FUR: What my friend has sent to Vanity Fair.
Alan Kennedy
that happy crap. She provided the info about the cons that I collected and
near the bottom is supposedly ALL They are gonna print, oh well, ateast its
better then nothing at all.
I've included the letter she sent to them, and the responses she got.
Rebekah "K'sharra" Stohldrier <pant...@yahoo.com>
http://www.angelfire.com/ks2/ksharra
------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
I read your March column on the "furries". I happen to be a fur fan
myself, and I was HIGHLY offended by the information that the writer of that
article gave readers about Fox Wolfie Galen. By using that pervert as an
example of fur fans like myself, the author has brought great offense to a
great deal of otherwise normal people. Most furs I know lean more on the
side of "Mike the Coyote". We believe that furry is just as harmless and
sane as any other
hobby. As Mike said, we are no worse than the rest of the world. We are
just people, and should not be labeled by our hobbies or fetishes.
Plushophilia and bestiality are two of the things that people
automatically assume furres are into, and by publishing such rot in one of
your articles, you are helping further the bad image that most people
already have. Any furs' love of animals grows into an admiration of animal
culture, and even a desire to be closer to nature, which stems into the
furry idealism. The bestial and plushie are the exceptionsto the rule, and
by using them as the main example for furry, the author has highly offended
the majority of furs who read the article. I personally, along with
several others, am offended that the author of this misinformed piece of
work used such a sick individual as Galen to portray such a poor, perverted
image of us. Being furry is not a bad or good thing. We are all people,
like all people there are a few bad ones in the bunch.
I dislike the fact that the author based his notions of furries on his
visit to a fur con. Going to a furry conference is a good way to meet the
most eccentric and strange of the furries. The people who go there prove by
their presence alone that they are more devoted than the average fur. Many
see the cons as a costume party. Simply because they wear fursuits or bring
hand puppets to a con does not mean this is their lifestyle. That would be
like assuming since you wear pajamas to bed, you wear them to work. Most of
the furs I know lead normal lives, unlike the eccentrics featured in the
March article. I wish that, instead of plunging into the thick of
strangeness in furry society, the author had taken the time to get his
references straight.
Also, by entering Katharine Gates' comments about the sexuality of
furries, plushies, and her comments on alternate sexual preferences, the
author of this article has implied that all furries are disturbed sexually
in some way or another. In fact, furs are no more disturbed than the rest
of the country. That is like saying that since pigs are alive, and men are
alive, all pigs are men. These perverts are drawn to furry because it meets
their needs. But they are NOT the majority, in fact, they are the exception
to the rule. And I, as a female heterosexual fur fan, find
these inferences incredibly insulting and derogatory tomyself and to the
furry society in general.
The author also left out many things, including the fact that many furs
are dedicated to animal rights and such. Fur cons often donate large sums
of money to nonprofit organizations such as the Humane Society and the
ASPCA. Also, not all furry art is sexual in nature, in fact, some of it is
rather insightful, funny, sobering, etc. Some artists use furry as a
metaphor or to express a certain emotion or sense of feeling. As a furry
artist, I find drawing furs is more expressive than the regular human
figure, and therefore more satisfying. Furry is also a way of
self-expression and self-improvement. Who doesn't like the feel of a cat or
dog's fur when you pet it? Who wouldn't like to have enhanced senses, or
feline grace? Who doesn't feel just a little bit animal sometimes? Furry
is a way to fantasize about having the freedom and ability to unleash our
inner potential, not just a sexual fetish bordering on
perversity.
By using such poor references and subtle inferences, the author gives
all furs a bad name, and we (not just I, but all the fur fans I know who
have read the article) are HIGHLY offended and wish for you to print a
retraction. I suggest next time you have someone write an article like
this, you make sure they have their sources straight, and do not slander an
entire group of people based on a minority. I hope it will not happen
again, and I hope you will return to a more high standard of journalism.
Your reader,
Rebekah (K'sharra) Stohldrier
------------------------------------------------------
The responses she recieved.
------------------------------------------------------
From: <Alexand...@condenast.com>
To: <pant...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Vanity Fair Letters
Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 12:46 PM
I'm writing to inform you that your letter has been scheduled for inclusion
in our May issue. Please note that because lineups change, there is a
possibility your letter may not be included when we go to press. Therefore,
this
notification is not a guarantee of publication. Having said that, it is
likely your letter will be included. Also, sometimes it is necessary to make
editorial changes in letters. We have made the following changes:
-The first paragraph now begins, "By using Fox Wolfie Galen as an example of
fur fans like myself, George Gurley has brought offense . . ."
-The next sentence now reads, "Most furs I know lean more to the side of
Mike the Coyote."
-The next paragraph, now the conclusion, reads, "Plushophilia and bestiality
. .. publishing such rot, you are helping perpetuate this negative image."
I'd also like to verify the spelling of your name, "Rebekah (K'sharra)
Stohldrier."
I will contact you again should there be any further revisions.
Please contact me by email or phone and let me know your hometown and state
and if this information is incorrect.
Sincerely,
Alexander Cohen
------------------------------
Another response
______________________
From: <Alexand...@condenast.com>
To: <pant...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Vanity Fair Letters
Date: Friday, March 09, 2001 5:00 PM
We have changed the portions of your letter that we are running. The revised
version, in its entirety, is enclosed below:
Gurley also left out many things, including the fact that many furs are
dedicated to animal rights and such. Fur cons often donate large sums of
money to nonprofit organizations such as the Humane Society and the ASPCA.
Also, not all furry art is sexual in nature, in fact, some of it is rather
insightful, funny, sobering, etc. As a furry artist myself, I find drawing
furs is more expressive than the regular human figure, and therefore more
satisfying. Furry is also a
way of self-expression and self-improvement. Who doesn?t like the feel of a
cat or dog?s fur when you pet it? Who wouldn?t like to have enhanced senses,
or feline grace? Who doesn?t feel just a little bit animal sometimes?
I'd like to ask you if you know the names of any of the organizations that
have donated to the ASPCA or the Humane Society. We need to verify this
information for publication.
I'd also like to verify the spelling of your name, "Rebekah Stohldrier,"
your nickname(?)"K'Sharra."
I will contact you again should there be any further revisions.
Please contact me by email or phone and let me know if this information is
incorrect. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Alexander Cohen
AJL
>
> This is what my friend wrote to Vanity Fair, and what is being done and all
> that happy crap. She provided the info about the cons that I collected and
> near the bottom is supposedly ALL They are gonna print, oh well, ateast its
> better then nothing at all.
... No, it looks like they chose the WORST part of the entire letter to
take out of context and then lose your friend's point, entirely. Read
it out of context again, and see what I mean:
> From: <Alexand...@condenast.com>
> To: <pant...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Vanity Fair Letters
> Date: Friday, March 09, 2001 5:00 PM
>
> We have changed the portions of your letter that we are running. The revised
> version, in its entirety, is enclosed below:
>
> Gurley also left out many things, including the fact that many furs are
> dedicated to animal rights and such. Fur cons often donate large sums of
> money to nonprofit organizations such as the Humane Society and the ASPCA.
> Also, not all furry art is sexual in nature, in fact, some of it is rather
> insightful, funny, sobering, etc. As a furry artist myself, I find drawing
> furs is more expressive than the regular human figure, and therefore more
> satisfying. Furry is also a
> way of self-expression and self-improvement. Who doesn?t like the feel of a
> cat or dog?s fur when you pet it? Who wouldn?t like to have enhanced senses,
> or feline grace? Who doesn?t feel just a little bit animal sometimes?
It's obvious that VF doesn't care to tarnish Gurley's image or to print
any kind of apology... the above paragraphs don't mention ANYTHING about
your friend disagreeing with the misconceptions raised by the original
article, only that there are additions that Gurley missed.
This should again teach everyone here DONT TALK TO THE MEDIA!!!!
When are you all going to get this through your heads? Rebuttal letters
are useless, since they will only pick-and-choose the portions that
sound juicy out of context, and if they can't find anything out of
context, they simply wont print the rebuttal letter.
By the way, I do not want ConFurence mentioned in any way in the
"information" you have gathered about charities. The more I can stay
off VF's tabloid-story radar, the better.
--Darrel.
Alan Kennedy
pressed the wrong button, I sent instead of saved my post, as I was gonna
revis it with her a bit more and the like.
Arrgg.. could you possibly cancel your post as well, hopefully it does
cancel the other post, but probably not!!
--
Alan Kennedy [TriGem Olandarinse]
EMAIL : trigem@_REMOVEGIBBERISH_portalofevil.com
YAHOO : goldanthrowolf & trigem_olandarinse
WWW : http://www.furnation.com/trigem
ICQ : 8781052
magnwa
>"information" you have gathered about charities. The more I can stay
>off VF's tabloid-story radar, the better.
Also.. as someone who works with charities, I'm gonna stick up for
one of my special groups. Please don't mention Tiger Haven in that
letter without obtaining permission from them. Thanks.
Magnwa
DishRoom1
(Sarcasism tone) Boy, Darrel, do you have a positive outlook. (Sarcasism tome)
Anyway, f*cken Vanity Fair. It's unfair that they chose "taboliod
sensationalism=$$$" than the reputations of several innocent people. But I am
positive and I can only pray that God have mercy on VF and that someday the
truth will set us free.
J. Shughart
aka Jetstone Tigre
DishRoom1
Vanity Fair, The Chinese Communism of American journalism, folks.
However, there are a couple of nitpicings I have with your freind's letter: she
goes on about "many furs being dedicated to animal rights". I, for one, am not
involved with so-called "animal rights". Don't get me wrong, I do believe that
animals should not be hurt of killed in a reasonless, cruel manner. But the
animal-rights groups like PETA demand in-your-face the impossible on those who
don't share their radical views, like no zoos, no pet keeping, and that humans
should be reduced to chewing tufu and crud with no meat, all for the sake of
animals "being equal with humans". I have no part in that, because that
intrudes on my personal beliefs and my enjoyment of cartoons and movies.
Another thing, I have nothing against lifestylers; they believe what they
believe, and I'll believe what I'll believe. But your friend perhaps should've
make the letter less lifestylish and emphasize more of the mainsteam furry
side.
I'd like a more mainstream furry fan give a letter to magazine for once.
Alan Kennedy
I hit the wrong damn button, so stop crucifying me and her. Cripes,
accidents happen and she was already in the process of contacting
that guy via phone when I sent that to give them a new starfish.
Geesh.. didn't you all read the damn thread and my message about
this in the first place? If so, you'd know it was a mistake.
magnwa
>Just like the title, its not something that was finilized, and she aggreed.
>
>I hit the wrong damn button, so stop crucifying me and her. Cripes,
>accidents happen and she was already in the process of contacting
>that guy via phone when I sent that to give them a new starfish.
>
>Geesh.. didn't you all read the damn thread and my message about
>this in the first place? If so, you'd know it was a mistake.
Still.. I think Tiger Haven wants to know when it's being
mentioned. Just call them up before you mention them and
make sure they are okay with being in vanity fair.
Thanks
Farlo
>I'd like a more mainstream furry fan give a letter to magazine for once.
What should I tell them? And, which magazine?
And, how much "Freak factor" should I include?
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
m>^_^<m
DishRoom1
>Just like the title, its not something that was finilized, and she aggreed.
>
>I hit the wrong damn button, so stop crucifying me and her. Cripes,
>accidents happen and she was already in the process of contacting
>that guy via phone when I sent that to give them a new starfish.
>
>Geesh.. didn't you all read the damn thread and my message about
>this in the first place? If so, you'd know it was a mistake.
>
Uh, Oops. Sorry. <:x(
AJL
>
> Arrg.. I didn't know if it'd cancel in time, as I accidently POOFED and
> pressed the wrong button, I sent instead of saved my post, as I was gonna
> revis it with her a bit more and the like.
>
> Arrgg.. could you possibly cancel your post as well, hopefully it does
> cancel the other post, but probably not!!
I just cancelled mine as you requested, but it looks like people have
already replied to it.
Alan Kennedy
news:3AAE68D7...@ajlvideo.com...
> I just cancelled mine as you requested, but it looks like people have
> already replied to it.
Yah.. oh well, as usual apologizes fly around here like elephants :P
SilveWolf
nickname. However I have been involved in general fandom for a long, long
time. And no matter what genre is your favorite no matter what more sane or
"normal" fans think. The press will always go for the jugguler they want
readers. Is it fair, no. The common thread I see among all sectors of
fandom are the SILENT ones, the people who never say anything when bad press
happens, and to me thats worse than the idiots at Vanity Fair. Believe me
I've seen bad press before, and in the end, when the dust settles everyone
who wants to attend furry conventions will go. They won't care, or think
much about that article in a few months. Me? I like what I like, and Vanity
Fair can kiss my furry a$$. Thats my .02. I look forward to meeting
people at future events.
All flames will be ignored.
"DishRoom1" <dish...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010313031320...@ng-fe1.aol.com...