Q:I am a bit confused. You like Anthromorphic artwork. Why don't you think of yourself as a furry (yep, said it.. the five-lettered f-word). It isn't a negative thing. It is like being called a geek/nerd for liking RPGs and Gaming. It is specifically the word that is used to say, hey I like anthro stuff.
No. It’s just not an identity I can adopt. I respect those who have - but I am happy being myself without another persona to put on top of it.
I think the separation is that I like art and I like sexual art. I love a good story or taboo to go with the images. Human or fur does not matter to me. In my mind I see beings engaging in sex. I can read a whole story and never realize what animal type the artist was going for. I saw a male, a penis, beefy proportions, a belly, some slurping, swallowing, fucking, and spurting.
It’s not a negative thing for me to adopt - it is just not what I am consuming when I look at fur art. I am not specifically attracted to the animal aspect in anyway. I am actually distracted and turned off the more animalistic the art work becomes. Dog legs, long necks, horse penises, horns, higher set protruding ears - all that actually distracts and makes the art less enjoyable sometimes. Look at the art I reblog and you will find it is mostly very very human.
Class comics has a lot of human character’d comics. They release a few comics a month. But the stuff I want to read - they release about one a year. They don’t have nearly enough beefy, hairy, bellied men. Most of it is twinks in spandex. Ugh. I want more Logan art, specifically.
But the furry community has produced VASTLY more art and put it out there mostly for free. They have a passion for it. Its not being sold to target the biggest audience of purchasers in the gay community. Fur-artists are focused and true to their own and their fans tastes - be damned of reaching a bigger audience. Thus I can consume way more art on Furaffinity in an hour than I can with published porn art in a year. Best - the art will have a presentation that is pleasing to my eye - big beefy men.
My mind kind kinda goes through and strips out the fur part - and all I see are sexual beings with penises. The nuance of thick proportions, strong jaws, ballies, meaty accents enhances my consumption of it by allowing me to imagine my ideal.
Another example - take PJ and Pete from Goof Troop. Lots of art about them. I am not even sure what animal they are based on. I think Disney says cat, but he’s also been the Big Bad Wolf and some kind of dog. I do not know. I see a chubby dad and chubby son. And then I let the story that goes with the art work take it from there. Achem.. you know what I mean.
I get it - the art is made by furries, for furries, with furries and the range of what is considered a furry goes from those that dress in costume and have fursonas all the way down to those that simply consume their culture.
I don’t know who made up such a stupid rule. Just because I enjoy art of French girls art does not make me French or a girl or even straight. just because I enjoy listening to gangsta rap does not make me gangasta. But this rule of “to consume the fur is to be the fur” - every kid who grew up looking at Disney could fall into this. It just seems like a cultural rule to gimmick people into identifying with the minority. Like saying that just because a guy sucks dick in the park once a year should be considered gay, even though he has zero cultural ties to the community.
I don’t agree, but whatever I have to be called in this community is fine - what ever keeps these talented people producing in this medium. I will pay to keep this art going because I appreciate the artists.. I respect their furry community.. and I love consuming sexual cultural artifacts of all kinds.
But in the realm of being true to myself - I am a human and I am looking at artwork and getting off.