Animation Source Forums

Revised question:

I don't know much about furries other than the common misconceptions about them, so would someone please explain the basic definition of furry?

^ Regardless is this not offensive and in need of reporting?
...and I think spam too.

I didn't mean to offend anyone I was just asking a question

If you bothered to read any of the topic, your 'question' would be answered.

yes I have read it and there seems to be alot of arguing going on

People have answered the question to what a furry is throughout the topic. If you were to have read any of it, you would know.

---

I am not a furry, though I'm not "anti-furry" but I don't necessarily like them. "As long as they don't bother me I won't bother them" kinda thing.



And I highly agree with what JC said. I don't much have a problem with people who feel the need to dress up as a giant animal, but its most definitely not something I would ever do.

Thanks again for the nod, Tibb!

I do consider myself a furry, though I do not go to fur-cons or make fursuits.

I personally believe that fandom has serious issues that have either been glossed over or hidden These issues are as follows:

1: Allowing anyone to just join the fandom. This is the big one for me. People in the fandom are so eager to expand the fandom that they will welcome people unconditionally. I do not take issue with being welcoming to newcomers, but I think people need to more cautious about new members until they show that they are a benefit to the fandom.

The same goes for existing members as well. If a furry is into illegal or very distasteful activities the are too gross to mention in this forum, then they should be booted out of the fandom. The fandom has enough problems as it, it does not need to be associated with these types of people.

2: The persecution complex: Some furs cannot take criticism of fandom by either the mainstream media or "normal" people well. If one says anything negative, they get overly defensive and act like the Nazi's are coming after them. They cannot except that mainstream society will view the fandom as weird for the foreseeable future. If the fandom is going to be accepted by mainstream, then furries have to lighten up about the fandom

3: The superiority complex: I have seen furs refer to people in mainstream society as "mundanes." I shake my head about this since we are all mundane. Everyone has to work, pay bills, do chores, and so on. Having another interest does not make one special over other people.

I think that would only lead to trouble, and would prove the point of calling non-furries (and then, even other furries) "Nazis" and "haterz". There are already one or two people in here at least, who are generally, known, who are in that one side of furry fandom that includes sexual deviancy and sexually-explicit art. And a third has just recently left in an angry huff. Given his proclivities, my opinion is that that is best for the rest of the membership.


The mainstream as a whole is never going to fully accept an alternative activity (some would even say "lifestyle" at this point, but I think that is carrying it way too far...even I made the mistake of using it recently, in this topic in fact) as part of the mainstream since it is, by its very concept, not mainstream. Many furries even go to great lengths to make it clear that they are not "like [other] humans"...some even don't consider themselves human (which is just ()weird).


While you are right, they would not be the only ones to do so. LARPers, Renaissance people, medieval re-enactors, and fans of other fantasy and science fiction movies (and/or TV series) use that term as well to apply to people all over the world who don't do what they do. Even those who attend their events as visitors or spectators. In my opinion, it is a stupid term. But it has caught on, and I doubt it's going anywhere.

*le gasp* Jersey, you said a wirty dord. Hidden text : click to show But yes, I agree.



Though I agree...I have issues with what you said - not the idea in general.

First, who exactly is in charge of the fandom, or any fandom for that matter? There's certainly not one specific person, or even a group of people. The thing about fandoms being what they are is, they're more of an idea if you will, not an actual "group" though most fandoms will often join together and act as such in certain situations. Even so, there are subgroups within that larger group that exist at all times [often revolving around certain pairings, other ideas within the broader concept of the fandom and what not (like shippers for TV shows and what not)] that, though usually in flux, act more group-like. Those groups might have go-to people who are considered in charge by their peers, but there's no formal power or legitimate control over the community at large.

As such, who exactly would be able to simply not let someone into the fandom, or to put it more correctly, who can really stop someone from deciding they like an idea and want to be a fan of it? No one. Or at least, it'll stay that way until mind control comes along, but I figure by that time we'll all have more than the reputation of a fandom to worry about .

And again, who could really make someone stop liking the idea/fandom? The most you could do is kick them out of whatever group they're in and ostracize them from the society as a whole by basically blacklisting them. For instance, I could be kicked out of Animation Source, but that wouldn't stop me from being a Balto fan, or a fan of any of the other films/series here. If I did something really atrocious, all of the fans in the fandom might band together and shun me, and not allow be to join a site. However, it still wouldn't make me not be a fan - only I can do that. And what's worse, even not being affiliated with everyone else, I could still trash their reputation as a whole just by going out in public, saying I'm a fan of that particular fandom, and then doing the very things that would make the general public dislike the fandom even more.

Now, I wouldn't do that, obviously; that's just to illustrate my point. You can't stop someone from really being in the fandom (or trolling it by doing stupid things to make the rest look bad). You just have to accept that people like that exist, come to a consensus with the majority of the fandom that you don't want to be seen that way (and make sure that you show that such behavior is not condoned or altogether common/accepted in the fandom) and then move on. To use some common stereotypes for people: some goths are also emo, but not all. Some nerds like D&D, but some would rather play video games. Some furries are deviant in ways the general public does not accept, but many are not.

[quote="Aniu Caelestis"]*le gasp* Jersey, you said a wirty dord. Hidden text : click to show But yes, I agree.

I'm a baaaa-a-a-a-a-d boooy!

The more I think about it, the more I believe the reason why many people prefer furry characters (or cartoon characters) to human characters is THIS :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley



Furries are very much like humans, with personalities, share some physical aspects etc...BUT they don't look 100% like humans. And that's why the "familiarity factor" for furries is very high.

That's it, I scientifically demonstrated that furries ROCKS

NB : The Uncanny Valley effect is also the reason why we never see very realistic CGI human characters in movies. (except from Final Fantasy Spirits Within, which bombed at the box office for that very reason) and why Pixar, Dreamworks and co always make humans characters very roundish/cartoonish.

This DOESN'T explain why most video games nowadays HAVE realistic CGI humans characters though...But I have to say that personally, I don't like ANY of them and I never get attached to these characters.

I will address this.




What Aniu said really covers how I think of this. You can't just boot someone out of a fandom, and without brainwashing or causing brain damage (which is illegal, by the way) you can't stop someone from liking something. Honestly, the reason why I like the fandom is because they're accepting. And really, if anyone in the fandom is into something really off-the-wall, odds are that they're already ostracized by the majority of the fandom to some extent.

And finally, define "distasteful" and "gross." That's really, really subjective. Some people think the fandom itself is distasteful. Some people think nothing is distasteful. Some people find sexually explicit material distasteful, others only find certain kinds of explicit material distasteful and gross. And honestly, whether they think it's distasteful or not, that explicit kind of stuff isn't something furries would go flaunting around to the public (believe me, furries actually possess common sense!) Most, if not all furry websites that contain such material have clear warnings about the content in some form or another, or require registration and an age verification to view such content. Believe me, what you're saying can be interpreted in 500+ different ways. And to add, explicit "distasteful" stuff you're talking about is present in just about every fandom, from the Star Trek and Star Wars fandoms to the Anime fandom, and even the comic book fandom. Those fandoms have certainly garnered mainstream acceptance, (look at the turnout for Comic Con) even with all that stuff present (I'd be willing to bet that there were some 18+ comic books for sale there). It's just that some people are OK with it, while others don't care for it and focus on the non explicit aspects. And you know what? If you don't care for it, that's perfectly fine. You don't have to. But seriously, the furry fandom isn't the only fandom that has an adult or otherwise controversial aspect to it. It's really only a matter of time before people learn that the furry fandom is like just about every other fandom out there. I mean, come on, the Dungeons and Dragons fandom was widely accused of being a group of Satanic Cultists throughout the 1980's, but nowadays everyone knows it's just an innocent board game.




OK, define criticism. The mainstream media has a bit of a problem with sensationalism when it comes to furries, as most outlets have, in the past, portrayed furries as a group of sexual deviants who do... stuff in fursuits. (By the way, that's quite far from the truth. It's really just a bunch of geeks, artists, and performers that share similar interests in anthropomorphic animals.) Fortunately, the mainstream media has actually started to, you know, do research into the topic, and is gradually portraying them in a more positive light. It's slow, but steady.

And as to normal people, well, the furs I know are really chill about when people come into, say, a furry convention and ask what it's all about. They're calm, and are willing to explain everything. Honestly, normal people come to us with either questions as to what the heck they're witnessing or questions that stem from over-generalized misconceptions. Really, people who have seen the fandom without any prior biases see little wrong with it.

Want proof? I direct you here, to a video of two non-furs talking about a fur con they attended just to see what it's like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko06p4xmaxE

And here, a newspaper article written by an undercover journalist at a convention, who was looking to dig up dirt on the fandom, but found none: http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/feature ... rries.html

Here's a quote from the latter article:


Just saying, I don't recall seeing much, if any, legitimate criticism of the fandom. And no, trolling and generalizing the fandom as a bunch of sex deviants is not criticism. That's called sensationalism and crying for attention.



OK, now you need to lighten up! XP Seriously, that phrase is just a joke. We don't think everyone who isn't a furry to be actually "mundane." I mean, why would we? A lot of us have friends outside the fandom... we really refer to them as "non-furs." Furs just like to joke that they have more fun and creative experiences than your average Joe. It may or may not be true, but then again, "fun" can be subjective, too. Believe me, we don't think we're "better" than non-furs.

Following back to a place you furries have mentioned repeatedly, I have searched the forums of (eeeekh) "Fur Affinity" in order to respond to the previous post. Sorry, but that post left a wide-open doorway to this response. This is not a condemnation of furries, but simply a point-for-point response using material drawn from a furry site intended to set the record straight. To wit:


Ah yes...the "accepting" and ever-so-tolerant furries:
(funny thing is, in this last link, I agree with the CONCEPT the original poster complained about...though I have no interest in reading pro/con arguments in a furry forum)

Oh, there's plenty more where that came from, I am sure. But this gives a pretty good look at how "accepting" furries are even of other furries, in a forum all their own, much less of outsiders.



Oh?


If they never go around "flaunting it to the public", then where, exactly, did the so-called "hateful stereotypes" originate, I wonder? And since places such as Fur Affinity are viewable by anyone, and easy enough to find, it hardly seems like the furry community is trying to keep secrets. Certainly some of the more colorful and [sarcasm]intellectual[/sarcasm] topics in that one particular forum (as just one example) were viewable to someone like me...an outsider who is most definitely NOT a furry...and not even remotely interested in being one. And while such behavior is HARDLY exclusive to furries or furry forums, I see no more common sense there than anywhere else. And in some of those topics, I have seen the exact opposite of common sense.



Not entirely accurate. It was accused of encouraging and supporting Satanism by a small ultra-fundamentalist politico-religious group known as "The Moral Majority". A group which had no official ties to any mainstream and intelligent church (be it Christian or otherwise). They were a hardcore, extremist, fundamentalist watchdog group tied up in politics and moral enforcement, using religion as a platform. But the pastime of paper & dice role-playing games was hardly the same as playing dress-up as your favorite animal and drawing ultra idealistic animal-human hybrid creatures vaguely reminiscient of anime/manga characters. Or being into "yiff" or "yaoi" or whatever else it's called. And all manner of other things tied, on one level or another, to the specific furry experience. The two pastimes (fantasy or sci-fi paper & dice role-playing games, and furry stuff) are entirely dissimilar even if certain individuals, groups or elements of each have certain things in common.



Actually, a careful analysis of forums and sites just like Fur Affinity (if not that site itself) demonstrate that furries have varied interests which SOMETIMES intertwine, but which definitely include (at least for a certain percentage of them which is hardly quantifiable) "sexual deviants who do...stuff in fursuits". As to the mainstream media gradually portraying furries in "a more positive light", could you provide relevant examples?



"Normal people"? Isn't that rather judgemental of your fellow furries to separate them by referring to non-furries as "normal"? Doesn't that define your fellow furries as "abnormal"?

"Really chill"? Well, I'd love to post some VERY relevant examples of lack of "chill", but since the topic titles are full of profanity, I would expect some sort of knee-jerk warning from an inexperienced forum mod here if I were to post those links (even if I didn't create the titles of those topics). But they can be viewed by going here: http://forums.furaffinity.net/forums/23-Rants-and-Raves (and there are oooh so many to refer to...)



How nice. Three individuals. A very good sampling. Not.



As I had indicated in my earlier response post to Coaster's post (which included this quote), "mundane" is not a reflection on how furries view non-furries (at least as far as I know, but I don't believe it to be). "Mundane" is a label used by several of the...more interesting pastimes (such as LARPing, Renaissance Faire people, certain European history re-enactors, etc.) to refer to people who come to view their events or visit their conventions, i.e.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane

(Note this particular phrase from that link about furries: "In furry fandom, it is used to describe non-furries, or 'humans'." I find that phrase rather disturbing...in that it implies that furries view themselves as not being human. Which, as we have seen, SOME furries definitely do. That quote included a footnote to this website, which confirms what I have delineated about the purpose of the word "mundane": http://www.furrydolphin.net/furry-dict.html.)

It's a furry term too, Swords. So how is it you are so unaware of it that you're ready to crucify Coaster for making note of it, hm?