Ask a Furry

[Tani Coyote]

'Fox is this you?

No, this would be me.

I don't blame him for raging against all the ignorant comments and stereotypes, however.

I myself, rather than raging, prefer to try and use calm, more diplomatic methods to show why the stereotypes aren't true.

Hence this thread.

 

[Perfection]

Does you like specific sorts of anthropomorphic animals, if so WHAT KINDS?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Does you like specific sorts of anthropomorphic animals, if so WHAT KINDS?

In order?

In terms of appearance:

I like them to be toned/muscular. I like the "feral" look too: claws, fangs, ruffled fur, etc. I also like them to be fairly tall - 6 feet or so will do. Taller than me especially(5'9'').

I assume you mean species, however.

In terms of species:

Tier I: Wolves, Tigers, Hedgehogs
Tier II: Otters, Foxes, Hyenas, Kangaroos
Tier III: Wombats, Dragons, Rabbits, Horses

I like just about all furry species, but those are some notables in my list in terms of general species. Often, a specific furry need only meet my likings in appearance to earn my liking. :3

 

[Takhisis]

A dragon is anything but furry, you know.

 

[Tani Coyote]

A dragon is anything but furry, you know.

Well they'd technically fall under "scalie", but like birds, they're included as part of the furry fandom... as can be seen by the dragon species in FurAffinity's browse feature.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Traitorfish]

...is it common to class creatures such as those from the Redwall series, who's physical anthropomorphism is secondary to their human-like behaviour, as "furries"? Or is it taken to refer specifically to the narrower "hairy guy with an animal's head" archetype?

*ahem*

Also, on a related note, where does the fandom stand on the stereotypical "cat-girl", and other Playbunny-style pseudo-furries. I assume that they are not typically included under the header of "furry"?

Also, you mention dragons. Are mythological creatures a common basis for anthros? Or is this a particular sub-subcultural quirk? Are such anthros in any way associated with Otherkin?
Come to think of it, what is the relationship between the Furry community and the Otherkin? Is there some crossover, or are they two discrete cultures that only seem to merge in the eyes of an ignorant outsider? Certainly, I've noticed that the spiritual/totemic element found which is rather secondary in Furry culture seems very focal for the Otherkin.

 

[Tani Coyote]

*ahem*

Sorry!

...is it common to class creatures such as those from the Redwall series, who's physical anthropomorphism is secondary to their human-like behaviour, as "furries"? Or is it taken to refer specifically to the narrower "hairy guy with an animal's head" archetype?

That's actually a very good question!

I have seen plenty of cartoony furries as well as realistically-proportioned ones. Indeed, many of the fandom's outside contributors(meaning all those who produce furry media despite not being furry themselves; think Disney) produce cartoon animals and not realistic ones. So I'd say that, yes, cartoon animals fall under the furry definition as much as ones who look human apart from the basic features(paws instead of hands and feet, claws, muzzles, ears, tail, etc.).

Also, on a related note, where does the fandom stand on the stereotypical "cat-girl", and other Playbunny-style pseudo-furries. I assume that they are not typically included under the header of "furry"?

I have seen a few furries with demi-characters(i.e. a human with fox tail and ears), but these furries seem to be too common, and even so, often the demi form isn't their only form(they could also be a full furry form if they wish). So I'd say that, for the most part, no, demi-animals don't count as furries.

But who knows! After all, the actual furries who are members of the fandom are demis themselves in a way... being a mixture of a human poster and a furry fantasy incarnation...

 

[Quackers]

No, this would be me.

I don't blame him for raging against all the ignorant comments and stereotypes, however.

I myself, rather than raging, prefer to try and use calm, more diplomatic methods to show why the stereotypes aren't true.

Hence this thread.

I watched your first video about sonic.

you are a good talker

 

[Formaldehyde]

Is Lady Gaga a furry?


Link to video.

 

[useless]

whats your view on softpaw magazine lolololozersfd

 

[Mad Man]

Is Batman a furry?

 

[Traitorfish]

Is Batman a furry?

If he says "yes", where do you plan to go from there, exactly?

 

[GenMarshall]

Batman is disappoint. I can see it now "Is Chewbacca a furry?", " Is Cousin It from the Addams Family a furry?), "Is Fozzie Bear (or insert name of muppet here) a furry?", or "Is Alf a furry?"

I miss Alf (Dang it, Im showing my old age by referancing 80s TV shows )

I wonder if furry puppets would count to the furry fandom.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Is Lady Gaga a furry?

Ummm... I have no clue. She'd have to 'fess up to being one, I feel. I consider self-identification one of the key factors...

Take for instance how my friend taillesskangaru has a kangaroo character and(from what I can infer) seems to like Sonic(a "furry" franchise, even if it wasn't made by furries) enough, but isn't a member of the furry fandom.

It can be quite confusing to define what a fur is at times, so I consider self-identification a key factor. You can go from there.

whats your view on softpaw magazine lolololozersfd

*does some quick research into that*

Eh, I'm not into that stuff, but if somebody wants to read it regularly, it's not really hurting anybody, so more power to them I guess.

Is Batman a furry?

Maybe a wannabe-fursuiter. Or maybe one of those furries who seek to be like Otherkin and consider themselves an animal at heart.

Then again... I'm pretty sure this isn't a serious question, so who knows.

I miss Alf (Dang it, Im showing my old age by referancing 80s TV shows )

I remember playing Sonic Genesis. How do you think I feel?

I wonder if furry puppets would count to the furry fandom.

I could be like ThatGuyWithTheGlasses and dismiss your question for technically not being a question by saying, "That's nice", but I'll answer it anyway.

Yes, they probably would. Animals are still animals. It's a bit like a fursuit, a puppet... except it mostly covers only the hand. Or, it's a full body fursuit, either being worn by a person or controlled by strings. So if I had to make a decision, I'd say, yes, that furry puppets count.

 

[useless]

So apparently watching/reading/looking at child porn in furry form is okay.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I obviously can't get too in detail about sexual aspects, but here I go...

So apparently watching/reading/looking at child porn in furry form is okay.

Not furry. FICTIONAL. Fictional meaning not real and thus there are no victims involved. If something is a fictional work, and if somebody wants to pick it up, more power to them. It's none of my business.

If there are no victims involved, I see nothing wrong with it. I don't personally like it, but if somebody else does... well, better they look at that than actual children. Nobody is being hurt by fictional child pornography, and so I feel that is okay. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't make it "wrong." Maybe wrong to you, but it certainly shouldn't be wrong to society - i.e. illegal.

Focus on the actual, living, breathing children who get sexually exploited, not those who are drawn on a piece of paper, furry or non. The first has a victim, the latter does not; it's not that difficult.

Those are my thoughts on it all, anyway.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention. Softpaw Magazine is banned at Eurofurence and Further Confusion, major furry conventions.

 

[useless]

Ah i see, so you're okay with people creating pornographic images of children, simply because it's "fictional" and no one is "hurt" by it. Okay then.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Ah i see, so you're okay with people creating pornographic images of children, simply because it's "fictional" and no one is "hurt" by it. Okay then.

I myself? Yes. I cannot speak for the entire fandom. And it's more part of myself being a libertarian type than a furry.

And why the scare quotes?

If one draws a child, the child is not real. The only area where it would count as real was if it was a portrait, since it was inspired by a living, breathing child.

As I said, it's not too hard to differentiate between fictional children and real children. If you put a fire to a piece of paper with a child on it, and an actual child, there are VERY different reactions. I don't know how to better explain the difference. It's akin to people saying that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalised beastiality and necrophilia... completely false because of the whole consent feature. The key difference between shota/cub art and actual child pornography is... well, the former is fictional, the latter is not.

I don't know how to better explain it.

Anyway, this is getting off-topic. This thread is for questions related to the furry fandom, not debating whether shota/cub art qualifies as child porn.

(P.S. It doesn't. Hence why no people who draw it get arrested)

 

[useless]

Ah i see if i was to draw a man engaging in buggery with a horse, it woudn't be beastality because it isnt real. Great logic.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Ah i see if i was to draw a man engaging in buggery with a horse, it woudn't be beastality because it isnt real. Great logic.

Why yes, yes the logic is great. That WOULDN'T count as beastiality, at least not in the legal sense. Why? The people/animal in it are not real and thus are not relevant to the law by merit of having no rights or protections.

Anyway. This isn't the thread for this discussion. I made this thread for it instead.