Fun Facts About Yourself

I've begin to developing an obsession of seeing crying picture during 2013, then. I've fully become a crying fetishist (dacryphilia).
 
^all those ask.fm's
such horror

Whenever I look at a specific pinpointed place on a map, I can always memorize and recall where it is next time I see an unlabeled one. For some reason though I'm not that good at memorizing things like flashcards, etc.
 
I have never 100%'ed any game in my entire life cause I suck.
 
Marilith said:
Super Smash Misty said:
Marilith said:
Super Smash Misty said:
Marilith said:
I'm the only kid at my school to have a mustache. :P
Click to expand...
but you're eleven
Click to expand...
Yeah I realize that.
Click to expand...
eleven-year-olds aren't supposed to have moustaches
Click to expand...
It depends.
Click to expand...
no you either have peach fuzz or are starting to grow a mustache. got my first hairs when i was like 9 so you probably have 1/4 of a mustache
 
1: Everyone in my family likes sushi... Except for me.

2: I'm actually taller than everyone else in my family, bar my brother who is about the same height as me. I'm currently 5'9~5'10 and 16 years old. =P

3: I'm actually a furry. ;P
 
MidnaFreak said:
Timmy said:
I'm actually a furry.
Click to expand...

I'm not into that myself but I've always thought it's a pretty cool fetish.
Click to expand...
I tried to do that but made like six fursonas and gave up cause I couldn't pick a fursona, then I read what each animal meant your personality was and didn't find one that was like me. I got a Dragon on one internet quiz, but it wasn't that accurate and Tiger on another, which was the same. I guess people have different sorts of opinions on what the choice of animal means about you.
 
Well I'm pretty sure liking animals that walk on two legs that should be on four that wear clothes isn't a Rule 11 kind of fetish.
 
I'm pretty sure you don't become a furry based on a BuzzFeed quiz. You also don't need a fursona.

Here, the internet got me a gr8 thing to quote at you:

What The Crap Is Even Furry?

by RickGriffin, Apr 3, 2014, 7:28:33 PM
Journals / Personal

I think sometimes it gets confusing when we're discussing "furry" because the word covers several different definitions and literally nobody wants to be left out of including their Doom cyberdemon fancharacter and who are you to judge, anyhow?

Being an english major with an interest in linguistics, I find this is simultaneously a boon--as the lack of solid definitions for any of these prevents people from being shoved out the door for failing to meet that definition . . . but at the same time, it causes an enormous amount of confusion when we're talking past each other saying two (or fourteen) entirely different things with the same word.

Furry as it is used commonly means:

1 - The furry fandom in general. What this necessarily encompasses is hard to pin down; to some people you have to actually accept yourself as part of the fandom, but it's also possible to be a big fat geek about it and clearly be in denial of whether or not you are a furry.

1a - People who have freaky sex at conventions in costume. Usually the definition by people who literally have no idea what furry is and want something to ridicule, usually considered the unfair categorization inside the fandom as it reduces the breadth of the fandom to a few outliers. (people who do have freaky costume sex at conventions do not do so because they are furry so much as they like freaky costume sex and also furry seems to dovetail with that. They might "own" this definition but it's not any more correct/exclusive than others)

1 corollary - People who believe in an animal/nonhuman spiritual side to themselves--otherkin, totemists, skinwalkers, actual werewolves, etc. EXCEPT that very often the people who fall under these categories do not belong to the fandom in any other aspect. This does not exclude them from being furry, but it's usually incorrect to assume that it's invariably associated with furry. This is not a common definition because most people who make this confusion, I think, merely don't know there IS a distinction. Very few people INSIST on this definition.

2 - An anthropomorphic character made in the fandom, speaking exclusively. For some definitions, since furry is a fandom, furry characters are only encompassed by the fandom, and characters outside the fandom are not furry.

3 - An anthropomorphic character, speaking broadly. The fox version of Robin Hood was never intended for the fandom but still appeals to the fandom, as does the mythological god Anubis, etc; although some might argue the point, a completely identical fancharacter WOULD be considered furry, so . . .

3a - An anthropomorphic character that is sexualized AND NOT funny animal characters.People outside the fandom that perceive it as full of undesirables will usually insist on this definition, although it usually reduces to "Stay away from my childhood you perverts!" Not usually taken as a real definition inside the fandom as a basis for exclusion, only to differentiate the house style from classic funny animals. (see 4 corollary)

4 - An anthropomorphic character that sticks to the mode of the fandom. That is, the "house style" as I've been calling it, where you have a animal face put on a human body first, then usually comes body covering, a tail, animal feet, claws instead of finger nails, etc. to varying degrees depending on the taste of the artist. Basically this sticks to one kind of animal, but there's also nothing stopping hybrids or fictional species from getting the anthro treatment.

4 corollary - This has literally nothing to do with what some people draw as a dividing line between "furry" as in fandom-appealing, and their personal "not furry" category, such as werewolves. Within the fandom, if the werewolf fits the house style (wolf head AND NOT classic movie style, although see 7), it's usually furry whether you want the association or not. Any specific division of definitions here are on a per-person basis and are not usually accepted by the fandom at large.

4 corollary 2 - The degree to which any given character is described or detailed in hard sci-fi explanations, "realism", NON-realism, "tooniness", any kind of created-world explanations or lack thereof, ties to mythology, folklore, literary precedent, etc. also has very little to do with defining "furry" itself.

4a - Said mode of the fandom including non-animal objects being treated like they were superficially animals. Again, this usually starts with altering the face in order to fit the "house style" rather than pasting a ladyface onto the front of an aircraft carrier. (see 8 )

4b - Said mode of the fandom including additions of sci-fi biology/mythology such as centaur bodies, etc. This is just an extension of "hybrids"; I'm only mentioning it to make sure it's covered even though it starts to get distant from "human".

4c - Invented fictional species that are not intended to be "human" or any particular animal or mythological creature, but nonetheless bear traits similar to that of the fandom mode, especially if they were invented inside the fandom (sergals, etc)

5 - The mode of the fandom plus "feral" characters. Anthropomorphism can literally be reduced to something having ANY human traits applied to it, so you only need to meet that minimum requirement. Or not. Some furries are very interested in non-human things, so they don't want their real-animal characters excluded. (Because "furry" brings to mind animals, not anthropomorphism). May include characters like, say, Godzilla, who are ambiguously anthropomorphic.

6 - The mode of the fandom only if they have fur. I find this one needlessly pedantic, even though I'm perfectly fine with the term scaley (settle on a spelling please) or avian.

7 - Any character with any degree of animal traits whatsoever, including aliens with animal traits, regular centaurs, mermaids, all sorts of mythological beasts that fall outside the fandom "mode", Naruto, etc. I find this one too broad not because I want the people who like this out of the fandom or anything, but usually it's because it's not what I'm talking about when I talk about furry . . . but really, what the crap do I know

8 - Any character with any degree of nonhuman traits whatsoever. This includes non-animal-like aliens, fey, humans with skin made of rock, Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, etc. Which this technically all fits the definition of anthropomorphism, it's so far away from common "furry" that I have no idea why people need to muddle the definition on this point. Should they be excluded from the FANDOM? No, of course not; besides just "animals" furry is often about an appreciation for human traits applied to nonhuman things. In the most broad sense, furry IS just an extension of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just a reaction to the human-centric mainstream.

But if definition 8 covers the possible extent of the entire discussion, then why is it that we're using the same terminology for it and much, much smaller subcategories?
Click to expand...

Have fun.
 
What I meant was just an anthropomorphic animal that someone creates and pretends they are that animal.

Wow we're derailing this thing. Let's get back on track.

I own over 200 plush toys from a collection of fandoms.
 
Morty said:
What The Crap Is Even Furry?

by RickGriffin, Apr 3, 2014, 7:28:33 PM
Journals / Personal

I think sometimes it gets confusing when we're discussing "furry" because the word covers several different definitions and literally nobody wants to be left out of including their Doom cyberdemon fancharacter and who are you to judge, anyhow?

Being an english major with an interest in linguistics, I find this is simultaneously a boon--as the lack of solid definitions for any of these prevents people from being shoved out the door for failing to meet that definition . . . but at the same time, it causes an enormous amount of confusion when we're talking past each other saying two (or fourteen) entirely different things with the same word.

Furry as it is used commonly means:

1 - The furry fandom in general. What this necessarily encompasses is hard to pin down; to some people you have to actually accept yourself as part of the fandom, but it's also possible to be a big fat geek about it and clearly be in denial of whether or not you are a furry.

1a - People who have freaky sex at conventions in costume. Usually the definition by people who literally have no idea what furry is and want something to ridicule, usually considered the unfair categorization inside the fandom as it reduces the breadth of the fandom to a few outliers. (people who do have freaky costume sex at conventions do not do so because they are furry so much as they like freaky costume sex and also furry seems to dovetail with that. They might "own" this definition but it's not any more correct/exclusive than others)

1 corollary - People who believe in an animal/nonhuman spiritual side to themselves--otherkin, totemists, skinwalkers, actual werewolves, etc. EXCEPT that very often the people who fall under these categories do not belong to the fandom in any other aspect. This does not exclude them from being furry, but it's usually incorrect to assume that it's invariably associated with furry. This is not a common definition because most people who make this confusion, I think, merely don't know there IS a distinction. Very few people INSIST on this definition.

2 - An anthropomorphic character made in the fandom, speaking exclusively. For some definitions, since furry is a fandom, furry characters are only encompassed by the fandom, and characters outside the fandom are not furry.

3 - An anthropomorphic character, speaking broadly. The fox version of Robin Hood was never intended for the fandom but still appeals to the fandom, as does the mythological god Anubis, etc; although some might argue the point, a completely identical fancharacter WOULD be considered furry, so . . .

3a - An anthropomorphic character that is sexualized AND NOT funny animal characters.People outside the fandom that perceive it as full of undesirables will usually insist on this definition, although it usually reduces to "Stay away from my childhood you perverts!" Not usually taken as a real definition inside the fandom as a basis for exclusion, only to differentiate the house style from classic funny animals. (see 4 corollary)

4 - An anthropomorphic character that sticks to the mode of the fandom. That is, the "house style" as I've been calling it, where you have a animal face put on a human body first, then usually comes body covering, a tail, animal feet, claws instead of finger nails, etc. to varying degrees depending on the taste of the artist. Basically this sticks to one kind of animal, but there's also nothing stopping hybrids or fictional species from getting the anthro treatment.

4 corollary - This has literally nothing to do with what some people draw as a dividing line between "furry" as in fandom-appealing, and their personal "not furry" category, such as werewolves. Within the fandom, if the werewolf fits the house style (wolf head AND NOT classic movie style, although see 7), it's usually furry whether you want the association or not. Any specific division of definitions here are on a per-person basis and are not usually accepted by the fandom at large.

4 corollary 2 - The degree to which any given character is described or detailed in hard sci-fi explanations, "realism", NON-realism, "tooniness", any kind of created-world explanations or lack thereof, ties to mythology, folklore, literary precedent, etc. also has very little to do with defining "furry" itself.

4a - Said mode of the fandom including non-animal objects being treated like they were superficially animals. Again, this usually starts with altering the face in order to fit the "house style" rather than pasting a ladyface onto the front of an aircraft carrier. (see 8 )

4b - Said mode of the fandom including additions of sci-fi biology/mythology such as centaur bodies, etc. This is just an extension of "hybrids"; I'm only mentioning it to make sure it's covered even though it starts to get distant from "human".

4c - Invented fictional species that are not intended to be "human" or any particular animal or mythological creature, but nonetheless bear traits similar to that of the fandom mode, especially if they were invented inside the fandom (sergals, etc)

5 - The mode of the fandom plus "feral" characters. Anthropomorphism can literally be reduced to something having ANY human traits applied to it, so you only need to meet that minimum requirement. Or not. Some furries are very interested in non-human things, so they don't want their real-animal characters excluded. (Because "furry" brings to mind animals, not anthropomorphism). May include characters like, say, Godzilla, who are ambiguously anthropomorphic.

6 - The mode of the fandom only if they have fur. I find this one needlessly pedantic, even though I'm perfectly fine with the term scaley (settle on a spelling please) or avian.

7 - Any character with any degree of animal traits whatsoever, including aliens with animal traits, regular centaurs, mermaids, all sorts of mythological beasts that fall outside the fandom "mode", Naruto, etc. I find this one too broad not because I want the people who like this out of the fandom or anything, but usually it's because it's not what I'm talking about when I talk about furry . . . but really, what the crap do I know

8 - Any character with any degree of nonhuman traits whatsoever. This includes non-animal-like aliens, fey, humans with skin made of rock, Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, etc. Which this technically all fits the definition of anthropomorphism, it's so far away from common "furry" that I have no idea why people need to muddle the definition on this point. Should they be excluded from the FANDOM? No, of course not; besides just "animals" furry is often about an appreciation for human traits applied to nonhuman things. In the most broad sense, furry IS just an extension of sci-fi and fantasy, it's just a reaction to the human-centric mainstream.

But if definition 8 covers the possible extent of the entire discussion, then why is it that we're using the same terminology for it and much, much smaller subcategories?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok, so I know that I shouldn't go off-topic again, kind of a side effect of being on MJ for too long, but I just wanted to say that this guy really knows what he is talking about it is pretty much 100% accurate. That is all.

And to go back on topic, I tried Sonic's Jalapeño Chocolate Shake and I loved it.
 
According to several people I'd make a good comedian. So one day I'm going to get up on a stage and try it out.
 
i have to get cases for pretty much everything bc i'm clumsy

just look at my 3ds the back cover can't pop back in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back