• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Would Weres Count as Furries?

E

ellaerna

Guest
Weres being like werewolves, werebears, etc etc.

And like, I get that if weres actually existed they could be part of the furry fandom if they wanted to be. In fact, they'd probably love it since they have a built-in fur suit and no one would judge them at cons. In fact, modern times does a lot to improve the quality of life for a lot of previously ostracized mythical creatures.

But I digress.

What I want to know is, could you have a were'sona? Would a werewolf or werebear or even werecow count as a 'sona or would it just be like a cool character that isn't banned from FA but not super encouraged either? Does it matter that a werewolf is not just a sometimes anthropomorphized animal but more of a fictional representation of our fears of late Victorian patriarchy? [source]

These are the questions that keep me up at night... o_O
 

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
fictional representation of our fears of late Victorian patriarchy?

sorry but where the hell did that comment come from? what does Patriarchy have to do with anything

Edit: i looked at the wiki article and the source no it doesn't have anything to do with "Patriarchy" it looks like one of those feminist re writes as the source doesn't lead anywhere and anything else in the article that mentions Ware wolves are an Allegory for Men raping and abusing women has [citation needed]

ware(animal) have been around since the 1300s-1400s
 
Last edited:
E

ellaerna

Guest
sorry but where the hell did that comment come from? what does Patriarchy have to do with anything
I did leave a source to explain, but basically I'm on a huge googling kick right now and whilst looking through the wikipedia article on werewolves, it mentioned that in Bram Stoker's Dracula and Dracula's Guest the werewolf was supposed to be symbolic of the anxieties of the age which happened to be the late Victorian patriarchy. Or maybe the stories as wholes were meant to do that. The wording in the article is ambiguous.

Anyway, I thought it amusing, so I included it.
 

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
I did leave a source to explain, but basically I'm on a huge googling kick right now and whilst looking through the wikipedia article on werewolves, it mentioned that in Bram Stoker's Dracula and Dracula's Guest the werewolf was supposed to be symbolic of the anxieties of the age which happened to be the late Victorian patriarchy. Or maybe the stories as wholes were meant to do that. The wording in the article is ambiguous.

Anyway, I thought it amusing, so I included it.

yeah i edited the response Wikipedia is quickly losing credibility Wiki politics and the "feminist invasion" is a whole other thing Wiki let them rewrite articles to make up what ever crap they wanted

any way to answer your main question it depends some furries would except it others are like "NO! IT NEEDS TO BE LIKE THIS!" and then you have others who think you're a furry for just liking any cartoon animal
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
yeah i edited the response Wikipedia is quickly losing credibility Wiki politics and the "feminist invasion" is a whole other thing Wiki let them rewrite articles to make up what ever crap they wanted
citations needed ;P

any way to answer your main question it depends some furries would except it others are like "NO! IT NEEDS TO BE LIKE THIS!" and then you have others who think you're a furry for just liking any cartoon animal
I suppose that's always the way of things. Where do you fall on that list?
 

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
citations needed ;P
as for that the articles have been conveniently buried

basically around 2014 at the peak of social justice Wikipedia had a month long event where they invited feminist to alter articles to better reflect "current year" a prime example of this is the entry for Anita Sarkeesian it contains no criticisms nor will they accept any and to this day the article is still locked
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
personally i would look at it as a lazy self insert OC
Why is a were any more of a self-insert than a full anthro? And why would you consider it lazy?
Ideally you'd be putting as much work into the creation of the were-self, and the backstory, and everything as you would creating say a wolf sona. They'd just also sometimes be a regular person from time to time.
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
to me self inserting and wish fulfilment is just really cringy
That...doesn't answer my question. Like, yeah, self-inserts are typically really shitty.
But what makes a were-character more of a self-insert than a fur-character? Fursona's are literally idealized, animal versions of the people who create them.
Or are you just blanket stating that any character, were or fur, is a self insert and you don't like them?
 

GreenZone

Banned
Banned
Fursona's are literally idealized, animal versions of the people who create them.

i don't have a fursona so i can't really comment on that however naturally characters are going to be an extension of ones self however in my case if i was to make a fursona rather than make him some like soldier thing i'd probably go for like a chil uni student or something partially reflecting my uni days where life was a bit simpler and there was a sense of "do and be anything" rather than me as i am now because as exciting as my career may seem the novelty has worn off so that's not a direct self insert

my idea of cringe is when you're like.... actually i need to be sensitive here but my idea of cringy is when you making a charactor that's maybe better looking thinner has money gets the girl/boy etc etc has a sad backstory you know real mary sue type stuff and to be honest a lot of Fursonas are like that
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
i don't have a fursona so i can't really comment on that however naturally characters are going to be an extension of ones self however in my case if i was to make a fursona rather than make him some like soldier thing i'd probably go for like a chil uni student or something partially reflecting my uni days where life was a bit simpler and there was a sense of "do and be anything" rather than me as i am now because as exciting as my career may seem the novelty has worn off so that's not a direct self insert

my idea of cringe is when you're like.... actually i need to be sensitive here but my idea of cringy is when you making a charactor that's maybe better looking thinner has money gets the girl/boy etc etc has a sad backstory you know real mary sue type stuff and to be honest a lot of Fursonas are like that
That's all fine. Characters, sonas or otherwise, should be well rounded. I'm not going to hate a character for being more attractive (which is a weird concept considering the species change) than the creator so long as there are also drawbacks that I guess "make up for" the positive change. And really I don't think making a character who is net better than you that bad either to an extent. Most widely beloved characters are more interesting, better off, and have a better success rate in their endeavors than their creators. Escapism is part of what makes fiction so appealing.

But I still don't feel like you're answering my question. You're giving me a lot of good information about why you don't like self inserts, but you're sidestepping or ignoring the original question about weres as self inserts. Are you saying that weres are more self-inserty than furs, and if so why do you feel that way? Or are you saying that both are the same level of self-inserty and cringy?
 

Diretooth

Dire Wolf and Dragon Therianthrope
Tackling this from multiple points of view: I could see actual werecreatures joining the fandom either for the novelty or because furries are more likely to be accepting of them than mainstream society. Werecreatures as fursonas isn't necessarily lazy. they can be badly done, but they can also be very well done. In my opinion, fursonas aren't strictly about just having a fuzzy avatar and dressing up in costumes, they can be an exploration of yourself, if that exploration takes the route of a werecreature as opposed to just straight up anthro animal, then it's no less valid.
I also like werecreatures more overall, there's something about the aspect of duality that appeals to me more from a storytelling side, the balancing act between what is 'civilized' and what is wild.
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
Tackling this from multiple points of view: I could see actual werecreatures joining the fandom either for the novelty or because furries are more likely to be accepting of them than mainstream society. Werecreatures as fursonas isn't necessarily lazy. they can be badly done, but they can also be very well done. In my opinion, fursonas aren't strictly about just having a fuzzy avatar and dressing up in costumes, they can be an exploration of yourself, if that exploration takes the route of a werecreature as opposed to just straight up anthro animal, then it's no less valid.
I also like werecreatures more overall, there's something about the aspect of duality that appeals to me more from a storytelling side, the balancing act between what is 'civilized' and what is wild.
I think it gets even more interesting when you think about the various types and mythos behind werecreatures. You have the standard werewolf who is basically cursed with a dual nature, but also stories of people who use magic to willingly change into something else. Depending on how you want to run with it, it could be very tragic or very powerful, or both.
 

Diretooth

Dire Wolf and Dragon Therianthrope
There's the scottish Wulver who would leave fish on the windowsills of poor people, a Russian Werewolf who was cursed into the form of a wolf while still retaining sentience, but would be unable to stay with their family for long, the Hounds of God, Ulfhednar... All sorts of interesting lore everywhere.
 

Yvvki

Sassy lesser panda.
From what I have read I think a lot of people who have furies see them more of a fantasy alien race then the actual animal, since their intelligence is humanized.
I think this is why a were beast would fall a little out of place since it is the actual transformation from a human intelligence to an animals, depending on the kind of werewolf ect.

That's just my opinion on it as to why you may get mixed views.
 

Loffi

Well-Known Member
part-time furries
 

Eleven-lyc

Elder Werewolf
A very good question, I think… One that I often find myself asking.
With a werewolf fursona, am I really a furry, or am I seen as more of an outcast? I'd like to think I qualify as a furry; I seem to like roughly the same sorts of things as typical furs, exhibit similar behavior, as well as generally “get” furry fandom. But at the same time, I have occasionally felt like an outsider, someone going by a similar but nonetheless different set of rules, very nearly but not quite part of the whole. If there was a “Furry Test” I can imagine myself just missing on making the grade.
I should probably point out that Eleven is a permanent werewolf, with no human form, so that helps a fair bit.
By the way, if you're interested in werewolf lore, I can wholeheartedly recommend Sabine Baring-Gould's work, The Book of Werewolves, 1885 or thereabouts, and also Montague Summers' work, The Werewolf, 1933, although unfortunately there's a lot of untranslated quotations in the latter. I think I have a (very) short essay on werewolf lore lying around in my FA submissions, largely based off of Baring-Gould's work. Suffice to say, werewolves have changed enormously since about the 1930s.
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
A very good question, I think… One that I often find myself asking.
With a werewolf fursona, am I really a furry, or am I seen as more of an outcast? I'd like to think I qualify as a furry; I seem to like roughly the same sorts of things as typical furs, exhibit similar behavior, as well as generally “get” furry fandom. But at the same time, I have occasionally felt like an outsider, someone going by a similar but nonetheless different set of rules, very nearly but not quite part of the whole. If there was a “Furry Test” I can imagine myself just missing on making the grade.
I should probably point out that Eleven is a permanent werewolf, with no human form, so that helps a fair bit.
By the way, if you're interested in werewolf lore, I can wholeheartedly recommend Sabine Baring-Gould's work, The Book of Werewolves, 1885 or thereabouts, and also Montague Summers' work, The Werewolf, 1933, although unfortunately there's a lot of untranslated quotations in the latter. I think I have a (very) short essay on werewolf lore lying around in my FA submissions, largely based off of Baring-Gould's work. Suffice to say, werewolves have changed enormously since about the 1930s.
Thanks for the response. I'll definitely have to look into those. I'm working on a werewolf girl based off an rpg character of mine and could use some better lore to work off of.

I get what you're saying about being on the cusp of what is typically "furry". On the one hand, the fandom can encompass many things that aren't necessarily traditional or real. Dragon sonas or made up species aren't looked twice at. On the other hand, a were is unique in that it is, at it's core, a human who happens to become an animal during certain situations. So where does it fall?

In my own opinion, I don't feel that the human component should be much of an issue. The backbone of the fandom is humans pretending to be some for of animal. To me then, were's are just an extension of that idea. It is a human literally transforming into the animal as opposed to a creator merely acting as one. And to be fair, transformation is a rather large fetish in the fandom, so that aspect shouldn't be all that frowned upon.
 

kuro.glitterz

New Member
That...doesn't answer my question. Like, yeah, self-inserts are typically really shitty.
But what makes a were-character more of a self-insert than a fur-character? Fursona's are literally idealized, animal versions of the people who create them.
Or are you just blanket stating that any character, were or fur, is a self insert and you don't like them?

I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious. Also from my (limited) experience, I feel like most furries seem pretty creative and open, so I'd think weres would be fine. Personally I think the more creative fursonas are really interesting.
 

SSJ3Mewtwo

Well-Known Member
I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious. Also from my (limited) experience, I feel like most furries seem pretty creative and open, so I'd think weres would be fine. Personally I think the more creative fursonas are really interesting.

Self-insert: using the character as a direct substitution for yourself. Similar to how writers or artists use themselves as characters in the works they create. (I do this myself, actually. My 'sona is me as I picture myself in a cool hybrid body)

Anthro: Another term for furry. 'Furry' can be applied to any non-human character that's been given human characteristics, be they animal or not. Anthro is short for 'anthropomorphic'....which means exactly the same thing. So a lot of times you'll see 'anthro' get subbed for 'furry', and vice-versa.

Given that strict definition, sure, weres count as furry.
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious. Also from my (limited) experience, I feel like most furries seem pretty creative and open, so I'd think weres would be fine. Personally I think the more creative fursonas are really interesting.
Looks like this was already answered, but here's my definitions.

Self Insert- exactly what it says on the tin. Self-inserts are characters who are self-insertions of their creators. If I made a self-insert, I'd be inserting my own self into whatever story I was making. Usually these characters are not just reflections of the self, but idealized versions- being harder, better, faster, stronger, prettier, and/or more talented than the person they're meant to represent. They tend to fall into some pretty bad tropes and can be really lazy if not handled with care. Technically, though, since fursonas are supposed to be animal versions of their makers, they too would fall into this category.

Anthro is short for anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is simply adding human traits (intelligence, speech, bipedal movement, etc) to any non-human creature or object. For example, all the servants in Beauty and the Beast were anthropomorphized household items. Since furries are basically humanized animals, they can also be called anthropomorphic, but that's a mouthful so we just say Anthro. Typically when we say "anthro" we do mean the more human looking characters like the girl in my profile pic. Characters with more animalistic features- walking on all fours, no extra hair, doesn't speak any human language- are typically referred to as "feral".
 

Eleven-lyc

Elder Werewolf
Thanks for the response. I'll definitely have to look into those. I'm working on a werewolf girl based off an rpg character of mine and could use some better lore to work off of.
A new werewolf character concept! Sounds like fun! The books I mentioned though, they may not be of much help in that regard — they detail original werewolf lore and legend, which is very different from how werewolves are seen today. The lycanthropes of today are shaped very much by the stories that have been written about them, in film and books, which I've been steadily collecting. Not to say original werewolf lore isn't interesting, though. I'll happily volunteer if you wanted to bounce around any ideas/thoughts/e.t.c. on the new character you're working on ^^.
I'm still new here and getting used to the lingo. What is a self insert? And anthro (is it a more human version)? Just curious.
GoldenWolf had a really great sketch where she showed her interpretation of the difference between werewolf, anthro wolf, and furry wolf, but she must have taken it down or something as I can no longer find it… It was a great drawing though, I shoulda faved it. I remember the “furry” was drawn with a carton of soda pop, which was a nice touch ^o^. But regardless, I think most use “furry” and “anthro” interchangeably. I find myself more inclined to use “anthro” over “furry” for digitigrade forms, and always “furry” for plantigrade forms.
Oh yeah, and as Ellaerna said, there's “ferals” too, a term usually ascribed to quadruped forms.
…Gosh, so many terms… I think someone even posted a Furry Glossary around here recently XP
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
A new werewolf character concept! Sounds like fun! The books I mentioned though, they may not be of much help in that regard — they detail original werewolf lore and legend, which is very different from how werewolves are seen today. The lycanthropes of today are shaped very much by the stories that have been written about them, in film and books, which I've been steadily collecting. Not to say original werewolf lore isn't interesting, though. I'll happily volunteer if you wanted to bounce around any ideas/thoughts/e.t.c. on the new character you're working on ^^.
She's based on a character I made for a Lovecraft Horror rpg, in which she was raised by a a wolf cult that were obsessed with the pursuit of knowledge. I'm cool with any lore
 
B

BloodyBonez87

Guest
Weres could be considered furries, but they also exist in non-furry fiction, kind of like kitsunes. they are creatures from folklore that happen to spark interest in furries. I also consider certain disney characters and pokemon to be of a similar sort of pseudo-furry creature. What do you think?
 
Top