Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

I'm getting tired of this new trend of wanting to define "furry" to mean "created with awareness of, or for the specific consumption of, the furry fandom." It used to just mean "involving anthropomorphic animals." And furry fans were people who liked stuff with anthropomorphic animals, whether it was made within the fandom or outside it. What does it matter that Richard Adams is either unaware of furry or wouldn't like it? Why does something need to be made by the fandom or for the fandom for it to "count"?

If you just want to talk about your concept in terms of a visual art phenomenon/genre, fine, but confine it to visual art and leave the rest alone, because shoehorning writing into your definition isn't working all that well.

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.