Furries - Not Entirely Human?

[Biodeamon]

maybe becuase they are. those souless beasts of nature should be caged up with the rest of the animals!

ha ha joking aside, i still do really hate furries. alot.

maybe it stems from a part fo their genes which didn't evolve to think of themselves as human and so they natrually are attracted to not quite-humans. i don't know. just theorozing.

 

[dyre]

Hmm, interesting. That's still in the realm of the intangible, so it's a lot less absurd than the furry claim (unless some furries think they have the soul of an animal trapped in a human or something?). I guess I could chalk it off as some kind of cultural relativism thing...furries are their own culture then. Heh.

Well, really, what's more absurd, the idea that you can only possibly be 0% human or 100% human with no middle ground; or the idea that if you spend a considerable amount of time and energy pretending that you aren't human, that your "level of humanity" might fluctuate slightly?

It's also something which is tied up in the issue of personhood [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood], which is intensely debated in the field of anthropology.

Well, biologically, I'm pretty sure it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal. You're human, or you're another species. I'm not sure how else "level of humanity" could be measured.

As for personhood, isn't that about what constitutes a person deserving of rights and with responsibilities normally assigned to people? I'm not sure how it's relevant (but then again I'm not an anthropologist).

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Well, biologically, I'm pretty sure it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal. You're human, or you're another species. I'm not sure how else "level of humanity" could be measured.

As for personhood, isn't that about what constitutes a person deserving of rights and with responsibilities normally assigned to people? I'm not sure how it's relevant (but then again I'm not an anthropologist).

You're right, but you have to realise that biological definitions are the result of a bunch of leaders in the field getting together and making something up to describe their surroundings. Humanity (and any definitions of it) in particular is what you'd call a construct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science)]; something which cannot be observed directly. You can use genetic analysis, for example, to show something matches your definition of human, but you can't show that your definition of human is comprehensive. It is based entirely on speculative consensus.

Also, the original question posed on the survey wasn't really asked in a biological context.


Personhood is more broadly the "state of being a person." I suppose it would have bearing on human rights issues, but its mostly the general way that a specific culture conceptualises what a person is.

 

[orangeban]

I think furries get way, way, way too much hate on the internet and in real life (and by too much hate, I mean any hate at all really). Some people seem to have an intense dislike for anything they see as weird or "gross" or different and it's really not fair.

As for people who feel disconnect with their species, I can understand that. While you may be human in terms of body, that doesn't mean you are human in terms of mind. I believe some trans* people bristle at the idea of being compared to those who experience dysphoria with their species (and I think there are good reasons for this), but I can see how a dysphoria with gender may be similar to a dysphoria with their species. Also, I think the existence of GID does make part of a case for the existence of SID and I don't think that we should rule out totally the idea of having a species within your brain (something that is to your physical species as gender is to sex).

 

[dyre]

You're right, but you have to realise that biological definitions are the result of a bunch of leaders in the field getting together and making something up to describe their surroundings. Humanity (and any definitions of it) in particular is what you'd call a construct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science)]; something which cannot be observed directly. You can use genetic analysis, for example, to show something matches your definition of human, but you can't show that your definition of human is comprehensive. It is based entirely on speculative consensus.

Also, the original question posed on the survey wasn't really asked in a biological context.


Personhood is more broadly the "state of being a person." I suppose it would have bearing on human rights issues, but its mostly the general way that a specific culture conceptualises what a person is.

Damn anthropologists and their "your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking" nonsense >:|

Imo, the biological definition of humanity is a lot better than whatever definition the furries are using (their feelings, I suppose?), but that's probably just because my society feels that way, huh? :|

 

[DANEgerous]

2) Not everything furry is sexual. That said, sex is a part of human nature, so the two aren't completely foreign. It's no different from the Rule 34 of everything else. Like just because you can find naked pictures of Marge Simpson, doesn't mean The Simpsons is entirely pornographic.


4) Furry is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT bestiality. Just because someone fantasizes about an animal girl, doesn't mean they want to screw their dog or cat, or random zoo animals. Anthro animals generally possess the same level of intelligence/sentience as your average human being. It's the difference between being sexually attracted to a female human, and being attracted to a female monkey.

I think these point can take a lot of the odd mysticism of many furs. I have always fount it odd that people point out a lot of furry art is pornographic. yeah you mean like the web in general? Is it that hard to find porn on the web because last time I checked well... yeah we all use the internet we all know it has more than just a few porn sites I assume.

Secondly to furs your avatar is not a beast it is typically you in one for or another, a person you know or an amalgam of people and ideas just like just about ever charter ever to exist in fiction ever. Once you give these charters stories the stories tend to have relationships, just about every story does. Guess what exist in a relationship? Sex! A topic that people not only enjoy writing about but sells very, very well. Just look at the romance section of a bookstore.

Is it an odd fetish? Sure! Just less odd and far less about sex as one may think.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

But isn't a fairly large portion of furry art erotic in nature? Yeah, humans are sexual and there's a metric fuck-ton of porn on the net, but percentage wise, the vast majority of furry art I see is in some way grossly sexual.

That's not surprising when you look at the numbers and see more than three quarters of furries saying they feel at least a minor sexual attraction towards the furry image.

To say furry isn't at lest somewhat (if not largely) sexual in nature, is to ignore the numbers in favour of political correctness, in my opinion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Lacking other sapient species to compare thoughts with combined with our natural curiosity, imagination and sometimes powerful desire to escape the mundane, it actually makes sense. What we want but cannot possess, we invent, even if only in our minds.

Fursuits still freak me the fuck out though.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Fursuits still freak me the fuck out though.

I'll never look at Dorothy the Dinosaur the same ever again.

 

[gNetkamiko]

But isn't a fairly large portion of furry art erotic in nature? Yeah, humans are sexual and there's a metric fuck-ton of porn on the net, but percentage wise, the vast majority of furry art I see is in some way grossly sexual.

That's not surprising when you look at the numbers and see more than three quarters of furries saying they feel at least a minor sexual attraction towards the furry image.

To say furry isn't at lest somewhat (if not largely) sexual in nature, is to ignore the numbers in favour of political correctness, in my opinion.

Welcome to the internet. You must be new here. Word of warning, porn is EVERYWHERE. Of EVERYTHING. And EVERYONE. EVER.

lol Ah, yes. Good old "Rule #34".

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the community. Yes, some of them do dress in rather expensive costumes (some of them selling for as much as $800) made to look like their favorite animal (or, more appropriately, the animal their personality more closely represents.) They are no less human than you or I, and they will tell you as such. And, it's not a personality disorder, just a lifestyle that they are more comfortable with (much like every other lifestyle.)

And to be fair, we humans are of the animal kingdom, and thus are animals as well.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Damn anthropologists and their "your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking" nonsense >:|

Imo, the biological definition of humanity is a lot better than whatever definition the furries are using (their feelings, I suppose?), but that's probably just because my society feels that way, huh? :|

The refusal to understand or respect differing cultures and viewpoints is precisely what leads to war, genocide and America being one of the most hated countries in the world.

You can attempt to measure humanity using microscopes if you wish, but that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you "wrong." Not only is that arrogant and ethnocentric, but it's a highly unscientific attitude. All systems of logic are based on axiom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom]s which cannot be proven from within that system. The belief that any given scientific axiom is correct is a presupposition, NOT an absolute truth.

 

[Nyaliva]

This suprised me a little but annoys me THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS much. Furries get a lot of shit from people on the internet and this is just going to exascerbate it. I have a friend who's a furry but hates yiff and he's shown me some anthropomorphic art and comics that are actually really good, but the moment he says he's a furry people tell him to leave forums and take his stupid fetish somewhere else. I mean the study says less than the majority have SID or some degree of it but people who hate furries are going to take that as EVERY furry is likely enough to have SID that they can give them crap about it.

I feel that most of these people just spend so much time with anthropomorphic stuff that's made to look more awesome than real life that they like to think they're at least somewhat like it. But I've never experience any kind of disorder, myself or in someone else, so I really don't have a say in the matter.

Basically, this study, while interesting for people researching the fandom, is just more ammunition for the trolls.

 

[dyre]

Damn anthropologists and their "your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking" nonsense >:|

Imo, the biological definition of humanity is a lot better than whatever definition the furries are using (their feelings, I suppose?), but that's probably just because my society feels that way, huh? :|

The refusal to understand or respect differing cultures and viewpoints is precisely what leads to war, genocide and America being one of the most hated countries in the world.

You can attempt to measure humanity using microscopes if you wish, but that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you "wrong." Not only is that arrogant and ethnocentric, but it's a highly unscientific attitude. All systems of logic are based on axiom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom]s which cannot be proven from within that system. The belief that any given scientific axiom is correct is a presupposition, NOT an absolute truth.

lol, calm down man, I was kidding around in that post. I took a class in college that touched on anthropology (though, all I remember was some weird guy named Franz Boas), so academically, I'm marginally aware of the whole understanding-other-cultures thing. Can't say I completely agree with cultural relativism from an ethical standpoint, but that's another story.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

You mean the people who think they are "reincarnations of animals"? Yeeaah, I have some weird tastes of my own (including some furry leanings) but isn't that going a bit far?

 

[DANEgerous]

maybe becuase they are. those souless beasts of nature should be caged up with the rest of the animals!

ha ha joking aside, i still do really hate furries. alot.

maybe it stems from a part fo their genes which didn't evolve to think of themselves as human and so they natrually are attracted to not quite-humans. i don't know. just theorozing.

I do not know why but the par of this comment that annoys me the most is "a part fo their genes which didn't evolve" though the whole thing kind of irks me this is just idiotic. Genes that did not evolve? that phrase is just such utter nonsense it is melting my brain.

 

[Wintermoot]

the whole GID thing is probably a minority I do think that if you consider yourself less then 100% human you should probably get out more or get some help.
I don,t really have a thing against furries but that kinda takes it a bit to far.

 

[Freechoice]

Besides, none of those people thought they were animals (that is, non-human members of the animal kingdom), or if they did think so, they were wrong.

You'd be surprised. Very recently I studied the concept of animism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism] within certain cultures. The belief that humanity is subject to context is actually very commonly held, especially outside of Western philosophy. We tend to think of things in terms of very strict black-and-white concepts ("This is a human, this is a dog"), but a lot of people in other parts of the world think it's foolish to make judgements based solely on physical characteristics or arbitrary distinctions.

I am reminded of English teachers.

Not sure exactly what you mean.
But if you meant that "the West are happy enough calling a spade a spade and the Rest like to over-complicate it with bullshit" I think you've misunderstood.

Western thought tends to be rooted in concepts such as Descartes' mind-body duality and the sense that the world can be delineated into a series of reductive components (e.g. atoms) and concepts (e.g. nations). Which causes a lot of problems when the real world doesn't quite fit that model. Non-Western cultures, on the other hand, tend to embrace the chaos of reality and the fact that most concepts can't be cleanly separated from each other.

But the West does identify inherent disorder. It's entropy. Most people don't consciously consider it because of the scientific nature of it, but it's there. As well, (at least in the realm of good science) models of the real world that don't fit get adjusted to fit. It's not about complete adherence to rigid structure, but rather the ability to observe phenomena and make adjustments to one's theory.

As for people, well people are usually too dumb to want to accept that there is a proper course of action. People's ills are often the result of them not seeing reality for what it is. You know, American Dream, American Nightmare. That sort of thing.

And didn't Socrates or Aristotle have an animistic belief that wasn't about concisely identifying things?

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I remember reading a werewolf book when i was like 10 and being absolutely fascinated by the concept of being more than human. I think it is as simple as that, people get bored with humans in not many years, so they make up whatever
Do you ever wonder why nearly all sentient aliens on science fiction look like altered humans?