>>One thing that's entirely incorrect: Furry Fandom was NOT launched to sexualize funny animals. At all.<
>Who said it was?
The author of the above article. Did you bother to read it?
> Actually, there was the entire underground comic scene, with artists like Von Bode and R. Crumb...
Which pre-dated the fandom's existence, was not produced by or for furries, and was not initially a significant part of furry fandom. You're missing the context of my point, which is that the early fandom did not produce or in any way revolve around significant levels of porn.
> we are not now, nor have never been "activists"
Except in that every single panel I ever saw either of you on, and at every booth I ever saw ConFurence promoting itself at other conventions (such as VegasCon and SDCC), sexuality was promoted as part and parcel of the fandom. This included printbooks laden with porn.
You promoted furries as a sexual lifestyle, and as a result, people came to the conventions and to the fandom as a whole expecting to find a sexual lifestyle. When this inevitably resulted in public sexual behavior at conventions, and people complained about it, the complaints were either ignored or the complainers actually derided (as, variously, "Nazis", "boors", "prudes", "religious nuts" and so forth).
> We NEVER promoted ConFurence to any gay or alternative lifestyle publication.
You got caught publishing an ad which did exactly that, and complaints were raised about it.
> We did speak about the sexual and relationship aspects of being Furry. So what?
"Speaking about" and "promoting" sex are not quite the same thing, are they? What I heard you talk about, just as one example (specifically at CondorCon), was how "animals let us get in touch with our sexual side and make it easier to be sexually intimate with one another".
Now, let's compare that by replacing "sexual" with "religious". At that point, the speaker is promoting furries as a religious experience. And in fact, I've heard a preacher make virtually the same statement (as part of a Lambs/Lions routine).
You were different from the preacher how?
> Lia Graf...Attention hog, anyone?
I notice you avoid addressing that she caught you taking out that ad you just got done denying existed...and instead attack her character. Ah, the smell of Classic Internet Debate.
> Um... you mean like Science Fiction conventions, and Fantasy Conventions, and Comic Conventions, and Anime Conventions?
No, not a bit like any of those --- where such behavior is limited by convention rules and takes place behind closed doors. Not in the panel rooms, not in the event rooms, not in the elevators, not in the hotel lobby.
Which is the primary reason none of THOSE conventions got reputations for their attendees being sexually promiscuous. In fact, it was so well kept under wraps that the sexual stereotype which developed was the OPPOSITE of ours.
> Actually, a lot of the original press coverage Furry received was about 50-50 accurate and sensationalist.
Perhaps you can name some of the accurate material from that period. Most furry historians can't --- because it started off with sensationalism both from the fringe press and more legitimate outfits like Wired. When the mainstream press got wind that there was a new type of geek in the world, they got their initial info from these same sources --- and went looking for more of the same.
It wasn't until well after the Vanity Fair article that significant numbers of positive articles began to appear. And even those were often not entirely accurate either, which is, frankly, par for the media course.
> Some people were outraged at any mention of adult content at cons...
Actually, they were outraged by spooge on the elevator walls, people doing stripteases in the hotel lobby, doms and subs wearing bondage gear in public, and similar.
That's not merely "any mention of adult content", Sy. You're trying to play the Prude Card again.
> What is wrong with people being proud of their relationships?
I don't care, and no one else cares, about "relationships". When I and they care, it's about putting one's personal sexual preferences on parade. Fact is, no one needs to know and most don't want to.
> You can't please everyone.
Being considerate never requires pleasing everyone. It merely requires a lack of tolerance for inconsiderate behavior.
> No... art in general has a high level of "porn".
Interesting how you have to put that in quotes in order to generalize the statement. Kind of obviously, however, art in general recognizes porn for what it is. Comic books segregate porn from mainstream books. X-rated films play in theatres which cater to them. Even museums differentiate between "art" and "mature audience only" displays.
Porn may be art, but it is still considered appropriate to separate it from mainstream material so that those interested in one need not be subjected to the other.
> Part of the problem with your comments is that you are quoting informations that is incorrect, incompletely researched
Personally witnessed, in most instances. You forget I was there, Sy. And I was one of those whose complaints about what was witnessed were brushed off. Of the rest, do you seriously want to claim that other witnesses like Ed Kline were "incorrect, incompletely researched", or "based on irrational personality conflicts"? Especially when various of those claims were independently corroborated by other furry luminaries of the time?
>>One thing that's entirely incorrect: Furry Fandom was NOT launched to sexualize funny animals. At all.<
>Who said it was?
The author of the above article. Did you bother to read it?
> Actually, there was the entire underground comic scene, with artists like Von Bode and R. Crumb...
Which pre-dated the fandom's existence, was not produced by or for furries, and was not initially a significant part of furry fandom. You're missing the context of my point, which is that the early fandom did not produce or in any way revolve around significant levels of porn.
> we are not now, nor have never been "activists"
Except in that every single panel I ever saw either of you on, and at every booth I ever saw ConFurence promoting itself at other conventions (such as VegasCon and SDCC), sexuality was promoted as part and parcel of the fandom. This included printbooks laden with porn.
You promoted furries as a sexual lifestyle, and as a result, people came to the conventions and to the fandom as a whole expecting to find a sexual lifestyle. When this inevitably resulted in public sexual behavior at conventions, and people complained about it, the complaints were either ignored or the complainers actually derided (as, variously, "Nazis", "boors", "prudes", "religious nuts" and so forth).
> We NEVER promoted ConFurence to any gay or alternative lifestyle publication.
You got caught publishing an ad which did exactly that, and complaints were raised about it.
> We did speak about the sexual and relationship aspects of being Furry. So what?
"Speaking about" and "promoting" sex are not quite the same thing, are they? What I heard you talk about, just as one example (specifically at CondorCon), was how "animals let us get in touch with our sexual side and make it easier to be sexually intimate with one another".
Now, let's compare that by replacing "sexual" with "religious". At that point, the speaker is promoting furries as a religious experience. And in fact, I've heard a preacher make virtually the same statement (as part of a Lambs/Lions routine).
You were different from the preacher how?
> Lia Graf...Attention hog, anyone?
I notice you avoid addressing that she caught you taking out that ad you just got done denying existed...and instead attack her character. Ah, the smell of Classic Internet Debate.
> Um... you mean like Science Fiction conventions, and Fantasy Conventions, and Comic Conventions, and Anime Conventions?
No, not a bit like any of those --- where such behavior is limited by convention rules and takes place behind closed doors. Not in the panel rooms, not in the event rooms, not in the elevators, not in the hotel lobby.
Which is the primary reason none of THOSE conventions got reputations for their attendees being sexually promiscuous. In fact, it was so well kept under wraps that the sexual stereotype which developed was the OPPOSITE of ours.
> Actually, a lot of the original press coverage Furry received was about 50-50 accurate and sensationalist.
Perhaps you can name some of the accurate material from that period. Most furry historians can't --- because it started off with sensationalism both from the fringe press and more legitimate outfits like Wired. When the mainstream press got wind that there was a new type of geek in the world, they got their initial info from these same sources --- and went looking for more of the same.
It wasn't until well after the Vanity Fair article that significant numbers of positive articles began to appear. And even those were often not entirely accurate either, which is, frankly, par for the media course.
> Some people were outraged at any mention of adult content at cons...
Actually, they were outraged by spooge on the elevator walls, people doing stripteases in the hotel lobby, doms and subs wearing bondage gear in public, and similar.
That's not merely "any mention of adult content", Sy. You're trying to play the Prude Card again.
> What is wrong with people being proud of their relationships?
I don't care, and no one else cares, about "relationships". When I and they care, it's about putting one's personal sexual preferences on parade. Fact is, no one needs to know and most don't want to.
> You can't please everyone.
Being considerate never requires pleasing everyone. It merely requires a lack of tolerance for inconsiderate behavior.
> No... art in general has a high level of "porn".
Interesting how you have to put that in quotes in order to generalize the statement. Kind of obviously, however, art in general recognizes porn for what it is. Comic books segregate porn from mainstream books. X-rated films play in theatres which cater to them. Even museums differentiate between "art" and "mature audience only" displays.
Porn may be art, but it is still considered appropriate to separate it from mainstream material so that those interested in one need not be subjected to the other.
> Part of the problem with your comments is that you are quoting informations that is incorrect, incompletely researched
Personally witnessed, in most instances. You forget I was there, Sy. And I was one of those whose complaints about what was witnessed were brushed off. Of the rest, do you seriously want to claim that other witnesses like Ed Kline were "incorrect, incompletely researched", or "based on irrational personality conflicts"? Especially when various of those claims were independently corroborated by other furry luminaries of the time?
> know about the people you comment about
Pot, kettle, et cetera, my good man.