Found this poll on reddit about it https://www.strawpoll.me/15794611

I'd like "Furries in denial" for $400, Alex

"be considered" yes

is he a furry though, no

Considering it's possible to like Pokemon while disliking anthropomorphic animals in general, I've got to say "no, not necessarily a furry."

Even if you argue that some Pokemon (ex: Lucario) are properly regarded as anthros, not all Pokemon are anthros. If someone has a Mightyena Pokesona, I mean... That's basically just a regular dog.

Honestly I think it's possible to have a Fursona and not be a furry.

Pokemon are not furries
Bronies are not furries

Simple as that.

Are these furries? ...well, okay, some of them might actually be, but certainly not all. The intent matters. If someone's not part of the subculture, then they're not furry.

I wouldn't consider otherkin or therians to be furries, either. The concept of persona is much older than furdom.

Chaser said:
Pokemon are not furries
Bronies are not furries

Simple as that.

Also Robosexuals, Scalies, Featheries, Gell people, Otherkin, Aliens and Attack Helicopters.

Honestly everyone and their special needs Uncle are all their own subgroup within a subgroup these days.

They're Pokés

CCoyote said:
Self-identification matters. Putting a label on someone that they don't want or accept is disrespectful. You might as well be calling names.

this, several times over.

FoxFourOhFour said:
Also Robosexuals, Scalies, Featheries, Gell people, Otherkin, Aliens and Attack Helicopters.

Honestly everyone and their special needs Uncle are all their own subgroup within a subgroup these days.

Well, that's kinda human nature. We're pack animals, not loners. Historically, we want to hang out in a group with other people like us. Our friends, our family, our mate.... our villagers and tribes man.. our countrymen. we trust 'those like us' and 'the other' tends to be greeted with distrust.

(this is why it's important to try to not isolate groups of people in our mind. If we allow that it's okay to treat a group of people as inferior, it becomes a bit of a slippery slope. You can dislike people, but don't dislike a group of people just because they have similarities. Not every jock is a bully, not every bully is a jock.)

Thankfully, we can belong to many groups at once. My birth-family group, my hunting pack, my mate-family.... my family, my friends, my in laws, my coworkers.... In our more modern era, with the ability to find 'kin' and 'family' and 'my people' all across the globe, it's easier to find people who you can share kinship with.

Furry is a group of those people. Scalies and bronies and otherkin are all off in that corner together, and it can be hard to see where they overlap.

These allegiances are generally not really harmful... and someone declaring themselves to be a feathery shouldn't hurt anyone.

So let people have their little family-pack-groups. It's human nature to want to belong. and even if someone has a pokesona, or animal characters, or write animal fiction in an animal world... that doesn't make them furry. You're furry if you decide you want to be furry.

I was furry once. I like anthro characters, and animals and think that they make really interesting stories. But I'm not really part of the furry community. I was a brony, but not really anymore. I didn't like where the brony culture was going at that time. I don't know if it's better now. I still like ponies. That doesn't make me a brony. Y'know?

It depends? There's a few subtly different meanings of the term. The two big ones are 'member of the furry community' and 'people who like anthropomorphic animals'. The first one is more about who someone associates with and is a self-given label, the second is about what someone likes and tends to be applied to groups. So, describing the guy on his own, no since he's not self-identifying. If he's in a group of similar fans of anthropomorphic animals and you're using 'furry' because it's an accepted and easily understood term that isn't necessarily incorrect. As an example the people who show up to a furmeet are likely going to have the group described as 'furries' even if individuals don't use the label themselves.

Aaaah, the good 'ole ''what is the definition of (a) furry'' problem.

Imo, you can either be a furry if you identify yourself as such, if you enjoy anthropomorphic creatures (and are aware of furries/furrydom) or if you enjoy anthropomorphic creatures but you don't know about furries (yet).

The odd thing is that some commenters regard scalies, avians and otherkin as being distinct from furries. I always thought of them not even as a semi-tangential subgroup but as a full fledged part of furry fandom (''furry'' being more a form of rallying name no longer exclusive to furred anthros, much like english being the lingua franca, no longer exclusive to the britons/americans).

All in all, i think that there will always be this dichotomy between what you feel you are, and what others think you are.

And to answer the question: He could be called a furry (in denial perhaps) by outside observers, but he would not be a furry by personal identification.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
The odd thing is that some commenters regard scalies, avians and otherkin as being distinct from furries. I always thought of them not even as a semi-tangential subgroup but as a full fledged part of furry fandom

Eh, I consider scalie, featheries etc as part of furry-ness. Otherkin.... not so much. They can be, but they can also not be.

All in all, i think that there will always be this dichotomy between what you feel you are, and what others think you are.

Another thought on this:

If I wear all black, it doesn't mean I'm a goth. Others may look at me and declare me to be a goth, but goth is about more than just wearing black.

Most of the people who are deeply, personally invested in hating furries are furries themselves based on my experience. After all, what kind of normal person would even care?

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
Aaaah, the good 'ole ''what is the definition of (a) furry'' problem.

Pretty much.

It's almost similar problem to what's a gamer. You could categorize someone playing Candy Crush as gamer, but they themselves only think it as passing time with something mindless similar to crosswords. Or is someone Otaku if they only happened to watch and enjoy Death Note?

Also consider that belonging into this loose group also means that you are part of everything bad in there. If only thing you are interested is pokemon and like having safe pokesona, do you feel like you want to get grouped together with all everything that furries contain?

Mairo said:
Pretty much.

It's almost similar problem to what's a gamer. You could categorize someone playing Candy Crush as gamer, but they themselves only think it as passing time with something mindless similar to crosswords. Or is someone Otaku if they only happened to watch and enjoy Death Note?

Or the opposite: I think of myself as a gamer, but tend to waste time with facebook, rather than RPGs (it's something about feeling guilty about playing a game for a few hours... psychology is weird.)

Also consider that belonging into this loose group also means that you are part of everything bad in there. If only thing you are interested is pokemon and like having safe pokesona, do you feel like you want to get grouped together with all everything that furries contain?

Doubly so if you only hear the negative things about a group: All furries are perverts, who are attracted to animals, who want to yiff everything and yiff yiff yiff yiff.

It's why I could also go on a ramble about not confusing the vocal minority for the majority, but that's definitely venturing off topic. ... but if all you know is the vocal majority... well...

the real question is, if he doesn't, why does anyone care?

Correction, they're Hokey-Pokés and like to turn themselves around, because that's what it's all about

More info needed.

If someone likes these:

post #1555824 post #1510587 post #1032955 post #1485757 post #237523

Then they are clearly into anthros.

If they like these then they are into feral/bestiality:

post #1302987 post #1014627 post #981528 post #834133 post #991292 post #1416083

Finally you can diverge from pokemon entirely by slipping in some fakemonz:

post #484391 post #1522205 post #1544646 post #1527682 post #1555383

At the end of the day, we can see that it's a very thin—or non-existent—line between liking pokemon r34 and being a 🅵🆄🆁🆁🆈, unless you define 🅵🆄🆁🆁🆈 narrowly as "fursuiter" or something. But a pokesona can be indistinguishable from a fursona since pokemon cover a wide variety of the animal kingdom, and if your pokesona is a fakemon, it's probably just another furry creature.

CCoyote said:
Self-identification matters. Putting a label on someone that they don't want or accept is disrespectful. You might as well be calling names.

This. I enjoy browsing art and helping to fix up tags, and occasionally even upload here. But I don't generally call myself a furry.

Lance_Armstrong said:
At the end of the day, we can see that it's a very thin—or non-existent—line between liking pokemon r34 and being a , unless you define  narrowly as "fursuiter" or something. But a pokesona can be indistinguishable from a fursona since pokemon cover a wide variety of the animal kingdom, and if your pokesona is a fakemon, it's probably just another furry creature.

Who said anything about porn?

Something that hasn't been addressed: you said that this was asked on reddit, but what subreddit exactly was it asked on? And, furthermore, how was the question phrased in the thread itself?

I have a feeling you are going to get a very different answer from furries and from non-furries on the issue. Non-furries are probably more apt to lump everyone together, while furries have more of an opinion on the distinctions between groups.

Depending on the way the question is asked, you might get furries using more inclusive definitions (like if in their mind the question relates to the size / significance of the furry fandom), or more exclusive definitions (basically anything relating to zoophilia).

I know a few zoophiles who have Pokemon characters. Pretty sure the average furry is still going to disavow that link, if asked.

TL;DR it's just not a great question in the first place.

Clawdragons said:
Something that hasn't been addressed: you said that this was asked on reddit, but what subreddit exactly was it asked on? And, furthermore, how was the question phrased in the thread itself?

Is it wise to get answers for those questions? It could lead to brigading/harassment.

Pretty sure the point is that the question is incompletely framed without that info, so if we don't have it, the question is practically speaking unanswerable.

If it was made more specific, then the particular info we'd need is :

• What definition of furry is 'he' using?
• What definition of furry is the questioner using?
• What kind of pokesona?
• "insists he's not a furry" means what exactly? (eg. saying it a few times is not a clear indicator, compared to saying it a lot, but some people will use the word 'insisting' after only a few instances.)
• Similar question for "hates furries": what behaviours does this amount to, and in what volume?

If OP doesn't want to provide that information due to brigading concerns, then on the one hand, fine, on the other hand, there is then no valid, complete question that can be properly answered.