Sarah, Todd, I wouldn't say that's
exactly what it is, but you've brought up a good example (not an accurate one, but a good one to discuss), so I'm not insulted or anything.
The CSI episode is one of a few notable examples where the subculture has been referenced to. But it's actually very diverse- the point being that you can't possibly stereotype it (like one habitually does) and claim that this represents the entire relevant population. The only major unifying definition- the necessary condition to call somebody a 'furry' is that they have an identifiabl interest in anthropomorphic animals- essentially animals with human traits/attributes. There is a lot of debate on this definition in itself, but unless somebody were to bring that up specifically I won't go into it. As such,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom isn't a bad place to start.
In fact, that article (if I recall correctly) cites the CSI episode that Todd mentions. I would specifically admonish against the two things that the media seems anxious to emphasise: calling the subculture a sexual one, and thinking that
fursuiting (dressing up in animal suits) is
de rigeur, because both perceptions, while common and promoted by such media exposures, are actually incorrect.
Sexuality and discussion/expression of such is a significant topic in the fandom, and I think this is because one of the purported features of the furry fandom is that it is
supposed to be a tolerant environment (this in itself is also highly variable).
It is perhaps interesting to note the way sexual orientation is treated within the subculture as opposed to without as there appears to be a far greater proportion of homosexually (among other 'deviant' orientations) inclined furs then there are people as a whole, for one thing- but of course care must be taken before making
any kind of association. I would speculate however that "furry" is treated in a (certain) social context in a parallel way to "non-straight gender/sexual orientation", in that it is marked as 'different' and treated as such. There are of course plenty of furs who would beg to differ if somebody were to suggest that their motivation for being a part of the fandom was sexual in nature (and on a personal note, I would be one of those).
As for fursuiting, I don't think I'd have the space or your interest enough to attempt to examine every facet of the activity or its role in furry community. Again, as to the root concept furry, different people will treat it in different ways. Some would find it fun, others will indeed associate it with a sexual fetish/paraphilia. Others don't get it at all. The same applies to all the other identifiable components of the subculture, in fact, my point would be that this is all pretty standard human behavior. Again I'd refer back to an awareness of how 'normal' is defined, etc.
Apart from the necessary definition, there are some pretty significant features that could be noted:
1. Much of the subculture is online and therefore global.
2. Much of the expression is mediated visually- in art.
3. There is, much like in any other specific social sub-group (e.g. doctors), specific jargon, modes of behavior etc. and usually this is what weirds other people out the most.
To answer Sarah's question more directly, I wouldn't say it's my "think" per se, but yes, it does play a significant role in my sense of being, both indirectly and directly. Originally it constituted a kind of escapism and a personal realm of solace (I wasn't even aware of the fandom at this time). Lately, the people I find whom identify with me most generally have an interest in furry as well. Also, most of my drawings/art have anthropomorphic subjects. And although I don't have much direct social involvement (with conventions and the like), I do have a fairly detailed knowledge of the workings of the fandom as a whole, so if there are any more questions I would be more than happy to answer them.
