/fur/ - Furry

>>113301

Yeah this is pretty wholesome tbh. Aside from the...questionable images

I'm surprised this hasn't become a meme yet, honestly.

Half this wikihow shit is one already.

>>113314

>furshit isn't a fetish guise!

Right, because the community aspect of it isn't doomed to pointless drama and futile attempts to insist it's all 100% family friendly while still trying to commission as much artwork of their fursona getting dicked as they can.

>>113311

>>113319

It says more about you to reduce a genre and interest as broad as "anthropomorphic animals" down to a pure fetish and narrow cynicism about an insanely broad community.

>>113318

The board itself distinguishes that it isn't centered on porn. The unfortunate reality of it becoming home to /furry/'s mostly lewd minded community after it died and the stagnation/decay of 8ch's population is another issue.

>>113304

delivering

>>113323

bro you just posted cringe

>>113324

>being a furry

I really wish "furry" had a generally agreed upon set-in-stone definition.

I feel like its definition has been kept so vague and generalized to help with that ridiculous all-inclusiveness furfags strive for, but it's hurting things in the long run.

Every time I get found out, they immediately ask the obvious "Are you a furry?" and then all I can do is ask them what they even consider a furry to be before I can answer at all.

>>113324

Anthropomorphic animals have been around forever and in modern times enough of a scene has developed around the concept to be known as the furry/kemoner community. It's that simple.

You've got to assess context when using the word "community." Of course there isn't a centralized, unified group, but there's a general concept and appreciation that serves as a common link between people. Don't confuse a culture of openness and sexual expression often found with furries or the strong porn scene in the community with the root interest being fetishistic.

>>113325

Bro you just spent five minutes cropping a tail dick

>>113326

You're over complicating it. If you've got a creative passion for anthros enough to identify by it, that's that. Don't get caught up in the perception of sub-groups or whatever. If enough people feel the need to make more specific terminology it'll happen, but right now it's more like there's a tendency to get anxious over labels in fear of outsider ridicule.

>>113326

It depends on your goals. If you like staying away from local creeps that's one thing, but if you want furry to take over humanity then you need one banner, one word. The more things successfully labeled or related to furry, the more you dilute the existing cringe and embarrassment.

Allthough you may gather more creeps in the short term, in the end you'll have a greater normie:creep ratio which puts pressure on the creeps. Don't forget the "normie" side of the fandom is also the one most likely to have teeno-to-young-adult knee-jerk reactions to things like pedophilia and zoophilia and contribute to the culture that drives out extremes - because they've been less desensitized to it. The furs who have been in the fandom long enough eventually stop giving a shit about those things, so if you want them curtailed you have to replace those "activists" with fresh blood from the 20-something pool, and keep around snake pits like kiwifarms in the background to do your dirty work (don't do that shit yourself, have a life).

>>113324

>what is pokemon

>what is digimon

>what is warrior cats

>what are the several sub-communities within the furry subculture built around a shared enjoyment over personified animals

If all you can find is nsfw and dramafurs, I think that says more about you than furries as a whole. There may be fetishistic aspects, but to say that there is nothing but fetish to the furry fandom is simply untrue.

>>113337

>Furry means it was made in the furry community

I'm sorry, where is that established exactly? 'Furry' is just as much used to refer to the genre or concept of character, as one would expect. No one would say the character Fox McCloud isn't a furry character, but some specific picture drawn by someone identifying as a furry is. That's dumb, the character and series are huge, frankly inherent subjects for the community, and your take simply isn't the linguistic common usage.

Fundamentally 'furry' has different meanings depending on context, but they're all tightly woven. Subject, enthusiast, community. That's how language goes, especially around a word that isn't easily transformed.

And yeah, you could abstract it as a fandom of the genre/style.

>>113328

>If you've got a creative passion for anthros enough to identify by it, that's that.

That right there could be a static, undisputed, definition.

I don't even care what the definition ends up being.

But right now it means so many different things to so many different people, in and out of the fandom, that it's borderline meaningless on its own.

Being called a furry by anyone gives you info just as vague as the term itself until that person explains what they mean by it.

Even if it were something as broad as "likes anthropomorphic characters", that'd be enough.

You'd have a static and indisputable metric by which to pin that label on someone, and the mental gymnastics people go through to avoid it could be mitigated somewhat.

>>113337

That's a bit circular logic. The furry community makes furry media, but the key point here is that furry media is primarily a display of personified or anthropomorphized animals. All of a sudden when it's a venture by a company, it's no longer furry? I guess Bad Dragon isn't furry anymore, despite being aimed, inspired, and modeled around said personified or anthropomorphized animals, and especially despite advertising almost exclusively to the furry community. When you narrow yourself so arbitrarily, then yeah, perhaps your definition will work, but practically speaking if it's about the presentation of the creatures then we can accept Pokemon, Digimon, Star Fox, Robin Hood et cetera as furry media, even if they weren't explicitly marketed to the "furry community" (read: the narrow subset that you allow to be defined as furries which coincide with all of the people primarily interested in nutting to animal people).

>>113338

So Freedom Planet is acceptably furry, but Sonic is not? So furry media is furry only if the creator is furry, rather than if it has furry (read: anthropomorphized/personified animal) appeal? Can we literally "no homo" being a furry? Yeah, I drew some animal people fucking, but I said I'm not a furry so it's a'ight.

A lot of people would very much loosely identify themselves as furry if not for this weird stigma attached to it that it has to be about the fetish, but even when they don't explicitly call themselves a furry they'll very willingly and actively participate in communities and discussions centering around characters that are of an anthropomorphic persuasion - and the kicker is that it doesn't have to define their or anyone's lives. It's not like we're calling ourselves a furry and signing away our rights to participate in any other communities or cultures. Unsurprisingly, some people take it too far, and unsurprisingly they are the loudest on the Internet.

>>113346

Only disagreement I have with "identifying by it" as part of the definition is the word "furry" has a stigma because of people needlessly restricting its definition (Star Fox isn't furry, but porn fanart is? whut?) but a lot wider breadth of people loosely identify with the content even if they wouldn't dare use the word "furry" to explain it.

>>113346

>But right now it means so many different things to so many different people, in and out of the fandom, that it's borderline meaningless on its own

Sort of, but it seems like confusion mostly arises out of a single premise; stigma, as >>113347 touches on. Either among outsiders with ignorant stigma and stereotypes, people in fear of being stigmatized, and insiders who have themselves bought into the stigma. Personally I don't ever find silly claims like >>113356 outside of extremely self conscious spaces where you see people either agonize over community perception or try to isolate themselves through fiercely narrow definitions that don't reasonably function outside their headspace.

>>113347

Well stated.

I'd go a step further as raise the question, if a development group of furries make a game without any anthros or even any animals, that game is a furry game? No, because it's the subject matter that makes it furry. It's the subject that makes a furry.

And good point about the "identifying" bit, especially while that fear is still fairly strong.

>>113356

>No.

Yes, because that's consistent with forgoing the significance of the subject.

>>113361

The main point of contention here is the term fandom, right?

>Label the single thing furries are a fandom of

Anthropomorphic animals.

I typically see 'fandom' used for certain types of subcultures (sports, TV, etc.), but it's basically just a synonym for subculture. Think about it. What is the MLP fandom but a subculture of enthusiasts of MLP? Furries simply expanded the range of colloquial usage to their own subject, and that is the case with it becoming fairly common usage now.

(Really though, just search the definition)

You can claim the usage is broadly colloquially imprecise, but debating subculture vs fandom in the way you have is pointless. Fandom is literally subculture, and it's not the internal media vs external media debate you may think it is in practice.

>>113364

>Leather subculture isn't called a leather "fandom" even though people outside it can wear leather too

See the above, but you screwed up that analogy. Wearing leather, like simply watching furry content, doesn't make you a fan or enthusiast of it

Oh, I'll just toss this new thought into the wind. Fandom actually is a more precise term than only 'subculture' here. Subculture has far broader usage outside of enthusiast cultures. Fandom is literally "enthusiast sub/culture of X"

Should have been obvious to me.

While I'm at it

>>113346

I sorta missed you were getting at this

>You'd have a static and indisputable metric by which to pin that label on someone, and the mental gymnastics people go through to avoid it could be mitigated somewhat.

I guess I was trying to say that the understanding is basically already in place among much of the community, and cracking stigma is the way to solidify it among the outliers and outsiders. But you could mean that the community affirming a strong sense of the definition would help do that, and yeah that makes sense.

Oh you guys saved my thread!