Quote from: RedFoxOh you can use it some other way.  You'll just be wrong, and I'll call you on it.  Y'know, like I did.  

Sorry - your fandom can create terms for its internal use all you want.

Insisting that people external to your group use the terms in the same way that you do is simply asinine.

-O

QuoteIn fact, insisting that furry fans abandon the term "furry" because it has too much negative baggage in the public consciousness is only going to cause more harm than good.

If that's what you think I am saying, then I clearly have miscommunicated.

What I said in the original post is that I see the term "furry" as referring to a specific fandom, and it's cultural artifacts.

As I gave in my examples, Jadeclaw is a fine example of "furry".

I do not however believe that the terminology applies to usage of anthropomorphization outside of that specific subculture, and in fact I believe that as a result of the unfortunate baggage attached to that subculture, it is unfair to to use it in general as such because the result winds up attaching said baggage to things that have no connection to it.

I am sorry that your fandom has acquired the stigma it has, but I don't think trying to attach that stigma to anything and everything that resembles the fandom is going to help, and I think it has in fact resulted in a backlash of sorts against a lot of stuff with no connection to that culture.  

The very terminology hasn't even existed that long, and is still only used mostly by that fandom and those familiar with it, so I don't even see there being much cultural weight behind the idea that it should be as generic as you wish it to be.

Otherwise we start approaching silliness, like obryn's facetious example of the Egyptian gods.

Actually, the most interesting part to me about this entire debate is that prior to my later discovery via the Internet and message boards of the existence of furries and furry fandom, I never had ANY specific terminology for animal people or what ever the hell.  

Further, I can't say as it ever occured to me that I needed a specific term for that type of art.  My prior familiarity even, with the term anthropomorphism was entirely in the literary sense as it was taught to me in school, as the application of human traits to the non-human.  "The sun smiled" and the like.  

And suddenly we're debating usage of terminology over a concept that ten years ago I never really had need of a word for.

I think that's actually a part of my frustration, in that I never had a term for this stuff before, where as suddenly one sprung into existence, but it was largely seen as a nasty term.

Quote from: J ArcaneI do not however believe that the terminology applies to usage of anthropomorphization outside of that specific subculture, and in fact I believe that as a result of the unfortunate baggage attached to that subculture, it is unfair to to use it in general as such because the result winds up attaching said baggage to things that have no connection to it.

Outside of attachment to the fandom, "furry" pretty much just means "hirsute."

However, in regards to furry fandom it has a very specific definition.  The term was invented by furry fans for furry fans.  People outside the fandom often misuse or misunderstand the term, which is what I've been pointing out.

The fandom itself has a stigma, and therefore you feel uncomfortable with hearing that we like what you like.

All I can say about that is "tough noogies."  You can claim that whatever you want "isn't furry" all you want, but that isn't going to change how furry fans use the term.  You can make up your own personal definitions like you've done, and if they work for you fine.

I'm reminded of Pundit's rant about "adventuring games" or whatever nonsense.  It's simply outsiders trying to redefine terminology to suit their own comfort zones, distance themselves from what they dislike, and reinforce stigmatization.  Screw that.

Quote from: JArcaneI am sorry that your fandom has acquired the stigma it has, but I don't think trying to attach that stigma to anything and everything that resembles the fandom is going to help, and I think it has in fact resulted in a backlash of sorts against a lot of stuff with no connection to that culture.

See, this is the heart of it right here.  Your argument is that "furry fans are icky weirdoes" (the "stigma" you speak of) and "I don't want stuff sullied by having those icky weirdoes like it."

Again, tough noogies.  I'm proud to be a furry fan, regardless of how the public at large views us.

Quote from: JArcaneThe very terminology hasn't even existed that long, and is still only used mostly by that fandom and those familiar with it, so I don't even see there being much cultural weight behind the idea that it should be as generic as you wish it to be.

Again, it's not a generic term.  It's a very specific term with a very specific definition, and it originated in the fandom and is used almost exclusively by the fandom.  The only other time it's used is when other people, outside the fandom, try to use the term when referring to the fandom or its interests.  Or try to redefine the term to better suit their comfort zones.

Honestly, it's a furry word.  As a non-furry fan, why do you give a shit what furry fans call "furry"?

Oh wait, you already stated why:  Because you don't want our "stigma" attached to stuff you like.

Tough.

Quote from: JArcaneOtherwise we start approaching silliness, like obryn's facetious example of the Egyptian gods.

Psst, egyptian gods are furry.  Lots of furry fans dig 'em for that reason.  I've seen some really great fan art of Anubis.

Quote from: RedFoxRapists and child molesters do not have a harmless kink or hobby.  Furries do.

Most furries seem to have a harmless interest. I still see the idea that people should not be judged on one facet as disingenuous. For example, I may not think someone is creepy because they are a self-proclaimed furry. When I find stuffed animals with holes cut in them or pictures of the huge penises and milk weird fluids squirting everywhere, sorry but I'm judging even though no people were hurt.

Quote from: WilMost furries seem to have a harmless interest. I still see the idea that people should not be judged on one facet as disingenuous. For example, I may not think someone is creepy because they are a self-proclaimed furry. When I find stuffed animals with holes cut in them or pictures of the huge penises and milk weird fluids squirting everywhere, sorry but I'm judging even though no people were hurt.

What-the-fuck ever, man.

Judge people on whatever criteria you like.

Quote from: jrientsWil, let's not bring in any implicit comparisons between clearcut criminal types and folks who like to take a walk on the wildside.  That probably wasn't your intent, but let's not go anywhere near there nonetheless.

Quote from: redfoxI feel that people are more [...] one feature such as sexual orientation,[..] They should be judged by who they are, on their individual merits in total.

Emphasis mine. This implies that one who is a pedophile, which is arguably a sexual orientation (simply an illegal one), should not be judged solely on the basis that person is a pedophile. I find this disingenuous.

Let's put it this way...if you walked up to me and said, "I pick my toenails and eat it", you could prove to be Gandhi and I'm still going to judge you based on that initial fact. It's human nature. On top of that, there are plenty of "furries" (EDIT: To me more than one is "plenty" - I know of at least three) out there who would actually have sex with animals (I have met them and they have admitted it) which is illegal in many jurisdictions.

Quote from: WilEmphasis mine. This implies that one who is a pedophile, which is arguably a sexual orientation (simply an illegal one), should not be judged solely on the basis that person is a pedophile. I find this disingenuous.

That's fine.

I don't feel like continuing this bullshit conversation with you any further, though.

re: it being a harmless hobby...

Have any Doctors / Psychiatrists / Therapists commented on this? As an outsider it seems that the sexualization of animals from children's entertainment is not healthy at all.  

Similarly, literally believing you are a creature from mythology sounds a lot like believing you are a historical figure -- like Napoleon.

Links to actual studies or articles in medical journals (etc) would be very interesting.

What I don't understand, and this applies not just to "the fandom" but several other subcultures, is the complete lack of any desire to distance, ostracize or otherwise self-police the subculture. Does anyone ever say to the guys who draw the fur porn, "You're some sick fucks and you make everyone think we're perverts. Stop it or GTFO"? Does anyone ever say to the 400-lb guy dressed  in the cloak and looking like a Goth clown, "Look, you're making us all look like complete idiots, can you leave?" Does anyone ever tell the social retard that wants to blather on about his character at the top of his lungs to STFU? It's this weird "circling the wagons" mentality that causes people to defend extreme activities when really they should be distancing themselves from them. It really puzzles me.

Quote from: WilIt's this weird "circling the wagons" mentality that causes people to defend extreme activities when really they should be distancing themselves from them. It really puzzles me.

Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil

Quote from: Stuartre: it being a harmless hobby...

Have any Doctors / Psychiatrists / Therapists commented on this? As an outsider it seems that the sexualization of animals from children's entertainment is not healthy at all.  

Similarly, literally believing you are a creature from mythology sounds a lot like believing you are a historical figure -- like Napoleon.

Links to actual studies or articles in medical journals (etc) would be very interesting.

Being a furry fan doesn't mean that you sexualize animals from children's entertainment or believe yourself to be a mythological creature.

There are some self-identified furry fans who do so, of course.  And they're overrepresentative of the fandom, as Pundit pointed out.

As to psychologically:  Anything can be taken to an obsessive level and therefore become unhealthy.  Anything.

Quote from: WilWhat I don't understand, and this applies not just to "the fandom" but several other subcultures, is the complete lack of any desire to distance, ostracize or otherwise self-police the subculture.

*laughs out loud at you*

You're obviously ignorant of the myriad attempts within the fandom to do just that.

That said, it's generally more tolerant than you'd suspect, in large part because of how the fandom's power structure formed.  As Pundit noted, the sexualized furry fans essentially took over the fandom and have become entrenched.  If you don't tow the party line, you're on the outs.

@RedFox: I know you think it's cool -- and I know some other people would say "the hell it is" -- what I was wondering was if any actual healthcare professionals had commented on it yet?

In addition to anything taken to an obsessive level being unhealthy, there are activities that even in small doses would be considered unhealthy.

Quote from: Stuart@RedFox: I know you think it's cool -- and I know some other people would say "the hell it is" -- what I was wondering was if any actual healthcare professionals had commented on it yet?

In addition to anything taken to an obsessive level being unhealthy, there are activities that even in small doses would be considered unhealthy.

I don't know of any actual psychological studies done of the fandom.  I'd be afraid that such a thing would lack a certain amount of integrity, as it would likely be done from a sensational or prejudgemental viewpoint.

The DSM had homosexuality on the books as a mental disorder for a long time, so it's not like politics doesn't influence these sorts of things.

That said, I think there's definitely some iffy stuff in the fandom.  Some things such as "snuff porn" or the myriad mutilation fantasies in the fetish circles seem to have a very self-destructive vibe to them, for example.  And I'm no psychologist but I'd hazard a guess that some of the "I'm really a faery wolf!" stuff may slide from harmless fantasy play into some sort of delusional identity issues.