# How far can you go before a character is considered furry.



## Journey (Oct 9, 2008)

Got into a conversation with my sister about this and canâ€™t seem to get it out of my head. Basically how many animal traits can you give your character before they are officially furry?

I know people who will tell you up and down how anti-furry they are but then they show you this character that they love that to me will look totally furry. Reverse the situation and Iâ€™ve got furry fans showing me something that might as well be human and claming that itâ€™s furry.

Now me Personally I donâ€™t think most cat-girls are furry cause half the time the ears and tails are just there for show. However I do consider the kids from +Anima to be furry cause their animal traits are more then just seemingly glued on they are part of who they are.

I want to hear what you guys think. Is someone a furry just cause they have cat eyes or do they have to have ears, teeth, claws, fur all over their bodies and a tail before your convinced?


----------



## Tycho (Oct 9, 2008)

Journey said:


> I want to hear what you guys think. Is someone a furry just cause they have cat eyes or do they have to have ears, teeth, claws, fur all over their bodies and a tail before your convinced?



Cat eyes, ears and tail = weeaboo catgirl, not furry.  Fur all over = furry.


----------



## UKtehwhitewolf (Oct 9, 2008)

From what I know..

Animal that has human-ish traits, walks on two legs, wears clothes (basically anthropomorphic) = Furry.
Human that has ears/tail etc. = Not furry.

That's just how I see it though.


----------



## KiteKatsumi (Oct 9, 2008)

Fur all over body with human traits: Furry.
Human with animal ears/tail: InuYasha fancharacter.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 9, 2008)

From what I know of the fandom, having been a furrie for 8 years, and having watched the fandom grow, I am under the understanding that when something is furrie, it is first and for most made for the fandom, that is the furrie fandom.

Secondly, it is a animal, that is given anthropomorphic qualities. Anthropomorphic itself means giving something human qualities. Hence the common term Anthropomorphic Animal. The biggest thing given to the character is sentience, usually.

Wether or not it walks up right, that doesn't really matter. However the more common forms of furrie characters do walk upright.

However, taking a human and giving it zoomorphic qualities, (Zoomorphism meaning giving something human traits) does not make it furrie. You have something already sentient and you give it animal qualities.

It has to be the other way around. However the most important thing to realize is that even if it is anthropomorphic, and an animal, that doesn't make it a furrie/furry, unless the artist intends for it to be that way.

For example, therians will often draw anthropomorphic animals. However what they draw is not "Furry". Some people want to call it "Furry or Furrie" but it's a silly way to go because you end up getting things confused with the fandom that it isn't part of.

Furthermore you can add to the hatred of people who dislike the fandom by making those slippery associations. Such as calling Sonic "Furry or Furrie". If a person who loves sonic comes to the furry fandom looking for fan art, because he's heard people call Sonic a "Furry or Furrie" character, he could end up coming across porn....and that isn't exactly good for him or us depending on how he takes it.

Also, certain groups of people get tarred by the negative brush of the fandom because people increasingly want to force an association of the word "Furry/Furrie" with all anthro animals, which can rile people up who get tired of being labeled a "Furry Artist" when they are not part of the fandom, and simply draw anthro animals. That is the gist of what I have to say.

The whole thing has just as much to do with intent as it does the way it looks.

EDIT: I know it might seem a bit too deep but I've spent a lot of time poking around and thinking about this very question...how far till it's furrie. The truth is so many artists portray their things is such different ways and the best way I can really generalize it with it being somewhat correct is to look at it as something where you give animals sentience like what we have, for the sake of creating things for the fandom.


----------



## Lilfurbal (Oct 9, 2008)

I will also go ahead and say, a human with animal features doesn't really classify as a furry character, nor is it an anthro animal.  But you need an animal that has human traits to pretty much any degree and they're good as a furry character.  That is about how I look at it.


----------



## FurTheWin (Oct 9, 2008)

How I look at it:

If the basis for a creature is an animal, it is furry/anthropomorphic. If the basis is a human, it's not furry.


----------



## X (Oct 9, 2008)

pretty much explains everything:


----------



## FurTheWin (Oct 9, 2008)

half-witted fur said:


> pretty much explains everything:


Good picture, but it's more an example of, rather than a definition of furry.


----------



## Skullmiser (Oct 9, 2008)

Die FÃ¼rher said:


> Wer in der HÃ¶lle wÃ¼rde Pflege?



He apparently does.

People say Caitians are. I'm not so sure. There are Humans that are born with thick vellus hairs
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/places/ANI/article/2300163.html


----------



## Gotiki (Oct 9, 2008)

I think that if a creator calls a character that is an anthropomorphic animal a furry, it is a furry. Example.
It can be an anthropomorphic animal and still not be furry, of course. Example.
If it pretty much looks like a human, but with ears and a tail, and maybe some fur, it's _not_ furry. Example.
All image links are work-safe, pretty much. No "naughty bits" or anything.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 9, 2008)

Gotiki said:


> If it pretty much looks like a human, but with ears and a tail, and maybe some fur, it's _not_ furry. Example.


I beg to differ. As soon as you add that amount of fur, I think that's where the lines blur.


----------



## Gotiki (Oct 9, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I beg to differ. As soon as you add that amount of fur, I think that's where the lines blur.



She's still pretty much human, though. A cat-girl. The previous example I had there was completely covered in fur, and it actually _looked_ sort of like fur, so I replaced it.


----------



## Beastcub (Oct 9, 2008)

inu yasha - dog ears, fangs, animal eyes- not furry enough

asha clan clan- tail big ears, body color and markings sudjest fur, overall attittude is very feral, can transform into huge tiger-furry to me


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 9, 2008)

Gotiki said:


> She's still pretty much human, though. A cat-girl. The previous example I had there was completely covered in fur, and it actually _looked_ sort of like fur, so I replaced it.


Yeah, I was quoting your previous pic before you edited. Carry on.


----------



## Shadow-Nazi (Oct 9, 2008)

i'd think that it depends on what your gonna do, like with the body structure first. the head would have to stay human, maybe the hands and feet. i'd say that doing the legs from different animals on a human character, still qualifys as human. i think ears and a tail are alright now because people are just accustomed to it by now, the facial structure just has to be human.


----------



## Frasque (Oct 9, 2008)

It's not like there's some platonic ideal of Furry. I feel it's furry if the creator says it is, that's a good enough definition for me. Otherwise the question generally devolves into bickering and batshittery.


----------



## pheonix (Oct 9, 2008)

I think having just ears and a tail makes the character a furry but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Journey (Oct 10, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Furthermore you can add to the hatred of people who dislike the fandom by making those slippery associations. Such as calling Sonic "Furry or Furrie". If a person who loves sonic comes to the furry fandom looking for fan art, because he's heard people call Sonic a "Furry or Furrie" character, he could end up coming across porn....and that isn't exactly good for him or us depending on how he takes it.


 

I actully think this is a good point. I've had something like this happen to me before I relized I was a furry and it surpized me at the time that I shut the the page off. ovoiusly it didn't put me off too much or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but lableing something instaintly as furry without knowing the artist intent could be bad for both the artist and and the aduance


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 10, 2008)

Journey said:


> I actully think this is a good point. I've had something like this happen to me before I relized I was a furry and it surpized me at the time that I shut the the page off. ovoiusly it didn't put me off too much or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but lableing something instaintly as furry without knowing the artist intent could be bad for both the artist and and the aduance



I'm happy to find one person who gets it. It's nice that it didn't completely turn you off. However most of the people I have dealt with who are willing to half way civilly talk about why they hate furs, they hate it because stuff they grew up with is being associated with the fandom, and the mature part at that. Liking the stuff original stuff somehow means being labeled a furry/furrie. Someone might say...well that is harmless. But, even drawing anthro art can have it's implications when you are not a fur.

Like...with that random Therian group I once came across. They had a thing up, and they posted their own anthro animal art dealing with their totem animals in a gallery and had their own little forum. /b/ came in flaming the hell out of them labeling them furfags, and crashed the site. I don't know what ever happened with that but it must have been about 3 years back...or almost three at least.

I digress, most people don't want to listen to me on this point so I'll shut-up.


----------



## Journey (Oct 10, 2008)

Oh ouch, thats sad when something gets torn down just cause someone else decideds to lable it


----------



## Quiet269 (Oct 10, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm happy to find one person who gets it. It's nice that it didn't completely turn you off. However most of the people I have dealt with who are willing to half way civilly talk about why they hate furs, they hate it because stuff they grew up with is being associated with the fandom, and the mature part at that. Liking the stuff original stuff somehow means being labeled a furry/furrie. Someone might say...well that is harmless. But, even drawing anthro art can have it's implications when you are not a fur.
> 
> Like...with that random Therian group I once came across. They had a thing up, and they posted their own anthro animal art dealing with their totem animals in a gallery and had their own little forum. /b/ came in flaming the hell out of them labeling them furfags, and crashed the site. I don't know what ever happened with that but it must have been about 3 years back...or almost three at least.
> 
> I digress, most people don't want to listen to me on this point so I'll shut-up.


 So, you're giving in to scare tactics?

Awesome, maybe when /b/ "Wins" enough they will stop hating on furries.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 10, 2008)

Quiet269 said:


> So, you're giving in to scare tactics?
> 
> Awesome, maybe when /b/ "Wins" enough they will stop hating on furries.



No, I'm not. I've just figured if people want to be unaware of the consequences of certain things, there is nothing I can do about it. People don't like to listen since they let their "Fanboyisms" and "Fangirlisms" get in the way.

The only thing /b/ will ever win at is having no life.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 10, 2008)

When a character has animal traits that character is anthropomorphic, furry is a fandom centered around anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism =/= furry. What would in fact make a fictional character furry would be if said character was an obese basement dwelling jailhouse gay social retard who whacks off exclusively to half animal people just so he can tell him self he's not getting laid on purpose because he's not attracted to hyoomons.

Also neck beards and living with one's parents well into adulthood are common furry characteristics, so if those traits were present in a fictional character it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume said character was a furry IMO.


----------



## AugustYifu (Oct 10, 2008)

Not a popular opinion I suppose, But I think humans with animal traits count as at least partly furry.


----------



## Yevon (Oct 10, 2008)

Still prity new to this so if my rambalings that follow do not make sense, please ignore.

Anyway, when I was asked to draw my persona, I started with something I am confortable drawing, a human figure.  Just ink of a stick figure with more detail (and for those artist here, sorry for the refresher.)  I then added features to make it more anomorphic, I.E. ears and fur (due to the fact that I wear cloths most of the time I had my character in cloths so there wasnt much else to change.)  I then played with the facial structure to give it a more animal look and vol~la, I have a persona pic I like. 

I went into that rant just to say this; various people will have various ways of looking at Furrieness (its a fun word, say it a few times, its fun ) there will be those that have animal pics with just a little hint a human qualites and your ever persistant cat-girls dressed in maid outfits.  The point is, furry is in the eye of the beholder.

And one more thing, Monchego Cheese is FANTASTIC!!!!

-Yevon's words of insanity-


----------



## Nargle (Oct 11, 2008)

Whitenoise said:


> *When a character has animal traits that character is anthropomorphic, furry is a fandom centered around anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism =/= furry.* What would in fact make a fictional character furry would be if said character was an obese basement dwelling jailhouse gay social retard who whacks off exclusively to half animal people just so he can tell him self he's not getting laid on purpose because he's not attracted to hyoomons.
> 
> Also neck beards and living with one's parents well into adulthood are common furry characteristics, so if those traits were present in a fictional character it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume said character was a furry IMO.



The first part was good at least. But the rest was sorta lame. I know you were probably joking around, but seriously, those jokes are getting a tad old. At least be creative instead of just re-listing a bunch of ancient stereotypes. 

To the OP- Honestly, I think a character is furry based purely off of how the artist labels it. Bugs Bunny isn't a furry, but he sports all of the traits you guys are listing as furry traits (Animal with human characteristics, fur all over, walks on two legs, etc.), but he's JUST a cartoon character. 

However, if an artist comes up with anything in between a regular animal and a human with cat ears, and they want to call it a furry, then it's a furry.The only requirement is that it's an anthropomorphic animal. Adding human traits isn't just making them stand up and talk. It can range anywhere from an animal with sentient thoughts to giving a cat SO many human traits that it just looks like a human with ears. Either way, they're all anthropomorphic. The reason why a lot of furries don't count anime cat-girls as furries is because bugs bunny-type furries are the VAST majority. That doesn't mean you CAN'T be a furry that just looks like a human with cat ears. You DO have artistic liberty. 

But that doesn't mean EVERYTHING that is anthropomorphic is a furry. Furries are created by artists in the Furry Fandom. People have been anthropomorphizing things LONG before furries came around. Hello, hasn't the moon been depicted with a human face for quite a while? You could even say God is anthropomorphic! He's a holy spirit with a human trait, his appearance!


----------



## FurTheWin (Oct 11, 2008)

Whitenoise said:


> When a character has animal traits that character is anthropomorphic.


Actually, it's the opposite of that. If an animal has human traits, it's anthropomorphic.


----------



## Ethereal_Dragon (Oct 12, 2008)

As usual, I will input my opinion without reading anyone else's. 

Being furry/scaley requires that the body is covered in said skin. It also requires anthropomorphism. 

That's my definition. Anything else is either an animal or anime. Try not to confuse the two.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 13, 2008)

Nargle said:


> *The first part was good at least. But the rest was sorta lame. I know you were probably joking around, but seriously, those jokes are getting a tad old. At least be creative instead of just re-listing a bunch of ancient stereotypes. *
> 
> To the OP- Honestly, I think a character is furry based purely off of how the artist labels it. Bugs Bunny isn't a furry, but he sports all of the traits you guys are listing as furry traits (Animal with human characteristics, fur all over, walks on two legs, etc.), but he's JUST a cartoon character.
> 
> ...



Lol fair enough, admitedly that was frustration talking, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who feels this way. Also why no art Nargle, I miss it  .


----------



## Nargle (Oct 13, 2008)

Whitenoise said:


> Lol fair enough, admitedly that was frustration talking, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who feels this way. *Also why no art Nargle, I miss it*  .



My boyfriend's re-buying me Photoshop soon, he felt guilty about losing it =3

Arts are in the near future!!

Here's a pic I did in Paint if you miss it THAT BADLY XD It's pretty crappy, though, lol! And it's one of those bird anthros that you hate oh so much =3

I hate the feet.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 13, 2008)

Nargle said:


> My boyfriend's re-buying me Photoshop soon, he felt guilty about losing it =3
> 
> Arts are in the near future!!
> 
> ...



Oh my god so much hate >:[[[[[[[[[[[ . Seriously though that's awesome, and  done in paint no less, I really like the eyes, the whole concept of the body  really. also the color scheme.

Also I'm pleased by the promise of more  Nargle art soon, will it include your new 'sona? We could probably take this  conversation to PMs so as not to derail the thread further so in  closing.

Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong :[ , kudos to those who  don't :V .


----------



## Frasque (Oct 14, 2008)

Ethereal_Dragon said:


> Being furry/scaley requires that the body is covered in said skin. It also requires anthropomorphism.
> 
> That's my definition. Anything else is either an animal or anime. Try not to confuse the two.


 
So I'm . . . half-furry?


----------



## south syde dobe (Oct 14, 2008)

Frasque said:


> So I'm . . . half-furry?


lol XD


----------



## nedded (Oct 15, 2008)

Fur=furry. That simple. As soon as the skin tone is no longer skin-toned but rather tiger striped or whatnot, then the gap has been jumped. (Think Thundercats.)


----------



## NerdyMunk (Oct 15, 2008)

Well, first I start with a human "skeleton", which for me is a stick figure. Then I draw the body over the position the stick figure is in. Then I draw the striped lombax tail at the top of the body and the head where the human head is supposed to be. I can't help it.


----------

