# How would YOU define furry?



## Randomness (Jan 19, 2008)

Sorry if this has been done before!

      I put furries into three basic groups: Life-stylers, Spiritual, And those who like the art. If you fit into one (or more) of these groups I'd consider you a furry to an extent, because there are different levels of furriness. I'd consider myself a furry because I like the art and the community, and if given the chance to become a actually furry I'd probably say yes (if you can change between furry and human at will) So what's your opinion on what makes a furry, and how furry are you by your definition?


----------



## Kisuke (Jan 19, 2008)

I'm prolly a Life-Styler, I like the art and the communites, (these forums are all i visit these days ^^). But i treat it more then just looking at pics. I would become an actuall furry in less then a heart beat.


----------



## Rostam The Grey (Jan 19, 2008)

Animal with human characteristics or human with animal characteristics.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 19, 2008)

So is the question about "furry (persons)" or "furry (subject matter)" ?

As a person, no.  

As a subject matter, I'm one of those who prefers the term "anthro" over "furry", as it is both broader yet more specific.


----------



## talakestreal (Jan 19, 2008)

Spiritual.  To me, I am the dragon. doesn't matter the body I am in, and I don't want to trade the human body for the dragon, it's something deeper and more meaningful than that.  ^__^  Take away the art, and take away everything except for myself and my mind, and I'm still a dragon.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Jan 19, 2008)

Ooh, though one.

I've been thinking quite a lot on this subject (Here we go...) and, as usual, I haven't came to any conclusion about what I'd define as furry. My friends fuck around with me for what I draw, but I reply to "Haha, furfag! Furfag!" with the (half-true) statement of:

"Well, it completely depends on how you define a furry. If you define it as someone who likes to look at and/or draw anthropomorphic artwork, then yes, I am indeed a furfag. But if you define it as that guy who sits in a tiger costume, spamming 4chan with furry porn whiles fapping vigorously, then no, I am not a furfag. It's all in the definition."

I consider myself - and am fairly open about it - a furry, since I like the (Well, most of it) artwork and fap to some too. But I'd just as well fap to "normal" porn, too. On that matter, for me, it's just a matter of preference. I like animals, I like fur, and I'd do anything to be transformed into an anthropomorphic creature. Or mabe more zoomorphic, those terms are quite similar on this matter. Since I currently am a human, it'd by definition be zoomorphisism, as I'd be a "human with animal properties" as opposed to an "animal with human properties".

Furriness/furdom/furry fandom/whatever you call it is also very hard to define, since it's made up by so few people, in so many genres. We've got vore, preg, feet, hair, fat, you name it, all compressed into maybe a couple of million people, if not even under a million.

The general description would, aside from the "levels" that are mentioned in the op and by me above, be that it's someone who likes things with fur. But, guess what? There are people who doesn't like fur on it, and still consider themselves furry to certain degrees. Scalies and such. Yes, I know, it's a little naive and dumb to discuss, as people still understand the point, but it knocks off the definition by a bit. But then, how about the definition of anthropomorphic animals? Well, that one won't hold either, since there are quite a few who just like humans covered in fur, without any noses, ears or tails.

So, you really can't put a hard stamped definition on furry, it's just too messy and abstract to define with one simple term.

Aaanyhow, to answer the original question in the op, I consider myself, as I mentioned earlier, a quite light furry. I like the artwork, I fap to it, I draw it, but I don't strut around in a suit or make it a lifestyle. If you've read my presentation to these forums, you'd also know that I'm rather spiritual about it, I feel a deeper connection with animals, and I wouldn't wait one second to morph into a "huma-k9" of any kind. I've lost many nights sleep actually crying over that feeling of... Misplacement.

On a side note, I've never understood suiting (Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it), I see how it can ger someone closer to his or her fursona or similar, but I don't find it just real enough, it seems like yet another way to surpress the truth - at least it would be for me.

Meh, should stop typing now. I hope you get why I put "Here we go..." up there. Every time I type about something I've been thinking about, it ends up in an essay that gets a big red TL;DR stamp on it.


----------



## Randomness (Jan 19, 2008)

Wow 598 words! Thats longer than any of my papers last year!


----------



## lobosabio (Jan 19, 2008)

A furry is simply somebody who likes anthropomorphic animals.  Some admit it, some hid it, and some violently deny it.


----------



## OnyxVulpine (Jan 20, 2008)

My definition is.. They are Awesome 

I say that your only really a furry if you consider yourself one. Since there are different... degrees of the fandom. Ranging from finding the art interesting to going all the way to having hundreds of fursuits and acting like their fursona 24/7.

I myself am somewhere in the middle, I love the art, I do indeed act in a certain way toward some of them (You should know what I'm talking about). I do not have a fursuit nor do I role play. But I have a deep dedication to this thing. I don't go around telling people as I don't want everyone to know and spread it to the whole island.

And... don't have much else to say.

-Onyx


----------



## E-mannor (Jan 20, 2008)

well from a psychological stand point it would be a natural and primitive attraction towards a, usually anthropomorphic version, of a non-direct-derived species branch that has developed and surpassed the social norm, thus developing a new sociality, or in this case "fandom".

but in layman's terms that would be guys who are attracted to anthropomorphic art or general furry art, the people who are just here because they like the social aspect are indeed not truly furry.

it can range in intensity from an inclination, to a fetish, to even a way of life.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Jan 20, 2008)

Randomness said:
			
		

> Wow 598 words! Thats longer than any of my papers last year!


The curse of typi9ng fast and thinking a lot. :wink:


----------



## snowleplover15 (Jun 26, 2009)

YoZo i like the art and am spiritual i really believe i am an animal trapped in this flesh bag of a human body if i could switch i would. i am severely attracted to the moon and i walk on my hands and feet by force of habit every now and then no idea were the habit came from but i feel more free when i am alone and can romp around in a open area on all  fours( pleas no critics ) i always have higher sight than anyone and can hear things really good also i have huge fangs that never have gone away so i feel i have more attributes and instincts of an animal than anything.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 26, 2009)

I am just going to ask this:

How is a fanclub about Anthro animals spritual?!?!


----------



## Beta Link (Jun 26, 2009)

My definition of "furry" is a person who is interested in the concept of anthropomorphic animal characters, as well as art and/or roleplay involving anthropomorphic animals. Pretty much what seems to be the standard definition.


----------



## Shadow (Jun 26, 2009)

It's only furry if it is called such by the artist/creator of the/a character(s).


----------



## Attaman (Jun 26, 2009)

lobosabio said:


> A furry is simply *somebody who likes anthropomorphic animals*.  Some admit it, some hid it, and some violently deny it.


  Both right and wrong.  All Furries like at least one variety of anthropomorphic animals.  However, not everyone who likes anthropomorphic animals is a Furry. 

How would I define a Furry?  Furries as people, I can't.  You can't even use "Likes anthropomorphic animals" as a defining point as - unless you can break down a separation of how _they_ like the animals and how _non-furs_ like the animals - you're taking too many people in to the equation.  Furthermore, Furry covers everyone from "I think they're nifty" people who define themselves to be in the Fandom and are only really part of it due to the occasional look at clean anthro art (probably of game characters), all the way up to the people who own 2/3 of the Bad Dragon line and buy commissions weekly from FA artists of their character being eaten / transforming / being tentacle raped / whatever.  

Best definition I can give, the _very best_ without dragging any 'innocents' in, is "people who define themselves as part of the Furry Fandom", which is in itself circular.  "I am a member of the Furry Fandom."  "Oh really, what's that?" "A fandom I'm a member of."  I would add "with a beyond normal interest in animals," but once more that does not encompass 100% of the people in the Furry fandom.  I will, however, say there is nothing spiritual about the Fandom.  That is where stuff like Therianthropy, Otherkins, etc. come into the equation.


As for "Furry" characters?  Characters that were created for the Fandom, often times by fandom members.  You cannot use "animal" as some people's "fursonas" are Human Were's, others are shapeshifters that have no true form, etc.  But the fact of the matter is that the standard anthropomorphic animal character, shapeshifter, were, etc. is not a Furry (yes, this means I do not consider Star Fox, Tom & Jerry, Bugs Bunny, etc. as Furry characters).


----------



## whoadamn (Jun 26, 2009)

I define furry through the individuals which consider themselves as such. It is a title, not a brand.


----------



## I am a communist (Jun 26, 2009)

Is someone who likes anthro animals, actual animals, and some furry art, but hates all the fucked up shit and drama that the furry fandom brings considered a furry?


----------



## Whitenoise (Jun 27, 2009)

The furry fandom:

99.9% Perverts, asspies, dramafags, and lazy fucks who pretend they're something else trapped in a human body because their human body is fat and they're too lazy to fix it :V .

0.1% people I like :V .


----------



## Jelly (Jun 27, 2009)

1. Lock yourself in a room full of farts.
2. Let your braincells fucking rot.
3. Put on a stupid hat with ears.
4. Browse FA.

Now, you can tell me what furry is.
Also, whatever you say, you're totally wrong.


----------



## Takun (Jun 27, 2009)

Raving faggots in tails with glowsticks.


----------



## I am a communist (Jun 27, 2009)

So... yes/no/maybe for what I said?


----------



## ThisisGabe (Jun 27, 2009)

Simply put, furries are those who have an interest in anthropomorphic creatures. This interest can be expressed through role-playing, making costumes, creating stories, drawing, or making music.

I put this answer on YAHOO ANSWERS few days ago. Vote for my mine! 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...4070221AAI3FeK&show=7#profile-info-nyb2pkxKaa


----------



## cpam (Jun 27, 2009)

Very basic definitions.

1)  A furry is an anthropomorphic animal -- that is, an animal with human characteristics, whether it be a humanoid form, or the ability to think, talk and reason like a human.

2)  A furry is someone who writes or draws (or otherwise creates) material about anthropomorphic animals.  An artist, a writer, a musician, a fursuit builder, etc.

3)  A furry is someone who enjoys and appreciates furry material and supports the furry creator.


----------



## Asswings (Jun 27, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> Raving faggots in tails with glowsticks.



This.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 27, 2009)

cpam said:


> 2)  A furry is someone who writes or draws (or otherwise creates) material about anthropomorphic animals.  An artist, a writer, a musician, a fursuit builder, etc.


  Huh, so Poe was a Furry, as was C.S. Lewis, William King, E.B. White...

Hence why I find it so difficult to properly define the fandom.  Obviously these people are not (at least to our knowledge) Furries, but they meet the definition provided here.  How should one _word_ the interest in anthropomorphic animals, or how the material is written / drawn, so that they have a definition without so many counter-examples?


----------



## I am a communist (Jun 27, 2009)

Nobody ever answered my question >_>


----------



## Attaman (Jun 27, 2009)

I am a communist said:


> Nobody ever answered my question >_>


  Seeing as I'm of the "impossible to define at the moment" category, I feel I have an excuse in this regard.


----------



## Hackfox (Jun 27, 2009)

A group of really bored people who want to hang out with other people who are interested in what is now a generalized fetish. Since the dawn of man we have felt a link to animals and now we are to the point of wanting to have sex as one of them. (Most of the fandom.) It has now evolved to a point where sites like these are made to unite them. 

My definition. Don't like it? Screw you it's 3:21 A.M.


----------



## Mediteral_Hart (Jun 27, 2009)

I am a spiritual furry, but I like the lifestyle too...I also like the art


----------



## MattyK (Jun 27, 2009)

A Hobby, a gret way to make new friends, and a strive to do something new.

I was your typical everyday anti-troll/socialite wannabe before I joined the Fandom, living in the deepest of cesspits, Facepunch.

In joining the Fandom, I quit Facepunch, made new friends, lost old ones, converted one or two, and quit my computer-addicted ways to try something new, in my case, Parkour.


----------



## cpam (Jun 27, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Huh, so Poe was a Furry, as was C.S. Lewis, William King, E.B. White...



Sure.  Why not?  The term is a modern one and generally applied to more modern examples, but if it fits, it fits.  Though I might not apply it to _them_, so much, as their works expanded beyond just stories about talking animals, but those specific stories could certainly be termed as furry.



Attaman said:


> Hence why I find it so difficult to properly define the fandom.  Obviously these people are not (at least to our knowledge) Furries, but they meet the definition provided here.  How should one _word_ the interest in anthropomorphic animals, or how the material is written / drawn, so that they have a definition without so many counter-examples?



There is always going to be a gray area to any definition of interests.  Is a man who collects models of fire trucks a model collector or an afficiando of firefighters?  Or is he just interested in model fire trucks?  You define the terms as best you can, according to what was intended, and manage accordingly.  I gave the definitions for furry as it was commonly understood when the fandom first came together -- any other meanings or views were imposed after the fact and are not universally accepted.


----------



## cpam (Jun 27, 2009)

I am a communist said:


> Is someone who likes anthro animals, actual animals, and some furry art, but hates all the fucked up shit and drama that the furry fandom brings considered a furry?



Yes.  Because that's where it all started.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 27, 2009)

I define a furry as any person who is involved in the furry fandom to any reasonable depth or beyond.

There are then two subtypes of furry.  'Sane' and 'Fucktard'.


----------



## SexyRedFoxxy (Jun 27, 2009)

Dude who are you? O.O  My friend is random all the time so when I saw ur name I was like huh?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Jun 27, 2009)

SexyRedFoxxy said:


> Dude who are you? O.O My friend is random all the time so when I saw ur name I was like huh?


 
Who in this thread are you addressing?


----------



## Shadow (Jun 27, 2009)

cpam said:


> Yes.  Because that's where it all started.



You could have edited your last post, and added this in. :/


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Jun 27, 2009)

To me being furry means your more open to new ideas and views


----------



## Attaman (Jun 27, 2009)

yiffytimesnews said:


> To me being furry means your more open to new ideas and views



Ha.  Haha.  Hahaha. That's a good funny Yiffy.  A very good funny.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 27, 2009)

yiffytimesnews said:


> To me being furry means your more open to new ideas and views


 You don't pay much attention to us around here, do you? If FAF is an accurate representation of the fandom (Which, sadly, it's probably not.  It's probably as a whole a better place than the rest of the fandom), then furries aren't more open about any ideas than anyone else, and may even possibly less open. 

Being furry means you like anthropomorphic animals and to either pretend to be one or use one to represent some traits of yourself on the internet.  None of this "any interest in anthropomorphics" shit, because the Egyptians weren't furries, neither were most of the pagan religions.


----------



## cpam (Jun 27, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Being furry means you like anthropomorphic animals and to either pretend to be one or use one to represent some traits of yourself on the internet.



The first part of that statement is true, but not really the second part.  I've been in the fandom practically since it began, and I've never once pretended to be an animal or ever felt the need to do so.  Nor do many others of my acquaintance.  The idea that such belief was a somehow part of being furry was something that was brought along much later, and has been unwanted baggage ever since.



Jashwa said:


> None of this "any interest in anthropomorphics" shit, because the Egyptians weren't furries, neither were most of the pagan religions.



That's true on the face of it, but it's equally true that most of the pagan religions have furry elements to it.  'Furry' is a modern term, but it still fits.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 27, 2009)

Randomness said:


> Sorry if this has been done before!
> 
> I put furries into three basic groups: Life-stylers, Spiritual, And those who like the art. If you fit into one (or more) of these groups I'd consider you a furry to an extent, because there are different levels of furriness. I'd consider myself a furry because I like the art and the community, and if given the chance to become a actually furry I'd probably say yes (if you can change between furry and human at will) So what's your opinion on what makes a furry, and how furry are you by your definition?



This has been asked more times than i care to count and as such i can not be arsed to repeat myself.


----------



## Jashwa (Jun 27, 2009)

cpam said:


> The first part of that statement is true, but not really the second part. I've been in the fandom practically since it began, and I've never once pretended to be an animal or ever felt the need to do so. Nor do many others of my acquaintance. The idea that such belief was a somehow part of being furry was something that was brought along much later, and has been unwanted baggage ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true on the face of it, but it's equally true that most of the pagan religions have furry elements to it. 'Furry' is a modern term, but it still fits.


 Almost everyone in the fandom has a fursona.  That's what I was referring to with the second part.  Just because you dont' and you identify with furry doesn't mean it's not part of the fandom in general. You're an exception.

Also, just because it fits doesn't mean we should go around labeling them to be furries.  Maybe there should be a "and chooses to identify themselves as one" at the end of the definition so that people don't go around labeling everyone as furries because they liked one cartoon abck in the day or such?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 27, 2009)

AshleyAshes said:


> I define a furry as any person who is involved in the furry fandom to any reasonable depth or beyond.
> 
> There are then two subtypes of furry.  'Sane' and 'Fucktard'.



I am going with what Ashley said.



cpam said:


> The first part of that statement is true, but not really the second part.  I've been in the fandom practically since it began, and I've never once pretended to be an animal or ever felt the need to do so.  Nor do many others of my acquaintance.  The idea that such belief was a somehow part of being furry was something that was brought along much later, and has been unwanted baggage ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true on the face of it, but it's equally true that most of the pagan religions have furry elements to it.  'Furry' is a modern term, but it still fits.



The term furry only came along when the "furry fandom" was started in the 80's. Just because something fits the bill of being furry, such as the egyption gods, or mickey mouse, doesn't mean it IS furry. 

My definition of a furry would be someone who interacts with the fandom in someway. Not the art or literature itself.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 27, 2009)

Nah, they're Furries now that I think about it.  Also, those who read "War of the Worlds" just after it came out are 40Kers.  I mean think about it:  Both are people who read about humanity wiping out at least one Alien species with biological warfare and enjoyed it.  Empire-supporting Warsies are all 40Kers too seeing as they support a Super-Powered Xenophobic Man who controlled an empire throughout the stars, and if that doesn't sum up 40K I don't know what does.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Almost everyone in the fandom has a fursona.  That's what I was referring to with the second part.  Just because you dont' and you identify with furry doesn't mean it's not part of the fandom in general. You're an exception.



It may be something that is done, but it wasn't always so and it isn't a prerequisite to being furry, as suggested by your original statement.  It tends to put the wrong emphasis on what the fandom is about.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The term furry only came along when the "furry fandom" was started in the 80's. Just because something fits the bill of being furry, such as the egyption gods, or mickey mouse, doesn't mean it IS furry.



Sure it can.  Simply because a word or a term isn't coined until long after the fact, it doesn't mean that the word or term is inappropriate or incorrect.  World War I was never referred to as a World War until after WW II got under way; before that, it had always been referred to as the Great War.  Since WW II it's been referred to as WW I.  It's appropriate, even if labeled long after the fact.  There are many psychological terms that were coined over the past century, to use another example, that are constantly employed to describe behavior or characteristics of historical figures.

If Furry means an anthropomorphic animal, and if an Egyptian God is depicted as an anthropomorphic animal, and if Mickey Mouse is an anthropomorphic animal, than they are furries.


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 28, 2009)

-facepalm x9000-


----------



## Attaman (Jun 28, 2009)

cpam said:


> If Furry means an anthropomorphic animal, and if an Egyptian God is depicted as an anthropomorphic animal, and if Mickey Mouse is an anthropomorphic animal, than they are furries.


  So you'd argue all of these to be Furries:
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven

According to your definition, all of these things are Furries.  Each and every single one of them.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

cpam said:


> Sure it can.  Simply because a word or a term isn't coined until long after the fact, it doesn't mean that the word or term is inappropriate or incorrect.  World War I was never referred to as a World War until after WW II got under way; before that, it had always been referred to as the Great War.  Since WW II it's been referred to as WW I.  It's appropriate, even if labeled long after the fact.  There are many psychological terms that were coined over the past century, to use another example, that are constantly employed to describe behavior or characteristics of historical figures.
> 
> If Furry means an anthropomorphic animal, and if an Egyptian God is depicted as an anthropomorphic animal, and if Mickey Mouse is an anthropomorphic animal, than they are furries.



I was reading wikifur yesterday and more often or not the word "furry" relates to a person in the fandom and not any media or artwork. Just because someone dresses like a goth dude, doesnt always mean they are gothic. You can't label something just because it "Looks" right for the category. 

You don't have to be a "furry" to like anthro animals either. As wikifur also says a "furry" is someone who associates with the fandom. Just because families watch Bolt, doesn't make them all instantly furries. YOU My friend, need to stop going around and slapping a label on everything just because it looks "furry".


----------



## Ozriel (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I was reading wikifur yesterday and more often or not the word "furry" relates to a person in the fandom and not any media or artwork. Just because someone dresses like a goth dude, doesnt always mean they are gothic. You can't label something just because it "Looks" right for the category.
> 
> You don't have to be a "furry" to like anthro animals either. As wikifur also says a "furry" is someone who associates with the fandom. Just because families watch Bolt, doesn't make them all instantly furries. YOU My friend, need to stop going around and slapping a label on everything just because it looks "furry".



The student has surpassed the teacher.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I was reading wikifur yesterday and more often or not the word "furry" relates to a person in the fandom and not any media or artwork. Just because someone dresses like a goth dude, doesnt always mean they are gothic. You can't label something just because it "Looks" right for the category.
> 
> You don't have to be a "furry" to like anthro animals either. As wikifur also says a "furry" is someone who associates with the fandom. Just because families watch Bolt, doesn't make them all instantly furries. YOU My friend, need to stop going around and slapping a label on everything just because it looks "furry".


and now you know why I threw a bitch fit a long time ago with that fur saying I'm a fur when I'm not.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

Attaman said:


> So you'd argue all of these to be Furries:
> One
> Two
> Three
> ...



I have no idea what #1 is -- I can't make out any details; looks like a bunch of rats (?) but I can't tell what's going on -- and I've no idea what #7 is.  I wouldn't call #4 a furry, but the rest of them, yes.  Why not?


----------



## wolf with earrings (Jun 28, 2009)

i think that if you like anthro art and/or fit into one of the other categories, and you wnat to be a furry, you are a furry.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I was reading wikifur yesterday and more often or not the word "furry" relates to a person in the fandom and not any media or artwork. Just because someone dresses like a goth dude, doesnt always mean they are gothic. You can't label something just because it "Looks" right for the category.
> 
> You don't have to be a "furry" to like anthro animals either. As wikifur also says a "furry" is someone who associates with the fandom. Just because families watch Bolt, doesn't make them all instantly furries. YOU My friend, need to stop going around and slapping a label on everything just because it looks "furry".



Specifically, the Wikifur article says:

"The word furry has several meanings, dependent on the context in which it is used. Predominantly, it means "consisting of or resembling fur".[1] It also pertains to an interest in anthropomorphic animals and/or mythological or imaginary creatures which possess human or superhuman capabilities. The plural form of furry in all its contexts is furs or furries; the subjects of furry interest are also known as furries. "

Wikifur also says that Furries are:

"Humans who are members of the furry fandom.
Humans who enjoy drawing, or can only draw, anthropomorphic beings "

None of which contradicts the definition I've given.

Where Wikifur and I _differ _is in the fact that the definition has been _expanded _over the years, and that has been a source of contention and flamewars for well over a decade.  (Refer to logs of Alt.Fan.Furry if you wish.)  Wikifur's definition includes sexual attraction to anthropomorphic animals, and spiritual connections, among other things.  None of these things had anything to do with the original fandom gatherings, but were expansions brought in later by those wanting to make the fandom somehow more compatible to their specific interests.  I recall one individual, several years ago, claiming vehemently that being barefoot was a significant part of being furry.

The definition I originally gave is the one that was commonly understood by the original fandom when it was formed, and that is the one I still hold to be the _correct _definition.  Anything else is either an imposition or wishful thinking, or, at best else a personal aspect that may complement his belief but is not really part of the fandom.

As for the statement about people who watch *Bolt *are not necessarily furries, yes, I agree with that.  I don't recall saying that they would be, and if you think I had, then I believe you misunderstood me.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The student has surpassed the teacher.



Lol


----------



## Attaman (Jun 28, 2009)

Right, from this point on I think I'll ignore cpam and his insight on the definition.  I am not going to try debating with someone who sees no problem in calling almost all children who grow up near any amount of media (since anthropomorphic animals are extremely common in such) a Furry, as well as 85% of all anthropomorphic animals (at least) a Furry.  Count this as my 'concession' from debate.



			
				cpam said:
			
		

> As for the statement about people who watch Bolt are not necessarily furries, yes, I agree with that. I don't recall saying that they would be, and if you think I had, then I believe you misunderstood me.


 He's correct here, technically what he said was:


			
				cpam said:
			
		

> Jashwa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





cpam said:


> 3)  A furry is someone who enjoys and appreciates furry material and supports the furry creator.


Watching *Bolt* doesn't make you a furry.  Enjoying it or not hating all the characters does.

Furthermore, he only thinks that the people who animated *Bolt*, wrote the script for it, provided their voices, or were in any way associated with the productive parts of the movie itself were furries.


cpam said:


> 2)  A furry is someone who writes or draws (or otherwise creates) material about anthropomorphic animals.  An artist, a writer, a musician, a fursuit builder, etc.



Don't forget that Bioware, TSR, Bethesda Softworks, Black Isle, Black Library, Wizards!, Sabertooth Games, Final Flight Games, Disney, Pixar, Hannah-Barbera, Nintendo, Square-Enix, the Herbert Family (of Dune Fame), Dan Simmons, Lucas Films, Capcom, Team Ninja, Greek Mythology, Bungie, Games Workshop, Citadel Miniatures, Sonic Team, and many, many more business' are all Furries.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Right, from this point on I think I'll ignore cpam and his insight on the definition.  I am not going to try debating with someone who sees no problem in calling almost all children who grow up near any amount of media (since anthropomorphic animals are extremely common in such) a Furry, as well as 85% of all anthropomorphic animals (at least) a Furry.  Count this as my 'concession' from debate.
> 
> He's correct here, technically what he said was:
> 
> ...



IF we all went by cpam's definition 85% of the planet are furries. The writers don't have to be furry to write an anthro based cartoon, nor do the animators or anyone else involved in the production. The way cpam defines furry is saying they all are.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

cpam said:


> I have no idea what #1 is -- I can't make out any details; looks like a bunch of rats (?) but I can't tell what's going on -- and I've no idea what #7 is.  I wouldn't call #4 a furry, but the rest of them, yes.  Why not?



I agree with you on 1 and 7 but how the hell can you class a real lion as a furry? It isn't anthropomorphic for starters.


----------



## Attaman (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I agree with you on 1 and 7 but how the hell can you class a real lion as a furry? It isn't anthropomorphic for starters.


That Lion's actually a CGI Aslan from "Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe" fame.


----------



## Asswings (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I agree with you on 1 and 7 but how the hell can you class a real lion as a furry? It isn't anthropomorphic for starters.




It's Aslan, dude. Narnia Lion Jesus.

EDIT: Gah, late. XD


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

Attaman said:


> That Lion's actually a CGI Aslan from "Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe" fame.




Ahhhh, i havent seen the movie, jees that was CGI?, either i am blind or it was damn good CGI. Oh, and i stand fully corrected.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Furthermore, he only thinks that the people who animated *Bolt*, wrote the script for it, provided their voices, or were in any way associated with the productive parts of the movie itself were furries.
> 
> 
> Don't forget that Bioware, TSR, Bethesda Softworks, Black Isle, Black Library, Wizards!, Sabertooth Games, Final Flight Games, Disney, Pixar, Hannah-Barbera, Nintendo, Square-Enix, the Herbert Family (of Dune Fame), Dan Simmons, Lucas Films, Capcom, Team Ninja, Greek Mythology, Bungie, Games Workshop, Citadel Miniatures, Sonic Team, and many, many more business' are all Furries.



Okay, I see that I was right -- you _are _misunderstanding me.  Whether intentionally or not, I'm not sure, but I'll presume a simple confusion on your part.

When I said, "A furry is someone who writes or draws (or otherwise creates) material about anthropomorphic animals. An artist, a writer, a musician, a fursuit builder, etc.", I did not mean _every _person who had ever written or drawn furry material was a furry.  You're taking the definition entirely too literally and too broadly.  It was defining people with a specific interest in doing so.  I'd already agreed with your observation that simply watching Bolt would not make one a furry -- that is simply too broad an application, and not at all what I'd meant.

The same is true with "A furry is someone who enjoys and appreciates furry material and supports the furry creator."  These were terms to define those who were in the fandom and why they were there; what their interests were.  I would have thought a little common sense would have been applied when reading the defintions; I hadn't realized before now that people were reading more into it than was stated or implied.

As for the other definition, that of 'anything that is an anthropomorphic animal is a furry', that can and does apply to anything past or present that fits the term.  That much of it _can _be broad and retroactively applied, though you'll find lots of debate over whether _some _anthropomorphs can be called 'furry' or not.  But Bugs Bunny is a furry.  Babar the Elephant is a furry.  So are Snoopy, Krazy Kat, Mister Toad, Aslan, Erma Felna, Bolt, Lassie, Flipper, the Cricket OF Times Square, and Archy and Mehitable.  They need only be animals with some form of human characteristics.

(Well, okay... maybe not Lassie or Flipper...)


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I agree with you on 1 and 7 but how the hell can you class a real lion as a furry? It isn't anthropomorphic for starters.



Aslan is.  He's the Christ figure of the Narnia stories.  He talks and reasons like a human, and that _is _an anthropomorphic quality.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

cpam said:


> Okay, I see that I was right -- you _are _misunderstanding me.  Whether intentionally or not, I'm not sure, but I'll presume a simple confusion on your part.
> 
> When I said, "A furry is someone who writes or draws (or otherwise creates) material about anthropomorphic animals. An artist, a writer, a musician, a fursuit builder, etc.", I did not mean _every _person who had ever written or drawn furry material was a furry.  You're taking the definition entirely too literally and too broadly.  It was defining people with a specific interest in doing so.  I'd already agreed with your observation that simply watching Bolt would not make one a furry -- that is simply too broad an application, and not at all what I'd meant.
> 
> ...



I just prefer to call them Anthro's. I don't know why, it is just a personal preference. As for the lion, I have seen the trailers fro the movie, i know he speaks, i just didn't realise it was him o.o.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

...although, upon further consideration...

Why _couldn't_ someone who has only just watched Bolt be a furry?  I mean, that's not what I'd _meant _with the definition I'd given, but why couldn't it hold true as well?

If a person watches funny-animal cartoons or reads books with talking animals in them, and enjoys doing so and enjoys what he's watching or reading, why wouldn't he be considered a furry?  Even if he doesn't know he is, or even heard of the term.

I was reading and enjoying furry literature and art _long _before there was ever a fandom.  When I first became aware of it and that there were other people with the same interests, the term just seemed like natural.  "Oh, it's called 'Furry'?  Okay, that works."


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

Refer back to wikifur when it states one of the many meanings of furry. The only reason i can think of is, if you started considering everyone you meet as a furry, because they watched the lion king, or madagascar, or bolt, you would just be labeling people. Also, I think someone should ONLY be given that label if they actually say "I am really into this stuff" OR "I am a furry".

I wont see or class anyone as furry unless they tell me they are a furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

http://img.lulz.net:8080/src/anthro-furry.jpg

This made me LOL. and i felt it fit the thread.

Yes, i am a furry with a sense of humour.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 28, 2009)

There is no such thing as a "Furry life-style". That's opinion there but that is how I see it. If you turn it into a lifestyle....it's taking it too far. Furry Lifestyler is basically akin to going to Otacon(Spelling?) and later on becoming an Otaku.

There is no "Spiritual aspect of the furry fandom". If you start taking your "Spritiuality" and mixing it with a fan-club, than the spirituality becomes a fan-club. In the words of Zeke Shadowfyre....Spirituality is not a fan-club!

Also if it is not made specifically for the furry fandom it's not furry. You cannot force a person under our label and you cannot force things you do not own under our label.

If you want to know why you don't call a person who likes things like Bolt Furry consider the whole wave of stereotypes perpetuated by furfaggotry and then ask yourself this: "If you are just a casual fan of anthro animals in movies would you really like to have all the furfaggotry stereotypes attached to you when you don't even associate with the group?"

EDIT: Wikifur is a bull-shit source. Do not go by Wikifur's biased, bullshit defination of what the furry fandom is or what is furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> There is no such thing as a "Furry life-style".
> 
> There is no "Spiritual aspect of the furry fandom". Also if it is not made specifically for the furry fandom it's not furry. You cannot force a person under our label and you cannot force things you do not own under our label.
> 
> If you want to know why don't call a person who likes things like Bolt Furry consider the whole wave of stereotypes perpetuated by furfaggotry and then ask yourself this: "If you are just a casual fan of anthro animals in movies would you really like to have all the furfaggotry stereotypes attached to you when you don't even associate with the group?"



Well said. But i think that will just hit a solid wall when cpam reads it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 28, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Well said. But i think that will just hit a solid wall when cpam reads it.


 
I edited it to clarify...

We shall see, we shall see.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 28, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I edited it to clarify...
> 
> We shall see, we shall see.



If it penetrates the wall i will.......chew on a pen untill there is nothing left to chew, video it, and put it on youtube.


----------



## cpam (Jun 28, 2009)

Actually, Trpdwarf, I _do _agree with everything you've said... _except _for this:



Trpdwarf said:


> Also if it is not made specifically for the furry fandom it's not furry.



I don't believe it _has _to be specifically made for the fandom in order to _be _furry.  The _reason _the fandom even came together in the first place was to enjoy books and comics and cartoons that were anthropomorphic -- things that were _outside _of the fandom.  Without them, there _never _would have _been _a fandom.



Trpdwarf said:


> Wikifur is a bull-shit source. Do not go by Wikifur's biased, bullshit defination of what the furry fandom is or what is furry.



I don't consider it to be any better or worse than any other Wiki -- not bullshit, but not a hundred percent reliable either.  In any case, I already pointed out that I am not in agreement with its definition -- only with parts of it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 29, 2009)

cpam said:


> Actually, Trpdwarf, I _do _agree with everything you've said... _except _for this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ya living in the past to much. Things have changed nowadays. 

I also new he would say something like this Dwarf.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 29, 2009)

cpam said:


> Actually, Trpdwarf, I _do _agree with everything you've said... _except _for this:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe it _has _to be specifically made for the fandom in order to _be _furry.  The _reason _the fandom even came together in the first place was to enjoy books and comics and cartoons that were anthropomorphic -- things that were _outside _of the fandom.  Without them, there _never _would have _been _a fandom.



I'm sorry but I don't care what you believe. I know what the consequences are of the retarded notion of calling things not part of or made for our fandom furry. These are very bad consequences. To blanket term things furry is not worth the trouble having innocent people or creations not belonging to us being forced to wear our slime.

That aside the fandom came together because they wanted more stuff. They were not happy with what existed out there so they came together to create more. It's all cool to pay homage to what created the fandom, but to defile it with our furfaggotry stereotypes is just stupid. If you really appreciate the things that led the fandom to become what it is, you will respect and keep it to some extent separate from us.

In all honesty we don't deserve to have the things that led us to become a fandom associated with us because we take what led us to be what we have become, and we have destroyed, defiled, deficated, corrupted and down right disrespected all of it. We pervert damn near everything we touch, we destory everything that captures our interest. Therefore the only thing that should be forced to fall under us is what we directly create for ourselves or that which is made specifically for us. All else is up to the creator, and if no statement is made by the creator than it is up to us to not put ourselves in places where we do not belong and decide what something is for something that we do not own.

It's like all those shitty smutty fanfiction writers and smut porn creators that have plauged the gamer fandom. They have no right to associate the games they claim to love and appreciate with their disgusting vileness. They take the games/characters they claim to appreciate and destory all aspects of it just to please themselves sexually. They are not real gamers. Frankly over half the furry fans out there are not real fans of the things they claim led them to becoming a furry. If they were such great fans they wouldn't defile what they love.

Until the furry fandom makes itself something worth being associated with blanket term....it and it's participants are in no place to form the label on others, spoken or unspoken.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 29, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Ya living in the past to much. Things have changed nowadays.
> 
> I also new he would say something like this Dwarf.



Things have changed. From what I know doing research into the beginnings of the fandom, the first furcon supposedly was run in an attempt to make it one big sexual orgy/fetish party. Many of the beginning furries, did not like that. So that is why other cons started to try to draw people away from having the fandom being like, or used like that.

We are nothing like our humble beginnings when we were able to collectively outrage when such outrage was needed. Let him say what he wants. Everyone has the right to be heard, but if what they have to say is...not intelligent others have the right to counter.


----------



## cpam (Jun 29, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm sorry but I don't care what you believe. I know what the consequences are of the retarded notion of calling things not part of or made for our fandom furry. These are very bad consequences. To blanket term things furry is not worth the trouble having innocent people or creations not belonging to us being forced to wear our slime.
> 
> That aside the fandom came together because they wanted more stuff. They were not happy with what existed out there so they came together to create more. It's all cool to pay homage to what created the fandom, but to defile it with our furfaggotry stereotypes is just stupid. If you really appreciate the things that led the fandom to become what it is, you will respect and keep it to some extent separate from us.
> 
> ...



While I can appreciate and actually share your concerns, I think your reactions are misplaced.  Simply because others have corrupted the fandom with fetishist interests doesn't have anything to do with what it was initially about.  I'm not about a 'blanket term, as you put it -- I've fought against an all-encompassing blanket term for years.  The definition I've given is specific and accurate according to what was commonly accepted at the beginning, and I cannot see how it perverts, defames or sullies the fandom in any way.  Nor do I understand how identifying works of the past from outside of the fandom as being furry somehow damages them or their reputation, so long as it relates to the proper definitions of the term.  Those works were what brought us together, they were what we called Furry, and that was what we were inspired by.

I adhere to the definition I've given for the simple reason that it _is _what it is, and that's _all _that it is.

Your statement: "They were not happy with what existed out there so they came together to create more."  Not true.  We loved and were inspired by what was out there; enough to want to add to the magic.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jun 29, 2009)

Told you Dwarf, it would hit a solid brick wall. Well cpam, i will put you in the catagory as an idiot who lives in the past to much. Your definition is wrong, this is modern day, like everything else, things also change in the fandom. 

I was on fchan earlier, and i found a BOLT thread ALREADY there, the movie has not been out that long. When you call movies such as bolt "furry" not only do you give the good label, unfortunately the bad label also comes with it.


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Jun 29, 2009)

rrrrr  im pissed


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Jun 29, 2009)

i just wrote a novel to answer this inigmatic qwuestion only to have it erased!!!!


----------



## Largentum_Wolf (Jun 29, 2009)

so il exlain as breifly as the beer will let me... i love the art, yiff too. but because all animals have emotions,thaughts and language, i dont get this anthro thing. i am an animal! a carnivor! i speak the universal language of the body! ive observed about every animal there is, and i understood them all! most of them understood me! so of course i can relate to fellow inteligent hunters such as my three favs, wolf,crow,and dragon(reptiles) il never where a suit, if anything being naked expreses my furyness the best, and i dont know!!! im still pissed about an hours typing down the drain(especialy since i use the hunt and peck aproach, i think im done!!


----------



## Malkheus (Jun 29, 2009)

> Very basic definitions.
> 
> 1) A furry is an anthropomorphic animal -- that is, an animal with human characteristics, whether it be a humanoid form, or the ability to think, talk and reason like a human.
> 
> ...


 
That's something I can understand. Thank you. Your post have proven to be quite informative...


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 29, 2009)

A person who familiarizes themselves with and/or has an attraction to and/or has an obsession with and/or simply likes anthropomorphic characters, artwork, stories, or roleplay.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jun 29, 2009)

cpam said:


> While I can appreciate and actually share your concerns, I think your reactions are misplaced. Simply because others have corrupted the fandom with fetishist interests doesn't have anything to do with what it was initially about. I'm not about a 'blanket term, as you put it -- I've fought against an all-encompassing blanket term for years. The definition I've given is specific and accurate according to what was commonly accepted at the beginning, and I cannot see how it perverts, defames or sullies the fandom in any way. Nor do I understand how identifying works of the past from outside of the fandom as being furry somehow damages them or their reputation, so long as it relates to the proper definitions of the term. Those works were what brought us together, they were what we called Furry, and that was what we were inspired by.
> 
> I adhere to the definition I've given for the simple reason that it _is _what it is, and that's _all _that it is.
> 
> Your statement: "They were not happy with what existed out there so they came together to create more." Not true. We loved and were inspired by what was out there; enough to want to add to the magic.


 
Stop antagonizing over the past and trying to use what we no longer are to validfy yourself and your silly opinions. The past is irrelevent. There were things that the furry fandom was, used to, should have been but unfortunately *no longer is*. 

What the fandom was INITIALLY ABOUT is moot. What it is now is what it is important and what it is now, is a fan-club where not only does it create it's own content, but it defiles the content of others without their consent, and tries to force damn near every thing that looks anthro animal to be "Furry" and thus wear our stigma.

You don't look to the past things we once were for a basis of what to call part of us....you look to the present and you see if we really upheld any standards to deserve having things like the various cherished Disney movies, various video game characters, various characters from comic books or literature....and you see if we even deserve that. Right now we don't...

Besides that it's selfish and arrogant to try to tell other people and their works that it is furry, and thus label it under us, it's not our place.

So long as one furfag is going to draw Scooby with the Mystery Machine shoved up his ass, Ash fucking Pikachu, Todd fucking his hound friend, Jessie James gang banging Meowth, Kyrstal being fucked a thousand times over a billion different ways, Sonic and Shadow having gay sex......so long as we have people who do this kind of shit to the things that led furries to come together.....and so long as furries hold this collective idea of "Well it's okay"....we have no business calling anything other than ourselves and our self created content "Furry".

Now, Cpam, to each his own ignorance. Have a nice day.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jun 29, 2009)

OH SHI- someone annoyed Trp


----------



## cpam (Jul 1, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Stop antagonizing over the past and trying to use what we no longer are to validfy yourself and your silly opinions.



As opinions go, mine are no more silly or any less valid than anyone else's.  And my opinion, if you want to dismiss it as such, is that the definition I've given is the factual one.  And that is that.



Trpdwarf said:


> The past is irrelevent.



The past is merely prologue to the future.  



Trpdwarf said:


> There were things that the furry fandom was, used to, should have been but unfortunately *no longer is*.



That's debatable, and not just by myself.



Trpdwarf said:


> What the fandom was INITIALLY ABOUT is moot.



Not at all.  It's what defines us, more than the abuses and miscarriages.  If we didn't have the ideal to inspire and move us, then what would be the point of it all?



Trpdwarf said:


> What it is now is what it is important and what it is now, is a fan-club where not only does it create it's own content, but it defiles the content of others without their consent, and tries to force damn near every thing that looks anthro animal to be "Furry" and thus wear our stigma.



And I disagree.  I create my own works without doing any of those things.  I know of several others who do the same.  You seem content to feel that those efforts matter less than the works of those who abuse and defile, and are further content to allow it to stand.



Trpdwarf said:


> You don't look to the past things we once were for a basis of what to call part of us....you look to the present and you see if we really upheld any standards to deserve having things like the various cherished Disney movies, various video game characters, various characters from comic books or literature....and you see if we even deserve that. Right now we don't...


 
Says you.  I look to the past at the point from whence we began, and to the present where several works of high standard are still being created, and hope for the future where it can gain ground over the pirates, the defilers, and the abusers (and however else you want to define them).

If you think the current state of the fandom is a cesspool, then I have to point out that it takes more than just the abusers to make it happen -- it takes lazy effort and a fatalistic acceptance on the part of others to allow it.



Trpdwarf said:


> Besides that it's selfish and arrogant to try to tell other people and their works that it is furry,



Why?  In what way is it arrogant?



Trpdwarf said:


> and thus label it under us, it's not our place.


 
As much our place as anyone else's.  We identify anthropomorphic works as furry all the time, and not solely for the reasons that you seem to believe.  We list them, we note them, and we even honor them by nominating them for, and granting them, awards, as with the Ursa Majors.  Your own lack of comfort with this does not change the fact.



Trpdwarf said:


> So long as one furfag is going to draw Scooby with the Mystery Machine shoved up his ass, Ash fucking Pikachu, Todd fucking his hound friend, Jessie James gang banging Meowth, Kyrstal being fucked a thousand times over a billion different ways, Sonic and Shadow having gay sex......so long as we have people who do this kind of shit to the things that led furries to come together.....and so long as furries hold this collective idea of "Well it's okay"



And not everybody in the fandom does this.  I even wonder if there's really a majority that do or even appreciate it, or if it isn't simply the loudest and the most-determined-to-be-visible.  However it may be, it is not universally done or accepted.



Trpdwarf said:


> ....we have no business calling anything other than ourselves and our self created content "Furry".



A thing is what a thing is, whether we feel ourselves worthy of saying so or not.  So we may as well say that it is.



Trpdwarf said:


> Now, Cpam, to each his own ignorance. Have a nice day.



Thank you.  And may your own day be sunny and free of woe.


----------



## cpam (Jul 1, 2009)

Malkheus said:


> That's something I can understand. Thank you. Your post have proven to be quite informative...



I'm glad to have been of assistance.  And I thank you for the kind word and your comprehension.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 1, 2009)

cpam said:


> The past is merely prologue to the future.


And the present affect our Future


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 1, 2009)

cpam said:


> As opinions go, mine are no more silly or any less valid than anyone else's.  And my opinion, if you want to dismiss it as such,* is that the definition I've given is the factual one.  And that is that.*
> 
> 
> Why?  In what way is it arrogant?.



This to me sounds arrogant. It tells me that why you say is fact and no one elses definition matters. Which to me sir, is arrogance. 

Sorry, but calling micky mouse a furry is not what micky mouse is. The term "furry" ONLY came about when the fandom first started, and it was furries like you who decided to go around with the sticky labels labeling every fucking anthro you saw as "furry. Dude, you can't go around labeling things just because that is "What you say they are". And the fact you say your definition is "factual" not only shows arrogance but is also a  load of BS.

How can you sit there and tell us, that cartoon characters, game characters too (specificaly before the word furry was even thought of) are furry, and say its factual, just because some furres in the fandom say so? 


Now, if you had just said your definition was your opinion i wouldn't of botherd to reply.


----------



## cpam (Jul 1, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This to me sounds arrogant. It tells me that why you say is fact and no one elses definition matters. Which to me sir, is arrogance.



I say it is a fact based on the first-hand knowledge of having been part of the fandom since around the time it started and that the definition I've given was the one commonly accepted.  I do not think it is arrogant to say what's true.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Sorry, but calling micky mouse a furry is not what micky mouse is. The term "furry" ONLY came about when the fandom first started, and it was furries like you who decided to go around with the sticky labels labeling every fucking anthro you saw as "furry. Dude, you can't go around labeling things just because that is "What you say they are". And the fact you say your definition is "factual" not only shows arrogance but is also a  load of BS.



We only started referring to dinosaurs as 'dinosaurs' over the past couple of hundred years, even though they existed millions of years ago.  Anytime we discover a new lifeform we assign it to a class or phylum, regardless of the fact that we had never known of it before, even though we had the classifications all worked out.  For that matter, the terms used for anthropomorphics themselves have evolved, and most are still applicable as well, regardless of when they were first used: talking animals, animal people, funny animals, etc.  _Furry _is pretty much the same term, but shorter and simpler to say.

_When _the word was coined is not important.  If the definition _fits_, then it is _applicable_.  It's a simple logic.



RandyDarkshade said:


> How can you sit there and tell us, that cartoon characters, game characters too (specificaly before the word furry was even thought of) are furry, and say its factual, just because some furres in the fandom say so?



How can you say that they are _not_, when they so perfectly fit the definition?



RandyDarkshade said:


> Now, if you had just said your definition was your opinion i wouldn't of botherd to reply.



It is my opinion that it is a fact.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 1, 2009)

cpam said:


> .We only started referring to dinosaurs as 'dinosaurs' over the past couple of hundred years, even though they existed millions of years ago.  Anytime we discover a new lifeform we assign it to a class or phylum, regardless of the fact that we had never known of it before, even though we had the classifications all worked out.  For that matter, the terms used for anthropomorphics themselves have evolved, and most are still applicable as well, regardless of when they were first used: talking animals, animal people, funny animals, etc.  _Furry _is pretty much the same term, but shorter and simpler to say.



What you forget here is, dinosaurs had no names until we gave them a name, same as any species of animal on the planet. We gave them names because they had no name, it makes it easier to identify each species.

I am not gonna refer to cartoon characters as furry, i will refer to them as anthropomorphic animals, the correct term for them.


----------



## Utsukushii (Jul 1, 2009)

I've asked this question before. And it's impossible to phrase correctly.

I myself, cannot be a true lifestyler until the future. But I think anyone who thinks of themselves as a furry is a furry. And if you don't, you don't. To each his own, am I right?


----------



## Carenath (Jul 2, 2009)

I simply define a furry as anyone who has an interest in anthropomorphic animals, nothing more.


----------



## Sparticle (Jul 2, 2009)

I define furry as anyone who likes anthro art and is bothered joining.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 2, 2009)

Utsukushii said:


> I've asked this question before. And it's impossible to phrase correctly.
> 
> I myself, cannot be a true lifestyler until the future. But I think anyone who thinks of themselves as a furry is a furry. And if you don't, you don't. To each his own, am I right?



Lifestylers take it to far imo.


----------



## Shaard (Jul 2, 2009)

This question is easy to answer, but at the same time hard. someone who is furry has an interest in anthro animals, but there's also degrees.

There's the art, whether you like it, draw it, or encourage it, you're into the art. that's the art portion

then the spiritual portion, which has been explained enough I'm sure.

then, and this is the main one I want to point out, there's the mental portion. Many many things fit under this, from behavoir to therianthropy. For those who have a very deep belongings to the fandom, it can affect who they are. I, for one, was actually kind of a snotty know-it-all kind of person a few years ago (I'm 16, so this was about when I was 13) and I was pretty much an ass a lot. But since then I've embraced my...."inner furry" and it has actually made me a better person.

I'm a lot nicer, more active, and more "artsy" (classical and piano music, appreciation for art, etc.) there's so many different aspects of the fandom that just sent inspiration through me, and made me feel pride to be part of it. I felt more as an individual, instead of trying to fit in.

So, as I just typed out without intention, the Furry Fandom can really affect who you are, and can grow who you are.


now that the life portion is done, there's still all the other parts. fursuiting is another. I don't know if I'd ever do that, but if you want to, then it's your own way of expressing your love for Furry.

then there's Therianthropy. for those who don't know what that is......just google it. I'm not even going to try to explain it, too much to type =P. I can say that I am a Therian, and that to me has precidence in the fandom, in a way.


So my definition of furry, as hard as it is to fully interpret into text, is the way someone expresses their appreciation for the fandom, and all that it represents.


----------



## south syde dobe (Jul 2, 2009)

Here are the groups furries should be in:

1) The social outcast furry- they live with their parents (most of the time) and view yiff 90% of the time and are more likely to commit sexual offenses and will probably fuck your dog or the neighbor's kid :V

2) Closet furfag- they know they are a furry but are ashamed (which they should be) try to keep a low profile on the furry stuff, they are less likely to pull attention to themselves.

Well I think thats most of the fandom right there but I could be wrong :\


----------



## cpam (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaard said:


> This question is easy to answer, but at the same time hard. someone who is furry has an interest in anthro animals, but there's also degrees.
> 
> There's the art, whether you like it, draw it, or encourage it, you're into the art. that's the art portion
> 
> ...



I think all this makes too much of what it's about.  Furry is about the art (that means stories, music, fursuits, animation, etc), the people that make it, and the people that enjoy it.  Period.  Anything else is personal to the individual and not inclusive of the fandom as a whole.

As in, furry fandom is _not _about anything spiritual.  You can talk about spiritual beliefs _through _furry works and _express _yourself through it if you want, but spirituality exists _beyond _furrydom and is _not _a specific part of it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 2, 2009)

cpam said:


> I think all this makes too much of what it's about.  Furry is about the art (that means stories, music, fursuits, animation, etc), the people that make it, and the people that enjoy it.  Period.  Anything else is personal to the individual and not inclusive of the fandom as a whole.
> 
> As in, furry fandom is _not _about anything spiritual.  You can talk about spiritual beliefs _through _furry works and _express _yourself through it if you want, but spirituality exists _beyond _furrydom and is _not _a specific part of it.



I don't think anyone is a furry unless they partake in the fandom in some way. By which i mean talk on forums, fursuit, etc. I don't class animators as furries, i don't class people who much movies like over the hedge, bolt, and madagascar as furries either.

You don't have to be a "furrie" to enjoy anthropomorphic animals.


----------



## roland_perteev (Jul 2, 2009)

A furry is someone who likes anthropomorphic animal characters.

And who probably has trouble dealing with reality.

And an identity problem.

Personally, I find that furrydom provides an opportunity to believe in something nice and magical when the world I live in is actually quite mean.  So I suppose in many ways it fills the gap that a lot of people would use religion to fill, though I wouldn't call myself a spiritual fur.


----------



## cpam (Jul 2, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I don't class animators as furries



A lot of the founding members of the fandom _were _animators, or attending animation classes at Cal Arts and _are _animators today.

Animators may not be furries, but there are furries who are animators.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 2, 2009)

cpam said:


> A lot of the founding members of the fandom _were _animators, or attending animation classes at Cal Arts and _are _animators today.
> 
> Animators may not be furries, but there are furries who are animators.



Let me rephrase what i said, what i should have said was:

I wont see a person as furry, unless they, themselves tell me they are. Does that sound fair?


----------



## Gavrill (Jul 2, 2009)

Furry: Someone who identifies with the furry fandom.

There we go.


----------



## Amino (Jul 3, 2009)

Imagine a subculture populated primarily with the most socially undesirable individuals. Now, take this culture and make it tolerant to the absurd, and generally accepting of even the most bizarre behavior and sexual fetishes. Stir in various psychological maladies. Finally, add animal ears and a tail.

That is furry.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 3, 2009)

Amino said:


> Imagine a subculture populated primarily with the most socially undesirable individuals. Now, take this culture and make it tolerant to the absurd, and generally accepting of even the most bizarre behavior and sexual fetishes. Stir in various psychological maladies. Finally, add animal ears and a tail.
> 
> That is furry.



Add a troll into the mix aswell (see above for an example).


----------



## 4goman (Jul 23, 2009)

snowleplover15 said:


> YoZo i like the art and am spiritual i really believe i am an animal trapped in this flesh bag of a human body if i could switch i would. i am severely attracted to the moon and i walk on my hands and feet by force of habit every now and then no idea were the habit came from but i feel more free when i am alone and can romp around in a open area on all  fours( pleas no critics ) i always have higher sight than anyone and can hear things really good also i have huge fangs that never have gone away so i feel i have more attributes and instincts of an animal than anything.



with that said i guess im sort of a spiritual some people call the full moon the witches moon but thats the best time to go outside and run normaly im a very lazy person but during the full moon i get the urge to go out side and run untill i collapese and durring the new moon im sort of scared to be out side by myself but any other time im just fine outside most of the time i live in the dark of night and sleep all day and other then that im just a humin (which i dont know how to spell still) that likes furry art and wishes he could draw that good.


----------

