What Defines a Furry?
Podcast: Download (27.6MB)
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS
What makes a character a furry? Wolfin is away this week, so Star leads discussion. Is “furry” limited to what the fandom produces, or can you find “furry” far outside the fandom, even produced by people who have no knowledge of the subculture?
Related Posts
About The Author
levi
I am the coyote of the group! This means I am the handsome one, the intelligent one, the one who says all sorts of positive things about himself because he can even though he may be stretching the truth a little. When I'm not hosting or editing the show, you can find me writing the next great furry novel.
4 Comments
Add a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
An interesting topic for sure because I do not consider myself a “furry” or “fur” just because I made a character, costume, or write athropomorphic stories. After hearing this podcast I could draw two conclusions that referenced each other.
1- As a furry, the character defines the human person
2- In Anthropomorphics, the human person defines the characters
A very important point you mentioned was a non-standard for defining who is in fact a furry. But I believe it goes deeper than this- the question should be ‘Why do we need this title to begin with?’ There is an attitude associated with this title and you’ll hear it in the responses if you were to ask a layman on the street ‘what is a furry’ or someone who is involved in anthropomorphic activities, I.E. illustrations, writing, fursuiting/mascots, etc.
The brony argument was compelling also since MLP is by definition Anthropomorphic. However, why would there be tension among self-defined ‘furries’ and ‘bronies’ as to whether or not each fit the category of furry better. It’s like an orange and a carrot arguing over which of them is more “orange”.
For me it’s not a matter of “better” but that I simply dislike My Little Pony and like to poke fun at it whenever I can. 😉 I realize it’s irrational and don’t assume otherwise.
I would say we don’t need the title. It’s a convenient label to have in some instances, and it gives people with similar interests a banner to rally around, but it is not needed and I think it can be detrimental rather than beneficial in many instances.
Good topic.
I agree about stuff fitting into the furry category when the artist is not a furry. I submit to a few furry groups on DA even though I’m not furry.
With the fursona thing, I admit, I call my cat a mascot because I don’t consider myself a furry. (I mostly have it because I’m bad at drawing humans and I wanted an avatar that symbolizes me.) I’m guessing I’m the person Levi refereed to in the podcast. I know at least one other person who has a fursona, which they draw very often, have a name for, and call a fursona. They are not a furry. (I asked them if they were.) There are a fair number of other people who are probably not furries but have fursonas, though I haven’t outright asked them if they are furries so I don’t know for sure. It would be interesting to take a poll of all the artists who draw anthro/feral and see what percentage were actually furries.
You are correct; I was talking about you. 🙂 Congratulations on your cameo!