Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Costumes!

12 views
Skip to first unread message

M S

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

Hey , I'm gonna try to make this a positive complaint here cause I
promised not to be such a pain. umm..here goes..
When I was at Confurence I saw lots of great costumes. What bothered me
was the deer with the leather dominatrix outfit on. Personally, i was
amused and not really offended, then i thought to myself "to an outsider
this might make furry fandom look..bad. I was wondering why somebody
feels the need to wear that kind of thing(specially around children)
instead of a nice costume peice to accompany it that would make it a
real character instead of an apparently sex crazed animal. Im looking
for a real response here, nothing else...

Lisa Jennings

unread,
Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98
to

The deer in the leather dominatrix outfit was a Bambioid. Specifically,
that particular race as drawn by their creator Jerry Collins have a
penchant for tight-fitting leather and similar provocative outfits -- at
least, all the pictures _I've_ seen show them as such. The costume,
therefore, is actually portraying a specific being and the leatherwork
is _necessary_ to complete the image.

Now, if someone went running around as Minnie Mouse in a dominatrix
outfit, _then_ I'd cast some questions...

As to how the 'outside' world views that: while we must be aware of the
possible public perceptions, the fandom isn't run _for_ them, it's for
_us_. Nobody gets really antsy about what a bunch of businessmen do at a
Business Con, and things like the news of the Tailhook Scandal appear
only _after_ such activities had been around for a while because it _is_
a private event and Privacy is actually still a legal force to be
defended. As long as the Bambioid doesn't go out onto Knott Avenue and
start whipping children, it's none of the public's _business_ what the
costume looks like. It was done by someone for a specific group of
people to enjoy.

ermine (who believes in the legal fiction of Privacy, even if it's not
fact)
[Undo the Knot to Reply.]

AllanGldmn

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <6etevf$5h3$1...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, matts...@webtv.net
(M S) writes:

>Hey , I'm gonna try to make this a positive complaint here cause I
>promised not to be such a pain. umm..here goes..
>When I was at Confurence I saw lots of great costumes. What bothered me
>was the deer with the leather dominatrix outfit on. Personally, i was
>amused and not really offended, then i thought to myself "to an outsider
>this might make furry fandom look..bad.

All comes down to the single idea - do your own thing. Tastes range from G to
XXX. The problem with "do your own thing" is that you are almost guaranteed to
do something that is not somebody else’s thing. What to do? remember:

1) Furry fandom is a herd, not a pack. Where like a lot of buffalo who all
wander around together without massive amounts of organization. One of the
reasons we fight so much on AFF is we don't have any single person "in charge"
of this whole fandom mess.

2) example of #1 - we can't even come up with a definition of furry fandom
without fighting breaking out. (we seem to try every three months or so) If we
can't even define Furry, how can we "clean up the fandom" or set suitable
behavior standards for con attendees? (that's the con staff's job)

We will NEVER "clean up" furry fandom because a mop Vs broom faction will
develop, and soon they'll start fight and wooden handles will be flying and
soap suds will be all over the place and critters will be slipping and falling
and crying when they get soap in there eyes and ......

Eventually, we'll come to our senses and peace will return. :-)

Then, a few months later, someone will suggest we "improve furry fandoms
reputation" and the people who use scrub brushes will start fighting with the
people who use scouring powered and .....

I'll be in the bleachers watching.


4) It's fine to object to the adult aspects of furry fandom but keep things in
prospective. In all my time on the net I have only found 1 actual bestiality
picture in furry fandom (there may be more I - don't go searching for adult
stuff). I can send you to a pay site that has dozens of hard-core bestiality
photographs in the free preview areas. Just give them a credit card number and
you can get them full screen size. There is a lot of adult material - violent
porn, fetish, bestiality, kiddy-porn, gore, etc., on the net that has nothing
to do with furry fandom. (and no, I won't give anybody the URL's )

5) Do the same thing with the offensive material in furry fandom as you would
do in real life. Don't buy what you object to. Protest responsibly. Respect the
rights of others. I think the development of AAC and the other small cons is
great for fandom because supply and demand will allow fur fen to chose the
environment they desire - Woe to the Con staff who won't listen to the will of
the furries!

6) Outsiders don't belong outside furry fandom, but outside the niches they
find offensive. I found enough small niches that the stuff I object to did not
drive me away. Some, unfortunate, will find the stuff they object to first and
miss out on the fandom - sad, but it happens, and "cleaning up furry fandom"
wont help because it can't be done.

How to built furry fandom? Find a few niches you like and share them with
others.

Note - They could find too much cute stuff if they are interested in adult
material - "objectionable" is not a value judgment by me on any aspect of furry
fandom

7) Say you go to rat.org and you find fifty artists you love and fifty you hate
- spend your time admiring the ones you like instead of complaining about the
ones you dislike and you'll make 101 people happy.

8) Remember - it's all for fun! you've done a lot of complaining since you got
here! Relax! WoooHooo! NARF!

Al Goldman (shocked that his spell checker did not flag NARF)

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <199803210337...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) writes:
> 2) example of #1 - we can't even come up with a definition of furry
> fandom without fighting breaking out. (we seem to try every three
> months or so) If we can't even define Furry, how can we "clean up
> the fandom" or set suitable behavior standards for con attendees?
> (that's the con staff's job)

Actually, we can, but there are those who will fight the effort tooth and nail
because if furry gets "Defined" then it might exclude their particular fetish.
And they can't allow that! It's not so much about WHAT the decinition is, but
the effort to keep the meaning obscure (and "tolerant").


--
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... but they can tell right
off the bat if you're an idiot! -- Me
http://www.teleport.com/~mauser/ Gallery Web Page
"Yeah, I've got ADD, wanna make something of.... oooh, cool. Look!"


Dr. Cat

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:

: In article allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) writes:
: > 2) example of #1 - we can't even come up with a definition of furry
: > fandom without fighting breaking out.
[snip]
: Actually, we can, but there are those who will fight the effort tooth
: and nail because
[snip]

Is anybody besides me having trouble following the debate here? I mean,
if they both agree that trying to define it leads to folks fighting, then
what exactly is it they're disagreeing about? :X)

I guess this is too complicated for me, like quantum physics. :X)

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: Furries are not subject to quantum physics. But they are
affected by Murphy's Law.)

Peter da Silva

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <199803210337...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

AllanGldmn <allan...@aol.com> wrote:
>We will NEVER "clean up" furry fandom because a mop Vs broom faction will
>develop, and soon they'll start fight and wooden handles will be flying and
>soap suds will be all over the place and critters will be slipping and falling
>and crying when they get soap in there eyes and ......

Hah! It's you damn wooden handles people destroying the rain forest!

--

This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document


Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <35139...@feed1.realtime.net>, c...@bga.com (Dr. Cat) writes:
> Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote: : In article
> allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) writes: : > 2) example of #1 - we
> can't even come up with a definition of furry : > fandom without
> fighting breaking out.
> [snip]
> : Actually, we can, but there are those who will fight the effort
> tooth : and nail because
> [snip]
>
> Is anybody besides me having trouble following the debate here? I
> mean, if they both agree that trying to define it leads to folks
> fighting, then what exactly is it they're disagreeing about? :X)

I guess the argument boils down to whether or not it is worthwhile to FORM a
definition, and if the value of that is worth going through the fighting to
get there.

I think that if the definition actually WERE set, it would bring a final end
to the periodic fighting. The problem of not having a solid point of
reference is that it leads to the confusion that starts all these fights.

"What is a Furry"" SHOULD have an answer. If someone comes to us and we say
"Dunno" or "Whatever you want." well, that's really not all that inviting or
community building. If everyone gets to set their own definition, conflict is
inevitable when two people's definitions don't jibe.

> I guess this is too complicated for me, like quantum physics. :X)

Nah, you don't have ADD, so don't let someone use that to call you mentally
incompetant. I have confidence in you. :-)

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
: I think that if the definition actually WERE set, it would bring a final end
: to the periodic fighting. The problem of not having a solid point of
: reference is that it leads to the confusion that starts all these fights.

I doubt it would bring an end to the fighting. There will likely always be
debate between the ones who want nothing but spooge and the ones who want
a Disneyesque fandom and between the 'Furry Is Just A Hobby' and the
'Furry Is A Way Of Life' camps.

As for a defininition I think that could be come up with pretty easily.
Furries are those who like anthropomorphic animals and choose to interact
with others in the furry community based on that interest. The latter part
may not be necessay but it's hard to be part of something you don't
participate in. I don't know that it needs to be any more complex than
that. It's when people start debating what are and aren't legitamate ways
of expressing that interest that fights seem to break out.

? the platypus {aka David Formosa}

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In <35139...@feed1.realtime.net> c...@bga.com (Dr. Cat) writes:

[...]

>I guess this is too complicated for me, like quantum physics. :X)

No quantum physics are simple, try looking at a tax form.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument

AllanGldmn

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <6f07v6$k...@bonkers.taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
writes:

>In article <199803210337...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>AllanGldmn <allan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>We will NEVER "clean up" furry fandom because a mop Vs broom faction will
>>develop, and soon they'll start fight and wooden handles will be flying and
>>soap suds will be all over the place and critters will be slipping and
>falling
>>and crying when they get soap in there eyes and ......
>
>Hah! It's you damn wooden handles people destroying the rain forest!
>
>

So the REAL fight is between the "implement" faction Vs the "elbow grease"
faction! Quick! everybody reorganize and this time were SURE to win the battle
to clean up furry fandom!

Al Goldman (Pine - A renewable resource!)

AllanGldmn

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

In article <35139...@feed1.realtime.net>, c...@bga.com (Dr. Cat) writes:

>
>Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
>: In article allan...@aol.com (AllanGldmn) writes:
>: > 2) example of #1 - we can't even come up with a definition of furry
>: > fandom without fighting breaking out.
>[snip]
>: Actually, we can, but there are those who will fight the effort tooth
>: and nail because
>[snip]
>
>Is anybody besides me having trouble following the debate here? I mean,
>if they both agree that trying to define it leads to folks fighting, then
>what exactly is it they're disagreeing about? :X)
>

>I guess this is too complicated for me, like quantum physics. :X)

Quantum physics! You mean the sick, power hungry bastards who keep SMASHING
poor helpless subatomic particles together to study the gory collision remains!
That's SICK!

That does it! We MUST purge furry fandom of such types! Anybody got a rope?
Time to form a lynch mob!

Al Goldman (Hang em' high!) (lot and lots of :-) 's all over
the place!)


Landon Solomon

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <199803210337...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> AllanGldmn <allan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >We will NEVER "clean up" furry fandom because a mop Vs broom faction will
> >develop, and soon they'll start fight and wooden handles will be flying and
> >soap suds will be all over the place and critters will be slipping and falling
> >and crying when they get soap in there eyes and ......
>
> Hah! It's you damn wooden handles people destroying the rain forest!

Nono! Trees will grow back, it's those evil aluminum handles that cause
horroble horrible mining!

> This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
> to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document

Trot, the un-worryfull, fox... :>
--


Trot Fox / "Sometimes you wake,
http://web2.airmail.net/trotfox5 / and sometimes, yes,
addy spaminated, change to / you die. But there
solomon@ to get through. /is a third alternative."

The Saprophyte

unread,
Mar 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/21/98
to

Dr. Cat wrote:
>
> (Disclaimer: Furries are not subject to quantum physics. But they are
> affected by Murphy's Law.)


Oh I don't know... there's one battle being fought here that hinges
almost intirely on the observation effect. Now if we could just get
one or more of the combatants to volunteer to be Schrodenger's cat... :)

The Saprophyte, who would be more than happy to open the box. ;)

Dr. Cat

unread,
Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98
to

Richard Chandler (mau...@teleport.com) wrote:
: "What is a Furry"" SHOULD have an answer. If someone comes to us and we say
: "Dunno" or "Whatever you want." well, that's really not all that inviting or
: community building. If everyone gets to set their own definition, conflict is
: inevitable when two people's definitions don't jibe.

Well, I think "furry" is definable without too much controversy, but
"furry fan" or "furry fandom" it's be pretty tough to come up with a
clear definition of, without ending up with something that would make a
lot of people angry. It would either include some activities and/or
people that others would prefer to see left out, or exclude some that
people would want left in. And it wouldn't be short and simple either,
given the number of subcategories of stuff to be enumerated.

What the heck, though, I'll take a crack at it based on the assumption
that enumerating the sub-interests (comics, mucks, artwork, stories,
animation, cons, etc.) and the degree of interest or nature of
participation in them isn't relevant. A "furry" is an animal with one or
more anthropomorphic characteristics. A "furry fan" we allow to be a
self-defining label... Anyone who acts upon an interest in "furry"
characters in ways they personally consider to be "fannish" is a "furry
fan". And "furry fandom" is the total set of people who fit the prior
definition of "furry fan".

I'm afraid this comes dangerously close to the "whatever you want" label
that you mentioned above, though, so I'm not sure if it's much use. I just
think that's as far as I personally can nail it down before it starts to
offend some people in the fandom.

: In article <35139...@feed1.realtime.net>, c...@bga.com (Dr. Cat) writes:
: > I guess this is too complicated for me, like quantum physics. :X)

: Nah, you don't have ADD, so don't let someone use that to call you mentally

: incompetant. I have confidence in you. :-)

Actually, I suspect that I do have ADD. I have all the symptoms that
I've read about in descriptions of it, but I've never been to a doctor
for them so say officially whether I have it or not. I don't worry about
it - having it to the extent I do (if I indeed have it) doesn't keep me
from earning a living or from getting cool stuff done. And I don't think
it's necessarily a "disorder", at least not in the milder cases of it
- just a different way to think and to be. And one that I think is a
natural reaction to the onset of the information age - we're going to
need a LOT of people like that. I was fortunate enough to see Ted Nelson
speak at a conference once, the visionary genius who imagined something
back in the 1960s that would be like the world wide web, only better. He
has ADD, and he thinks it's misnamed too. He thought it should be called
"hummingbird mind".

Anyway nobody should need to call me mentally incompetent because of
that. I'm sure they can find plenty of other reasons!

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: This post was brought to you by Sleepy Bear Coffee. Any
opinions expressed within about various kinds of coffees were probably
hopelessly biased.)

Thomas K. Dye

unread,
Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98
to

Dr. Cat <c...@bga.com> wrote in article <3514f...@feed1.realtime.net>...

> Well, I think "furry" is definable without too much controversy, but
> "furry fan" or "furry fandom" it's be pretty tough to come up with a
> clear definition of, without ending up with something that would make a
> lot of people angry. It would either include some activities and/or
> people that others would prefer to see left out, or exclude some that
> people would want left in. And it wouldn't be short and simple either,
> given the number of subcategories of stuff to be enumerated.
>
But at the same time, "science fiction" has a number of subcategories:
time travel, space exploration, post-apocalyptic allegory, etc. etc.

> What the heck, though, I'll take a crack at it based on the assumption
> that enumerating the sub-interests (comics, mucks, artwork, stories,
> animation, cons, etc.) and the degree of interest or nature of
> participation in them isn't relevant. A "furry" is an animal with one or

> more anthropomorphic characteristics. A "furry fan" we allow to be a
> self-defining label... Anyone who acts upon an interest in "furry"
> characters in ways they personally consider to be "fannish" is a "furry
> fan". And "furry fandom" is the total set of people who fit the prior
> definition of "furry fan".

And that's it. Everything else is basically allowed to be interpreted
individually. If some like the more "adult" aspects of furrydom, then
that's a subset. If some like "clean" art, then that's another subset, and
so on. Think of "furrydom" as a "kingdom" and all the other aspects ...
adult furries, -taur furries, funny animals, anime, etc. etc. as "phyla" or
"classes" or "families."

I myself am fond of funny animals, but I also enjoy anthros like the
characters in Foster's "Spellsinger". And yet while both are "furry" they
are two different types of "furry." Just as every person on Earth has a
different ancestry, background, culture, set of interests, etc. so does
every furry. We need to recognize diversity in the fandom *as* a bonding
point. This way we can "prove" to outsiders (for those of us who wish to
do so) that "furrydom" is not one thing, that some of the aspects of
furrydom which are hard to relate to don't necessarily apply to *all*
furries.

This is why I like anthro animals. Combining the multlevel qualities that
humans have with the multilevel qualities that animals have makes a virtual
tesseract of personality. There's no way we could ever probe all the
possibilities of anthro animals in one lifetime or any lifetime. It's a
rich, bountiful well full of endless possibilities that could enrich the
imagination forever.

Hmmm, hope that last line wasn't too corny.

Thomas K. Dye
(Kevin J. Dog on #furry)

Andrew Greene

unread,
Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98
to

Exactly, Allan.

What I fail to understand is, if furries are anthropomorphic animals that act like
human beings (to seperate them from real animals, vaguely animal-like aliens, and
plushies), then why is any facet of human behavior taboo? We've used furries to
explore the Holocaust (Spiegelman's _Maus_), war (far too many, often badly drawn
and written), sex (ditto), relationships, the nature of humanity, illness, loss,
dominance and submission, the politics of urban renewel (Omaha, oddly enough),
homosexuality (Associated Student Bodies), auto repair, crime, gun safety (I
suppose Eddie Eagle counts), advertising, euthanisia, and dozens of other
subjects. So why should we limit ourselves in our exploration? Furries are
us, and, as some fellow or other said, the proper subject of study for man is man.
Furries are a tool for that end.

Are certain subjects taboo? Should they be more taboo simply because mundanes
might be watching? Does this apply to story-telling in general? Should we avoid
making movies about crime, because we fear that they will cause crime?

AllanGldmn wrote:

> In article <6etevf$5h3$1...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, matts...@webtv.net
> (M S) writes:
>
> >Hey , I'm gonna try to make this a positive complaint here cause I
> >promised not to be such a pain. umm..here goes..
> >When I was at Confurence I saw lots of great costumes. What bothered me
> >was the deer with the leather dominatrix outfit on. Personally, i was
> >amused and not really offended, then i thought to myself "to an outsider
> >this might make furry fandom look..bad.
>
> All comes down to the single idea - do your own thing. Tastes range from G to
> XXX. The problem with "do your own thing" is that you are almost guaranteed to
> do something that is not somebody else’s thing. What to do? remember:
>
> 1) Furry fandom is a herd, not a pack. Where like a lot of buffalo who all
> wander around together without massive amounts of organization. One of the
> reasons we fight so much on AFF is we don't have any single person "in charge"
> of this whole fandom mess.
>

> 2) example of #1 - we can't even come up with a definition of furry fandom

> without fighting breaking out. (we seem to try every three months or so) If we
> can't even define Furry, how can we "clean up the fandom" or set suitable
> behavior standards for con attendees? (that's the con staff's job)
>

> We will NEVER "clean up" furry fandom because a mop Vs broom faction will
> develop, and soon they'll start fight and wooden handles will be flying and
> soap suds will be all over the place and critters will be slipping and falling
> and crying when they get soap in there eyes and ......
>

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:
> Actually, we can, but there are those who will fight the effort tooth and nail
> because if furry gets "Defined" then it might exclude their particular fetish.
> And they can't allow that! It's not so much about WHAT the decinition is, but
> the effort to keep the meaning obscure (and "tolerant").

On the other hand, someone like me --- who has more fetishes than you
can shake a stick at --- has no problem with saying furry fandom is
about anthropomorphics. -:P

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage [Squeaky-Squeak!]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm ICQ: 7569393
**[ Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/ ]**

AllanGldmn

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

In article <3515B136...@nni.com>, Andrew Greene <bl...@nni.com> writes:

>Exactly, Allan.
>
>What I fail to understand is, if furries are anthropomorphic animals that act
like
>human beings (to seperate them from real animals, vaguely animal-like aliens,
and
>plushies), then why is any facet of human behavior taboo?

Depends who you ask - what some consider taboo is a lifestyle for another.
And remember, the DA will have an opinion too! :-)

<snip>

> Are certain subjects taboo?

Inside fandom, the whole debate about Skunk (furry fanboy loser commentary)
seems like a yes to me. Personally, I believe some subjects is furry fandom
should be taboo, but I won't list them unless everybody agrees to live by my
standards. :-)

> Should they be more taboo simply because mundanes might be watching?

First inpulse is to say screw the mundane, but how do we build the fandom
without them? Is there a difference between a mundane at a small con hotel who
would never join the fandom and a mundane at Worldcon or SDCC who sees a furry
party poster, stops by, and is happly shocked to find others just like them? Is
it more inportant not to scare the second person away, and do we "clean up
furry fandom" to make sure that does not happen?

Personally, I don't care about the mundanes but I also don't care about a
lot of what goes on inside furry fandom (no interest in muck's, for example)

>Does this apply to story-telling in general? Should we avoid making movies
about crime, because we fear that they will cause crime?

Sometimes, I listen to "Gansta Rap" music on the radio. Some songs are
commentary on urban life and valid forms of expression, others serve no purpose
except to glorify the drug dealing lifestyle (and bring money to the artists) ,
still others are so distant from my white 30 something lifestyle I can't form
an opinion. Of course, I could be wrong on every song I hear.

Taboos? That is an issue for each creative artist in the context of the
intended audience. People outside the intended audience can be ignored IF the
consequences of there protesting are outweighed by the reputation built inside
the group. plus, you gotta keep that DA in mind!

Notice how vague my answers are? This is because furry fandom is so vast. I
can't be more specific without offending someone (example - Skunk is good/bad).
But once we "clean up furry fandom" and get rid of "them", everybody will be
living by the same standards and I'll have better answers for you! :-)

Al Goldman (East coast in the house!)

PWL

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

M S wrote in message <6etevf$5h3$1...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...


Hey , I'm gonna try to make this a positive complaint here cause I
promised not to be such a pain. umm..here goes..
When I was at Confurence I saw lots of great costumes. What bothered me
was the deer with the leather dominatrix outfit on. Personally, i was
amused and not really offended, then i thought to myself "to an outsider

this might make furry fandom look..bad. I was wondering why somebody
feels the need to wear that kind of thing(specially around children)
instead of a nice costume peice to accompany it that would make it a
real character instead of an apparently sex crazed animal. Im looking
for a real response here, nothing else...

It's a personal choice how one enjoys their furry side, some people enjoy
the sexual sides of furrydom in various manners. Instead of worrying what
people are going to think (because Furryfandom is just not really that
"normal" anyways) about that costume, why not make your own costume
presenting your own ideas about how furry animals should be portrayed. It's
a technical point, but if that deer was just without the bondage gear, it
probably wouldn't be much of an issue. But because of the gear you associate
it with something sexual and embarrasing to you if "mundanes" were to see
it. Another point is that there are huskies up in Alaska with harnesses on
that could be considered bondage gear if it were presented in the right
light, but the people handling the animals probably don't give it a second
thought.

So what you consider a "real character" is kinda a personal thing for you,
don't expect others to always follow these ideals. Oh..and this isn't an
attack or an inflamatory remark...just comments.

Dr. Cat

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn (xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com) wrote:
: On the other hand, someone like me --- who has more fetishes than you

: can shake a stick at ---

Felorin runs up, shakes a stick at Xydexx's fetishes, and dashes off.

Aha! You *can* shake a stick at them!

(I bet some people might wag a finger at them too!)

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.bga.com/furcadia
Furcadia - a new graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*

(Disclaimer: I am not Boojum. My ears are nowhere near that long, see?)


J. J. Novotny

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:

> "What is a Furry"" SHOULD have an answer. If someone comes to us and
> we say
> "Dunno" or "Whatever you want." well, that's really not all that
> inviting or
> community building. If everyone gets to set their own definition,
> conflict is
> inevitable when two people's definitions don't jibe.

Emphasizing the art/entertainment side of furrydom seems like a good
place to start in my opinion. It's fairly uncontroversial and is a good
answer for a newbie or a reporter/media type. I don't think that anyone
has to be overwhelmed by the details about lifestyles, mucks, et al,
right off the start.

BTW, has anyone given any thought to producing a general PG-rated primer
featuring anthro art and stories that could be distributed (for low cost
or for free) to potential fans and media outlets (including comic shops)
to *show* them what the fandom's about and give them an initial good
impression. It could contain fan-favorite artists like Michele Light,
Terrie Smith, Joe Rosales, Fred Perry, etc., and could list the best
known furry comics, novels, and conventions, along with contact info and
URLs where the reader could go for more information.

Just a thought.

Cheers;
J. J.


Joe Rosales

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

Okay --

M S sed:


> When I was at Confurence I saw lots of great costumes. What bothered
> me was the deer with the leather dominatrix outfit on. Personally, i
> was amused and not really offended, then i thought to myself "to an

> outsider this might make furry fandom look...bad.

To which PWL sed:


> It's a personal choice how one enjoys their furry side, some people

> enjoy the sexual sides of furrydom in various manners. ... It's


> a technical point, but if that deer was just without the bondage
> gear, it probably wouldn't be much of an issue. But because of the
> gear you associate it with something sexual and embarrasing to you if
> "mundanes" were to see it.

Guess I'm feeling chatty tonight, but this is so ridiculous I have to
say something.

Gee -- yes, he associated wearing bondage gear with something sexual.
That's probably because it IS something sexual, PWL! Are you going to
try to argue that someone sporting knee-high leather boots, a bustier,
handcuffs and a whip is _not_ making any sexual statement? Knowing the
source material, the costume, _and_ the costumer, I can assure you that
it was quite had quite an obvious and purposful sexual overtone, and you
would have had to be blind to miss it. It has little or nothing to do
with interpretation by the individual -- the connotation is so obvious
and culturally pervasive as to render interpretation automatic in all
but the most rarified of atmospheres.

And honestly, I don't think that MS was out of line with this concern.
This dovetails nicely, in fact, with all the nonsense that has been put
forth about the "Loaded" article recently: namely, the simple fact that
there are a lot of people at Confurence who want to have their cake and
eat it too.

I do not support banning anything or anyone from Confurence. I'm also
very libertarian in my morality, and believe that what goes on between
consenting adults and does not directly affect me is really none of my
business. I believe strongly in the unalienable right of each person to
be left alone.

But being left alone involves privacy. And not the kind of privacy that
other people give you -- the kind that you give yourself. If you
stripped naked and walked down the main street of your town at high
noon, you wouldn't expect any privacy -- that other people see you,
photograph you, put you on the evening news and comment on your actions
is a given. It is quite different from stripping naked in your living
room with the curtains drawn, or in your partner's bed. There you have
every right to expect and even demand privacy.

Confurence is not a private party, nor is it held in a private place.
Entry is permitted to anyone who can afford the price of a ticket. This
may limit the clientele, but let's be real -- it's not even as private
as a dance club. A club at least has bouncers, and they can take your
camera at the door or keep you out entirely if they don't like your
looks. Confurence isn't that exclusive.

Now call me prudish, but I believe sex is a private matter. I think on
this point most of the gay community would agree with me, especially
considering certain laws and policies that some groups are pushing for.
I think that most of the straight world would back me up on this too,
for pretty much the same reasons. And yes, sex in this case extends to
areas other than actual copulation -- it encompasses display; and
actions which, for lack of a better term, constitute foreplay. In other
words, all the stuff that primates normally consider part of the act or
part of the serious buildup, and for which can get you arrested in most
restaurants.

This is a fandom which has often decried the lack of acceptance of
"furry" material by the mainstream audiences of various media, and which
has in a large part embraced and propigated Confurence as its largest
and most suitable representation and outlet. There has been much effort
made to be "inclusive;" but I think it is time to face up to the fact
that this inclusiveness has for the most part served the extreme
elements of the fandom more than the subdued ones, and has now produced
a large crop of very visible and colorful representatives which are
unrecognizable to members of the general public as having anything to do
with the material that they claim as their source. Winsome young boys
in bunny ears and Daisy Dukes may be yummy set dressing for some, but
Joe Sixpack from Sheboygan is going to have a hard time seeing what they
have to do with "Animalympics" or "Rescue Rangers."

And here is my point: If you want to be accepted, nay, embraced by the
public -- and people like the guys at "Loaded," who are in fact part of
the public -- you have to be prepared to be judged by public morals, and
to curb your behaviour to gain acceptance.

I'm not talking about everyone dressing in suits and ties and banning
kissing in public places. But if you want, say, a reporter from a
British screamsheet not to make smarmy comments about the way you dress
and your sexual mores, perhaps you'd better dress carefully and not talk
loudly about what you like between the sheets.

The whole debate about "skritching" illustrates this admirably. Those
who brought it into question were immediately attacked by those who were
practicioners, who seemed unable to even comprehend that it might be
seen as inappropriate behaviour by anyone but homophobes and killjoys.
Perhaps they've lived in Southern California too long, or I haven't been
there long enough, but to me and probably most of the rest of the world
this looks like heavy petting, and is something that is best placed in
private. Am I saying it should be stopped? Of course not. But there's
a limit to how much sexual activity should be performed in view of
others (especially who are not included, ha ha), and one person stroking
another who's writhing and making animal noises is beyond it. It's not
about denying your sexuality. It's about having some consideration for
others who may not share your affection for the little boy in the dog
collar.

To be quite honest, Confurence was never meant to be a entry point for
those with a passing interest in funny animals and anthropomorphics. It
was set up from the beginning by a small group (the "true believers" or
"hard core," so to speak) whose main interest was in propigating the
fandom -- propigating it in its own image, of course, as all organizers
are wont to do. Tolerance was extended to others with differing views;
but it is only recently with the influx of more mainstream people into
this relatively obscure fandom that there has been any question as to
the direction or purpose of the fandom in general, or Confurence in
particular. MS poses the question of what Confurence would look like to
dilettantes or children. Seven years ago, when I first started going to
Confurence, there was no such question: there were no dilettants or
children there, and hardly enough people to even debate the question.

But in an increasingly well-attended and high-profile convention (three
years ago the BoE had never even _heard_ of CF), those attendants who
are of a more colorful persuasion are going to find themselves
confronting the same problems and views that they do in any other public
place. Simply demanding that others accept you and everything you feel
like doing will not solve all conflicts, any more than others demanding
that you change everything about yourself to suit their wants and whims
would solve the problem to your satisfaction. Consideration for others
is the key to engendering tolerance; and if you want to do as you please
without comment, removing yourself from the public eye is the surest
way. Confurence is pretty sparse on papparazzi, and even the "Loaded"
guys didn't go climbing into people's windows.

What about Confurence, then? What should be done? In my opinion,
nothing. Debate, in this case, is useless. Either one of two things
will happen: the con will be "hijacked," so to speak, by mainstream
forces, who are already making up an increasingly large percentage of
the fandom even as the colorful elements grow more extreme (or at least
more apparent). In this case the sexual elements will be shoved to the
back, as that is not the reason that most mainstream fans would have for
enjoying furry material. This is what has happened in Star Trek fandom,
where overt sexual elements still exist (like the K&S stories --
there's still fanzines running, folks), but are seen as aberrations from
the true mainstream fandom, and generally relegated to small tables in
the back corners of cons. This is what is happening to anime fandom
right now, as we speak.

Otherwise, the extreme elements will grow too outrageous and intolerable
for the mainstream fans, and the "normals" will find some other outlet
more to their enjoyment. They will leave Confurence and seek out some
other gathering at which to spend their money, and Confurence will
gradually shrink back to its original size and composition of about
three to five hundred hard-core lifestylers. This has happened to a
number of conventions which have been unable or unwilling to bring in a
mainstream audience, and so have lost both the physical and financial
support they needed to maintain their gatherings. The Dallas Fantasy
Fair come to mind; once the largest comic and fantasy convention in
Texas and a heck of a fun con, it slid into a slow decline from which it
never recovered and was finally shut down the year before last. In this
case the end of Confurence will not be brought about by con character
assassination, warring political factions or ideological conflict. The
fans will simply leave and take their money with them. And, as I go for
both my fans and their money, I will go with them.

There is a third possibility, although very unlikely: that those
elements which are extreme, which make it hard for mainstream attendees
to enjoy the con and harder still for the public at large to embrace it,
will consider their actions and curb their behavior. Notice I did not
say change, nor did I say they should disappear -- every family
gathering needs wacky Aunt Gretchen who joined the UFO cult after her
dog told her to, and irritating Cousin Ed who quit smoking and drinking
and got religion. There's still room for guys dressing up as Sailor
Moon at anime cons both here and abroad, and I personally like the
Bambioid costume and the guy who wears it.

But this would involve a change in the actions of the most extreme
elements of the fandom, which are by definition the least likely to
change. The whole "skritching" debate, a relatively minor faction in
terms of possibly extreme behavior, is proof of the futility of
expecting any change in attitude -- in not one case did someone who was
a "skritcher" come forth with, "Gee, I'm sorry you were put off by my
behavior. Maybe it is a little intense for public display in front of
people from Muskogee. We'll see if we can't keep it down next time."
Instead, it was "If you don't like it, you can get twisted. You're not
the boss of me!" If you do not give any understanding or consideration,
you should not expect any in return.

If the members of this fandom want the members of the public at large to
embrace the enjoyment of funny animals and anthropomorphics as a serious
and acceptable genre, they are, without question, going to have to make
an effort to put a good face on it -- and to realize that people in
fursuits flagellating each other in the hallways may not be the most
accessable image to assembly-line workers from Knoxville and Mrs.
Pewhaughton's fourth-grade class, and indeed may not even be something
other adult attendees want to see. The "Loaded" article was certainly
smarmy and condecending. It was also not as inaccurate as many in this
forum seem to believe. It was distorted, surely, and eliminated all of
what I consider the better elements of the convention; but the people it
interviewed were there, and the events it covered took place, and the
quotes that it gave were things that were actually said. I was there; I
saw those people, even conversed with some of them. But take a hint:
even the "Loaded" guys, used to covering drug-soaked backstage parties
and transvestite beauty pageants, were creeped out by some of them.
That should be a big clue.

And god help us all if "Time" or "Newsweek" shows up next year.

-- Joe

Darrel L. Exline

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

Andrew Greene wrote:
> Are certain subjects taboo? Should they be more taboo simply because mundanes
> might be watching?

You're missing the point. Certain actions are taboo because they are generally
unacceptable public behavior, and this has NOTHING to do with whether the viewer
is a mundane or fen. I am fen, and yet I get offended (but not easily) by
certain obscene behavior, especially at a con where small children are present.
There are many others who attend ConFurence who also get offended, and they,
too, are not mundanes.

You are asking the wrong question. Whether or not you are furry, you should
keep your socially unacceptable actions private. If you drop the qualifier
about mundanes, Yes, certain subjects should be considered taboo.

--
Darrel L. Exline, darrelx(a)home.com, http://www.polarden.org
a.k.a. Jym_Chago, "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear"
FUAcs2ar A C++ D+ H- M+ P R T+ W Z+~++ Sm#
RLCT/S* a29 cnwd++++$ d++ e+/** f+ h-/** iwf+++$ p+ sm#

Jim Doolittle

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

In article <351606CA...@cc.umanitoba.ca>, "J. J. Novotny"
<umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:

> BTW, has anyone given any thought to producing a general PG-rated primer
> featuring anthro art and stories that could be distributed (for low cost
> or for free) to potential fans and media outlets (including comic shops)
> to *show* them what the fandom's about and give them an initial good
> impression. It could contain fan-favorite artists like Michele Light,
> Terrie Smith, Joe Rosales, Fred Perry, etc., and could list the best
> known furry comics, novels, and conventions, along with contact info and
> URLs where the reader could go for more information.


Well, PawPrints is a good start in that direction. It's a PG to PG-13
rated fanzine, and there is always quality work inside of it...


-Jim

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

In article <3515E0...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> On the other hand, someone like me --- who has more fetishes than you
> can shake a stick at --- has no problem with saying furry fandom is
> about anthropomorphics. -:P

So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with RL animals or stuffed
animals?

Andrew Greene

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

But I'm not talking about conventions, specificly, I'm talking about the definition of
fandom. And, you use that term 'socially unacceptable', as if society had any right to
dictate to the individual what was acceptable. Society can dictate your religion, can't
it? Society once found slavery acceptable, (and still does, in some places) and the
minority that was against slavery were considered 'odd'. Societiey once found human
sacrifice acceptable. Society aparently finds nuclear war acceptable, since society
dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and keeps great stocks of nuclear weapons. Society
says that certain consensual sexual acts are bad, and must be hidden, lest children see
them. Of course, society also says that violence is GOOD for children to watch. What?
I'm generalizing the actions of just a few people to all of society? I'm mistaking the
views of a few people for the views of society? Who the heck is society? Who decides
social acceptability?

And, you can't define something as 'Taboo' because it's unacceptable behavior. A
taboo IS an unacceptable behavior. Notice also that I said 'subjects', and not
'actions'. I was replying to a post about a definition of furrydom, not about whether
ball gags at cons were acceptable. I ask you again - are there any subjects that should
be taboo, ONLY for the reason that mundanes should be watching?

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:

> Xydexx the Squeakiest Pony in the Universe wrote:
> > On the other hand, someone like me --- who has more fetishes than you
> > can shake a stick at --- has no problem with saying furry fandom is
> > about anthropomorphics. -:P
>
> So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with RL animals or stuffed
> animals?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question. Which part of
"furry fandom is about anthropomorphics" didn't you understand, Rich?

In general, anthropomorphics are animal characters with human qualities
or characteristics, or alternately, humanoid characters with animal
qualities or characteristics. (When explaining anthropomorphics to
people, I use more well-known examples of anthropomorphic characters
from cartoons or advertising, such as Bugs Bunny, Tony the Tiger, Alf,
Mickey Mouse, Booga, etc. because I don't think John Q. Public would
have any frame of reference for characters such as Red Shetland or
Chester Ringtail...)

Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to the
previously-mentioned anthropomorphic characters.

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom

Meadow Muffins. They're not just for breakfast anymore.
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/ohdeer.htm ICQ: 7569393

Ostrich

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn (xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com) wrote:

: Meadow Muffins. They're not just for breakfast anymore.

Oh, ICK! :P


-Ostrich! <")

Foxy

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

And we do our best to keep to good quality PG stuff in the pages of
Anthropomorphine. (And we have published art from Terrie Smith and
Michele Light too :) )

There are some good quality fanzines fitting the bill, although I think a
free primer is a neat idea (if not a waste of money to produce :) )



/------------------------------------------------------
---Foxy!--- / "We must infiltrate, integrate with humans, using our
kp...@coventry.ac.uk / superior talents to gain control of their politics,
fo...@tigerden.com / their media of communication, their legends, their
Artist, furry fan / beliefs, so that, when the times comes, they will have
and Vulpophile! / been seduced to the acceptance of the inevitable, the
-----------------/ era of foxes."


robert holiday

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Xydexx squeaked:

>because I don't think John Q. Public would have any frame of
>reference for characters such as Red Shetland or Chester Ringtail...)

...thank god. The last thing we need is Chester dancing nude (I
haven't seen too many pics of him which aren't 1) spooge, or 2) Some form of
'tease' art) as the mascot of furry fandom. ;P

>Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
>writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to the
>previously-mentioned anthropomorphic characters.

Hmm. Gosh, I love widely interpretable statements.. that could mean,
"Furry fandom is about (creation) making inflatable horses and (apprecation)
boffing them." ;) Though I'm sure that isn't what you mean. Or it could mean
"Furry fandom is about (creation) drawing pukey-cute anime critters and
(appreciation) sacrificing small animals to them".

- bobby

Co-administrator of the Furry IRC network at irc.feline.pp.se
hol...@celes.feline.pp.se
Try http://pinky.wtower.com/~holiday fer my evil framey webpage.
http://rat.org/pub/furry/holirobe fer my disgustingly ky00t art.

"Why make more nuclear warheads, wait 'till the ones we have are
used. A nuclear war can ruin your whole day."

robert holiday

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Gah, what a royal pain having to reformat the quoted text by hand. Oh well,
anyways..

bl...@netaxs.com wrote:

>sacrifice acceptable. Society aparently finds nuclear war
>acceptable, since society dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima
>and keeps great stocks of nuclear weapons.
>Society says that certain consensual sexual acts are bad, and
>must be hidden, lest children see them. Of course, society also
>says that violence is GOOD for children to watch. What? I'm
>generalizing the actions of just a few people to all of society? I'm
>mistaking the views of a few people for the views of society? Who
>the heck is society? Who decides social acceptability?

Blah, blah, blah.
Society does not say any of those things. I love it when someone
decides to defend something using this concept of "Well why is it wrong? Are
you giving in to what society says?"
Furry fandom isn't here to appeal to society in general, no. We're
here to have fun, sheesh. Except that most if not all fen come *from* the
society you speak of. Most furry fen don't have sex with dogs. Most furry fen
don't tie each other up in leather and ball gags and whip each other with
paddles and cat-o-nine-tails. And plenty of furry fen don't care for that kind
of thing. Sure, you're gonna say "Well we should all tolerate others'
beliefs". Well, why don't the zoophiles/sceners/etc tolerate my beliefs, as
Joe Q Fan who just happens to like collecting and drawing furry art, and take
it to their rooms so I don't have to see it? There's plenty more of me than
there are of them, since Joe Q Fan is the basis of what keeps Confurence and
other cons running.
Or are you going to say it really IS all about sex, and that sex is
what keeps furry fandom running. I sincerely don't think so.
As for society condoning nuclear weapons, violence, etc, that's not
the issue. Noone's bringing nuclear weapons to CF, noone's preaching violence
at cons. If anything, cons are highly NON-VIOLENT places given the amount of
people in a small area who disagree with one another so fiercely on the issues
of sexual practices and beliefs.

> And, you can't define something as 'Taboo' because it's
>unacceptable behavior. A taboo IS an unacceptable behavior.
>Notice also that I said 'subjects', and not 'actions'. I was replying
>to a post about a definition of furrydom, not about whether ball gags
>at cons were acceptable. I ask you again - are there any subjects
>that should be taboo, ONLY for the reason that mundanes should be
>watching?

I don't want to see someone having sex with their dog, myself. _Most_
people are going to probably agree with me on that one. Since most furry fen
don't really care to see people humping (or being humped by) their animals,
I'd have to say that it's taboo in public, yes. Or do you think that fur fen
should be able to just do whatever they want wherever they want? And if the
cameras happen to catch them and the pictures get published in 'zines saying
"This is what goes on in furry fandom", oh well?
You can live with the fact that many furry fans, a majority, I'd say,
given the many people I've encountered, know, and observe, don't really care
for those things. Or you can have furry fandom classified as one big sex-fest,
and thusly make furry fandom a taboo in itself, to society. Would you rather
have to hide the fact you're a furry fan from your employers, even your
friends? Do you want furryness to be as taboo in itself to society as
zoophilia is? That is the consequences of saying "screw the taboos, we do what
we want".

- bobby (Who doesn't plan on attending Confurence, ever)

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

God, *sniff* I couldn't have said it any better. Bravo, dude. Bravo.

<clap clap clap clap clap clap...>

Er, really that's the most clear minded and sensible comment on the whole
subject that I've seen on this newsgroup yet.

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Joe Rosales <joea...@stic.net> wrote:
: And here is my point: If you want to be accepted, nay, embraced by the

: public -- and people like the guys at "Loaded," who are in fact part of
: the public -- you have to be prepared to be judged by public morals, and
: to curb your behaviour to gain acceptance.

Actually the two from Loaded were barely a step up from tabloid reporters
who simply make stuff up. It wouldn't have mattered how squeaky clean CF
had been. There would still have been an article similar in nature to what
actually got printed.

: kissing in public places. But if you want, say, a reporter from a


: British screamsheet not to make smarmy comments about the way you dress
: and your sexual mores, perhaps you'd better dress carefully and not talk
: loudly about what you like between the sheets.

I'd say 99% of those at CF were wearing jeans and t-shirts. Not that what
was on the t-shirts was always the usual fare.

: The whole debate about "skritching" illustrates this admirably. Those


: who brought it into question were immediately attacked by those who were
: practicioners, who seemed unable to even comprehend that it might be
: seen as inappropriate behaviour by anyone but homophobes and killjoys.
: Perhaps they've lived in Southern California too long, or I haven't been
: there long enough, but to me and probably most of the rest of the world
: this looks like heavy petting, and is something that is best placed in
: private.

Um, I don't know what you think scritching is but a friendly back (or any
other area above the waist) scratch isn't something I'd call heavy
petting or necessarily inapropriate in public. More than that and it
likely should be taken to a bedroom.


Joe Rosales

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Karl sed:

> Um, I don't know what you think scritching is but a friendly back (or
> any other area above the waist) scratch isn't something I'd call
> heavy petting or necessarily inapropriate in public.

Obviously you did not read my entire article, or thought my description
of the act observed was some kind of hallucination I had based on
chemical imbalance or personal prejudice. The sort of touching you are
talking about is a perfectly acceptable form of public, social primate
interaction. It is also not what I was talking about, nor the source of
contention within this newsgroup.

-- Joe

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Ostrich wrote:

> Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn wrote:
> : Meadow Muffins. They're not just for breakfast anymore.
>
> Oh, ICK! :P

Someone's actually reading my .sig file... that's kewl...

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom

Multiply the amount on line 5 of Form 502TP by 5% (.05).
Apply the local tax rate in effect for your return and
enter the sum on this line. Do you like puppies?

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

robert holiday wrote:
> ...thank god. The last thing we need is Chester dancing nude (I
> haven't seen too many pics of him which aren't 1) spooge, or 2) Some form of
> 'tease' art) as the mascot of furry fandom. ;P

Sorry if that was a bad example to use, it was just the first character
I thought of.

> >Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
> >writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to the
> >previously-mentioned anthropomorphic characters.
> Hmm. Gosh, I love widely interpretable statements.. that could mean,
> "Furry fandom is about (creation) making inflatable horses

Just out of curiosity, what sort of human characteristics would that
inflatable horse have, hm?

> "Furry fandom is about (creation) drawing pukey-cute anime critters and
> (appreciation) sacrificing small animals to them".

What's wrong with pukey-cute anime critters? I think we should have a
something like a superdeformed Tora as the Official Furry Fandom
Mascot. That'd be kewl. -:)

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Jason M./Louis L. wrote:
> Sorry for Veiring off: For some strange reason this reminds me of a fake
> interveiw with Perot in '92

It reminds me more of the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
question, personally. It's like someone wants me to sound like a losing
Republican presidential candidate and only talk about what I don't
believe instead of what I do...

> Good idea, but that can backfire sometimes. One girl asked me about my name
> on mIRC once and I explianed that It was the name for a MUCK character I
> played. She asked me to describe it. I used the Bugs Bunny method. She then
> said: "Oh, so you want to be a cartoon character."

It's the closest frame of reference I think they'd have, if they haven't
seen movies like, say, Island of Dr. Moreaux.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Foxy wrote:
> There are some good quality fanzines fitting the bill, although I think a
> free primer is a neat idea (if not a waste of money to produce :) )

I distributed "What Is Furry?" FAQs and copies of Richard Chandler's
Sketchbook Etiquitte file at CF8, if I recall correctly. Maybe I'll
drop some off at the local comic shop once I get my finances in order.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

robert holiday wrote:
> Sure, you're gonna say "Well we should all tolerate others'
> beliefs". Well, why don't the zoophiles/sceners/etc tolerate my beliefs, as
> Joe Q Fan who just happens to like collecting and drawing furry art, and take
> it to their rooms so I don't have to see it?

As I'm sure you know what it's like to be unfairly painted with someone
else's brush, I think it's important to note that not all zoophiles are
nearly as intolerant as you make them out to be, and you shouldn't be
making inaccurate generalizations like that.

Just some food for thought.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Joe Rosales wrote:
> But this would involve a change in the actions of the most extreme
> elements of the fandom, which are by definition the least likely to
> change. The whole "skritching" debate, a relatively minor faction in
> terms of possibly extreme behavior, is proof of the futility of
> expecting any change in attitude -- in not one case did someone who was
> a "skritcher" come forth with, "Gee, I'm sorry you were put off by my
> behavior. Maybe it is a little intense for public display in front of
> people from Muskogee. We'll see if we can't keep it down next time."
> Instead, it was "If you don't like it, you can get twisted. You're not
> the boss of me!" If you do not give any understanding or consideration,
> you should not expect any in return.

How about "Gee, I'm sorry if you were put off by my behavior, but I have
no interest in maintaining your precious little bubble world where gay
people don't exist."

A bit harsh? Sure. But like you said, if you do not give any


understanding or consideration, you should not expect any in return.

Tolerance is a *two-way* street; I don't require the people from
Muskogee to dress up in rubber, and they don't require me to go to
church on Sunday to worship their god.

-I- find it downright offensive when people feel the need to try to run
my life because their own isn't interesting enough.

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage [Squeaky-Squeak!]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm ICQ: 7569393

"We are constantly invited to be who we are." ---Thoreau

M S

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

Well Mr.(or is it Mrs.?) Xydexx person,
there is no precious bubble world of which you speak, we see enough
references to gay people every day now, in fact we see so much of it (
The rainbow stickers, the pride marches, etc. ) that I would be willing
to guess that the public is more or less very aware there are a lot of
gay people out there. If peope were so intolerant why would Ellen be
allowed to kiss a woman on tv now? Or that the entire country woud watch
that gay guy on THE REAL WORLD and his boyfriend and see all the
problems a person living with AIDS has to go through? We are aware you
exist, but we have just as much right totell you not to push your
beliefs in our faces as you have. Do you remember the big fuss about
that guy on the REAL WORLD? After he died he had a street corner named
after him, the president went on tv to say a few words of condolence
about how he touched the hearts of Americans everywhere. All for being
nothing more than a gay man who got Aids through unprotected sex.I'd say
that's pretty tolerant, wouldn't you say? So you claim WE(heterosexuals
I'm assuming) are trying to run your life by offering a little friendly
advice? That's all it is, nothing more. You should be aware that there
are many sides to the fandom, if you want them to respect your ways,
then try to respect theirs.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <6f8617$rmo$1...@rat.org>, bi...@altavista.net (robert holiday)
writes:

> Most furry fen don't tie each other up in leather and ball gags
> and whip each other with paddles and cat-o-nine-tails.

And those of us who do are usually a little more circumspect about it, and
don't claim it's some essential part of the fandom.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <351856...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> Foxy wrote:
> > There are some good quality fanzines fitting the bill, although I
> > think a free primer is a neat idea (if not a waste of money to
> > produce :) )
>
> I distributed "What Is Furry?" FAQs and copies of Richard
> Chandler's Sketchbook Etiquitte file at CF8, if I recall correctly.
> Maybe I'll drop some off at the local comic shop once I get my finances
> in order.

Be sure you have the most up to date version, I made some additions after
CF8, and I have notes to myself to add a couple more things to it this year.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98
to

In article <351700...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > Xydexx the Squeakiest Pony in the Universe wrote:
> > > On the other hand, someone like me --- who has more fetishes than
> > > you can shake a stick at --- has no problem with saying furry
> > > fandom is about anthropomorphics. -:P
> >
> > So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with RL animals
> > or stuffed animals?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question. Which part
> of "furry fandom is about anthropomorphics" didn't you understand, Rich?

Typical. Ask a simple question and Xydexx will decline to answer or take a
stand.

Relevence? You left the statement open. You have no trouble with saying it's
about anthropomorphics, fine, I'm just finding the limits of what you _would_
say it's about. I hope you WOULD have trouble saying it's also about
Zoophilia or using stuffed animals for masturbation.

I'm amazed at how much you talk while working so hard to avoid saying
anything. You'd make a fine Senator.

You say you have no problem with saying furry fandom is about
anthropomorphics. So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with RL
animals or stuffed animals? Yes or no.

girls_@yahoo.com Jason M./Louis L.

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn wrote in message
<351700...@smart.netnot.aol.com>...


>Richard Chandler wrote:
>> Xydexx the Squeakiest Pony in the Universe wrote:
>> > On the other hand, someone like me --- who has more fetishes than you
>> > can shake a stick at --- has no problem with saying furry fandom is
>> > about anthropomorphics. -:P
>>
>> So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with RL animals or
stuffed
>> animals?

Sorry for Veiring off: For some strange reason this reminds me of a fake
interveiw with Perot in '92

"I proud to say I'm back in the race."
"So you're running again?"
"I didn't say that."
"So you're not running?"
"I didn't say that. See you people want to twist my words around!"


>(When explaining anthropomorphics to
>people, I use more well-known examples of anthropomorphic characters
>from cartoons or advertising, such as Bugs Bunny, Tony the Tiger, Alf,

>Mickey Mouse, Booga, etc. because I don't think John Q. Public would


>have any frame of reference for characters such as Red Shetland or
>Chester Ringtail...)
>

Good idea, but that can backfire sometimes. One girl asked me about my name
on mIRC once and I explianed that It was the name for a MUCK character I
played. She asked me to describe it. I used the Bugs Bunny method. She then
said: "Oh, so you want to be a cartoon character."

"I didn't say that..."

"There is no such word as impossible in my dictionary, in fact, everthing
between 'Herring' and 'marmalade' appears to be missing."
-Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"
Louis Lightpaw
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/3129/
Remove the taco-bell sounding phrase to e-mail


Farlo the fey dragon

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn did speaketh thus:

>What's wrong with pukey-cute anime critters? I think we should have a
>something like a superdeformed Tora as the Official Furry Fandom
>Mascot. That'd be kewl. -:)

Tora, of "Ushio and Tora"? That critter rocks ... I could go for
that, except i'd like him as-is, no distortion.

-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon

Standard XXXX
@abac.com XXXX

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn (xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com) wrote:
: Joe Rosales wrote:
: > But this would involve a change in the actions of the most extreme

: > elements of the fandom, which are by definition the least likely to
: > change. The whole "skritching" debate, a relatively minor faction in
: > terms of possibly extreme behavior, is proof of the futility of
: > expecting any change in attitude -- in not one case did someone who was
: > a "skritcher" come forth with, "Gee, I'm sorry you were put off by my
: > behavior. Maybe it is a little intense for public display in front of
: > people from Muskogee. We'll see if we can't keep it down next time."
: > Instead, it was "If you don't like it, you can get twisted. You're not
: > the boss of me!" If you do not give any understanding or consideration,
: > you should not expect any in return.

: How about "Gee, I'm sorry if you were put off by my behavior, but I have


: no interest in maintaining your precious little bubble world where gay
: people don't exist."

Sigh. Forgive them, for they read but do not comprehend.

Okay, let's spell it out. Next time instead of playing "let's find
the nice old lady so we can stand there and rub each other while panting
and making happy animal noises just to see the shock on her face" try
this one for a change.

If someone happens to be taken aback by your behavior because they
find it bizzare and perhaps shocking and come up give you a look like
you'd just grown a second head, you could try something like oh, "I"m
sorry. We were just playing around and didn't mean to scare you." Then
you can like, go somewhere else away from that person, or that person
will nod at you or something and go their own way while shaking their head.

Of course it's entirely possible that opening up a dialogue with one
of these people will actually create a spark of understanding with that
individual. I know it's not something you should bet on, but not every
mundane is out to get you, you know. He might just come back with
something like, "Oh that's okay. I just never saw anything like that
before. Are you with some secret club or something?" Gee what do you
know, you actually started something constructive for a change. Fancy
that.

I always wondered why some people feel the need impose their own ways
of life, or whatever, upon others while at the same time whining on about
oppressed they feel from society at large.

: A bit harsh? Sure. But like you said, if you do not give any


: understanding or consideration, you should not expect any in return.

: Tolerance is a *two-way* street; I don't require the people from


: Muskogee to dress up in rubber, and they don't require me to go to
: church on Sunday to worship their god.

Read the above, again, and again, and then read what Joe Rosales
posted, again, and again, and one more time for good measure. Why should
anyone give you any consideration if you're not even willing to do it
yourself, and instead take defensive position each and every time?

Er, and I don't think anyone mentioned what god they worshipped. Oh
right, this is an us versus them thing.

: -I- find it downright offensive when people feel the need to try to run


: my life because their own isn't interesting enough.

Yes, someone feeling offended by something you do in public is
attempting to run your life. Watch out! They're everywhere...

Ostrich

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn (xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com) wrote:
: Ostrich wrote:
: > Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn wrote:
: > : Meadow Muffins. They're not just for breakfast anymore.
: >
: > Oh, ICK! :P

: Someone's actually reading my .sig file... that's kewl...

Someone's kinda sorry they did... :P

-Ostrich! <")

Chip

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

I just use the Werewolf approach- but explain it's a little different. For
starters- they don't all run around naked and eat people (some do though),
and regular bullets usually work just fine- silver's just if you think
they're worth the extra expense.

Chip

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

>Typical. Ask a simple question and Xydexx will decline to answer or take a
>stand.

Does it matter?

>Relevence? You left the statement open. You have no trouble with saying
it's
>about anthropomorphics, fine, I'm just finding the limits of what you
_would_
>say it's about. I hope you WOULD have trouble saying it's also about
>Zoophilia or using stuffed animals for masturbation.

Zoophilia is about zoophilia, plushies are about plushies, and
anthropomorphics are about anthropomorphics. The fact I'm gay has nothing to
do with anthropomorpics, isn't that easy to understand? If someone wants to
shag a dog, as long as it isn't mine, I'm fine with it- I just don't want to
watch. Certain prefs are unrelated, but it isn't uncommon to find people
with multiple fetishes- it's natural- rabbits hump chickens- or did you know
that? (I grew up on a farm- and people aren't the only ones who get
fetishes- I had a rabbit with a soccer-ball fixation.)

>I'm amazed at how much you talk while working so hard to avoid saying
>anything. You'd make a fine Senator.

Lot's of people would- you'd be a great reporter. Take it as thy will.

>You say you have no problem with saying furry fandom is about
>anthropomorphics. So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with
RL
>animals or stuffed animals? Yes or no.

Yes- I do agree that it's NOT. - zoophilia is about having sex with RL
animals, plushies are stuffed animal sex objects, and anthropomorphics are
animal/human hybrids. That's it- if someone has other fetishes, that's their
choice- but it's not the definition.

BTW- Dirty Pool, old man. You phrased that just like Geraldo would, right
before parading his riteous visions to millions of TV viewers, in a
desperate try to save millions of stuffed toys from being violated. (why do
you think this is such a bad thing- doesn't hurt anyone, or did you see Toy
Story one too many times?)


robert holiday

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Xydexx squeaked:

>> Sure, you're gonna say "Well we should all tolerate others'
>> beliefs". Well, why don't the zoophiles/sceners/etc tolerate my beliefs, as
>> Joe Q Fan who just happens to like collecting and drawing furry art, and take
>> it to their rooms so I don't have to see it?
>
>As I'm sure you know what it's like to be unfairly painted with someone
>else's brush, I think it's important to note that not all zoophiles are
>nearly as intolerant as you make them out to be, and you shouldn't be
>making inaccurate generalizations like that.

Pardon. The wording was not targeted at _all_ zoophiles/sceners/etc,
just the ones who actually do have no tact and are so blatantly aggressive in
their beliefs. I've met more than a few.
I'm sure most of them are in fact quite tactful with their beliefs,
which is probably one of the reasons furry isn't _already_ taboo in standard
Leave it to Beaver society. ;}

- bobby

D. J. Green

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <6fa9vn$17o$1...@garnet.mint.net>, Chip <chi...@mint.net> wrote:
>Zoophilia is about zoophilia, plushies are about plushies, and
>anthropomorphics are about anthropomorphics. The fact I'm gay has nothing to
>do with anthropomorpics, isn't that easy to understand?

And this is the point that people have tried to drive home for months now.
Somehow, though, it always fails to make its mark. You'd think it would be
easy to understand, but, well...

The choplogic I've seen around here is incredible sometimes. "I'm furry,
and I'm gay. Therefore, being furry must have something to do with being
gay, and being gay must have something to do with being furry."

??!

>BTW- Dirty Pool, old man. You phrased that just like Geraldo would, right
>before parading his riteous visions to millions of TV viewers, in a
>desperate try to save millions of stuffed toys from being violated. (why do
>you think this is such a bad thing- doesn't hurt anyone, or did you see Toy
>Story one too many times?)

I don't know if he has a problem one way or the other with it. I don't
think he does, but I don't know--and whether or not he does is immaterial to
what he's trying to say.

The point is that there are people out there who appear to be trying to get
sexual orientation associated with furry fandom, or to get 'plushophilia'
associated with furry fandom, or various other things. Whether or not this
is their actual *goal*, it often serves to result in a misinformed public
(or portion of the public). As a result of this, you get startled furry
fans who are accused of engaging in all sorts of bizarre behaviors that they
don't personally want to have anything to do with. When they protest, they
get, "But you're a furry; I heard that all furries do X." What Rich, AFAICT
(not to be putting words in his mouth) is trying to say is that it would be
nice if we could disassociate these other activities that are, at best,
tangent to furry fandom, from furry fandom. Let furry fandom be furry
fandom, and let these other things be these other things. Sure, people can
participate in both of them, but being in one doesn't necessitate--nor
exclude--participation in the other.
--
Masquerade! | Masquerade!
Paper faces on parade! | Every face a different shade!
Masquerade: Hide your face | Masquerade: Look around,
So the world can never find you! | There's another mask behind you!

Joe Rosales

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Joe (me) sed, of the responses to what I felt may have been excessive
PDA:

: > Instead, it was "If you don't like it, you can get twisted. You're
: > not the boss of me!" If you do not give any understanding or
: > consideration, you should not expect any in return.

To which Xydexx sed:


: How about "Gee, I'm sorry if you were put off by my behavior, but I
: have no interest in maintaining your precious little bubble world
: where gay people don't exist."

Quite all right, CC. Xydexx is apparently arguing that in order to be
gay, there is an inherent requirement of intense, graphic display of
your likes and intentions. Mere hand holding, embraces and kissing is
not enough -- animal passion must be demonstrated in its most immediate
form, regardless of the place or company, to show one's commitment to
one's homosexual lifestyle.

Of course, this rules out any sort of discreet or "straight-acting"
gays. By this definition, those men who are gay but not flamingly,
prancingly gay are insufficiently gay as they are not obvious and
demonstrative enough, and therefore not true to the cause. By his
comments, I would guess that there is probably an additional requirement
of haranguing a person with accusations of prejudice if he for any
reason questions the appropriateness of your behavior in front of
others.

Xydexx, I wish to thank you for proving my point. Your instantaneous
and self-righteous defensive reaction -- "My behaviour isn't wrong, it
can't be. You must be prejudiced against gays!" -- shows exactly the
sort of attitude of which I wrote in my original post. Since you cannot
conceive of the idea that the more extreme behavior of which I wrote
might be inappropriate in public -- notice that I did not say wrong,
simply inappropriate in public -- you absolutely refuse to consider
moderating your actions in any way. Your solution: rather than your
behavior of the moment being wrong, others must change their beliefs to
suit you.

I am talking about moderating public behavior and showing a little
restraint. Why is lack of restraint a necessary hallmark of
homosexuality?

I would not be comfortable and happy if a heterosexual couple was
feeling each other up in the middle of the room. There is, I believe, a
degree of intimacy between any two or more people that should not be
shown in a public place, and when you get to the animal noises you've
passed it. I take it from your comments that you do not believe this is
true, and the more "in your face" a person is about their sexuality the
better.

I suppose, by your standards, that I am not gay enough. Or not straight
enough, as the case my be.

-- Joe

so...@slash.net

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

> robert holiday wrote:
> > Sure, you're gonna say "Well we should all tolerate others'
> > beliefs". Well, why don't the zoophiles/sceners/etc tolerate my beliefs,
as
> > Joe Q Fan who just happens to like collecting and drawing furry art, and
take
> > it to their rooms so I don't have to see it?
>
> As I'm sure you know what it's like to be unfairly painted with someone
> else's brush, I think it's important to note that not all zoophiles are
> nearly as intolerant as you make them out to be, and you shouldn't be
> making inaccurate generalizations like that.
>

> Just some food for thought.

Uhm.... there is a lot of truth in what Xydexx says as well as Robert. Even
in my short time online (Only a year or so...) I have seen that despite all
of furry being a fringe group with a large gay or bi population, there is
little empathy to the minorities or majorities in that matter. I love the
fandom but as there are in any group there are hypocrites who say that only
their way is the way to go, be it artwork/zoo/sceneing/etc.... I am a mameber
of some bizzare clicks, but I think that respect for everyone should be
shown....

-Partran, the College trapped tiger.

(Presently using DejaNews so I can't see non-archived posts)

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <6fa9vn$17o$1...@garnet.mint.net>, "Chip" <chi...@mint.net> writes:
>
> >Typical. Ask a simple question and Xydexx will decline to answer or
> >take a stand.
>
> Does it matter?

Actually, yes. If you recall the last heinous flamewar involving me and
Xydexx, he argued on for weeks, not really taking a stand and changing the
topic from the issue at hand to a spotlight-hogging debate about what he did
or didn't say. Eventually it came out that he was actually on the same side,
but while he had his fun with the debate, it enraged enough other people that
it couldn't have been worthwhile.

Thus I will not go into a drawn out debate with him unless he takes a clearly
articulated stand on an issue and doesn't try and lead it down the rabbit hole
by skipping the important bits.

> Zoophilia is about zoophilia, plushies are about plushies,
> and anthropomorphics are about anthropomorphics. The fact I'm gay
> has nothing to do with anthropomorpics, isn't that easy to understand?

> If someone wants to shag a dog, as long as it isn't mine, I'm fine with
> it- I just don't want to watch. Certain prefs are unrelated, but it
> isn't uncommon to find people with multiple fetishes- it's
> natural-

Heh, if you can cope with someone who thinks the opposite, those are the types
I was pointing out who are against defining furry.

> >You say you have no problem with saying furry fandom is
> >about anthropomorphics. So would you agree that it's Not about
> >having sex with RL animals or stuffed animals? Yes or no.
>
> Yes- I do agree that it's NOT. - zoophilia is about having sex with
> RL animals, plushies are stuffed animal sex objects, and
> anthropomorphics are animal/human hybrids. That's it- if someone has
> other fetishes, that's their choice- but it's not the definition.

So we are agreed. The question though, was intended for Xydexx.

> BTW- Dirty Pool, old man. You phrased that just like Geraldo would, right
> before parading his riteous visions to millions of TV viewers, in
> a desperate try to save millions of stuffed toys from being violated.
> (why do you think this is such a bad thing- doesn't hurt anyone, or
> did you see Toy Story one too many times?)

Well, especially after two conflicting bits of Info, Tim Gadd who on the
authority of running the Plushie mailing list considers that the virtually all
plushophiles are what I was calling Sexual Plushophiles, followed by an e-mail
bitching me out for going on that info, I'll simply refer to the actual
disturbing practice.

By the way, I'm not against masturbation, per se. The problem as I see it is
that Furry Fandom has had problems in the past with accusationns of kiddie
porn, or that furry erotica is somehow designed to lead children into sexual
situations (Apply the idea that "Cartoons are for kids" and erotic cartoons
and you can see how a Mundane might make that connection. Most state attorney
generals are mundanes.) To make public pronouncements about having sexual
relations with something meant to be a toy for children raises the question of
whether those toys might be used to lure children.

NOTE: I am NOT accusing anyone of being a child sexual predator. However, I
don't want anyone else to have the grounds to make such accusations about
anyone in this fandom regardless of the facts. There have been incidents in
the past, and the very last thing we need is for the entire fandom to get
branded that way. And it will be the VERY LAST thing, because no hotel would
rent its convention space to something with a reputation approaching NAMBLA.

(Oh dear, I used that name, now someone's gonna invoke Godwin's law or
something, rather than thinking about the issue at hand.)

Anyway, this is why I HOPE that Xydexx's answer to the question is "Yes".

And just to make sure it doesn't get lost:


> You say you have no problem with saying furry fandom is about
> anthropomorphics. So would you agree that it's Not about having
> sex with RL animals or stuffed animals? Yes or no.

so...@slash.net

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Heya Robert (and all viewing people)

> Xydexx squeaked:


>
> >> Sure, you're gonna say "Well we should all tolerate others'
> >> beliefs". Well, why don't the zoophiles/sceners/etc tolerate my beliefs,
as
> >> Joe Q Fan who just happens to like collecting and drawing furry art, and
take
> >> it to their rooms so I don't have to see it?
> >
> >As I'm sure you know what it's like to be unfairly painted with someone
> >else's brush, I think it's important to note that not all zoophiles are
> >nearly as intolerant as you make them out to be, and you shouldn't be
> >making inaccurate generalizations like that.
>

> Pardon. The wording was not targeted at _all_
zoophiles/sceners/etc,
> just the ones who actually do have no tact and are so blatantly aggressive
in
> their beliefs. I've met more than a few.

Ayup, there are a few, but that is in all groups. (see previous posting on
that vein)

> I'm sure most of them are in fact quite tactful with their beliefs,
> which is probably one of the reasons furry isn't _already_ taboo in
standard
> Leave it to Beaver society. ;}

Probably.... But what is taboo is changing fairly quickly. What is considered
nearly acceptable today was illegal and taboo as hell not more than a decade
ago.... A bit bizarre to see where the lines are drawn in the future..... and
the "Leave it to Beaver" Society can go jump off a cliff. I will be who I am
and try not to interfere with other people and if they don't like that let
them take a bite out of my furry rump.....

> Co-administrator of the Furry IRC network at irc.feline.pp.se
> hol...@celes.feline.pp.se
> Try http://pinky.wtower.com/~holiday fer my evil framey webpage.
> http://rat.org/pub/furry/holirobe fer my disgustingly ky00t art.

Tried your evil framey webpage and it wasn't up.....

> "Why make more nuclear warheads, wait 'till the ones we have are
> used. A nuclear war can ruin your whole day."

*laughs as he has a friend from Oak Ridge (think Manhattan Project)

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Farlo the fey dragon wrote:
> Tora, of "Ushio and Tora"? That critter rocks ... I could go for
> that, except i'd like him as-is, no distortion.

He's cool either way. I thought the SD episode was just sickeningly
cute, though. I got to watch a whole bunch of Ushio and Tora a few
months ago, it was great. Especially liked the episode with the heads
that flew around decapitating people... muahaha...

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage [Squeaky-Squeak!]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm ICQ: 7569393

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:
> Typical. Ask a simple question and Xydexx will decline to answer or take a
> stand.

If I'm not answering, it's because you're asking the wrong questions.
Honestly, Rich, I don't think you appreciate the hours of my time I
waste composing replies to you...

> Relevence? You left the statement open.

I said furry fandom is about anthropomorphics. Period. That's it.
That's my position. Unless I see some legitimate reason to modify that
in the future, I'd say the statement is pretty much closed.

> You have no trouble with saying it's
> about anthropomorphics, fine,

(Obviously, it's not fine, if you have trouble accepting a statement
like "furry fandom is about anthropomorphics".)

> I'm just finding the limits of what you _would_ say it's about.

I already told you the limits of what I would say it's about. I'm more
interested in why 9 out of 10 arguments I have here are based on things
I _didn't_ say...

> I hope you WOULD have trouble saying it's also about
> Zoophilia or using stuffed animals for masturbation.

While I'm finding this obsession of yours with zoophilia and stuffed
animals for masturbation amusing, Rich, I'd just like to remind you that
this newsgroup is for discussing furry fandom, anthropomorphics, and
perhaps the occasional mudslinging that you and I get into every once in
a while. -:P

> I'm amazed at how much you talk while working so hard to avoid saying
> anything. You'd make a fine Senator.

Senator Xydexx Squeakypony. Has a nice ring to it, but I've already got
a job as Ambassador to Furry Fandom that takes up enough of my time.

> You say you have no problem with saying furry fandom is about
> anthropomorphics. So would you agree that it's Not about having sex with RL
> animals or stuffed animals? Yes or no.

Why does everything have to be about having sex with something, Rich?
You keep acting like my saying "furry fandom is about anthropomorphics"
has some perverse hidden agenda lurking behind it. Sometimes a cigar
really _is_ a cigar, y'know? Here's some food for thought: If furry
fandom _doesn't_ have anything to do with having sex with RL animals or
stuffed animals, then why do you keep bringing it up, hm?

_____________________________________________________________
Xydexx | "Debates like this on alt.fan.furry are kind of
the | like boinking a herd of inflatable reindeer. The
Squeaky | only difference is, when I'm done masturbating I
Pony | have something to show for it afterwards."

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

D. J. Green wrote:
> The choplogic I've seen around here is incredible sometimes. "I'm furry,
> and I'm gay. Therefore, being furry must have something to do with being
> gay, and being gay must have something to do with being furry."

Reminder: I'm furry and I'm gay, and I'm saying furry fandom is about
anthropomorphics...

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:
> Actually, yes. If you recall the last heinous flamewar involving me and
> Xydexx, he argued on for weeks, not really taking a stand and changing the
> topic from the issue at hand to a spotlight-hogging debate about what he did
> or didn't say. Eventually it came out that he was actually on the same side,

AND THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS:
Nobody knows what my positions on
things are better than _I_ do.

The lesson to be learned here is that you shouldn't argue with Xydexx
about Things He Never Said to begin with. It's a monumental waste of
everyone's time, because while I spend time telling people I never said
that, they interpret that as me defending positions I never held in the
first place.

For a good example, ask me about my boycott of Mu Press. (Hint: There
wasn't one. Ever. In fact, the first one to mention the words
"boycott" and "Mu Press" in the same sentence was --- ironically ---
Chuck Melville.)

You wanna know what I think? (I know, you don't, but I'm going to tell
you anyway...) I think that people need to stop flaming me before they
know what my position on an issue is. Of course, it's hard to know what
my position on anything is because I never take a stand on it, right?

Wrong, actually. Here's a list of just a few of my positions, which
have been stated in this newsgroup and all over the online world. Read
it and weep:

XYDEXX'S POSITIONS ON FURRY FANDOM
(Print this out and consult it before flaming me, thanks.)
===========================================================
1. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.
2. Furry fandom is big enough for *EVERYONE* who likes
anthropomorphics.
3. Working with furry fans will strengthen and improve
furry fandom.
4. Infighting with furry fans will weaken and divide
furry fandom.
5. Artists have every right to draw what they like.
6. Dealers have every right to sell what they like.
7. Furry fans have every right to buy what they like.
8. Conventions have every right to make their own rules.
9. Furry fans should support the things in furry fandom
they like.
10. Furry fans should create their own things if they
don't like the available things.
11. Furry fans should create their own things if they
think they can do it better.
12. I support distributing accurate information about
furry fandom as far and wide as possible.
13. I support collaborative efforts between furry fans.
14. I support writing positive articles about furry fandom.
15. I support furry gatherings between conventions to
increase networking opportunities within furry fandom.
16. I support attending furry conventions as a Sponsor, or
helping artists/GoH defray travel costs.
17. I support complaining if it's directed at someone who
deserves it.
18. I support furry fans practicing and improving their
writing and/or drawing skills.
19. I support drinking Celestial Seasonings Vanilla Maple
tea and spending time away from alt.fan.furry when
the flamewars get too hectic.
20. I support giving the Pet Auction less of a "red light
district" atmosphere.
21. I support appointing a Press Liason at conventions to
deal with the media.
22. I am opposed to negative publicity about furry fandom.
23. I am opposed to giving money to people who don't like
[read: "actively hate"] furries.
24. I am opposed to using the more "colorful" elements of
furry fandom as scapegoats.
25. I am opposed to the demonization of collars, hugs,
scritching, and words like "pet" and "furry".
26. I am opposed to wearing BDSM gear [collars excluded]
in public areas.

And here's the REALLY controversial ones:
27. The overwhelming majority of furry fans are really cool.
28. It's not hard to have a great time at furry conventions.

===========================================================

> Thus I will not go into a drawn out debate with him unless he takes a clearly
> articulated stand on an issue and doesn't try and lead it down the rabbit hole
> by skipping the important bits.

There you go about sticking things in the bunny's hole. You've just got
a one-track mind, Rich... -:)

As we've seen, I've taken articulated stands on all sorts of things in
furry fandom. The curious may do their own research if they are
gluttons for punishment and actually _want_ to relive the horrors of the
past by using DejaNews' Power Search option, which is located at:

http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml

Be advised, however, that:
a) any opinions I've held (or through sheer misinterpretation
appeared to have held) that you find may have been subject to change
without notice,
and MORE importantly:
b) it's always better to confirm that I actually disagree with you
before you start flaming me for something I never said in the first
place.

Richard de Wylfin

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

In article <351851...@smart.netnot.aol.com>,
xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com wrote:

~robert holiday wrote:
~> ...thank god. The last thing we need is Chester dancing nude (I
~> haven't seen too many pics of him which aren't 1) spooge, or 2) Some form of
~> 'tease' art) as the mascot of furry fandom. ;P
~
~Sorry if that was a bad example to use, it was just the first character
~I thought of.
~
~> >Furry fandom is about the creation and/or appreciation of
~> >writing/artwork [and/or miscellaneous other media] devoted to the
~> >previously-mentioned anthropomorphic characters.
~> Hmm. Gosh, I love widely interpretable statements.. that could mean,
~> "Furry fandom is about (creation) making inflatable horses
~
~Just out of curiosity, what sort of human characteristics would that
~inflatable horse have, hm?
~
~> "Furry fandom is about (creation) drawing pukey-cute anime critters and
~> (appreciation) sacrificing small animals to them".
~
~What's wrong with pukey-cute anime critters? I think we should have a
~something like a superdeformed Tora as the Official Furry Fandom
~Mascot. That'd be kewl. -:)


BADZ-MARU ROOLZ!

--

^ ^
o-o
+
richard de wylfin http://dwylfin.home.ml.org/

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:
> Be sure you have the most up to date version, I made some additions after
> CF8, and I have notes to myself to add a couple more things to it this year.

Duly noted.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

so...@slash.net wrote:
> I love the
> fandom but as there are in any group there are hypocrites who say that only
> their way is the way to go, be it artwork/zoo/sceneing/etc.... I am a mameber
> of some bizzare clicks, but I think that respect for everyone should be
> shown....

Indeed. I think the whole "battle for the fandom" is pointless. It's
just one group of furry fans trying to drive the other group out. (And
then there's folks like us in the middle of it, saying nobody has to
drive anyone out because furry fandom is big enough for everyone.
Ohwell.)

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

[Now kids, what did I say about arguing with me about things I never
said...?]

M S wrote:
> So you claim WE(heterosexuals I'm assuming) are trying to
> run your life by offering a little friendly advice?

Incorrect. I am saying there is nothing wrong with scritching and
hugging my friends.

> You should be aware that there are many sides to the fandom,

You do realize you're addressing an outspoken advocate of the idea that
furry fandom is big enough for everyone, right?

> if you want them to respect your ways, then try to respect
> theirs.

Except that their "way" is to _not_ respect mine. All I'm asking for is
the same courtesy they are.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98
to

[And speaking of people who argue with me about Things I Never Said...]

Joe Rosales wrote:
> Quite all right, CC. Xydexx is apparently arguing that in order to be
> gay, there is an inherent requirement of intense, graphic display of
> your likes and intentions. Mere hand holding, embraces and kissing is
> not enough -- animal passion must be demonstrated in its most immediate
> form, regardless of the place or company, to show one's commitment to
> one's homosexual lifestyle.

Wrong. I am arguing that there is nothing wrong with hugging and
scritching my friends.

[additional inaccurate flamebait sacrificed to the Penguin Gods]


> Xydexx, I wish to thank you for proving my point.

Heh. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

> Your instantaneous and self-righteous defensive reaction

...is entirely justified. As you said, "if you do not give any
understanding or consideration, you should expect none in return". I
agreed with you. If I'm wrong, you're wrong. I wish to thank you for
proving... nothing.

> Since you cannot conceive of the idea that the more extreme behavior of which I wrote
> might be inappropriate in public -- notice that I did not say wrong,

Y'know, it's funny, we were just talking about people who mistakenly
think I support sex in public and BDSM gear in the lobby and the more
extreme behavior you were writing about. Quite a coincidence, isn't
it? So it will certainly be quite a shock to you that I, in fact, do
not support these things.

> Your solution: rather than your behavior of the moment being
> wrong, others must change their beliefs to suit you.

Explain then:
* Why is my behavior wrong?
* Why must I change my beliefs to suit others?



> I am talking about moderating public behavior and showing a little
> restraint.

And I'm talking about extending some courtesy and consideration to
people who _already_ show restraint.

> I would not be comfortable and happy if a heterosexual couple was
> feeling each other up in the middle of the room. There is, I believe, a
> degree of intimacy between any two or more people that should not be
> shown in a public place,

I agree. I'm not opposed to heavy petting or sex [or BDSM gear, yadda
yadda yadda, it's an old story but I'll tell it again] being kept out of
public places.

> and when you get to the animal noises you've passed it.

What's so offensive about animal noises?[1]

> I take it from your comments that you do not believe this is
> true, and the more "in your face" a person is about their
> sexuality the better.

Wrong again. I'm not doing it to be "in your face". I'm doing it
because I am happy with who I am, comfortable with being openly gay [so
comfortable, in fact. that asking me if I have a girlfriend will get you
the same reaction as asking me if I can FLY... and that's a true story],
and I happen to enjoy hugging and scritching my friends _and_ making
animal noises. Apparently, I don't _need_ to be "in your face" about
it. Being _myself_ is offensive enough.

> I suppose, by your standards, that I am not gay enough. Or not straight
> enough, as the case my be.

Wrong again. I don't care how closeted or out or straight you are, as
the case may be.

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage [Squeaky-Squeak!]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/welcome.htm ICQ: 7569393

[1] Oh, no! ANIMAL NOISES at a FURRY CONVENTION! That'll
SURELY be the downfall of furry fandom...[2]
[2] That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Catching colds wrote:
> Okay, let's spell it out. Next time instead of playing "let's find
> the nice old lady so we can stand there and rub each other while panting
> and making happy animal noises just to see the shock on her face" try
> this one for a change.

You are assuming [incorrectly] that is a game I participate in. Try
again.

> If someone happens to be taken aback by your behavior because they
> find it bizzare and perhaps shocking and come up give you a look like
> you'd just grown a second head, you could try something like oh, "I"m
> sorry. We were just playing around and didn't mean to scare you." Then
> you can like, go somewhere else away from that person, or that person
> will nod at you or something and go their own way while shaking their head.
>
> Of course it's entirely possible that opening up a dialogue with one
> of these people will actually create a spark of understanding with that
> individual. I know it's not something you should bet on, but not every
> mundane is out to get you, you know. He might just come back with
> something like, "Oh that's okay. I just never saw anything like that
> before. Are you with some secret club or something?" Gee what do you
> know, you actually started something constructive for a change. Fancy
> that.

You are assuming [again, incorrectly] that I haven't tried that before.

I used to have an inflatable reindeer for a zombie on FurryMUCK.
Someone found it "offensive", even though it was the squeakiest-clean
G-rated inflatable reindeer you ever saw. But for some reason it
offended her.

So I asked why. It wasn't any different than the eight inflatable
reindeer I had at home. It wasn't wearing a collar or running around
yiffing people. It was just my little inflatable reindeer, which could
go wander around FurryMUCK and do things for me if I was busy on another
part of the MUCK.

So, in the interest of opening up a dialogue, I asked why. Was it
because it was inflatable? Was it because it was a reindeer? It
quickly became apparent that this person wasn't going to give me any
reason other than "because I say so". She also didn't want to discuss
it any further, put me on page #ignore, and probably complained to the
wizzes that I was "harassing" her.

While it's unfortunate that some people have a problem with inflatable
reindeer, let's not lose sight of the fact that it's still their
problem.[1]

> I always wondered why some people feel the need impose their own ways
> of life, or whatever, upon others while at the same time whining on about
> oppressed they feel from society at large.

I've always wondered why some people feel the need to impose their own
ways of life or whatever upon others period.[2]



> Read the above, again, and again, and then read what Joe Rosales
> posted, again, and again, and one more time for good measure. Why should
> anyone give you any consideration if you're not even willing to do it
> yourself, and instead take defensive position each and every time?

Why should I give consideration to someone if they're not willing to do
it themselves?

> Er, and I don't think anyone mentioned what god they worshipped. Oh
> right, this is an us versus them thing.

No, it's an us versus us thing. It's always an us versus us thing.

> Yes, someone feeling offended by something you do in public is
> attempting to run your life.

I'll bet you think animal noises are offensive, too...[3]

____________________________________________________________
Rev. Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. - Ambassador to Furry Fandom

The Inflatable Reindeer Puzzle Page [Squeaky-Squeak!]
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/ohdeer.htm ICQ: 7569393

[1] Xydexx's inflatable reindeer have made appearances at
Confurence 6 and at various local furry gatherings in
the DC Metropolitan Area.

[2] However, nobody has proposed legislation that would
outlaw inflatable reindeer as obscene material.

[3] I am pony. Hear me squeak.

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

I was going to address this article point by point with much detail in
the hopes of fostering actual understanding for a change, since my
original point seems have fallen on deaf ears. Then I realized I'd just
be repeating myself over and over and over, and who needs to waste their
breath like that? And seeing as Xydexx seems to never even consider that
maybe some of us sometime might actually be addressing valid concerns or
perish the thought, knowing what we're talking about, well maybe arguing
with him is just an exercise in futility. As a result, instead, this
will be the most curt response I have ever made in my life, to wit:

Xydexx, you're hopeless.

You're welcome.

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn (xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com) wrote:
: [Now kids, what did I say about arguing with me about things I never
: said...?]

: M S wrote:
: > So you claim WE(heterosexuals I'm assuming) are trying to
: > run your life by offering a little friendly advice?

: Incorrect. I am saying there is nothing wrong with scritching and
: hugging my friends.


So when you said,

> How about "Gee, I'm sorry if you were put off by my behavior, but I have
> no interest in maintaining your precious little bubble world where gay
> people don't exist."

and,

> Tolerance is a *two-way* street; I don't require the people from
> Muskogee to dress up in rubber, and they don't require me to go to
> church on Sunday to worship their god.

You say so without any sense of bitterness towards right wing
heterosexual christians? Just one big happy family, eh?

: > You should be aware that there are many sides to the fandom,

: You do realize you're addressing an outspoken advocate of the idea that
: furry fandom is big enough for everyone, right?

Well, duh. This ain't some sort of queer's only club. Though I
suspect some people wish it were. You know I wonder what happened to the
notion that Furry was only about funny animals, and that's it. I don't
think anyone here really gives big toot if you like scritching or
whatever. We're looking for some common courtesy here and I certainly am
not seeing it. Just cries of martyr, mostly.

: > if you want them to respect your ways, then try to respect
: > theirs.

: Except that their "way" is to _not_ respect mine. All I'm asking for is
: the same courtesy they are.

Whose way is not to respect yours? And who are 'they'? And what is
your way anyway? You've never made any of that clear. That list you
posted of what you believe in is just as wishy-washy. I'd like to know
exactly what it is you're whining about and why you don't like it. Are
you feeling persecuted? Did some good ol' boy come at you with a shotgun
and now you harbor a suppressed resentment? Are you lashing out? Am I
right? Am I wrong? Give me something to work with here. It's no wonder
everyone miscontrue's what you say. You never say exactly what you mean.

So like, put up or shut you. You're welcome.

D.L.Norton@3RDMIL

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

dwy...@usa.net (Richard de Wylfin) writes:

> BADZ-MARU ROOLZ!


Hey..don't come between me and my Bad Badtz Maru watch..!!

-Dean L. Norton

Trive Fauxx

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Well, I'll try and answer- since I started all this (yes this is me, sort
of... hehe)

--
Trive Fauxx- not quite real, but are you either?

I will wash away your pain with all my tears-
and drown your fear.
GARBAGE-#1 CRUSH


Richard Chandler wrote in message <980325120...@marble.claris.com>...


>In article <6fa9vn$17o$1...@garnet.mint.net>, "Chip" <chi...@mint.net> writes:
>>

>> >Typical. Ask a simple question and Xydexx will decline to answer or
>> >take a stand.


Well, i missed that showing. Hope there isn't one on this week. As for
whether or not it matters, I guess I was wrong- but I was posting based on
what I read at that time- I hadn't read before.

>Thus I will not go into a drawn out debate with him unless he takes a
clearly
>articulated stand on an issue and doesn't try and lead it down the rabbit
hole
>by skipping the important bits.

>Heh, if you can cope with someone who thinks the opposite, those are the


types
>I was pointing out who are against defining furry.

Well, free thinking, I guess- but that's how I see it, it makes sense to me.

>So we are agreed. The question though, was intended for Xydexx.


yes, but as a furfan, i couldn't let the challence go unheeded- it had to be
answered, a matter of pride, if you will.

>Well, especially after two conflicting bits of Info, Tim Gadd who on the
>authority of running the Plushie mailing list considers that the virtually
all
>plushophiles are what I was calling Sexual Plushophiles, followed by an
e-mail
>bitching me out for going on that info, I'll simply refer to the actual
>disturbing practice.


Disturbing? Oh well, to each his own- I prefer real men myself, a stuffed
one isn't too lively.

>By the way, I'm not against masturbation, per se. The problem as I see it
is
>that Furry Fandom has had problems in the past with accusationns of kiddie
>porn, or that furry erotica is somehow designed to lead children into
sexual
>situations (Apply the idea that "Cartoons are for kids" and erotic cartoons
>and you can see how a Mundane might make that connection. Most state
attorney
>generals are mundanes.) To make public pronouncements about having sexual
>relations with something meant to be a toy for children raises the question
of
>whether those toys might be used to lure children.


I see what you mean here- but the problem won't go away by letting the
stiffs (for lack of another word I could use in public) dictate to us what
is right, and what is wrong. Any idiot can see that almost all furs are
AGAINST kiddie porn- And any moronic judge who thinks Erotic Cartoons are
for kids should be forced to watch 100 drooling, 40 year olds, with
Booze-soaked beards laughing at the wicked witch stretching some poor guy's
penis to rediculous proportions. My 11-year old cousin saw one, and it
turned him off to sex totally "Gross!" as he put it. And actually, stuffed
toys have been adult collectibles since the Teddy Bear, maybe sooner, much
like porcalin dolls. As for luring children- how many real kids do you know?
It's got to beep, whistle, have buttons, or at least cost a fortune, or they
don't want it. Cash would work much better- anyone loves money (or at least
what they can get from it), or candy- if a kids hungry, they'll take
anything.) And I do speak from experience here- I was one of those kids.

>(Oh dear, I used that name, now someone's gonna invoke Godwin's law or
>something, rather than thinking about the issue at hand.)


OK- glad that's clear, in my head anyways. You're good fur Richard, a little
uptight, you need to relax a bit. Isn't that why we're here?

>Anyway, this is why I HOPE that Xydexx's answer to the question is "Yes".

Ditto.

>And just to make sure it doesn't get lost:

Trive Fauxx

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Well, I don't get this at all- If everyone agrees, why are they fighting
like humans? Who cares why someone believes something- ain't diddly that can
be done about it anyway, so let it be. It still is a Republic here, at last
check (might be wrong- they never tell me these things...)

--
Trive Fauxx- not quite real, but are you either?

I will wash away your pain with all my tears-
and drown your fear.
GARBAGE-#1 CRUSH

>AND THE MORAL OF THIS STORY IS:


> Nobody knows what my positions on
> things are better than _I_ do.

>You wanna know what I think? (I know, you don't, but I'm going to tell
>you anyway...) I think that people need to stop flaming me before they
>know what my position on an issue is. Of course, it's hard to know what
>my position on anything is because I never take a stand on it, right?


I didn't flame anyone- I just got here to relax, and there's a big
personfight going on.
And if everyoone reads this, it's exactly what everyone else keeps saying-
Why does this thread keep going if it's about two people trying to agree
with eachother?

>Wrong, actually. Here's a list of just a few of my positions, which
>have been stated in this newsgroup and all over the online world. Read
>it and weep:

Well, that was a good idea- maybe I'll put my opinions on my homepage (under
works), and see if anyone wants to agree with me in a flame war. And I'm not
taking sides here- in fact, I see no reason for this whole thing. But oh
well- Continue. I'm done- got enough info- everyone agrees, noone's happy.
Oh well.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <3519CB...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> > You should be aware that there are many sides to the fandom,
>
> You do realize you're addressing an outspoken advocate of the idea
> that furry fandom is big enough for everyone, right?

That seems to be the root of the problem. What's so special about the fandom
if "Everyone" is in it?

> > if you want them to respect your ways, then try to respect theirs.
>
> Except that their "way" is to _not_ respect mine. All I'm asking for
> is the same courtesy they are.

Gotta love it, "Let's Compromise. You first."

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <3519A6...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:

> Richard Chandler wrote:
> > Typical. Ask a simple question and Xydexx will decline to answer
> > or take a stand.
>
> If I'm not answering, it's because you're asking the wrong questions.
> Honestly, Rich, I don't think you appreciate the hours of my time I
> waste composing replies to you...

Q.E.D.

Further demonstrations of the above deleted.

The Secretary will not that Xydexx declined to answer the question. It has
not been extablished if Xydexx would agree that Furry Fandom Not about having
sex with RL animals or stuffed animals or not.

But I'm sure he'd love us to debate the possibility that he does not, so he
can argue more about what he did or did not say. I decline.

(Oh, and another Xydexx Pattern, (TM) hyper-fragmenting threads so there can
be even more threads talking about him. Subject line restored. Just Say No.)

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <3519E8...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> Catching colds wrote:
> > Okay, let's spell it out. Next time instead of playing "let's
> > find the nice old lady so we can stand there and rub each other
> > while panting and making happy animal noises just to see the shock
> > on her face" try this one for a change.
>
> You are assuming [incorrectly] that is a game I participate in. Try
> again.

Xydexx Pattern #3. Since he's the center of the world, you MUST be talking
about Him, even if you weren't. Since he didn't do what you were talking
about, you must be srong. Obviously Xydexx's understanding of Grammer does
not include the General "You".

<Snip>


> > or something?" Gee what do you know, you actually started
> > something constructive for a change. Fancy that.
>
> You are assuming [again, incorrectly] that I haven't tried that before.

Q.E.D. Note that this often leads back to Xydexx Pattern #1, steering the
debate around to centering on what he did or didn't say by causing attibution
to be lost and making unclear statements.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <3519C8...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> Indeed. I think the whole "battle for the fandom" is pointless.

But he LOOOVES fighting it.

Strange attraction for someone who likes to be popped.

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <3519C3...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> XYDEXX'S POSITIONS ON FURRY FANDOM
> (Print this out and consult it before flaming me, thanks.)
> ===========================================================
> 1. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.

On the face of it, I'd agree, but that depends on how you define
anthropomorphics. This is why I think a clear definition of what furry Fandom
is and is not about is critical.

> 2. Furry fandom is big enough for *EVERYONE* who likes
> anthropomorphics.

No. There is no room in it for someone who, for example, loves
anthropomorphics because it gives him an opportunity to rip off fans.

> 3. Working with furry fans will strengthen and improve furry fandom.

Working on WHAT?

> 4. Infighting with furry fans will weaken and divide furry fandom.

That which does not kill me makes me stronger.



> 5. Artists have every right to draw what they like.
> 6. Dealers have every right to sell what they like.
> 7. Furry fans have every right to buy what they like.

Sure. And Cons also have the right to control how this is done at their
events, be it requiring post-its or whatever.



> 8. Conventions have every right to make their own rules.

Sure, but could a con pass a rule say, banning scritching in the public areas
of the hotel and have your full support then?



> 9. Furry fans should support the things in furry fandom they like.

Slippery definition of "In the Fandom", see #1

> 10. Furry fans should create their own things if they
> don't like the available things.
> 11. Furry fans should create their own things if they
> think they can do it better.

Both true.

> 12. I support distributing accurate information about
> furry fandom as far and wide as possible.

Depending on how you define #1. If say, believing a sheep to express the
emotion of love as a perfect analog to the emotion in humans, thus justifying
intercourse is considered anthropomorphizing the sheep, and thus something
that Furry Fandom is about, then I would contend that such information is not
correct and I would oppose distributing it. Not that I'm saying You advocate
such a position. In fact, I've asked you many times to clarify this, and you
have refused.



> 13. I support collaborative efforts between furry fans.

To Do what? Overthrow the Government? Snatch CF out of Mark Merlino's hands?

----
Um, um, um <reads down> Waitaminnit!

> b) it's always better to confirm that I actually disagree with
> you before you start flaming me for something I never said in the
> first place.

Then why won't you answer my question?

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

<sarcasm>

Please allow me to reiterate and restate my point of view. In no way
should it be miscontrued that I do not disapprove! Thank you.


(Okay actually that was taken from a radio commercial that made fun of
politicians but it does get the point across, if you've been listening.)

(Getting it done in '91! Working for you in '92! Tax free by '93!)

</sarcasm>

Ostrich

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Richard de Wylfin (dwy...@usa.net) wrote:
: ~

: ~What's wrong with pukey-cute anime critters? I think we should have a
: ~something like a superdeformed Tora as the Official Furry Fandom
: ~Mascot. That'd be kewl. -:)

I *like* pukey cute. I've got a whole row of Little Ponies on top
of my bookcase. It just doesn't get much cuter than that.

-Ostrich! <")

M S

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Xydexx, no one is telling you that skritching or hugging your friends in
public is wrong, or a bad thing, but what I've seen goes beyond mere
affection and goes more towards heavy petting and dare I say it,
foreplay. It's offensive and makes people nervous. And before you go off
telling me I must be uncomfortable with my sexuality or that I'm a right
wing bible thumper let me tell you not to be so hyper-sensitive when it
comes to a friendly debate.( If I weren't being friendly you would know
it...)

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
: In article <3519C3...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
: <xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
: > XYDEXX'S POSITIONS ON FURRY FANDOM
: > (Print this out and consult it before flaming me, thanks.)
: > ===========================================================
: > 1. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.

: On the face of it, I'd agree, but that depends on how you define

: anthropomorphics. This is why I think a clear definition of what furry Fandom
: is and is not about is critical.

Look up the definition of anthropomorphic. Apply it to animals. Include
mythicals as well. Now you know what Xydexx meant. It's a pretty clear
definition. If it makes you happy, I don't think you'll find anything
about beastiality in any dictionary under the word 'antrhopomorphic'.
Nothing about sex of any kind will likely be mentioned. Nothing about
sexual preference either. To be a furry fan one simply has to like
anthropomorphics. You now have a clear definition about what furry fandom
is about from the one you wanted to hear it from. Hopefully you'll quit
whining about that at least. You may not like some of the other things
some furry fans may be into or some of their behavior in public. The
former you'll just have to deal with as long as they act responsibly about
it. The latter you may feel free to complain about and even get some
agreement. I don't particularly have a problem with the fur fans who
happen to also be zoophiles or enjoy boinking their plush animals. Most of
those in both groups are reasonably private about that part of their
lives. Many in both groups are likely just as disgusted with the idiocy of
the ones who helped the muckrakers from Loaded by giving interviews as you
are. Common sense isn't all that common sometimes. Feel free to target
said behavior. Just keep in mind that even those people, if they like
anthropomorphics, are still furry fans and there isn't a thing that you
can do about that no matter how you try to define furry fandom to not
include them.

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:

: Sure. And Cons also have the right to control how this is done at their

: events, be it requiring post-its or whatever.

Which he agrees with in the very next statement.

: > 8. Conventions have every right to make their own rules.

: Sure, but could a con pass a rule say, banning scritching in the public areas

: of the hotel and have your full support then?

I'm curious as to what your definition of 'scritching' is? Based on my
experience with the fandom, it's basically a friendly scratch of the back,
ears or head. It's not meant to be sexual and if it starts looking more
like groping then it ought to be taken to a private setting. I see nothing
wrong with greeting a friend in the fandom with a hug and a friendly
scritch whether in public or not. It's no more offensive than a handshake
as far as I'm concerned. Keep in mind I don't go up to total strangers and
do either without making sure it's ok. I have a few friends in the fandom
who don't like that sort of physical contact and I respect that. I doubt a
con that said 'You may not scratch somebody elses back or head in public.'
would have that many attendees. Fortunately there isn't likely to be such
a convention.


Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

M S <matts...@webtv.net> wrote:
: Xydexx, no one is telling you that skritching or hugging your friends in

: public is wrong, or a bad thing, but what I've seen goes beyond mere
: affection and goes more towards heavy petting and dare I say it,
: foreplay.

When it gets to that point then it should indeed be taken to a private
room.

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
: In article <3519CB...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
: <xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
: > > You should be aware that there are many sides to the fandom,
: >
: > You do realize you're addressing an outspoken advocate of the idea
: > that furry fandom is big enough for everyone, right?

: That seems to be the root of the problem. What's so special about the fandom
: if "Everyone" is in it?

Everyone who likes anthropomorphics can be in the fandom. Is there a
problem with that since the fandom is about people who like
anthropomorphics?

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Karl Meyer (fer...@enteract.com) wrote:

There is a problem still, since the very fact we're all arguing about
it suggests just that. If it's just about anthropormorphics, then its
applications within this fandom should have a broad scope. More often
than not within this group, anthropomorphics is applied practically only
to sex, fetishes and erotic fantasy. There's nothing wrong with that
even, in and of itself. My complaint is that that's almost all you ever
see nowadays. Really good applied anthropomorhics is almost a dead art
compared to the glut of Genus and Bunny Pages type rags whose claim to
fame are abnormally endowed animal people in compromising positions.

And the fans eat that up, for what reason I've yet to fathom. Good
for a laugh, maybe. As a novelty once, it had some appeal. Now that
it's all over the place it leaves one with a sense of wanting. This is
what some of you out there do not seem to want to understand. Where's
the next generation of Critters? When are we gonna see something as good
as Captain Jack again? Reality Check comes close, and I like it, but
it's an oasis of creative effort in a desert of poorly written near
pornographic material drawn mostly by people who could barely make a
straight line, and whom take themselves and their work way too seriously,
considering what it is.

I once showed the Confurence Six souveneir book to a gay and lesbian
club at a local community college. This was about three years ago.
Before you begin to wonder, it just happened to still be in my backpack
and someone saw it and asked so I showed it around and tried to explain
it. Anyways, one of the women thumbing through it finnally asked me, "Is
this all about naked animal woman with a lot of pierced rings?" I had to
laugh.

And you know, she had a point. If it's indeed only about
anthropomorphics, then why are the sexual aspects so goddamned
prevailent? You would think (and I had hoped at one time) you would see
much more diversity within such a group. Where's the discussion about
super intelligent animals? Where's the discussion about animal myths,
legends and deities? Where's the talk about gods in cartoon history like
Chuck Jones or Tex Avery? Why doesn't Alan Dean Foster or Larry Niven
post to alt.fan.furry? I'll give you a hint. It's not because they
don't know we exist. A.D.F. at least I know delibrately avoids anything
labeled Furry because of his personal experience with it.

Now if you're sitting there foaming at the mouth eager to say how much
I wish hugging or scritching or whatever should be forever banned from
public view then I could only guess that you either can't understand what
I'm saying, and thus must be some sort of savant with a high libido which
I seriously doubt, or you refuse to understand, which I guess means you
want to keep your little fetish clubs where you boink uh, things and make
enough animal noises to sound like you're all in some sort of weird cult,
so you feel you have interests to protect and want to defend them at all
costs. Er, but I could be wrong.

Use some common sense, people. For god's sake. :P


so...@slash.net

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Precisely.....

Karl Meyer <fer...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:

> : In article <3519C3...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable
Unicorn
> : <xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> : > XYDEXX'S POSITIONS ON FURRY FANDOM


> : > (Print this out and consult it before flaming me, thanks.)
> : > ===========================================================
> : > 1. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphics.
>

> : On the face of it, I'd agree, but that depends on how you define
> : anthropomorphics. This is why I think a clear definition of what furry
Fandom
> : is and is not about is critical.
>
> Look up the definition of anthropomorphic. Apply it to animals. Include
> mythicals as well. Now you know what Xydexx meant. It's a pretty clear
> definition. If it makes you happy, I don't think you'll find anything
> about beastiality in any dictionary under the word 'antrhopomorphic'.

anthropomorphic = Being or haveing human traits..... Anthropomorphic animals,
animals with human traits.... Hmm... This covers the range from sentient
animals to humans with whiskers. Furry is a mix and to have anything worth a
damn we have to work together.

> Nothing about sex of any kind will likely be mentioned. Nothing about
> sexual preference either. To be a furry fan one simply has to like
> anthropomorphics. You now have a clear definition about what furry fandom

Bingo!

> is about from the one you wanted to hear it from. Hopefully you'll quit
> whining about that at least. You may not like some of the other things
> some furry fans may be into or some of their behavior in public. The
> former you'll just have to deal with as long as they act responsibly about
> it. The latter you may feel free to complain about and even get some
> agreement. I don't particularly have a problem with the fur fans who
> happen to also be zoophiles or enjoy boinking their plush animals. Most of
> those in both groups are reasonably private about that part of their
> lives. Many in both groups are likely just as disgusted with the idiocy of
> the ones who helped the muckrakers from Loaded by giving interviews as you

There are fools in every crowd, it doesn't mean the crowd is wrong, it just
means that then crowd isn't perfect. And until perfection is reached, never
judge. I know little about the Loaded magazine interview, I wasn't at CF. If
someone wouldn't mind e-mailing me the full story I would appreciate it. But
it goes beyond that... It goes to tolerence and enough thought to know that a
clique may have extremists, but that doesn't mean the whole clique wants to
be like that.

> are. Common sense isn't all that common sometimes. Feel free to target
> said behavior. Just keep in mind that even those people, if they like
> anthropomorphics, are still furry fans and there isn't a thing that you
> can do about that no matter how you try to define furry fandom to not
> include them.

Agreed.

-Partran

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Joseph Burkhart

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Exiting lurk mode to say that your positions list looks great to
me. Can't really disagree with any of them.(except, maybe, the
Celestial Seasonings Tea)
I, for one, am glad to see you in there fighting the good fight for
furry fandom.

"A spirit with a vision is a dream with a Mission" (Rush--Mercury
Records 1987)

Joseph Burkhart

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Once you de-lurk ya just can't stop--it's like potatoe chips
Hey, I admit the first time I visited a furry-con I was kinda
shocked. I'm from a small town environment and well......
But I got over it.
I soon learned that sexuality had little to do with intellect,
skill, and talent.
Okay, open gay displays of affection did bother me at first--among other
things sexual I found there. Once I got past that, to see the people
(all the people) and hear their words, admire their art and read their
stories; the apprehension and anxiety went away.
Folks are folks no matter what. I choose hetero but that
doesn't affect my choice of friends. Art, intellect, skill, and most
other things I find admirable aren't dependant on lifestyle choices; but
rather on hard work, drive, and dedication.
I'm willing to put up with a little ego discomfort in order to
learn something new, or meet someone new. I know that, most often,
respect is met with respect and very few people go out of their way to
make someone else uncomfortable.
To paraphrase Dr. Wayne Dyer, if you find yourself in an
uncomfortable situation socially, maybe you should look inside yourself
first. No one truly makes another uncomfortable, its the individual's
own reactions that are discomforting. If you can control your inner
reactions, the discomfort simply goes away.
As for collars and animal noises--wouldn't do it myself but if
that's your thing, go for it! Vive la diferance! (sic)

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Catching colds wrote:
> Xydexx, you're hopeless.

Thank you. And you're entitled to your own biased opinion.

Have a nice day now.

_____________________________________________________________
Xydexx | "Debates like this on alt.fan.furry are kind of
the | like boinking a herd of inflatable reindeer. The
Squeaky | only difference is, when I'm done masturbating I
Pony | have something to show for it afterwards."

Richard Chandler

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

In article <351B21...@smart.netnot.aol.com>, Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn
<xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com> writes:
> Catching colds wrote:
> > Xydexx, you're hopeless.
>
> Thank you. And you're entitled to your own biased opinion.

Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? Aside from mine, of course. :-)

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Absolutely.

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

M S wrote:
> Xydexx, no one is telling you that skritching or hugging your friends in
> public is wrong, or a bad thing, but what I've seen goes beyond mere
> affection and goes more towards heavy petting and dare I say it,
> foreplay. It's offensive and makes people nervous.

I am not talking about heavy petting.
I am not talking about foreplay.

I am talking about scritching --- a platonic gesture of affection ---
and how indescribably ludicrous it is that someone could be offended by
it. It sounds like the Mr. Hanky episode of South Park.

"Does anyone find mistletoe offensive?"
<one guy raises his hand>
"Okay, lose the mistletoe..."

> And before you go off
> telling me I must be uncomfortable with my sexuality

I wasn't going to in the first place...

> or that I'm a right wing bible thumper

No, I wasn't going to do that either...

> let me tell you not to be so hyper-sensitive when it
> comes to a friendly debate.( If I weren't being friendly
> you would know it...)

I dunno if hypersensitive would be an accurate description of me --- I'm
not the one running around saying how scritching and animal noises are
offensive.

J. J. Novotny

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Foxy wrote:

> There are some good quality fanzines fitting the bill, although I
> think a
> free primer is a neat idea (if not a waste of money to produce :) )
>

In order for it to work, any newbie-oriented primer would have to be a
co-operative venture between most of the major players in the fandom --
publishers, artists, convention organizers, any other movers and
shakers. The trouble is that this would require a lot of hard work and
compromise ... where there's a will there's a way, tho! =^_^=

One financing idea I have is that some of the copies could be
autographed by the contributing writers and artists and then sold to
devout furfans for a bit of a mark-up ... say $10 to $15. Most fans I'm
sure would pay that for something that would promote the genre and would
be a collectible in its own right. The funds raised this way would pay
for (unautographed) copies for general free distribution to media/comic
stores etc. It also goes without saying that the writers, editors, and
contributing artists would have to donate their services for free in
order to help furrydom.

Good idea? Bad idea? I'm kinda on the fringes on furrydom (and planning
a major move next summer) or else I'd try to do something myself.

Cheers;
J. J.


J. J. Novotny

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

Catching colds wrote:

> Where's
> the next generation of Critters? When are we gonna see something as
> good
> as Captain Jack again? Reality Check comes close, and I like it, but
> it's an oasis of creative effort in a desert of poorly written near
> pornographic material drawn mostly by people who could barely make a
> straight line, and whom take themselves and their work way too
> seriously,
> considering what it is.

Yeah, there is some ... um, unfortunate stuff out there. But don't let
that blind you to the fact that there is a lot of well-executed, general
interest stuff that isn't the least bit spoogy. There is USAGI YOJIMBO,
FURRLOUGH, GD, SHANDA, WILD SIDE, GUARDIAN KNIGHTS, and the upcoming
FEHNIK and CHAOS, INC. series ... all under the PG-13 rating (sometimes
SHANDA is a soft R). And then there is the SCFA, which I know is pretty
strict about content. And I've heard about a few PG-rated fanzines.

You're right about one thing. I'd also like to see more serious
discussions about anthropomorphics, either technical issues or
philosophical stuff. Most of the threads in that vein that I or others
have started have gotten a weak response. I'm gonna keep trying tho'.

So you try too, OK. Cheer up, hey!

Cheers;
J. J.


Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98
to

[CAUTION: Rant Enclosed]

Richard Chandler wrote:
> That seems to be the root of the problem. What's so special about the fandom
> if "Everyone" is in it?

I stand corrected. Everyone who is interested in anthropomorphics,
yadda yadda yadda... it's an old story but I'll tell it again.

But I suppose that is the real problem, isn't it? I think everyone who
is interested in anthropomorphics should be welcome in furry fandom ---
unlike the more extreme elements who think furry fandom is solely for
their little clique and that everyone else should go get out.

> Gotta love it, "Let's Compromise. You first."

Sure, no problem. Lessee... I'll support the people who want to give
the pet auction less of a red light district feel, since not everyone is
into that. Oops, wait a sec, I already did that. I know... I'll oppose
public BDSM displays and sex in public because it makes people
uncomfortable. Oh wait, I've done that too. Hmmm.. oh, I know... I'll
support a furry convention which presents a more "squeaky-clean" image
to the fandom. No, wait... I did that last year. Okay... oh, here's a
good one --- when people ask me what furry fandom is about, I'll direct
them to the general audience stuff first instead of the hardcore kinky
stuff. What do you mean I've already been doing that? Alright... how
about if I continue my fine tradition of good behavior at furry
conventions by not giving wet sloppy kisses to Richard Chandler or
dressing him in spandex court jester's costume and sending Loaded
Magazine to interview him. Well, it seems I do that too.

Hmmm. Well, obviously all these attempts to accomodate the more
conservative elements of furry fandom don't amount to hill of beans,
right?

Very well. Clearly, I'm only here to push my own agenda and don't give
--- as they say --- a rat's patoot about anyone who isn't into spooge or
plushies or bestiality or eighty-foot hermaphrodite foxtaurs boinking
Jesus with a barbed wire doubledong. Well YIPPITYFUCKINGCOYOTEHOLES,
you found me out. Congratulations, you win.

Oh yes...

And just _wait_ until you see what you've won.

Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Catching colds <min...@netcom.com> wrote:

: And you know, she had a point. If it's indeed only about

: anthropomorphics, then why are the sexual aspects so goddamned
: prevailent?

I think part of it is that it's easy to find non-sexual anthro stuff
without going to a convention. For many the only time they get to see the
adult stuff is at a convention and that's therefor what tends to sell at
conventions. Since it sells more is produced.


: super intelligent animals? Where's the discussion about animal myths,
: legends and deities?

Good idea. I'll suggest it be added as a SIG for Duckon's furry track.

: Where's the talk about gods in cartoon history like

: Chuck Jones or Tex Avery?

I've been to animation and animation art panel discussions at cnventions
before. I happen to collect animation art myself. I know of others that
also do. Unfortunately a lot of furries think one must spend a fortune to
do so which limits the audience a bit.

: Why doesn't Alan Dean Foster or Larry Niven

: post to alt.fan.furry? I'll give you a hint. It's not because they
: don't know we exist. A.D.F. at least I know delibrately avoids anything
: labeled Furry because of his personal experience with it.

Particularly the year he was GOH at CF. Even without that, I doubt either
really has the time to post here. They might on newsgroups devoted to
sci-fi where they are likely to reach more of their audience than here
anyway.


Karl Meyer

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Richard Chandler <mau...@teleport.com> wrote:
: The Secretary will not that Xydexx declined to answer the question. It has
: not been extablished if Xydexx would agree that Furry Fandom Not about having
: sex with RL animals or stuffed animals or not.

He's said repeatedly that furry fandom is about anthropomorpics. If you
don't know the definition of that word then look it up. I promise there is
no mention of sex of any kind in said definition. Since that isn't part of
the definition, you should be able to assume that he's not saying furry
fandom is about those things you seem to find particularly offensive. I
get the feeling that what you really want him to say is that those who
like anthropomorphics and also engage in those activities shouldn't be
considered part of the fandom. He won't do that because liking anthros is
the ONLY requirement for being in the fandom.

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn (xyd...@smart.netnot.aol.com) wrote:

: Catching colds wrote:
: > Xydexx, you're hopeless.

: Thank you. And you're entitled to your own biased opinion.

Well duh. All opinions are biased.

: Have a nice day now.

Thank you so very much, sir. :)

Catching colds

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

No that's not what the concern is, and I guess no one is listening
anymore.

Anthropomorphics could be about anything, as long as it fits the
criteria, which are very loose. You see? It doesn't have to be about
sex, but it /could/ be about sex, and more often than not in these woods,
it /is/ about sex. I already made a post explaining that though, so
like, go read it. :)


Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Richard Chandler wrote:

>Xydexx sez:
> > Indeed. I think the whole "battle for the fandom" is pointless.
> ^^^^^^^^^

> But he LOOOVES fighting it.
>
> Strange attraction for someone who likes to be popped.

Ba dum dum... -:P

Xydexx the Inflatable Unicorn

unread,
Mar 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/27/98
to

Trive Fauxx wrote:
> And if everyoone reads this, it's exactly what everyone else keeps saying-
> Why does this thread keep going if it's about two people trying to agree
> with eachother?

Because alt.fan.furry is the one place I know of where I can have
arguments with people I agree with. It's fun, in a demented sort of
way.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages