This is probably the most difficult of questions to answer in the entire fandom. Like the proverbial elephant and the blind men, there are as many different answers as there are people. I cannot really justify giving a general answer, just my personal idea about what it is. And even that much is difficult in its own right for "furry" is somewhat abstract to me, defying a full definition. And that's ignoring that it's like a living organism and changes throughout time. But I shall do my best.
The Source
Who really knows where this all began? The
whole thing most likely comes from the beliefs and practices of our very
ancient ancestors. Egyptians gave many of their gods the heads of
animals. Bast was given the head of a cat, for example (though I
have heard her attributes differed as the Egyptian faith changed).
Native Americans and other "shamanistic" cultures had varying levels of
beliefs involving animals. To my knowledge, most of them believed
they had a kinship with the animals (after all, humans are animals too).
It is no surprise that this exists in some sense today. Animals have
carried a certain mystique for people through the ages and even today it
would be nearly impossible to find someone who doesn't have a preferred
animal/pet.
I'm not the authority on this subject. Others
have written down their own perceptions of this. Check out these
sites:
Xydexx and Captain Packrat give some alternate options on the subject. Gives you a better idea... and they're probably alot clearer than I am. I like Xydexx's term "anthrofurry".... it's sorta cool.
Well, on with the confusion!
Furry: the Genre
The basic definition of furry deals with the major
facet of the literature and artwork (and the few movies of the... genre):
animals. More precisely, it's "anthropomorphic animals." For
those who don't know what anthropomorphic means (the numbers who don't
actually surprised me), it is basically "ascribing human characteristics--
including physical, intellectual, or moral characteristics-- to animals.
Anthropomorphic also extends to inanimate objects and natural events, but
neither is applicable in this case.
Therefore a furry is an animal with human characteristics
attributed to it. There are numerous examples to cite. Television
and movies are filled with them from the "Thundercats" and the "Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles" to Disney's animated "Robn Hood" or "Warriors of
Virtue." In literature it can be found in C.S. Lewis' Narnia Series
(beginning with "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe") or Alan Dean Foster's
Spellsinger Saga. The animals can either simply speak (such as the
Salem on "Sabrina the Teenage Witch") or they can have fully humanoid bodies
(like Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny). Even mythological creatures (centaurs
and griffins) and aliens (Ewoks from Star Wars) are furries... one doesn't
have to exist in present-day earth to exist.
Furry or not furry, that is the question!
Whether 'tis nobler to have fur than feathers or
scales (or simple lack of fur) is a topic that has brought a relatively
minor level of debate to the whole furry thing. Lizards, birds, and
aquatic mamals are considered furry. Mythological creatures with
obvious animal features are usually furry. So a centaur or a dragon
would be furry in my book, but I don't think "Catgirl NukuNuku" (or whatever
she's called) is a furry despite her history. And alien species such
as the Ewoks and Wookies (Chewie!) from Starwars are also generally considered
furry (of course some species might be debatable from an Earth-centric
point of view). The animal's the thing with which we shall capture
the essence of the furry.
Anthropomorphic or description through humanizing?
Another ambiguity is whether animals in stories
such as "Old Yeller," or in nature documentaries are furry. I must
agree that all of these are anthropomorphic. What I cannot say is
that they are furry. The reason is that I cannot be sure that
the description ascribed in any stories or documentaries is something in
the animal itself or simply inherent in describing the events. For
example, a documentary on a cheetah may say "...she's protecting her young
by trying to distract the lion's attention..." This seems to ascribe
some level of sentience to the mother cheetah. But is it? Or
is it really the only way for humans to describe a natural instinct?
Is it something that is automatic or does the cheetah have a choice?
I cannot rule out that these creatures could be furry, but I cannot,
at present say "yep, that's a furry."
Furry: the People
The second, probably equally used meaning for furry
is to refer to the fans themselves. The fandom is a vast entity spanning
from those who just like the artwork and/or stories to those whose "furriness"
is intertwined in their daily lives. Some have characters of a MU*
(such as FurryMUCK) or an IRC. Others are basically permanently OOC
(out of character). This means that they are indistinguishable from
their "characters" and even to use the term character is a misnomer.
I cannot speak for all of them, but I doubt I would be wrong if I said
the furry facet allows a part of their personality a little more freedom
of expression.
Masquerade, every face a different shade...
Some people question those who say their persona(e)
make it easier to express themselves. These individuals claim that
"if you can communicate through the persona, then you can communicate just
as well without it." Pardon my language, but bullshit! We all
wear a number of masks in our lives. How many of you act one way
with your parents and another way at a job interview? How many of
us will act differently with friends than with our doctor or dentist?
These are some of the masks we wear in daily life. We all have different
experiences and each reacts uniquely to similar stimuli. Some of
us build up walls around ourselves. It is a defence mechanism, but
it has a strong tendency to harm us in the long run. If a person
can bypass wall more easily by donning one mask rather than another, there
is nothing wrong with that. It is better to wear the mask (remeber
persona is Greek for mask!) for a time and step out from behind the wall
than to forsake the mask and remain effectively bricked-up. A parallel
to what the aforementioned individuals are effectively saying is
"act exactly the same with an old lady in church as you do with your lover."
Some masks are useful-- or appropriate-- only in the circumstances for
which they were designed. Transferring them can be inappropriate
(and sometimes can be considered illegal). I communicate better through
Coryn than through Al. I am permanently OOC so the underlying intelligence
and personality is the same-- only the comfort with communication (and
some other things) differ on the abstract (non-physical) level.
Just for kids?
Isn't this stuff just for kids? No, there
are some parts of the genre that would not be appropriate for children.
This is no more for children than talk shows and soap operas are for housewives
or science fiction is for just "geeks" and "nerds". Think of it as
a parallel of japanese animation. There are children's cartoons and
then there are hentai flicks... and everything in between
Pornography?
Are all magazines pornographic? No, so why should
anyone ask if furrys deal with pornography? Some stories and artwork
is very tame (otherwise children wouldn't be watching "Sesame Street" or
"Tom and Jerry"). Some of the stuff is extremely sexually explicit
("Fritz the Cat" for example). And there is everything else in between.
Many artists draw their pictures anatomically correct, this does not mean
they are pornographic... they don't necessarily show the sexual
organs.
Keep in mind that humans wear clothes for numerous
reasons. One purpose is to protect us from the extremes of weather.
When it gets cold outside, we put on a thick, warm winter jacket (though
I admit there are some people with questionable intelligence who walk around
in shorts when it's 5 below). Now an anthropomorphic snow leopard
wouldn't need to wear the coat... that's naturally built in!
Another reason would be for social reasons.
Not all cultures today want our genitalia out in the open. For those
of you who need it in plain english that would be for males, the penis
and testes; for females the vagina and breasts (yes, the breasts are sexual...
humans are the only species where the breasts are "swollen" in times when
not lactating... therefore the purpose of breasts is sexual attraction).
In fur-covered creatures, the fur may be more than sufficient to cover
this anatomy (then again a knee-length skirt isn't a detracton for some
people). The aforementioned snow leopard would have fur covering
her breasts-- that might show as much as a thick wool sweater on a human
female.
So what does this all mean? The "furry" [anthropomorphic
animal] does not necessarily need this clothing. In fact, adding
too much clothing may actually be bad for the individual's health.
Essentially, all a furry species would need clothing for is to carry something
(well, a kangaroo has the pouch...), protection (armor for warriors or
a space suit), or for some type of symbolism (military uniform).
So a furry without clothing is simply a furry without clothing and not
some degenerate pervert. Of course, this does tend to go species-by-species.
A thin-furred mammal or a cold-blooded (no negative connotations implied)
sauroid may truly need the protection if they traveled to the arctic regions.
And, depending on *their* culture (how dare you force your cultural beliefs
on another culture *your'e* visiting?), showing the genitalia may or may
not be offensive.
The best rule to follow here is if you don't like
it, go away. If you're not going to go away, then it's understood
that you're going to be intelligent and consider all aspects of the piece.
Be an adult and be aware that each individual can decide what (s)he prefers
to see...
Sexual Preference
There are a number of people out there who think
"furry = homosexual". They do not understand. I, for one, can
say this is not true. I'm a hetero (answers a question on
some peoples' minds-- though, personally, I don't see why anyone would
really care) even though some of the artists whose work I enjoy are otherwise
inclined-- and much of the artwork I like because of the quality and not
necessarily the content. I have a great deal of respect for these
individuals who seem to have greater patience and skill than I can forsee
I will ever have.
Anyway, furry does not ascribe a particular sexual
preference. There are homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual furries.
In fact, there is the same proportion of each as in the general population.
The only difference, I would have to say, is that there is a lot more acceptance
of differing preferences evident in the fandom-- something I think the
rest of the world could learn. And the acceptance extends beyond
sexual preference.
Zoophiles, Plushiphiles, etc.
"-philias" are often frowned upon. People
think of think of them generally as some extreme form of sexual perversion.
Strange, I've never heard of Socrates, Calvin or David Hume having sexual
intercourse with books and scrolls even though philosopher starts with
the same root (BTW it means "lover of knowledge"). Just because people
like/role-play/identify-with animals doesn't mean they want to have sexual
intercourse with them. Likewise, people who collect stuffed animals
don't necessarily have sexually explicit relationships with them. Otherwise
parents wouldn't give stuffed animals to their infants! Sure there
are some furs who go to the extremes, it doesn't mean we all do!
Again, there are probably as many zoophiles in furry as in any other division
of culture (teachers, veternarians, supermarket clerks, etc.). Personally,
there are certain animals I have an appreciation of-- unicorns and dragons
to name a few. I enjoy reading about them, I have stuffed animals
in both categories (each was a gift) and I'd love to get my hands on more.
Do I want to be...intimate... with them? Hell no... my interests
don't lie in that direction. But does knowing that make me any different
from who I was before you knew?
Furry Lifestyle and Furry Spiritualism
Just furry was difficult to explain. A furry
lifestyle is multiply so. I cannot begin to explain it and others
have already done so. If you're interested in this part of furry,
then you should check out the alt.lifestyle.furry
FAQ. I consider myself a lifestylist. My life masks are
slightly modified since finding furry (though I feel I still carry the
originals), keeping their essences, but evolving into a better whole.
I dunno, this is one part of me that I find I cannot explain effectively.
As far as spiritualism goes, that's one aspect I
don't really have an explanation for. Unfortunately the one really
good site I knew of is gone (or moved somewhere I haven't found yet).
For the indefinite future, I leave you with Twilight
AutumnFox's website which at least gives
a little look at the subject-- and at spirituality in general (he's the
one that wrote the explanation on the site I had here anyway... so at least
it's got that!).
Actually, the title should probably be "Disrespect
of Artists." This is a topic that has caught my attention of the
furry artwork newsgroups over the last year or so and I felt it deserved
a section all its own. All too often I have seen people posting artwork
that belongs to someone else without that artist's. They say
something along the lines of "I don't know if the artist(s) want these
shown, but I'll post them anyway. If anyone can tell me if they don't
want it posted, I'll stop." To me, this is just another way of saying
"I don't care, I'll post until I'm caught." Personally, I believe
that one should post what one creates. If the artist wants work posted
to the web (pages/ftp/newsgroup) the artist is well able to do that on
his/her own. If the artist cannot, the artist can surely contact
a friend who can. If you want to post artwork, make your own!
I know the alt.binaries.pictures furry newsgroups
have gone to hell in a handbasket with all the spam. That's one of
the reasons the fur.* newsgroups were born. But the spam is not an
excuse to disrespect artists' wishes. We have lost artists like Lance
Rund and Joe Ny because of disrespect, and we have nearly lost those like
Tygger and Nakira as well. So, because somebody couldn't deal with
a period of few postings-- or the fact that abpf and abpef are DEAD-- we
don't have the contributions of some artists such as those listed above
(though Nakira does continue his posts, thank the Forces). Not only
that, but budding artists see this and many most likely think "they got
treated poorly so why should I bother?" And so we are reduced even
farther.
To make matters worse, when an artist defends one
self, somebody invariably attacks the artist for doing so. "Your
artwork is on the web so you've waived your control of it," is the general
idea. This may be true to an extent. But the artist NEVER waives
the right to control the artwork. Certainly an uncountable
number of people have had access to the artwork. Most, I would say,
save the artwork. Sure, I do it too. But I don't post/email
it. Just because one has a copy of the artwork doesn't mean he possesses
the right to distribute it as he sees fit. The only way you can gain
that is to purchase the right from the artist... and that's assuming the
artist would do that.
The fact is it is not the artist's responsibility
to say "no you can't post my stuff." It is the poster's responsibility
to gain the permission of the artist. Ignorance of the artist's identity
is not an excuse to ignore that artist's rights. The best policy
is "Don't know; Don't post." (well, aside from my policy "don't create;
don't post"). Through discussion and debate, a few ways have been
found to discover whether an artist will allow artwork to be distrubuted.
[Please Note: I have chosen to ignore the financial facet of the argument, it doesn't really apply in this case. But I feel I must comment on the people who think artistry isn't a profession or can't possibly be the primary source of income (or some such argument). If artwork is not a profession/source of income then architects better find a job... people who design cases for videotapes or covers for books better find a job. Do you think Boris Vallejo, Michael Whelan or Darrel K. Sweet have a second job? I would be surprised to discover they do. And even if they do, art is more than likely their primary source of income. IF I ever get a book in print, do you think I'm going to ask to have one of them do the cover (assuming it's even my option)? No... I'm going to want someone like Chris Sawyer or one of the many other excellent furry artists out there do the cover. Why would I want my book's cover to look like Piers Anthony's or Robert Jordan's when mine could look unique and therefore catch more interest? I don't know if I ever will have my artwork (keep in mind my palette consists of words-- literature is just another type of art) published... but I can keep dreaming.]