DISCLAIMER: As much as it pains me to do so, I am taking care to avoid any sort of bias in this news article, because I do not believe that bias has any place in a news article that the author intends to have others read and take seriously. If you have any complaint on the matter, feel free to express your opinion via pm, or to include it in your reply to this article.

While I am not a furry or anthro artist myself, I have known several of each and have encountered even more (as most of us are well aware, DeviantArt plays host to a very large Anthro community, and meeting someone with interest in the genre is not uncommon.) I will in no way claim to be an expert on the matter of anthro art, or to know much of anything about anthro art for that matter. I will in no way claim to be an expert on furries, either... however, I am quite certain that I do know of several qualities of both groups that some people tend to overlook. This is perhaps understandable in some cases; furries are often misunderstood

To set one thing straight, "anthro artist" and "furry" are two entirely seperate classifications. Just because you are an anthro artist does not mean you are a furry, and just because you are a furry does not mean you are an anthro artist. Additionally, being a furry does not make you a sexual deviant. In fact, you can be a furry without partaking in any of the sexual practices commonly associated with furries... contrary to what some believe, not all furries are into "yiffing" or bestiality or any other such practices. It does not mean you wear a fursuit during sex. In fact, it doesn't mean you own a fursuit or even have any interest in fursuits at all. "Furry" is not a sexual term, and to be a furry does not imply that you are involved in anything of a sexual nature. If that was more widely understood, there might not be so much negative stigma attached to being a furry, and some furries would not seek to hide behind the excuse of being just an anthro artist in order to avoid fursecution... which brings me to my next point.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way accusing anyone of not being an anthro artist. The fact is, if your art frequently involves anthropomorphic creatures, you could be considered an anthro artist. It's as simple as that; just as the term says, an anthro artist is an artist who creates art with an anthro theme. However, I tire of hearing an anthro artist claim they are "NOT a furry" while sometimes having entire reference sheets and deviation folders dedicated to one or more "fursonas" created to represent themselves. The fact is, a fursona is the very core around which the furry culture is built. Not yiff; fursonas. By creating a fursona and consistantly using it to represent yourself in your art or in conversation, you are taking on the persona of a furry. You might not get into it as much as some people do, but that doesn't mean anything, and shouldn't mean anything, because people can be involved in any activity at a different level and still be involved in the activity. Honestly, I can't get much deeper into the matter because all of this can mean different things to different people, but that's the most basic sense of it. The way I see it, having a fursona and claiming not to be a furry is like having white skin and claiming not to be white. Well... actually, that's probably not the best comparison, given the whole Michael Jackson thing, but... I think it should get the point across, lol.

Again, I'm not expert on anthro art or fursonas or anything of that nature. If that discredits me in your eyes, that's fine. These are just my observations into the matter, and you are welcome to debate or elaborate on them.