Perhaps someone can help me understand the difference between an anthropromorphic animal mascot (which as a tale as old as time) and a furry? When does one cease to be one and becomes another?
There are animal mascots all the time in sports. Why is that not weird, but it’s weird to have a sporty animal mascot for coins?
to me, just some guy, “a furry” is a person with this particular set of desires or sympathies, and an animal mascot is a marketing function of a business. Entirely subjective, reflexive and subject to cross over.
Babs Bunny is a known nexus of this controversy, having been drawn a variety of ways from more chibi to more realistic and with various degrees of adult sexual characteristics.
To be fair, there’s been more public freak out over the green M&M redesigns.
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it”
Dr. Dan McClellan has a great segment on Data Over Dogma about Prototype Theory ( On YouTube, time counter at 35:17), in which he points out dictionaries aren’t authoritative in telling us what words mean, rather they tell us what words have been used to mean so far.
He brings up the word furniture as an example talking about prototype theory, and talks about how we have a general sense of what furniture is ( we know it when we see it ) but we cannot define a set of features that includes all furniture and excludes all things not furniture.
was it made by a person with passion for the art, or a soulless corporation for the purpose of marketing and advertising? Usually, you can tell simply by the quality of the art which it is.
For me it tends to be realism vs exaggerated qualities? I think these look like furry characters because they have realistic body proportions, structure, and expressions despite the animal faces and features vs something like Mickey Mouse or Sonic the Hedgehog. This allows someone to more easily see in them the physical features humans find attractive, even a lot of subtle ones considering these characters aren’t sexualized in their official art. It’s not perfect and obviously there are people who have cartoonish fursona’s and there’s cartoonish furry porn out there, but it’s a basic observation
Perhaps someone can help me understand the difference between an anthropromorphic animal mascot (which as a tale as old as time) and a furry? When does one cease to be one and becomes another?
There are animal mascots all the time in sports. Why is that not weird, but it’s weird to have a sporty animal mascot for coins?
I have no idea but the eyes and the smile definitely give a different vibe than most mascots.
The musculature and hands are what do it for me.
“Nine Inch Nails” has entered the chat…
to me, just some guy, “a furry” is a person with this particular set of desires or sympathies, and an animal mascot is a marketing function of a business. Entirely subjective, reflexive and subject to cross over.
The gradient from “cute” to “horny” is difficult to describe, but clear to see.
Babs Bunny is a known nexus of this controversy, having been drawn a variety of ways from more chibi to more realistic and with various degrees of adult sexual characteristics.
To be fair, there’s been more public freak out over the green M&M redesigns.
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it”
Neural networks are proof that we suck at defining things, but our labels are excellent.
Dr. Dan McClellan has a great segment on Data Over Dogma about Prototype Theory ( On YouTube, time counter at 35:17), in which he points out dictionaries aren’t authoritative in telling us what words mean, rather they tell us what words have been used to mean so far.
He brings up the word furniture as an example talking about prototype theory, and talks about how we have a general sense of what furniture is ( we know it when we see it ) but we cannot define a set of features that includes all furniture and excludes all things not furniture.
Made even funnier by terms like “street furniture,” which includes the bench, the bus stop, the stop sign, and the curb.
was it made by a person with passion for the art, or a soulless corporation for the purpose of marketing and advertising? Usually, you can tell simply by the quality of the art which it is.
For me it tends to be realism vs exaggerated qualities? I think these look like furry characters because they have realistic body proportions, structure, and expressions despite the animal faces and features vs something like Mickey Mouse or Sonic the Hedgehog. This allows someone to more easily see in them the physical features humans find attractive, even a lot of subtle ones considering these characters aren’t sexualized in their official art. It’s not perfect and obviously there are people who have cartoonish fursona’s and there’s cartoonish furry porn out there, but it’s a basic observation
There is no difference. Anthropomorphics = furry.
For one thing, you can find furries that get horny for any fucking mascot. I 'member Tony the Tiger being “sexually harassed” by furries on twitter.
If you can think of any animalistic or anthro character, there’s a very big chance furries want to fuck it.
I would say, given any anthro character, there’s a good chance a furry or some furries want to fuck them, but most furries don’t.
A large subset of furries want to be an anthro, though, and likely have specific characters they aspire to.