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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Thoughts on spooge

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Hangdog

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to
Oscar Wilde is a good guide here:

"Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art."

My own thoughts:

Note that this makes them means, not ends.

Regardless of how artists portray sex (as vice or virtue), they
should be free to use it, if they wish to do so, as a means to an
end.

But if the sex becomes an end in itself, that is an aesthetic
failure.

Art should not be suppressed because of aesthetic failure: that is
censorship. Besides which, failure is an occasional consequence,
evitable in particular but inevitable in general, of attempting the
new or difficult; setting the price of failure too high discourages
such attempts, which leads to stagnation. Finally, failure can be
instructive: it can teach those who wish to make similar attempts what
to do or avoid so that their own attempts may meet with more success.

None of this, however, means that artistic failure should not be
criticised. Criticism is not censorship. Indeed, the discouragement
of criticism produces many of the same effects as censorship,
especially where the quality of art is concerned. This has been quite
amply demonstrated in Furry Fandom (think of the people of Huy Brasil
in _Eric the Viking_: remember how awful their music was?)

Both artist and audience have the absolute right to create and view
the sexually explicit, if they so choose.

They also have the absolute right to *not* do so, if they so choose.

Each right must be exercised in such a way as to not intrude on the
other. To this end, self-restraint and mutual respect are essential.

Those who do *not* wish to see or create the sexually explicit must
absolutely refrain from censorship or suppression of it.

Those who *do* wish to see or create the sexually explicit must
absolutely refrain from imposing it on those who do not wish to see
it, and must further take all reasonable precautions to prevent those
under the legal age of consent from gaining access to it.

Bear in mind that the mature artist and audience will recognize that
sexual explicitness is appropriate in some contexts and inappropriate
in others. Both rights, then, are essential to the creation of art.

PRURIENCE IS JUST AS BAD AS PRIGGISHNESS.

"...that is all."

--Hangdog, Burned Fur


M. Mitchell Marmel

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to
Hangdog wrote:

>
> PRURIENCE IS JUST AS BAD AS PRIGGISHNESS.
>
> "...that is all."

(hearty applause)

Well spoken, sir!


--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html

ilr

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to

Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message news:38418A73...@pdq.net...
> PRURIENCE IS JUST AS BAD AS PRIGGISHNESS.
>
> "...that is all."
>
> --Hangdog, Burned Fur
>

Nice :)

To me, erotic art exists for one reason only. Because there's a border.
Call it Puritanism, call it what you want, but it's that mystery that made
ankles the sexiest thing that could be shown 100 years ago. It's always
about pushing boundaries. It's like that with comedy too. And you'd
probably find that erotica proceeds the same way. Ever notice
how comedy evolves in this fashion? Comedians topping eachother by
going up a level like this?:
The stoic ribbing(mostly clothed) -->
The witty banter(flashy clothes) -->
Puns(Scantily clothed) -->
Running gags(slutty clothes/position) -->
Teaser jokes(exposed naughtybits) -->
Borderline dirty jokes(focus on naughty bits)-->
Sex gags(flat out sex) -->
Gay sex(flat out gay/gender bending) -->
???--> (I don't really know what comes after as it's 2000 and we're still stuck
on gay comedy with "Ellen" and "Will&Grace" being the raciest sitcoms
around lately) But if I had to guess, I think Ultraviolence or some variant
of dark comedy would be the next or maybe "snuff" in sexual terms.

Some artists in the fandom IMO:
Nimbl = Puns
Tygger = Witty_ + Teasers
Bernal = Dirty_jokes
Winger = Running_gags + Dirty_Jokes + Gay
Naylor = Sex_gags
Den = Everything


--- i l r (Teasers + Sex_gags)

Darmon C. Thornton

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to

Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:38418A73...@pdq.net...
>
> PRURIENCE IS JUST AS BAD AS PRIGGISHNESS.
>
> "...that is all."

Well said! Thanks for the posting.

--Dar

Jeff Novotny

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to
Hangdog wrote:

> My own thoughts:
>
> Note that this makes them means, not ends.

Indeed.

And my own thoughts:

I feel that anthropomorphic characters, when they are successful, in
some way always refer back to humanity. (As an aside, this explains the
crushing banality caused by thinking of "furry" as some kind of special
subculture divorced from regular life). This humanity could be society
or culture in general (POGO), or specific "types" that we find in
everyday life (XANADU), or more in-depth psychological studies of
individual characters (CEREBUS). If these characters are to be truly
metaphorical, then they will have to do some of the things that we do in
life. And, if they are adults, one of those things might be having sex.

And that's why sex is an element of many successful comic titles. In
many cases it is handled discreetly and without any degree of
explicitness. The aforementioned XANADU was able to be clear about its
characters' intimate relationships while still keeping to a PG-13
rating. Even if the scenes were more direct, they would still be part of
a story, and a book as explicit as OMAHA was still successful as a story
people *read*. Hell, even an X-rated portfolio could be successful as
the study of a physical relationship *if* ... really big *if* ... we
knew about the characters beforehand and what the relationship meant to
them.

But in a lot of cases of X-rated stuff, this isn't even remotely the
motive. That's the difference. That's the troubling part.

Many times there is no back story. There is no characterization. There
is no commentary on anything. There isn't even any significant humour.
It's face value. WYSIWYG. And in this case, what you get is ....
pornography. Period. And most pornography never gets any respect because
it trivializes something important.

I think that this is the reason why a lot of people have no problem with
OMAHA, SHANDA, or even much of GENUS, but get totally discouraged with
that fur erotica news group. The first group, as you suggest, uses sex
as a means ... to a story, to an idea, or to humour. The second is
mainly pornography in intent ... and bad pornography at that. Much of
what is shown has *no* resemblance to human sexuality or what a guy and
a girl really do in bed together.

And showing furry animals having sex for purely pornographic purpose and
no other purpose is (after it loses its slight novelty appeal) ....
creepy. It's only after I've taken a step back from the fandom and
stopped thinking in *furry* mode that I've realized how bizarre it is.
Brrrrrr!

Thanks, Hangdog. Great post. It enabled me to finally put into words
what I've been thinking for a while.

Best;
Jeff (dropping the middle initial now)

dem...@ucla.edu

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
Hmm, very interesting. I actually got around to reading the Burned Fur
Web Page a couple weeks ago. A bunch of rather opinionated people that
bunch-oh yeah what's my point. Well I think it comes down to the fact
that as an "Artist" or whatever you would call me, I posess the rather
irrevocable right to DRAW WHATEVER THE HAIRY BLEEDING FUCK I WANT!!!!!

Jeezus man, where do you people get off trying to tell people how to use
their prismacolors? now I don't "oppress" people with the stuff I do-I
don't go to preschools and paper the walls with spooge or spray paint
scenes from the Kama Sutra in church parking lots, but neither you-nor
Wilde or even Jesus-Fucking-H-Christ himself can step to me with your
politicized doublespeak and try and impress your view of aesthetics on
whatever the hell I feel like doing. If I have the sudden urge to do a
Tiny Toons wild-assed sex orgy scene with Buster shooting up speedballs
in the corner and Fifi and Elmira locked in some twisted Lesbian Love
embrace, well then it's all good now isn't it? Does that make me
"normal"? Hell No! But that doesn't make my "art" any less *valid* than
something you might approve of. "The Mature Artist..." Give me a break!
We're in a newsgroup with people obsessed with Anthropromorphed Animals,
and you try to slap Jansen's Art History book on the table.

Granted, everyone's entitled to their own view on things, I just wanted
to offer a "counterpoint" I get so tired of these anti-spooge posts.
don't like it? don't look at it! hey problem solved! I'm a fuckin' genius

-VJG/DEMONX


In article <38418A73...@pdq.net>,


Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
> Oscar Wilde is a good guide here:
>
> "Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art."
>

> My own thoughts:
>
> Note that this makes them means, not ends.
>

> PRURIENCE IS JUST AS BAD AS PRIGGISHNESS.
>
> "...that is all."
>

> --Hangdog, Burned Fur
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Hangdog

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
dem...@ucla.edu wrote:

> Hmm, very interesting. I actually got around to reading the Burned Fur
> Web Page a couple weeks ago. A bunch of rather opinionated people that
> bunch-oh yeah what's my point. Well I think it comes down to the fact
> that as an "Artist" or whatever you would call me, I posess the rather
> irrevocable right to DRAW WHATEVER THE HAIRY BLEEDING FUCK I WANT!!!!!

Like I said.

> Jeezus man, where do you people get off trying to tell people how to use
> their prismacolors?

Where did I try to do that?

> now I don't "oppress" people with the stuff I do

Where did I even use the word "oppress?"

> -I
> don't go to preschools and paper the walls with spooge or spray paint
> scenes from the Kama Sutra in church parking lots, but neither you-nor
> Wilde or even Jesus-Fucking-H-Christ himself can step to me with your
> politicized doublespeak and try and impress your view of aesthetics on
> whatever the hell I feel like doing.

Did you even read my post? :oD

> If I have the sudden urge to do a
> Tiny Toons wild-assed sex orgy scene with Buster shooting up speedballs
> in the corner and Fifi and Elmira locked in some twisted Lesbian Love
> embrace, well then it's all good now isn't it?

Sure. And if you exhibit it, the rest of us have the right to tell you how
lame the concept is.

> Does that make me
> "normal"? Hell No! But that doesn't make my "art" any less *valid* than
> something you might approve of. "The Mature Artist..." Give me a break!

I'll give a mature artist a break. You could get one too, if you were one.
Judging by your post, however...

> We're in a newsgroup with people obsessed with Anthropromorphed Animals,
> and you try to slap Jansen's Art History book on the table.

Nope. Just Wilde's art criticism.

You *do* know who Wilde is, don't you?

> Granted, everyone's entitled to their own view on things, I just wanted
> to offer a "counterpoint" I get so tired of these anti-spooge posts.
> don't like it? don't look at it! hey problem solved! I'm a fuckin' genius

How is this an "anti-spooge post?"

Richard Chandler - WA Resident

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
In article <81t25p$s5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dem...@ucla.edu writes:
> Granted, everyone's entitled to their own view on things, I just wanted
> to offer a "counterpoint" I get so tired of these anti-spooge
> posts. don't like it? don't look at it! hey problem solved! I'm a
> fuckin' genius

Gee, someone's got a bit of a knee jerk reflex there. It didn't strike me as
an anti-spooge post. In fact, it wasn't about suppressing anything. Indeed,
it said that suppressing criticism where it might be instructive would be a
bad thing.

I am always amazed when I see someone stand up and label "The Burned Furs" as
some kind of anti-spooge group, when they have never taken that position, not
even in Squee Rat's infamous Manifesto. Some people are spending a little too
much time with their eyes squinted shut, fists clamped over their ears,
stamping like an angry two-year-old screaming "NO! No! No! You can't take my
spooge away, I'll do whatever I want to!" when nobody's even trying to.

Frankly, as a "counterpoint", compared to Hangdog's philosophical and well-
reasoned initial post, your response comes across as petulant and immature.
But even more depressing, it's not even a real response to the post at all,
showing no critical thought, and no direct relevance to any of the points
raised. This is hardly the way to have an intellectual discussion.


--
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.


Hangdog

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
Richard Chandler - WA Resident wrote:

> I am always amazed when I see someone stand up and label "The Burned Furs" as
> some kind of anti-spooge group, when they have never taken that position, not
> even in Squee Rat's infamous Manifesto. Some people are spending a little too
> much time with their eyes squinted shut, fists clamped over their ears,
> stamping like an angry two-year-old screaming "NO! No! No! You can't take my
> spooge away, I'll do whatever I want to!" when nobody's even trying to.

Gosh-darn it, Rich, how're we gonna keep up our reputation as Evil Incarnate when
you keep blowing our cover like this?!?!?

--Hangdog, Burned Fur (with Big Awful Nasty Pointy Opinions! ;o)

>
>


Brian Sutton

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
>I am always amazed when I see someone stand up and label "The Burned Furs" as
>some kind of anti-spooge group, when they have never taken that position, not
>even in Squee Rat's infamous Manifesto.

Quite true but many of the positions it did take were so ridiculous that it
became a
regular matter to read that into the manifesto, waging a campaign against bad
art,
indeed. It also didn't help that some of the psuedo membership made a big deal

about how they were going to "get" those porno publishers for sullying furry
fandoms
sterling reputation. Yes a few "real" members did come out and say that BF
wasn't
anti-porn just anti-bad things. You don't have the option of letting
"whomever" claim
to be a BF & make ridiculous statements that go unchalleged by the "real" BF's.
These
statements are judged as cannon if left without comment. If these people don't
speak
for all BF's then it is incumbant on the members to say so BEFORE it comes back
to bite
them. The problem was there wasn't anything to truely define the group as Shon

pointed out several months ago to someone who challenged his BF status, he was
a
Burned Fur because he said so.

Mostly the problems that created BF in the first place were the excesses of the
Muck and
Confurence, limited problems in search of small solutions. Instead we get a
lot of shouting,
arm-waving and a lame t-shirt plus the creation of other equally annoying
counter groups.
So what started out as a potential step in the right direction instead ended up
as yet another
scapegoat to why things aren't jiggy in furry fandom.

Remember kids, drugs are bad.
n'kay
Brian Sutton
" Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."

Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics

Hangdog

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
Brian Sutton wrote:

> >I am always amazed when I see someone stand up and label "The Burned Furs" as
> >some kind of anti-spooge group, when they have never taken that position, not
> >even in Squee Rat's infamous Manifesto.
>
> Quite true but many of the positions it did take were so ridiculous

Which ones? "There Are No Werewolves?" "A sexual attraction to a child's toy is a
sign of a problem?" or "Don't Fuck Your Pets?"

> that it became a regular matter to read that into the manifesto, waging a
> campaign against bad art,
> indeed.

This sentence...makes no sense. What are you on about here, Brian?

> It also didn't help that some of the psuedo membership made a big deal about how
> they were going to "get" those porno publishers for sullying furry
> fandomssterling reputation.

Funny thing--those "pseudo-members" never claimed to be Burned Furs. They even
went to some lengths to denounce Burned Fur as "too moderate". They were labelled
as Burned Furs by the opposition, who were themselves looking for scapegoats to
complete their victim complexes.

The sole exception to this was StukaFox, who joined Burned Fur for about a week but
left angrily when he decided we weren't aggressive enough for him.

> Yes a few "real" members did come out and say that BF wasn't anti-porn just
> anti-bad things. You don't have the option of letting "whomever" claim to be a
> BF & make ridiculous statements that go unchalleged by the "real" BF's. These
> statements are judged as cannon if left without comment. If these people don't

> speakfor all BF's then it is incumbant on the members to say so BEFORE it comes


> back to bite them. The problem was there wasn't anything to truely define the
> group as

Actually, Brian, I and other Burned Furs have been pointing out--in this forum, and
others--that these people aren't Burned Fur. You either haven't been keeping up,
or you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

> Mostly the problems that created BF in the first place were the excesses of the
> Muck and Confurence, limited problems in search of small solutions.

When people in Europe know about these problems and spend money to send reporters
and cameramen halfway across the world to get stories about them, the problems are
not "limited" and "small solutions" won't work

> Instead we get a lot of shouting, arm-waving and a lame t-shirt plus the creation
> of other equally annoying counter groups.
> So what started out as a potential step in the right direction instead ended up
> as yet another scapegoat to why things aren't jiggy in furry fandom.

For those who came in late, here's the post that provoked Brian's rant:

Subject: Thoughts on spooge
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 14:03:00 -0600

Ben Bruin

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <81t25p$s5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

dem...@ucla.edu wrote:
> Hmm, very interesting. I actually got around to reading the Burned
Fur
> Web Page a couple weeks ago. A bunch of rather opinionated people that
> bunch-oh yeah what's my point. Well I think it comes down to the fact
> that as an "Artist" or whatever you would call me, I posess the rather
> irrevocable right to DRAW WHATEVER THE HAIRY BLEEDING FUCK I WANT!!!!!
>
> Jeezus man, where do you people get off trying to tell people how to
use
> their prismacolors?
<massive snippage of hysterical rant>

You know, I hear a lot of people going on and on and on like this...

When people who are opposed to porn say that it's both emotionally
harmful
and addictive, people laugh.
Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
stash.
You're *not* helping your cause here, spoogemonkey.

--
Two rules:
1)never stand behind a cow......

rune....@worldnet.att.mil

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
dem...@ucla.edu wrote:
>
> Hmm, very interesting. I actually got around to reading the Burned Fur
> Web Page a couple weeks ago. A bunch of rather opinionated people that
> bunch-oh yeah what's my point. Well I think it comes down to the fact
> that as an "Artist" or whatever you would call me, I posess the rather
> irrevocable right to DRAW WHATEVER THE HAIRY BLEEDING FUCK I WANT!!!!!
>
> Jeezus man, where do you people get off trying to tell people how to use
> their prismacolors?

<Snippage of totally off-the-wall rant>

You didn't read the post, just ranted. Try actually reading it.

Where does it say word # one against spooge?

kodak

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <81v9kn$g4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ben Bruin
<lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> When people who are opposed to porn say that it's both emotionally
> harmful and addictive, people laugh.
> Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
> curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
> go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
> stash. You're *not* helping your cause here, spoogemonkey.

<singing>
Oh....I'm a furry fanboy, short and stout.
Take away my spooge and watch me pout!


---
*to the tune of "I'm a Little Teapot" ;)

Nyehba

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
From: bsu77...@aol.com (Brian Sutton)

>>I am always amazed when I see someone stand up and label "The
>>Burned Furs" as some kind of anti-spooge group, when they have
>>never taken that position, not even in Squee Rat's infamous Manifesto.

>Quite true but many of the positions it did take were so ridiculous that it


>became a regular matter to read that into the manifesto, waging a

>campaign against bad art, indeed. It also didn't help that some of the


>psuedo membership made a big deal about how they were going to
>"get" those porno publishers for sullying furry fandoms sterling reputation.

(snip the rest which readers can get on their own)
Very clearly and elegantly stated, Brian, and true. One thing that troubles me
about the original post is the title, "Thoughts on spooge". I am still
learning about this Fandom, but to my knowledge, spooge is supposed to be the
most disturbing form of sexual content short of what is illegal. Yet the
author never bothered to mention 'spooge' in the body of his message. He only
spoke about sex. It seems suspicious to me. Like he might be trying to equate
plain vanilla sex (nudity etc.) with spooge. The two of which, to me, is
distinctly different.

http://members.aol.com/nyehba/sig.txt

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <81t25p$s5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <dem...@ucla.edu> wrote:

<snip>

Why do furries always do that? You criticize them at all and they cry
opression. People like Hangdog state clearly that they in no way whan
to censor anything, but the idiot furries just bleat on. Pathetic. If
you can't handle negative reaction, try only posting artwork that's
good which means that very few furries will ever post again.
--Random

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <38420138...@cc.umanitoba.ca>, Jeff Novotny
<umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:

> Hangdog wrote:
>
> > My own thoughts:
> >
> > Note that this makes them means, not ends.
>

> Indeed.
>
> And my own thoughts:
>
> I feel that anthropomorphic characters, when they are successful, in
> some way always refer back to humanity. (As an aside, this explains the
> crushing banality caused by thinking of "furry" as some kind of special
> subculture divorced from regular life). This humanity could be society
> or culture in general (POGO), or specific "types" that we find in
> everyday life (XANADU), or more in-depth psychological studies of
> individual characters (CEREBUS). If these characters are to be truly
> metaphorical, then they will have to do some of the things that we do in
> life. And, if they are adults, one of those things might be having sex.

Uh, no. You're close, but still wrong. People have used anthropomorphic
characters as an everyman-type character. They use it as a metaphor for
the human condition, but trying to justify furry crap like that is
wrong. Furries do not use anthropomorphic characters like that at all.
They use them INSTEAD OF human ones because they can't handle humans or
human sexuality. If they weren't so broken, all the furries would be
looking at standard human porn which uses actual humans instead of
being furries.

> And that's why sex is an element of many successful comic titles. In
> many cases it is handled discreetly and without any degree of
> explicitness. The aforementioned XANADU was able to be clear about its
> characters' intimate relationships while still keeping to a PG-13
> rating. Even if the scenes were more direct, they would still be part of
> a story, and a book as explicit as OMAHA was still successful as a story
> people *read*. Hell, even an X-rated portfolio could be successful as
> the study of a physical relationship *if* ... really big *if* ... we
> knew about the characters beforehand and what the relationship meant to
> them.

That's just bullshit rationalizations for why people look at furry porn
instead of real porn. The truth is.. Spooge intimidates these poor
broken fools that populate the furry fandom and that's ALL.



> But in a lot of cases of X-rated stuff, this isn't even remotely the
> motive. That's the difference. That's the troubling part.

The motive in ALL x-rated stuff is to provide wank material.



> Many times there is no back story. There is no characterization. There
> is no commentary on anything. There isn't even any significant humour.
> It's face value. WYSIWYG. And in this case, what you get is ....
> pornography. Period. And most pornography never gets any respect because
> it trivializes something important.

Uh, no. It's just wank material. You can bullshit it however you like,
but it's not meant as any BUT wank material. Deal.



> I think that this is the reason why a lot of people have no problem with
> OMAHA, SHANDA, or even much of GENUS, but get totally discouraged with
> that fur erotica news group. The first group, as you suggest, uses sex
> as a means ... to a story, to an idea, or to humour. The second is
> mainly pornography in intent ... and bad pornography at that. Much of
> what is shown has *no* resemblance to human sexuality or what a guy and
> a girl really do in bed together.

Uh huh. Genus, Shanda and Omaha are all just badly done wank material
disguised as comic books. Your argument is much like men saying they
get playboy for the articles.

> And showing furry animals having sex for purely pornographic purpose and
> no other purpose is (after it loses its slight novelty appeal) ....
> creepy. It's only after I've taken a step back from the fandom and
> stopped thinking in *furry* mode that I've realized how bizarre it is.
> Brrrrrr!

Dude, get a clue. That's what furry is all about. It's just a
collection of fetishes focused in on animals. The rest is just
bullshit.
--Random

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <81v9kn$g4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ben Bruin
<lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
> curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
> go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
> stash.

Ben, dude, do you have any idea of what a lame ass hypocrite you appear
as when you speak out against spooge then turn around and post on the
'anatomy' threads about what animal genitals look like?
--Random

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <slrn844if7....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>, David
Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:

> If aesthetics is to bring pleasure the the eyes, to grab the viewer by
> the gonads. Pleasure is to be enjoyed. And spooge taps into that
> pleasure and uses it as a driver, a powerfull stimulis to the eye and
> the brain.

What a funky way to say it makes him wanna polish his pud. Wild!
--Random

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <19991129142121...@ng-fa1.aol.com>, Brian Sutton
<bsu77...@aol.com> wrote:

> es a few "real" members did come out and say that BF
> wasn't
> anti-porn just anti-bad things. You don't have the option of letting
> "whomever" claim
> to be a BF & make ridiculous statements that go unchalleged by the "real"
BF's.

Yup. The BF are just more furries. They like to think about sexay
animals, too.
--Random

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <19991130104931...@ng-fs1.aol.com>, Nyehba
<nye...@aol.comremoveit> wrote:

> but to my knowledge, spooge is supposed to be the
> most disturbing form of sexual content short of what is illegal.

Spooge is what the furry fandom is all about, really. They wallow in it
like pigs wallow in their own filth. It's pornographic images of
humanoid animals. A lot of times it harkens to beastiality. But mostly
it's just wank material for people too intimidated by naked humans.
--Random

Talbon

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
*Snorts, and shakes his head* Sure Random. I'm sexually fucked up. *giggle*
Cant.. interact with others *Falls down laughing.* And I need... to be
fixed! *Tears squirt from eyes, as he keeps laughing on the ground.
Clutching his stomach.*


> Uh, no. You're close, but still wrong. People have used anthropomorphic
> characters as an everyman-type character. They use it as a metaphor for
> the human condition, but trying to justify furry crap like that is
> wrong. Furries do not use anthropomorphic characters like that at all.
> They use them INSTEAD OF human ones because they can't handle humans or
> human sexuality. If they weren't so broken, all the furries would be
> looking at standard human porn which uses actual humans instead of
> being furries.
>

*Grin* And what about those of us who just like it? Real, anime, furry,
whatever.

>
> That's just bullshit rationalizations for why people look at furry porn
> instead of real porn. The truth is.. Spooge intimidates these poor
> broken fools that populate the furry fandom and that's ALL.
>

Michelangio's David is wank material? WOW!

> The motive in ALL x-rated stuff is to provide wank material.
>

Too bad you feel that way, of course your intitled to your own opinion. But
the one issue of Genus I read had me rolling with laughter. True it was
extremely hot at some points, but so what?

> Uh huh. Genus, Shanda and Omaha are all just badly done wank material
> disguised as comic books. Your argument is much like men saying they
> get playboy for the articles.
>

Your point being?

> Dude, get a clue. That's what furry is all about. It's just a collection
of fetishes focused in on animals. The rest is just
> bullshit.
> --Random

Talbon - One seriously amused wolf

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:35:19 GMT, Ben Bruin <lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>You know, I hear a lot of people going on and on and on like this...
>

>When people who are opposed to porn say that it's both emotionally
>harmful and addictive, people laugh.

As they should.

>Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
>curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
>go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
>stash.

Alot of people will react like this. Suggest that ferrets should be
banned and watch the heat you will get from ferret actovists, (to the
best of my knowige ferrets are not addictive), suggest the banning of
guns and you will get a flame larger then the suggestion of banning
porn.

People don't like people takeing away what they enjoy.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:31:27 -0500, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:

[...]

>You didn't read the post, just ranted. Try actually reading it.
>
>Where does it say word # one against spooge?

Well it does say that pure spooge is an estectic falure.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:21:08 -0600, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
>Brian Sutton wrote:

[...]

>> Quite true but many of the positions it did take were so ridiculous
>

>Which ones? "There Are No Werewolves?"

Zoophilies are worce then plushiephiles, Lifestylers demand that
fandomers are not furry, You have to realine your beleif system to be
a furry fan, furry lifestylers are vegans, beleaving in the existence
of a evolutionary ladder.

The burned fur manifesto has more stawmen then a corn field.

> "A sexual attraction to a child's toy is a sign of a problem?"

Yes that one is quite ridiculous.

[...]

>> It also didn't help that some of the psuedo membership made a big
>> deal about how they were going to "get" those porno publishers for

>> sullying furry fandomssterling reputation.


>
>Funny thing--those "pseudo-members" never claimed to be Burned Furs.

What about Ben Bruin?

Random

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
In article <8218d3$cum$1...@thoth.cts.com>, Talbon <wick...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> *Snorts, and shakes his head* Sure Random. I'm sexually fucked up. *giggle*
> Cant.. interact with others *Falls down laughing.* And I need... to be
> fixed! *Tears squirt from eyes, as he keeps laughing on the ground.
> Clutching his stomach.*

Hey, you said it.

> > Uh, no. You're close, but still wrong. People have used anthropomorphic
> > characters as an everyman-type character. They use it as a metaphor for
> > the human condition, but trying to justify furry crap like that is
> > wrong. Furries do not use anthropomorphic characters like that at all.
> > They use them INSTEAD OF human ones because they can't handle humans or
> > human sexuality. If they weren't so broken, all the furries would be
> > looking at standard human porn which uses actual humans instead of
> > being furries.
> >
>
> *Grin* And what about those of us who just like it? Real, anime, furry,
> whatever.

If there wasn't room for the stupid, a lot of things would go empty.



> >
> > That's just bullshit rationalizations for why people look at furry porn
> > instead of real porn. The truth is.. Spooge intimidates these poor
> > broken fools that populate the furry fandom and that's ALL.
> >
>
> Michelangio's David is wank material? WOW!

What? That doesn't even follow anything. Are you trying to say David
was spooge or porn?

> > The motive in ALL x-rated stuff is to provide wank material.
> >
>
> Too bad you feel that way, of course your intitled to your own opinion. But
> the one issue of Genus I read had me rolling with laughter. True it was
> extremely hot at some points, but so what?

Porn is porn is porn. A might on the slow side, ain't cha?



> > Uh huh. Genus, Shanda and Omaha are all just badly done wank material
> > disguised as comic books. Your argument is much like men saying they
> > get playboy for the articles.
> >
>
> Your point being?

See above.

--Random

Jeff Novotny

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
Random wrote:

> Uh, no. You're close, but still wrong.

Actually, we 90% agree. I tend to be a little more polite though. :)

It's obvious there's a *lot* of dissatisfaction with the the collective
output of what's known as "furry" fandom. It's a irritant to both of us,
despite our difference of opinion about the merit of some individual
items.

Best;
Jeff

Hangdog

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
Ben Bruin wrote:

> Tell that to those that are recovering from porn addiction.

Ben, get a grip: porn is no more addictive than the Internet, gambling or
Scrabble(tm). Yes, there are people who get overinvolved with all of these
things. But that means there's a problem with *that person*, not the thing
to which they're addicted.

Now alcohol--that *is* addictive, as has been clinically proven. We tried
to ban *that* once; it only made things worse. And stroke books are easier
to produce and distribute than moonshine. Especially now that there's an
InterNet.

> Or to the people who are chewed up and spat out by the porn industry.

Granted, the porn entertainment industry is inherently exploitive, unfair to
labor, overindulgent to a chosen few and miserly to the rest. But that's
true of the non-porn entertainment industry as well. In both cases it's an
industry with very few openings beseiged by far more applicants than it
needs. It's always a hirer's market, which is bad news for those trying to
get hired, and worse for those who actually are.

> > >Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
> > >curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
> > >go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
> > >stash.
> >
> > Alot of people will react like this. Suggest that ferrets should be
> > banned and watch the heat you will get from ferret actovists, (to the
> > best of my knowige ferrets are not addictive),

Ferrets are not the same as speech. David, we got this thing in the Bad Ol'
Nuclear-Armed U.S.A. called the First Amendment. You're a foreigner, so you
have an excuse for not knowing that. Ben, you aren't, so you don't.

> The situation with porn is the exact reverse. Those that wish to ban it,
> or at the least to control and curtail it, have the facts on their side.
> In the form of countless thousands of people devoured by the industry
> on both sides of the lens and drawing pen, in the shape of countless
> studies showing how exposure to sexually explicit material directly
> contributed to the increase in sexual aggressiveness and callousness
> of the researchers' subjects; in the list of endless statistics of
> increases of violent crime, of degradation of neighborhoods, of the
> surges in venereal disease, in the increase in unwed mothers + unwanted
> children; in the open testimony of countless sex addicts, sex-crime
> offendors-- up to and especially including rapists; in the tear-filled
> testimony of their victims, and in the mute testimony of people, living
> and dead, reduced in society's eyes to nothing more than a collection
> of breasts and genitals.

Interestingly, Ben, this argument is supported only by those who agree with
your political and theological beliefs. In short, the "evidence" you cite
is seen only by those who have reason to want to see it. It's like global
warming or that stupid power-lines-cause-cancer crap; a bunch of lawyers,
activists and political outsiders creating and exploiting public hysteria in
order to gain money, power and fame.

> If you think that porn does not contribute to this, then you're stupid
> enough to think that Ronald McDonald doesn't contribute to the sale of
> hamburgers.

Great, Ben, insult everyone who disagrees with you one whit. That'll
certainly help convince a majority of the public to agree with you.

> But the first and final defense that the spoogemonkeys come up with
> is the petulant temper tantrum of a spoiled child... They stomp
> their feet, clap their hands to their ears and shriek ,"I WANNA DO IT
> AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME STOP !"

Granted a lot of spoogemonkeys act like spoiled children. The solution to
that problem is to shun them and/or mock their immaturity until they decide
to start acting their age. Banning porn won't make them shut up or grow
up--again, morality is a characteristic of *people*, Ben, not *things*.
What banning porn *would* do is to subject those who *can* handle sexually
explicit material in a mature, self-disciplined fashion to the same
punishment (withdrawl of the right to view or create it) as those who
*can't*. You would be punishing the innocent with the guilty, Ben

> THEREIN lies the total difference between those who would DEFEND a
> right, and those who would selfishly pervert it.

I believe what you mean is "Therein lies the difference between those who
USE a right, and those who ABUSE it." So is the solution then to take away
the right from *everyone?* I disagree.

--Hangdog, Burned Fur

(NOTE: Both me and Ben are Burned Furs. The Burned Furs *per se* aren't
opposed to spooge, porn, adult material, call it what you will. It's not
relevant to our agenda, so we get people with differing opinions in the
movement. Which sometimes results in arguments (like right now). Which is
fine. We're not trying to be one big yiffy family, and frankly we don't
want to be: suppressing dissent in the name of harmony is what got the
fandom in trouble in the first place, so we appreciate the value of
dissent. As Ben and I have demonstrated :o)


Ben Bruin

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <301119991410313357%sph...@crl.com>,

Random <sph...@crl.com> wrote:
> In article <81v9kn$g4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ben Bruin
> <lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
> > curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
> > go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near
their
> > stash.
>
> Ben, dude, do you have any idea of what a lame ass hypocrite you
appear
> as when you speak out against spooge then turn around and post on the
> 'anatomy' threads about what animal genitals look like?
> --Random
>
Random, if you can't tell the difference between a philosophical
debate on the physiology of mythical/fictional creatures, and the
slobber-covered display of puerile stroke-material, then you are an
even BIGGER dink than your posts would lead one to believe.

Ben Bruin

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <slrn848fo2....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,

dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:35:19 GMT, Ben Bruin
<lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >You know, I hear a lot of people going on and on and on like this...
> >
> >When people who are opposed to porn say that it's both emotionally
> >harmful and addictive, people laugh.
>
> As they should.
Tell that to those that are recovering from porn addiction.
Or to the people who are chewed up and spat out by the porn industry.
>
> >Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
> >curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
> >go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
> >stash.
>
> Alot of people will react like this. Suggest that ferrets should be
> banned and watch the heat you will get from ferret actovists, (to the
> best of my knowige ferrets are not addictive), suggest the banning of
> guns and you will get a flame larger then the suggestion of banning
> porn.
>
> People don't like people takeing away what they enjoy.

There's a tiny little difference there. With both ferret ownership, and
gun ownership, those that wish to abolish them are running entirely
on emotionalism and knee-jerk reactionism, rather than reason. Those
that wish to own ferrets actually have facts backing them up
(as in "no, they dont suck baby's blood, no, they're not wild animals,
they have been domesticated for as long as housecats, and no, they
pose no threat to the ecosystem even if they escape en masse") as do gun
owners ("no, guns do not commit crimes, PEOPLE do, no, the founding
fathers werent a bunch of dumb-butts, no, disarming the law abiding
does NOT prevent crime, no, leaving all power in the hands of the
government IS NOT a good idea").


The situation with porn is the exact reverse. Those that wish to ban it,
or at the least to control and curtail it, have the facts on their side.
In the form of countless thousands of people devoured by the industry
on both sides of the lens and drawing pen, in the shape of countless
studies showing how exposure to sexually explicit material directly
contributed to the increase in sexual aggressiveness and callousness
of the researchers' subjects; in the list of endless statistics of
increases of violent crime, of degradation of neighborhoods, of the
surges in venereal disease, in the increase in unwed mothers + unwanted
children; in the open testimony of countless sex addicts, sex-crime
offendors-- up to and especially including rapists; in the tear-filled
testimony of their victims, and in the mute testimony of people, living
and dead, reduced in society's eyes to nothing more than a collection
of breasts and genitals.

If you think that porn does not contribute to this, then you're stupid
enough to think that Ronald McDonald doesn't contribute to the sale of
hamburgers.

But the first and final defense that the spoogemonkeys come up with
is the petulant temper tantrum of a spoiled child... They stomp
their feet, clap their hands to their ears and shriek ,"I WANNA DO IT
AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME STOP !"

THEREIN lies the total difference between those who would DEFEND a
right,
and those who would selfishly pervert it.

--

kill

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
So is that why you posted a furry pic on alt.binaries.nospam.toons? Maybe it
was alt.original art, I can't remember. I liked your furry art, though.
Kill
Random wrote in message <301119991414106536%sph...@crl.com>...

dem...@ucla.edu

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
Wow, so many replies to my little "rant of misunderstanding". I'm
flattered.

After reading them all I see there are a lot o people I want that i would
like to tell to Fuck the hell off, but I'm not gonna do that, even though
I kind of already did. Basically I'm going to draw whatever anyway, so I
guess there's not much point of me going on about it. However, just
seeing Hangdog's little "Treatsie on furry aesthetics" made me want to
punch somebody in the face, but since I was alone, I decided to offer my
own little not-so-eloquent "Thoughts on spooge" instead, which I did.

Basically I think what I'm trying to say is that I am a victim of the
porn industry, and that I am so insecure that I have to get off on
pictures of cartoon animals having sex. I mean I'm really f'ing pitiful-
I totally see a naked human being and I just don't know what to do execpt
run back to my big phat silo of furry porn. God, why couldn't I have
been born an animal instead of human? I don't fit in! I don't belong! I
just wanna put fucking bullet in my head and end this pain for good!


NOT!!!!

I'm only here to steal techniques from the few cartoonists in this
"fandom" who are actually better than I am. And I couldn't give a
SqueeRat's ass what you self righteous anti-porn crusaders think about
spooge or the people like me who create it. So Piss-Off and have a nice
day already.


-VJG/SPOOGEMONKEY-X

"BEEEIATCH!!"

In article <81v9kn$g4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Ben Bruin <lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <81t25p$s5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dem...@ucla.edu wrote:

> > Hmm, very interesting. I actually got around to reading the Burned
> Fur
> > Web Page a couple weeks ago. A bunch of rather opinionated people that
> > bunch-oh yeah what's my point. Well I think it comes down to the fact
> > that as an "Artist" or whatever you would call me, I posess the rather
> > irrevocable right to DRAW WHATEVER THE HAIRY BLEEDING FUCK I WANT!!!!!
> >
> > Jeezus man, where do you people get off trying to tell people how to
> use
> > their prismacolors?

> <massive snippage of hysterical rant>
>

> You know, I hear a lot of people going on and on and on like this...
>
> When people who are opposed to porn say that it's both emotionally
> harmful
> and addictive, people laugh.

> Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
> curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
> go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
> stash.

> You're *not* helping your cause here, spoogemonkey.
>

ilr

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to

Jeff Novotny <umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message news:384470E5...@cc.umanitoba.ca...

That's nice JJ. A *lot* of dissatisfaction among you & about 2 other people.
I read your earlier rant on the subject. Just a bunch of guilt-ridden conservative
double-speak that would never capture my opinion of the fandom, even on my
worst days. Now go have fun being Officer Random's Barney Fife just like Stuka.
--- i l r

rune....@worldnet.att.mil

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:31:27 -0500, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >You didn't read the post, just ranted. Try actually reading it.
> >
> >Where does it say word # one against spooge?
>
> Well it does say that pure spooge is an estectic falure.

Which is exactly zilch in terms of advocating banning or limiting it.

Poor tey. No cigar. (And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...)

Hangdog

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
dem...@ucla.edu wrote:

> However, just
> seeing Hangdog's little "Treatsie on furry aesthetics" made me want to
> punch somebody in the face,

:oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD

--Hangdog, Burned Fur


Dr. Cat

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote in message news:38418A73...@pdq.net...

> Regardless of how artists portray sex (as vice or virtue), they
> should be free to use it, if they wish to do so, as a means to an
> end.
>
> But if the sex becomes an end in itself, that is an aesthetic
> failure.

Most of the essay was perfectly reasonable and well thought out. But I
have to take issue with this one specific opinion.

If a piece of art exists solely for the end of producing laughter and
amusement in the audience, is it an aesthetic failure? What of art made
solely to evoke a sense of wonder, or sympathy, or fear, or affection,
or anger, or pride, or relaxation, or happiness, or excitment? Are all
such works aesthetic failures? Personally, I would say no, they're not.

Why then, should "arousal" be in a different category than other emotions,
in terms of how valid an artistic goal it is to evoke that emotion?

Only reason I can think of is because the USA was settled by a bunch of
serious prudes, and we haven't gotten over our uptight attitudes about sex
even now.

Is the work of a fine french chef in a fancy restaurant an aesthetic
failure if it exists only to give pleasure to the sense of taste, or
perhaps taste and sight? Or, if we can imagine that to be a "valid"
aesthetic goal, why cannot the production of other types of physical
pleasure such as orgasm be equally valid?

We show much too much disdain towards the poor orgasm in this country.
It's fallen from favor, we disapprove of it unless it's done secretly and
ONLY by one of the approved-of methods. The sad thing is, it's one of the
best stress relievers available, almost anyone can get one quite readily,
and for little or no cost. But we're not using them nearly as often as we
could. I think there'd be less rape and murder in this country if people
weren't bottling up all that stress, if they would just allow themselves
to have a few more orgasms without feeling so terribly ashamed about it.

I will readily concede that the vast majority of works meant to produce
arousal and/or orgasm are hideous aesthetic failures. But this is not
because it is inherently impossible to produce aesthetically successful
erotic art. Rather it is because our society strongly discourages it,
telling all our best artists "If you make any x-rated art you'll probably
lose your ability to ever make a living from any non-x-rated art because
we will shun you". So most of the x-rated stuff is churned out by cheap
hacks who don't care and who no ambition towards (nor talent for) a
serious career in any other kind of art anyway.

Still, when I read what you wrote above about sex as a means or as an end
in itself, I have to think of a sculpture by Rodin I once saw a photo of
in an art book. (I wish I had seen the original sculpture itself.) It
didn't seem to me it was using the sex towards some other end, the
sculpture was clearly about sex. And it was a very beautiful piece of
sculpture, clearly not an "aesthetic failure" by any defintion of the word
"aesthetic" that I'm familiar with.

I'd rather see people encouraging the production of more erotic art that
lives up to the highest standards of the art world, rather than
discouraging the production of art aimed at specific emotions by labelling
it an "automatic failure" if you make that your purpose.

Some people DO draw lines between "art" and "entertainment", and say that
anything that's made just to be a thrill ride, or get a laugh, or what
have you, such things aren't worth of being called "art", that they are
low and vulgar and not worth to be part of discussions of "what artists do".
In the 19th century, indeed, there was a strong believe that even
entertainments must "uplift, enlighten, and educate", or they were morally
deficient. (That's why, to sell checkers sets to civil war soldiers, one
enterprising fellow printed up checkerboards to sell that had the names of
32 different virtues printed on the 32 white squares!)

The millions of people who regularly enjoy mass media entertainments even
when they do NOT use comedy, adrenaline packed action and arousal as "the
means to an end" of delivering some fancy highbrow message or moral...
These people have a name for those who have such a lofty exclusionist
definition of what "art" is, a definition that has no room for velvet
paintings of dogs playing poker. They call them "snobs".

Me, I don't want to be a snob. I might be willing to agree that the Mona
Lisa is "better" than the dogs playing poker in a lot of ways. But I
still consider them to be in the same broad category of "art". They are
both visual images, made by an artist for people to look at. That's art.
Further, the question of whether any specific dogs-playing-poker painting
is an "aesthetic success" or "aesthetic failure" depends entirely on how
well the artist did with that particular painting. The question of
success or failure is not inherent in the artist's choice to stimulate
that specific obscure emotion that arises in people when they see dogs
playing poker. (I belive it's called Frenry.) Nor is the possibility of
aesthetic quality or "success" automatically predetermined the moment an
artist decides to try to evoke arousal with a work of art, dooming them to
failure before they so much as touch chisel to marble, or brush to
canvas. Poppycock, I say! If they sculpt or paint or write or compose a
work well and beautifully, then it is aesthetic. Such is the very
definition of the word, is it not?

*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
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: Hangdog will probably never read and reply to this, as I
belive he has me in a killfile or something. Which is probably just as
well, anyway, 'cause I doubt anybody wants to hear us argue.)

Talbon

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to

"
> > *Snorts, and shakes his head* Sure Random. I'm sexually fucked up.
*giggle*
> > Cant.. interact with others *Falls down laughing.* And I need... to be
> > fixed! *Tears squirt from eyes, as he keeps laughing on the ground.
> > Clutching his stomach.*
>
> Hey, you said it.

*Chuckles* You obviously don't use humor to amuse any others than yourself.
*Deep sigh* Ahh well, I hope someone else found that funny? ;)

> > *Grin* And what about those of us who just like it? Real, anime, furry,
> > whatever.
>
> If there wasn't room for the stupid, a lot of things would go empty.
>

*Nods* A lot of furs feel that way about you Random. Now I've read a few of
your posts, and do you honestly think your achieving anything. You remind me
of Richard Phelps, a man so caught up in his own self-rightenous that he
can't see that most of the public doesn't giving a flying fuck what their
neighbor is doing, fucking, or viewing. As long as it doesn't concern them.

Personally I could care less, Zoo's, plushies, furrys, mundanes. Whatever
trips your boat, as long as your not hurting anyone then who cares besides a
close-minded few that their different than you? Didn't we all grow out of
that around the same time we got out of high school.

> > Michelangio's David is wank material? WOW!
>
> What? That doesn't even follow anything. Are you trying to say David
> was spooge or porn?
>

Sure it does, see below. ;) When did David stop being X-rated? It clearly
shows genitalia. Your the one who made that blanket statement.

> > > The motive in ALL x-rated stuff is to provide wank material.
> > >
> >
> > Too bad you feel that way, of course your intitled to your own opinion.
But
> > the one issue of Genus I read had me rolling with laughter. True it was
> > extremely hot at some points, but so what?
>
> Porn is porn is porn. A might on the slow side, ain't cha?
>

*grins* Hopefully not as low as you are on the compassion and understanding
end.

Talbon - One still amused wolf

Random

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <WI%04.3731$q7.2...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>, kill
<ki...@yourhouse.com> wrote:

> So is that why you posted a furry pic on alt.binaries.nospam.toons? Maybe it
> was alt.original art, I can't remember. I liked your furry art, though.
> Kill

Hmm.. If you're refering to me, you must be terribly mistaken. I don't
draw at all let alone anything furry.
--Random

kill

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
Well. If I am in error I apologize. I am man enough to admit when I'm wrong.
Kill
Random wrote in message <011219991212078352%sph...@crl.com>...

Random

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <822s5o$26o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <dem...@ucla.edu> wrote:

> I
> just wanna put fucking bullet in my head and end this pain for good!

A pissant like you would never have the balls to do something like
that. But feel free and prove me wrong. If you don't have a gun, I'd
suggest seeking out the alt.suicide FAQ.
--Random

Random

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <8220ut$fi6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ben Bruin
<lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Random, if you can't tell the difference between a philosophical
> debate on the physiology of mythical/fictional creatures, and the
> slobber-covered display of puerile stroke-material, then you are an
> even BIGGER dink than your posts would lead one to believe.

Uh, dude.. You spoke about animal dicks. You can bullshit it all you
like, but that's all you really did. Best be more carefully, your
hypocritical furryness is showing.
--Random

Random

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <822n3l$h5n$1...@crucigera.fysh.org>, ilr <i...@rof.net> wrote:

> Now go have fun being Officer Random's Barney Fife just like Stuka.

It'd be Sheriff Random, you dingus. Geez.. I guess highschool kids
these days are as stupid as they say.
--Random

Random

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <38453...@feed1.realtime.net>, Dr. Cat <c...@bga.com> wrote:

> Why then, should "arousal" be in a different category than other emotions,
> in terms of how valid an artistic goal it is to evoke that emotion?

Uh, because arousal isn't an emotion. It's a physical condition
associated with reproduction. So, unless someone is gonna reproduce art
through sexual congress, I don't think it's very appropiate.
--Random

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 02:55:21 GMT, Ben Bruin <lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn848fo2....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 01:35:19 GMT, Ben Bruin
><lonely...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> >When people who are opposed to porn say that it's both emotionally


>> >harmful and addictive, people laugh.
>>

>> As they should.
>Tell that to those that are recovering from porn addiction.

Compaired to the number of people who are recovering from, or who have had
there lives destroyed by Alcohol addiction the number of people with
porn addiction is so small as to be totally trival.

>Or to the people who are chewed up and spat out by the porn industry.

What about people who are chewed up and spat out by the music
industry?

>> >Yet let even the *suggestion* that their spooge might in some way be
>> >curtailed cross their minds, and the people who wallow in it
>> >go off like a spastic crack addict with someone's hand too near their
>> >stash.
>>

>> Alot of people will react like this. Suggest that ferrets should be
>> banned and watch the heat you will get from ferret actovists, (to the
>> best of my knowige ferrets are not addictive), suggest the banning of
>> guns and you will get a flame larger then the suggestion of banning
>> porn.
>>
>> People don't like people takeing away what they enjoy.
>
>There's a tiny little difference there. With both ferret ownership, and
>gun ownership, those that wish to abolish them are running entirely
>on emotionalism and knee-jerk reactionism, rather than reason.

Thankyou for aggring with me. My arguement was "An aggresive responce
doesn't mean addicion", by stating that you have to look at other
factors you have supported my argument.

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 18:50:45 -0600, Jeff Novotny
<umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>Random wrote:
>
>> Uh, no. You're close, but still wrong.
>
>Actually, we 90% agree. I tend to be a little more polite though. :)
>
>It's obvious there's a *lot* of dissatisfaction with the the collective
>output of what's known as "furry" fandom.

If so, then why are people voting with there money for the other
option?

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 04:12:24 -0500, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 04:31:27 -0500, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >You didn't read the post, just ranted. Try actually reading it.
>> >
>> >Where does it say word # one against spooge?
>>
>> Well it does say that pure spooge is an estectic falure.
>
>Which is exactly zilch in terms of advocating banning or limiting it.

But they are words against pure spooge.

>Poor tey. No cigar. (And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...)

Good, smokeing is bad for you (not as bad as spooge though, one look at
that with transform you instant from a normal human, into a
hypersexed rapist porn addict spooge monkey.