FA+
Shop
Part 3 - On What The Crap Is Even Furry
11 years ago
I think sometimes it gets confusing when we're discussing "furry" because the word covers several different definitions and literally nobody wants to be left out of including their Doom cyberdemon fancharacter and who are you to judge, anyhow?
Being an english major with an interest in linguistics, I find this is simultaneously a boon--as the lack of solid definitions for any of these prevents people from being shoved out the door for failing to meet that definition . . . but at the same time, it causes an enormous amount of confusion when we're talking past each other saying two (or fourteen) entirely different things with the same word.
Furry as it is used commonly means:
1 - The furry fandom in general. What this necessarily encompasses is hard to pin down; to some people you have to actually accept yourself as part of the fandom, but it's also possible to be a big fat geek about it and clearly be in denial of whether or not you are a furry.
1a - People who have freaky sex at conventions in costume. Usually the definition by people who literally have no idea what furry is and want something to ridicule, usually considered the unfair categorization inside the fandom as it reduces the breadth of the fandom to a few outliers. (people who do have freaky costume sex at conventions do not do so because they are furry so much as they like freaky costume sex and also furry seems to dovetail with that. They might "own" this definition but it's not any more correct/exclusive than others)
1 corollary - People who believe in an animal/nonhuman spiritual side to themselves--otherkin, totemists, skinwalkers, actual werewolves, etc. EXCEPT that very often the people who fall under these categories do not belong to the fandom in any other aspect. This does not exclude them from being furry, but it's usually incorrect to assume that it's invariably associated with furry. This is not a common definition because most people who make this confusion, I think, merely don't know there IS a distinction. Very few people INSIST on this definition.
2 - An anthropomorphic character made in the fandom, speaking exclusively. For some definitions, since furry is a fandom, furry characters are only encompassed by the fandom, and characters outside the fandom are not furry.
3 - An anthropomorphic character, speaking broadly. The fox version of Robin Hood was never intended for the fandom but still appeals to the fandom, as does the mythological god Anubis, etc; although some might argue the point, a completely identical fancharacter WOULD be considered furry, so . . .
3a - An anthropomorphic character that is sexualized AND NOT funny animal characters. People outside the fandom that perceive it as full of undesirables will usually insist on this definition, although it usually reduces to "Stay away from my childhood you perverts!" Not usually taken as a real definition inside the fandom as a basis for exclusion, only to differentiate the house style from classic funny animals. (see 4 corollary)
4 - An anthropomorphic character that sticks to the mode of the fandom. That is, the "house style" as I've been calling it, where you have a animal face put on a human body first, then usually comes body covering, a tail, animal feet, claws instead of finger nails, etc. to varying degrees depending on the taste of the artist. Basically this sticks to one kind of animal, but there's also nothing stopping hybrids or fictional species from getting the anthro treatment.
4 corollary - This has literally nothing to do with what some people draw as a dividing line between "furry" as in fandom-appealing, and their personal "not furry" category, such as werewolves. Within the fandom, if the werewolf fits the house style (wolf head AND NOT classic movie style, although see 7), it's usually furry whether you want the association or not. Any specific division of definitions here are on a per-person basis and are not usually accepted by the fandom at large.
4 corollary 2 - The degree to which any given character is described or detailed in hard sci-fi explanations, "realism", NON-realism, "tooniness", any kind of created-world explanations or lack thereof, ties to mythology, folklore, literary precedent, etc. also has very little to do with defining "furry" itself.
4a - Said mode of the fandom including non-animal objects being treated like they were superficially animals. Again, this usually starts with altering the face in order to fit the "house style" rather than pasting a ladyface onto the front of an aircraft carrier. (see 8)
4b - Said mode of the fandom including additions of sci-fi biology/mythology such as centaur bodies, etc. This is just an extension of "hybrids"; I'm only mentioning it to make sure it's covered even though it starts to get distant from "human".
4c - Invented fictional species that are not intended to be "human" or any particular animal or mythological creature, but nonetheless bear traits similar to that of the fandom mode, especially if they were invented inside the fandom (sergals, etc)
5 - The mode of the fandom plus "feral" characters. Anthropomorphism can literally be reduced to something having ANY human traits applied to it, so you only need to meet that minimum requirement. Or not. Some furries are very interested in non-human things, so they don't want their real-animal characters excluded. (Because "furry" brings to mind animals, not anthropomorphism). May include characters like, say, Godzilla, who are ambiguously anthropomorphic.
6 - The mode of the fandom only if they have fur. I find this one needlessly pedantic, even though I'm perfectly fine with the term scaley (settle on a spelling please) or avian.
7 - Any character with any degree of animal traits whatsoever, including aliens with animal traits, regular centaurs, mermaids, all sorts of mythological beasts that fall outside the fandom "mode", Naruto, etc. I find this one too broad not because I want the people who like this out of the fandom or anything, but usually it's because it's not what I'm talking about when I talk about furry . . . but really, what the crap do I know
8 - Any character with any degree of nonhuman traits whatsoever. This includes non-animal-like aliens, fey, humans with skin made of rock, Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, etc. Which this technically all fits the definition of anthropomorphism, it's so far away from common "furry" that I have no idea why people need to muddle the definition on this point. Should they be excluded from the FANDOM? No, of course not; besides just "animals" furry is often about an appreciation for human traits applied to nonhuman things. In the most broad sense, furry IS just an extension of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just a reaction to the human-centric mainstream.
But if definition 8 covers the possible extent of the entire discussion, then why is it that we're using the same terminology for it and much, much smaller subcategories?
Being an english major with an interest in linguistics, I find this is simultaneously a boon--as the lack of solid definitions for any of these prevents people from being shoved out the door for failing to meet that definition . . . but at the same time, it causes an enormous amount of confusion when we're talking past each other saying two (or fourteen) entirely different things with the same word.
Furry as it is used commonly means:
1 - The furry fandom in general. What this necessarily encompasses is hard to pin down; to some people you have to actually accept yourself as part of the fandom, but it's also possible to be a big fat geek about it and clearly be in denial of whether or not you are a furry.
1a - People who have freaky sex at conventions in costume. Usually the definition by people who literally have no idea what furry is and want something to ridicule, usually considered the unfair categorization inside the fandom as it reduces the breadth of the fandom to a few outliers. (people who do have freaky costume sex at conventions do not do so because they are furry so much as they like freaky costume sex and also furry seems to dovetail with that. They might "own" this definition but it's not any more correct/exclusive than others)
1 corollary - People who believe in an animal/nonhuman spiritual side to themselves--otherkin, totemists, skinwalkers, actual werewolves, etc. EXCEPT that very often the people who fall under these categories do not belong to the fandom in any other aspect. This does not exclude them from being furry, but it's usually incorrect to assume that it's invariably associated with furry. This is not a common definition because most people who make this confusion, I think, merely don't know there IS a distinction. Very few people INSIST on this definition.
2 - An anthropomorphic character made in the fandom, speaking exclusively. For some definitions, since furry is a fandom, furry characters are only encompassed by the fandom, and characters outside the fandom are not furry.
3 - An anthropomorphic character, speaking broadly. The fox version of Robin Hood was never intended for the fandom but still appeals to the fandom, as does the mythological god Anubis, etc; although some might argue the point, a completely identical fancharacter WOULD be considered furry, so . . .
3a - An anthropomorphic character that is sexualized AND NOT funny animal characters. People outside the fandom that perceive it as full of undesirables will usually insist on this definition, although it usually reduces to "Stay away from my childhood you perverts!" Not usually taken as a real definition inside the fandom as a basis for exclusion, only to differentiate the house style from classic funny animals. (see 4 corollary)
4 - An anthropomorphic character that sticks to the mode of the fandom. That is, the "house style" as I've been calling it, where you have a animal face put on a human body first, then usually comes body covering, a tail, animal feet, claws instead of finger nails, etc. to varying degrees depending on the taste of the artist. Basically this sticks to one kind of animal, but there's also nothing stopping hybrids or fictional species from getting the anthro treatment.
4 corollary - This has literally nothing to do with what some people draw as a dividing line between "furry" as in fandom-appealing, and their personal "not furry" category, such as werewolves. Within the fandom, if the werewolf fits the house style (wolf head AND NOT classic movie style, although see 7), it's usually furry whether you want the association or not. Any specific division of definitions here are on a per-person basis and are not usually accepted by the fandom at large.
4 corollary 2 - The degree to which any given character is described or detailed in hard sci-fi explanations, "realism", NON-realism, "tooniness", any kind of created-world explanations or lack thereof, ties to mythology, folklore, literary precedent, etc. also has very little to do with defining "furry" itself.
4a - Said mode of the fandom including non-animal objects being treated like they were superficially animals. Again, this usually starts with altering the face in order to fit the "house style" rather than pasting a ladyface onto the front of an aircraft carrier. (see 8)
4b - Said mode of the fandom including additions of sci-fi biology/mythology such as centaur bodies, etc. This is just an extension of "hybrids"; I'm only mentioning it to make sure it's covered even though it starts to get distant from "human".
4c - Invented fictional species that are not intended to be "human" or any particular animal or mythological creature, but nonetheless bear traits similar to that of the fandom mode, especially if they were invented inside the fandom (sergals, etc)
5 - The mode of the fandom plus "feral" characters. Anthropomorphism can literally be reduced to something having ANY human traits applied to it, so you only need to meet that minimum requirement. Or not. Some furries are very interested in non-human things, so they don't want their real-animal characters excluded. (Because "furry" brings to mind animals, not anthropomorphism). May include characters like, say, Godzilla, who are ambiguously anthropomorphic.
6 - The mode of the fandom only if they have fur. I find this one needlessly pedantic, even though I'm perfectly fine with the term scaley (settle on a spelling please) or avian.
7 - Any character with any degree of animal traits whatsoever, including aliens with animal traits, regular centaurs, mermaids, all sorts of mythological beasts that fall outside the fandom "mode", Naruto, etc. I find this one too broad not because I want the people who like this out of the fandom or anything, but usually it's because it's not what I'm talking about when I talk about furry . . . but really, what the crap do I know
8 - Any character with any degree of nonhuman traits whatsoever. This includes non-animal-like aliens, fey, humans with skin made of rock, Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, etc. Which this technically all fits the definition of anthropomorphism, it's so far away from common "furry" that I have no idea why people need to muddle the definition on this point. Should they be excluded from the FANDOM? No, of course not; besides just "animals" furry is often about an appreciation for human traits applied to nonhuman things. In the most broad sense, furry IS just an extension of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just a reaction to the human-centric mainstream.
But if definition 8 covers the possible extent of the entire discussion, then why is it that we're using the same terminology for it and much, much smaller subcategories?
We use the term Furrian as the catch-all term, and have two sub-divisions each with four categories within them.
I know it's not a foolproof system but it works for us.
I'm of the opinion that we need a fifth maybe sixth subcategory too, since some of the Mythics occasionally grumble, and the Hybrids regularly cross the boundaries.
I remember being in denial about it for a long time. How could someone not find humans sexually attractive? I'm sort of still struggling with it even today, since I prefer to stay in the closet about my philia's. I'm more carefree about it now though
Bodies then in real life. That means all Sonic fans are furries :D
Of course I don't consider the term a bad thing...it's almost at the same level as saying manga or anime. There are far too many different subsets to claim that just the umbrella word alone can explain anything, when one thing can be super cute, another super violent and another super sexual, all with nothing in common beyond anthropomorphic animals as the main chars.
A furry character is a character which is anthropomorphized, and is original. (Fan characters can count. But copyrighted characters while they CAN be furry, I tend to just categorize differently. We're going entirely on a user basis here for this definition because of how many problems you can have trying to convince someone that talking lions from Disney are the exact same thing as talking lions on FurAffinity. )
Anthro, not as in bipedal, but anthro as in an animal given human characteristics, including the ability to talk and interact beyond what's considered normal for that species. In this way anyone with a representative animal character who exists in the art community, whether feral or not, has a fursona by my book, even if they're not technically part of the fandom.
A furry as a person, is defined simply by me as someone who has an appreciation of art, loves animals, and has a representative character which is an animal of some kind be it natural or mythological, which shows humanoid characteristics.
This is relatively biased, as I view the furry fandom as an art community first and foremost. But it makes sense to me, because you'll have people on places like DeviantART who don't even really know what furries are, but have fursonas, primarily draw and commission work that involves anthropomorphic animals, etc.
While I wouldn't call them a furry without clarification that they ARE in the fandom, I consider them a furry, because they fit every other criteria in my definition.
Much like someone who loves muscle cars, but doesn't network with other people who love muscle cars. They're technically part of that fandom/community, but they simply don't engage in it actively.
Furry as a fandom, and a community is comprised of people who I define as having representative animal characters, do or watch some subject of art (Music, dance videos, animations, illustrations, etc.) and identify as part of the group, generally treating it much like people who are in anime, gaming, audiophile, aviation, sports, and roleplay communities do. As a group which is a good sizeable focus of their time, and many social interactions take place with the community as the basis for the relationship forming.
The porn and sex definitions to me aren't nearly as prominent as they are with many people. I'm fully aware the community openly accepts many out there fetishes, and an a very large sum of pornographic content, but it's because the nature of the community is to accept eachother more openly than other groups.
My theory on it is that since this group is shunned so adamantly by people outside of it, it makes us more willing to accept eachother with very few strings attached. This is both a good, and a bad thing. We accept behavior that should not take place here, and will excuse many dickish or immature things that people do. But we also accept people with a relatively strong disregard to their social status, race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc, just focusing on their skills, characters, and actions.
So while I may not be into a lot of the stuff that gets drawn here on a daily basis, I accept the vast majority of it as a normal occurrence based on the fact that these people are enjoying a freedom and general lack of judgement that other communities wouldn't afford them so openly. Same with how if I post something that's very fetish based, I feel much more comfortable with it here, than I would in other places because I know the majority will at least be O.K. with it enough to let it go.
That's why I sometimes want to defend the "Creepy sexual" side of the fandom, because it's a side that comes with a lot of positives, even if you have to be here a while to really see them, and understand why it's the way it is.
Overall, I'm pretty proud to admit my involvement in this community. And to explain what it is to anyone who's willing to listen. Because I find it to be a wonderful place, regardless of the problems it has at times.
That's also why whenever I'm at a convention, I've become the go-to person in my friend group who explains to the locals what the fuck the fursuitting is when they ask. LOL I've developed a few explanations that seem to work well to explain the situation in terms average people can understand without the stereotypes floating everywhere.
Most of the time, i find after a minute or two of explanation, they seem into it and say that it sounds really fun. A few have asked for websites to check it out, that's normally the spot where I don't know what the fuck to say. XD
[I mostly go straight to Macro/Micro (browsing both adult and general) and then meander to Paws. I don't touch any of the other sections almost at all :/]
The term furry should be kept fairly general, imo.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/12441337/ -- This is definately acceptable as furry, in my view
....if you had someone to collaborate with c8
SO many topics can barely be discussed at all simply because too many people insist on applying their personal definition to a term, regardless of the most logical usage, or the most common usage, or even the definition explicitly stated as being how everyone else in the discussion is using it.
People fail to understand that communication is impossible without common accepted meanings for the terms being talked about, and anybody choosing to use their personal definition in place of any other definition - even when talking to people who've already said that's not what they are meaning when they say the term - do so much to cause needless confusion and obfuscation of so many things that are worth discussing.
It's bothersome when talk has to cease or be sidelined by just trying to establish what is meant by specific terms. This is often necessary if there's not a commonly accepted meaning being used by everyone involved, but when most people agree that Apple means Apple, they shouldn't have to meet halfway with the one or two people demanding that Apple is a derogatory label because to them it refers to this and implies that and blah blah, other crap that really doesn't come close to being sensible or reasonable or anywhere near a common interpretation of the term.
Aside from general discussion for the sake of discussion, this stuff also impedes progress on most social issues going on today. People can't ever even get to the actual problems and solutions because the talk can never get past arguing between group A that insists on defining things one way and group B defining them another, both ignoring the more rational reality of the subject, and the fact that 'the other side' is saying one thing, but gets painted as saying something else because of people substituting their own definition of terms in place of the speaker's intended definitions.
Communication is the tool by which all conflicts' most ideal solutions will be reached. People obstructing communication with this sort of ignorance/obstinance irk me greatly.
If you're calling a thingamajig a widget when I understand a widget to be a whatzit, then we're going to have difficulty communicating with each other.
The problem isn't the term "furry" having many meanings, the problem is people arguing over the term "furry" without defining which meaning of the term they're wanting to use.
I say "I dislike ______" where ______ has a very clear and specific meaning referring to one thing, and someone else loses their shit at me because they define _____ as something entirely different than the actual definition, any reasonable interpretation, or any common usage at all. I clarify that their meaning is not the one I used, they dismiss it and hold everyone using a word by the actual meaning of it as if they're using it with the random bullshit crazy-person alternate definition they've chosen to stick to it. 9_9
My new avatar, CVL! She's HOTT.
It seems that furry, as it goes, means something different to each and every individual. Your breakdown feels thorough enough to reason with any individual claiming an issue over the meaning of "furry", although in perfect honesty, such individuals would never subject themselves to reading something that doesn't coincide with how they feel in the current setting.
Be careful with ranting, though. Getting worked up may only lead into feeling worse. I believe one of Hank Green's vlogbrother videos mentions something on why rants are terrible.
"The Furry Culture: There's a difference between Common Interest
and a F***ing Mental Disorder."
I just draw and talk to people. That's prettymuch it.
I just think that when it come to a certain majority of people however?
There really are some people out there that really need psychiatry help.
One problem I see off and on is how too much of the modern culture is blending in
to the point where it's just another fad that will eventually die down until something else comes up.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm just drawing and having fun. ^^;
I've seen people with obviously furry characters, hordes of them sometimes, and associating primarily with other furries, claim not to be a part of the furry culture. They just confuse me and seem to be in denial.
Although I fear for the people who realize they are furry, then decide they need to go out immediately and hump someone dressed like a badger at Anthrocon "FURRY PRIDE!"
And that, I think, is at the heart of what every furry wants in some way: control. Some of them want it over others - the notorious popufur - but mostly each member of the fandom just wants control of themselves. The vast majority of us are in our twenties, a period of life which, in contemporary Western society, is about finally getting out into the world after the shelter that is high school and/or post-secondary education and experimenting. We all have different ways of doing it. In the case of the furry fandom, since this is something that gives people a sense of uniqueness (which, let's be perfectly honest, people obsess over WAY too much), we generally want to be able to identify with the fandom and find ways to solidify ourselves in it. Part of that comes from how we each define furry. It's something that we sit down and decide for ourselves (this is debatable but that's for another discussion), take the time and think about, and finally figure out "Hey, this is the fandom that I identify with" or "This is the aspect that most fits me". This fits in very well with the conversation about reality and order that we were discussing before.
Personally, I'm fine with the furry fandom 'definition' as being "We like characters with non-human traits". So yeah, if you lot want to include Lumiere in there, cool. I'll stick with my Robin Hood and just say whatever floats your boat. I don't think we need a solid, clear-cut definition for the fandom. Something general and all-encompassing is perfectly acceptable to me.
This essay in itself is mostly a linguistic overview--a descriptivist look (how a word IS used) rather than a prescriptivist (how we'd LIKE the word to be used) and I kinda hope that if people see this they'll at least realize how ambiguously they tend to speak when they say "furry"
Some are creepy and care only for porn and sex, some are trollish and nasty, some are kind and friendly, some are creative and full of ideas.
there's no black and white areas I guess :o
I don't believe in magic but I do believe that we all want to believe.
A review of Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God. may be in order for me now.
I've been wrestling with a paper on THIS VERY ISSUE AND TOPIC AND YOU CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS FFFFF/.
Well. That's what I get for being lazy.
It's a concept I've been working on for years, and have been struggling to write into a decent paper for months, put on hold when I went to Australia.
This, as Stoker said, is the best breakdown of this whole 'nomenclature' topic (that I've seen, I suppose).
I know you've said a few times now that you would want to partner with someone and make it an informative video or something, with narration, but I don't think there's anything wrong with posting this or your other journals as text submissions. Not 'stories', of course, but not all the text that's put on this site needs to be narrative. Nor does it need visual aid. That said, I admit it could benefit from visual aids.
So, I simply suggest submitting this list, this discussion, as a proper submission AND retaining the idea of making it into an infographic at a later date. No one said you can't do both. More exposure, more people seeing and thinking about this kind of thing, would be a good thing.
Speaking of informative videos, that format has the disadvantage of not allowing the viewer to jump around, the way I did, re-reading the list, comparing the points/subsections a bit as I continued through it [skipping around in the video being too clunky]. So, if you ever do make a video, perhaps consider providing a textual accompaniment rather than JUST the video. It would be like.. presentation notes, I surmise.
And yes, I know I got ahead of myself with suggestions for things that have totally not happened yet. >_>
But I could do that, that is true!
Arg, accurate terminology, why must you frustrate me so much.
It's annoying how people often don't check up on stuff themselves before making jugemntal claims about them. Like for example, I was looking for a minecraft server a while back geared specifically for furries in general. So I asked on the forum. Let me just say, big mistake.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10168712/