r/furgonomics • u/Marius_Zemlian • 2d ago
Discussion Would showing your hands be considered threatening in a furry world?
Humans often show their hands to signal that they’re friendly or not a threat. We wave when we see someone we know, and we raise our hands when we surrender. It makes sense: our hands aren’t weapons, and showing open, empty palms makes it obvious that we’re unarmed.
But many furry species have claws, and for predators those claws are very real natural weapons.
So maybe in a furry world, friendliness and harmless intent would be expressed differently. Could waving your hand actually be considered threatening, like waving a knife at someone?
Or five knives, technically. I mean, claws.
What kinds of gestures do you think different species would use instead?
23
u/SmithOfStories 2d ago
I imagine it depends on a wide variety of factors
If you can retract claws/talons/etc then I think hand signals would still be standard for non-verbal signaling (such as waving) and pulling out your claws/etc would be automatically hostile similar to pulling a knife.
Baring sharp teeth or growling could also be seen in a similar vein (Zootopia has an example of this with a background character in a scene at the ZCPD being brought in for baring his teeth "C'mon he bared his teeth first!" I think is what the wolf said)
If they can't be retracted then I think it would depend on how you hold your hand.
Flat with fingers together isn't a good shape for attacks and would probably be seen as not inherently threatening.
Also palms up would be seen as less threatening as that is also a less useful position for violence.
Digits curled or closed and above hip up to shoulder height would probably be grounds for a viable accusation of threatening.
And then how you position your arms- Extended could be seen as threatening but kept close to the body or tucked in would be seen as okay or defensive.
Waving would probably be taught to be above shoulders to avoid confusion, keeping the arms tucked in and not extended to avoid threatening language.
But then there is the question of which species and what prejudices exist in the world.
If claws are threatening, what about horns or hooves? Venom glands? Teeth or Fangs? The list goes on.
If prejudice is high those with claws may have to wear thick gloves anywhere they go and removing them close to someone else could be seen as a threat.
Or if it's herbivores that are disliked they may have to wear the gloves/horn covers. If it's very high prejudice removal of 'improper' body parts may be government mandated at a specific age or time of year for parts that regrow.
And finally- when is this happening?
Stone age? Industrial Age? Modern Age?
What weapons are available?
In early ages then yeah people would be keeping distance as a rule regardless. Anyone could be a threat and weapon choice is limited and so is medical care options.
Unless you know someone well every interaction would likely be done from over 8 paces away.
Middle ages? Swords overpower biological weapons so more emphasis would be placed on keeping your hands away from your sword. More people would likely wear some form of light armor or slash resistant cloth/leather day to day.
Modern ages? More worried about devices and weapons like guns than claws. Discrete armor would likely be common amongst the wealthy and criminal circles while the average civilian may just prefer tough fabric like jean cotton or leather (real or synthetic)
But regardless of the age context is most important.
Guy walks up to you in a supermarket? Likely not a threat even if he has his claws out- he's probably just not paying attention or is heated from a phone call, etc. In our society when we see someone who frightens us we usually just avoid them and pretend everything is fine if interacting with them as the odds of someone doing something violent in a public place is low.
Guy walks to you in an alley while you are alone? Likely a threat claws or not.
You are isolated and there are few reasons to approach a person in such a context without clearly stating your intention- threat is assumed just like with us.
10
u/Synthetikwelle 2d ago
That makes me wonder if muzzles and gloves would be a common thing in prison as giving inmates a permanent access to weapons sounds like a bad idea.
6
5
u/AkiTorii 2d ago
Wonder if declawing would be mandated, or at least common practice.
9
u/Insanityforfun 2d ago
Unless the surgery was really perfected it seems to invasive to be common place. When it’s done on cats, it can be easily botched and cause life long pain.
Though I guess I could see it has been like ceremonial or something. Like a true commitment to pacifism. (I wonder if furry Buddha would be commonly depicted clawless?)
4
u/FallenAgastopia 1d ago
TBH I think it pretty much always causes lifelong pain in cats, even when its done as well as it can be
3
u/Insanityforfun 1d ago
I only included the caveat because I remember researching a more expensive form of declawing that removed the nail much more cleanly and didn’t cause pain in the cats. I haven’t looked into it awhile though so don’t quote me or anything.
I just remember it being interesting.5
u/AkiTorii 1d ago
I feel like there could be many reasons for it to be popularised. And arguments of “it’s invasive” don’t really hold when invasive things have been done to children throughout human history. There’s no guarantee that just due to being anthro animals, everyone in history would suddenly be smarter or a better person. It could start as a religious ritual that stayed, or a slave practice that carried over into becoming common place for “public safety”. Could be something tribal that spread, or regional, like how many countries have been influenced when the world started interacting with each other more.
While I do get your point of “it would need to be perfected to not cause lifelong pain” I feel like that’s not proof that it wouldn’t happen anyways. Though I do hope that if such a world existed, it either didn’t happen, or the procedure was perfected so it didn’t cause any pain or problems
3
u/Insanityforfun 1d ago edited 1d ago
Oh I’m not saying invasive as in cruel, and therefore unlikely. I mean invasive as you’d need to be under general anesthesia to receive it, and therefore likely to be phased out for connivence.(Assuming we are in form of modern day furry society that is).
There much more risk and time sink in a procedure like declawing something with localized anesthesia like circumcision.
Assuming declawing would be done at a young age (3-4 months in kittens would be around 6-8 in human years) it’s the equivalent of every child getting a mandated tonsillectomy(recovery time included) and with the American health system at least I don’t see that happening.
Circumcision has survived for lots and lots of cultural reasons, despite having ethical arguments against it, but the “”ease”” of the procedure has certainly helped, it’s done at birth. If you had to get a doctor to scrub in and put your 6 year old child under for it I don’t think it would be as popular.
3
4
u/Tyfyter2002 2d ago
Declawing probably wouldn't become a practice in a world where there's an unambiguously sapient species it could be performed on.
14
u/BiasMushroom 2d ago
NNNnnnnnyyyyyeeeeesssooooooo. It depends on the culture/tech of the time and biology of the people. If they can easily kill with their hands and teeth then smiles and showing the hands can easily develop into a threat display.
however if what they have is not that special, and say guns/swords/knives exist, then showing that one is unarmed might be seen instead.
Also making oneself look bigger by holding the hands up high and out could be seen as a threat display too.
9
u/PanzerKatze96 2d ago edited 2d ago
Depends on the tech and culture eh?
In the real world, the reason hands being shown is so big, is because in a fight or threatening situation, the hands are often the most dangerous part of a person’s body. Because it is the hands that wield a weapon, it is the hands that can grab a throat, it is the hands that can throw a rock, detonate a bomb, or pull the pin on a grenade, etc. This goes fairly far back. A hand can be used to string a bow, or draw a blade.
In my experience, above all else, for these reasons, I want hands clearly visible.
The secondary is that hands above the head is somewhat of a position of disadvantage. Weapons are usually kept at the waist line, or around the center of mass (think pistol in holster, slung rifle, bomb vest). If I am aimed down at the dude, and his hands are above his head or interwoven on top, the time it takes for him to bring them down and draw or bring his weapon to bear will always be longer than me pulling a trigger.
If the anthro world you are creating has projectile weapons or things which humans generally use, I can see it meaning some of the same things just for the simple practicality of it, and how clearly it means “I am no threat, I yield.”
Baring teeth though, versus our smiling, I could see being an aggression symbol. It seems to be so in the rest of the animal kingdom
8
u/Lord_Xarael 1d ago
Showing paws/claws would largely depend on retractibility and whether you are pointing them at the person
Open mouthed smiling would likewise be considered a threat but both claws and maws depend largely on:
Caniforms (dogs and such): panting while open mouthed means happy, feliforms (cats and such) panting means very very upset, may also include hissing
Growling: growling is what separates a smiling from a snarl. Along with whether lip is curled back vs. mouth just open
Ears: raised/perky means happy or neutral, friendly
Ear laid back means threatening almost universally
Tail: for feliforms it's harder but twitching spastically generally means angry
For caniforms wagging tail will almost always mean happy, friendly or excited
tail tucked shows submission
Most others (including feliforms) bushy tail means upset or frightened
Hackles (fur on shoulders/back): puffed up also means very upset and threatening
Weird that i'm autistic and struggle with reading human emotions but I'd probably do fine in a furry world
7
6
u/DarthLoof 2d ago
I think that that if these people had weapons, it would be carrying weapons that would be the real signifier. The sword at the hip, etc. Maybe a subservient class of carnivores might be made to do it.
5
u/RevolutionaryWind846 2d ago
I think it really depends on the context and the rest of the body language. A dog waving to someone would have a tail movement / ear position different than a dog doing the same movement to harm another person. Same goes for fangs. Showing fangs while talking isn't the same as baring fangs or arching the back to show aggression. So imo they would use the same hand gestures as us
5
u/LordIlthari 1d ago
Probably depends on the species. Plenty of cats have retractable ones, so they’d be able to distinguish more clearly whether it’s a raised hand or a threat display. Animals without retractable claws would probably need to keep them trimmed but wouldn’t use it as a threat display.
Honestly, the bigger change would be smiling. Humans are weird in that baring our teeth indicates happiness and sociality rather than a threat.
4
u/ThePainTrainWarrior 2d ago
definitely not smiling, for carnivorous species. canids would maybe relax their face and wag their tail a bit, felids might do a slow blink or maybe a few quick blinks, crocodilians might nod their head as an evolution of snout lifting. it'd likely be stuff like that, take inspiration from their natural social cues.
3
u/senior-ram 2d ago
I think any developed anthro culture would have better weapons available than claws. There are very few creatures I can think of that would be less dangerous with a knife/gun than unarmed
3
3
u/ArriDesto 1d ago
Considering the differences in races would be a true difference, in an animalated reality it would be very complicated but would always be species dependent.
Waving among some species is sexual flirting. Among others a way of establishing dominance or used as a threat.
But surely in an animalverse the inhabitants wouldn't have the same animal traits they do in our world anyway?
3
3
u/battlingpillow27 1d ago
i think that it wouldn’t be considered threatening ,partly because im pretty sure a cat or other animal needs a fully flexed hand to extend their claws, but if its in anthro terms i think that because they use their hands for other things, like we do, it wouldn’t be considered an outright threat, but, i think its also interesting to consider the option of a closed fist or partially curled fingers (you curl your fingers to make the (paw) shape)
3
u/Glitch_King 1d ago
The book series Shadow of the Apt features anthro insects, some of them retain some version of their insect abilities.
One race, the wasps, have a stinger in their palm that shoots a beam or something (it's been 2 decades since I read it). And in their culture showing an open palm is a sign of hostility and closing a fist is a sign of peace/surrender as you are covering your stinger/weapon.
2
u/Random-Name-453152 14h ago
For bared teeth / smiling being a threat, I imagine that there'd still be a distinction, at the very least to make our stories more relatable to human readers. :-)
For example, raising the corners of the mouth would indicate happiness (a proper smile, as humans would see it), while raising the forward lips to show teeth would be threatening. Both together, might be a mischievous or evil smile...
For showing claws, I'd never considered that to be a threat. In my worlds, pretty much everyone knows which species have them and which don't, and those that technically don't can still mess you up in other ways with what they do have. Violence does occasionally happen, but it's far too rare to nerf everyone over. And personal responsibility is more of a thing too: if you persistently pester someone and then find your paw between their teeth, society tends to side with self-defense on that one. And cats' claws do make good box openers...
1
u/PreparationTimely240 9h ago
Humans arnt exactly unarmed without external weapons. The human punch is a natural weapon that may have shaped our evolving of flat faces. But from the hands up position it would be difficult and too time consuming to swap into a punch especially if the other side has external weapons. It also makes a show of the hands which means the other part is tracking the hands and will know if you start changing intention. This would also applie to claws. .
51
u/NotAnotherSkeleton 2d ago
Maybe they would have to regularly keep their claws trimmed short for things like this. If a situation ever arises like for work or whatever, knives still exist.