Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

Some of the following is my opinion. Probably not everyone here will agree with it. If you're one of them, feel free to discuss.

The use of animal characters in children's literature and programming is so common as to not really qualify as "furry" material, nor does an interest in them by children really qualify them as furry. Wait -- that's not really true -- why shouldn't anthropomorphics in children's literature qualify as "furry"? I guess my point is that among older furry fans I would only give such works consideration to the extent that they appeal to more than just children. Furthermore, a real furry fan is one who retains, even increases, their level of interest in anthropomorphics once they're beyond the age when the "child appeal" factor drops off, especially if their interest transfers to anthropomorphic works and activities that are clearly not meant for children.

Another angle -- most children have been exposed to Winnie the Pooh, Thornton Burgess, numerous cartoons with animal characters, and many have loved these works and for a time become big fans of them, yet the majority of them did not develop any particular lasting interest in furries. How was it different for fur fans? THAT would be an interesting question to try to answer.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.