# A serious question



## Dchybrid (Dec 4, 2008)

I dunno if this is exactly the right place to post this and if not feel free to shoot me. Also this might open a can of worms but I want to honestly know others opinions. 

Whats the big deal between therians vs furries?

I, for the longest(and still do tho I kinda hate it) called myself a therian and I did so with pride.  But now that I have been in the fandom for uh almost 8 years I kinda in a way am disgusted by it.  Why? Because I have noticed an "elitiest" attitude from most(MOST I can't stress that enough) others who call themselves therians.  I cannot stand it. I like furry porn, I would love to parade around in a suit, I have attended anthrocon. 

Maybe I should get over the lable thing, I dunno. I guess what it all really is that I hate the stigma that calling yourself a "Therian" leads to. 

what are your thoughts?


----------



## Decon-D-Bingo (Dec 4, 2008)

I might sound stupid asking this... but I might even have an answer xD...

 BUT... what is a "Therian"??? :?


----------



## Jack_Haystack (Dec 4, 2008)

smooth... some one who believes they have an animal spirit and as such are in the wrong body

and I've not being about much but while ive not noticed this problem, I can imagine it being there some how with the fact that therians can hold higher views of animals than most


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 4, 2008)

Decon-D-Bingo said:


> I might sound stupid asking this... but I might even have an answer xD...
> 
> BUT... what is a "Therian"??? :?




XD no worries. according to most including myself a person who feels they have a spirtual connection to an animal or in some cases animals


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 4, 2008)

Furries like Anthros, Therians think they are anthros

One is weird, the other is crazy 

osmething.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

I've been following up on this for several years. I think I understand well the issue between therians and furries. It comes down to there being an issue with therians who draw anthro art and are tired of being labeled as furries when they are not, and being attacked as furries on image hosts sites when they are not furries. They also tend to get upset at how arrogantly furries try to force everything anthro-animal as being furrie.

Also there is a big issue between therians and otherkin. Otherkin at some point and time quite recently began to decide to start calling themselves therian even though they believe they have an animal soul rather than human, and therians do not make such claims. So it gets therians a bit butt-hurt (I can understand why) seeing these people claiming to have animal souls other than human, or mythological souls other than human, masquarading around as Therian, when the Therian Spirituality is supposed to be about totemism, and having an animal totem guide...not believing you are some wolf in soul, or you are actually a dragon in soul or so forth.

Therians have got the short end of the stick by being associated with a bad stigma from furries, and from otherkin, and from otherkin who happen to be furries. That is how I understand it.


----------



## Jack_Haystack (Dec 4, 2008)

hmmm... odd view not quiet sure as to correctness but it is a basic point that one likes the other _is_ so to say which creates different standards really


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack_Haystack said:


> hmmm... odd view not quiet sure as to correctness but it is a basic point that one likes the other _is_ so to say which creates different standards really



I cannot follow what you are trying to say. You need to work on your posts a little bit better because right now it is confusing.


----------



## pheonix (Dec 4, 2008)

Well I'm neutral on the subject, whatever makes them happy is fine with me.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Jack_Haystack said:


> smooth... some one who believes they have an animal spirit and as such are in the wrong body
> 
> and I've not being about much but while ive not noticed this problem, I can imagine it being there some how with the fact that therians can hold higher views of animals than most



That is not true. For the love of Google use the correct terms.

A therian is someone who believes they have a spiritual connection with an animal....but at the same time that spiritual connection is through the animal being a totemistic guide. This kind of belief is well founded in various groups around the world, dealing with Shamanism, Native Americans, African tribes and so forth. It has been around much longer than the internet contrary to some popular assumptions.

People who believe that they have a soul other than human are Otherkin. You cannot interchange the two because the premises are completely different.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 4, 2008)

Therians and Otherkin have a lot worse stigma than your normal furry, If anything I would think that Furries get upset for being labeled Otherkin or Therians... not the other way around.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Furries like Anthros, Therians think they are anthros
> 
> One is weird, the other is crazy
> 
> osmething.



Look at Zeke Shadowfyre or Shenzi. Neither of them "Think" they are their totem animal, but both are definitely Therian.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 4, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Look at Zeke Shadowfyre or Shenzi. Neither of them "Think" they are their totem animal, but both are definitely Therian.


Yeah, my bad. I was thinking of Otherkin when I posted that, and I did get them mixed up 

EDIT: BTW, I clicked your webpage in your sig... please please please remove that music. It's really unprofessional and annoying


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Therians and Otherkin have a lot worse stigma than your normal furry, If anything I would think that Furries get upset for being labeled Otherkin or Therians... not the other way around.



I've been watching this for at least 4 years. Trust me, Quiet....it is not that way.

When Anyomous went crusade trolling against furries it is not just furries they attacked. It was also Therians who they mistook as furries. That led to anonymous crashing several Therian based sites.

Also when Anyomous instigated the Youtube Furrie Wars, furries, and otherkin were called upon and provoked, and therians were caught up in the mess even though it had nothing to do with them.

Right now Therians have to watch as their spirtuality is bastardized by a group who in attempting to legitimize what they claim, take to trying to force another group to be under their umbrella.

We furs have had some tough times online but we have no reason to be upset with the Therians. They only have many reasons to be upset with us when they can no longer post anthro-art online without being slandered, trolled, or labeled as furries, dog-fuckers, and so forth.

EDIT: Saw what you posted. It is okay though....the above still pertains to why many therians have a problem with furries.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Yeah, my bad. I was thinking of Otherkin when I posted that, and I did get them mixed up
> 
> EDIT: BTW, I clicked your webpage in your sig... please please please remove that music. It's really unprofessional and annoying



Is it? You have the option of going down to the bottom of the page and turning it off. I should go back though and change it to a less...loud and energetic song.

EDIT: Different music now. Go check it out, it is much better I think. It's not unprofessional to have music on a page, only for certain kinds of music to be there.


----------



## kitsubaka (Dec 4, 2008)

I have no idea, but I vaguely remember a journal of a 'therian' saying how much she hated furries because they were wannabe therian. So I kinda lol'd at that either way I have no idea. :|

Here we are therian related http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/459015/ don't go flaming or starting something I'm just providing reading material.


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 4, 2008)

kitsubaka said:


> I have no idea, but I vaguely remember a journal of a 'therian' saying how much she hated furries because they were wannabe therian. So I kinda lol'd at that either way I have no idea. :|



*nods* I think it is seriously immature to say things like that.


----------



## Decon-D-Bingo (Dec 4, 2008)

Dchybrid said:


> XD no worries. according to most including myself a person who feels they have a spirtual connection to an animal or in some cases animals



 ooh well... in that case I think that the same problem is just like anywhere else in the world... if they are not an elite (I will not judge that) then they are just like any other human and a lot less like a therian... though if they are an elite (That I will not say either) then... they are probably bad at it since I haven't heard of them before...

 what exactly do you mean by elitist (like any other word it have multiple meanings -.-;;


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 4, 2008)

Decon-D-Bingo said:


> ooh well... in that case I think that the same problem is just like anywhere else in the world... if they are not an elite (I will not judge that) then they are just like any other human and a lot less like a therian... though if they are an elite (That I will not say either) then... they are probably bad at it since I haven't heard of them before...
> 
> what exactly do you mean by elitist (like any other word it have multiple meanings -.-;;



basically someone who thinks they are better


----------



## Decon-D-Bingo (Dec 4, 2008)

Dchybrid said:


> basically someone who thinks they are better


  Then they are perfectly human... well... they could be an arrogant animal but still... lies so much more in human nature to raise it self higher above the other humans... and animals... and plants <.<;;;

 god most of us suck -.-;;; and the rest of us is but a biproduct of those arrogant bastards... (says the bastard <.<;;; )


----------



## Elsethan (Dec 4, 2008)

Can't you be both?
In other words right in between?


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 4, 2008)

Elsethan said:


> Can't you be both?
> In other words right in between?




Well in a way I am, in the fact that I like so many "furry" things and I feel I am spirtually connected to an animal. I dun mind calling myself a therian just I dun like the stigma that comes with it. I don't think I'm any better than a fur or something like that


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Elsethan said:


> Can't you be both?
> In other words right in between?



Both as in furrie and therian? That is absolutely possible, but seemingly rare.


----------



## Zseliq (Dec 4, 2008)

This thread is interesting, I  never even heard of the word Therian, till now.


----------



## Lowblock (Dec 4, 2008)

Wut?


----------



## ProgramFiles (Dec 4, 2008)

Same with Gummy, but seriously, what make you think you have an animal spirit/connection in your body.

dr doolittle can do this, not you.


----------



## Elsethan (Dec 4, 2008)

Okay for those of you who don't know what a Therian the best site I was able to find neutral information was:
http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Therian

I've noticed some say they don't know, and others say things when they don't know.

Extra info.
*Star Trek - Voyager, Episode 6: The Cloud *had a similar concept (wont say identical) in which Chakotay introduced captain Janeway to her "animal guide".


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 4, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Is it? You have the option of going down to the bottom of the page and turning it off. I should go back though and change it to a less...loud and energetic song.
> 
> EDIT: Different music now. Go check it out, it is much better I think. It's not unprofessional to have music on a page, only for certain kinds of music to be there.


Any music on a webpage is unprofessional. I don't want to listen to your stuff, usually I have my own stuff playing so if it just randomly starts up I get blasted with a jumbled mess until I can find the off switch 


Trpdwarf said:


> Both as in furrie and therian? That is absolutely possible, but seemingly rare.


Really?
You don't like Anthropomorphic Animals; but you're Therian?

They are both extremely similar, It's just a matter of personal feelings.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 4, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Any music on a webpage is unprofessional. I don't want to listen to your stuff, usually I have my own stuff playing so if it just randomly starts up I get blasted with a jumbled mess until I can find the off switch
> 
> Really?
> You don't like Anthropomorphic Animals; but you're Therian?
> ...



You go to a store, you have music. You go the mall you have music. You get in an elevator, you have music. Music is everywhere, in office buildings, cars, planes, what ever. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with having music on the front page or any page of a site as long as it is in good taste.

If you don't like the music you have the option to turn it off. At least I have the decency to pick good classics from good video-games where the music is kick-ass. So far not a single customer has complained about it. So drop it. I understand your intentions might be good, but if it were really unprofessional we wouldn't have commissions lined up.

Moving on...were you not reading? Therians tend to like to see anthro-animals in art. They have been making similar art to what you see in the fur fandom for a long time. The only difference, is that they do not make their art to cater to furries. Their art also tend to take a spiritual slant.


----------



## Tzolkin (Dec 5, 2008)

I never understood what the big glitch between the two groups was.. just another pointless squabble over technicalities again, I'd guess. The elitists on the Therian side wish not to be compared with the sexed-up side of furry, and the elitists on the furry side think it should only be about art and everyone else is crazy. IMO it's just a jumbled mess of implied differences and social BS that, when it comes down to the basics, means absolutely nothing. We are the same because we are different.

A group which divides itself is doomed to fall long before the true enemy ever arrives. Think of what happened to the Greeks..


----------



## jagdwolf (Dec 5, 2008)

*Main Entry:*  therian*Part of Speech:* _adj_*Definition:*  pertaining to placental or marsupial mammals*Etymology:*  Theria (from Greek themacrion 'beast', one the subclasses of Mammalia


*theâ‹…riâ‹…an*

â€‚ â€‚/ËˆÎ¸ÉªÉ™r
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





i
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




É™n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation 

 [*theer*-ee-_uh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_n] Show IPA Pronunciation 

 
*â€“adjective *1.(in some classification systems) belonging or pertaining to the group Theria, comprising the marsupial and placental mammals and their extinct ancestors.*â€“noun *2.a therian animal.
*Origin: *
< NL _Theri_(_a_) name of the group (< Gk _thÄ“rÃ­a,_ pl. of _thÄ“rÃ­on_ wild beast) + -an






there is the dictionary definitian.

From what I have gathered over the years, Threians believe thy are an animal spirit, soul etc, trapped in a human form.

Furries want to be like their chosen fursona, but don't believe they are the animal.


Me:  I am a wolf, trapped in this human skin, trying to find a way out.  I however, am a furry, in the since that I like cons, I like chat, I like the things that this form a paws allow me to do.

hope that helps.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Right now Therians have to watch as their spirtuality is bastardized by a group who in attempting to legitimize what they claim, take to trying to force another group to be under their umbrella.



Interestingly enough that's exactly how anthro artists feel about furries, just replace "spirituality" with "hobby," and  "what they claim" with "their subculture."

Also in my experience the  majority of all three groups is comprised of grandiose douche bags. The only  real difference is what they choose to be grandiose douche bags about. Therians seem to be the lesser evil though.


----------



## Psudowolf (Dec 5, 2008)

Lowblock said:


> Wut?


 My thoughts exactly.

I don't associate myself with therians. Nor do I believe that I have an animals soul trapped in my body. 
But I do notice certain things that I have in common with certain animals


----------



## Talvi (Dec 5, 2008)

Elsethan said:


> Extra info.
> *Star Trek - Voyager, Episode 6: The Cloud *had a similar concept (wont say identical) in which Chakotay introduced captain Janeway to her "animal guide".


Ah-koo-chee-moy-a!


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> You go to a store, you have music. You go the mall you have music. You get in an elevator, you have music. Music is everywhere, in office buildings, cars, planes, what ever. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with having music on the front page or any page of a site as long as it is in good taste.
> 
> If you don't like the music you have the option to turn it off. At least I have the decency to pick good classics from good video-games where the music is kick-ass. So far not a single customer has complained about it. So drop it. I understand your intentions might be good, but if it were really unprofessional we wouldn't have commissions lined up.


The difference is that 99% of the time I have my OWN music playing on my computer, and I don't care what your music is, if it's blaring in connection with whatever I am blaring that sounds bad. There is also the fact that if the person doesn't like the music type they will instantly be turned off by your webpage, so if they continue to browse your webpage (instead of just closing it like I do) their opinion will be curved to be far worse than if it was quiet (like 90% of the web pages out there!)... but if you do not wish to better it I cannot force you to.



Trpdwarf said:


> Moving on...were you not reading? Therians tend to like to see anthro-animals in art. They have been making similar art to what you see in the fur fandom for a long time. The only difference, is that they do not make their art to cater to furries. Their art also tend to take a spiritual slant.


By "cater to furries" you mean "Sexually Explicit"? I believe you are confused in regards to what Furry artwork is. It is artwork featuring Anthropomorphic Animals/Humans. Even if it has a "spiritual slant" it is still Furry. Even if it was created by a Therian it is still Furry. Even if the creator doesn't know WTF "Furry" is, the artwork is still "Furry".

Furry is a definition for a specific element implemented in your Artwork.


----------



## Elsethan (Dec 5, 2008)

Talvi said:


> Ah-koo-chee-moy-a!



"I am far from the sacred places of my grandfathers, far from the bones of my people..."


----------



## dog_over_man (Dec 5, 2008)

Therians are just a bunch of middle class white people who wish they were born with something better to do than fill the voids in their souls with work and material possessions.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 5, 2008)

I'm a therian, but I'm no longer involved in the community. Almost every therian I've met is stuck up and no fun at all. That's one of the reasons they seem to hate furries; because furries are never really serious. 

I'm one of those rare therians that think it's okay to laugh at yourself every now and then.


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 5, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I'm a therian, but I'm no longer involved in the community. Almost every therian I've met is stuck up and no fun at all. That's one of the reasons they seem to hate furries; because furries are never really serious.
> 
> I'm one of those rare therians that think it's okay to laugh at yourself every now and then.



hahaha same. its ok to sit back and have fun! god knows I did when I attended ac for the first time and will be doing so next year. I take my spirtuality seriously too but god some dun know how to just let loose. 

I dunno if you noticed this but you saw how a lot of therians(not all) insisted you had to be all "native american like" to be considered one? dear god >_>;


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 5, 2008)

Dchybrid said:


> I dunno if you noticed this but you saw how a lot of therians(not all) insisted you had to be all "native american like" to be considered one? dear god >_>;


Christ, yes. It's like you have to believe in totems and be a shaman to be a therian. Wtf? X3


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 5, 2008)

Jack_Haystack said:


> smooth... some one who believes they have an animal spirit and as such are in the wrong body
> 
> and I've not being about much but while ive not noticed this problem, I can imagine it being there some how with the fact that therians can hold higher views of animals than most



Otherkin believe that.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 5, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Christ, yes. It's like you have to believe in totems and be a shaman to be a therian. Wtf? X3



Some believe that to be Native American or part of justifies them being a Therian....Which I find completely redundant, or have Native American blood.

I have native American Blood, but I do not care. I am a Therain, I am not Stuck up like the Sterotypical Therian. I do not get involved with That does not justify me to be a Therain. I do not get involved in the Theiran community because of a few who have a "Holier-Than-Thou" attitude against others, or a consider one species to be above the rest. 

I have spiritual beliefs, but Rationality comes first before Spirituality in some things.

And there is also the issue of people Mixing the definitions and mistaking "Otherkin" to be Theiran.

EDIT: I didn't stay long for the Theiran and Otherkin pannel due to the douche-baggery of the people and so forth.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> The difference is that 99% of the time I have my OWN music playing on my computer, and I don't care what your music is, if it's blaring in connection with whatever I am blaring that sounds bad. There is also the fact that if the person doesn't like the music type they will instantly be turned off by your webpage, so if they continue to browse your webpage (instead of just closing it like I do) their opinion will be curved to be far worse than if it was quiet (like 90% of the web pages out there!)... but if you do not wish to better it I cannot force you to.
> 
> By "cater to furries" you mean "Sexually Explicit"? I believe you are confused in regards to what Furry artwork is. It is artwork featuring Anthropomorphic Animals/Humans. Even if it has a "spiritual slant" it is still Furry. Even if it was created by a Therian it is still Furry. Even if the creator doesn't know WTF "Furry" is, the artwork is still "Furry".
> 
> Furry is a definition for a specific element implemented in your Artwork.



Not this again.

Anthro animal does not equal furrie and it is arrogant and pretentious to even think so. It is not our place to force people under our umbrella by being a weasel with words.

Anthro animal /=/ Furrie. If people would stop being so arrogant within the furrie community trying to force everything they like or similar to it under our umbrella, willing or not, you would find less people hating us.

Anibus is not furrie. Sonic is not furrie. Fox McCloud is not furrie. Scooby Do is not furrie. Crystal is not furrie. The art that I got for my concept sketch is furrie but the other stuff that the artist made is not even though it looks that way. Anthro animal does not equal furrie. Anthro animal is anthro animal and if it is made with the intent to be for furries it is furrie but only then. People like to think otherwise and that is why some therians get pissed off. Why wouldn't they?

They draw anthro art as anthro artists...and probably have been drawing it longer than most fur artists....and then somehow even though they either do not engage in the furrie fandom, or are not aware of it....somehow their art is furrie. It makes no sense at all.


----------



## Whitenoise (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Not this again.
> 
> Anthro animal does not equal furrie and it is arrogant and pretentious to even think so. It is not our place to force people under our umbrella by being a weasel with words.
> 
> ...



Thank you, I can't tell you how tired I am of arrogant furries spouting that crap.


----------



## kitsubaka (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Not this again.
> 
> Anthro animal does not equal furrie and it is arrogant and pretentious to even think so. It is not our place to force people under our umbrella by being a weasel with words.
> 
> ...



^ this times 23094823904823904823904890238 I am always pissed when people say the Egyptian gods and other animal head gods and such are furrie oh lord


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Whitenoise said:


> Thank you, I can't tell you how tired I am of arrogant furries spouting that crap.



No problem...although now I expect a few sonic fan-boys ect, to come in and bitch me out because how dare I suggest a video-game character is not automatically furrie because it is an anthropomorphic animal.:neutral:


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

kitsubaka said:


> ^ this times 23094823904823904823904890238 I am always pissed when people say the Egyptian gods and other animal head gods and such are furrie oh lord



Lawl...that is the thing though.

You can draw the stuff to cater to the fandom. I know there is this person or group that draws Egyptian styled furrie artwork....but seeing made to cater to us is different than just making it. Of course, to some people intention doesn't matter.

I am pretty damn certain though the Egyptians did not intend their half human half animal creations to cater to us future existing people. They created them for spiritual reasons, and religious reasons as well.

You can sort of draw a similar line between that and therians. Many Therians use their spirituality as a basis of of their art. So what ever animal is their totem, that is what they tend to draw. That can also translate to them drawing for other therians who lack the artist talent. Some therians turn around and draw for furries but only as an anthro-artist, and not as a furrie artist.

Forcing therians under the umbrella of Furrie, is just a silly as trying to force Egyptian depictions of Anubis, Osirus, Ibis, Horus and so forth as furrie for the times the gods are depicted as feral animals that the gods are using as a way of "Visiting" the earth and so forth. It's like trying to force Sonic to furrie...and all other things. There is no intention, and it matters not if the people are unaware that we exist.

Lots of furries don't like this though. I don't understand. What is so wrong with admitting that not everything anthro-animal is furrie?


----------



## Kilre (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Lots of furries don't like this though. I don't understand. What is so wrong with admitting that not everything anthro-animal is furrie?



There is this box, you see? People like to think inside them. It's nice and warm inside the box, comfortable too.

I think it's from some country named "Fragile".


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Kilre said:


> There is this box, you see? People like to think inside them. It's nice and warm inside the box, comfortable too.
> 
> I think it's from some country named "Fragile".



But...I don't like it in the box. It's too stuffy! I get in trouble if I break it. So I'd rather be on the outside....more room to run around.

That has to go in my sig. It's so cute and true. Aww...can't...it's too long or something.


----------



## Talvi (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Lawl...that is the thing though.
> 
> You can draw the stuff to cater to the fandom. I know there is this person or group that draws Egyptian styled furrie artwork....but seeing made to cater to us is different than just making it. Of course, to some people intention doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



Ancient egyptian "fursonas". I've heard it all now


----------



## ToeClaws (Dec 5, 2008)

As with most things (damn near all things) when it comes to humanity, there seems to be this need for drawing lines and trying to raise oneself up above another in either a physical, emotional, spiritual or all-of-the-above way, then justify it through lots and lots of words and actions.  

There you go - that pretty much sums up every war, every disagreement, every smile, every frown and all the strife that mankind has endured for all of history.  

It comes as no surprise, then, that the same problem bleeds into the "furry" community where people start to draw lines and stuff and segment off.  Now... I don't care if people have different likes, kinks, oddities - whatever.  Part of being a free individual is being allowed to have those things and enjoy them.  The problem occurs when some of those people then try to profess that they're better or more right or whatever than the others.  

Truth is simple: Everyone has their own opinion and thoughts on what's good, fun, and right whether that's fapping off to some lovely yiff art, or meditating and speaking with your totem animal in a dream walk.  If you think one is superior to the other and/or look down on people because they're not one of you... you're arrogant, and if you're not careful, that leads to such nasty things as idiocy, prejudice and ignorance.

We are who we are.  Those that accept it (most of the fandom) are doing good.  Those that have a problem with it and can't keep it to themselves are the issue, be they Therian, Otherkin, Furs, Scalies or miscellaneous.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 5, 2008)

SO true...and that applies to a lot of certain people here on FA...


----------



## kitsubaka (Dec 5, 2008)

Talvi said:


> Ancient egyptian "fursonas". I've heard it all now



Yea lol I have seen a lot of them and really they don't bother me at all. Like say a jackal ACTUAL RANDOM JACKAL in old Egyptian garb as well as other animals is pretty awesome, but I also love the mythology of Egypt and have some Egyptian ancestors so I heard a lot of the stories and things from cousins when I was little.
BUT the whole argument with people calling the actual gods furrie is just annoying to me.


----------



## Kilre (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> But...I don't like it in the box. It's too stuffy! I get in trouble if I break it. So I'd rather be on the outside....more room to run around.
> 
> That has to go in my sig. It's so cute and true. Aww...can't...it's too long or something.



There's cake inside the box.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 5, 2008)

Kilre said:


> There's cake inside the box.



The cake is a lie! (Sorry, couldn't resist <.<)


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Kilre said:


> There's cake inside the box.



There is also cake outside the box. I know...because I ate part of it, and it was a delicious and moist lie.

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1eX6gHsspc


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

kitsubaka said:


> Yea lol I have seen a lot of them and really they don't bother me at all. Like say a jackal ACTUAL RANDOM JACKAL in old Egyptian garb as well as other animals is pretty awesome, but I also love the mythology of Egypt and have some Egyptian ancestors so I heard a lot of the stories and things from cousins when I was little.
> BUT the whole argument with people calling the actual gods furrie is just annoying to me.



It is understandable to be annoyed by the pretentiousness of the it.

Also I agree...the mythology from Egypt is fascination...but mythology is fascinating in general.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Not this again.
> 
> Anthro animal does not equal furrie and it is arrogant and pretentious to even think so. It is not our place to force people under our umbrella by being a weasel with words.
> 
> ...


It's Human + Animal that = Furry. Just because they do not know the definition doesn't mean they do not fall within it. 

If you were growing orange but called them clemantines it doesn't mean one of us is right, and one is wrong, we simply call the same thing by different words.

It'd be like saying that Anything that isn't in english is wrong simply because your word is different from theirs.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> It's Human + Animal that = Furry. Just because they do not know the definition doesn't mean they do not fall within it.
> 
> If you were growing orange but called them clemantines it doesn't mean one of us is right, and one is wrong, we simply call the same thing by different words.
> 
> It'd be like saying that Anything that isn't in english is wrong simply because your word is different from theirs.



No, Human + Animal equals anthropomorphic animal and that is it. Now Anthro-animal plus furrie fandom equals furrie.

You are failing to see the point here again. Your first attempt at a comparison fails. We are talking about a word that implies many things that anthropomorphic art does not mean. Don't try to oversimplify it, and don't try to force people and things that have nothing to do with us to be under our umbrella.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> No, Human + Animal equals anthropomorphic animal and that is it. Now Anthro-animal plus furrie fandom equals furrie.
> 
> You are failing to see the point here again. Your first attempt at a comparison fails. We are talking about a word that implies many things that anthropomorphic art does not mean. Don't try to oversimplify it, and don't try to force people and things that have nothing to do with us to be under our umbrella.


Furry (when speaking of art) is just a simplified term used to describe Anthropomorphic Animals. I don't want to have to type Anthropomorphic Animals every time something that has Animal and Human features comes up. Instead I use Furry to describe it.

Take note I'm not saying you are a Furry. I'm saying Art that has Anthropomorphic Animals in it is interchangeable with Art that has Furries in it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Furry (when speaking of art) is just a simplified term used to describe Anthropomorphic Animals. I don't want to have to type Anthropomorphic Animals every time something that has Animal and Human features comes up. Instead I use Furry to describe it.
> 
> Take note I'm not saying you are a Furry. I'm saying Art that has Anthropomorphic Animals in it is interchangeable with Art that has Furries in it.



No, it is not.

Furry/furrie is a term dealing with the furry/furrie community. Therefore it only makes sense to call something associated strictly with the community or catering to it, furry/furrie.

Anthropomorphic art is not strictly a furrie thing therefore it should not be called furrie unless it pertains to the fandom. Otherwise you force an association/stigma upon things that haven nothing to do with us. Oh I forget, we've been through this before and you don't care.

I'm saying art that has anthropomorphic animals is not interchangeable with art that has furries in it. You have stuff showing up as early as Ancient Sumeria, dealing with anthro animals...and that definitely is not furrie.

Depictions in ancient Egyptian art can be anthropomorphic animal related...but that doesn't make it furrie.

Sonic may be an anthro hedgehog but that doesn't make him furrie. Sports mascots may be anthro animals...but that doesn't make them furrie. When an anthro animal artist who is a therian draws her totem animal, which might be anthro-animal...that doesn't make it furrie. The term applies to us and us only...you don't slap on everyone else just because they like similar things.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Dec 5, 2008)

Therian stigma usually revolves around different opinions and beliefs.  I call myself therian because of personal experiences. I am slowly learning to accept others' opinions, I just want others to do the same.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> No, it is not.
> 
> Furry/furrie is a term dealing with the furry/furrie community. Therefore it only makes sense to call something associated strictly with the community or catering to it, furry/furrie.
> 
> ...


Whatever bitch. I can see this is going no where. There is no discussing the matter with you. You're too stubborn and thick heading trying to stop people from applying labels to you that you do not realize you are applying a much broader label on everyone else.


----------



## Kilre (Dec 5, 2008)

What does it take for something that was not made with the intention of being labeled "furry" to not be labeled so?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

lupinealchemist said:


> Therian stigma usually revolves around different opinions and beliefs.  I call myself therian because of personal experiences. I am slowly learning to accept others' opinions, I just want others to do the same.



You know, when you stop to think about it which really is stranger?

Therian: Person who believe they have a totem animal.

Otherkin: Person believes they have a soul other than human.

Christian: Person believes a virgin birth leads to a child who grew up, died for human sins, comes back as a zombie, and people worship him by symbolically eating his flesh and blood.

Morman(Some), Man must have many wives to reach Heaven, and vampires can sparkle in sunlight. (don't take this description seriously)

Buddhism: Person believes in Reincarnation and Nirvana, and Buddha.

Pastafarian: Person believes that the death of pirates leads to global warming, and afterlife filled with beer. Deity is a flying sphegghti monster.

Really, none of them are stranger than the other. It all depends upon what you believe. So as long as you know what you claim to be part of, and you don't go crazy or force it upon other people, it's all cool.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Whatever bitch. I can see this is going no where. There is no discussing the matter with you. You're too stubborn and thick heading trying to stop people from applying labels to you that you do not realize you are applying a much broader label on everyone else.



It's not my fault I understand the implications better than you do.

Don't make me laugh. Calling something furrie has much more broad yet somewhat specific implications than calling something anthropomorphic art. One describes the nature of the style as it is, and as it applies for many things, and the other implicates a drama loving, sex crazy, socially inept stigma. I'll leave you to figure out which is which one day. Have a good day.


----------



## Skyfox1 (Dec 5, 2008)

I may be kinda new here but I don't understand this supposed animosity between furries, therians, and otherkin.  Otherkin is the variety of therian whose spiritual connection or soul-in-the-wrong-body happens to be an animal or creature that does not exist in this physical world, but for the individual in question it is no less real.  Here's a link to a page that does quite a good job explaining the various terms:  
http://www.geocities.com/queenwolf2007/therianthropy.htm

I also don't understand this distinction between anthropomorphic art and furry art people are making.  As far as I've always taken it the two are interchangeable or at most anthro art is a subset of furry art, and furry art also can contain the subset of natural-body animal art.  But whatever, to each his own for personal interpretation of the definitions.

Personally I am therian, otherkin if you want to be specific, because I know myself to be an anthro fox stuck in a human body.  I don't know for a fact I'm not a natural fox instead, but anthro is how I feel the most sense of identity.  I realized it earlier this year after a lifetime of feeling not quite right, feeling uncomfortable with my body but unable to put my finger on why.  While I'm glad to finally have that sense of true self, it also presents a lot of mental strife and the difficult task (difficult for me, anyway) of accepting things as they are.   There is a stigma to it mainly because those who don't know about it or understand it tend to be pretty harsh about such things.  When I first realized it in myself I was fairly outgoing with telling people about it but soon decided it was best to limit who I tell about it because I don't want people to think I've lost my mind.  In my thoughts about it I found it to be quite similar to transsexuality, where a person of one gender is trapped in the body of the other gender.  They may have more freedoms with being open about it these days but they have a history of carrying a very harsh stigma.  The difference is they have the surgical option of altering their body to the one they correctly feel comfortable in.  Therians don't have such an option; all the surgery in the world won't alter the fact that the structure under the surface is a human body.

We must also remember that one douchebag of any group does not automatically define the entire group as douchebag.  This is true for any group and any douchebag.

As far as the animosity between furries and therians I just haven't seen it, or any "elitist" mentality from one side or the other, although I haven't associated very much with other therians.  If there is some rivalry then why would there be therianthropy discussions at furry conventions?   I personally love furries, the furry fandom, and furry art whether anthropomorphic animals, natural animals, or fantasy creatures.  Good art is good art and crappy art is crappy art, whether or not somebody defines it as furry and whether or not the artist is therian.  I don't see why either has to be mutually inclusive or exclusive.  I'm a furry and a therian, and I'm proud to be both, as well as proud to call other furries my friends.  My visits to furry conventions have been some of the best mini vacations I've ever had.  I'm quite a reserved, introverted person (antisocial bastard, I call myself), but on my first visit to a con it felt so wonderful to hug somebody in a fursuit who was a complete stranger.  And of all the places in the world where somebody can feel free to openly be one's true self, a furry convention seems to be it.  Why should anybody feel they have to hide a part of themselves?  We're all in it together.

Skyfox


----------



## Sernion (Dec 5, 2008)

So.. that's what a therian is. (Apparently, I'm one too. Believing in connection of spirit and all that.)
But why would therians look down on furries? I don't really get this thing. Aren't they basically the same?


----------



## electmeking (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> So as long as you know what you claim to be part of, and you don't *go crazy or force it upon other people*, it's all cool.



This.



Trpdwarf said:


> It's not my fault I understand the implications better than you do.



Its what youre doing.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

> I also don't understand this distinction between anthropomorphic art and furry art people are making. As far as I've always taken it the two are interchangeable or at most anthro art is a subset of furry art, and furry art also can contain the subset of natural-body animal art. But whatever, to each his own for personal interpretation of the definitions.



Anthropomorphic animal art is not a subset of furrie art. It is the other way around. The distinction is made because culturally, and historically the concept has been around for a long time, is prevalent in certain aspects of society.

When you associate something with furrie art you associate it with the furrie fandom. Since not all anthro art has anything to do with the fandom the distinction is made. To me it is an important distinction because it is not right to force other people to be under our umbrella when they have nothing to do with us. Plus it can hurt the fandom in the long run.

An example is this....let us say you are a fan of Sonic. You've been playing the Sonic games since a they first appeared on Sega. You've followed each game and each cartoon and so forth. Well one day you hear about these "Furries" who call what you are into furrie. So you go online to check out. Then you get blasted with sonic porn by furries artists.

Or take it that someone is an anthropomorphic artist. They draw anthro art because they enjoy it, but they do not engage in it with the fandom. They just feel no interest in being part of the fandom.

Suddenly the site you run is crashed because Anonymous mistook you as a furrie. Then when you get it back you find yourself harrassed elsewhere?

I'll come back to this later...going to get a tree.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 5, 2008)

So, it seems the reason you don't want to get involved with Furries is not because of some actual distinction but simply because you think we are the shit of the world and you believe you are better than us.

I gotcha.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 5, 2008)

It sounds like we need an official dictionary to come up with official definitions for this stuff.  Everyone seems to have his own opinion on the matter, which is different in some fundamental way from everyone else's.

Anyway, if 'therianism' is like totemism or shamanism, maybe some of the members are arrogant about it because they believe they've reached a higher spiritual level than us laymen who just like to look at art?  Same reason you feel a sense of condescension emanating from a devout Christian who just learned that you haven't accepted Christ as your soul's savior, or from a Hindu who just learned that you've never heard of the Bhagavad Gita; they feel they've achieved something greater than you, and their human nature wants them to shove it in your face.
Not that I have any clue what I'm talking about, but it's an idea.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 5, 2008)

The thing is, I am not trying to tell him that he is a Furry not a Therian, I am saying that Furry Art is the same as Anthro Art


----------



## Danale (Dec 5, 2008)

Furry = blanket term to describe anything that involves animal characteristics + human characteristics.

A person who has never heard of the word "furry" before will call Anubis an Egyptian god, Sonic a Wapanese cartoon, and WoW's druid cat form 'kitty dps'.

Once you hear the term "furry", it becomes the definition for all those things.

Bolt is a furry.
Sonic is a furry.
Anubis is a furry.
Druids on WoW are furries.
We're all furries.
Etc.

Whether we yiff other furries, draw cartoon animals or animal-people, believe we have animal spirits, love animals, make love to animals, etc. etc., that's all sub-plot.

But if it involves animals and human personality/characteristics, it's furry.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 5, 2008)

Sonic =/= Furry
Spyro =/= furry

Crash bandicoot =/= Furry

Tauren =/= furry
Draenei =/= furry
Sabrina Online = Furry
Usagi yojimbo (equal or less than) Furry (can be debatable)

I jusdt love the Arrogance of the fandom that we have to accept everything that wasn't made for us. Sure, I have been a fan of Crash and Spyro for ages, but it does not mean that it was mean for the Furry fandom just because they some Human qualities. The creators of the games were not furries and they did not make it for Furs.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 5, 2008)

Danale said:


> Furry = blanket term to describe anything that involves animal characteristics + human characteristics.
> 
> A person who has never heard of the word "furry" before will call Anubis an Egyptian god, Sonic a Wapanese cartoon, and WoW's druid cat form 'kitty dps'.
> 
> ...



No, this is not true.

Furrie is not a blanket term for anthropomorphic animal art. Anthropomorphic animal, or Anthro-animal if you want to shorter in, or Anthro if you want to hyper shorten it....is the blanket term.

As for "Once you hear the word it becomes the defination for all things" utter bull-shit. That's pretentious and that's wrong. As someone who loves history that is insulting. As someone who plays video-games that is insulting. Who are you, and who are we to force the world and past to conform to us/you?

This is not a case where you have Kmet turn into Egypt due to language differences. This is taking one thing that encompasses many things, and forcing it to be under the umbrella of a single and relatively new fandom. Somehow I don't think this is our place.

People wonder why people hate us, don't accept, don't like, or troll us. It is because we insist on forcing the world to conform to us.

You all just don't understand the implications involved. Lurk moar.

EDIT: Due to the nature of the fandom, and the amount of sexual stuff being imported in, it is very important we separate the fan art, and the furrie art we make from general anthropomorphic animals. Otherwise you are going to have to deal with the full blame of parents who end up with kids finding porn of childhood gems, because we forced everything Disney animal related to be Furrie. You then have to deal with all video-game fans blaming you(furries) when they get their eyes gouged out by porn and ruined by it. Then you have to deal with an even bigger negative stigma of this fandom being unsafe not just for kids but teenagers as well. Then you give the media even more fodder to place with to demonize us. This is why you do not force an association of furrie with anthro animals in different things such as games, movies, media, books, and so forth.


----------



## KiloCharlie (Dec 5, 2008)

don't the two mix half the time?


----------



## Xeans (Dec 5, 2008)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sonic =/= Furry
> Spyro =/= furry
> 
> Crash bandicoot =/= Furry
> ...


 
You don't have to make something for furs for it to be furry. 
Sonic and crash are anthropomorphized versions of animals, I think they're furry

But enough digressing!
Most furrys don't have an issue with therians it's just the ones that do make a lot of noise about it.
And I'm also a furry and a therian


----------



## Xeans (Dec 5, 2008)

KiloCharlie said:


> don't the two mix half the time?


 
Yeah, they do a lot.
Well, in that I see a lot of therians who are also furrys.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 5, 2008)

Xeans said:


> You don't have to make something for furs for it to be furry.
> Sonic and crash are anthropomorphized versions of animals, I think they're furry
> 
> But enough digressing!
> ...



But they are not made for the Fandom, so they are not. If they were made for the fandom, then we wouldn't worry about being attacked by people who saw Sonic, Shadow and/or Tails doing something similar to lemon Party.

So am I at the same time.

The Theirans have an Issue with furries, the Furries have an issue with theirans, and the otherkin have an issue with both, and vice versa. It's like Rock, paper, Scissors.


----------



## Danale (Dec 5, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> blah blah blah blah



It's not an issue of "forcing" anything on anyone. What, did I come off as some psycho envisioning everyone in the world holding hands and singing under one furry rainbow with fake tails tied to their belt loops?

I'm talking about what furry means to the largest amount of people. If you're some random schmo who's new to the Internet and has never heard of "furry", the following applies:

Anubis = Egyptian god
Tauren = WoW race
Sonic = game cartoon
Bugs Bunny = looney tunes

If you have spent any amount of time online perusing forums and getting a feel for all these hidden subcultures of the Internet, then the following applies:

Anubis = furry
Tauren = furry
Sonic = furry
Bugs Bunny = furry

Somone familiar with the term 'furry', on a basic level, isn't going to bother to read the description when you post some wolf anthro in the forest. They'll call it furry, and they'll assume that on some harddrive somewhere are at least a hundred pornographic drawings of it.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm not saying HEIL FURRY!!!, I'm just saying this is how it is.

Be honest, the more involved in the 'furry fandom' you are, the more you see 'furry' in anything: Bolt's a talking dog...furry. Crazy Fox is...well, obvious. But some soccer mom using AOL that's never heard the word will think they're just cartoons.

Your whole schpiel about definitions and categories and sub-categories, that's great for you and the extremely limited amount of people aware of those things (much less even CARE), but for everyone else, furry is furry is furry.

I could defend my art til I'm blue in the face as being simply anthropomorphic/cartoony, as I often do, because I don't draw porn and don't want to be associated with it. A number of people here on FA might be so kind as to learn and respect that, but 99% of everyone else who visits my page will see: animal-people = furry = yiffy, unsound mind, fursuits, and everything else that's associated with the fandom.

Also please don't interpret my tone as shouting, I'm really just discussing how this works.

It seems to me that the rabid 'death to all furries and anything remotely furry-related' craze has died down some, but as for therians vs. furries or otherkin vs. furries or therians vs. otherkins, a.) to the eyes of the rest of the world, you're all the same, and b.) who cares?

I can't believe you would get insulted over this and bring "history" in to it.  We're no different than nerdy Stargate fans or nerdy Race car fans. I'm sure those people argue to death about different TV series or which oil is best or whatever, but in the end it's all the same.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 6, 2008)

We're not saying it was created FOR the fandom, or that it was MEANT for the fandom. We're simply saying that the Term Furry = Anthropomorphic Animal = Spiro / Crash / Tauren / Etc


----------



## ToeClaws (Dec 6, 2008)

Besides - it's not about what is or isn't "furry"; the issue crops up when someone who believes one thing decides _their_ belief is better (or more righteous or more spiritual... whatever), and then treat their opinions as if they were facts.


----------



## electmeking (Dec 6, 2008)

Anthro is to Furry,
as all life in the universe are to the Borg.


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 6, 2008)

Umm... people should just shut up and get along. 

Furries like animals (and some pretend to be animals) and therians think they are animals. Oh wow, there's just SO MANY DIFFERENCES. 

Eh, I think I'm being a little too optimistic for this thread.


----------



## drewdle (Dec 6, 2008)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sonic =/= Furry
> Spyro =/= furry
> 
> Crash bandicoot =/= Furry
> ...



I don't understand this. Checked your tail recently? There is no arrogance in appreciating someone's creativity using new interpretations and directions than the originator intended. It's like the first time you look at a Picasso; everyone sees something different, and everyone will take away a different experience. 

No, Sonic was not "made" for the furry fandom. Does it have to be? If anthropomorphic art and characters had to be made "for" the fandom, there would never have been a fandom, as there wouldn't have been any art to enjoy, as there would have been nobody to enjoy it...

*BANG* 

Ow. But seriously. Shit doesn't need to be made for a furry for them to enjoy it. The term "anthro" refers to animals with human like qualities. Last time I checked, foxes don't wear suits and fly dogfighters, and hedgehogs aren't blue and wear tennis shoes. Well, okay, we're not blue either, but do you see the point? If it's anthro, it can be appreciated by the furry fandom because that's what we're here to appreciate. 

We just all appreciate in different ways, and some of us relate to animals much stronger than others.


----------



## drewdle (Dec 6, 2008)

PriestRevan said:


> Umm... people should just shut up and get along.
> 
> Furries like animals (and some pretend to be animals) and therians think they are animals. Oh wow, there's just SO MANY DIFFERENCES.
> 
> Eh, I think I'm being a little too optimistic for this thread.



What he said.


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 6, 2008)

Sernion said:


> So.. that's what a therian is. (Apparently, I'm one too. Believing in connection of spirit and all that.)
> But why would therians look down on furries? I don't really get this thing. Aren't they basically the same?



eh thats where it gets kinda murky for some. a lot of things overlap between therians and furries, such as having a anthropmorphic alterego. I'm guessing its that(some)Therians feel that the furries have no respect or aren't serious enough. Which I can understand but some therians just need to lighten up. That no matter what they do it can't effect your own beliefs unless you let it.  Though from my opening post I probably sound like a hypocrit lol


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> We're not saying it was created FOR the fandom, or that it was MEANT for the fandom. We're simply saying that the Term Furry = Anthropomorphic Animal = Spiro / Crash / Tauren / Etc



Before I respond to the other person:

It doesn't matter if you are trying to imply it is meant for the fandom or not. Calling it Furry or Furrie forces the implication regardless of if you mean it to be so or not.

It is understandable that many furries will cling to the Tauren race for example....but at the same time labeling it a "Furrie" first of all is an insult to what the race is supposed to represent. It's like, furries came to WoW found a favorite race, ignore what it is supposed to be, and try to own it. That is what you make it out to look like when you start labeling things you like as Furrie when the intent is not there for it to be so. The Tauren race does not exist for furries....if you take the time to look you will see most of the races on the Horde side, are a combo of beast and humanoid themes.

That is the problem with us furs. We are so selfish. The more we are a furrie, the less we are able to differentiate that which influenced us to be furrie or like furrie, and actually furrie stuff. The more desensitized we come to the stigma attached to us, the less likely we are to correct when we unfairly cause a stigma on unrelated things that we like.

That leads into why some therians highly hate us. Because we have to associate every thing out there that is anthro-animal as being furrie to suit our own means. We don't even care about the implications but therians understand the implications usually when they get attacked by trolls and stuff and get accused of being furrie. Golden-Wolf as good an artist as she is, is not a furrie and not a furrie artist. She might be willing to make art for furries but she is not a furrie artist...she is a therian. Hence why her art tend to have native american/spiritual themes.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

drewdle said:


> I don't understand this. Checked your tail recently? There is no arrogance in appreciating someone's creativity using new interpretations and directions than the originator intended. It's like the first time you look at a Picasso; everyone sees something different, and everyone will take away a different experience.
> 
> No, Sonic was not "made" for the furry fandom. Does it have to be? If anthropomorphic art and characters had to be made "for" the fandom, there would never have been a fandom, as there wouldn't have been any art to enjoy, as there would have been nobody to enjoy it...
> 
> ...



You don't see the arrogance of taking someone else's work, and labeling it to suit your fancy? Amazing.

I do not understand how you can think that if things have to be made for us to be made furrie that we wouldn't have a fandom. Have you looked at FA recently? We have tons of artists who make stuff just for us....it is very easy to be inspired by something growing up, later on turn around and make something like it to suit a sub-culture that is based around the idea. Making something around that idea does not make that idea suddenly exclusive to you, therefore giving you the right to slap on a new name you created for yourself.

We have an entire community to cater to us. So there is no reason to reach out and start slapping our label on things that inspired us...but are not for us, or by us.

FYI: The term Anthro is a shortened version of Anthropomorphic....and you have to be careful. We tend to shorten Anthropomorphic Animals to Anthro, but Anthropomorphic means giving something human qualities and that is it. Only when you attach zoomorphic qualities  do you get Anthro animals. Otherwise you would be dealing with something simply humanesque and that is it.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 6, 2008)

PriestRevan said:


> Umm... people should just shut up and get along.
> 
> Furries like animals (and some pretend to be animals) *and therians think they are animals*. Oh wow, there's just SO MANY DIFFERENCES.
> 
> Eh, I think I'm being a little too optimistic for this thread.


Nope, try again.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2008)

drewdle said:


> I don't understand this. Checked your tail recently? There is no arrogance in appreciating someone's creativity using new interpretations and directions than the originator intended. It's like the first time you look at a Picasso; everyone sees something different, and everyone will take away a different experience.
> 
> No, Sonic was not "made" for the furry fandom. Does it have to be? If anthropomorphic art and characters had to be made "for" the fandom, there would never have been a fandom, as there wouldn't have been any art to enjoy, as there would have been nobody to enjoy it...
> 
> ...



But Art made for Theirans is "Not" made for furries, and people do not understand that. 
For instance: Goldenwolf makes theiran based art, and the reason why she gets pissy at people is for the fact they keep labeling it "Furry". If the intent is not for furries, that does not give us the right to make it furry.


It has Human qualities, that's what we enjoy, but I fins it that when people label Sonic, Spyro, or Crash bandicoot for "Furry" art, or saying it is made for the fandom. We already have a bunch of Artists who dedicate themselves to making Art that pay Homage to the Art form of Anthropomorphic.

And you are right, it can be enjoyed by others who enjoy Anthro-Art, but it does not make it for "Furries".

I enjoy the Theiran art, and to see the Spirituality attached to it. It is just like the Christian art in the 15th-16th Century: it's an uplift for the soul.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Besides - it's not about what is or isn't "furry"; the issue crops up when someone who believes one thing decides _their_ belief is better (or more righteous or more spiritual... whatever), and then treat their opinions as if they were facts.



What is and isn't furrie and our way of treating that question directly correlates to the topic at hand, just so you know.

That said that is another thing. It is something I have noticed more with Otherkin than with Therian though. I have met more Otherkin who feel they are better than everyone else due to the belief they have some amazing animal or mythological soul instead of a "mundane" human one.

So they become very arrogant and anti-social towards anyone who isn't exactly like them in that they have a similar belief of similar animal or mythological creature as their soul. They will form little online groups and attempt to force people to believe they have something....sort of like with FF House and Jenova and Hojo if you have read into that.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Nope, try again.



I agree with Shenzi. Person should insert a coin, and try again.

Or just read some of the posts explaining what Therian is as opposed to what Otherkin is.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2008)

Dchybrid said:


> eh thats where it gets kinda murky for some. a lot of things overlap between therians and furries, such as having a anthropmorphic alterego. I'm guessing its that(some)Therians feel that the furries have no respect or aren't serious enough. Which I can understand but some therians just need to lighten up. That no matter what they do it can't effect your own beliefs unless you let it.  Though from my opening post I probably sound like a hypocrit lol



We all need to sit down and pass the "Peace Pipe" once in awhile.

Or...bake muffins. The world would be much better if everyone baked muffins..And plus...Muffins are good!


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 6, 2008)

I wonder if there are any food Otherkins.

"No dad, I'm a muffin on the inside! That's why I have to glue blueberries to myself! It's a spiritual thing!"

I'm thinking too hard...


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I wonder if there are any food Otherkins.
> 
> "No dad, I'm a muffin on the inside! That's why I have to glue blueberries to myself! It's a spiritual thing!"
> 
> I'm thinking too hard...




LOLwut?!

If they are or were, they are not anymore. Bird otherkin....


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Danale said:


> It's not an issue of "forcing" anything on anyone. What, did I come off as some psycho envisioning everyone in the world holding hands and singing under one furry rainbow with fake tails tied to their belt loops?
> 
> I'm talking about what furry means to the largest amount of people. If you're some random schmo who's new to the Internet and has never heard of "furry", the following applies:
> 
> ...



It is an issue of forcing it, because it doesn't matter if you intend the association. It's like the firing of an action potential. Calling it furrie opens up that gated ion channel, and there is only one way to go, and that is a association with the fur fandom. It's like a switch. Don't call it furrie, but call it by it's name, Anthro animal, and the association is not there. Call it furrie and it is associated. There is no between. Intent matters not.

I know what furrie means. I also know what it means to the rest of the internet. I've been a furrie for 8 years, and dealing with ankle biting trolls for at least 4 of them. I've been in at least 10 major debates for and against furries each of which lasted at least 2 to 6 months long (That is how long the threads were active). I have heard from people who like us, who hate us, or who are neutral and I have learned from that.

Don't talk to me about pursuing the "not so hidden really" sub-cultures. I lurk, I post, I watch, I listen,and I learn. That is why I am so viciously against furries calling all anthropomorphic animal things furrie because I understand the fandom and I understand how other people perceive it. We don't have the right to force our association on other people because we are not willing to clean up our act in order to make that association not negative.


> Anubis = furry
> Tauren = furry
> Sonic = furry
> Bugs Bunny = furry


This....let me explain to you how this works.

I'll use Anubis because that is the first one. Anubis is the Egyptian god of embalming. He can be shown half human hand animal, or completely feral, as being full canine in ancient Egyptian depictions and art.

He is for all intensive purposes a creature made for religious and spiritual reasons and that is it. Now, he is also Anthropomorphic due to the human qualities, and zoomorphic due to the animal qualities. He does fall under the term anthropomorphic animal.

Now if today, a furrie decides, hey I want to draw art of him. They draw it catering to the tastes of furries, the resulting picture may be furrie. However, the character itself, Anubis, is still anthropomorphic (not furrie), and still a religious and spiritual symbol dealing with the Egyptians. It is associated with their very serious views on the dead and how to ensure they get a chance to reach the afterlife so they can find their way to the Hall of Judgment, have their heart weighed again a feather and either be eaten by a hybrid demon, or go to the place where the gods rein.

The same applies for the other things. You can draw them for furries and the art can be furrie but the character is not furrie. Since you do not own that character it is not your place to call it such. Forcing the association sets things up for the character to be associated with a fandom, and share our problems and stigmas in the eyes of other people.

I am insulted because as someone who holds history very important in our lives....seeing people take something from a past culture that they did not create, and then trying to own it, or make it seem that way by calling it something it is not...that gets me a bit upset. That is how I am. It is not our place to take things we do not own and force it to be ours....which is what you end up seeing in the furrie fandom. People take characters that do not belong to them, force the associate of furries whether they intend it or not, and therefore ruin it for everyone....and slap on a stigma.

It happened to Golden Wolf. I can understand why she's still pissed at us.


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 6, 2008)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> LOLwut?!
> 
> If they are or were, they are not anymore. Bird otherkin....


Or human Otherkin.

Is that even possible?


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Or human Otherkin.
> 
> Is that even possible?





Would that even be possible. I am a Human trapped in a Human's body?


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 6, 2008)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Would that even be possible. I am a Human trapped in a Human's body?


Well I guess technically a Wigger would be a human Otherkin....


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I wonder if there are any food Otherkins.
> 
> "No dad, I'm a muffin on the inside! That's why I have to glue blueberries to myself! It's a spiritual thing!"
> 
> I'm thinking too hard...



I think I would have to be....a Pineapple. It's be that fruit that people would have looked at in the past and said "I'm not eating it"....and later on down the road they took a second look and though....lets me smart about this. Let us find a way inside to see if it is worth it.

Get to know me...and you will be glad you did. If you can find a way past those thorns...honest. I have to put those there. I am really a pineapple on the inside....my soul was supposed to be in the body of a fruit but a inter dimensional rift caused it to end up in a human body.

I'm not fruity! Really!

Otherkin can use animals and things that do not exist. Why not use food too? Damn it....now that we brought it up I am sure it will soon exist...or at least porn of it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Would that even be possible. I am a Human trapped in a Human's body?



Maybe...a human female trapped in a male body? Or Vice versa? It exists apparently.

EDIT: Lawl at Shenzi's statement about Wiggers. So that is what my oldest step-brother is. He is a human otherkin, an African American trapped in a Caucasian body. So do you think we might one day be like South Park? Have a race change as an available option?


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 6, 2008)

I think I'm a pear. Very tart.

Now I have to go MSpaint pineapple porn because of this damnable topic.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I think I'm a pear. Very tart.
> 
> Now I have to go MSpaint pineapple porn because of this damnable topic.



Hey, if you make it part Pineapple, Part Human, and Part animal...would it be considered furrie? Or Furruity?


----------



## Gavrill (Dec 6, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Hey, if you make it part Pineapple, Part Human, and Part animal...would it be considered furrie? Or Furruity?


Fruity furry? 

This is getting odd.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Fruity furry?
> 
> This is getting odd.



No, this is getting funny. I suppose though we should get back to being on topic though since this is beginning to slightly derail the thread.


----------



## drewdle (Dec 6, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> You don't see the arrogance of taking someone else's work, and labeling it to suit your fancy? Amazing.
> 
> I do not understand how you can think that if things have to be made for us to be made furrie that we wouldn't have a fandom. Have you looked at FA recently? We have tons of artists who make stuff just for us....it is very easy to be inspired by something growing up, later on turn around and make something like it to suit a sub-culture that is based around the idea. Making something around that idea does not make that idea suddenly exclusive to you, therefore giving you the right to slap on a new name you created for yourself.
> 
> ...



I think I missed my point by a notch. Just because I say Sonic is a furry (and in this case, we're saying anthropomorphic animal), doesn't mean everyone else does. I don't think that's what people here are trying to do, though, at least as far as I can tell. I don't walk around telling everyone how furry their cartoon characters are. But as furries, if we choose to group them in cartoons/art that we enjoy, I don't see the harm in it. As long as it isn't forced on others, which after reading the whole thread, I didn't see anyone blatantly trying to get away with. 

Besides that, we're not the ones with the issue about the labeling stigma. At least, I'm not. If you're afraid to call yourself a furry, when you belong to a fandom, simply because of what other people think about that fandom, it's a perfect opportunity to stand up for yourself and those you appreciate, although I know this isn't always easy. 

If I think Sonic has furry qualities, and non-furries don't see this, why should the world get bent over one cat's opinion?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 6, 2008)

drewdle said:


> I think I missed my point by a notch. Just because I say Sonic is a furry (and in this case, we're saying anthropomorphic animal), doesn't mean everyone else does. I don't think that's what people here are trying to do, though, at least as far as I can tell. I don't walk around telling everyone how furry their cartoon characters are. But as furries, if we choose to group them in cartoons/art that we enjoy, I don't see the harm in it. As long as it isn't forced on others, which after reading the whole thread, I didn't see anyone blatantly trying to get away with.
> 
> Besides that, we're not the ones with the issue about the labeling stigma. At least, I'm not. If you're afraid to call yourself a furry, when you belong to a fandom, simply because of what other people think about that fandom, it's a perfect opportunity to stand up for yourself and those you appreciate, although I know this isn't always easy.
> 
> If I think Sonic has furry qualities, and non-furries don't see this, why should the world get bent over one cat's opinion?



The point is that many furries do say this and get upset when told otherwise.

If I can use Golden Wolf as an example again, there was a fan who was at a con years ago, who came across furries calling her therian work, furrie. He tried to explain to them that even though Golden Wolf draws things for furries sometimes...she is not a furrie and most of her work is not furrie. He got verbally assaulted by a whole gang of furries.

Even if you do not walk around calling other people's work furrie....many others do. Which is something again I have seen happen over and over again, online with people. It is again, one of the things that comes up almost as often as the problem with making porn of childhood memories...from people who don't like us and care to speak civil about it... You learn a lot from those who do not like you if you take the time to listen.

This has nothing to do with being afraid to call yourself a furrie. In the furrie community we are aware of the many things that exist in the fandom. So we can, ignore the stigma. General society does not share that image. So if someone knows what a furrie is it is most likely from influence that plays upon the negative stigma...which is why people get pissed at us. Due to us, people cannot simply like anthropomorphic art without being stigmatized...called a furrie and so forth.

Being a furrie is not a bad thing...but at the same time not everyone knows why. It is better to just deal with the stigma ourselves and not force others to find ways to deal with it to when they are not associated.

The person who drew my concept sketch for my dragon charrie that I am going to build as a costume....is not a furrie. She had a long discussion with me because of the stigma she runs across on Deviant. She calls herself an anthro-artist because while she enjoys drawing anthro-animal art she does not associate with the furrie fandom. However, there are individuals who have attacked her telling her she is furrie...and that calling herself an "Anthro-artist" is stupid....and blah..blah..blah. See where I am getting with this?

Sonic has Anthro-animal qualities. Why should the video-game fandom bend over backwards to suit us? It shouldn't it. You call something as it is, especially when there is the possibility that non-furries or the general public might be listening it.


----------



## Dchybrid (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Well I guess technically a Wigger would be a human Otherkin....




.............*drops to the floor dying from laughing so hard*


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 6, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Nope, try again.


 
Alrighty, Therians are crazy, like furries. :3


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Dec 6, 2008)

PriestRevan said:


> Alrighty, Therians are crazy, like furries. :3



Well well well, look what the cat dragged in


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 6, 2008)

Look, it's the flow of language.

If I showed you a bug that you've never seen before. And it had 8 legs, a small torso, a large "butt", was a little fuzzy all over, and spun webs would you call that a spider?

Well what if you found out this other guy who saw it first labeled it a Flying Shit Spinner? Would you go "oh, yeah. I see! This looks exactly like a spider, but some other guy called it a Flying Shit Spinner, so from now on I'll call this one insect, which has no distinguishing qualities from 6 other insect that look exactly like it, a Flying Shit Spinner from now on simply because some other guy called it that first."

The point I am trying to make is that the only different between Therian Art, Anthropomorphic Art created by people outside the Fandom, Anthropomorphic Art created by people within the Fandom, and so called "Furry" art is the knowledge of where it came from. That doesn't make enough of a difference for me to NOT call it Furry.

EDIT: And just to be Clear, I am not stating that the art was created for the Fandom, that it was created with the Fandom in mind, or that the person who created it is a Furry. I am simply saying that the Definition of Furry, when dealing with art, can encompass all of those subjects. I understand that you do not want to be apart of the fandom, I understand that you think of us as Lepers because others bully Furries, and I understand that you don't want anything to do with the negative portions of the Fandom so you are fighting tooth and nail to never be a part of it even if there are a lot of similairities.


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 6, 2008)

TyVulpine said:


> Well well well, look what the cat dragged in


 
:3 Well howdy.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 7, 2008)

Huh.

You know, i think i'm going to have to expand on what ToeClaws said a few posts back about classifying and putting people into categories.

I identify with Therian ideology because of my pagan faith.  To me, it's a form of Shamanism, which I work with.  I have spirit guides and totem animals.  Does that make me a Furry?  No.

I identify with Otherkin because of my identity with wolves.   I've had a few experiences where a part of me felt called to the pack.  I have dreams and almost flashback like experiences where I run through the woods on all fours, sometimes after prey, and sometimes just for the joy of running.  Does that make me a Furry?  No.

I draw anthros, I love anthros, I've always been drawn to(and have drawn) anthros, weres, mythical anthros, you name it.  Sometimes I draw yiffy things.  I don't consider this weird in the slightest.  Does THAT make me furry?  No.

None of these catagorize me as furry, yet all of them do by other people's standards.  I'll wear the Furry banner, but i'm not going to compartmentalize myself because of the above descriptions.  

Come on people, isn't this a form of regression?   Does it really matter in the long run?  We might as well go apply for religious status, because the fandom is rife with holier-then-thou schisms.  Why attack each other?  Furry has enough stigmatism attached to it and enough misunderstanding from without that we don't need it coming from within.  And that is including within the subcultures.  Stop compartmentalizing.  Stop labelling and defining.  These are theories, observations, and speculations.  Not fact.  Fact is that the sky is up and the earth is down.  Furry is a relative term.  I am furry, and yet I'm not furry.  Transcend, guys *S*.


----------



## Danale (Dec 7, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Look, it's the flow of language.
> 
> If I showed you a bug that you've never seen before. And it had 8 legs, a small torso, a large "butt", was a little fuzzy all over, and spun webs would you call that a spider?
> 
> ...



^^^This


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

Danale said:


> ^^^This



Is full of fail, isn't it?

As for addressing Quiet....knowledge has nothing to do with it. The difference is intent. That said I have little more to say to somehow who degrades his discussion by calling someone a bitch.

Language has nothing to do with it.

It's not like going from Kmet or Kmt to Egypt in translation from Egyptian language to English from the Rosetta Stone. The art form in question already had a common name for it and furries, including some in this thread, don't want to face the truth because being fan-boys and fan-girls while being able to fap off to the pornographic knock-offs created around characters we don't own come first, apparently.

Fuck sensitivity and an some form of levity....apparently we come first. Screw anything that existed before us, right? Oh wait...no pun intended with that one, really.


----------



## Ozriel (Dec 7, 2008)

Two step furry program.

There's no Pills to take or Surgery needed.

The only side effect(s) may include your Energy reserves being Diverted from the brain to another place, irrational thinking, Drop in IQ points, excessive whining, possibly dehydration, hallucinations, High blood pressure, and in some cases death have been reported.

If you have any of these symptoms, this program may not be for you. Contact your doctor for more information.

In all seriousness, it seems that the only importance to some furries is the Extra "brain stem" that thinks for them when it comes to some things such as Anthro Art or Cartoons,or the crab in between their legs. Varies from gender to gender.

But if it all matters to you, keep it to yourself and not force it upon other people. If this seems to insinuate certain things, well that's because it is relevant to the topic. If you do not like being slapped with the stigma, think about it. It's what you are doing to other people when you insinuate every other anthro animal being "furry".


----------



## electmeking (Dec 7, 2008)

Ill point this out again,
because apparently you arent yet aware of the meaning of hypocrisy.



Trpdwarf said:


> Really, none of them are stranger than the other. It all depends upon what you believe. _*So as long as you know what you claim to be part of, and you don't go crazy or force it upon other people*_, it's all cool.



If you are so confident in what youre arguing, why do you care enough to continue?


----------



## Danale (Dec 7, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Is full of fail, isn't it?



Not at all. Read and appreciate.




Trpdwarf said:


> Fuck sensitivity and an some form of levity....apparently we come first. Screw anything that existed before us, right? Oh wait...no pun intended with that one, really.



No one's stopping you from crusading the Internet and replying to every single comment that confuses one imaginary being with another, so go on ahead.

The bottom line is, we're not talking about Native Americans being used as mascots for sporting teams and the implied racism, objectivism and "otherism" involved in that whole practice.

We're talking about...person draws a human covered in fur with a wolf head and puts it on FurAffinity. Bob looks and says, "cool Therian!" Joe looks and says, "cool Anthro!" Mark looks and says, "cool Furry!" Who's right? Is it 100% up to the creator who's right?

If the creator says, "this is my therian soul being thing," is Mark WRONG for calling it "furry"? It sure as hell fits the description. It's a wolf-man on paper, scanned and put online to whore in faves and comments. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "if it looks like a duck..."

I'm also sure you've heard of the conundrum of, what if the creator/author is dead? So here's the wolf-boy on paper, how do we decide if it's Therian, Otherkin, Furry, or Anthro?

You're right about a drawing of Anubis yiffing is a furry drawing...but that makes the whole package furry. You said yourself Anubis was intended to be this Egyptian god of embalming, well now here he is sticking it to some bunny chick. Now he's a furry. Welcome to 2008, here's your box of Kleenex.

The way you're explaning these things and taking offense to them is like an African American taking offense to blackface. But do you see where calling one wolf-boy an anthro and another a furry and yet another a therian is _no where near_ the real struggle of racial identities, like blackface or using Indian mascots for sports teams?

Do you see where using an Indian to represent a sports team that's otherwise completely ignorant of Native American culture might be a real crisis for some people, but mistaking a wolf-boy meant to be a therian for a furry is just simple "confusion", or a misunderstanding of the artist's intent?

Do you see where a therian posting its wolf-boy art really shouldn't lose any sleep over it being called 'anthro' or 'furry'?

Also, why do you keep spelling it "furrie"? You're pretty much the only person here doing that. With your over nine thousand years studying history and the furry fandom, where exactly are you getting your glossary of terms from?

What I find interesting in this whole thing is so many artists are TERRIFIED of their work being called 'furry' because of the porn association with it. But furry isn't just about porn, it's about people-animals. So you draw a people-animal, guess what, it's furry.

All you have to do is say, I don't draw porn. :-/

If you were to die suddenly and all that was left were a bunch of wolf-boy drawings with no description, how are we to know the difference? Isn't that the definition of art? It's different to every person.

Seriously, get over it. If a person wants to write up a long description about how their art is a representation of their Therian soul, go for it. But it's going to end up on a furry image board somewhere or in someone's "Furry" folder on their harddrive. You can either ignore it, embrace it, or cry your diaper off that the meanies of the Internet just don't understand.

In before Ayn Rand quotes or something.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

electmeking said:


> Ill point this out again,
> because apparently you arent yet aware of the meaning of hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> ...



Read entire thread.

Then understand that both posts you tried to put together have nothing to do with each other. Talk of art and what is and isn't furrie is not the same discussion as talking about spirituality and religion. Stop trying to add apples and oranges to get one number.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

Danale said:


> Not at all. Read and appreciate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I cannot read and appreciate the argument of a newbie fur who doesn't understand the implications of what the words that are coming of his mouth.


That said this:



> We're talking about...person draws a human covered in fur with a wolf head and puts it on FurAffinity. Bob looks and says, "cool Therian!" Joe looks and says, "cool Anthro!" Mark looks and says, "cool Furry!" Who's right? Is it 100% up to the creator who's right?


Apparently you have not been covering or bothering to read it at all. We are not talking about furaffinity here. We are talking about individuals all across the internet and globe, who draw anthro-animals, and some of them assuming every single one of them is "Furrie" regardless of the source. We are talking about a group of people who use the same word to refer to not only themselves as a member of a group, but to the art the group creates. 

We are talking about individuals who call everything furrie and people who are not furrie being unable to admit to liking anthro-art or drawing it on sites non-fur related because they get automatically stigmatized as furries, as fucking dogs, and being into strange or weird fetish's, having sex in hot sweaty costumes and so forth.

Also, creator is always the ones who determines what something really is. It is okay to think it is something else so long as you do not try to force it as the only way of thinking what it is, to the point that you become intolerant of it's original meaning. In the case of someone who is dead and it is has not been decided before hand what it is you revert to the most generic term possible to prevent it from being associated with things that the artist may or may not have wanted it associated with. It comes down to..it's not your character, not your stuff, not your place to make a meaning of it just because you want to and force that one meaning to stick.



> Do you see where a therian posting its wolf-boy art really shouldn't lose any sleep over it being called 'anthro' or 'furry'?


 No I do not see this. If I were a therian that ran my own site where I displayed my own art for other people I would have several worries. First is art theft because furries are notorious for it. Two is anonymous. Guess what? They like to crash fur related sites. So if it seems remotely furrie, they will try to target it.

Then they have the same worry that many closet furs have....with a difference. Therians will have to worry that they will get the same reactions many furries get from friends and family....because of the stigma associated with the furrie fandom in general society. So even though they are not furries, they have to watch out that their family and friends do not mistake their art as furrie art and attach mentioned stigmas.



> Also, why do you keep spelling it "furrie"? You're pretty much the only person here doing that. With your over nine thousand years studying history and the furry fandom, where exactly are you getting your glossary of terms from?
> 
> What I find interesting in this whole thing is so many artists are TERRIFIED of their work being called 'furry' because of the porn association with it. But furry isn't just about porn, it's about people-animals. So you draw a people-animal, guess what, it's furry.
> 
> All you have to do is say, I don't draw porn. :-/


That is the way it is spelled in my area? Is it that strange to you that there are two ways to spell the same word? It can be furry or furrie. That is how it showed up in the newspaper too when they interviewed a local group of furries. Red herring is red herring though. moving on.

The thing is though many people do not understand this. I have spent 4 years lurking in places watching discussions between furs and non furs, about the fur fandom, and have been part of many of those discussions at the same time. Most of the people who bring it up think that it is a sexual fetish fandom and that is it. 

So even if being furrie does not have to be about porn, most people who are aware of the fandom think otherwise. Also you have furries out there who are vehement in that because they are into the fandom for porn, everyone is....and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. Saying you don't draw porn doesn't stop the stigmas from being attached. I know this...from experience.



> If you were to die suddenly and all that was left were a bunch of wolf-boy drawings with no description, how are we to know the difference? Isn't that the definition of art? It's different to every person.
> 
> Seriously, get over it. If a person wants to write up a long description about how their art is a representation of their Therian soul, go for it. But it's going to end up on a furry image board somewhere or in someone's "Furry" folder on their harddrive. You can either ignore it, embrace it, or cry your diaper off that the meanies of the Internet just don't understand.


Does it matter? At the base level if is anthro-animal...and people are free to differentiate from that so long as they do not force t heir interpretation as being the only one...which is what you do when you start calling everything "Furrie" or "furry".

Also, don't bring race into this. It makes you look silly.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

I suppose before I leave I should bring up the hypothetical situation that has been dwelling in my mind. It appropriately demonstrates what the two of you and others are doing when they start thinking "Well, everything anthro-animal is furrie/furry....or we are just going to call it that". Or "Furrie art is this, therefore therian art is furrie, sonic is furrie" and so forth.

Imagine, for a moment, imagine that out of the blue, today, a new sub-culture formed. It had it's first convention this day.

This new sub-culture is about a concept in art, where you take anything and everything, and anthropomorphize it. That means, you simply add human characteristics to something that is not human(so says the group). This new group of people embraces this idea and so they converge together in one location.

At this con you see all sorts of things. People in costumes that are anthropomorphic inanimate objects now animate. A walking banana. A walking door with tits. You see art of swords with faces and breasts....almost any regular object out there is depicted as sentient human like things.

Now imagine a few years down the road a sexual side occurs. The Humes (as the group has now labeled itself) start making costumes of anthropomorphic objects and having sex in it, and having pictures taken of it and distributed on the web. Sites begin to pop up for just Humes where there is a influx of porn, such as Jesus Christ having sex with an animated version of the Statue of Liberty. You see Buddha now associated with an inflation fetish imported from the furrie fandom. You even have group into seeing anthro cars fucking other anthro cars. Give it a few years and what started out as a nonsexual fandom becomes labeled by the internet, society, and the media as a sexual fetish group, centered around adding human elements to non-human things and making porn of it.

At some point and time when a huge fan-base starts up, the fans start going around calling every single thing out there remotely humanesque "Humes". Now they start calling religious paintings and spiritual peices all across the world "Humes Art". Everything that has some form of human in it, they assume it is "humes art"

Then some group pops up calling themselves Anonymous, they start crashing Humes sites left and right. Unforunately several other sites get implicated. Religious sites are crashed because of the mistaken assumption that it was a Humes site. You even see regular sites with regular human art getting implicated and attack.

All the sudden if you like human art you are being labeled a "Humes" and implicated into a group that likes seeing anthro-doors, anthro-cars and religious figures fuck each other, and sweaty inanimate animated humanish things costume sex and so forth.

Then it gets worse. All the sudden this Humes group decides to start adding human feature to animals. They think it is a brand new thing. So they start calling that version of art "Humes art as well". All the sudden they stumble across the furrie fandom and decide that the furrie fandom is part of them. They try to absorb it. They start telling furries that their art, is no longer furrie art. It is "Humes art". Furries are no longer furries according to their members. They are now "Humes". Somehow society, and the internet accepts that.

So now furries, along with people who like regular fur art, are being associated with a fandom they have little to nothing to do with, and even though they were around longer than the Humes that doesn't matter. Now furries are being slapped with the same stigma associated with other groups that the Humes have forced an association with by a weasel of words, and a big dose of pretentiousness.

Now if we argue, what do the "humes" do? They argue...well....due to our own self made defination of what "humes art" is, your art is humes art. It features something non-human being given human attributes. So stop bawwing. It's the same thing. Suck it up.

Think about that...because what the hypothetical "Humes" are doing is the same things furrie are doing to other people right now because of the assocation that every anthro-animal thing out there is "Furrie" or "Furry" do to a self made definition.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 7, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> None of these catagorize me as furry, yet all of them do by other people's standards.  I'll wear the Furry banner, but i'm not going to compartmentalize myself because of the above descriptions.


I think you misunderstand. I am not saying you are a Furry because of those reasons you listed. I am saying that Furry (WHEN DEALING WITH ART) is the same as Anthropomorphic Animal (WHEN DEALING WITH ART) is the same as Sonic, The Gods of old, and all that other crap.



Trpdwarf said:


> As for addressing Quiet....knowledge has nothing to do with it. The difference is intent. That said I have little more to say to somehow who degrades his discussion by calling someone a bitch.
> 
> Language has nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...


 So you're saying that we should keep saying Anthropomorphic Animals for every piece of art simply because it was called that originally? By that logic shouldn't we all be talking like they did in the middle ages? I mean there's no reason to keep inventing new words to describe the same thing. Right?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> I think you misunderstand. I am not saying you are a Furry because of those reasons you listed. I am saying that Furry (WHEN DEALING WITH ART) is the same as Anthropomorphic Animal (WHEN DEALING WITH ART) is the same as Sonic, The Gods of old, and all that other crap.
> 
> So you're saying that we should keep saying Anthropomorphic Animals for every piece of art simply because it was called that originally? By that logic shouldn't we all be talking like they did in the middle ages? I mean there's no reason to keep inventing new words to describe the same thing. Right?



No, I am saying that when the intent is not for us, we should revert to using the correct term so we do not intentionally or unintentionally force stigma's upon people, groups, and art that have nothing to do with us.

There is nothing wrong with centering around something, and creating your own group and name for it, but when the thing centered is already defined you keep your terms to your own group and that is it. Furries should only use the word Furrie/furry in the context that we use it to describe ourselves and our art....and leave other groups alone, such as the Therians and their art, and the past and their art. Again don't bring language into this because you don't understand it. This is not like going from one language to the next, such as KMT to Egypt. This is taking a term and forcing the other one to be replaced in the same language, and therefore forcing implications....and perhaps being to selfish to care.

That said read the hypothetical situation please.


----------



## Danale (Dec 7, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Also, don't bring race into this. It makes _you_ look _silly_.



THREAD OVER. I'm lolling my ass of now.

Clearly you don't know the definition of two words:
-hypocritical
-_example

_I brought upthe _example_ of Indian mascots because I went to the University of Illinois in Urbana/Champaign and our mascot used to be Chief Illiniwek. During my time at school a huge battle ensued between those who felt it wasn't a mascot, but a "symbol", and it represented a very long and 'proud tradition', and those who felt a bunch of white boys were taking Native American imagery and re-defining it for their own purposes, thus turning Chief Illiniwek into a racist image. The people supporting the latter argument frequently referenced blackface as another example of a race being redefined, 'othered', and used for personal, entertainment purposes.







<<This image, a re-make of the original Illiniwek logo, became popular on campus during this whole debate.

I bring this_ example_ up because everything you have said thus far, every way you have structured your arguments, sounds 100% like the pamphlets the anti-Chief people handed out, the things the anti-Chief people said during public debates, etc. But whereas Chief Illiniwek affected real human beings and was potentially damaging to an entire race of people, furry art is...oh my gawd, laughable at best when discussing what it's supposed to mean to whom and whose personal beliefs are affected.

You describe this whole catastrophe in being associated with furry art, or hypothetical "Humes" art, well guess what? That's all part of this amazing, evolving thing called culture, where human societies constantly analyze objects and ideas and determine their meanings, and meanings and ideas change over time, and some ideas and meanings become more influencial than others. In the case of Chief Illiniwek, that was a tradition that lasted several years until a strong enough voice of opposition caused the meaning to change yet again and the mascot to be removed from school use forever. In the case of furries, although you could argue furry art has been around for years, is still a fairly new phenomenon, and as such it's still being remade and redefined by everyone involved. Here, have an essay I wrote on it.

If therians want to start marches and hand out pamphlets detailing the differences between anthro/furry/otherkin/therian to thousands of people who will otherwise have no idea what they're talking about to begin with, then that's their right, but for right now, concerning images on the Internet, a wolf-boy is a wolf-boy, just like if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Like I said before and keep saying, I don't draw porn, but I do draw cartoony animals, and I happen to put them up on both DA and a site called....FUR...AFFINITY... therefore, it's furry. And you may or may not be surprised to know that I have been harassed through comments, e-mails, instant messenger, etc. for it, in fact I could pull up some conversations of Anonymous trying to troll me and tell me I'm sick and whatnot. But every single one of those times has been easy to put down because guess what? There's not a single pornorgraphic image of mine in circulation on the Internet, nor at home.

I really don't care about what associations the furry fandom has to some, Anonymous isn't as well-known as most people think, and considering the lasting popularity of anthropormorphized animals in film, I don't think the furry stigma has permeated the overall general public yet (nor will it ever, quite frankly. We're all just a bunch of maladjusted kids on the Internet doing naughty, abrasive things). Plus, it's not just furries: Rule 34 makes for bastardizations of...anything. Are people who love Family Guy sickos now since there's Family Guy porn? D:


----------



## electmeking (Dec 7, 2008)

Danale said:


> THREAD OVER. I'm lolling my ass of now.
> 
> Clearly you don't know the definition of two words:
> -hypocritical
> -example



I second the motion.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

electmeking said:


> I second the motion.



Fascinating. So neither of you are capable of actually finding something legitimately wrong with what I am saying that you care argue against, so you resort to red-herrings.

That is nice. Have a nice day.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Dec 7, 2008)

Danale said:


> THREAD OVER. I'm lolling my ass of now.
> 
> Clearly you don't know the definition of two words:
> -hypocritical
> -example



The thread was over when certain people stopped actually discussing and resorting to trying to pull up irrelevant things to negate everything else was said so they don't have to deal with it. You don't use one discussion irrelevant to the other to try to invalidate the argument that the other has nothing to do with. Insert coin, try again.

It's no problem to me that some people didn't realize two discussions were going on at once. Don't try to face now because of you're mistake and that of the other.

That said, have a nice day.


----------



## electmeking (Dec 7, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Fascinating. So neither of you are capable of actually finding something legitimately wrong with what I am saying that you care argue against, so you resort to red-herrings.
> 
> That is nice. Have a nice day.



You said it best.



Trpdwarf said:


> Read entire thread.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 7, 2008)

Holy Contradictions, Batman! I think this boy's a Hypocrite.

You're missing the point completely. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art.

I'm NOT SAYING YOU ARE A FURRY, I'M NOT SAYING THERIANS ARE FURRIES, I'M NOT SAYING THE CREATOR OF SONIC IS A FURRY. What I am saying is that  Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art.


----------



## Kilre (Dec 7, 2008)

I find it laughable that no one mentioned zoomorphism in a thread like this.

Failure reaching critical levels.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 7, 2008)

Kilre said:


> I find it laughable that no one mentioned zoomorphism in a thread like this.
> 
> Failure reaching critical levels.



You just did.  
Failure down to defcon 3.


----------



## CAThulu (Dec 7, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Holy Contradictions, Batman! I think this boy's a Hypocrite.
> 
> You're missing the point completely. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art. Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art.
> 
> I'm NOT SAYING YOU ARE A FURRY, I'M NOT SAYING THERIANS ARE FURRIES, I'M NOT SAYING THE CREATOR OF SONIC IS A FURRY. What I am saying is that  Furry Describes Anthropomorphic Animals in art.



All work and no play makes Jack a Dull Boy.

:mrgreen:



What about those that say furry is a lifestyle?  Are fur-cons then run by cartoon characters from a 2-D universe?

Can I get Raphel the Ninja Turtle's Autograph???  :-D


----------



## TheQuestion (Dec 7, 2008)

Nothing beats in the truth more then a couple-of-thousand lines of it.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 8, 2008)

CAThulu said:


> All work and no play makes Jack a Dull Boy.
> 
> :mrgreen:


 It's just getting annoying when he's putting words into my mouth...


CAThulu said:


> What about those that say furry is a lifestyle?  Are fur-cons then run by cartoon characters from a 2-D universe?
> Can I get Raphel the Ninja Turtle's Autograph???  :-D


 I'm only talking about Furry as an Art Form. Furry as it relates to people is a whole other can of worms...


----------



## Kuzooma1 (Dec 8, 2008)

Do you still think of yourself as an therians now even though you like furries?


----------



## Danale (Dec 8, 2008)

In terms of lifestyle, that's more open to interpretation than anything. I'm probably a "furry" just because I love cartoons and animals and I'd rather get Kung Fu Panda for Christmas than The Dark Knight (although both amazing movies). However I don't fursuit or have any interest in furry porn or yiffing. :-/ Also I'm straight, and to some people furry is a strictly homosexual thing. So I think it's all based on your interpretation of it.


----------



## Danale (Dec 8, 2008)

Also, lol @ being called a "newbie fur." Is it better to be a Lvl 80 pro furry or something?


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 8, 2008)

Danale said:


> Also I'm straight, and to some people furry is a strictly homosexual thing. So I think it's all based on your interpretation of it.


... Really?


----------



## Danale (Dec 8, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> ... Really?



Yeah, keyword "some." Since there's an overabundance in gay furry porn, and the first people to create a furry con were two homosexuals (so I've heard), the furry fandom is seen as a haven for homosexuals to some, or a sub-culture of homosexuality. I don't know everything about that aspect of it but that's what I've heard, at least.


----------



## Quiet269 (Dec 8, 2008)

Eh, I think the gay portion of the fandom is just more outspoken. I remember there was a small study done and the majority were straight


----------



## Thorfax Goldwings (Dec 8, 2008)

i am a therian and a furry, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Danale (Dec 8, 2008)

Thorfax Goldwings said:


> i am a therian and a furry, it doesn't bother me.



You can't be both! Don't you know that's in insult to Therianism!?! -_-


----------



## harry2110 (Dec 8, 2008)

I guess that makes me an outcast in both areas as I do believe that I am a Lynx but am also a furry.


----------



## Thorfax Goldwings (Dec 8, 2008)

Danale said:


> You can't be both! Don't you know that's in insult to Therianism!?! -_-



I know a bunch of people who are both. my mother is a furry and therian. some people just don't understand the difference. i am actually more of an otherkin, but a lot of people are still both.


----------



## Art Vulpine (Dec 8, 2008)

Furry and Therian

I like the art, stories and role playing.

I also have a spiritual side.

I consider the two to be mutually exclusive.

Sage Fox


----------



## Thorfax Goldwings (Dec 8, 2008)

Inari85 said:


> Furry and Therian
> 
> I like the art, stories and role playing.
> 
> ...



Exactly! that is how i feel it.


----------



## ProgramFiles (Dec 8, 2008)

how the fuck do you consider yourself as a Therian, you were in your shower when you discovered that.

ho, and inari, i agree with your post


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 8, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> Eh, I think the gay portion of the fandom is just more outspoken. I remember there was a small study done and the majority were straight


 
I read a study myself and it revealed the majority was bisexual.


----------



## ProgramFiles (Dec 8, 2008)

PriestRevan said:


> I read a study myself and it revealed the majority was bisexual.



A forum vote don't count you know...


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 8, 2008)

ProgramFiles said:


> A forum vote don't count you know...


 
Good thing I didn't read a forum vote.


----------

