it’s similar to relating physically, but requires less cleanup afterward.
They’re also telling you in this very thread that it’s not true, that such a position is patently absurd. Why do you cling to the “some guy in a bar once told me” version?
I don’t get it. Furries try to deny that it’s a sexual fetish for anthropomorphized animals and try to say it’s just people who like talking animals. But then they try to deny that people who like Kung Fu Panda are furries. WTF is the difference? What is the essential quality that distingushes a “furry” from somebody who likes Kung Fu Panda? My 8-year-old likes Kung Fu Panda. Is she a furry? If not, why not?
Diogenes the Cynic, have you read the thread? If so, perhaps you should re-read it. Your questions have each been answered several times.
Hey Dio, I think we’ve already been down that road. Haven’t we?
Oh, someone like Hostile Dialect will be along to tell you you’re “sweating bullets.” Like you’re in denial or something. Go ahead, just admit you’re a furry. You know you are. The definition is vague enough.
That’s not what Bosstone is saying. He’s saying that the thing that furries like is something that most non-furries also like. It’s just that furries like it a whole lot more. He’s manifestly not saying that if you like movies with talking animals, you are by definition a furry. He has, in fact, explicitly stated the opposite of that, several times, so I’m not entirely sure why I think that me saying the same thing again is going to make any sort of impression on you. But here it is anyway.
No, I really don’t think it has. There’s just a lot of question-begging.
Not me. I think talking animals are for children. Are furries just developmentally stunted in some way?
Perhaps you could define for me - again - what a furry is? This thread seems to be flapping in the breeze and we need to pin it down.
What is the difference between someone at Disneyland and someone who self-identifies as a furry?
I will say this one more time, because apparently we have someone new in the thread who needs to work on their reading comprehension. The mere fact that you like movies which feature anthropomorphized animals does not make you a furry. Not all furries like movies which feature anthropomorphized animals. Not all furries are interested in having sex with anthropomorphized animals, or in having sex with people wearing fursuits, or with plush animals.
There are many varieties of furries, just as there are many varieties of “geeks” or sports fans. Yes, some of them see it as a lifestyle in one way or another. Some do see it as a sexual thing. Some are into animalism, or shamanism (look those terms up, if you don’t know what they mean).
I would also like to point out that the purpose of this thread is for Dopers who are furries to get together, and possibly to dispel some of the ignorance about it.
No, we’re not. Take your insults someplace else.
Wow, you people are touchy. Loosen up the squirrel suit.
So you wouldn’t get just a little miffed if I accused you of being “developmentally stunted”?
Why don’t you go shit in some other thread.
I just asked, I didn’t accuse. If I defined myself by a preoccupation with engaging in a children’s activity or with children’s entertainment, I would think it was only fair for people to question my emotional maturity.
This thread has been…
GRAPE APED
It’s someone who like anthropomorphized animals as a concept, divorced from the content or medium in which they appear. It’s not anyone who likes anything that happens to contain a talking animal.
Let’s use Kung Fu Panda as an example. I haven’t seen this film yet, although I want to. I’m also not a furry. But I do like animated movies. I like martial arts films. I like Jack Black. I am a fan of all three of these things. When I finally get around to seeing Kung Fu Panda, if I like it, it will be because it succeeded in using those three elements in a way I found enjoyable. The fact that it contains talking animals will be unrelated to my enjoyment. I’m not adverse to movies with talking animals, but I’m not particularly drawn to them. I am not a furry.
Now, let’s say Silver Tyger Girl is thinking about seeing this movie. For the purposes of this example, let us say that she is indifferent to martial arts, and she hates Jack Black. She decides that the fact that the film contains talking animals is interesting enough to put up with Jack Black, and goes to see the movie: the presence of talking animals was a primary draw for her. She’s a furry.
So, in your Disneyland example, the difference between someone who likes Disneyland and someone who is a furry is dependent on why they like Disneyland. Do they just like rollercoasters? Not a furry. Do they like Disney cartoons? Probably not a furry: most Disney cartoons aren’t about talking animals, after all. Do they like Mickey Mouse? Not necessarily a furry, because there are reasons to like Mickey Mouse other than the fact that he’s a talking mouse. Do they specifically like the idea of talking animals wearing clothes and interacting with each other like humans? Then they’re a furry.
Now, to draw things back to Bosstone’s point. I like martial arts movies. But I hate Steven Seagal. The guy’s a crappy actor, and just fucking weird in real life. The presence of Steven Seagal in a movie is usually enough to overwhelm any other attractions that movie has for me. His presence in a movie is a negative attribute. For the vast majority of people, the presence of talking animals in a movie or TV show is, at worst, value-neutral. And for most people, it’s a slight positive. We all grew up watching Bugs Bunny cartoons, and we generally have a positive association to that particular trope. This does not mean that everyone is a furry! What it means is that the concept of watching a movie about a duck in a sailor outfit is not a completely alien experience to most people. Bosstone’s point is that it is weird that furries are particularly scorned by mainstream culture (and even other geek culture) when it has such mainstream, widely accepted roots. For example, Star Wars fandom, even in its extremes, is still much more accepted than furry fandom, despite the fact that space opera makes up a much smaller percentage of mainstream popular culture than funny animals.
Oh, I just laughed until I gagged myself!! 
Bravo to you.
You define something as a children’s activity, then use your own definition as a reason to question someone’s emotional maturity. So if I define watching other people play games as a children’s activity, that gives me the right to ask if all sports fans are developmentally stunted?
And did you read what I posted before? I’ll repeat it again:
You took one aspect of furry fandom, defined the entire group by that particular interest, then used your self-proclaimed description of that interest to ask if the entire group is emotionally stunted.
If you read the entire thread, it was made eminently clear that furry fandom is not just about talking animals. Og on a freakin’ pogo stick, show me where in the OP the words “talking animals” are used.
I don’t want to close this down, so let’s try to get things back on track.
One the one hand, I’ve got to admit that the definition of furries has been a little [del]fuzzy[/del] unclear at different points in this thread and I haven’t started to feel like it was being pinned down until a few posts ago - and I’ve met some of these people myself.
And that’s what we’re all about here. But it’s not reasonable to expect everybody to understand and accept what you’re doing right from the outset. If you want to dispel some ignorance, it looks like you have an opportunity.
On the other hand, outright hostility is not going to be tolerated in here. If you want to call people names, do it in the Pit. If you think these people are weird or you aren’t into what they’re doing, or if you think they just haven’t explained what they are, fine. MPSIMS is not only for positive opinions, but this kind of stuff doesn’t belong here.
I think that’s because the Star Wars fandom does not contain the fetishistic element., which, let’s face it, is the defining element of furrydom, no matter how much they try to deny it. Do a google image search on “furries” or “furry,” and it’s nothing but porn. I don’t see how they can say with a straight face that it’s not just a sex fetish.