Don't you think that you may be wildly exaggerating what being a "furry" means? I'd instead expect the "furry" sentiment to dissipate. Humanoid animals do not exist, they are a cultural invention, mostly via cartoons, and a recent one at that. Making "furriness" little more than a fashion/cultural fad, destined for the same fate all those have. It will have its cycle, and then disappear. Unlike those other groups which you quoted, and that have been documented to happen among humans (homosexuals, atheists, etc) for at least as long as recoded history.
I wouldn't be surprised if furryness goes back as far as mankind, given that imagination's existence. It was only with the invention of the internet and all its goodies that we could actually contact eachother, hence the formation of an actual community, online. We substitute geographic connection for communication connection.
So, you claim that what makes your identity is a liking for a figment of the imagination? Ok, that by itself is not strange, many aspects of culture are not grounded on any material conditions of life. And you do have a valid argument that there are practical consequences from "furryness", namely the existence of a community of like-minded individuals.
Traitorfish actually explained quite well that we're at least a subculture, so that would probably explain a bit about why we consider it a part of our identity.
Still.... don't you think that it might be a rather poor foundation for something as important as an identity?
That begs the question, what is a good foundation for an identity?
I mean, as far as I can see, the whole phenomenon merely is a consequence of the popularity of anthropomorphic cartoons!
Maybe so, maybe not. But while those cartoons provided the fire that lit everything up, they were only part of lighting the fuse. Large groups of furs wish there were anthro animals, wish they could be anthro animals, etc. Even if all the cartoons vanished, those thoughts would still be an integral part of that person.
are then saying they want a legal form of zoophilia?
Most furs do
NOT want to engage in beastiality. That's a very large misconception that a simple degree of reading can dispel.
However, a fair degree of furs probably would have sexual relations with an anthromorphic animal. It might sound gross at first, but think: this anthro animal would be able to consent, think, etc. No different than a human other than the fact they happen to have a few animal characteristics physically.
Depending on how far you want to stretch the definition of "humanoid," non-human primates could count.
I used humanoid as an alternative to anthro, though I mean animals that are bestowed human characteristics... speech, walking on two legs, great intelligence, reasoning power, emotions, etc. Picture a group of foxes doing all that amongst themselves, AND forming their own governments and such.
You seem obsessed with this apparently baseless accusation of a shared persecution complex as fundamental to the community. Is it so hard to grasp the concept of subcultural identity?
To be fair, I'm not too surprised if he imagines it's the large degree of trolling of furs that causes us to band together and forge an identity. Necessity is the mother of invention and all that. That's a reasonable guess as to what would cause the furry fandom, and I wouldn't think less of someone for assuming the "fursecution" as the reason for the kinship.
It's hardly like Fox has suggested anything unusual or unprecedented, at least if you live on a planet that, like mine, has experience the presence of metalheads, punks, goths, emos and the like. Subculture, remember, is distinct from a mere fan-community. It is essentially defined by a shared cultural identity which, I think, furries inarguably seem to possess.
That's actually a very good comparison. I was trying to use the abstract idea of a nationality, though subculture works nicely too. We may not be as culturally distinct as some ethnic group, but we certainly are a distinct group within a larger group... a subculture. We like to socialise with eachother, much like most subcultures do to my knowledge.
Which I suppose answers my own question; "furrydom" brings together multiple anthro-related interests through this shared identity which encourages such things to co-exist, while individually they represent only a particular hobby, interest, art style or what have you.
That sounds about right. We are quite diverse, with our main unifying feature being our liking of anthro animals... and from that small drop of unity, more and more unity and cohesiveness forms(we export our related interests to eachother, for one, would be a great example). And of course, the sense of brotherhood, which probably did form substantially due to the trolling. I can think an argument can be made that, in the long run, the trolls have helped us more than hurting us, by increasing the degree by which all the furs associate with eachother.
