# Furries and Nudism



## Katteno (Dec 1, 2010)

Something I can't seem to find on the internet...

Does anyone else feel some amount of crossover between clotheslessness and furridom?

I know there are many that are shy or specifically not interested in the human body, so it wouldn't particularly apply to you. However, I've often been drawn by the fact that anthros, in fursuit or art typically do not require clothes, something inherantly appealing about the seamlessness and accents of full body textures. Body paint or tight furry suits being the closest to what pleases my eye.

The same intimacy that gives that touchy furry side of me I feel would just as nice with a group of people who are comfortable nude, not necessarily sexual, just open and bold.

These interests (furry and nudism) seem about equally unnacceptable to speak of in public and unfortunately though, so I've not talked about it, nor have I physically openly met with someone of either culture. 

So, how common is that? Are there any other furry potential nudist, or furry body painters out there who have meets or talk or anything like that or is it strictly for a virtual world?


----------



## Mentova (Dec 1, 2010)

No, I don't think furries are nudists.

People use the chewbakka rule when drawing characters: If it has fur covering up the bad parts, it's ok to be naked. Plus furries draw loads of porn so nudity is kinda of needed for that.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Dec 1, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> No, I don't think furries are nudists.
> 
> People use the chewbakka rule when drawing characters: If it has fur covering up the bad parts, it's ok to be naked. Plus furries draw loads of porn so nudity is kinda of needed for that.


Well, actual human porn has nudism but I don't think people are hairy enough to cover their bad parts. That's when they use the horrible picture stickers on those parts.
So what is the origin of the nudism in clean art, for example? I'd say they wanted porn but wanted everybody to see, so they blanked out the logic.


----------



## Grendel (Dec 1, 2010)

Naturism, you're doing it wrong.

Being a nudist isn't about "pleasing the eyes." It's about returning to natural states, not sexual nor "intimate".


----------



## Mehitabel (Dec 2, 2010)

I read this topic and all I can think about is anthropological theories on clothing and nudity and how this possibly evolved with our hominid ancestors.

God damnit biological anthropology.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 2, 2010)

What is up with the influx of newfags posting things that aren't rants or raves?


----------



## Willow (Dec 2, 2010)

Excuse me good sir, but I don't think it would be very wise to let a little boy run around naked with a whole bunch of older men in the area. 

For you see, I am weak and couldn't possibly fight off the hordes of guys desperately trying to get a piece of my supple young body. So I prefer to keep my clothes on in drawn art. 

To answer your question though, it has a lot to do with the fact that you can easily cover up an anthro's naughty bits.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Dec 2, 2010)

Xenke said:


> What is up with the influx of newfags posting things that aren't rants or raves?


 
Stop being enclosed and read the section description


> The Soap Box - A place for users to vent, praise or speak their mind. Please check the rules in the forum before posting.


The first statement is right - this is a soap box of drama. The second statement applies here - you speak your mind, whether it's acceptable or horrible. The last statement does no longer apply.


Willow said:


> Excuse me good sir, but I don't think it would be very wise to let a little boy run around naked with a whole bunch of older men in the area.
> 
> For you see, I am weak and couldn't possibly fight off the hordes of guys desperately trying to get a piece of my supple young body. So I prefer to keep my clothes on in drawn art.
> 
> To answer your question though, it has a lot to do with the fact that you can easily cover up an anthro's naughty bits.


Yeah, "guys trying to my body". I doubt you'll have hordes after you just from being naked in yiff. This is not cpsir, but I do agree with the statement "keep clothes art".


----------



## Shico (Dec 2, 2010)

Heckler & Koch said:


> No, I don't think furries are nudists.
> 
> People use the chewbakka rule when drawing characters: If it has fur covering up the bad parts, it's ok to be naked. Plus furries draw loads of porn so nudity is kinda of needed for that.



Chewbakka rule?! X3
I have NEVER heard that term before...made me lol.


----------



## Katteno (Dec 2, 2010)

> Naturism, you're doing it wrong.
> 
> Being a nudist isn't about "pleasing the eyes" you fuckwit. It's about returning to natural states, not sexual nor "intimate".​


Naturism then, but here is the major disconnect - Pleasing to the eye is not a matter of sexuality, or if it is is simply the deep seeded cause to my senses of beauty and curiosity.

The nude represents to me the lack of a desire to hide yourself. Body paints/form fitting clothes are the only real way to maintain that idea while giving a sense of art and style.
I could say that an very nicely lit scenery piece is beautiful, or that the grace of a predators movements are beautiful, or music. Sure nudity appeals some to sexuality, but why does that make it negative, so long as you're not constantly interested in sex (and I'm certainly no nympho, not many are) than it will fall in check after some adjustment while maintaining the beauty.

It's always been a subject of much confusion to me, how such a hugely sexual ART culture (not culture in full) seems to believe real sex and nudity are only for the depraved, and are often rather anti-social in a normal environment.

So my conclusion was that many furries must have some interest or overlap in naturist/nudist principals, that because the unclothed forms are beautiful we should not deny them. However, the response I seem to be getting is a that same contradiction. About 1/10 (which is still huge) of furry art depicts nude figures but detests social closeness or sexuality, or the human figure besides.

So what gives?

-As a note, I am too shy, or too afraid a real gathering of those people would turn out the screwed up to have ever attempted to do that. I don't really know if that's for better or for worse.


----------



## Grendel (Dec 2, 2010)

Katteno said:


> So my conclusion was that many furries must have some interest or overlap in naturist/nudist principals, that because the unclothed forms are beautiful we should not deny them.


Your conclusion is wrong.



Katteno said:


> However, the response I seem to be getting is a that same contradiction. About a quarter of furry art depicts nude figures but detests social closeness or sexuality, or the human figure besides.
> 
> So what gives?


So what, you want all furry art to embrace "nude figures" and "social closeness or sexuality"? No. Get out.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 2, 2010)

Xenke said:


> What is up with the influx of newfags posting things that aren't rants or raves?


 they want to hang out in the cool sub forum


----------



## Qoph (Dec 2, 2010)

Furries don't need clothes because they have fur.


----------



## HappyBunny (Dec 2, 2010)

Uhm. I dunno. Most furries seem to take their avatars as a matter of personal identity as far as I see it. So... really, it kinda seems like they would prefer to be something else rather than who they are... i don't wanna say identity crisis, really.. but they seem to have higher regard for a more animalistic form than their own. Just my observation, and I'm speaking really broadly. I don't see many furries being active nudists as in, sharing their naked bodies with other people openly. I assume a great deal of them enjoy being naked, but.... I don't think they're going out trying to flaunt their natural bodies so much as stuff themselves into fursuits. .............which. probably.... I would assume... lots of them are naked under there..... which is another reason why I kind of.... avoid people in them. ....just in case.


----------



## Rilvor (Dec 2, 2010)

Katteno said:


> I know there are many that are...specifically not interested in the human body


 
Excuse me sir, but I must contest this statement vehemently.

For you see, if the Furries were not interested in the human body, there would not be nearly so many images of such a graphic nature. Nor would the ones there are be featuring what amounts to a human with an animal head and a lot more hair I wager!

Your statement gives the impression that furries are not interested in the human side, so are you insinuating sir that they are interested only in animal bodies?


Or perhaps I truly am as not among you all as I think, what with my obsession with fancy finery!


----------



## Catilda Lily (Dec 2, 2010)

I draw mine with clothes unless it is for a ref sheet.


----------



## Katteno (Dec 2, 2010)

You know, honestly, I didn't mean to make this an argument or anything. It turns out when someone gives a heavily opposing view I automatically argue against it though.

So. I came in with a question, you guys answered it with basically 'no' which is totally a valid response. Kinda want this thread to end so I'm not "that guy who's obsessed with nude people". Then again, I guess I don't care because it's the internet, so nobody does .

Cheers.


----------



## Valery91Thunder (Dec 2, 2010)

Animals are naturally nude (nude as if, they don't wear clothes), furries are part animals, that pretty much explains... but I won't consider furries as nudists.
We wear clothes to protect ourselves from cold, wind, water, other climatic stuff and things that could hurt our body, and decency. Animals don't need all of that because... well, they are animals. And they have fur/feathers/scales/tough skin that protects their bodies.
My characters wear clothes because I prefer drawing them as such and as such, they look more fitting into a urban setting.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 2, 2010)

HappyBunny said:


> Uhm. I dunno. Most furries seem to take their avatars as a matter of personal identity as far as I see it. So... really, it kinda seems like they would prefer to be something else rather than who they are... i don't wanna say identity crisis, really.. but they seem to have higher regard for a more animalistic form than their own. Just my observation, and I'm speaking really broadly. I don't see many furries being active nudists as in, sharing their naked bodies with other people openly. I assume a great deal of them enjoy being naked, but.... I don't think they're going out trying to flaunt their natural bodies so much as stuff themselves into fursuits. .............which. probably.... *I would assume... lots of them are naked under there*..... which is another reason why I kind of.... avoid people in them. ....just in case.


They aren't, many wear a sort of underclothing that whisks the sweat off the body so you are more comfortable. That or a basic cotton shirt and shorts. I've only ever seen one person claim to be naked under their fursuit and they were a batchit insane attention whore that posted pics. 
I just wanted to mention this so silly rumors and ideas don't get started. For your average fursuiter, there is clothing underneath. 

Personally with my drawings it's not about the discomfort with my body, or awesomeness of the naked human body. I like the toony way my character looks, and drawing clothes is rather annoying. I'm not into being a nudist IRL because I think my character is aesthetically better with fur.


----------



## Charrio (Dec 2, 2010)

Well according to the JellyStone guide to Bare Naked Bears, All animals must be wearing at least one article of clothing. 
If not they are bare and naked, furries can get away with a hat or a shirt and be called clothed.
Well that is provided you have ample fur to cover up your bits. 

Rule was mentioned before in Yogi Bear, not this episode but this series of ones done by John Kricfalusi 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0oF_G4aWSU


----------



## greg-the-fox (Dec 2, 2010)

Charrio said:


> Well according to the JellyStone guide to Bare Naked Bears, All animals must be wearing at least one article of clothing.
> If not they are bare and naked, furries can get away with a hat or a shirt and be called clothed.
> Well that is provided you have ample fur to cover up your bits.
> 
> ...


 
This seems to be true with all cartoons
Like in this episode of Spongebob @ 4:02 (could only find sped up version)
[yt]T-NgMPH9C0c[/yt]
Spongebob seems to feature a LOT of nudity for some reason, lol


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Dec 2, 2010)

Katteno said:


> The nude represents to me the lack of a desire to hide yourself. Body paints/form fitting clothes are the only real way to maintain that idea while giving a sense of art and style.
> I could say that an very nicely lit scenery piece is beautiful, or that the grace of a predators movements are beautiful, or music. Sure nudity appeals some to sexuality, but why does that make it negative, so long as you're not constantly interested in sex (and I'm certainly no nympho, not many are) than it will fall in check after some adjustment while maintaining the beauty.



Are you just to try and persuade us to become nudists/naturists? Because that is what it sounds like to me.




> So my conclusion was that many furries must have some interest or overlap in naturist/nudist principals, that because the unclothed forms are beautiful we should not deny them. However, the response I seem to be getting is a that same contradiction. About 1/10 (which is still huge) of furry art depicts nude figures but detests social closeness or sexuality, or the human figure besides.



Conclusion be wrong dude. I for one have no interest in nudism.naturism.


----------



## RBY (Dec 2, 2010)

Nudism sounds cold.


----------



## Xenke (Dec 2, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Stop being enclosed and read the section description


 
The unspoken rule is that if it isn't a rant or a rave it belongs in off-topic.

Which is where it ended up. :T


----------



## The DK (Dec 2, 2010)

Eh... furrys arnt naked because of fur and besides i guess you can feel as comfotable as you want in a body thats not your own anyways


----------



## Inashne117 (Dec 2, 2010)

From an Anthropology standpoint, humans as well as make/wear clothing for warmth/protection from the elements and, socially, for a sense of decency.

Furries on the other hand have that nice layer of fur so the only reason for clothing is decency.


----------



## Leey (Dec 3, 2010)

If humans DID have fur, I doubt we would have to wear clothes as all.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 3, 2010)

Inashne117 said:


> From an Anthropology standpoint, humans as well as make/wear clothing for warmth/protection from the elements and, socially, for a sense of decency.
> 
> Furries on the other hand have that nice layer of fur *so the only reason for clothing is decency*.


 
No, there are other reasons for clothing, fur or no fur.  If you're a blacksmith or a potter, you would need to wear protection just to protect your fur from damage.  Just two examples out of many.


----------



## Grandpriest (Dec 5, 2010)

I wonder what it's like being a nudist and seeing other nudists?  Goodness, I can't even imagine *not* getting a hard-on at least once.  Wouldn't that be embarrassing, or is that also "pure" or whatever? XD


----------



## artie the arcticwhite fo (Feb 8, 2013)

Nudists are actually nude. Furries want their characters to look like they are nude, but people give them fear of being rejected having the parts showing or represented that a nude person shows. Hence the furries and Nudists are treated the same way. The age restriction law inadvertently unintentionally makes it illegal for a baby to see a tit or nurse because the baby is undeniably under 18 years of age. Nudity laws need to be made as if they never existed.


----------



## Bambi (Feb 8, 2013)

Hello artie the arcticwhite fo ...?

Anyway, bad idea. You see, I did the same thing a while ago (only with less talking points and more expletives -- I necro'd some threads as a pseudo rite of passage) and it didn't do me any good at all. Now the mods will probably tell you this, and they don't need me to do their jobs for them, which I am not. Probably won't. So, since you've necro'd this thread, I'd love to talk to you guys for a moment about my genitals since this thread will get locked soon.

You see, my genitals are magic. Magic comes from them. Because they are magic. Now, if you gently take the amount of excess and unnecessary comma's that I use to introduce prose in my writing, gently and soothingly massage them onto the surface of my scrotum, and repeat three times, "Testies, testies, rule!", I'll make a dragon.

...

Why isn't anybody massaging my scrotum yet?

EDIT: Is this shit posting, or dick posting, because does shit posting matter in a necro'd thread that's already been bumped? ... into my dick. hahaha, ha. Okay, I'm leaving now probably with a ban. Sorry everyone. Cheers!


----------



## artie the arcticwhite fo (Feb 8, 2013)

Sorry about a repeat post.


----------



## benignBiotic (Feb 8, 2013)

artie the arcticwhite fo said:


> Nudists are actually nude. Furries want their characters to look like they are nude, but people give them fear of being rejected having the parts showing or represented that a nude person shows. Hence the furries and Nudists are treated the same way. The age restriction law inadvertently unintentionally makes it illegal for a baby to see a tit or nurse because the baby is undeniably under 18 years of age. Nudity laws need to be made as if they never existed.


What? 

Also OP: What? That first sentence makes no sense. Erm. My slothsona wears clothes because why not? I take it as a distinguishing thing at this point.


----------



## artie the arcticwhite fo (Feb 8, 2013)

It should be up to the individual to show what is on all of nature. Call one part on the creature disgusting call the whole body the same name because the one part is convected to the whole. I know you don't want to call your fursona any negative word at all. I mised the X at the end of my fursona name when I registered.


----------



## Hewge (Feb 8, 2013)

I give my anthro characters clothes normally when they are less of a classic cartoon style, because clothes can bring a lot of personality to a character.

I also feel like this subject is being way over thought...


----------



## Azure (Feb 8, 2013)

Bambi said:


> Hello artie the arcticwhite fo ...?
> 
> Anyway, bad idea. You see, I did the same thing a while ago (only with less talking points and more expletives -- I necro'd some threads as a pseudo rite of passage) and it didn't do me any good at all. Now the mods will probably tell you this, and they don't need me to do their jobs for them, which I am not. Probably won't. So, since you've necro'd this thread, I'd love to talk to you guys for a moment about my genitals since this thread will get locked soon.
> 
> ...


well, you see, i think, it's win posting, but im not sure, ill just have, to massage, your testies some more :v

and remember kids, nudists, are usually nude


----------



## Littlerock (Feb 8, 2013)

Am I in the den again
_WAIT I'M NOT???_

Oh it's just a freshmeat necro, nevermind.


----------



## Greycoat (Feb 9, 2013)

Hewge said:


> I give my anthro characters clothes normally when they are less of a classic cartoon style, because clothes can bring a lot of personality to a character.
> 
> I also feel like this subject is being way over thought...



Agreed. They don't need clothes, but adding clothes is hilarious and adorable. Anything from adding a tie or a bow just works.


----------



## Golden (Feb 9, 2013)

Greycoat said:


> Agreed. They don't need clothes, but adding clothes is hilarious and adorable. Anything from adding a tie or a bow just works.


 This. OP and however agrees with him is reading into things that aren't there. Clothing is more of a character trait.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 10, 2013)

It's likely already been stated. 

-Animals don't wear clothing
-Nudity is popular in art
-Lots of furries like sex

These are, I suspect, the three main reasons for the large amounts of nudity in furry art. 

Personally I'm comfortable with the idea nudism [and I think I'll avoid saying _naturism_, because this has unnecessary and superficial hippy conotations about 'getting back to nature'] 
Not so comfortable with going nude myself, as I would fear judgement both for the fact I am naked and any flaws in my form, but I view the 'cover all the naughty bits over' attitude, particularly when it is compounded by disgust, as completely immature. 

For instance I scoff at other art students who refuse to take life drawing for moral reasons or who complain about how gross nudity in art is. 

Nudism can and should encompass the whole range of attitudes between asexual and kinky, in my view, otherwise one taboo is exchanged for another- the idea that nudity is intrinsically sexual is a straw man argument and the practice that nudi_sm_ should hence never be sexual is reactionary.


----------



## Sutekh_the_Destroyer (Feb 10, 2013)

It's always the weirdest threads that get necro'd.



But, on topic, does this subject really need to be talked about?


----------



## Command Leader (Feb 15, 2013)

Have you ever tried to put clothes on a wild animal?

Its adorable but they get really pissed off really quickly.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 15, 2013)

Sutekh_the_Destroyer said:


> It's always the weirdest threads that get necro'd.
> 
> 
> 
> But, on topic, does this subject really need to be talked about?



Most subjects don't 'need' to be discussed, but it is an interesting topic.


----------



## Tigercougar (Feb 16, 2013)

Never thought of it like that. When I'm enjoying looking at a clean picture of an anthro without clothes, the 'turn-on' so to speak is simply that they don't need clothes because they are animals that happen to be bipedal.

Though actually I'm starting to like seeing anthros in clothes, I used to not like it at all.


----------



## Leuger (Mar 4, 2013)

Maybe some people attribute animals as "wild" or "natural," which means any article of clothing could break their "beast-like" fantasy. Maybe some people remove the clothing because they think the pattern or color on their fur is much more appealing. 

...Maybe there's a secret hate-group against pants. 

Whatever the reason, it'll always differ from person to person.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Mar 4, 2013)

Leuger said:


> Maybe some people attribute animals as "wild" or "natural," which means any article of clothing could break their "beast-like" fantasy. *Maybe some people remove the clothing because **they think the pattern or color on their fur is much more appealing**ng because* .
> 
> ...Maybe there's a secret hate-group against pants.
> 
> Whatever the reason, it'll always differ from person to person.



WAKE UP CALL: Humans DON'T have fur. Get out of your fantasy world and into the real one please.


----------



## Outcast (Mar 4, 2013)

If you really have to know, just take a peak at the FA gallery, you'll surely find your answer in there... however absurd it'll be.


----------



## Abjorn (Nov 4, 2014)

Katteno said:


> Does anyone else feel some amount of crossover between clotheslessness and furridom?



Ever heard of the "Wookie Rule"?


----------



## Eggdodger (Nov 4, 2014)

Brah, these are old threads. Keep up with the times, man. Necroing is only funny when you're an established troll stamping your brand of humor on the thread, and you're not quite there yet.

Speaking of behind the times, that Ben Tennyson outfit your 'sona is rocking? Pssh, that's so passe.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Nov 4, 2014)

m8 pls stop necroing, you're trying to hold a conversation with people who aren't even HERE anymore.

Check the dates of the threads before you post in them.


----------



## Misomie (Nov 4, 2014)

I like how this is necroing a necro. Double necro all the way!


----------



## Taralack (Nov 4, 2014)

Holy ballsack.


----------

