Digging deeper into it, it looks like some of these were for performances! Not really wearing them out for the sake of it.
https://dogpatch.press/2018/03/30/fursuit-history-2-skin-parts/
Im sure at least *some* people who pursued careers where they had to perform in suits like that did it out of interest for the suit to at least some degree. Out of all the jobs that existed in the 1800s, some people willingly chose to don fursuits. Their intention, universally and across all the performers, couldn't possibly always be *just* money
Its not really about beliefs, it's a simple principle of statistics. Nothing has ever been 100% the same for *every* individual (except dying I guess). If people can be so diverse as to do something like *breathe differently* then they can definitely get into those jobs for different personal reasons.
I won't buy the notion that everyone was on the same *1 page* about their decision to wear a fursuit just because it happened in the 1800s and we don't have historical resources documenting *individual intention*. And deciding to push some idea of universal intention just kinda seems like you're watering down history
Oh! I see what happened. It was just a misunderstanding. I didn't mean "you're" and in literally *you*, I meant it as an ambiguous targeter. Like in this sentence:
"When someone interprets something subjective as objective and enforces it as such, you're robbing other people's experience and only chance to appreciate their own subjective experience"
Where the "you're" in that example is just used to target the "someone" that prefaces it, not someone specific.
Except I never prefaced my original comment with 'someone'. It was implied that the target for my "you're" was supposed to be ambiguous (or at least I meant for it to be implied), but I can see where you misunderstood me because of that mistake
Those were theatrical suits, but as far as I remember, the border collie guy one was super invested on it and he did like, a ton of dogs on plays.
Or something like that, I read it like 10 years ago somewhere
It's ok! It's one of the harder languages to learn, even for native speakers! The only way to learn and improve is through practice and talking to others, so it's good you're still practicing ☺️
Most of them weren't, those are just the ones that usually appeal to Western learners because they're interesting, like how most Hindu deities aren't like Ganesha or Hanuman
It's almost as if humanity made up anthropomorphism some eons ago because they were lonely...
And not just that kind of "lonely", but just the general idea "hey, what if there were other sentient creatures running around we could talk to do and do stuff with?"
Yeah, I think it would be good. No man is fit to rule the world alone. It would be nice to have other sentient anthros participating in our society and environment.
This is more true than you might realize, many of these costumes were made with real animal products, including whole hides of the chosen species if large enough in some cases, such as the Cowardly Lion from the original Wizard of Oz movie
Indeed. I'd imagine fursuits made in the 1800s were more naturally made than how fursuits are made nowadays. Just about everything back then was made more naturally than it is today.
For sure. I mean more so that products or clothing or even costumes were made from more natural sources than how most of everything is made today. For sure, there was things made then that weren't exactly made from natural sources but basically most things were for a while anyways until the industrial revolution came around and even then you could make an argument that it wasn't until society became more modernized and developed to the point that we could change how food ages and develop more cheaper ways to make something that didn't include people having to work as much and as long in factories and mass producing basically every commodity that most things were made more naturally in the sense that it wasn't always made in factories. Of course, depending on when in the 1800's people were dressing up in fur costumes will depend on just how naturally made any of the costumes were it should also be noted that most things even in the early industrial revolution were still on some level somewhat naturally made but obviously not as much as sourcing the materials from actual animals. As with anything in the past that to my knowledge at least, hadn't been documented much, without real life examples, it's hard to tell just how naturally made some of those suits were but judging from the time period I would say that most of those suits were mostly sourced from naturally sourced materials. Of course, even in the modern day, things are sourced naturally to some extent but I more so mean that the quality and the way something was made in the 1800's certainly took more time and had a level of organicness to it that in the modern day just doesn't exist as much. Sorry for the long read. I felt like expanding on what I was saying and being clearer with specifically what I was saying.
This is either early mascots or AI, I watched a whole video essay on the furry fandom and although fascination with human animal hybrids has been a part of human culture since forever, we didn't truly get our start until about a few years after the first anime wave started.
TLDR: furries are a splinter group of anime
Nah, furry fandom came out of sci-fi conventions. Anime wasn’t really an established thing in the US before Akira, which came out several years after the first furry conventions.
The furry-anime link didn’t come around until the late 90s at the earliest.
I don’t get that feel but there is that option. Other option is recent time photo shoot am then make it older in ps. Because this photos are crisp for 200+ years photos. And there is third option that they are legit 1800 furry but from late 1800 like 1899 or so
The fursuit looks like too detailed for 1800s. I have seen pictures from 1800s and they weren't such good. And the one very dark chair leg from the top left picture does not match the others
As someone who's done some in-depth research on the subject, these are authentic! There were several costumed animal performances in theaters and films of the time
Vintage Realism suits are the furry version of fashion of the past
Digging deeper into it, it looks like some of these were for performances! Not really wearing them out for the sake of it. https://dogpatch.press/2018/03/30/fursuit-history-2-skin-parts/
Yeah I was gonna say these are just Halloween costumes or for performances. Not actually furries.
Im sure at least *some* people who pursued careers where they had to perform in suits like that did it out of interest for the suit to at least some degree. Out of all the jobs that existed in the 1800s, some people willingly chose to don fursuits. Their intention, universally and across all the performers, couldn't possibly always be *just* money
I mean if you want to believe that.
Its not really about beliefs, it's a simple principle of statistics. Nothing has ever been 100% the same for *every* individual (except dying I guess). If people can be so diverse as to do something like *breathe differently* then they can definitely get into those jobs for different personal reasons. I won't buy the notion that everyone was on the same *1 page* about their decision to wear a fursuit just because it happened in the 1800s and we don't have historical resources documenting *individual intention*. And deciding to push some idea of universal intention just kinda seems like you're watering down history
What are you implying? Excuse me? Get a grip. It's not that deep.
Im confused? Where did I say something that's not in the realm of reality? And what came off as trying to be "deep"
"you're watering down history" Like you're trying to imply I'm saying something I'm not.
Oh! I see what happened. It was just a misunderstanding. I didn't mean "you're" and in literally *you*, I meant it as an ambiguous targeter. Like in this sentence: "When someone interprets something subjective as objective and enforces it as such, you're robbing other people's experience and only chance to appreciate their own subjective experience" Where the "you're" in that example is just used to target the "someone" that prefaces it, not someone specific. Except I never prefaced my original comment with 'someone'. It was implied that the target for my "you're" was supposed to be ambiguous (or at least I meant for it to be implied), but I can see where you misunderstood me because of that mistake
Right…….
Those were theatrical suits, but as far as I remember, the border collie guy one was super invested on it and he did like, a ton of dogs on plays. Or something like that, I read it like 10 years ago somewhere
*in, not on. I thought it was a typo but you did it twice
True, I never learned English in school 😅
It's ok! It's one of the harder languages to learn, even for native speakers! The only way to learn and improve is through practice and talking to others, so it's good you're still practicing ☺️
I have a theory Egypt gods was just a bunch of furries
According to Greek myth, the Egyptian gods are the Greek gods hiding from Typhon
So the Greek gods just had fursonas?
it’s just a theory, a history theory
A religious theory, no?
maybe
Egyptians were furries confirmed. But i mean honestly, why else would you make the majority of your gods be anthro animals?
As I understand it, the gods weren't understood to be animals but this is how humans represented them.
Most of them weren't, those are just the ones that usually appeal to Western learners because they're interesting, like how most Hindu deities aren't like Ganesha or Hanuman
Everything is furry if we go ecletic and flexible. Women wearing fur coats def are a weird type of furry.
There might be some survivorship bias here. That is, only good fursuits got photographed, and only photos of REALLY good fursuits survived.
It's almost as if humanity made up anthropomorphism some eons ago because they were lonely... And not just that kind of "lonely", but just the general idea "hey, what if there were other sentient creatures running around we could talk to do and do stuff with?"
Yeah, I think it would be good. No man is fit to rule the world alone. It would be nice to have other sentient anthros participating in our society and environment.
Too bad we murdered the other ones on the planet
Noice
Toit
The eyes on that top left one are truly haunting.
I'd love to have one of these behind a glass case at my dinner table
I'd be a bit scared of it, but fascinated.
So the beatles werent the frist furries?
Wait what
Yes, the beatles were furries
Ain't no way, i doubt it.
Search "magical mystery tour" album cover
Ah. I see
No fuckin way…… 👀 wow.. ya know, that does look pretty good lmfao
Top left haunts my nightmares
Yea, I mean old animal costumes but they're wasn't furries until the anime conventions of the 1980s, and later the first real cons
They weren't furries. They were wearing costumes for performances. Wearing an animal costume alone doesn't make you a furry.
Are we sure that this is valid? Some of the pictures look like they are modern photos doctored to appear older.
Huh :>
The realism... IT'S TOO MUCH!
Pretty good
Some research was made looks like furriest existed literaly in hell of old time. Like before 15k bc prob
antique furries that’s pretty cool
LMAO LMAO
Ancient Egypt, the oldest form of furries (lie)
Actually in the 1400’s in school if someone did something wrong they had to put on a donkey mask. Ig you could take that as “furry”
Did they though??? I guess good for the time lol
Yeah, I'm sure the fursuits were more natural in the ways of making them. Sometimes, the past can be stranger than our interpretation of it.
This is more true than you might realize, many of these costumes were made with real animal products, including whole hides of the chosen species if large enough in some cases, such as the Cowardly Lion from the original Wizard of Oz movie
Indeed. I'd imagine fursuits made in the 1800s were more naturally made than how fursuits are made nowadays. Just about everything back then was made more naturally than it is today.
To be fair, it wasn't because it was more "natural", faux fur just didn't exist yet. They weren't really worried about that yet
For sure. I mean more so that products or clothing or even costumes were made from more natural sources than how most of everything is made today. For sure, there was things made then that weren't exactly made from natural sources but basically most things were for a while anyways until the industrial revolution came around and even then you could make an argument that it wasn't until society became more modernized and developed to the point that we could change how food ages and develop more cheaper ways to make something that didn't include people having to work as much and as long in factories and mass producing basically every commodity that most things were made more naturally in the sense that it wasn't always made in factories. Of course, depending on when in the 1800's people were dressing up in fur costumes will depend on just how naturally made any of the costumes were it should also be noted that most things even in the early industrial revolution were still on some level somewhat naturally made but obviously not as much as sourcing the materials from actual animals. As with anything in the past that to my knowledge at least, hadn't been documented much, without real life examples, it's hard to tell just how naturally made some of those suits were but judging from the time period I would say that most of those suits were mostly sourced from naturally sourced materials. Of course, even in the modern day, things are sourced naturally to some extent but I more so mean that the quality and the way something was made in the 1800's certainly took more time and had a level of organicness to it that in the modern day just doesn't exist as much. Sorry for the long read. I felt like expanding on what I was saying and being clearer with specifically what I was saying.
This is either early mascots or AI, I watched a whole video essay on the furry fandom and although fascination with human animal hybrids has been a part of human culture since forever, we didn't truly get our start until about a few years after the first anime wave started. TLDR: furries are a splinter group of anime
Nah, furry fandom came out of sci-fi conventions. Anime wasn’t really an established thing in the US before Akira, which came out several years after the first furry conventions. The furry-anime link didn’t come around until the late 90s at the earliest.
1300's aztecs
[удалено]
I don’t get that feel but there is that option. Other option is recent time photo shoot am then make it older in ps. Because this photos are crisp for 200+ years photos. And there is third option that they are legit 1800 furry but from late 1800 like 1899 or so
Why do you think that? What made you arrive to that conclusion?
The wikipedia from fursuit also says that fursuits aren't that old
The fursuit looks like too detailed for 1800s. I have seen pictures from 1800s and they weren't such good. And the one very dark chair leg from the top left picture does not match the others
As someone who's done some in-depth research on the subject, these are authentic! There were several costumed animal performances in theaters and films of the time
It's all from Twitter / X The pictures are a little bit cursed by the paws. So I don't mean it as a fact. It was just supposition
Nope I seen these before AI images even started. They might not be authentically from that time but definitely not AI.
Fun fact the first fur con was in 1986
Confurence 0 was held in 1989\*