So I've Noticed a Trend in People's Furry Avatars

[Scorched_Cascade]

does it matter that there are furrys here?

A more important questions might be, does it really matter that they're furries? So long as they're good people, then the universe is in order, unless some bigot is out for cyber blood

Pardon me but that is what the interne-BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

I think it's like any community and the loudest people are generally not the ones you should listen to. It's just a bit weird how the ones that combine the furry fetish with other fetishes are the loudest; normally the more fetishes you have the more quiet you are about them and the lengths you go to keep them under the rug.

Compare for example how many people you hear saying they like S+M, if I were to make a poll it's probably the more popular fetish of the two and yet hardly anyone feels the need to stand up and announce they like it. We all know that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down and this is doubly so on the internet so what is it about the furry community that makes some individuals out themselves for liking the stranger stuff?

It would make an interesting psychological study if my own personal prejudices didn't have me worried to investigate.

Disclaimer: As my writing style isn't often clear and this is a touchy subject I feel the need to comment on my tone, etc.
My tone was standoff-ish amused scientific observer and I wasn't posting about you specifically, I quoted you because as you host a website you probably know full well the element I am talking about.

 

[Gizen]

But furry is a concept defined by its fandom. Look at my example of Roman sexuality again. In Ancient Rome, there was no idea of homosexuality versus heterosexuality. Roman men were free to have sex with other men while still having sex with women, and the only way they might get looked down on for it is if they were the ones getting it, instead of the ones giving it. This is, incidentally, why freed male slaves didn't have as high of a social status as people of the same rank otherwise who had never been slaves -- the assumption was, if you were a slave, you were taking it up the butt. Their masters, on the other hand? They probably got high fives from their buddies for what they did to their poor slaves. But the thing is, the terms "gay" "straight" and even "bisexual" are really inappropriate to use here, because they describe concepts wholly removed from the reality of Roman sexuality.

Do you see how this applies to the concept of "furry"?

EDIT: Completely changed the whole post.

I'm not entirely certain what the point you're making is. I have come up with four possible options as to what I THINK you're saying, and you point me to which of the four is correct.

1. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, the argument you're making is that something whose existence predates a term/label/classification should not be grouped up under that label? I would disagree with that, especially as frequently new terms aren't created in the first place until there's a significant enough amount of pre-existing material to group together for classification.

2. Because these works predate the furry fandom, that means they weren't created with the specific intention of being furry, and thus because they weren't specifically intended to be furry, they shouldn't be classified as such. Again, I disagree, because intentions don't really factor into this type of discussion at all. By that logic, you would never be able to classify anything as pertaining to any fandom, because very few, if anything is created for the specific purpose of having a fandom built around it.

3. You're implying that since homosexuality as we know it today wasn't practiced the same way in ancient rome, then ergo that means that homosexuality itself did not exist in ancient rome. I would prefer to think this is not the point you were trying to make, because that would be stupid.

4. Neither one of us actually has any clue what the other one is talking about.

 

[Infernai]

Yes there are a few but what's the problem do they creep you out?

No, but it's hard to compete with someone who's got Sean Connery as an avatar don't you think? xD

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

But furry is a concept defined by its fandom. Look at my example of Roman sexuality again. In Ancient Rome, there was no idea of homosexuality versus heterosexuality. Roman men were free to have sex with other men while still having sex with women, and the only way they might get looked down on for it is if they were the ones getting it, instead of the ones giving it. This is, incidentally, why freed male slaves didn't have as high of a social status as people of the same rank otherwise who had never been slaves -- the assumption was, if you were a slave, you were taking it up the butt. Their masters, on the other hand? They probably got high fives from their buddies for what they did to their poor slaves. But the thing is, the terms "gay" "straight" and even "bisexual" are really inappropriate to use here, because they describe concepts wholly removed from the reality of Roman sexuality.

Do you see how this applies to the concept of "furry"?

I see the argument you're making now, and I don't really have much of a rebuttal for it other than 'I disagree'. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, the argument you're making is that something whose existence predates a term/label/classification should not be grouped up under that label? I would disagree with that, especially as frequently new terms aren't created in the first place until there's a significant enough amount of pre-existing material to group together for classification.

The alternative would be that you're implying that since homosexuality as we know it today wasn't practiced the same way in ancient rome, then ergo that means that homosexuality itself did not exist in ancient rome, which I would prefer to think is not the point you were trying to make.

The third option is that neither one of us actually has any clue what the other one is talking about.

You're getting kind of close with both the first and second option. What I was saying with the Roman stuff is that homosexuality, as a concept, only really works with modern Western ideas of sexuality. If you look at things through a Roman lense, the modern terms don't really apply, because the idea of "normal" sex was different. If anything, under Roman sexuality, bisexuality was "straight," unless you were the one on the recieving end, in which case it wasn't gay so much as unmanly; the terms just don't mesh up with the reality.

So, to clarify what I'm saying, you can't use a term that describes one paradigm to describe another, even if both paradigms involve some similar aspects. The concept of "furry" can't really be applied to Looney Toons because it requires viewing the material through a cultural lense that post-dates it to an extent that said lense is completely alien to the reality of Looney Toons.

 

[Gizen]

You're getting kind of close with both the first and second option. What I was saying with the Roman stuff is that homosexuality, as a concept, only really works with modern Western ideas of sexuality. If you look at things through a Roman lense, the modern terms don't really apply, because the idea of "normal" sex was different. If anything, under Roman sexuality, bisexuality was "straight," unless you were the one on the recieving end, in which case it wasn't gay so much as unmanly; the terms just don't mesh up with the reality.

So, to clarify what I'm saying, you can't use a term that describes one paradigm to describe another, even if both paradigms involve some similar aspects. The concept of "furry" can't really be applied to Looney Toons because it requires viewing material through a cultural lense that post-dates it to an extent that said lense is completely alien to the reality of Looney Toons.

I completely disagree with all of that. I don't deny that things were viewed differently back then, but I do disagree with the idea that we're not allowed to apply modern viewpoints to past occurances. And while what was considered straight sex was different back then, there were still people who would've fit today's standards of sexuality. There were still people back then who exclusively liked men, there would have still been people who liked to be on the receiving end. They did not view homosexuality the way we view it, but that does not mean that homosexuality the way we view it did not still exist.

Likewise, the people who made furry cartoons and characters prior to the rise of the furry fandom did not see their characters as fitting that mold or appealing to that fandom, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. By that logic, nothing would pertain to any fandom, because nobody sets out to create a fandom, defining in advance what it's going to be all about. Rather, a group of people get together and happen to realize that they all share a common interest.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You're getting kind of close with both the first and second option. What I was saying with the Roman stuff is that homosexuality, as a concept, only really works with modern Western ideas of sexuality. If you look at things through a Roman lense, the modern terms don't really apply, because the idea of "normal" sex was different. If anything, under Roman sexuality, bisexuality was "straight," unless you were the one on the recieving end, in which case it wasn't gay so much as unmanly; the terms just don't mesh up with the reality.

So, to clarify what I'm saying, you can't use a term that describes one paradigm to describe another, even if both paradigms involve some similar aspects. The concept of "furry" can't really be applied to Looney Toons because it requires viewing material through a cultural lense that post-dates it to an extent that said lense is completely alien to the reality of Looney Toons.

I completely disagree with all of that. I don't deny that things were viewed differently back then, but I do disagree with the idea that we're not allowed to apply modern viewpoints to past occurances. And while what was considered straight sex was different back then, there were still people who would've fit today's standards of sexuality. There were still people back then who exclusively liked men, there would have still been people who liked to be on the receiving end. They did not view homosexuality the way we view it, but that does not mean that homosexuality the way we view it did not still exist.

Likewise, the people who made furry cartoons and characters prior to the rise of the furry fandom did not see their characters as fitting that mold or appealing to that fandom, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. By that logic, nothing would pertain to any fandom, because nobody sets out to create a fandom, defining in advance what it's going to be all about. Rather, a group of people get together and happen to realize that they all share a common interest.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Let's just say that, as someone who has completed all of the requirements for a history minor, I know a thing or two about how to, in a historiographically correct manner, describe concepts in ways that don't accidentally conflate them with incompatible terms. Hint: You don't do it by using terms that describe a completely different reality.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

I agree with that part where it says in the OT that furry avatars have the character smiling in a whimsical way. Personally, I find whimsicalness and quirky characters to be annoying if this is their prime trait.

For any furry, I have a question:
I think that minators and werewolves are awesome. I do not find them sexually attractive in any way shape or form, but there is a slight fascination towards these badass creatures of destruction. Is that being a furry?

There's many different definitions of furry. One of the most common though is someone who has an interest in anthropomorphic characters. So maybe?

Anthropomorphic is when human properties are given to non-humans. Technically, Meatboy is anthropomorphic.

EDIT:
Shit, to not be interested in non-human characters would close me off from a great portion of games, books, and even mythologies. So, if having an interest in non-human characters makes me a furry, I'd have to be a bigot not to be.

I see it as

If you like bugs bunny more than elmer fudd (which most people do, I assume), would you like elmer fudd more if he was a weasel?

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Likewise, the people who made furry cartoons and characters prior to the rise of the furry fandom did not see their characters as fitting that mold or appealing to that fandom, but that doesn't change the fact that they do. By that logic, nothing would pertain to any fandom, because nobody sets out to create a fandom, defining in advance what it's going to be all about. Rather, a group of people get together and happen to realize that they all share a common interest.

In an attempt to peacekeep before it turns into circular historical arguments: the original problem was your sentence structure.

You, at least I think it was you (apologies if it wasn't I've kind of lost track if not insert whoever said it here), said or implied that all cartoons involving animals belong to the furry fandom. This is patently not true. The cartoon is *not* furry, the fandom is. Just because something appeals to a certain group does not mean it belongs to that group or that those who like it also belong to that group that is a logical fallacy and just plain silly besides.

It's like the Loli element/community saying that if you like Powerpuff Girls then you like Loli and belong to their community or the homosexual community saying if you like Will and Grace you're gay.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

It's like the Loli element/community saying that if you like Powerpuff Girls then you like Loli and belong to their community or the homosexual community saying if you like Will and Grace you're gay.

That is a great way of describing it. I would, however, expand the definition to say that it is possible for there to be both furry and loli media; it's just that it has to be made with that fanbase in mind. So The Powerpuff Girls isn't loli in itself, but a certain subset of hentai is.

 

[Calbeck]

That smile. Every damn furry picture has it

lol u mad? -

 

[Calbeck]

The hell it is. Anthropomorphic =/= furry.

Actually, that's exactly what Furry is.

*shades on*

Deal with it.

 

[spiney]

The hell it is. Anthropomorphic =/= furry.

Derp, the whole fandom is based around anthropomorphic animals. Don't know what you may have been reading.

 

[linwolf]

The hell it is. Anthropomorphic =/= furry.

Actually, that's exactly what Furry is.

*shades on*

Deal with it.

The hell it is. Anthropomorphic =/= furry.

Derp, the whole fandom is based around anthropomorphic animals. Don't know what you may have been reading.

I will disagree werewolves is anthropomorphic but not furry. Furry fandom is a fandom for anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. And since there are nothing human in the personalities of a werewolf, therefore calling werewolves for furry does not really fit.

 

[spiney]

I will disagree werewolves is anthropomorphic but not furry. Furry fandom is a fandom for anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. And since there are nothing human in the personalities of a werewolf, therefore calling werewolves for furry does not really fit.

Heh, they don't need to have human personalities. I doubt any dragon would behave the same way as a human would. Plus werewolves were created long ago in mythology, startlingly way before the fandom emerged, so I can't see how it's relevant to modern furries.

 

[Meestor Pickle]

Arn't any furry avatars and furries for that matter creepy? (I would say disgusting bu-whoops)

 

[Eldarion]

People who aren't part of the furry fandom should really stop posting nonsense about something they don't understand and aren't part of.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[linwolf]

I will disagree werewolves is anthropomorphic but not furry. Furry fandom is a fandom for anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. And since there are nothing human in the personalities of a werewolf, therefore calling werewolves for furry does not really fit.

Heh, they don't need to have human personalities. I doubt any dragon would behave the same way as a human would. Plus werewolves were created long ago in mythology, startlingly way before the fandom emerged, so I can't see how it's relevant to modern furries.

You called bullshit to a post that said Anthropomorphic =/= furry I made an argument that showed that the post was right.

If you take the definition of anthropomorphic C-3PO belong in the category and he even have human personalities.

Is he furry? I would say no.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

People who aren't part of the furry fandom should really stop posting nonsense about something they don't understand and aren't part of.

Just my 2 cents.

We'll do that when the furries stop claiming things that aren't connected to them as their own.