Anthropomorphic versus Furry?

[dinomagick]

Like my avatar? 

It's not "ME", its a role I play.   I like it, enjoy it, have fun with it.

 

So, I got into this web site and it had beasty art and comics, stories, and I began to delve into the "Animal Lovers" side of the fetish....

 

So, Anthropomorphism is essentially attributing human behavior on non-human creatures and things....  
 

But "Furries", aren't they simply humanoid forms of non-human creatures?  

 

Wouldn't they mostly still have their own behavior?   And therefore not fall under the category of Anthropomorphic?

 

Is it bestiality? 

It gets confusing when even people who enjoy the fetish, aren't entirely sure what it really is?

 

Here is an example:

Jay Naylor draws comics, based on humanoid versions of animals.  That co-exist with humans, and can also procreate across species.   That is where I sort-of fall into... But others say it's bestiality, while others say it's Anthropomorphism.

 

So, now lets move to another example:

I read a story called Change of Life.  
It had a combination of "Furry" and regular animals that were sentient and could speak.
One of them, A big wolf named Fenris, mated a female human Kaylah...  Later on she had puppies.

OKay.. *sigh*... anyone want to comment?

 

[Night~Sky]

Well, I actually am a furry, and my boyfriend is a furry artist no less (if you no Jay, you probably know him - Furball).

 

And I think you're confusing terms, to start with.

 

Anthroporphism is assigning human characteristics to animals (actually, it doesn't even have to be animals). The dragons in Skyrim are "anthropormic" by the strict definition, because while they are not humanoid at all, they speak, have higher intelligence, a culture, etc. This is the definition of antropomorphism.

 

What Jay Naylor does, along with the vast majority of furry artists, is just that; furry. Whether it's beastiality or not is a principles argument based heavily in subjective interpretation, it's a round argument that will never be resolved.

 

Your avatar picture there? That's not furry, or anthroporphism. It's actually an alternative genre to furry called "Kemono", which is Japanese in origin, and largely exclusive to Japanese media/artists (relatively few western artists do kemono).

[polluxval]

I love furry. I'm a grumpy furry cat.

[Emily]

Well, Emily also dabble on monstergirl mod in oblivion.

 

 

 

 

Guees, Teraphilia counts for both anthropomorphic and furry.

[dinomagick]

Well, I actually am a furry, and my boyfriend is a furry artist no less (if you no Jay, you probably know him - Furball).

 

And I think you're confusing terms, to start with.

 

Anthroporphism is assigning human characteristics to animals (actually, it doesn't even have to be animals). The dragons in Skyrim are "anthropormic" by the strict definition, because while they are not humanoid at all, they speak, have higher intelligence, a culture, etc. This is the definition of antropomorphism.

 

What Jay Naylor does, along with the vast majority of furry artists, is just that; furry. Whether it's beastiality or not is a principles argument based heavily in subjective interpretation, it's a round argument that will never be resolved.

 

Your avatar picture there? That's not furry, or anthroporphism. It's actually an alternative genre to furry called "Kemono", which is Japanese in origin, and largely exclusive to Japanese media/artists (relatively few western artists do kemono).

 

 

Yes!  I love Furball's art!! 

 

I didn't delve into Kemono side mostly because a lot of people get headaches about the Anthropomorphism, Furry, Bestiality..etc.  

Some don't even get the difference.   Tossing that in there would make most pass out.   ;-)   Other than Furries and Anthros..

 

Thanks for the enlightenment!

[Night~Sky]

 

Well, I actually am a furry, and my boyfriend is a furry artist no less (if you no Jay, you probably know him - Furball).

 

And I think you're confusing terms, to start with.

 

Anthroporphism is assigning human characteristics to animals (actually, it doesn't even have to be animals). The dragons in Skyrim are "anthropormic" by the strict definition, because while they are not humanoid at all, they speak, have higher intelligence, a culture, etc. This is the definition of antropomorphism.

 

What Jay Naylor does, along with the vast majority of furry artists, is just that; furry. Whether it's beastiality or not is a principles argument based heavily in subjective interpretation, it's a round argument that will never be resolved.

 

Your avatar picture there? That's not furry, or anthroporphism. It's actually an alternative genre to furry called "Kemono", which is Japanese in origin, and largely exclusive to Japanese media/artists (relatively few western artists do kemono).

 

 

Yes!  I love Furball's art!! 

 

I didn't delve into Kemono side mostly because a lot of people get headaches about the Anthropomorphism, Furry, Bestiality..etc.  

Some don't even get the difference.   Tossing that in there would make most pass out.   ;-)   Other than Furries and Anthros..

 

Thanks for the enlightenment!

 

Eh, this is the internet. Intolerance is more proliferate on here than it's ever been in real life because everyone feels completely safe to be asshats from behind their invincible wall of anonymity. The fact is people are given way more shit for liking Call of Duty over Halo, liking PS3 over Xbox 360 (or vice-versa), or preferring dubbed anime over sub, than they're ever given for anything even passingly related to furry or beastiality.

 

And as is often the case with our delightful species, the cause is simple ignorance. The fact is probably as much as half of the standing furry community don't understand the difference between furry and kemono, or the actual definition of anthropomorphism, let alone people outside the fandom.

 

Of course, coming with that, I also have to say that ignorance isn't necessarily "bad". Most of those people are "ignorant" because they simply don't know any better, whether because they've never seen a clarification or explanation, or they just don't care.

 

You're always going to get the asshats who say intentionally stupid and derogatory things at you for your choice of avatar. But it's not like you'd get any fewer of them without them, either. On the internet, all you have to do is say something someone doesn't agree with, and chances are, someone wont be able to resist the temptation to be an asshat.

[leddis3]

On the subject of bestiality. I regard it as sex with non-sapient creatures.

Since anthromorphised animals are, I don't think it is. Though many will only regard it as not bestiality if the animal in question is humanoid.

It can get complicated, but sapience is the distinction I make in my mind, at least.

[dinomagick]

On the subject of bestiality. I regard it as sex with non-sapient creatures.

Since anthromorphised animals are, I don't think it is. Though many will only regard it as not bestiality if the animal in question is humanoid.

It can get complicated, but sapience is the distinction I make in my mind, at least.

 

 

I can follow that.   My only real goal is not to be ignorant, though it takes effort... ;-) 

 

Dog's will hump anything, for them it's a dominance thing, right?   But I hear dophins are more sentient than we thought and have in fact approached humans sexually....

 

Sadly, yes... I have erroneously found out that (especially here) people will argue just for the sake of arguing, without any concious thought...  

 

 

[cereburn]

On the subject of bestiality. I regard it as sex with non-sapient creatures.

 

I had an odd thought when I read this.  If a human were born with a severe brain deformity that prevented sapience, assuming he/she survived to adulthood(or at least the age of procreation) would someone having sex with that person be having bestial sex?

[Knhumle]

Wait, i am not certain i understand the difference. Is it not all Antromorphism in the end?

I mean, i know that some furries like their stuff as a kind of fashion, same as catgirls to some. But all that still comes from the romancing of animal attributes in the end, which would be Antromorphism, if i am not wrong?

 

But i suppose you furries might have studied it a bit more than me (That would be any amount), so if you have another view, please share, i would love to understand why you differentiate these things.

 

As for sapience, i will leave that to people that actually understand how the mind works and how great it differs in beast and man.

 

Edit: As for beastiality, is that not defined as sex with animals, as we commonly consider them to be? If so, are furry characters animals? Would probably be hard to define as such, since all furry characters i have heard of are sapient.

[Jexsam]

Anthro and Furry are not mutually exclusive.  Rather, they are often one and the same - if you specifically enjoy dressing as some kind of animal, be it paint or a fur suit or what have you, you are both Furry and Anthro.  Put another way, all Furries are Anthros, but not all Anthros are Furries.

 

The only real difference between them only becomes apparent when you start looking at their colloquial applications.  Generally, Furry (and Scalie by extension) is a derisive term used to label the more extreme members of the fandom who exclusively portray their anthro character as sex objects.  These are usually the ones who draw bad attention to the fandom, often through related fetish artwork or by acting like an idiot in public/on the internet while in their "fursona".  

 

Anthro, on the other hand, is more neutral.  These are people who don't necessarily care about the sexual aspects of the fandom.  Rather, they just like the escapism of pretending to be something other than human.  These are the people who get offended at being called furfags, and rightfully so since their treatment of the fandom is no less weird than someone who like to LARP as an elf on the weekends.

 

As for bestiality?  That seems to me to be a matter of opinion since the line there is somewhat blurred.  Personally?  For me it's only bestiality when it's an actual animal or animal-like creature involved.  Furry sex isn't bestiality since they're intentionally humanized to a large degree, and since it's not really an animal anymore when you do that, it's not really correct to call it beast.  I use "monster porn" as a catch-all term for things like centaurs, driders, spriggans, and anthropomorphised animals.

[Knhumle]

So it was pretty much as i tought, nice to know what the desexualized therm is.

But i guess they are not realy getting out of being associated, considering that furry is the older, and has a more established image of being an internet joke.

 

Anyways, thanks for the information Jexsam.

[acudaowner]

I am not  an animallll     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF59A9-_rfo

[Lagoon0654]

 

On the subject of bestiality. I regard it as sex with non-sapient creatures.

Since anthromorphised animals are, I don't think it is. Though many will only regard it as not bestiality if the animal in question is humanoid.

It can get complicated, but sapience is the distinction I make in my mind, at least.

 

I can follow that.   My only real goal is not to be ignorant, though it takes effort... ;-) 

 

Dog's will hump anything, for them it's a dominance thing, right?   But I hear dophins are more sentient than we thought and have in fact approached humans sexually....

 

Sadly, yes... I have erroneously found out that (especially here) people will argue just for the sake of arguing, without any concious thought...  

 

 

 

 

Well looks like I know what I'll be doing next summer.

 

[panthercom]

 I'm a pretty tolerant person; I don't care what people do to get their rocks off

as long as they don't hurt anyone who doesn't want to be hurt.

 

 When it comes to bestiality; I would have to say that what enjoyment I get out

of it is tied to sadism; that is to say - seeing a woman get fucked by an animal

appeals to the same part of me that enjoys seeing a woman bound and whipped.

 

 I have no fantasies of fucking a female animal; I find the thought repugnant, so

when it comes to human/animal hybrids or human-like animals, there is a line. One

side of the line contains that which is cute; the other side contains that which is

repugnant. It's a sort of uncanny valley of furry-ism; I suppose

 

 The kind of venom which some people spew against furry-lovers is probably

fueled by repugnance; I suspect. It's interesting to wonder why the thought of

male human on female animal bestiality is so reviled, aside from the animal

abuse aspects, of course. A man fucking an animal screams 'rape'.

 

There has to be some subconscious activity happening as well, related to the primal urge

of men to impregnate as many females as possible, yet to be unwilling to procreate

with that which is sub(non)human and to strike out against those men that would.

[Captain Cobra]

 The kind of venom which some people spew against furry-lovers is probably

fueled by repugnance;

 

Pretty sure it's mostly due to experience with dumbdumbs that don't know the appropriate time and place to say that they are furries, or the ones who just have to tell everyone how much they enjoy being part of the furry "lifestyle."

 

^The same thing goes with bronies too.

[TheoryoftheDead]

In a sexual context, can't say I'm interested in neither. However I don't really have a problem with people being "furries". It's a fetish like any other, I just like my women to be in a more... human shape...or however you'd put it.

[YX33A]

In my headcannon, Furry is what the critters are in Furry Art.  Are they Anthropomorphic?  The answer is almost always "No shit, Sherlock!" since that's just assigning Human traits to a non-human.  The Elder Scrolls series is rife with Anthropomorphic entities.  Sentient and able to talk?  It's Anthropomorphic.  Khajiit?  Furry.  Dragons?  Maybe Furry.  Since Furry is a Blanket term for animals in Furry Art, this also includes Non-Morphic(aka feral) and Taur(ala Centaurs but more diverse).  But is it Bestiality?  9 out of 10 Furries would shout no and proceed to rant about the difference.  The other 1 out of ten would say "Not anymore then having sex with an Elf or Dwarf in a Fantasy Setting".

 

Thus, in my Headcannon, its only able to really be Bestiality if the sex is with something non-sentient.

 

Totally still think that Bronies get a bad rap overall.  I mean, Sure, we furries have all kinds of weird stuff associated with us.  Hence why it takes a bit of balls to tell a stranger you are a Furry.  But Bronies?  9 out of 10 Bronies watch the show for the same reason people watch Anime; it's a TV show with decent storytelling and likable characters.  The other 1 out of time are likely Furries.

 

As an aside, yeah, I guess I'm a Furry.  I look at Furry Porn, have accounts on Furry Sites, have a rough idea on a Fursona.  Do I wish I was him?  No more often then I wish I was a Mage in D&D.  Do I RP as him?  Not really, since Furry RP is almost always Erotic and it's hard for me to get into that mindset.  Do I have a Fur Suit?  Nope, they are pricy as fuck and hot as hell.  Do I go to Cons?  Nope, too pricy and often too far away.  Commission art?  Nope.  Draw?  Nope.  Write Stories?  Nope, unless one counts RPing, which I only do among friends and it's Table Top RPGs we RP.

Still guess I'm a Furry because I have an idea for a "Fursona".

 

Would I be upset for being called a Furfag?  Not anymore then being called a Writefag or Drawfag.  I might be a bit upset of someone called me a Neckbeard, but that's only because I wish I could grow good facial hair.  And if you called me a Fatguy, I'd correct you and say Fa/tg/guy if I was in a good mood.

[gvman3670]

 

On the subject of bestiality. I regard it as sex with non-sapient creatures.

 

I had an odd thought when I read this.  If a human were born with a severe brain deformity that prevented sapience, assuming he/she survived to adulthood(or at least the age of procreation) would someone having sex with that person be having bestial sex?

 

 

No, but it would be rape. If one can't be cognizant enough to consent to sexual intercourse then it's rape, and that's why bestiality is bad (at least as I see it). Non-sentient creatures, like animals (even the uber smart dolphin), can't really give consent.

 

This is why more than one thing are bad. Pedophilia and bestiality are just two good examples of non-consentual sex, aka rape.

[Guest corespore]

@dinomagick, I swear i might have brought this up once. Something to the effect of me wondering about the khajiit and argonians and whether or not they counted as people or animals. In the end it's impossible to apply our conceptions of what we consider acceptable to our fantasies. Afterall, the entire point of a fantasy is to explore the forbidden or impossible. If you marry a beast-race character on Skyrim doe that count as beastality? And just like the two examples you provided you cannot base ones opinion it it with any real argument because the circumstances these stories take place in simply have never before or do not exist at this time.

I don't think furry could be defined as beastality because (in my opinion) the animal aspect of it isnt the point. It seems to me that people use the animal persona as a visual representation of their base instincts lust, hate, freedom, and raw sexual desires. It's not the animal they are attracted to but the aspect of a person acting wild, if that makes any sense.

I can't be unbiased because I'm a bit of a furry myself. Or at the very least i find the concept attractive. I don't find a cat attractive in the least (thank god) but a woman dresses up as a cat gives me all kinds of pleasing thoughts. And yes i have always liked that AVI pic of yours.

In the end i think most people flick shit at furries for the same reason they hate on any other group different from themselves. People tend to dislike anything that brings about change or causes them to look at things in a different light. But i don't think thats a bad thing either, conflict and arguments can bring about positive change, i just think we tend to focus too much on being right instead of being happy.  BTW do you have any links to those sites you were talking about.... purely for research purposes mind you.

[Captain Cobra]

BTW do you have any links to those sites you were talking about.... purely for research purposes mind you.

 

That's heresy thou.

[prideslayer]

The thread is pretty old, but since it was revived I thought I'd post a somewhat outside perspective to explain some "why's" that have been introduced, at least from my POV.

 

Foundation: I have a fair number of kinks, most purely on the fantasy side (beast, s&m, etc), some in every day life/both (b&d, exhib, etc).

 

Why is male on beast frowned upon more than beast on female? I think this comes back to the moral/legal consent issue raised by gvman on the last page. All male animals demonstrate consent pretty clearly by raping stuff. Each other, stuffed animals, your leg.. whatever. Female animals, not so much. In the animal kingdom, most sexual activity appears at worst as rape, at best as a fantasy porn that starts with an assault leading to a change of heart on the part of the female. Also there's the macho/patriarchy factor to consider. A dude banging an animal does not appear to be an alpha male to other males who don't share the kink.

 

Furries/bronies/etc? Love him or hate him, Daniel Tosh on his show a few years ago had a decent rant about the subject, though the material was different. It was something about a woman complaining that she was being judged on how she dressed, and his ending statement summed it up perfectly. I'm paraphrasing, but it basically was "If I dress like a police officer, I can't get pissed off when people come up to me to ask directions or report crimes. Dressing like that does not make you a whore, but you're wearing a whores uniform."

 

Having a bunch of MLP stuff on your desk, wearing the clothes, etc. gives the appearance that you're a preteen girl, or at least share their interests. It's "wearing the uniform." Getting defensive and throwing the adult version of a tantrum at work, after the inevitable "cool/lame" conversation (or argument) only enhances this perception.

 

Anthro/furry/etc sexual stuff? From a personal sexual attraction standpoint, there's definitely a bit of uncanny valley to it as panther said; the elves in particular are close but still not-quite-right and thus, the turnoff.. The beastraces aren't anthro enough for me, on the other hand. I personally have no desire to bang something with a tail, feel up a pair of furry breasts, or get a blowjob from a lion.

 

Every time I play, I wish someone would finish the work on the skyrim mods that ditch the lizard tails and turn the catpeople into something more similar to Fairuza Balk from the '96 Moreau movie.

[Captain Cobra]

"If I dress like a police officer, I can't get pissed off when people come up to me to ask directions or report crimes. Dressing like that does not make you a whore, but you're wearing a whores uniform."

 

[prideslayer]

Perhaps I got my comedian's confused.. or perhaps tosh ripped off chapelle, wouldn't be the first time

[XunAmarox]

I way I've always seen it is the sexualization of anthromophs is furry and (in my opinion) it's pretty gross and fucked up, but it's none of my business so whatever.

 

Something like Star Fox on the other hand, that can be kinda cool. I generally don't like them though - they creep me out. I hate dealing with argonians and khajiit, I avoid them whenever possible. The only exception is Talen-Jei, cause that guy can make some hella nice drinks. Seriously. I rate the quality of booze in Skyrim by the amount of stamina it gives and the hit to regeneration that it causes... and as far as drinks go, his are the best, hands down. Also, I don't get why everyone likes Black-Briar Mead so much either, considering Honningbrew has a significantly smaller regen penalty. But, that's getting a little off topic...

 

Anyways, yeah... that's the distinction I make. I've been told that it's wrong (ie. that liking anthromorphs and furries are the same thing, and sexualizing them is something else entirely), but I think most people probably assume the same thing I do so who's really to say who's wrong...