Furries in the playground

[Coidzor]

That pretty much sums 75% of the subculture up. Don't say fandom; that specifies one specific franchise or show/game/book, not a globally-shared artistic or personal affiliation that's got thousands of different interpretations. Like, Koul [very popular furry artist from Ukraine who does mostly STALKER fan-art] isn't the same thing as Strype [American who does Warhammer-esque power armor] or Squeedgemonster [Canadian-American who does Hallowe'en monsters and Godzilla and Kaiju in really cute pop-art fashion] or Thanshuai [Thai artist who does pretty much everything but gives all his characters an obscene amount of fluff and big eyes] or WolfJediSamuel [German who seemingly does nothing but crass, obscene movie poster parodies]. It'd be the same thing as saying that C.S. Lewis, Michael Crichton, Robert A. Heinlein, and Gary Gygax were all in the "science-fiction/fantasy fandom." They could not be any different from each other, the only similarity is that they all created work that fell into a common theme.

Except people do use fandom loosely in such cases as "science fiction" or "fantasy" or "anime" or "video games," and typically it'll register as, at most, a linguistic quirk and while some may offer what they view as correction in some cases, no one will jump down their throats for it without making their own faux pas.

[Jaycemonde]

Except people do use fandom loosely in such cases as "science fiction" or "fantasy" or "anime" or "video games," and typically it'll register as, at most, a linguistic quirk and while some may offer what they view as correction in some cases, no one will jump down their throats for it without making their own faux pas.

Except while those all are referred to as fandoms every now and then or by individuals, most people acknowledge that they're entire genres or subdivisions of wider culture, rather than fanbases for one specific franchise.

Furry art/writing/music/games/movies (yes, movies) are referred to almost exclusively as "fandom" art. It doesn't matter how original the material is.

[Zrak]

It isn't even a quirk, it is standard usage; two people who cheer for different hockey teams are both hockey fans. The word does not denote or connote that the fans to which it refers must be fans of a franchise rather than a sport or genre or even medium, either in its formal definitions or typical usage.

[Jaycemonde]

It isn't even a quirk, it is standard usage; two people who cheer for different hockey teams are both hockey fans. The word does not denote or connote that the fans to which it refers must be fans of a franchise rather than a sport or genre or even medium, either in its formal definitions or typical usage.

Fine, whatever. I'm just going to point to the "the issue is the exclusive usage" thing above and move on. Arguing about semantics isn't what the thread's supposed to be about.

So, anyone who's looked at this thread got a 'suit, partial or otherwise?

[Togath]

So Togath, you are a furry too? :D :D :D

Can I ask about your fursona?

I suppose I think of myself as a cat. ^w^

So, anyone who's looked at this thread got a 'suit, partial or otherwise?

Do kitty ears and a tail accessory count as a partial one?

[Jaycemonde]

Do kitty ears and a tail accessory count as a partial one?

Sure! They're pretty much as partial as you can get in this case, but at least one pair of ears and tail is a bit essential anyway :>

[Atreyu the Masked LLama]

Here's the reference

TL;DR - the animal gains human intelligence and the ability to speak one language, but is otherwise unchanged.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell!!

Also, I sympathize with the lack of an expressive tail dilemma.

[P.F.]

Well I'll bite, I consider myself a furry, but I generally shun the label in public to avoid being confused with fursuit-types or not-board-suitable-types. I find fursuits a bit creepy.

I do not believe that I am or have the soul of a non-human animal, but I enjoy role-playing feline characters. I played a couple of Prydaen characters in DragonRealms, but in table-top gaming I usually play a human.

I sometimes dress as a cat on certain socially acceptable occasions, like Beaux-Arts festivals or Halloween. I'm a big fan of the styled hair which gives the impression of cat-ears, a la Cats the musical. And I have a (not-so) secret weakness for attractive girls in neko regalia, which I have instructed my friends to use against me should I ever take over the world and become an intolerable tyrant.

This year for Halloween I am planning on being a faun, which is maybe half-furry. I still need suitable pants, and plan to have short stilts ending in cloven hooves, which will give me the proper posture, and should provide a better silhouette than the extremely costume-y versions I've seen online. In keeping with my previously mentioned aesthetic preferences, I have been practicing styling my rather curly hair into two quite recognizable "horns," a look which my girlfriend says reminds her of the devil.

As for "furry" comics, and again, I hesitate to use the label because it might demean the work, but I would have to recommend MAUS by Art Spiegelman.

[Lhurgyof]

I do not in any way consider myself a furry.

But if slutty Halloween costumes have taught me anything, a pair of ears and a fake tail don't hurt.

[Asta Kask]

Also, I sympathize with the lack of an expressive tail dilemma.

A tail would be awesome. I see how much my cats can express with their tails and, yeah, I want one. Though that's not so much "I am/want to be a cat" as "I want a different evolutionary path". I wonder how much you would have to tweak the genome to get a tail.

(My one cat has also taught me that tails are good for chasing)

[RabbitHoleLost]

Used to have a fursona (dwarf lemur!) back in the day because a lot of my highschool friends were furries and I wanted to fit in with them. It was used mostly for freeform, forum based, text roleplay (typically sfw, silly, meaningless stuff), but also because the artists of the group wanted a way to depict us all and at the time weren't able to draw full humans.
Not particularly a furry myself, but sometimes I'll whip the old girl out for nostalgia's sake.

[Teddy]

As for "furry" comics, and again, I hesitate to use the label because it might demean the work, but I would have to recommend MAUS by Art Spiegelman.

Maus is brilliant. I only ever read the second book, and I regret doing it with some resistance (dad wanted me to read about the Holocaust when I did an assignment on Germany back in 5th grade). I think I'm going extend your hesistance to the word "comic" too, though. As might've been picked up from the parenthesis already, this is not a story you should pick up expecting lighthearted adventure, or even heavyhearted adventure. But people really should read it.

[Lhurgyof]

Maus is brilliant. I only ever read the second book, and I regret doing it with some resistance (dad wanted me to read about the Holocaust when I did an assignment on Germany back in 5th grade). I think I'm going extend your hesistance to the word "comic" too, though. As might've been picked up from the parenthesis already, this is not a story you should pick up expecting lighthearted adventure, or even heavyhearted adventure. But people really should read it.

It's not even remotely Furry. :/

[Teddy]

It's not even remotely Furry. :/

That depends entirely on how you define furry. If you define it as anthropomorphic animals, for example, then it's very much furry.

[SiuiS]

I doesn't matter if people do use a word, CoidOr, it matters what the effect is. A fandom is by colloquial use a subgroup, which by implication is less than a group. Insisting on 'fandom' is a form of delegitimization.

It may be a technically accurate and correct usage of the word, but technical and practical are different. Practically, by insisting on the technical usage you're arguing to continue the delegitimization. I don't think you want to; I don't think you have a dog in this fight, to use my favorite overdone phrase.

But you want to make a semantic point and someone else wants to establish emotional validity, probably best just not to quibble. It's not as important to you as them, after all.

[Kaworu]

Yeah, Maus was just brilliant. I love the comic, even thought it is really a "heavy" one.

But personally I do not consider it furry. For me, furry comics should be made with "furry intent" and Maus lack such an intention.

[Mystic Muse]

Yeah, Maus was just brilliant. I love the comic, even thought it is really a "heavy" one.

But personally I do not consider it furry. For me, furry comics should be made with "furry intent" and Maus lack such an intention.

It's not even remotely Furry. :/

I'm sorry, but what do either of these comments even MEAN?

[Jaycemonde]

Maus isn't really furry, no. It's using cartoon animals as caricatures--mice are Jewish, dogs are American, cats are German, et cetera, in an otherwise completely identical world to our own historical timeline. A furry graphic novel would be more like Feral, or The Order of the Black Dog, or Empire of the New Sun. Fred Savage would also count, despite being located on an otherwise normal 1980's Earth, because it's marketed toward furry audiences and there's more to each character's appearance and mannerisms than just a symbolic species assignment. Not all the good guys are dogs, not all the bad guys are rats, not all the snobbish aristocratic clients running away from hit squads are cheetahs.

I doesn't matter if people do use a word, CoidOr, it matters what the effect is. A fandom is by colloquial use a subgroup, which by implication is less than a group. Insisting on 'fandom' is a form of delegitimization.

It may be a technically accurate and correct usage of the word, but technical and practical are different. Practically, by insisting on the technical usage you're arguing to continue the delegitimization. I don't think you want to; I don't think you have a dog in this fight, to use my favorite overdone phrase.

But you want to make a semantic point and someone else wants to establish emotional validity, probably best just not to quibble. It's not as important to you as them, after all.

All of this. It's the same thing as with people who generalize all the small subsets of the wider LGBTAI+ spectrum for their own convenience, or because a pedantic slight bugs them, even though they're not affected by any of the issues at all. Granted, being furry doesn't cause as many of the same problems as being trans or non-hetero do, but for a lot of people it's still an important part of our identity. So.

I'm sorry, but what do either of these comments even MEAN?

I can't speak for the second one, but the first one is basically saying what I am. Maus is using animals as convenient vehicles for the people they represent based on their stereotypical characteristics; dogs are loyal, mice are timid and helpless, cats are sadistic, et cetera, but the correlation never goes beyond that, nor do any characters go against what the rest of their species is doing (ALL the cats are Nazis, ALL the dogs are Allied soldiers). It's monolithic. It was never designed with people on FurAffinity or Weasyl or VCL in mind, it was designed as a stylistic expression of a historical event.

[Asta Kask]

How about Reepicheep from Narnia?

[Coidzor]

How about Reepicheep from Narnia?

He's a talking rat or mouse, I don't even remember which. He's more like Atreyu the Masked Llama than Mickey Mouse.

[SiuiS]

Yeah, Maus was just brilliant. I love the comic, even thought it is really a "heavy" one.

But personally I do not consider it furry. For me, furry comics should be made with "furry intent" and Maus lack such an intention.

How about Omaha the Cat Dancer? I do not grok this division.

[P.F.]

How about Reepicheep from Narnia?

Reepicheep, good one! Narnia is rife with talking animals, some of which, I'm thinking of a Horse and His Boy, are rather clearly like Atreyu the LLama, they are sentient but otherwise look and behave more-or-less as animals. Others, like the Talking Mice, are of humanoid stature, wear clothes, and use manufactured weapons. Furries? Or just anthropomorphic animals exploring themes of human nature through the lens of other mammalian cultures?

Maus isn't really furry

Consider then Better Days, a web-comic which no one will dispute was written with "furry intent," and I mean not-suitable-for-this-forum "furry intent." {Scrubbed}

[Jaycemonde]

There are a lot of things in your post that I'd like to pick bones with, but I'm just gonna stick with this one:

which don't depict the struggles of feline veganism

...what?

Also, I'd suggest actually looking at all of the graphic novels I mentioned in my post (if anybody actually read that instead of just looking at the first four words). Those are all most obviously made with "furry intent", and not the passive-aggressively described "furry intent" that Fox News talks about once a month as if it's the spawn of the underworld.

Spoiler: Covers of the various novels, to make what I mean by "furry graphic novels" as obvious as possible.

Show

(apologies for small size, "Feral" doesn't really narrow it down a lot on search engines and the website only has small covers)

[Zrak]

I doesn't matter if people do use a word, CoidOr, it matters what the effect is. A fandom is by colloquial use a subgroup, which by implication is less than a group. Insisting on 'fandom' is a form of delegitimization.

If they are fans of a thing, they are part of its fandom. A subgroup is by implication less than a group in the sense that it is smaller than a group, not inferior to one; subgenres are not inferior to genres, they represent a smaller classification within the broader category. Being a Bruins fan is not inferior to being a Hockey fan, and the Bruins fandom is a subgroup of the Hockey fandom which is, in turn, a subgroup of every broader category in which it could be said to be included. This is how things relate to one another.
If the existence of a broader applicable label is somehow oppressive, one wonders how we even get out of bed beneath the burdens of not only our shared species but the genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, and domain above it. Even those irrepressible opportunists with "Eukaryote pride" tattoos repping the hood of everything-with-a-nucleus must shuffle their feet in dejected, Charlie-Brownian shame when bullying bacteria remind them they are still just a subgroup of "life."

[SiuiS]

If they are fans of a thing, they are part of its fandom.

But I'm not a fan of furries. I'm not a fan of furry cons. I'm not. Fan of the furry art culture or comic culture. And while some few furries are these things, they are also more than these things. It's often a lifestyle issue, not a favorite or liking things issue. So even if there is a furry fandom (in which people are fans of furry things), that is as useless a category as saying of those people who are really into star wars, there is a Jedi fandom.

The word doesn't depict much reality, it only depicts an external snap judgement, and one that is inherently derogatory because of the emotional impact of colloquial use. And unfortunately, no amount of logical explanation is going to get around the part that involves emotional intelligence; it's insulting, demeaning, and something people more intimate to the thing than you would prefer you not to buy into or feed into. It doesn't matter if the insult is illogical. You would have to work to change that visceral connotation, rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

When you say furry fandom, it's heard in the same tone and inflection as someone saying sonic fandom. Or fedora. Or radical feminazi. Or social justice warrior. There is a connotation to it that good intentions cannot yet separate you from.

And no amount of satire or reducing to absurdity can change that.

[Zrak]

If it's a specific objection to the fact that the term has been used to deride, specifically, furry culture — as "social justice warrior" — that's one thing, but that's actually not the substance of any objection raised so far. Jaycemonde objected on the grounds that fandom implies of a franchise, which it does not; you objected on the grounds that being a "subgroup" is inherently deligitimizing, which it is not; "fandom" can be used to the collected fans of anything without regard for how narrow or specific the subject is and essentially every group is a subgroup of a larger, more general group.

I'm not saying fandom is the correct word or it's wrong to object to its use, but rather that the objections raised to its use have not been substantive.

[Lhurgyof]

{Scrubbed}

[Asta Kask]

How about these pictures?

Spoiler: Mutant

Show

From the Swedish RPG Mutant (1984) and Mutant 2 (1989)

Where you could play anthropomorphic animals (the chief of security for the realm was a mutated bear named Traffault)

[Kaworu]

Asta: I believe your pictures are furry, but it's my personal opinion.

As to Omaha The Cat Dancer, I think it is made with "furry intent" (Plus, there is lots of sex - another trait of many furry works...)

[SiuiS]

I'm not saying fandom is the correct word or it's wrong to object to its use, but rather that the objections raised to its use have not been substantive.

The objection has always been "it's hurtful" with attempts to express why in a manner you'll accept. But that's where emotional intelligence comes in; it's a problem for reasons you could puzzle out, especially with people trying to help you; it doesn't fit the word you're using anyway; you are not the judge who must make a ruling based on how well an explanation fits your technical parameters.

"That's mean" is a perfectly valid reason. Being unable to express why is also perfectly valid. You're requiring a dissection of why something is oppressive, and we don't have that for racial relations which have been around for longer and studied more thoroughly; why should this thread and these people have to jump through your hoops? They're just asking for you to respect terms you, as we've established, don't have an equal vested interest in. It baffles me that a unified logical prescriptive definition is more important than accepting people have baggage and you may be dancing on it.

{Scrubbed}

That's just offensive. :-/