not saying it justified or not with that level of discomfort when you realize you and your comrades made a fantastic movie, and some group online now calls your movie by their name, and make porn of underage characters from your film that appears to be borderline pedophilia, or bestiality. With this in mind I do think we ought to respect people by not trying to force our label on them. Even if we don't mean it in a bad way.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Apr 28, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> Like it or not, when you call something "Furry" you are linking it into our community. Not all creators care. Some end up being special guests at furry conventions are happy to see they have a fan base they didn't even know existed. But, due to the adult nature we have in our community there are people who choose to not want to associate with us. There is still a struggle even now for people to see furry porn as anything other than bestiality. Can't you imagine how it may make people uncomfortable to have their work associated with us with these connotations?
> 
> I'm not saying it justified or not with that level of discomfort when you realize you and your comrades made a fantastic movie, and some group online now calls your movie by their name, and make porn of underage characters from your film that appears to be borderline pedophilia, or bestiality. With this in mind I do think we ought to respect people by not trying to force our label on them. Even if we don't mean it in a bad way.








That's actually a very good point with the negative connotations behind the furry name and label, inaccurate though the stereotypes may be. I could definitely see why an artist would get uncomfortable with the fandom even labeling something of his or hers as furry. I guess the only argument I have against that is, if the fandom likes a particular piece of art, they will assimilate it, for lack of a better word, and make derivative works of it, both good and bad, whether the artist wants them to or not.

I'm sure the people behind Starfox Adventures didn't mean for Krystal to become assimilated into the fandom so much, but it happened and it would have been utter foolishness to try and stop it.


----------



## Benji (Apr 28, 2014)

So much denial on this thread!  We all wish we had a badass wolfman side, don't kid yourselves.  :v


----------



## Hewge (Apr 28, 2014)

Benji said:


> So much denial on this thread!  We all wish we had a badass wolfman side, don't kid yourselves.  :v



Your fetish is showing.


----------



## Benji (Apr 28, 2014)

Hewge said:


> Your fetish is showing.



Ooops, better hide it away before the angry mobs come to torch my castle.


----------



## Astus (Apr 28, 2014)

All I see is lines and lines of text 

What ever happened to multiple choice questions?


----------



## Sar (Apr 29, 2014)

From my knowledge, the concept of Werewolves is that it is a person who can change into a werewolf through curse, science, ritual or magic. This existed in myth and fantasy way before the fandom, even the "change under full moon" idea has bee coined about the 12th century. 

For a generalization, the concept of Werewolves as well as Lycanthropy in itself are not considered a product of the Furry Fandom, but merely characters and traits in the writings of a fantasy.


----------



## Calemeyr (Apr 29, 2014)

Werewolf fursonas can be furry. But werewolves in of themselves are not furry. Neither is Mr Sherman, that horrible Furry Vengence movie, or Tony the Tiger. Come on, furries, have some standards. Just because something has the slightest relation to fur in it doesn't make it furry. Is this some attempt to feel significant/mainstream, or to justify the fandom's continued existence by latching onto pretty much unrelated material? Be happy with dog people (well, not too happy...keep the creepy stuff out of the public eye). Maybe if this fandom stopped acting like a leper colony then we would see a lot more non-fursona art, hell, maybe mainstream furry media.


----------



## Conker (Apr 29, 2014)

No


----------



## pikadill3 (Apr 30, 2014)

My interpretation of the question was more along the lines of "Do werewolves appeal to the furry fandom?" to which I would say yes, hence my response. However, there are a lot of different versions of "werewolves" and I think it does suffice to say that one cannot consider every interpretation of the werewolf mythology as "furry". It is complicated, but for the most part without getting into extreme detail I think it works to appeal to the culture.


----------



## Zan'theros (Apr 30, 2014)

Generally speaking, I'd have to say that werewolves would be a no-go for the furry classification. Why? Well, if we're all honest with ourselves, there's always some hidden sexual undertone to anything furry-related, and looking at the history of the werewolf and studying the uses and depictions of that beast throughout the many years they've been around, there's just not any room for anything sexual outside of really specific fetishes.


----------



## werewolfie (May 1, 2014)

A "werewolf" itself would not be a furry i.e. a mainstream movie or tv show.  Werewolves can be furry absolutely if one is created to be.  

However, a big part of why this fandom was created/evolved and exists today is because of werewolves, wolves with human attributes.  There are many classifications of werewolves which include shape shifting in which the person has total control.


----------



## VintageLynx (May 1, 2014)

Easiest way to tell if they are furry or not is are there any historic records of them giving out free hugs and being spotted with neon coloured fur highlights.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (May 1, 2014)

Zan'theros said:


> Generally speaking, I'd have to say that werewolves would be a no-go for the furry classification. Why? Well, if we're all honest with ourselves, there's always some hidden sexual undertone to anything furry-related, and looking at the history of the werewolf and studying the uses and depictions of that beast throughout the many years they've been around, there's just not any room for anything sexual outside of really specific fetishes.



While I voted that werewolves are not furry. I have to disagree with you that werewolves don't have hidden sexual undertones. Thematically, the whole basis of them is pretty much extreme untamed bestial masculinity. They're hairy, they're muscular, they're uninhabited with their passions, and I don't just mean the sexual ones; their violent urges are also unleashed. They are pretty much an exaggerated male archetype and because of that there will always be a sex element to them even if it isn't necessarily overt in every story involving them. And it isn't as if there aren't historical depictions of this. Most famously Little Red Riding Hood could be argued to be a werewolf story, and it's a warning against rapists. There's more. Peter Stumpp, who was executed for being a werewolf, had also raped his daughter. The Morbach Monster also depicts the werewolf as being a violent rapist. 

The sexual undertones have always been there. I think its just that Hollywood depictions of them never really balance it out~ You always have either scary monster or dick wolves for housewives, so most people only ever see one extreme or the other. Werewolves are humanity unchained from society and its values, so to deny a sexual aspect existing wouldn't be accurate in my opinion.


----------



## Icky (May 1, 2014)

Zan'theros said:


> Well, if we're all honest with ourselves, there's always some hidden sexual undertone to anything furry-related



...Um. What?


----------



## Ozriel (May 1, 2014)

Icky said:


> ...Um. What?



TRANSLATION: All furries are perverts and sick fucks. :V


----------



## Stratelier (May 2, 2014)

I wanted to toss a truthful answer into the poll except there is no option for "wat".  So I had to vote "no" instead.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (May 2, 2014)

Icky said:


> ...Um. What?


I think what Zan is trying to say is that the fandom is very heavily focused on physical form more than anything else as I've said many times in the past.


----------



## Icky (May 2, 2014)

Hybrid Persona said:


> I think what Zan is trying to say is that the fandom is very heavily focused on physical form more than anything else as I've said many times in the past.



Uh, not really. He said "sexual undertone". Didn't think that was too ambiguous.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (May 2, 2014)

Icky said:


> Uh, not really. He said "sexual undertone". Didn't think that was too ambiguous.


Yes, I think he may be misunderstanding what he's seeing.


----------



## Auramaru (May 2, 2014)

So if a werewolf dies to silver bullets...

Then is that the weakness to all anthro's....?

*loads a gun*


----------



## Zan'theros (May 2, 2014)

Fine, I guess if you want to get really down and dirty into the lore and different interprerations of it, you can find sexual meanings behind werewolves. But that's true of 95% of things in this world. My synopsis was more a skin-deep thing.


----------



## Yotipo (May 2, 2014)

I certainly wouldn't consider them 'featheries' or 'scalies'. 'Furry' sounds appropriate. :0)


----------



## Benji (May 2, 2014)

Zan'theros said:


> Fine, I guess if you want to get really down and dirty into the lore and different interprerations of it, you can find sexual meanings behind werewolves. But that's true of 95% of things in this world. My synopsis was more a skin-deep thing.



None of us would exist if it wasn't for sex! :v


----------



## Mr. Sparta (May 2, 2014)

If you use your imagination hard enough, _everything _â€‹is sexually arousing, including this sentence.


----------



## Hewge (May 2, 2014)

Mr. Sparta said:


> If you use your imagination hard enough, _everything _â€‹is sexually arousing, including this sentence.


It's true! I'm so hard now. Thanks, Mr. Sparta!


----------



## Armored Chocobo (May 4, 2014)

Ayattar said:


> And what about were-humans? Those poor animals bitten by that terrible two-legged creatures, now cursed to turn into quasi homo-sapiens at  every new moon?



well the very definition of the term "were-human" would mean "man-like human" which is redundant if anything.


----------



## Aulendra (May 4, 2014)

No, for the reasons echoed above. They have anthropomorphic wolf traits, and look more "furry" in recent years than older depictions, but a were isn't really a furry in the traditional sense. They are more like diseased humans/monsters.


----------



## Faolan (May 4, 2014)

I'm on the fence, but lean yes on this question.  The people who identify as a werewolf within this fandom, are basically just of the shape-shifter variety within the furry fandom, it's just a specific popular form.  My fursona is a wolf, and although he's just a bipedal wolf character loosely based on me, if you throw the transforming, and four legs into it, it's basically the same thing.

This is an age old debate, and one that isn't going to be settled on this forum, or anywhere else anytime soon, but for my 2 cents they're just furries in a more mainstream disguise (I'm looking at you too Bronies)


----------



## The young man in the cafe (May 5, 2014)

The idea that pre modern depictions of werewolves were always four legged isn't quite true. Baltic werewolves were usually portrayed as two legged. However, Baltic werewolves are kind of a subversion of the western European werewolf tropes, in that Baltic werewolves were "hounds of god" who fought demons, undead and evil witches to keep them from stealing the harvest. There was even one alleged Livonian werewolf who was let go by the Inquisition with only a few whacks with a whip and exile as punishment, because they had no idea what to do with a werewolf who claimed to serve God.


----------



## Ryu Deacon (May 5, 2014)

I have to say no to the OPs question for the simple fact that they do not remain in anthropomorphic form thru out that Furry Characters are associated with but rather turn Human again after fullmoon or after a fuw hours. the attributes considered furry as a character -also meaning a Human fan of anthropomorphic themed arts and crafts- are so blurred these days to begin with thanks to characters being accepted as furry in the community that arnt even anthropomorphic at all All. werewolves that are able to change back and forth voluntary or forced and are bipedal are all were's nothing more, nothing less Those that are quadruped and permanent are beasts or animals unless they are sentient then they can be considered funny animals, permanent bipeds on the other hand would then classify as anthropomorphic. Any type can only be considered furry if they are a Fursona or Anthropomorphic Character that has turned into a werewolf, cant be a Furry if it was a Human that turned.


----------

