Furries - Not Entirely Human?

Recommended Videos

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,578
0
0
That's a tough one. I've never met anyone who would seriously walk up to you and state something along the lines of "I'm part wolf!" even though I know that people like this certainly do exist.

On one end, human cultures with a more shamanistic bend have been known to associate humans with animals. This doesn't mean you're creating instances of zoomorphism, but that you're instead seeing parts of an animal's professed character in a given person. Hell, even some Western cultures do it. Why do you think some people are said to be "eagle-eyed" or "weasely" in nature?

Honestly believing you've got some animal guts, though, and that you need a fursuit for your "true self" to show, however, seems like an altogether different beast. I think people who go so far as to lose normal attraction levels for their fellow humans probably need to sit down and have a chat with a psychologist, or they're forgetting that in some ways, their idealized animal lifestyle would be far less, well, human, than what they're currently going through.

Consider that in most cases, furries don't choose wolves, for instance, as the entirety of what they are. They pick and choose the appearance, the heightened senses and the fact that having fur seems appealing to them, but most of the furries I've met liberally "Disney-ify" their fursonas.

So when some of my furry friends tell me they'd sometimes rather be wolves, I'm the first to ask them if they *really* would rather be forced to live in near-constant hunger, in situations where social dynamics can turn lethal at any moment, and where for all of their noble bearing, they're actually far inferior to your average gun-wielding human.

That usually gives them pause. Furries tend to have a highly idealized view of their elected species, usually perceiving animals from that species as being free spirits, as opposed to Humanity's legion of small proclivities.

It's never quite that simple, obviously.

I, personally, find a few species interesting from a design perspective, or in how they've come to mean something to your average human culture. That doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty happy with being a Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,370
0
0
Metalix Knightmare said:
Oh Christ. The Otherkin. A group of people so freaking weird even most furries don't want to be involved with them.

Just write them off as the nutjob splinter group that they are and move on. Nothing good can come from this.
The otherkin are the furries that wish they were actual animals?
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
Pinkamena said:
Metalix Knightmare said:
Oh Christ. The Otherkin. A group of people so freaking weird even most furries don't want to be involved with them.

Just write them off as the nutjob splinter group that they are and move on. Nothing good can come from this.
The otherkin are the furries that wish they were actual animals?
Not wish, believe they are reincarnations of animals.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,370
0
0
him over there said:
Pinkamena said:
Metalix Knightmare said:
Oh Christ. The Otherkin. A group of people so freaking weird even most furries don't want to be involved with them.

Just write them off as the nutjob splinter group that they are and move on. Nothing good can come from this.
The otherkin are the furries that wish they were actual animals?
Not wish, believe they are reincarnations of animals.
Well that's... Strange.
 

him over there

New member
Dec 17, 2011
1,728
0
0
Pinkamena said:
him over there said:
Pinkamena said:
Metalix Knightmare said:
Oh Christ. The Otherkin. A group of people so freaking weird even most furries don't want to be involved with them.

Just write them off as the nutjob splinter group that they are and move on. Nothing good can come from this.
The otherkin are the furries that wish they were actual animals?
Not wish, believe they are reincarnations of animals.
Well that's... Strange.
Indeed. Though they actually all aren't furries though. Otherkin and furry aren't mutually exclusive nor inclusive.
 

Biodeamon

New member
Apr 11, 2011
1,652
0
0
maybe becuase they are. those souless beasts of nature should be caged up with the rest of the animals!

ha ha joking aside, i still do really hate furries. alot.

maybe it stems from a part fo their genes which didn't evolve to think of themselves as human and so they natrually are attracted to not quite-humans. i don't know. just theorozing.
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
James Joseph Emerald said:
dyre said:
Hmm, interesting. That's still in the realm of the intangible, so it's a lot less absurd than the furry claim (unless some furries think they have the soul of an animal trapped in a human or something?). I guess I could chalk it off as some kind of cultural relativism thing...furries are their own culture then. Heh.
Well, really, what's more absurd, the idea that you can only possibly be 0% human or 100% human with no middle ground; or the idea that if you spend a considerable amount of time and energy pretending that you aren't human, that your "level of humanity" might fluctuate slightly?

It's also something which is tied up in the issue of personhood [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood], which is intensely debated in the field of anthropology.
Well, biologically, I'm pretty sure it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal. You're human, or you're another species. I'm not sure how else "level of humanity" could be measured.

As for personhood, isn't that about what constitutes a person deserving of rights and with responsibilities normally assigned to people? I'm not sure how it's relevant (but then again I'm not an anthropologist).
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,153
0
0
dyre said:
Well, biologically, I'm pretty sure it's an all-or-nothing sort of deal. You're human, or you're another species. I'm not sure how else "level of humanity" could be measured.

As for personhood, isn't that about what constitutes a person deserving of rights and with responsibilities normally assigned to people? I'm not sure how it's relevant (but then again I'm not an anthropologist).
You're right, but you have to realise that biological definitions are the result of a bunch of leaders in the field getting together and making something up to describe their surroundings. Humanity (and any definitions of it) in particular is what you'd call a construct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science)]; something which cannot be observed directly. You can use genetic analysis, for example, to show something matches your definition of human, but you can't show that your definition of human is comprehensive. It is based entirely on speculative consensus.

Also, the original question posed on the survey wasn't really asked in a biological context.


Personhood is more broadly the "state of being a person." I suppose it would have bearing on human rights issues, but its mostly the general way that a specific culture conceptualises what a person is.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
I think furries get way, way, way too much hate on the internet and in real life (and by too much hate, I mean any hate at all really). Some people seem to have an intense dislike for anything they see as weird or "gross" or different and it's really not fair.

As for people who feel disconnect with their species, I can understand that. While you may be human in terms of body, that doesn't mean you are human in terms of mind. I believe some trans* people bristle at the idea of being compared to those who experience dysphoria with their species (and I think there are good reasons for this), but I can see how a dysphoria with gender may be similar to a dysphoria with their species. Also, I think the existence of GID does make part of a case for the existence of SID and I don't think that we should rule out totally the idea of having a species within your brain (something that is to your physical species as gender is to sex).
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
James Joseph Emerald said:
You're right, but you have to realise that biological definitions are the result of a bunch of leaders in the field getting together and making something up to describe their surroundings. Humanity (and any definitions of it) in particular is what you'd call a construct [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science)]; something which cannot be observed directly. You can use genetic analysis, for example, to show something matches your definition of human, but you can't show that your definition of human is comprehensive. It is based entirely on speculative consensus.

Also, the original question posed on the survey wasn't really asked in a biological context.


Personhood is more broadly the "state of being a person." I suppose it would have bearing on human rights issues, but its mostly the general way that a specific culture conceptualises what a person is.
Damn anthropologists and their "your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking" nonsense >:|

Imo, the biological definition of humanity is a lot better than whatever definition the furries are using (their feelings, I suppose?), but that's probably just because my society feels that way, huh? :|
 

DANEgerous

New member
Jan 4, 2012
805
0
0
Buretsu said:
2) Not everything furry is sexual. That said, sex is a part of human nature, so the two aren't completely foreign. It's no different from the Rule 34 of everything else. Like just because you can find naked pictures of Marge Simpson, doesn't mean The Simpsons is entirely pornographic.


4) Furry is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT bestiality. Just because someone fantasizes about an animal girl, doesn't mean they want to screw their dog or cat, or random zoo animals. Anthro animals generally possess the same level of intelligence/sentience as your average human being. It's the difference between being sexually attracted to a female human, and being attracted to a female monkey.
I think these point can take a lot of the odd mysticism of many furs. I have always fount it odd that people point out a lot of furry art is pornographic. yeah you mean like the web in general? Is it that hard to find porn on the web because last time I checked well... yeah we all use the internet we all know it has more than just a few porn sites I assume.

Secondly to furs your avatar is not a beast it is typically you in one for or another, a person you know or an amalgam of people and ideas just like just about ever charter ever to exist in fiction ever. Once you give these charters stories the stories tend to have relationships, just about every story does. Guess what exist in a relationship? Sex! A topic that people not only enjoy writing about but sells very, very well. Just look at the romance section of a bookstore.

Is it an odd fetish? Sure! Just less odd and far less about sex as one may think.
 

Grey Day for Elcia

New member
Jan 15, 2012
1,773
0
0
But isn't a fairly large portion of furry art erotic in nature? Yeah, humans are sexual and there's a metric fuck-ton of porn on the net, but percentage wise, the vast majority of furry art I see is in some way grossly sexual.

That's not surprising when you look at the numbers and see more than three quarters of furries saying they feel at least a minor sexual attraction towards the furry image.

To say furry isn't at lest somewhat (if not largely) sexual in nature, is to ignore the numbers in favour of political correctness, in my opinion.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,470
0
0
Lacking other sapient species to compare thoughts with combined with our natural curiosity, imagination and sometimes powerful desire to escape the mundane, it actually makes sense. What we want but cannot possess, we invent, even if only in our minds.

Fursuits still freak me the fuck out though.
 

gNetkamiko

New member
Aug 25, 2010
139
0
0
Buretsu said:
Grey Day for Elcia said:
But isn't a fairly large portion of furry art erotic in nature? Yeah, humans are sexual and there's a metric fuck-ton of porn on the net, but percentage wise, the vast majority of furry art I see is in some way grossly sexual.

That's not surprising when you look at the numbers and see more than three quarters of furries saying they feel at least a minor sexual attraction towards the furry image.

To say furry isn't at lest somewhat (if not largely) sexual in nature, is to ignore the numbers in favour of political correctness, in my opinion.
Welcome to the internet. You must be new here. Word of warning, porn is EVERYWHERE. Of EVERYTHING. And EVERYONE. EVER.
lol Ah, yes. Good old "Rule #34".

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the community. Yes, some of them do dress in rather expensive costumes (some of them selling for as much as $800) made to look like their favorite animal (or, more appropriately, the animal their personality more closely represents.) They are no less human than you or I, and they will tell you as such. And, it's not a personality disorder, just a lifestyle that they are more comfortable with (much like every other lifestyle.)

And to be fair, we humans are of the animal kingdom, and thus are animals as well.
 
Jun 16, 2010
1,153
0
0
dyre said:
Damn anthropologists and their "your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking" nonsense >:|

Imo, the biological definition of humanity is a lot better than whatever definition the furries are using (their feelings, I suppose?), but that's probably just because my society feels that way, huh? :|
The refusal to understand or respect differing cultures and viewpoints is precisely what leads to war, genocide and America being one of the most hated countries in the world.

You can attempt to measure humanity using microscopes if you wish, but that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you "wrong." Not only is that arrogant and ethnocentric, but it's a highly unscientific attitude. All systems of logic are based on axiom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom]s which cannot be proven from within that system. The belief that any given scientific axiom is correct is a presupposition, NOT an absolute truth.
 

Nyaliva

euclideanInsomniac
Sep 9, 2010
317
0
21
This suprised me a little but annoys me THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS much. Furries get a lot of shit from people on the internet and this is just going to exascerbate it. I have a friend who's a furry but hates yiff and he's shown me some anthropomorphic art and comics that are actually really good, but the moment he says he's a furry people tell him to leave forums and take his stupid fetish somewhere else. I mean the study says less than the majority have SID or some degree of it but people who hate furries are going to take that as EVERY furry is likely enough to have SID that they can give them crap about it.

I feel that most of these people just spend so much time with anthropomorphic stuff that's made to look more awesome than real life that they like to think they're at least somewhat like it. But I've never experience any kind of disorder, myself or in someone else, so I really don't have a say in the matter.

Basically, this study, while interesting for people researching the fandom, is just more ammunition for the trolls.
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
James Joseph Emerald said:
dyre said:
Damn anthropologists and their "your way of thinking isn't the only way of thinking" nonsense >:|

Imo, the biological definition of humanity is a lot better than whatever definition the furries are using (their feelings, I suppose?), but that's probably just because my society feels that way, huh? :|
The refusal to understand or respect differing cultures and viewpoints is precisely what leads to war, genocide and America being one of the most hated countries in the world.

You can attempt to measure humanity using microscopes if you wish, but that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you "wrong." Not only is that arrogant and ethnocentric, but it's a highly unscientific attitude. All systems of logic are based on axiom [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom]s which cannot be proven from within that system. The belief that any given scientific axiom is correct is a presupposition, NOT an absolute truth.
lol, calm down man, I was kidding around in that post. I took a class in college that touched on anthropology (though, all I remember was some weird guy named Franz Boas), so academically, I'm marginally aware of the whole understanding-other-cultures thing. Can't say I completely agree with cultural relativism from an ethical standpoint, but that's another story.
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,136
0
0
You mean the people who think they are "reincarnations of animals"? Yeeaah, I have some weird tastes of my own (including some furry leanings) but isn't that going a bit far?
 

DANEgerous

New member
Jan 4, 2012
805
0
0
Biodeamon said:
maybe becuase they are. those souless beasts of nature should be caged up with the rest of the animals!

ha ha joking aside, i still do really hate furries. alot.

maybe it stems from a part fo their genes which didn't evolve to think of themselves as human and so they natrually are attracted to not quite-humans. i don't know. just theorozing.
I do not know why but the par of this comment that annoys me the most is "a part fo their genes which didn't evolve" though the whole thing kind of irks me this is just idiotic. Genes that did not evolve? that phrase is just such utter nonsense it is melting my brain.