Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

GoManVanGogh · Coadjutor Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 140

You are a "MUNDANE" if......

You hold no particular interest in media featuring animals, be they natural or anthropomorphic, real or ficticious, well-known or obscure. This doesn't necessarily mean you don't LIKE them, you may even have a "favorite" animal, you've just never really given the matter any sizeable amount of thought.

You are a "FUNNY ANIMAL FAN" if......

You possess a definate fondness for media, be it movie, book, comic or what have you, that feature animals, sometimes with human-like characteristics such as speech or the ability to walk upright. However, this fondness is just that, a fondness, as opposed to an obsession, and it isn't particularly central to your being, more like a subtle aspect.

You are a "FUNCTIONING FURRY" if......

You hold an interest in media featuring animals, often with human characteristics, that is definately noticeable in that it is more developed than can be considered average. However, this interest will not hinder you from partaking in tasks which one must partake in to function in society, such as holding down a well-paying job or maintaining a healthy relationship with another human being. True, you may still possess an obsession which DOES hinder you from functioning in society (ie: firearms, con-artistry, pornography, food, fantasy, victimhood or just plain being an asshole), but it has nothing to do with "furry".

You are a "FURRY" if......

You have a definate obsession with anthropomorphic animals that is central to every aspect of your being, be it social, mental, spiritual or sexual and it prohibits you from functioning in any aspect of society which does not somehow involve your obsession.

I hope this clears up a few things.

Ethan A. Stanger · Rasophore Joined: 23 Oct 2003 Posts: 53

If you're a fan (of anything), you're already obsessed. That's what being a fanatic means.

I might add that your post is kind of.....stupid. You people and your labels, give it a rest.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

DA · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Jun 2003 Posts: 320

*is fanatical about many things* The difference is if doesn't take over my life.

I need to go lie down now..I've just spent a hour reading a board with KAK's postings... :shock:

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Insert < what makes your labels more valid than anyone else?” promulgation> and < “arbitrary constructs” promulgation> here.

(Imagine that I have a dour and pompous expression on my face)

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

(Imagine that I have a dour and pompous expression on my face)

I ALWAYS PICTURED IT AS A CONSTIPATED ONE MYSELF

GoManVanGogh · Coadjutor Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 140

I might add that your post is kind of.....stupid.

Yeah. But it's all in good fun.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

Ethan, your definition of fan seems kind of harsh. If "fan" implies being obsessed beyond the ability to function, what do you call people who just have an appreciation for something; like people who enjoy watching horror movies?

Pycnopodia · Coadjutor Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 72

I did not like that list.
I consider myself a furry, though on your list I am somewhere between funny animals fan and functioning furry.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

Though like many I use the word furry a lot, I generally separate furs into four groups.

Problem Furs: the worst of the fandom, these are the ones who fuck plushies with abandon, can't get it hard without fake fur, who spend all their lives of the present immersed in furry, and generally make as big an ass of themselves whenever possible, and will take the entire thing down with them. This is the smallest group but the most highly visible just beneath the almost still clear surface.

Border Furs: not so bad as any of the first group, but definitely "at risk" of becoming them. Generally dysfunctional, resistant to advice to clean themselves up, very sympathetic to Problem Furs, and the core of the defenders of the ramparts of furry. This is the largest group and forms the surface of furry through which the worse muck below can be seen easily.

Enabler Furs: not bad, not really abnormal beyond some eccentricities, and on the whole pretty functional. But, they are the gatekeepers of the ramparts of furry and lend a slight air of respectability to it despite the first two groups' damage to the fandom's reputation at large, thus obfuscating and deceiving from the central problems. They are the second largest number and are the shine on the surface, like a gold coating on a lead ring, they disguise the problems beneath.

Functional Furs: the third largest group, they flit back and forth through the fandom, barely making ripples here and there, keeping to their narrow interests, not getting too involved, and have contacts within most of the other groups. They're not enablers, but they are functional and usually pretty well centered. They will stand and fight for neither furry nor critics, will take no stand that they will not backtrack on, and will most certainly never stand up to the Enablers.

Simplistic I know, but this is how I generally think of things.

Ethan A. Stanger · Rasophore Joined: 23 Oct 2003 Posts: 53

Ethan, your definition of fan seems kind of harsh. If "fan" implies being obsessed beyond the ability to function, what do you call people who just have an appreciation for something; like people who enjoy watching horror movies?

I'm using the literal definition of fan.
What do I call these people who enjoy doing these things?
Nothing...I just say, "This guy likes doing this and this lady likes doing that".

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

(Imagine that I have a dour and pompous expression on my face)

I ALWAYS PICTURED IT AS A CONSTIPATED ONE MYSELF

Please do not type in all capslock, It is vulgar and most unbecoming of an Englishmen. (Though if you are Texan, It is just about understandable, If not excusable)

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

I guess so... It just seems like the definiton of fan has become looser, as definitions do. While it once implied a religious ferver towards a subject, it seems to now cover a casual liking as well. A rabid sports enthusiast who bases thier whole life around statistics and a medical student who happens to enjoy the comedy of Will Ferrell could both describe themselves as fans; and this application of "casual" fans messes up the word's use as a derogetory comment.

Ethan A. Stanger · Rasophore Joined: 23 Oct 2003 Posts: 53

I guess so... It just seems like the definiton of fan has become looser, as definitions do.

Well, that's just really unfortunate.

That shouldn't stop people from understanding, using or telling others the literal definition.

Fins · Qualificator Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 25

What about those of us who are cartoonists/artists? I've recieved some recognition from fans and other artists in the furry 'community', but have no desire to don a fursuit and 'commence humping.' Nor do I wish 'furry' to be a major part of my identity. What I want out of life is to get married to a beautiful woman, have a steady job, remain healthy, have kids, live in relative comfort, and use/develop my talents whenever possible.

I knew getting into this, that I might be called a freak or whatever, and that's fine (sexy comic art of all kinds draws similar reactions from some people, and it's almost a right of passage)... but there are others out there like me who could be called furry content providers because it's fun to do... not because it's a big fetish or whatever. What category do you think we would fall into?

m_estrugo · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Posts: 160

I'm a fan. A diecast car fan.

An enthusiast of 1/43 diecast cars of popular, everyday cars manufactured between 1960 and today. I started my collection in 1998, when I went to a model store and bought a Renault 8 by Solido.

Every time I have the chance and some money to waste, I connect to eBay and search for ordinary looking, boring cars. And I've got a special interest for the cars from the 70s and the 80s, the ones I grew with. I've got about 80 by now, but I aspire to have many more.

Oh, yes, I'm obsessed about diecast cars.

My friends admire my collection when they see it, as they are familiar with them. The cars I have were (and are) popular here in Europe. They may not share my interest for diecast models, but enjoy my own collection.

And I'm not the only one. Do a search on google about "Diecast collector" and you'll find that there are zillions of folks like me. Some of those other fans even share my specific tastes: popular, everyday cars manufactured between 1960 and today.

Collectors' diecast models became an industry, close to the toy market, but in many cases, the models are amazingly detailed and their boxes have a clear warning: "Adult collector item: not suited for children under 12". You see, these aren't your average toy.

And, oddly enough, even if I'm collecting adult items like these, nobody thinks I'm doing something strange or weird, nor that I'm a pervert, nor a mentally ill folk.

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

What about those of us who are cartoonists/artists? I've recieved some recognition from fans and other artists in the furry 'community', but have no desire to don a fursuit and 'commence humping.' Nor do I wish 'furry' to be a major part of my identity. What I want out of life is to get married to a beautiful woman, have a steady job, remain healthy, have kids, live in relative comfort, and use/develop my talents whenever possible.

I knew getting into this, that I might be called a freak or whatever, and that's fine (sexy comic art of all kinds draws similar reactions from some people, and it's almost a right of passage)... but there are others out there like me who could be called furry content providers because it's fun to do... not because it's a big fetish or whatever. What category do you think we would fall into?

Outside of the furry grouping I've put out. I don't consider myself a furry, but a fan of anthropomorphic devices in fiction. That of course covers Trek, Brave Little Toaster, and so on. Not necessarily the toaster specifically, but that is application of humanoid aspects to a decidedly non-humanoid thing.

Within furry, desiring a wife and kids and success is looked upon as a freak. Don't worry. You're in good company. I have a wife, decent conditions, we're working on having kids, I own a house and nice vehicle... In furry this is either godlike or the sign of a mundane interloper.

Fins · Qualificator Joined: 19 Dec 2003 Posts: 25

Outside of the furry grouping I've put out. I don't consider myself a furry, but a fan of anthropomorphic devices in fiction. That of course covers Trek, Brave Little Toaster, and so on. Not necessarily the toaster specifically, but that is application of humanoid aspects to a decidedly non-humanoid thing.

Within furry, desiring a wife and kids and success is looked upon as a freak. Don't worry. You're in good company. I have a wife, decent conditions, we're working on having kids, I own a house and nice vehicle... In furry this is either godlike or the sign of a mundane interloper.

I guess that's why I was glad to find this little corner of the web. Personally, I don't give a rat's arse if furries view me as a freak... but as long as things remain somewhat civil, I'm not going to go around making a bad name for myself within the fandom. There are still a few reasonable folks around. Personally, I was drawn to 'furry' (or what I thought it was) by my interests in SF, pets, cartooning and pinup art (WWII aircraft noseart in particular). At first, I thought the fandom was all about stuff like Albedo, and XianJaguar's characters. Oh how wrong I was... though thankfully it's not all hermtaurs, dickgirls and adults in diapers... otherwise, I'd be long gone.

Mass Treble · Recusant Joined: 16 Dec 2003 Posts: 7

First, I'd like to say that that sounds pretty cool, Estrugo. I don't know why, but I've always thought that collections are really interesting, no matter what it is.

As for the 'mundane' thing, I'd like to let everywhere here know how much I dislike the use of that word. It's stupid. I'd like to see it stop. Then again, I'd like to see a lot of things stop. :?

Wayd Wolf · Coadjutor Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 456

First, I'd like to say that that sounds pretty cool, Estrugo. I don't know why, but I've always thought that collections are really interesting, no matter what it is.

As for the 'mundane' thing, I'd like to let everywhere here know how much I dislike the use of that word. It's stupid. I'd like to see it stop. Then again, I'd like to see a lot of things stop. :?

It sounds too close to the Piers Anthony use of "mundane" in his Xanth series to be coincidence, but most pointedly exemplifies the furry delusion that furries are somehow more enlightened than non-furries and that non-furries don't know what they are missing. Actually, given that most furries won't get any closer to a set of boobs than their own when they gain weight, it's furries who wouldn't know what they're missing.

Big-E6 · Recusant Joined: 18 Jul 2003 Posts: 14

I guess I'm a fan in the sense I draw it sometimes, like to look at art that looks good to me, whether its adult or not. But where the art ends, my interest pretty much stops.

Yes I still like to think that I'm not a furry after those facts, I really do. I used to be really confused with that word, and how I should lable myself. But I think I can have an interest without being one. Sorry for people that would defend the title, but it's a dirty word to me.

I'm in the position where I do have oppinions on furry, but am alittle concerned about expressing them in the slightest because I don't want to look like an ass to someone just because I don't swing with every kind thing that has to do with the subject. Yet, I could easily be judged in the parts I'm interested in. Maybe I just don't want to talk about it, but if the art keeps getting connected to all the other strange stuff, it gets difficult.

This was probably a long winded and useless post. There's so much stuff I could talk about but I don't want waste mine and anyones time any more Lol.

GalenLutra · Recusant Joined: 31 Dec 2003 Posts: 9

Please do not type in all capslock, It is vulgar and most unbecoming of an Englishmen. (Though if you are Texan, It is just about understandable, If not excusable)

Hey NOW, I AM in TEXAS. NOT all OF us type IN all CAPSLOCK...Just IN texas, The CAPSlOCK is BROKEN. WHY wont YOU work RIGHT DAMNIT!

Could be worse...How worse? H3y d00ds, I was chatting with my FURiends and they said this site sUx0xors. You LIE! L13! Mhwhaha! =^.^=
(I wonder if I got my l337 speak right...been years since CounterStrike 8) )

GoManVanGogh · Coadjutor Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 140

As for the 'mundane' thing, I'd like to let everywhere here know how much I dislike the use of that word. It's stupid. I'd like to see it stop. Then again, I'd like to see a lot of things stop. :?

Alright. What would you use?

Personally, I've always been a fan of George Carlin's theory that words, in and of themselves, are harmless and etherial, and it is the intent behind their use that is the matter of substance.

Take the word, :shock: "Nigger" :shock: , for example. Black people use it among themselves without a second thought, due to their frequently using it as a term of fraternization at best and of light-hearted derision at worst. But if a non-black uses it, LOOK OUT, because among non-blacks, it has a long history of being used as a term of heavy derision and disrespect, a fact I hope to see change someday.

In other words, "Mundane" will only be a foolish and/or derogatory term as long as it is used in a foolish and/or derogatory manner.

And just for the record, "Yiff" be never be either intelligent OR respectable.....

Ever.....

Just ain't gonna happen, bub.....

Give it up.....

Genghis · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 186

In other words, "Mundane" will only be a foolish and/or derogatory term as long as it is used in a foolish and/or derogatory manner.

According to the dictionary.com entry, the word Mundane is defined as "Relating to, characteristic of, or concerned with commonplaces; ordinary."
Unfortunately, it is often incorrectly used, usually in a context more suited to the word "boring" (usually by people who don't know what the term means, or by those who consider themselves to be somehow better than "ordinary" people). This means that not using it in a derogatory fashion when referring to actual people is going to be fairly difficult.

also:

<jargon> Someone outside some group that is implicit from the
context, such as the computer industry or science fiction
fandom. The implication is that those in the group are
special and those outside are just ordinary.

The last line of that entry should be strangely familiar to anyone who's read a furry message board.

mouse · Coadjutor Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 662

Unfortunately, it is often incorrectly used, usually in a context more suited to the word "boring" (usually by people who don't know what the term means, or by those who consider themselves to be somehow better than "ordinary" people). This means that not using it in a derogatory fashion when referring to actual people is going to be fairly difficult.

Actually I use the word mundane probably a little too often (nothing to do with furry fandom, I've used it for years), but I apply it to things. I guess I could use 'boring', but the way I guess I am using it is when something is 'commonplace to point of being boring'. Like just off the top of my head, I think I usually call widely popular no-frills type of cars 'mundane'

So, my usage of the word is incorrect?

It doesnt seem to ever be used in a positive or even just flat informative way that often. I'm not sure if that many people got it wrong, it seems even using it correctly its not a positive thing.
You can go the other way to and say if somethings ordinary or commonplace , why not just call it ordinary or commonplace.

I would only substitute a word if I feel it carries more meaning or a different tone to it.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

The main problem with the usage of the term 'mundane' is that its focus is narrowed to that of the subculture, even though it's applied in a broadly descriptive manner.

You might spend your free time risking your neck blasting across the alkali flats strapped to experimental jetpacks, but if you're not a furry, you're still just a poor pitiable 'mundane'... Its usage this way only worsens the perception that furry is the entire core around which a person bases their life.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

You are a "FURRY" if......

You have a definate obsession with anthropomorphic animals that is central to every aspect of your being, be it social, mental, spiritual or sexual and it prohibits you from functioning in any aspect of society which does not somehow involve your obsession

Well I am a furry and I function just find in society which has nothing to do with furry, and I am not obsessed either. I am more into cars than I am into furry.

Jerry Collins · Coadjutor Joined: 16 Jul 2003 Posts: 162

Check my article "Critterology v.s. Phurries",that's all I'm going to say(Jerry)