I agree that discussion is healthy, I just prefer Flayrah when used as a news source. There are many places on Flayrah (such as these commentaries within individual articles) where people are free to rant, and I like that. That doesn't make the discussions newsworthy in and of themselves, however.
I believe the language I chose was offensive only to the easily offended. The most profane words I used were "weirdos" and "masturbate", both of which I stand behind in the context used. I doubt most outsiders think of us that kindly upon exposure to our media.
On to the meat. The ability of access to "how-to" information on bestiality within furry is not a clear indicator of the prevalence of bestial practices in the fandom. I used to run a BBS back in the 1980's, and every thirteen year-old haX0r would upload a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. You'd be warning us that they were all Tim McVeigh, I imagine. I know a lot of furries who would leap into a zoophilia debate (on either side), none of whom are zoophiles. Support for zoophilia doesn't mean practice of zoophilia, often because furry is such a fantasy-based fandom, that its fans prefer fantasy experiences to real life sexual encounters.
As I said before, there's a lot of sympathy toward bestial practices within the fandom, which is understandable given the sexualization of animals that resides at fandom's core. But actual practice is rare, and there are no strong social bridges between the zoophile community and furry fandom. My sense is that you're talking about something of which you have zero personal experience. How many zoophiles do you actually know, personally? You're extrapolating conspiracies of supposed underground zoophile networks recruiting furries ("...this tells me some of them are not only using this fandom for a cover, but encouraging others to do it...") from some pretty shaky circumstantial evidence.
Even if zoos were prevalent in the fandom, this is irrelevant. It's not something anyone can control. If a bunch of perverts began collecting stamps, there wouldn't be any way to "clean up the stamp-collecting fandom". There's no central control over who enjoys a hobby. There exists no means for limiting people's access to the internet and conventions if you don't like them. It's a hobby, not a nation. There isn't anything you can do to manage how people express their interest in anthropomorphics, simply put, whether or not the imaginary army's numbers are "too high for [your] personal taste".
If anything, zoos are the only group within the fandom who *haven't* gone to the media, which again makes it rather suspect that they're around in sizeable numbers at all. The only way most outsiders would be aware of the idea that "furry = zoophilia" is from people like you who spend a good deal of time fortelling disaster in public forums.
I doubt that being aggressive toward supposed zoophiles would have much positive effect, anyway. Any openly-avowed zoophile certainly has a thick enough skin to ignore people who don't like them, and there's more than enough tacit support for zoophilia within the fandom, whether or not it exists in fact, to make up for any detraction.
I agree that actual sexual practices with an animal are different from fantasies about human-animal hybrids. This is one reason I steer clear of the former, because I too find the ethics of animal consent to be very complicated. But I don't see much of a difference between fantasy about things containing animal elements and fantasy about animals proper. The outside world doesn't see much of a difference, either, because putting breasts on a dog--for whatever reason--is bizarre, and it isn't socially acceptable to anyone in common society unless you can explain it away in some clever fashion (traditionally, the explanation has been for the gender-typing of children's cartoon characters). Well, some people became attracted to those characters, apparently. Expecting those who don't appreciate the aesthetics of the animal form to understand that deep attraction is setting oneself up for a big fall.
One last thing: please sign your posts if they're directed toward me for any serious sort of debate. At least lie to me and make a name up, for goodness sake. How original is "Anonymous", anyway? :)
I agree that discussion is healthy, I just prefer Flayrah when used as a news source. There are many places on Flayrah (such as these commentaries within individual articles) where people are free to rant, and I like that. That doesn't make the discussions newsworthy in and of themselves, however.
I believe the language I chose was offensive only to the easily offended. The most profane words I used were "weirdos" and "masturbate", both of which I stand behind in the context used. I doubt most outsiders think of us that kindly upon exposure to our media.
On to the meat. The ability of access to "how-to" information on bestiality within furry is not a clear indicator of the prevalence of bestial practices in the fandom. I used to run a BBS back in the 1980's, and every thirteen year-old haX0r would upload a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook. You'd be warning us that they were all Tim McVeigh, I imagine. I know a lot of furries who would leap into a zoophilia debate (on either side), none of whom are zoophiles. Support for zoophilia doesn't mean practice of zoophilia, often because furry is such a fantasy-based fandom, that its fans prefer fantasy experiences to real life sexual encounters.
As I said before, there's a lot of sympathy toward bestial practices within the fandom, which is understandable given the sexualization of animals that resides at fandom's core. But actual practice is rare, and there are no strong social bridges between the zoophile community and furry fandom. My sense is that you're talking about something of which you have zero personal experience. How many zoophiles do you actually know, personally? You're extrapolating conspiracies of supposed underground zoophile networks recruiting furries ("...this tells me some of them are not only using this fandom for a cover, but encouraging others to do it...") from some pretty shaky circumstantial evidence.
Even if zoos were prevalent in the fandom, this is irrelevant. It's not something anyone can control. If a bunch of perverts began collecting stamps, there wouldn't be any way to "clean up the stamp-collecting fandom". There's no central control over who enjoys a hobby. There exists no means for limiting people's access to the internet and conventions if you don't like them. It's a hobby, not a nation. There isn't anything you can do to manage how people express their interest in anthropomorphics, simply put, whether or not the imaginary army's numbers are "too high for [your] personal taste".
If anything, zoos are the only group within the fandom who *haven't* gone to the media, which again makes it rather suspect that they're around in sizeable numbers at all. The only way most outsiders would be aware of the idea that "furry = zoophilia" is from people like you who spend a good deal of time fortelling disaster in public forums.
I doubt that being aggressive toward supposed zoophiles would have much positive effect, anyway. Any openly-avowed zoophile certainly has a thick enough skin to ignore people who don't like them, and there's more than enough tacit support for zoophilia within the fandom, whether or not it exists in fact, to make up for any detraction.
I agree that actual sexual practices with an animal are different from fantasies about human-animal hybrids. This is one reason I steer clear of the former, because I too find the ethics of animal consent to be very complicated. But I don't see much of a difference between fantasy about things containing animal elements and fantasy about animals proper. The outside world doesn't see much of a difference, either, because putting breasts on a dog--for whatever reason--is bizarre, and it isn't socially acceptable to anyone in common society unless you can explain it away in some clever fashion (traditionally, the explanation has been for the gender-typing of children's cartoon characters). Well, some people became attracted to those characters, apparently. Expecting those who don't appreciate the aesthetics of the animal form to understand that deep attraction is setting oneself up for a big fall.
One last thing: please sign your posts if they're directed toward me for any serious sort of debate. At least lie to me and make a name up, for goodness sake. How original is "Anonymous", anyway? :)
Trickster