"Are you a furry?"

[Broomjockey]

The Fratching off-topic topic I pointed out earlier (ownership and authorship, as well as "what is furry") is still kicking around. Either start PMing, or take it to Fratching. Any further continuation will just say that this thread's run it's course and is time to be closed.

[Imogene]

=^_^=

But, but, what if the Smiley is the Devil I worship?

[Nekojin]

That's like arguing Pagans are Satan worshipers, because, when I wear my pentacle in public, I get people asking if I worship the devil.

You ignored the smiley... =^_^=

[SC Slave]

Note that I personally sometimes wear ears and a tail to Furry cons... if I wore that anywhere else, I'd get someone, sooner or later, asking me if I was a Furry. So how can that not be Furry?

That's like arguing Pagans are Satan worshipers, because, when I wear my pentacle in public, I get people asking if I worship the devil.

[edible_hat]

Well... ask the general Fandom as a whole what they think about the Trekker/Trekkie schism in the Star Trek fandom...

My local Star Trek fanclub say that it's Trekkeries. In other words, either is acceptable to them.

But then they're apparently unusual for Star Trek fans - All are married or in serious long-term relationships, and just over half definitely aren't virgins (because they have kids). Also they team up with the local Star Wars costume group for fundraising events.

(edit: I am of course being facecous here, after watching the Trekkies documentary I believe that married Star Trek fans are the norm)

[Nekojin]

I have to wonder, who decided this? I know a lot of people who don't consider mimis (animal ears, maybe tail, otherwise human) to be furry, or books about full-on animals with more human thoughts to be furry. Just curious, because I've never met anyone outside the furry comunity that thought those things were furry.

Most people at large don't understand what furry is to begin with, so they have an ill-conceived concept of what furry "should" or "shouldn't" be. Heck, even Furries don't agree on what Furry is all the time. I was interviewed for a magazine article about 6 years back, and asked what Furry was; I answered, "Ask 10 Furries that question, and you'll get a dozen different answers." It's the straight-up truth.

The simplest, most basic explanation of what Furry is would be what I said before: An interest in anthropomorphism, which is nothing more or less than giving human traits to non-human things. The Furry fandom as a whole narrows that definition only slightly, by defining it as giving human traits to animals (or vice-versa), because the broadest definition would include things like Thomas the Tank Engine.

You can draw the line anywhere you want, and make that your own personal definition of what Furry means to you. And that's fine - nobody will tell you that you're wrong until you try to apply that definition to someone else. I'm a Furry, and I have no interest in Fursuiting. I know other Furries who have no interest in any part of the fandom except fursuiting. Our interests don't overlap in the slightest - but we're still both Furries.

Note that I personally sometimes wear ears and a tail to Furry cons... if I wore that anywhere else, I'd get someone, sooner or later, asking me if I was a Furry. So how can that not be Furry?

If the furry community wants to claim them, I guess that's fine, but I don't think its seen by fandom at large as being part of it. Most consider them seperate fanbases.

Well... ask the general Fandom as a whole what they think about the Trekker/Trekkie schism in the Star Trek fandom...

[Geek King]

Strictly speaking, any anthropomorphized animal, whether real or fictional (by that, I mean the difference between cats, skunks, and alligators vs. unicorns, griffons, and dragons) is furry. It doesn't matter how far it is - if it's an animal with human traits (walking, talking, coherent thinking), or a human with animal traits (catgirls, etc.), it qualifies as furry. Even Watership Down, which is strictly a book about rabbits, is considered furry.

I have to wonder, who decided this? I know a lot of people who don't consider mimis (animal ears, maybe tail, otherwise human) to be furry, or books about full-on animals with more human thoughts to be furry. Just curious, because I've never met anyone outside the furry comunity that thought those things were furry. If the furry community wants to claim them, I guess that's fine, but I don't think its seen by fandom at large as being part of it. Most consider them seperate fanbases.

[edible_hat]

So I ask you... who really shot first?

Han shot first in the original version, the original version existed first, therefore Han shot first.

[Aethian]

So sorry...

What are you apologizing for?

[ShadedWings]

So sorry...

[Nekojin]

Okay, this? ^is Fratching material. Sorry, but that's too far off-topic.

Sorry... just using it to illustrate the point, as I figured it was an example that most people were familiar with.

[ShadedWings]

Getting to this thread a bit late, as I've been stuck trying to keep up-to-date on another section of the forum...

I, myself, am a furry too. Have been for a very long time, but didn't realize that's what I was until late-teens. I live with two other furries and am close friends with a few others, in other states/countries.

Personally, I'm mainly a black leopard, but I can vary with my mood. Rarely I slip into a dragonish mood, or a wolfish mood. Lately I've been thinking myself kind of black fox/leopard halfbreed, but that's just change working normally as I get older. (Ack, someone stop time! )

As for what Record Store Tough Guy said a while back...

"So... why is it that people who identify as furries always pick "cool" animals, like Wolves or Foxes, or "cute" animals like Raccoons and Rabbits, but you never see, I dunno, Hyenas, or Possums? Or Banana Slugs? Is it the same reason why people who do past life regressions were always someone important, and never the poor peasant guy who spent his life knee deep in shit? Same with the otherkin. Why are they never basilisks, or gorgons, or catoblepi?"

I know of, and am aquantainces with, a skunk and a chocobo. My bf's a winged cabbit (Tenchi Muyo for reference), but not the typical type...: flop-eared rabbit/white tiger with green and black feathered wings. And yes, he has a very cabbit-y personality, for those of you who know about Ryo-Ohki and Ken-Ohki. My roommate's a wolf-mouse. Yes, his moods flop from wolf-ish to mouse-ish. He can be a tad difficult sometimes, but can't we all, heheh.

I had more to add, but my brain's fizzing out on me. Feel free to PM me if you have questions for me, or add to the thread, I'll be checking back on this one.

Note - I've never been to a FurCon either... I've wanted to for ages, but either don't have the money, the time or none nearby. Ah well, eventually...

[Broomjockey]

So I ask you... who really shot first? As the Creator, does George Lucas get to rewrite it after release? Legally, there's no question - it's his creation, he can alter it how he sees fit. But morally? Emotionally?

Okay, this? ^is Fratching material. Sorry, but that's too far off-topic.

[Nekojin]

Strictly speaking, any anthropomorphized animal, whether real or fictional (by that, I mean the difference between cats, skunks, and alligators vs. unicorns, griffons, and dragons) is furry. It doesn't matter how far it is - if it's an animal with human traits (walking, talking, coherent thinking), or a human with animal traits (catgirls, etc.), it qualifies as furry. Even Watership Down, which is strictly a book about rabbits, is considered furry.

- - - - -

As far as respecting the author's intentions goes - well, that's fine, but you have to realize that a creation only "belongs" to the author (talking emotionally, not legally) up until the day the creation is released to the public. Once the public observes the creation, they will get their own emotional attachments to the creation in ways that the author never realized or intended.

Take, for example, Star Wars. 20 years after the fact, George Lucas decided that the showdown between Han and Greedo in the Cantina made Han look a little too ruthless, and changed it to show Greedo shooting first in an official rerelease of the movie. What happened after that should be pretty common knowledge. (And if you're unfamiliar with this bit of movie history, do a Google search for, "Han shot first," for more information than you ever cared about!)

So I ask you... who really shot first? As the Creator, does George Lucas get to rewrite it after release? Legally, there's no question - it's his creation, he can alter it how he sees fit. But morally? Emotionally?

[Bliss]

I thought I saw it going down, sorry I got twitchy finger, And I didn't report because it wasn't yet a fight or bad situation and thus I didn't want to alert a mod yet. Plus I tried to do my post as tactful as I could for I thought I could help a little. Sorry for the misstep then.