![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynI was with with some friends recently, and the subject of "furs" came up. A couple of people there said they weren't furs. I said, "Well, I am."
Some weeks ago, Koogrr offered the following simple definition of "furry": "Animal People Are Beautiful." (I think those were his words.) This is an inclusive definition: if you think the idea of anthropomorphized animals is cool, then you're furry.
One of my friends told me I was too 'normal' to be a furry. My response was: 'For me, saying I'm not "furry" because I don't, I don't know, proclaim my sincere belief that I am a fox mistakenly incarnated as a human, is just as silly as for homosexual man to say he's not gay because he isn't a member of a gay activist organization. I play on a furry muck. I draw pictures of furry people. The book I'm writing now doesn't have any furries in it, but one I write in the future probably will.'
Another friend offered that he preferred the term 'anthro fan' because 'fur' had come to have the wrong connotations. Just as the 'Trekkies' are the obsessives of sf fandom, so have 'furries' and 'furs' become the obsessives of the anthro fandom.
That seems fair enough. In my example above, this is the equivalent of a homosexual refusing a particular label because that label implied 'person obsessed with his sexuality' rather than simply 'person attracted to members of the same gender.'
However, it also means conceding the label. It means admitting that an otherwise reasonable and descriptive term is off-limits because some people have narrowed the field of what it can be applied to. My friend offered that this is the outcome desired by those who embrace the label 'furry' most. The people who vehemently identify themselves as 'furry' don't consider mere afficionados, like me, a part of their world.
And this last is what I wonder about the most. Would the furries of the world rather disown me as too 'normal', as not 'furry' enough, because I don't identify with a totem animal or take to cuddling in large groups, or do whatever else it is that 'real furries' are supposed to do?
Am I furry?
Or is the English language as a whole aided, if I gracefully yield the term to those more devoted than myself, and turn, instead, to 'anthro fan'?
Some weeks ago, Koogrr offered the following simple definition of "furry": "Animal People Are Beautiful." (I think those were his words.) This is an inclusive definition: if you think the idea of anthropomorphized animals is cool, then you're furry.
One of my friends told me I was too 'normal' to be a furry. My response was: 'For me, saying I'm not "furry" because I don't, I don't know, proclaim my sincere belief that I am a fox mistakenly incarnated as a human, is just as silly as for homosexual man to say he's not gay because he isn't a member of a gay activist organization. I play on a furry muck. I draw pictures of furry people. The book I'm writing now doesn't have any furries in it, but one I write in the future probably will.'
Another friend offered that he preferred the term 'anthro fan' because 'fur' had come to have the wrong connotations. Just as the 'Trekkies' are the obsessives of sf fandom, so have 'furries' and 'furs' become the obsessives of the anthro fandom.
That seems fair enough. In my example above, this is the equivalent of a homosexual refusing a particular label because that label implied 'person obsessed with his sexuality' rather than simply 'person attracted to members of the same gender.'
However, it also means conceding the label. It means admitting that an otherwise reasonable and descriptive term is off-limits because some people have narrowed the field of what it can be applied to. My friend offered that this is the outcome desired by those who embrace the label 'furry' most. The people who vehemently identify themselves as 'furry' don't consider mere afficionados, like me, a part of their world.
And this last is what I wonder about the most. Would the furries of the world rather disown me as too 'normal', as not 'furry' enough, because I don't identify with a totem animal or take to cuddling in large groups, or do whatever else it is that 'real furries' are supposed to do?
Am I furry?
Or is the English language as a whole aided, if I gracefully yield the term to those more devoted than myself, and turn, instead, to 'anthro fan'?
Re: Furry
Date: 2002-10-05 08:07 am (UTC)I admit, it seemed rather odd to me. On reflection, I find that I am not so much concerned about what those "outside the fandom" think of me. I tend not to discuss even mainstream subjects like Star Wars or LOTR with people outside the fandom, much less esoteric subcategories like 'why do these characters all look like people with animal heads'? People outside the fandom don't understand what I mean by 'furry' or 'anthro fan' so it really doesn't matter which term I use. And the subject seldom arises in any event.
I also don't have a whole lot invested in appearing normal or professional. I've been at my job for five years, my coworkers know that I am good at it, they know that I am, at the least, eccentric, and no one is going to fire me over what Wired or MTV has to say about furries. My career, such as it is, is not that important to me.
So my concern is not "what will the man on the street think?" but rather "what will the other fans think?" If I could get a fandom consensus that says "Furries are people whose interests and hobbies revolve solely around humanized animals in one form or another," then I would have to admit I'm not a furry. My interests are fairly broad.
But if it's 'Animal people are beautiful', then I fit right in. And I'm not inclined to run from the label just because it is inclusive, or because MTV or ER or whomever has been giving furries a bad name.
Though, incidentally, I don't think it's unfair for the "people whose interests revolve around humanized animals" to get their very own term that doesn't apply to me. The above phrase is even more awkward than "anthropomorphic fan". ;)