playing as the animal

05/05/2014

What are ‘furries’? Furries are people who utilize their spare time to masquerade as animal-like creatures and interact with others in similar guise, whether the interaction is physical or online. Maria Carlson describes the subculture concisely in her work ‘Furry Cartography: Performing Species’ as “people who enjoy anthropomorphic art and fiction, even taking on animal identities themselves; some are involved in role-playing games; many use online avatars to perform in virtual space, and then sometimes perform in actual space by donning ears, tails, or complete fur suits at fan conventions.”[1]

As noted by Carlson, furries use elaborate ‘fur suits’ to physically achieve an animal-like appearance and have certain codes and conventions in their animal-imitation behaviour. It is a subculture that mostly originates from the Internet and Internet forums, although there are also conventions/meet-ups in which furries partake. 

Furries attend these meet-ups regaled in their personally created fur-suits, anonymous under the cartoonish fur creature they have constructed around their own human bodies. There is also a culture of amateur art/drawing in this rather subjugated furry community. Furry art is sometimes pornographic in nature and can portray explicit depictions of anthropometric characters, usually the imagined ‘identities’ of the partakers. Although highly praised by peers if skilfully done, the art of the furry community is not intended for the sole purpose of visual pleasure but of fantasy appropriation of the animal characters that it depicts. It is the act of making the art, not the final product that interests the involved, because by making the art they are implicating themselves within the fantastical scenario, becoming one with their fur character through the act of making the image.

When browsing the pages of popular web-based amateur art communities such as ‘Deviant Art’ it is hard to avoid the barrage of furry inspired imagery, a testament to the prolific nature of the Furry community. Furry art is often a way in which active members of the community can truly become or envision the anthropometric character with which they relate to - their ‘fur’ selves or ‘fursonas’. Unlike the fur-suits, which are by no means crude and take a significant amount of labour to complete, they show a complete and fully realised animal/human hybrid that is simply not possible to portray in the real world without highly advanced genetic manipulation, a current impossibility. The art is often suggestive or even blankly pornographic in nature. The general aesthetics of ‘furries’ in these art pieces are generally similar looking, due to constant web proliferation of the work creating a canon around the typical appearance of the fur character. They are usually, and expectedly given their name, covered entirely with fur. Their bodies are generally humanoid, stood upright on two feet, but with the additions of tails and animal head. The human partition of their bodies has exaggerated ‘attractive’ human anatomy. The males are often chiselled and muscled to great effect, and have increasingly enlarged male sexual organs, proudly displaying their pronounced animal virility. Females have large and curvaceous breasts, also covered with fur that erases the nipples. They are conventionally attractive in their proportions, seemingly ripped from the pages of ‘Men’s Health’ and ‘Sport Illustrated’ then embellished with feline or canine heads, tails and fur. These animals are never naturally coloured; often their fur is bright blue, or red, adding another fantastical element to the mix.

The artists thrill in showing their characters in the act of mating in these community art pieces. Their actions are often a strange hybrid, like their appearances, of human and animal. They embrace, kiss, and locked together in romantic positions similar to those found on the covers of Mills and Boone epics. Then, in the more explicit and ambitious art pieces, they rut like real animals, without a trace of the bizarre human tenderness afforded them by more sanitised art pieces.

Despite the definite lean in furry art towards sexually charged or explicit work, many furries furiously refute that their practises are sexually based or exercises in perversity. They claim that their interest in both creating furry art and partaking in actual physical imitation of fur character this is a way for participants to live out their inner selves, to become who they truly feel they are, an animal. It is not perverse; it is merely an exploration of their inner identity. They align themselves with the animal but are not content to keep this idea on the inside; they want an outward display of their animal selves. They want to become the animal. 

Often dubbed as one of the most hated groups on the Internet, disdain towards furries often stems from the sexual element of their fantasy play and the disgust that arises when placing the concept of the ‘pet’ or animal in the same area of human sexuality. Yet despite protestations, it is quite undeniable that a lot of furry culture has a distinctly sexual edge. The conventions of their role-playing actions are quite obviously sexual. The practise of ‘yiffing’ is probably the greatest example of this. ‘Yiffing’ is the word to describe mimed carnal action of the participants. The activities may not merely be mimed. By creating an animal that stands on its hind legs, could it be argued that they are immediately sexualised? The action of standing exposes the normally hidden genitals, forcing the gender of the animal/human hybrid into the frame, to be explicitly known. The act of standing imposes a forthright sense of humanity upon the hybrid, automatically entrenching it in feral sexuality.

So are furries species disordered or simply animal fetishists? This is a question is still being debated in the literature. They are portrayed by the media largely as fetishists or perverts; plot devices to inspire disgust in their audiences. Carlson describes the subcultures demonization in popular media, explaining that it hampered her own research within the subculture as many were reluctant to share their views with her due to the social stigma of their practise- “A sensationalist emphasis on furry sex, while hardly surprising, has made the fandom media shy. ‘Yiff,’ which refers to sex or pornography, is the most familiar and notorious aspect of the fandom, often known through the 2003 CSI episode “Fur and Loathing” (in Las Vegas) and similar treatments on MTV, ER, and in the popular press.”[2] Furries are also consistently derided on the Internet; ironically also the place that this marginalised community has flourished.

It is unfair to unite the ‘furry’ subculture along with people who are understandably reviled for exhibiting a sexual interest in actual animals and those who practise bestiality. The characters that furries inhabit and are interested in are strictly not real animals. They are fantasy creations, half human, half animal, with no relation or similarity to the family dog or cat. However, could this be a diversion from true interests? It could be, as claimed by repulsed observers of furry art or conventions, a way to subtly temper the taboo, to make an attraction to animals seem palatable to allay guilt away from the participants.

Many furries claim that ‘Species Identity Disorder’ drives them in their activities.  This is the belief that a person has been born into the wrong species. Probyn-Rapsey collected information that reflected this thought, stating that “While the researchers insist that beneath the suit lies the “real” human, the furry might believe something quite different. As one furry puts it: “See, we aren’t pretending to be furry; a furry is what we really are. The human being is what we are stuck with.” [3] It is not a particularly new or uncommon path of thought for humans, especially marginalised ones who can find no place in society. They wish for another, more powerful and simple body. A better, more basic way of life in which they are free of human responsibility and have the ability to behave with complete recklessness, with the acceptance to engage with the basest desires- animal violence, animal sex. The life of an animal is desirable because it allows complete symbolic freedom, not only in the terms of autonomy but also in behaviour.

With this thought we shall return to the fur-suit, a crucial element of the furry subculture and perhaps the key to understanding the underlying urges of those who wish to play as animals. Fur suits are an expensive part of Furry subculture, as Carlson describes through her interviews “When Renard Foxx first attended FWA three years earlier he talked with some fursuiters and observed how much fun they were having. He saved $700 to buy his partial fursuit of head, arms, and tail, but plans to build another one himself. Millie the Jackalope builds suits both for herself and on commission, charging about $400. The partial suit that she was wearing cost only about $50, and that expense will not increase for the full suit, since she already has all the materials […] At the higher end of the price range, an inheritance enabled Zorin Fox to buy his fursuit for about $1,600 shortly before this convention.”[4]  

For many, however, the fur suit is not just an expensive costume. As Healy and Beverland surmised “For many Spiritual Furs, the construction of a fur-suit is a ritual used to manifest the animal spirit with which they perceive themselves to share a relationship. These elements identify Furrydom as a type of spiritual experience. Its practitioners engage in the creation of a ‘free subject’ drawing from different (and sometimes contradictory) methodologies of religious and mythic beliefs to form a synthesis of agreed meaning to achieve self-actualisation “[5] With this, the action of donning a fursuit becomes less united with fetish wear and costume, with strange sexual deviancy and more united with Freud’s understanding of the animal Totem.[6] The totem animal is the symbol of the tribe, the mythical and magical creature with which the tribe aligns itself. The totem is a god who imbues its cult members with its powers of violence and it’s perceived wisdom. It gives the tribe a pass to behave ‘as an animal would’, be it in battle or otherwise. The use of the totem was a worldwide phenomenon.

Derrida’s described othering of the animal leads marginalized or ‘misunderstood’ groups in western society to identify with the pet or animal and go as far as to create elaborate suits for themselves which are intended both as costume and as manifestation of their ‘real selves’.  This is deeply apparent in Furry culture, with Healy stating “One common narrative among Furries involves notions of escape. Although some Furries are seeking to escape the modern world and material concerns, this escapism is not viewed as a temporary respite; rather, this narrative is a first step towards self-authentication. In these narratives, Furries discuss pre-cultural or even fantastical times, often as part of a personal sense-making strategy to understand one’s felt disconnection from the modern world.”[7] The disconnection felt by the group, the lack in society for a place, leads to an alignment with the animal, the figure of which is also displaced by Cartesian society.

Derrida asks the difference between a nude human and a nude animal- what happens when these states converge? There is a huge paradox in the Furry action of clothing themselves in the fur-suit. By adding more clothing to their appearance, the fur suit costume, they are becoming the ‘naked’ animal. “The animal, therefore, is not naked because it is naked. It doesn't feel its own nudity. There is no nudity "in nature." There is only the senti-ment, the affect, the (conscious or unconscious) experience of existing in nakedness.”[8] Instead of the shame of nudity felt by Derrida, those who involve themselves in Furry culture feel the shame of being clothed, of being a human who is aware of their embarrassing nudity. The addition of the fur-suit makes them nude, but in the animal sense, unaware, unashamed. By clothing oneself in the fur-suit, not only outer but inner transformation occurs. In ‘Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives’ Healy and Beverland note “For many Spiritual Furs, the construction of a fursuit is a ritual used to manifest the animal spirit with which they perceive themselves to share a relationship. These elements identify Furrydom as a type of spiritual experience. Its practitioners engage in the creation of a ‘free subject’ drawing from different (and sometimes contradictory) methodologies of religious and mythic beliefs to form a synthesis of agreed meaning to achieve self-actualisation.“[9] Therefore the fur suit allows, by its addition, a reduction in humanity due to its ritual properties.

Why do the misfits and marginalized of society constantly align themselves with animals? It cannot just be the yearning for an animal’s ability to escape scrutiny, to be feral; to attack whomever they please and to travel wherever they wish. It must also be the process of othering that the figure of the animal has had imposed upon it that appeals to those who feel that they have no place within their own society. As noted by Healy “We may delight in the antics of our animal companions because their lack of rationality reflects a deep desire to engage taboo desires.”[10] There is also an implication of violence when a marginalized member of society relates to a member of the animal kingdom. Why are the animals chosen always violently capable creatures, like bears, or most commonly wolves? Is it their aggressiveness, their capability towards attack? A wolf could kill a human enemy with ease and without remorse. A wolf has no qualms about blood or carnage.

Some may argue that Furries do not want to be animals. It is merely a source of small escape from their uninspiring lives, just a play before they return back to human mundanity. It is an act that they undergo, in the weekends, a strange hobby. Carlson regards Furry behaviour not as ritual or species transformation but as performance- “Some furries care deeply about nonhuman species and others want to experience life as a cartoon animal; but the furries with whom I have spoken all describe a sort of engagement with humans that animal masquerade frees them to experience.”[11]. Healy and Beverland think similarly, proposing that Furries “deploy animal spirits as one means of achieving the authentic self against a background of postmodern fragmentation and disconnection.”[12] In other words, Furries do not wish to become animals altogether. They are just enacting a brief respite from the horrible boredom of humanity.

In conclusion, the self-awareness of Furry culture wins out against their desire to become animal. They understand the futile nature of their practise. You can clothe yourself as animal. You can frame yourself as animal. You can draw pictures of the inner animal engaging in primal activities that exists within your mind, waiting to be set free on the pages of websites but the end is never achieved. In Derrida’s work he describes this aching inability we feel in our pursuit of the animal - “Crossing borders or the ends of man I come or surrender to the animal-to the animal in itself, to the animal in me and the animal at unease with itself, to the man about which Nietzsche said (I no longer remember where) something to the effect that it was an as yet undetermined animal, an animal lacking in itself.”[13] By miming the animal, you cannot be an animal. As an animal that lacks in itself, we can never fully ingratiate with their kind.

[1] Carlson, Marla. "Furry Cartography: Performing Species." Theatre Journal 63, no. 2 (2011): 191-208.

[2] Carlson, Marla. "Furry Cartography: Performing Species." Theatre Journal 63, no. 2 (2011): 191-208.

[3] Probyn-Rapsey, Fiona. "Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi et al.." Society and Animals 19, no. 3 (2011): 294-301.

[4] Carlson, Marla. "Furry Cartography: Performing Species." Theatre Journal 63, no. 2 (2011): 191-208.

[5] Healy, Michael John, and Michael B. Beverland. "Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2 (2013): 225-248.

[6] Freud, Sigmund. Totem and taboo; some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics.. New York: Norton, 1952.

[7] Healy, Michael John, and Michael B. Beverland. "Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2 (2013): 225-248.

[8] Derrida, Jacques, and David Wills. "The Animal That Therefore I Am (More To Follow)." Critical Inquiry 28, no. 2 (2002): 369.

[9] Healy, Michael John, and Michael B. Beverland. "Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2 (2013): 225-248.

[10] Healy, Michael John, and Michael B. Beverland. "Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2 (2013): 225-248.

[11] Carlson, Marla. "Furry Cartography: Performing Species." Theatre Journal 63, no. 2 (2011): 191-208.

[12] Healy, Michael John, and Michael B. Beverland. "Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2 (2013): 225-248.

[13] Derrida, Jacques, and David Wills. "The Animal That Therefore I Am (More To Follow)." Critical Inquiry 28, no. 2 (2002): 369.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carlson, Marla. "Furry Cartography: Performing Species." Theatre Journal 63, no. 2 (2011): 191-208.

Derrida, Jacques, and David Wills. "The Animal That Therefore I Am (More To Follow)." Critical Inquiry 28, no. 2 (2002): 369.

Freud, Sigmund. Totem and taboo; some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics.. New York: Norton, 1952.

Gerbasi, Kathleen C., Nicholas Paolone, Justin Higner, Laura L. Scaletta, Penny L. Bernstein, Samuel Conway, and Adam Privitera. "Furries From A To Z (Anthropomorphism To Zoomorphism)." Society and Animals 16, no. 3 (2008): 197-222.

Gerbasi, Kathleen C., Laura L. Scaletta, C. Nuka Plante, and Penny L. Bernstein. "Why so FURious? Rebuttal of Dr. Fiona Probyn-RSociety and Animals 19, no. 3 (2011): 302-304.

Healy, Michael John, and Michael B. Beverland. "Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers zoomorphic identity motives." Journal of Marketing Management 29, no. 1-2 (2013): 225-248.

Probyn-Rapsey, Fiona. "Furries and the Limits of Species Identity Disorder: A Response to Gerbasi et al.." Society and Animals 19, no. 3 (2011): 294-301.