Forums / Discussion / General

Well, not really, but…

People on this site seem to be aware that the term "furry" as it relates both to fictional characters and to IRL fans is a somewhat nebulously defined term. (To be clear, I mean this post primarily to be about the use of the term to describe fans.) I myself have of course taken some part in joking about the vague boundaries surrounding how the term is used. Contrary to this however, I actually have a more rigid definition of the term in how I use it in more serious context.

That's what this is about. Is "furry" an ultimately meaningless term to you, or do you give it more rigid meaning? How do you define it to yourself?
I suppose I should go first.

Personally, I take a more narrow and exclusive view of who furries are. Any look at dedicated furry content makes it clear that furries are an isolable culture of people who influence and feed back into each other. They frequently self-sequester off into their own circles where they've developed their own ways of engaging with one another. They are perhaps the most unique of online fandoms in that they are not built around and single piece of media or well defined genre but more so around internal creative contribution.

I'd say that furries are defined less so by their appreciation for anthropomorphic characters and content and more so by their community. A furry is someone who is involved in those creative and social circles, likely as a contributor of some form. Defining furries by their association with other furries means that you can't really have a furry in isolation. Someone who regularly consumes media deemed "furry", but doesn't give back in some form isn't really a furry. Media not specifically made to appeal to that community can't rightly be called "furry", even if it features anthropomorphism and furries attach themselves to it. While all furries appreciate anthropomorphic characters and content, not all fans of anthropomorphic characters and content are furries.

…Or at least that's my take on it. As the premise of this establishes, this is about people posting their own views, perhaps to find if there is or isn't some majority consensus on this.
Humor is welcome! This is a late-night post about furries, after all.

Hmm, from my observation of furries, it is sort of a scale with one end of the scale being more obvious like the fursuits and fursona. However, the starting half of the scale is where it gets very blurry since one can like drawing anthropomorphic animals or watching stuff that has those and liking them and yet not be called or considered a furry.

Doesn't help that all furries are pretty diverse in opinions about it and the sub-communities that make up what people know as the furry community, even to the point that some of its harshest critics are furries themselves who have both petty and legitimate grievances with the community or sub-groups within them or just want to troll because it is funny to get people's panties in a twist.

So to me, I might consider the definition of furry being sort of like a scaling tree with many branches which have plenty of dead-ends since there are furries who don't go far in stuff like say fursuits or outright reject them.

It's a nebulous definition. If you wear a fursuit, have a fursona, and go to furry conventions, yeah, I'd say you're a furry. If you like Disney's Robin Hood and that's it, then probably not. While I get the argument that "if you are not involved with the community [by contributing] you're not a furry" I have no doubt there are plenty of people who lurk around furry communities of some form (even if it's just artist's DA pages) but never make contributions.

Then you have to factor in the Furry Scale. Most would consider Nekos/Catgirls, even ones with cat paws for hands, to technically be on/ adjacent to the scale but not inherently making you a furry for liking them.

Take it from an actual furry when I say that being a pretty furry, at least to my personal definition, is simply having a furosona. It's what you do with your fursona that determines how deep of a hole you're in.

I like to refer to this video a lot to explain to people (aka normies) what it's like to be a furry.

I like to believe I'm a level 3 furry. I have a very unoriginal fursona and don't dabble on it too much. I just use it as a sort of avatar when I'm online. I'm also into tons of gay furry porn, but be real. It wouldn't be fair if being into the porn your community creates and shares is seen as automatically being a worse person from outsiders. Because basically every community does that.

Now, furries to KYM just means a bigger target. With that being said, @Jacob. No. Neko/Catgirls/Kemonos/etc. are not furries. On behalf of both the furry and anime community, the general consensus is that they are two entirely different beings.

@ A Wolf

Odd, I thought that Kemonos were an even more hazy thing to define since monster girl and furries do get mixed together in there from what I've heard.

Monster things are not furries, either, since they still end up retaining a lot of human traits. Like, lamias aren't snake furries, they're snake-taurs. Generally speaking, you don't mix the furry and anime classifications because it upsets everyone involved that cares. And kemonos are just a categorization of "humans with animal ears and tail". Not furry.

@A Wolf

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand where you're coming from. I don't really see "normal" centaurs as furries (though apparently furry centaurs are a thing, where the human part is an anthropomorphic animal). Most people agree that if half is nearly fully human then it's not furry. However, The Code of the Furries shows them as being on the scale.

1 : Basically human, with minor furry features (perhaps eyes, nose, ears, claws, some fur, etc)
2 : Humanoid, with significant furry features (muzzle, tail, etc); this includes centaurs and mer-people
3 : Anthropomorphic animal (or taur)
4 : Equally comfortable on two or four legs (or, if you're a taur, on four or six)
5 : Animal shape, with some unusual features (perhaps hands, speech, etc); this includes most dragons, gryphons, etc
6 : Normal animal shape

Obviously, this list isn't great, as many numbers are semi-redundant, and not mutually exclusive. I don't know how well known this document is, but it is surprisingly old. However, I know full well that certain classification groups get debunked and/or changed later.

Huh… I keep trying to look into it more, but it seems there is another word kemonomimi which is the monster girl one while kemono seems to be the furry one… well that explains why pixiv seemed to be bipolar when I searched that term up and gave me contradictory results.

I wonder if this is how other nationalities except British feel like when my folks say that they need a fag.

Stupid question: I'm only somewhat involved in the furry fandom (On the one hand I like making fursuits, on the other hand I rarely get involved with the fandom other than following liveforthefunk or avante92 or five other artists), what the fuck is up with the people outright desperate for the furry fandom to get popular? Yeah I agree the fandom is slowly getting popular and eventually it's going to be a big fandom, but it's taken four decades to get as big as it is currently. I don't think furries are just magically overnight going to become as popular as anime or video games or such.It's probably going to take another decade or two till it gets big enough to be considered mainstream.

I assume it was to get a better reputation than what the media has given it and get out of being the butt monkeys stage of internet jokes and dislikes.

Early looks at furries by magazines focused only on the sexual aspects of the furry fandom while shows like ER, CSI and other tv shows went along with it. More or less for sensationalism since everyone fandom does have its perverted side with parts that they are willing to talk about and/or those parts that they don't want to talk about, for the latter all you have to do is go to fanfiction.net and search for mature stories to see some WTF shit or any porn site. It is actually amazing to me how very perverted the nerd and geek cultures are.

It is sort of like how gamers roll their eyes at most shows like Law and Order and Criminal minds going to address gaming in their episodes. Or any news outlet that isn't too involved with gaming much.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/moviesandtv/columns/highdefinition/12590-Worst-Portrayals-of-Gamers-on-Television

Furries are people who roleplay as anthropomorphic creatures or cosplay as them. While there are some people just into it for sexual reasons, not everyone is. I've met multiple kids between ages 8 to 12 that had their own fursona and such.

Basically what Rustic said. We just want to be seen in a better light. Not really "normalizing" the idea of being a furry, but as something that's a thing and the world simply needs to accept that it exists. They don't have to like it in any sense, or take us any seriously, they just have to understand our presence.

Like, there's been some tumblr posts of people wearing their work uniforms over their fursuits, because guess what? We're just people. No matter what the media thinks we are, we are just people enjoying a fandom. No different than any other fandom, degeneracy and all.

That being said, please keep us away from the otherkin. They're a whole other bag of spiders you don't want to stick your hand in.

A furry, in my opinion, is someone who likes the idea of anthropomorphic animals, maybe even sexually aroused by them.
A furfag, is a different meaning, to me at least.
IMO, a furfag is someone who would actually fuck an animal willingly.

…to fictional characters…

I use a bell curve for that. The more animal or human-like something is, the less furry it is to me, whereas stuff in the middle feels the most furry.

… IRL fans…

I tend to use a tighter definition for "furries." Those who go to conventions, do bipedal anthro art, have a fursona, etc. The problem with broader definitions ("fan of anthropamophic characters") is it's too broad--pretty much everyone's a fan of one Disney movie or another. The term becomes meaningless if everyone's grouped under it.

In other words, if everyone's a furry, then no one will be.

That furries themselves aren't certain where their boundaries begin and end is certainly something to be considered. The perspective that I base my own definition on is entirely outside-looking-in, and as such is so biased.

Though I've read that most self-identified furries don't fursuit, so I think few would ever consider that requisite.

(Uh, oh. 5 out of 11. That's lookin' dangerous!)

From what I've seen, it seems that in most online communities lurkers aren't really seen as a part of it. Usually they're just lingering passersby except for the ones who settle in and openly join.

I own plushies and have sometimes used furryspeak ironically. By this model that puts me at level 2. Good thing this is meant as a joke.

I don't think I've heard furries discussed as being specifically a roleplay community before, but the more I think about it that definition may make the most sense. That goes nicely with what A Wolf was saying about having a fursona. Roleplay takes a lot of forms and describes a great deal of what usually ties furries together as a group.

"…someone who likes the idea of anthropomorphic animals…" Seems a bit too open ended as it runs into a bit of the "if everyone is, no one is" problem. Following, that, it probably goes without saying that I should be a "furry", yet in spite of that, any look at self-identified furries shows people too different from myself that it doesn't make sense to be considered as being in the same group.

You'd be surprised how on-point this gets despite it being a joke. It's oddly accurate. Incidentally, I don't own any plushes, but I still fall under the other categories.

This is me

Maybe i'm just in denial, but I don't consider myself a furry even though I make and sell furry accessories for a living, have an active furaffinity account, have a furry waifu pillow, have multiple furry (and otherkin) friends irl, technically a fursona and a bunny-human sona (avatar), and have been to a furry convention.
I just don't like roleplaying, nor do I want a fursuit, so I feel more like a fan of the fandom, that being a furry.

@poochyena

(That look of hollow despair in the last panel is pretty priceless.)

Going by the definition that I initially presented, I'd definitely have to hold you as a furry (no offense).
Being a fan of a fandom is certainly not something I haven't heard of before. For most any major fandom there are people who are fascinated with the people and culture of the fandom and will take part only so far as that, having little interest in the original core subject of the fandom. Some might use the term "poser", but that implies being intentionally fake, which is not what these people usually do.

Furries are an unusual fandom, though. They lack the kind of unifying foundation found at the core of other fandoms and yet are distinct. I'd say this is what makes them harder to unanimously define. You feed into and contribute to the furry fandom, which in turn seems to feed back into you. To me, this makes you 100% furry.