Are Furries just Wannabe-Therianthropes?

[SotiCoto]

Just something I've wondered for a while...
I've been in many communities with many "furries"... even some entirely paradoxical furries who still call themselves that despite having a thing for reptilian, avian or even more abstract critters...

But what I never really got is why there is the fixation on distinctly anthromorphed animal forms... I mean rather distinctly the animaline head and tail, but more often than not upright stance and humanoid limbs... not to mention perfect vocalisation with a mouth that couldn't possibly form human words...


Personally... I have somewhat of an affinity with cats. I was practically raised by them, and tend to act very feline in many circumstances. Sometimes, I'd even go so far as to call myself transpeciated (feline stuck in human body). However... even in the midst of all my cat-thoughts... I don't tend to run into any particularly half-formed ones. If I was going to be a cat, I'd be bloody quadrapedal and wouldn't speak silly human language. None of that opposable thumbs stuff. As it stands though, I'm not a cat; just a catarrhine (taxonomic term describing the apes and old-world monkeys).
And that is what has always left me confused about "furries". Is the typical form represented there supposed to be merely an abstract representation of a desire to become another species.... or is the focus very much ON the form, and not indeed either end of what went in to make it?



... For the record: anyone offended by this question.... Get. Over. It. Just be glad you're not otakukin (I've hung around some of them as well, and they're seriously out there).

[Muninn]

I'm sure when a furry gets here he'll be able to answer your question better than me.

This reminded me of a topic I made a few months past (that was blatantly over-thinking the furry thing like this one).
Bipedal animals lose their tales, even if their main form of transport is by brachiating (using their arms to travel through the trees), they still lose the tail. It's because the tail distrupts balance in that form. So Soti, there's another reason for your brain to get, as you termed it in another topic, "a 409 error", from the sheer illogicalness.

[Nyte]

I guess I count as a furry and honestly, I don't really know. I figure it's just some imagination thingreally, or just some combined image of their human self and their 'animal' self. I'm not sure if it's entirely uniform, and it can vary from an complete extension or representation of one's personality to just some character the furry came up with. And I wouldn't class furries as wannabe therians. Furries are furries. Therians are therians. Similar cultures, yes, but not the same.

As for Ravendawn: Yes, your point does make sense but that would be if 'anthro' animals actually existed. Since they tend to be imagined by the 'furry', does it really matter if their character is bipedal with a tail? Logical thought doesn't always have to figure into the creative, depending on the individual's thoughts. A person's imagination can be as wild or as realistic as they make it.

And no offense taken, either. Each to their own, right? =p

[KJ Fellie]

I think, and I'm merely theorizing this, that people find "furries" so intriguing because they are part animal, which people often admire, and part human, which would be better suited to interacting with the world they're familiar with. After all, you would have trouble typing with paws, wouldn't you? A furry with fingers solves this problem. Having a human-like posture allows furries to better mesh with human culture while still retaining non-human attributes. Another possibility is that being half-human and half-animal in form makes furries all that much more exotic. And I'm not even going to go into the kinky aspect of the issue.

[Richard K Niner]

Just something I've wondered for a while...
I've been in many communities with many "furries"... even some entirely paradoxical furries who still call themselves that despite having a thing for reptilian, avian or even more abstract critters...

Yeah, avians and scalies are still furries. This is probably because the latter term has been used so much it's become engrained, and so it was redefined to include them.

But what I never really got is why there is the fixation on distinctly anthromorphed animal forms... I mean rather distinctly the animaline head and tail, but more often than not upright stance and humanoid limbs... not to mention perfect vocalisation with a mouth that couldn't possibly form human words...

The fixation on distinctly animal forms is pretty much what makes us furries (in the majority of cases). Because it looks cool

I'm aware of some of the biological difficulties of making human speech sounds through a dog's muzzle; sure it's hard, and would make more sense if it was replaced with a human mouth, or if the language was changed to one that can be produced easily through it; you can probably blame a lack of thought on our parts about the issue. Especially since, if we made that kind of adjustment (and same for the tail), all we'd be working with are the ears, and maybe the fur (which we'd do without when wearing clothes, go figure).

Yes, the fact is, we defy the laws of physics and biological practicality when we design our fursonas; being in the realm of fiction, though, we can just wave our pencils like they're magical wands and say "It works".

Personally... I have somewhat of an affinity with cats. I was practically raised by them, and tend to act very feline in many circumstances. Sometimes, I'd even go so far as to call myself transpeciated (feline stuck in human body). However... even in the midst of all my cat-thoughts... I don't tend to run into any particularly half-formed ones. If I was going to be a cat, I'd be bloody quadrapedal and wouldn't speak silly human language. None of that opposable thumbs stuff. As it stands though, I'm not a cat; just a catarrhine (taxonomic term describing the apes and old-world monkeys).
And that is what has always left me confused about "furries". Is the typical form represented there supposed to be merely an abstract representation of a desire to become another species.... or is the focus very much ON the form, and not indeed either end of what went in to make it?

IMHO, I'd say it's more on the form, the carefully planned, reality-unbounded mix of human and animal traits, sometimes from multiple species, that varies from fur to fur. That some do, in fact, associate themselves strongly with their animal, or even want to become it, points more to the fact that being a furry and being a therian/otherkin/lifestyler/etc. are not mutually exclusive.

[SotiCoto]

Bipedal animals lose their tales, even if their main form of transport is by brachiating (using their arms to travel through the trees), they still lose the tail. It's because the tail distrupts balance in that form. So Soti, there's another reason for your brain to get, as you termed it in another topic, "a 409 error", from the sheer illogicalness.

Ever seen a female anthromorph?
Sure, the males are unjustifiable... but the sheer number of breasts on the females would easily counterbalance the mass of the tail (excepting the reptilians and avians of course, who don't have 'em).

I think, and I'm merely theorizing this, that people find "furries" so intriguing because they are part animal, which people often admire, and part human, which would be better suited to interacting with the world they're familiar with. After all, you would have trouble typing with paws, wouldn't you? A furry with fingers solves this problem. Having a human-like posture allows furries to better mesh with human culture while still retaining non-human attributes. Another possibility is that being half-human and half-animal in form makes furries all that much more exotic. And I'm not even going to go into the kinky aspect of the issue.

The whole "having your cake and eating it too" thing.
Greed, probably..... as the travelling merchants in Fable would say.

The fixation on distinctly animal forms is pretty much what makes us furries (in the majority of cases). Because it looks cool

Anthromorphised... not just animal. The devil is in the details.

Yes, the fact is, we defy the laws of physics and biological practicality when we design our fursonas; being in the realm of fiction, though, we can just wave our pencils like they're magical wands and say "It works".

IMHO, I'd say it's more on the form, the carefully planned, reality-unbounded mix of human and animal traits, sometimes from multiple species, that varies from fur to fur. That some do, in fact, associate themselves strongly with their animal, or even want to become it, points more to the fact that being a furry and being a therian/otherkin/lifestyler/etc. are not mutually exclusive.

You ever read El Goonish Shive? ... I kinda like that webcomic. It has gender-switching, shifting... and the whole Chimera incident.
And you know what happens if you push that far into the realm of imagination in disregard of the laws of physics? You end up with person / squirrel / cat / pangolin / cow creatures with telekinetic powers and multiple tails. It might look interesting, but apply the laws of physics and it would simultaneously fall over, die from blood pressure issues... and probably be crushed under its own weight.

Admittedly... furries and even Shive's chimeras don't tend to give me 409 errors because technically they don't invoke paradox; merely a bending of the laws of physics in a very distinct direction.

The funny thing is though, there is still something a wee bit unfeasible about it all. I find coping with anime neko-jin somewhat easier as they have fewer of the animal features and more of the humanoid to their form.

[Richard K Niner]

The fixation on distinctly animal forms is pretty much what makes us furries (in the majority of cases). Because it looks cool

Anthromorphised... not just animal. The devil is in the details.

This is what I meant, yes.

Yes, the fact is, we defy the laws of physics and biological practicality when we design our fursonas; being in the realm of fiction, though, we can just wave our pencils like they're magical wands and say "It works".

IMHO, I'd say it's more on the form, the carefully planned, reality-unbounded mix of human and animal traits, sometimes from multiple species, that varies from fur to fur. That some do, in fact, associate themselves strongly with their animal, or even want to become it, points more to the fact that being a furry and being a therian/otherkin/lifestyler/etc. are not mutually exclusive.

You ever read El Goonish Shive? ... I kinda like that webcomic. It has gender-switching, shifting... and the whole Chimera incident.
And you know what happens if you push that far into the realm of imagination in disregard of the laws of physics? You end up with person / squirrel / cat / pangolin / cow creatures with telekinetic powers and multiple tails. It might look interesting, but apply the laws of physics and it would simultaneously fall over, die from blood pressure issues... and probably be crushed under its own weight.

Just as well we don't, then

Admittedly... furries and even Shive's chimeras don't tend to give me 409 errors because technically they don't invoke paradox; merely a bending of the laws of physics in a very distinct direction.

The funny thing is though, there is still something a wee bit unfeasible about it all. I find coping with anime neko-jin somewhat easier as they have fewer of the animal features and more of the humanoid to their form.

With your focus on all these details, I can't say I'm surprised.

[KJ Fellie]

Yes, I do read El Goonish Shive. I enjoy it as well. Possibly because it's so weird. I still find the "thumb war" scene amusing, even though I'm current with the comic.

[Jelly]

Um, isn't it just for fun?

[KJ Fellie]

Um, isn't it just for fun?

Pretty much. SotiCoto was just wondering "Why?" Why are humans so fascinated with "furries?"

[CameronCN]

Um, isn't it just for fun?

Pretty much. SotiCoto was just wondering "Why?" Why are humans so fascinated with "furries?"

Just ask the ancient Egyptians. Most of their gods were furries. Anubis would be pretty popular these days.

[KJ Fellie]

Um, isn't it just for fun?

Pretty much. SotiCoto was just wondering "Why?" Why are humans so fascinated with "furries?"

Just ask the ancient Egyptians. Most of their gods were furries. Anubis would be pretty popular these days.

I'm a bit more interested in Bastet and Sekhmet, myself. (Rowrr...)

[Arloest]

What the hell are furries?

[Hanging Tree]

One interesting thought I read on the subject was that being a furry had less to do with wanting to be like an animal and more to do with the person being dissatified with themselves. They essentially become a furry because they can determind how they look and in a way reinvent themselves in a way that they feel is more desirable (at least among the furry community) I a in no way saying this encompasses all furies, but it seems likely that alot of lonely people with low self image would like a way to make themselves feel more special and becoming a furry is just a tool to do that.

[SotiCoto]

Just as well we don't, then

... Makes me wonder then. If you don't give an iota of thought to the laws of physics... then how precisely can you justify characters having feet at all? What is to stop them merely floating in the air? How do they breathe if the movement of their ribcage needn't necessarily translate into a pressuring and depressurising of the lungs?

I just find there to be something rather.... obscene about choosing to accept part of something and reject other parts at one's convenience in that respect... especially when it comes to matters which correspond directly to one's ability to relate to an imaginary situation.