Burned Fur: The Rise of Furry Fascism?
Anonymous
Squee has a point when complaining about zoophiles, perhaps...
this sort of thing defiantly scares the public away from furry-ism,
but the main problem with the fandom is the over-emphasis on
sex in GENERAL. It is the depictions of heterosexual,
explicit sex that are most common, and most disturbing
for people who see furrydom for the first time. Why not go after that?
Simply ask people.. are you interested in ART, or PORNOGRAPHY?
Going after people for dressing up in costumes or playing around with
plushies in the privacy of their own homes is just twisted...
and going after people for being "naturists" or vegan is just
demented... it sounds like some bizarre right-wing paranoid
culture war mongering.
Artists who are furries have a hard time getting respect from
the business community because of the attachment of furryism to
sex in general... NOT because these people practice shamanism or don't
eat meat.
And by the way, the topic of this message was simply set to get your
attention.
Pat Fossey
David Formosa
[...]
> It is the depictions of heterosexual,
>explicit sex that are most common, and most disturbing
>for people who see furrydom for the first time. Why not go after that?
>Simply ask people.. are you interested in ART, or PORNOGRAPHY?
Is there a difference. Art at its besed is what grabbs you draws you
in and makes you exprence what the artist wishes to express. And
given that the labedo is a basic component of our psychie it is a
legitamit target of art.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
StukaFox
: Going after people for dressing up in costumes or playing around with
: plushies in the privacy of their own homes is just twisted...
As has been said before, it's not the "privacy of their own
home" part that bothers me, it the "at the cons and in the
newsgroup" part that raises my ire.
StukaFox
--
GREAT EMPTY THREATS OF THE USENET #109:
"When I'm finished in nanau, I'm gonna pay the newsgroups you frequent
a visit. You aren't going to like it."
Tim "Wanky the Wanker" Thorn
specia...@hell-flame-wars.org
matm...@my-dejanews.com
anon...@nospam.net (Anonymous) wrote:
> And by the way, the topic of this message was simply set to get your
> attention.
You will find two or three times or more, that it isn't the topics that get
their attenion, it's the hard-on they get when they flame the subject and
it's poster to death, without any sort of logic.
Matthew Milam (Of course, i've been known, or at least assumed to be one of
those types) mmi...@interlync.com matmi...@yahoo.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ratman
>Path: news.fur.com!news.fysh.org!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!192.232.20.2!malgudi.oar.net!tiger.tigerden.com!not-for-mail
>From: anon...@nospam.net (Anonymous)
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
>Subject: Burned Fur: The Rise of Furry Fascism?
>Date: 10 Dec 1998 04:14:41 -0500
>Organization: none
>Lines: 23
>Sender: ber...@tiger.tigerden.com
>Message-ID: <74o3e1$u...@tiger.tigerden.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tiger.tigerden.com
>Xref: news.fur.com alt.fan.furry:27209
You're either Berios, or someone trying to make people think it's
Berios.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> As has been said before, it's not the "privacy of their own
> home" part that bothers me, it the "at the cons and in the
> newsgroup" part that raises my ire.
Hear, hear.
-MMM-
Donald E. Sanders
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
> Anonymous <anon...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> : Going after people for dressing up in costumes or playing around with
>
>
> As has been said before, it's not the "privacy of their own
> home" part that bothers me, it the "at the cons and in the
> newsgroup" part that raises my ire.
>
>
I can understand the public areas of the con, such things should not
really be allowed, depending on the situation. However behind closed
doors is that! Behind closed doors! Unless those behind closed doors
blatantly violates laws and such, and to do that means opening those
closed doors. I assure you, I would not go to a con, open every door
just to see if someone is doing a bad act there! As for the newsgroup,
that is a grey area there, for example, watch this!
(Flash!)
I just exposed myself to you! Now if you have personally seen me do
this, then I can understand you getting upset, but however since you read
just that one word (Flash! ooops, did it again) Unless you have a very
powerful imagination, there is not telling what I did. Frankly I let my
reasoning rule before my imagination.
(A chow who picks up a plushie and does something to it, What did I do?
It's your guess!)
--
Don Sanders
Dsan Tsan on #furry of Yiffnet
Artist at Roll Yer Own Graphics
http://www.dreamscape.com/dsand101/dsan.htm
(my furry page) Email dsan...@future.dreamscape.com
Anonymous
M. Mitchell Marmel <marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>StukaFox wrote:
>
>> As has been said before, it's not the "privacy of their own
>> home" part that bothers me, it the "at the cons and in the
>> newsgroup" part that raises my ire.
>
>
>-MMM-
Ok.. I'll grant you that. The banner of the Burned Fur movement should
be: BE DISCRETE... BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS.
David Formosa
[...]
> As for the newsgroup,
>that is a grey area there, for example, watch this!
>
>(Flash!)
Oh no its the paprizzi!
StukaFox
: I just exposed myself to you! Now if you have personally seen me do
: this, then I can understand you getting upset, but however since you read
: just that one word (Flash! ooops, did it again) Unless you have a very
: powerful imagination, there is not telling what I did. Frankly I let my
: reasoning rule before my imagination.
Uhh, was there like a point to this, or are you off your medication
again?
No wonder Furry enjoys such a stellar reputation. :P
Michael Pena
Noo...@my.email.com (Donald E. Sanders) wrote:
>In article <366ff1d7$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
>(A chow who picks up a plushie and does something to it, What did I do?
>It's your guess!)
>
>--
>Don Sanders
How dare your do that with my plushie! Oh it is yours, then that is
okay :)
(the rabbit laughs!)
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
ilr
> : I just exposed myself to you! Now if you have personally seen me do
> : this, then I can understand you getting upset, but however since you read
> : just that one word (Flash! ooops, did it again) Unless you have a very
> : powerful imagination, there is not telling what I did. Frankly I let my
> : reasoning rule before my imagination.
>
>
> Uhh, was there like a point to this, or are you off your medication
> again?
>
view, doesn't mean other people won't see you acting like a
jackass when they can clearly see the logic in the example
you pretended didn't exist.
>
> No wonder Furry enjoys such a stellar reputation. :P
>
>
con that might do some nasty things. Then flip the spectrum
around. What do you get? Someone like StukaFox or Eric.
Striving for public displays of loathing as opposed to the creeps
they hate so much who strive for public displays of depravity.
=========Proposal==========
I think what we really need to do to make things better for everyone
else in the middle, keeping them from being divided amongst themselves,
is to put some discipline among our own ranks. For the moment, I'm
not going to pretend that there isn't TWO SIDES. Because there is,
the recent flaming is all the proof I need.
I Propose that each side tries to control it's more unruly
members. Yanno, THE BUDDY SYSTEM. If somefur's going over-
board, his FRIENDS are the ones that should let him know, not
some strangers whom he identifies as his/her enemies.
I'd propose it to everyone myself, but I'm afraid neither
side likes me very much. Anyone wanna give it a try? Anyone
been there -- done that?
---ilr
Pacerfox
"Pornography: Pictures, writing or other material that is sexually explicit
and intended to arouse sexual passion." - The American Heritage Dictionary
(1997)
Hmmm... Sounds good to me! :)
- Pacerfox
Michael Pena
anon...@nospam.net (Anonymous) wrote:
>I don't know.. this "burned fur" thing seems kind of ridiculous.
>Squee has a point when complaining about zoophiles, perhaps...
>this sort of thing defiantly scares the public away from furry-ism,
>but the main problem with the fandom is the over-emphasis on
>sex in GENERAL. It is the depictions of heterosexual,
>explicit sex that are most common, and most disturbing
>for people who see furrydom for the first time. Why not go after that?
>Simply ask people.. are you interested in ART, or PORNOGRAPHY?
I agree that a lot of people would be put off by some extreme
zoophiles as it is not something considered "normal". Of course the
public should know that there is a broad range covered within the
defintion of zoophile. After all most zoophiles would not even think
of having sex with an animal just as most plushophiles would not have
sex with their plushies. Come to think of it the overwhelming number
of plushophiles are prepubescent children. It is hard to save people
from their own misconceptions.
I just can not understand what people's hang-up with sex is. Almost
everyone does it or wants to do it.
Why do people find sex so disturbing? I find sex mixed with violence
disturbing(though sometimes fascinating in anime) but sex alone has
never phased me. Anime and Manga has just as much sex as the Furry
fandom why aren't Otaku all branded as raving perverts and called
"Big-eyed girl bangers" or something equally as pathetic.
The word pornography has some sort of negative stigma attached to it
but why? To me it is just art, and an art at that which takes
considerable skill to make it look beautiful as befits such a
wonderful gift. Sex is the closest two people can get to becoming one
without being siamese twins.
>
>Going after people for dressing up in costumes or playing around with
>plushies in the privacy of their own homes is just twisted...
>and going after people for being "naturists" or vegan is just
>demented... it sounds like some bizarre right-wing paranoid
>culture war mongering.
Yup, they are not hurting anyone or doing sexual things to their plush
friends in public(ooo he kissed his plushie in public let's kill him!
sighhh...). Honestly why should anyone care what people do in private
to each other or to inanimate objects(is getting in on with a Furby or
Teddy Rukspin considered as a separate issue? They could be called
animatronophiles).
I do not think one can attach a right-wing or left-wing leaning to the
people going after the Fursuiters or Plushophiles. Left wingers can be
just as extreme as right wingers(remember Tipper Gore?).
>
>Artists who are furries have a hard time getting respect from
>the business community because of the attachment of furryism to
>sex in general... NOT because these people practice shamanism or don't
>eat meat.
I have not had experience with this myself but I agree most people
could care less what ones religion is or if one just like vegetables.
Around here(Austin, Texas) people for the most part do not even now
what a Furry is, exactly why I put "Funny Animal artist" on my
business card. They simply would not know what I was talking about if
I put "Furry artist".
>
>And by the way, the topic of this message was simply set to get your
>attention.
It worked!
Sincerely,
StukaFox
: Ok.. I'll grant you that. The banner of the Burned Fur movement should
: be: BE DISCRETE... BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS.
I'd happily buy into that, but the people here want flamewars,
so give 'em what they want.
StukaFox
:>
:>
: Lay off a sec. Just because your ears are closed to an opposing
: view, doesn't mean other people won't see you acting like a
: jackass when they can clearly see the logic in the example
: you pretended didn't exist.
BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!
"I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't meet my standards of
rhetoric."
-- Farlo
Florian
>
> I don't know.. this "burned fur" thing seems kind of ridiculous.
> Squee has a point when complaining about zoophiles, perhaps...
> this sort of thing defiantly scares the public away from furry-ism,
> but the main problem with the fandom is the over-emphasis on
> sex in GENERAL. It is the depictions of heterosexual,
> explicit sex that are most common, and most disturbing
> for people who see furrydom for the first time. Why not go after that?
> Simply ask people.. are you interested in ART, or PORNOGRAPHY?
furry's public image, including pin up spooge, but support 'tasteful'
pornography.
What does the general population consider to be tasteful pornography?
Back in high school, I had a blast seeing what the limits were (It
barely added to my already established reputation-which had nothing to
do with furry). End result is that anything with less than normal
cloths makes some think you want to practice the b word. Hell, having
just G rated furry stuff still makes some people wonder.
So what do the BFs hope to accomplish?
Most of the people they term 'undesirable' won't leave. The minimal
press coverage the fandom does receive will always dig until they find
the most demented story. The general population is very slow to accept
any kind of 'fandom'. And the general population is paranoid about
anything with the slightest bit of pornography.
I would love to see furry fandom to have a cleaner reputation, and at
least the popularity of the larger fandoms. However, the BF's 'make
them so uncomfortable that they leave' philosophy is annoying to more
than just the target audience.
Cleaning up the fandom can only occur at the individual level. Buy less
spooge. Artists can draw less spooge. People can show restraint in
public. And people at cons who get carried away need to be told that
their behavior isn't acceptable, even at cons.
Disclaimer: I own lots of plush, but if I'm a plushophile is NOYFB. I
have a whole dog, but if I'm the Z word is NOYFB. I see no benefit from
denying those two, and even less benefit from announcing I am one or
both of the two. Cleaning up the fandom includes not bragging about the
two to the public.
However, I own furry art, and I will admit to having some adult stuff.
Though I look back at some of it and wonder why I ever got it.
----------------------------------------------------
Eric 'Florian' Raschka
e_raschk...@hotmail.com remove .nospam
Fur code 1.3: FCF/MSa A->+ C+ Dm H>+ M- P+++ R+ T++ W- Z+ Sm#
RLE/CT* a cn++++ d e+ f iw+ j* p+ sm#
Plush code 1.3: Pcwb/Fw B- !BB C- I- >M MM N+ O #S Tacdrsu f+ ma
Hangdog
mok...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <01be24ac$206027e0$9f2226d1@ilr>,
> "ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd propose it to everyone myself, but I'm afraid neither
> > side likes me very much. Anyone wanna give it a try? Anyone
> > been there -- done that?
> >
>
> I tried. The burned furs hate me now.
Huh? What? I must have been absent that day...
--Hangdog, Burned (and, at the moment, very confused) Fur
aury...@my-dejanews.com
>Anonymous <anon...@nospam.net> wrote:
>: Going after people for dressing up in costumes or playing around with
>: plushies in the privacy of their own homes is just twisted...
> As has been said before, it's not the "privacy of their own
> home" part that bothers me, it the "at the cons and in the
> newsgroup" part that raises my ire.
>StukaFox
People wearing costumes at conventions raises your ire? You must have a hell
of a time at Halloween...
mok...@hotmail.com
"ilr" <i...@rof.net> wrote:
> I'd propose it to everyone myself, but I'm afraid neither
> side likes me very much. Anyone wanna give it a try? Anyone
> been there -- done that?
>
I tried. The burned furs hate me now.
b.root
Number 7
Anonymous wrote:
((Mucho snippage))
Sigh. Here we go again...
(Grabs Anonymous by the scruff of the neck, pulls out a large rubber
stamper, and stamps 'TROLL' on their forehead.)
Dr. Cat
: I just can not understand what people's hang-up with sex is.
The most common reasons for such a hang-up are:
1) They're not getting any.
2) They're not getting the kind or the amount that they want.
3) They are REALLY not getting any, I mean not for YEARS now,
we're talking none, zilch, zero, zippo, couldn't get
laid if they were an egg, nada!
: Around here(Austin, Texas) people for the most part do not even now
: what a Furry is, exactly why I put "Funny Animal artist" on my
: business card.
Around here in Austin people also are remarkably tolerant of how other
people might prefer to live their life, even if it's "weird". Gotta love
this town. It's kinda like FurryMUCK mostly is, and a.f.f. isn't. :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: Those aren't the ONLY reasons a person might have a hangup
about sex, just three of the more common ones. They might have a hangup
about sex for a totally different reasons. But even if that's so, they
should still masturbate more. It'd release some of that pent up stress.
No, really, try it! Just twice a day for 3 weeks, and SEE if it doesn't
make your fur glossier and your outlook on life more relaxed. :X)
ilr
> : view, doesn't mean other people won't see you acting like a
> : jackass when they can clearly see the logic in the example
> : you pretended didn't exist.
> :>
>
> BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!
>
> "I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't meet my standards of
> rhetoric."
>
> -- Farlo
Yes, I'm quite familiar with that quote. Perhaps you missed
the little Flamish-Scuffle me and Farlo got into a while back? He even
gave up flames for a while after that(I'd like to think I had some stake
in that :).
The irony being that you would use a quote from someone that I had
such a petty victory over, in an attempt to make another petty victory
over me. He might even tell you himself that said quote was completely
pointless, given it's purpose.
And since I'm still petty, I'll laugh at your ignorance.
" HA, HA! " ---ilr
StukaFox
: The irony being that you would use a quote from someone that I had
: such a petty victory over, in an attempt to make another petty victory
: over me. He might even tell you himself that said quote was completely
: pointless, given it's purpose.
: And since I'm still petty, I'll laugh at your ignorance.
: " HA, HA! " ---ilr
Clearly, Sir, if you are man enough to admit your own pettiness
in responses to mine, I wil join you in laughing at pettiness.
"Hardy har hard"
-- StukaFox
StukaFox
: People wearing costumes at conventions raises your ire? You must have a hell
: of a time at Halloween...
Someone wearining an anotomically correct fursuit with the big ol' 10"
pink dildo sticking out of the sheath pretty much raised my ire.
And no, people wearing costumes doesn't raise my ire.
M. Mitchell Marmel
> Ok.. I'll grant you that. The banner of the Burned Fur movement should
> be: BE DISCRETE... BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS.
Agreed. And if they're not considerate of others, then we Blumrich 'em. ;)
-MMM-
Donald E. Sanders
stuk...@shell9.ba.best.com says...
> aury...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> : People wearing costumes at conventions raises your ire? You must have a hell
> : of a time at Halloween...
>
>
> Someone wearining an anotomically correct fursuit with the big ol' 10"
> pink dildo sticking out of the sheath pretty much raised my ire.
That brings me to one big question... Does it offend you to the point
where you become physically ill? Not to say that such a sight should be
considered normal, but by the reaction I am seeing here, seeing one
fursuit of that make and model, you would expect every fursuit you see to
be like that. I am trying to figure out what you mean by that. If one
fursuit made like that offends you, are you suggesting that all fursuits
should conform to such a standard that they should not be anatomically
correct and have no naughty bits showing, more or less Unisex design so
you don't really know that the character being depicted is male for
female? True, a anatomically correct costume would be in bad taste in
public, but from what I have seen at cons so far, advanced notification
would have been made as to the viewer advisory of the event, be it G, PG,
R, or NC17. It is the viewer's choice if they want to see it or not and
further more, if the viewer did go to a event where they saw such a
costume, it is their fault but their own for seeing it and they should
not blame a entire fandom for their bad judgment. In the case of the
person being under age to see such a event, it is totally their fault for
violating the rules of the event.
Now if you were treated to a private viewing of such a fursuit, then
still, think about it. If you went expecting to see G-rated fursuits and
was treated to a nice spicy NC-17 model, you should have checked first.
Just remember, such things may irk you, but be considerate to others who
may find it acceptable. Not everyone wants to conform to one set of
rules.
>
> And no, people wearing costumes doesn't raise my ire.
I sure hope not.
Chris Johnson
(Anonymous) wrote:
> Ok.. I'll grant you that. The banner of the Burned Fur movement should
> be: BE DISCRETE... BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS.
I agree. For them to be contiguous would be at best inconvenient, and
at worst furverted.
:)
Jinx_tigr, taking Dr. Cat lessons
(aka Chris Johnson)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> I agree that a lot of people would be put off by some extreme zoophiles
> as it is not something considered "normal". Of course the public
> should know that there is a broad range covered within the defintion
> of zoophile.
Why? Why _should_ the public know this? I think the public in general is
very uncomfortable just by the idea that zoophiles EXIST, I sincerely doubt
they'd like to have any knowledge of the broad spectrum of Zoophilic practices
and philosophies. To them ANY zoophile is an extreme.
This is one of those conceits that starts all these flamewars about zoos in
the fandom. Some individual gets the idea that everyone would think he's okay
if he could just EXPLAIN zoophilia the right way. And so he tries to explain
it to all and sundry, and furries, being so tolerant, don't beat the crap out
of him, but instead come onto a.f.f and bitch about it.
No amount of explaining is going to get 90% of the people out there to drop
their repulsion to Zoophilia and become an understanding fellow who will pat
you on the head and say "Have fun!".
> I just can not understand what people's hang-up with sex is.
> Almost everyone does it or wants to do it.
Lots of people don't understand it. We do have a Puritain past. I just read
an interview with a French circus performer in the local paper who was
perplexed with all our regulations about when and where one can smoke.
Americans are busybodies and control freaks, who are simultaneously very
jealously guarding their own privacy.
> Why do people find sex so disturbing? I find sex mixed with
> violence disturbing(though sometimes fascinating in anime) but sex
> alone has never phased me. Anime and Manga has just as much sex as
> the Furry fandom why aren't Otaku all branded as raving perverts
> and called "Big-eyed girl bangers" or something equally as pathetic.
>
> The word pornography has some sort of negative stigma attached to it
> but why? To me it is just art, and an art at that which takes
> considerable skill to make it look beautiful as befits such a
> wonderful gift. Sex is the closest two people can get to becoming
> one without being siamese twins.
All this serves to show that you are out of touch with mainstream thought, and
therefore not exactly qualified to pass judgement on what it would think. If
you can learn the reason behind these WHY's you ask, so that even though you
may disagree with them, you can see where they're coming from, you just might
be able to avoid society's darker side, where bashing occurs.
(BTW, I just saw a special on Siamese twins, who strive VERY hard to be
SEPERATE individuals.)
> I have not had experience with this myself but I agree most people
> could care less what ones religion is or if one just like vegetables.
You might think that, until you see a die-hard vegan go trolling on
rec.hunting. Religious fights get even worse.
Remember, in this culture, one of the big thrills about sex is that it is
"forbidden", and if you can understand that, you're well on your way to
understanding the rest of this stuff you say you don't.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> True, a anatomically correct costume would be in bad taste in public,
> but from what I have seen at cons so far, advanced notification would
> have been made as to the viewer advisory of the event
The problem was an individual who DID have such a costume, and at CF 7 and 8,
he would walk around in the public hallways operating the mechanism that
revealed his pseudo erection.
Some fursuits are totally awesome, and beautiful works of art. Some are
barely sufficent to call a costume.
Pacerfox
> what a Furry is, exactly why I put "Funny Animal artist" on my
> I put "Furry artist".
You'd be surprised! I live in Austin, Texas and I try and educate all my
co-workers to what a "furry" is. I usually get strange stares from
everyone... Mostly from my roommates that put up with my plethora of furry
art... or had sewing a fur suit for a year.. ::shrug:: Is that so odd?
:)
- Pacerfox
Pacerfox
> people might prefer to live their life, even if it's "weird". Gotta love
> this town. It's kinda like FurryMUCK mostly is, and a.f.f. isn't. :X)
<g> Didn't know there were other furs in Austin!
I have to agree... Austin is nice. Sometimes I HAVE to go to Houston or
Dallas and then I remember, "Hey! I'm in Texas!!"
Would be nice to talk with other Austin furs... :)
- Pacerfox
Pacerfox
"or had sewing a fur suit for a year"
It's HAND sewing.... I hate it when I do that!
- Pacerfox
Donald E. Sanders
says...
> In article <MPG.10db606e5...@news.fysh.org>, Noo...@my.email.com
> (Donald E. Sanders) writes:
> > True, a anatomically correct costume would be in bad taste in public,
> > but from what I have seen at cons so far, advanced notification would
> > have been made as to the viewer advisory of the event
>
> The problem was an individual who DID have such a costume, and at CF 7 and 8,
> he would walk around in the public hallways operating the mechanism that
> revealed his pseudo erection.
Once more, that would be the fault of the person who constructed the
fursuit in the first place for having bad judgement to present it in
public. My comments were along the lines of one person condemning the
whole fursuit sect for the actions of one person.
>
> Some fursuits are totally awesome, and beautiful works of art. Some are
> barely sufficent to call a costume.
>
I can understand somebody putting a bag over their head and drawing a
furry face on it as being a bad costume. As for a person who builds a
costume from what materials and knowledge they have available, I would
call it a work of art none the less, due to the fact that that person did
try. Not that I have any contempt against those who can construct
costumes costing over a grand in US currency, I still feel that money is
not power. Just a side comment, no need to add or subtract to it.
Peter da Silva
(or whatever label they wanna apply to themselves this week) and the
associated flame wars, I don't see any of the references to blatant
sexuality that you're going on about.
As for Confurence, deal with it there. Dragging it here, to this group,
which has no more to do with Confurence than it has to do with any other
SF convention (remember, I created it and I've never BEEN to a furry
con of any kind), is just plain abusive.
Please, folks, cut it out. Quit trolling, quit responding to trolls, and
give up the idea that whinging about sex will do anything but promote the
images that you're allegedly trying to quash.
--
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
"The GCOS GERTS interface is so bad that a description here is inappropriate.
Anyone seeking to use this interface should seek divine guidance."
ELynne
> > BAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!
> He who laughs last, laughs best.
I always like the saying, "She who laughs maniacally to herself on the bus
usually gets an empty seat next to her to put her backpack on." :) Usually
works for me, too.
-- Erin, Easily Amused
"Look, a bug!"
>>sig file lost: suggest looking under couch<<
Ratman
wrote:
>Get a grip, guys, and look around you. Apart from the "Burned Furs"
>(or whatever label they wanna apply to themselves this week) and the
>associated flame wars, I don't see any of the references to blatant
>sexuality that you're going on about.
>
>As for Confurence, deal with it there. Dragging it here, to this group,
>which has no more to do with Confurence than it has to do with any other
>SF convention (remember, I created it and I've never BEEN to a furry
>con of any kind), is just plain abusive.
>
>Please, folks, cut it out. Quit trolling, quit responding to trolls, and
>give up the idea that whinging about sex will do anything but promote the
>images that you're allegedly trying to quash.
Maybe we need a newsgroup for flaming? Then it can be 'on topic'.
Brian O'connell
velcro... Prolly the first application of 'Lee Press-On Genitalia' I ever
saw... It was a unicorn, BTW, but nothing terribly functional about the
costume other than that... And the wearer did make a point to take off the
miscellaneous naughty bits too, whenever in public...
Donald E. Sanders wrote in message ...
Michael Pena
mau...@kendra.com (Richard Chandler - WA Resident) wrote:
>In article <36709611...@news.fysh.org>, spa...@texas.net (Michael Pena)
>writes:
>Why? Why _should_ the public know this? I think the public in general is
>very uncomfortable just by the idea that zoophiles EXIST, I sincerely doubt
>they'd like to have any knowledge of the broad spectrum of Zoophilic practices
>and philosophies. To them ANY zoophile is an extreme.
>
>This is one of those conceits that starts all these flamewars about zoos in
>the fandom. Some individual gets the idea that everyone would think he's okay
>if he could just EXPLAIN zoophilia the right way. And so he tries to explain
>it to all and sundry, and furries, being so tolerant, don't beat the crap out
>of him, but instead come onto a.f.f and bitch about it.
I do not mean that the general public must know all the variations of
zoophile, but they should at least know the meaning of the word before
they have a knee-jerk reaction and automatically think that they are
all people who want to mate with animals.
>
>No amount of explaining is going to get 90% of the people out there to drop
>their repulsion to Zoophilia and become an understanding fellow who will pat
>you on the head and say "Have fun!".
>
90% percent of the people do not know what a zoophile is or have even
heard the word before.
If the word "zoophile" automatically brings on a negative reaction
perhaps the people who just like animals but do not want to mate with
them should come up for a new name for themselves. Perhaps "LA-DAS"
which stands for Loves Animals-Dislikes Animal Sex, Nope to
cumbersome. I think I will just stick with "Animal Lover" though
someone could take this the wrong way too.
>Lots of people don't understand it. We do have a Puritain past. I just read
>an interview with a French circus performer in the local paper who was
>perplexed with all our regulations about when and where one can smoke.
>Americans are busybodies and control freaks, who are simultaneously very
>jealously guarding their own privacy.
>
I heartily agree with the busybodies and control freaks statement. I
will try to remember that many Americans do come from a Puritan
background while I do not. This probably explains some of my
puzzlement regarding the sex issue.
>All this serves to show that you are out of touch with mainstream thought, and
>therefore not exactly qualified to pass judgement on what it would think. If
>you can learn the reason behind these WHY's you ask, so that even though you
>may disagree with them, you can see where they're coming from, you just might
>be able to avoid society's darker side, where bashing occurs.
>
>(BTW, I just saw a special on Siamese twins, who strive VERY hard to be
>SEPERATE individuals.)
I am qualified to pass judment on whatever I wish as a thinking
individual. Now if you mean that I can not predict what the typical
mainstream American would think about a particular issue you are
absolutely correct only on the issue of sex. In most other ways I am
pretty good at understanding mainstream thought.
I am lucky that in many ways I am a manistream American. I make a
good living and most of the people I know like me. I vote in
presidential elections. I have enjoyed giving physics demonstrations
at an elementry school. I take care of the neighbors pets when the
owners are away. I give to charities. I help friends that are less
well off then I when possible. At work I do the one thing everyone
wishes from an employee, I do my job well with a positive attitude
towards each new challenge. I believe good manners and consideration
for the feeling of others has a lot to do with my success in dealing
with the mainstream person.
The few friends who know the parts of me that are not typically
mainstream think I am completely on another planet with regard to some
of my opinions. Luckily they know that in spite of my oddness I am a
very good, generous person, one anyone would be proud to have as a
friend. So I seem to be very mainstream. Most people are this way,
behaving mostly the same way but each having a few excentricities
making them an individual(at leaast this the reality I perceive).
>(BTW, I just saw a special on Siamese twins, who strive VERY hard to be
>SEPERATE individuals.)
Oh, I saw that special also(very good) My statement was just a
physical analogy, not a mental one. It only concerned physical
proximity.
>You might think that, until you see a die-hard vegan go trolling on
>rec.hunting. Religious fights get even worse.
True but that is not in what I consider the mainstream. Most people do
not act that way.
>
>Remember, in this culture, one of the big thrills about sex is that it is
>"forbidden", and if you can understand that, you're well on your way to
>understanding the rest of this stuff you say you don't.
I will have to think deeply on this statement. Perhaps it will help my
understanding.
Thank you for giving me such a detailed and well thought out response
to my post.
Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
>--
>The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
>a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
> -- Richard Chandler
>Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
>
Absolutely true! But then what would I watch on Saturday nights?
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Thank you for giving me such a detailed and well thought out response
> to my post.
And thank you for such a well-mannered and level-headed response.
mtmoleda
[major snippage]
: Maybe we need a newsgroup for flaming? Then it can be 'on topic'.
We do. It is called alt.fan.furry.fleas, and no one uses it.
Wanderer
<981211231...@mauser.at.kendra.com>...
>In article <36709611...@news.fysh.org>, spa...@texas.net (Michael
Pena)
>writes:
(snip)
>> I just can not understand what people's hang-up with sex is.
>> Almost everyone does it or wants to do it.
>
>Lots of people don't understand it. We do have a Puritain past.
A small correction from a history buff ... America's predilection for
covering up, hiding, and not talking about certain acts and parts of the
anatomy has nothing to do with the Puritans. The Puritans felt that sex was
blessed in the eyes of the Lord, and indulged in it frequently.:)
The problem came in with the Victorian era. Britain was bad enough, coining
such aphorisms as, "Children should be seen and not heard", "Idle hands are
the Devil's workshop", and so on. It was America, however, which made
certain words improper in polite conversation. These included:
gut
belly
stomach
shirt
leg
breast
pants
This was the American age in which small skirts were attached to the legs of
everything from pianos to roast lamb. The Puritans had nothing to do with
it.:)
Yours truly,
The wolfish,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Dr. Cat
: Would be nice to talk with other Austin furs... :)
I met and hung out with a few of the Austin FurryMUCK crowd back about
four years ago. Don't know if they get together these days, I've been
too busy with work to really expand my social circle lately.
We'll get a furry con going here in Texas sooner or later. :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: A few things in Texas are actually small. Shh, don't tell!)
Dr. Cat
: A small correction from a history buff ... America's predilection for
: covering up, hiding, and not talking about certain acts and parts of the
: anatomy has nothing to do with the Puritans. The Puritans felt that sex was
: blessed in the eyes of the Lord, and indulged in it frequently.:)
Most religions consider sex between a husband and wife in private to be
acceptable and ok to indulge in frequently. But really, did the Puritans
accept public nudity, adultery, bigamy, public sex, homosexuality,
bisexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sex, or anything at all besides
married couples having sex in private?
: The problem came in with the Victorian era. Britain was bad enough, coining
: such aphorisms as, "Children should be seen and not heard", "Idle hands are
: the Devil's workshop", and so on. It was America, however, which made
: certain words improper in polite conversation.
I seem to remember reading something about the tradition of "bundling"
predating the Victorian era, unless I recall incorrectly. Wasn't it a
Quaker thing? I suppose you could consider it sexually liberal compared
to any culture that doesn't even let unmarried young people do that much.
But you could call it pretty sexually repressive compared to tribes that
let their children "play doctor" to learn each other's anatomy even
before puberty. Or compared to American hippies in the late 60s - let
alone the various European countries that are still far more comfortable
with sex than America is today, from what I hear.
I mean, maybe America got MORE sexually repressed during the Victorian
era, but it wasn't exactly the Summer of Love *before* that to begin with.
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Footnote: Bundling is the practice of getting in bed together fully
clothed, and kissing and cuddling and rubbing up against each other. Not
bad, I suppose, if you happen to be in a culture where people actually
own and wear clothing.)
(Disclaimer: Sometimes your brain is not the boss.)
Custer J. Winston
Custer J.
Winston
Custer J. Winston
Custer J.
Winston
Scotty Arsenault
(that's nine words.. ooops. :)
--
----
Scotty arsenault
Yerf.com
Timothy Fay
so binary attachments to posts are considered bad "netiquette," though
good netiquette seems all but extinct in this flame-filled newsgroup.
Still, large image attachments are at best annoying, and other
binary attachments (like WAVs, MIDIs and Netscape Plug-ins) are
doubly so. FYI.
--
http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m279/fayxx001/
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
NitroMoo
cust...@webtv.net (Custer J. Winston) wrote:
> George Carlan has an entire comedy routine based on this. I don't
> recall "shirt" being one of the words though.
Top Seven Dirty words in furry fandom:
7. inflatable
6. plushie
5. zoophile
4. spooge
3. sheath
2. skiltaire
And the number one dirty word in furry fandom . . .
1. furry!
Matthew Milam
>
>As a Point of Information, Dwight: This is a non-binary newsgroup,
And at best, a grill with a lot of charcol.
>so binary attachments to posts are considered bad "netiquette,"
Not that it exists.
> though
>good netiquette seems all but extinct in this flame-filled newsgroup.
>
Oh, you already made that point, good I didn't have to say the above.
>Still, large image attachments are at best annoying,
Is it me, or do you guys find everything except breathing to be annonying?
Matthew Milam
matmi...@yahoo.com
fil...@interaccess.com
Allen Kitchen
Matthew Milam wrote:
>
> In article , Timothy says...
> >
> >As a Point of Information, Dwight: This is a non-binary newsgroup,
>
> And at best, a grill with a lot of charcol.
Not to mention the overabundance of oxidizer. *puts
on his hip boots*
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> A binary posting is when a graphic file is uuencoded and actually
> posted to the newsgroup. Links to outside files are just
> that. You make it sound like I'm posting a 50k signature every time I
> say something.
Well, actually, you are, at least for those who are using an HTML enabled
newsreader. The four lines of code causes them to download that file. Every
time, at whatever baud rate.
It also leads to such horrible scams as spammers posting Java script, which
the Netscapes and IEs interpret and force them to open up a window to a porno
site. Or worse.
It's been said many times, HTML does not belong on Usenet....
David Formosa
>In article , Timothy says...
[...]
>>Still, large image attachments are at best annoying,
>
>Is it me, or do you guys find everything except breathing to be annonying?
There are good technical resons why large attachments are annonying,
for one thing they cost peaple on time charged accounts and phone
lines lots of money to download.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
cust...@my-dejanews.com
turn it off.
In any case, the actual attachment is less than 1k. If you have an html
compatable newsreader, you see all the graphics, otherwise you see about four
lines of code. the main reason I'm doing this from the webtv in the first
place is that at the moment I really do count as a "burned fur" and until
this heals some more I can't sit in a regular chair for very long.
A binary posting is when a graphic file is uuencoded and actually posted to
the newsgroup. Links to outside files are just that. You make it sound like
I'm posting a 50k signature every time I say something.
But to appease the masses, here's a workaround.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
GENTILEBRO
>
>7. inflatable
>6. plushie
>5. zoophile
>4. spooge
>3. sheath
>2. skiltaire
>
>And the number one dirty word in furry fandom . . .
>
>1. furry!
Allow me to further the Carlin metaphor, here.
Carlin had this other popular routine where he wantes to replace the "F" word
with the word "kill", in hopes that it would put the stigma on violence that is
currently on sex.
Maybe we should replace the word "furry" with the word "Marvel"?
Just something to not think about.
Gabriel Gentile
DiscoC...@hotmail.com
Matthew Milam
wrote:
>In article <75btrc$n...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Matthew Milam wrote:
>>In article , Timothy says...
>
>[...]
>
>>>Still, large image attachments are at best annoying,
>>
>>Is it me, or do you guys find everything except breathing to be annonying?
>
>There are good technical resons why large attachments are annonying,
>for one thing they cost peaple on time charged accounts and phone
>lines lots of money to download.
So that means they should stop because your paying for it?. For the
life of me, does it really make sense to be that annonyed at
attachments?. If your going to run the Internet, there has to be some
tolerance, or else you never get along with the less-concerned.
Matthew Milam
mmi...@compuserve.com
matmi...@yahoo.com
fil...@interaccess.com
(Real net users keep a consistent signature. Me, who cares?)
David Formosa
>On 18 Dec 1998 01:40:41 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa)
>wrote:
[...]
>>There are good technical resons why large attachments are annonying,
>>for one thing they cost peaple on time charged accounts and phone
>>lines lots of money to download.
>
>So that means they should stop because your paying for it?.
Yes, it is not good to cause others to suffer. That type of attatude
is what spammers and other leaches posses.
David Formosa
- WA Resident wrote:
>In article <75cl3n$127$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cust...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>> say something.
>
>newsreader. The four lines of code causes them to download that file. Every
>time, at whatever baud rate.
Clearly the soultion to this problem is for them to disable HTML.
There is alot of mean things that you can do with HTML to a
newsreader.
>It's been said many times, HTML does not belong on Usenet....
Hear Hear.
Peter da Silva
Matthew Milam <fil...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>So that means they should stop because your paying for it?
No, they should stop because the generally accepted place to post large
attachments is in the alt.binaries hiararchy. Groups outside this hierarchy
that habitually carry large attachments become seen as "stealth" binary
groups, and are frequently dropped from Usenet sites trying to control
their disk space and traffic costs.
Many years ago there were no restrictions where picture groups could go, so
you had alt.sex.pictures and other similarly named groups all over altnet.
The result of this was that several major sites dropped altnet completely.
Others used this as an excuse to drop alt.sex without getting into freedom
of speech debates.
The compromise worked out was that all the altnet binary groups would be
collected in one place, alt.binaries, so they could be efficently and cheaply
dropped without disturbing the discussion that most Usenet sites were
interested in.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but when it takes the same space
as seventy-five-thousand words something has to give. I think that the
alt.binaries compromise is reasonable and rational, and it's proven a stable
solution for many years.
There's no point in getting into a big debate over it, unless you want to
campaign for a new binary-heavy altnet over in news.admin.misc. I'm pretty
sure I can guarantee that you'll get a much less polite reception than you've
had here.
Peter da Silva
>Well, from a webtv, once a signature file is set up there is no easy way to
>turn it off.
Is this true? (carbon copy sent to postm...@webtv.net)
Florian
>
> In article <981217233...@mauser.at.kendra.com>, Richard Chandler
> - WA Resident wrote:
> >In article <75cl3n$127$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cust...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> [...] Links to outside files are just
> >> that. You make it sound like I'm posting a 50k signature every time I
> >> say something.
> >
> >Well, actually, you are, at least for those who are using an HTML enabled
> >newsreader. The four lines of code causes them to download that file. Every
> >time, at whatever baud rate.
>
> Clearly the soultion to this problem is for them to disable HTML.
> There is alot of mean things that you can do with HTML to a
> newsreader.
>
> >It's been said many times, HTML does not belong on Usenet....
>
> Hear Hear.
again, I don't like viruses, new browser windows opening with spam, or
music as part of a sig.
----------------------------------------------------
e_raschk...@hotmail.com remove .nospam
P.S. Even without HTML, one can still have large signatures.
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their
religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being.
But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf
should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing
throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.
They are trying to force government leaders into following their
position
100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a
particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of
money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political
preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to
be
a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do
they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the
right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry
as
a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who
thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll
call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every
step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all
Americans in the name of "conservatism."
[Senator Barry Goldwater]
"...Jesus was not as peaceful as commonly believed, and that his actual
teachings did not represent a fundamental break with the tradition of
Jewish military messianism. A strong pro-zealot-bandit and anti-Roman
bias probably pervaded his original ministry. The decisive break with
the
Jewish messianic tradition probably came about only after the fall of
Jerusalem, when the original politico-military components in Jesus'
teachings were purged by Jewish Christians living in Rome and other
cities of the empire as an adaptive response to the Roman victory."
[Marvin Harris, anthropologist, _Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches_]
Matthew Milam
>There's no point in getting into a big debate over it,
Of course their isn't, but i'm sure there will be someday.
>unless you want to
>campaign for a new binary-heavy altnet over in news.admin.misc. I'm pretty
>sure I can guarantee that you'll get a much less polite reception than you've
>had here.
Oh, so everyone in all of these newsgroups has their ass uptight over a stupid
rule? Man, those late nights are possibly terrifying to neighbors who see you
yelling and tearing your hair out over this.
Matthew Milam
fil...@interaccess.com
matmi...@yahoo.com
>
Peter da Silva
Matthew Milam <Mat...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Oh, so everyone in all of these newsgroups has their ass uptight over a stupid
>rule?
"Stupid rules" like this are the only things that keep Usenet actually working.
In this case it's the "stupid rule" that lets sites with limited resources
carry altnet in general, and alt.fan.furry in particular, in the first place.
>Man, those late nights are possibly terrifying to neighbors who see you
>yelling and tearing your hair out over this.
I don't know what you do late at night, but you shouldn't generalize so
heavily from your own experience. Some of us really are capable of posting
a single message of explanation without becoming emotionally unbalanced in
the process.
Moving on, then:
In this case it's not really the no-binaries rule that's at issue. It's simply
a case of common sense. Having a .sigfile that sucks down a big graphic is
just plain silly. It would be a lot more sensible to put a URL pointing at
the web page with the big graphic in it. That way people don't get hit by it
unless they ask for it.
And finally, chill. It's not like it's something important like where Clinton
touched Monica, or the pop fly rule. You seem to be under the delusion that
people have some constitutional right to put stupid things in their .sigfile.
Followups not set to alt.fan.warlord, but they should be.
--
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
"If you don't have 64 bits, you're not playing with a full DEC."
Paul R. Bennett
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:
> In article <75cl3n$127$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cust...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > A binary posting is when a graphic file is uuencoded and actually
> > posted to the newsgroup. Links to outside files are just
> > that. You make it sound like I'm posting a 50k signature every time I
> > say something.
>
> Well, actually, you are, at least for those who are using an HTML enabled
> newsreader. The four lines of code causes them to download that file. Every
> time, at whatever baud rate.
Unfortunately Sir, yes. The last few posts this little window has popped up
asking me if I want to download this special executable so I can, whatever, the
file... I mumble a few things under my breath and hit the "no" button.
> It also leads to such horrible scams as spammers posting Java script, which
> the Netscapes and IEs interpret and force them to open up a window to a porno
> site. Or worse.
No foolin... One showed up here in the newsgroup a while back(not yours, this was
someone who posted to several news groups)... I clicked on the article and WHAM,
I had a file show up on my hard disk that would have sent me straight to a
discussion group or someting. BTW, this is with absolutely EVERYTHING disabled.
I do not know what it was but I did have Java and everything else disabled.
Suddenly I am not real trusting of software(as if I ever was).
> It's been said many times, HTML does not belong on Usenet....
I don't necessarily know about that, but until something serious is done about
security...
> --
> The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
> a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
> -- Richard Chandler
> Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Paul
Custer J. Winston
have 12 signature files loaded on a web site somewhere (the classic
cannot store anything itself- no hard drive) and switch around between
them.
As an additional choice, you can blank the signature out altogether.
So now that I have the choice, I can leave the fancy signature off.
ELynne
> In article , Timothy says...
> Is it me, or do you guys find everything except breathing to be annonying?
Everything *except* breathing? I don't remember an exception being made
for *breathing*.... ;)
-- Erin, Easily Amused
"Look, a bug!"
>>sig file lost: suggest looking under couch<<
Dr. Cat
: Everything *except* breathing? I don't remember an exception being made
: for *breathing*.... ;)
Say, were you breathing when you wrote that?
Grrrrrrr....
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: It's just comedy folks, no furries were harmed during the
filming of this post. The ASPCA would slap our paws if we did!)
Wanderer
>Wanderer (wand...@applink.net) wrote:
>: A small correction from a history buff ... America's predilection for
>: covering up, hiding, and not talking about certain acts and parts of the
>: anatomy has nothing to do with the Puritans. The Puritans felt that sex
was
>: blessed in the eyes of the Lord, and indulged in it frequently.:)
>
>Most religions consider sex between a husband and wife in private to be
>acceptable and ok to indulge in frequently. But really, did the Puritans
>accept public nudity, adultery, bigamy, public sex, homosexuality,
>bisexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sex, or anything at all besides
>married couples having sex in private?
Hm ... pre-marital sex was acknowledged, and was considered only a venial
sin. And masturbation was definitely not on the prohibited list at that
point. Beyone that, not only are you in the "these things were not spoken
of in public then", you're also into "sorry, Wanderer is a plain-vanilla
virgin, so he doesn't look that stuff up".
>
>: The problem came in with the Victorian era. Britain was bad enough,
coining
>: such aphorisms as, "Children should be seen and not heard", "Idle hands
are
>: the Devil's workshop", and so on. It was America, however, which made
>: certain words improper in polite conversation.
>
>I seem to remember reading something about the tradition of "bundling"
>predating the Victorian era, unless I recall incorrectly. Wasn't it a
>Quaker thing? I suppose you could consider it sexually liberal compared
>to any culture that doesn't even let unmarried young people do that much.
>But you could call it pretty sexually repressive compared to tribes that
>let their children "play doctor" to learn each other's anatomy even
>before puberty. Or compared to American hippies in the late 60s - let
>alone the various European countries that are still far more comfortable
>with sex than America is today, from what I hear.
It's more nudity than sex in most respects ... but, yes, Europe tends to be
more permissive in some areas. As for bundling ... sorry, not something
I've studied.
>
>I mean, maybe America got MORE sexually repressed during the Victorian
>era, but it wasn't exactly the Summer of Love *before* that to begin with.
>
<shrug> True.
Yours truly,
The had-a-limited-point-to-make-and-did-so,
Wanderer**wand...@applink.net
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Wanderer
Where am I going?I don't quite know.
What does it matter where people go?
Down to the woods where the bluebells grow.
Anywhere! Anywhere! *I*don't know!
Custer J. Winston wrote in message <10669-36...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
George Carlan has an entire comedy routine based on this. I don't
recall "shirt" being one of the words though.
Having a history degree, with particular emphasis placed on both 39-45
and also 1912-18, I don't think "shirt" ever qualified.
Jack Furlong (HillBluffer@FurryMUCK)
spa...@texas.net (Michael Pena) wrote:
>I do not mean that the general public must know all the variations of
>zoophile, but they should at least know the meaning of the word before
>they have a knee-jerk reaction and automatically think that they are
>all people who want to mate with animals.
Here's what the general public will
_probably_ know about the practice...
http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=zoophile
Farlo
>Here's what the general public will
>_probably_ know about the practice...
>http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=zxoophile
"Found 0 categories and 7 sites for zxoophile"
All the listed sites refer to them as animal Fxxxkers ...
hardly pro-Zoo, but I didn't look real close.
-------------------
Farlo m>*_*<m
Urban Fey Dragon
I am not postmaster@[localhost] nor postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
-------------------