Ask a Furry

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, would you compare the persecution your people suffered to the Jews, the Gypsies or the Blacks?

We're not being rounded up and mass murdered. We're not denied any rights; two furries can still marry(unless they're gay, of course, but that's because of their gay quality and not their furry quality) eachother; we can vote; we can attend schools, etc.

The only real persecution is socially. And nothing can really be done about that... ideally we'd all be tolerant of eachother, but what can you do?

That and most persecution is mostly limited to the internet's vast reservoir of trolls. I don't see the need to treat trolls like they're "srs bsns" as they like to say...

Maybe reporting them here and there, but that's more just because I'm a law-abiding citizen, not because I'm a furry. I'm not going to go on some rant about how it's wrong they dislike us or how we should crusade against them.

And well, to be fair, we somewhat earned any "persecution" by coming out about it all. Doesn't make it any less wrong, though.
 
We're not being rounded up and mass murdered. We're not denied any rights; two furries can still marry(unless they're gay, of course, but that's because of their gay quality and not their furry quality) eachother; we can vote; we can attend schools, etc.

The only real persecution is socially. And nothing can really be done about that... ideally we'd all be tolerant of eachother, but what can you do?

That and most persecution is mostly limited to the internet's vast reservoir of trolls. I don't see the need to treat trolls like they're "srs bsns" as they like to say...

Maybe reporting them here and there, but that's more just because I'm a law-abiding citizen rather than a furry. I'm not going to go on some rant about how it's wrong they dislike us or how we should crusade against them.

And well, to be fair, we somewhat earned any "persecution" by coming out about it all. Doesn't make it any less wrong, though.

So furries aren't law abiding citizens?
 
So furries aren't law abiding citizens?

You know what I meant.

In any case, I will answer your question regardless. Off the top of my head, pretty much all furries - following trends in the wider population - are law-abiding citizens, unless liking anthro animals counts as a crime.
 
Identity is one of the main building blocks of a community, I feel. :)

It is also a major part of most furries' lives(online, at least), I imagine. Far more major than simply just collecting stamps or something. It's a fundamental part of who we are, more than just really liking something.



Do they feel a sense of kinship with eachother, form their own literal communities, etc.? I do know they have their own dialect/jargon with eachother, and they have conventions and such too I'm sure.



...I have no idea where you're going with this part, as the logic does not follow to me. I understand you're trying to draw a parallel to the issues furries deal with, but the logic still does not follow. Forming a community in and of itself does not equate to being oppressed... :confused:

I'm looking too much into it though.

Like I said, it just seems to me that it's little more than a hobby that some people take way too seriously, and probably the only reason for the "sense of kinship" as you call it is that you're made fun of relentlessly (at least on the internet) for your choice of hobbies. Among any group of people that are picked on there are going to be people who empathize with one another for being picked on. If I were picked on for, I don't know, reading science fiction novels or owning an SNES I'd probably try to connect with other people who were as well.

I'm not saying you don't constitute a community, at least not any less than any other group of people following a particular hobby have a community.
 
Like I said, it just seems to me that it's little more than a hobby that some people take way too seriously, and probably the only reason for the "sense of kinship" as you call it is that you're made fun of relentlessly (at least on the internet) for your choice of hobbies. Among any group of people that are picked on there are going to be people who empathize with one another for being picked on. If I were picked on for, I don't know, reading science fiction novels or owning an SNES I'd probably try to connect with other people who were as well.

WikiFur said:
Furry fandom, also known as furrydom, furridom, fur fandom or furdom, refers to the fandom for the furry genre of literature, art and entertainment. Furry fandom is also used to refer to the community of artists, writers, role players and general fans of the furry art forms who gather on the net and at conventions.

I figured I'd clarify the idea behind the fandom a bit more just because it seemed appropriate.

Anyway, you do make good points. Perhaps it is our "odd" "hobby" and the resulting social persecution that causes us to band together so much quicker, akin to how many gays ban together because of the social persecution(even if gay rights were fully legal, I still imagine they'd maintain a separate community just because of the fact they'd still be oddballs in a way).

I do imagine it goes wayyyy beyond hobby status for those who wish to actually become anthro animals(just like a transsexual's wishes go beyond hobby status; it's a fundamental change to what makes you who you are), and for those who have fursonas, however. The part of the fandom that simply draws the art and such probably could be counted as a hobby(no different than drawing say, anime characters), but I'd say those who self-identify as furs, and wish they could be real life furs, constitute a large enough subset of the fandom for themselves to be considered an identity.
 
You're running on the assumption that furryness is a "fetish" and not just an identity or hobby that's prone to take up fetishes... this is blatantly false.

To me/us, it's not really any different than saying we're a fan of x, or a collector of y. When I say "I'm a furry", I'm not talking about any of my fetishes whatsoever. I'm just saying that I'm a part of the community and a deep interest in humanoid animals.

I never said they could become mainstream.

I do think that, as we're exposed to the world however, people will eventually grow used to us. Same as they steadily grow used to all the other minorities after sufficient exposure. We're a relatively new thing, having popped out when the internet started more or less. We're trolled a lot... but that's because people aren't used to us, they consider us weird just like they do/used to feel about homosexuals, atheists, etc.

As the decades go by, the anti-furry sentiment will naturally dissipate.

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 don't really know. I would suppose it's the fact we take a liking to humanoid animals that makes us distinct, as that's what makes us furries.

Like it or not, we are an identity. Tough cookies. I'll happily restate the reasoning for the identity/culture if you need it.

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. Still.... don't you think that it might be a rather poor foundation for something as important as an identity?

I mean, as far as I can see, the whole phenomenon merely is a consequence of the popularity of anthropomorphic cartoons!
 
are then saying they want a legal form of zoophilia?
 
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.

Depending on how far you want to stretch the definition of "humanoid," non-human primates could count.
 
Still.... don't you think that it might be a rather poor foundation for something as important as an identity?
What are your criteria for "good" foundations of identity?

People have created countries out of imaginary "national communities," for example.
 
What are your criteria for "good" foundations of identity?

People have created countries out of imaginary "national communities," for example.

I do believe that many people in the past could see, say, "jewishness", as a possible foundation for a country. Somehow I don't see how "furryness" could have the same potential. Even when nationalists used (often made up) folklore and clothing to be part of new "national identities", they knew very well that those could only be small parts of a mush bigger picture.

I wasn't questioning the existence of communities based on such limited ideas, I was questioning whether such communities could be called "an identity". And one possible answer is that people can hold different identities simultaneously, but I understant that what people call "my identity" is either a synthesis or the main one they identify with. Some people, for example, believe that being "french", or "german", or some other national identity, is their identity. Other that being "gay" is enough. Or being "baptist", "catholic", "muslim", or whatever.

But can being "furry" realistically compete with those? And this ignoring the question of whether such limited identifications are a good idea.
 
Like I said, it just seems to me that it's little more than a hobby that some people take way too seriously, and probably the only reason for the "sense of kinship" as you call it is that you're made fun of relentlessly (at least on the internet) for your choice of hobbies. Among any group of people that are picked on there are going to be people who empathize with one another for being picked on. If I were picked on for, I don't know, reading science fiction novels or owning an SNES I'd probably try to connect with other people who were as well.
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? 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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Would you?
 
Would you?

In all honesty, I probably would give it a try. If they're walking on two legs, are as intelligent as any other person, can consent, etc... what's the difference between them and any other hopeful mate? Besides the fact they're covered in fur/have some animal traits.

I wouldn't reject them for that alone. To me, that'd be like rejecting a relationship with a person just because they're black or something. And while it may be a different species, the rule still remains that it IS a genetic difference, which is kind of a silly reason to automatically reject someone when they're on par with you in terms of intelligence and capability.

I understand if you find such a thing gross, however. Just as I understand if straight people find gay relations gross. Just a matter of preference. :) So long as you aren't trying to keep people apart... you can have whatever thoughts you want on them.
 
In all honesty, I probably would give it a try. If they're walking on two legs, are as intelligent as any other person, can consent, etc... what's the difference between them and any other hopeful mate? Besides the fact they're covered in fur/have some animal traits.

I wouldn't reject them for that alone. To me, that'd be like rejecting a relationship with a person just because they're black or something. And while it may be a different species, the rule still remains that it IS a genetic difference, which is kind of a silly reason to automatically reject someone when they're on par with you in terms of intelligence and capability.

I understand if you find such a thing gross, however. Just as I understand if straight people find gay relations gross. Just a matter of preference. :) So long as you aren't trying to keep people apart... you can have whatever thoughts you want on them.
So you'd consider a relatonship with a anthropomorphic flatworm, who have sex by stabbing each other with their extremely sharp dual-wield penises? When does "genetic difference" start to matter in a very real way?
 
Snipping that first part, because I'm not sure if that counts as appropriate...

When does "genetic difference" start to matter in a very real way?

Genetic difference to me only begins to factor in once we leave the realm of furriness. Or scaliness. I could find an anthro dragon, wolf, fox, tiger, etc. all fairly attractive and would probably consider a relationship with one of these fully sentient beings.

Flatworms, jellyfish and whatnot? No. Sorry. That's where genetic difference begins to matter to me.
 
I'm just slightly lost. So is being "furry" inherently sexual, as in you get off on fantasizing about these kinds of characters, or does it just mean that you just generally like that kind of animation?

Edit: Dunno why my phone likes to throw random smillies in when I post from it. Gr.
 
In all honesty, I probably would give it a try. If they're walking on two legs, are as intelligent as any other person, can consent, etc... what's the difference between them and any other hopeful mate? Besides the fact they're covered in fur/have some animal traits.

I wouldn't reject them for that alone. To me, that'd be like rejecting a relationship with a person just because they're black or something. And while it may be a different species, the rule still remains that it IS a genetic difference, which is kind of a silly reason to automatically reject someone when they're on par with you in terms of intelligence and capability.

I understand if you find such a thing gross, however. Just as I understand if straight people find gay relations gross. Just a matter of preference. :) So long as you aren't trying to keep people apart... you can have whatever thoughts you want on them.

So you're essentially saying Furryism is inherently a fetish?

Would you consider people who...fantasize about say, snakes or reptiles, or birds, or fish, or slugs, or tuberculosis bacillum as furries?
 
In all honesty, I probably would give it a try. If they're walking on two legs, are as intelligent as any other person, can consent, etc... what's the difference between them and any other hopeful mate? Besides the fact they're covered in fur/have some animal traits.
To be fair, so would I. And would the rest of us. Let's not kid ourselves here.



So you're essentially saying Furryism is inherently a fetish?

Would you consider people who...fantasize about say, snakes or reptiles, or birds, or fish, or slugs, or tuberculosis bacillum as furries?
Fetishes aside, non-mammalian anthros are typically lumped in with furries; the name reflects the popularity of mammalian anthros, rather than any inherent restrictions. Occasionally you'll hear terms like "scalies" or "featheries" being thrown around, but none of them ever really stick. "Anthros" is perhaps a better term, although that itself is perhaps too broad, as anthropomorphism refers to the Ents or the Transformers as much as it refers to furry characters in particular.
Anthropomorphism, of course, being the key; most "furry fetishists" are, I'm quite sure, as disgusted by bestiality as the rest of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom