I think with time we forget how big a show CSI was; it's not just that it was negative, it was also, like, it. It's kind of why the Vanity Fair article was so big; there used to be a "furries in the media" website, and they covered, for instance, some low rent porn mag's trip to a furry convention. Since they were already a porn, they could actually show some really fucked up stuff, and the actual text of the article was actually fucking mean. They were making fun of us. It was a literal media hit job. They were actually trying to make us look bad. But nobody gave a shit outside of this now defunct website (and they only gave a shit because they were trying to be exhaustive in their coverage of ... coverage), because this was a tiny knock off of Hustler that I ... fucking don't even remember the name of.
But Vanity Fair was a major publication that has some clout and still manages to be what we'd call now an "influencer" of tastes and is also available in most grocery store check out aisles. When Dumbshit magazine I don't even remember says "hey, get a load of these guys, let's poke'em and see what happen!", nobody cares. When Vanity Fair says "eh, mostly harmless ... but kinda creepy", it fucking stings.
Likewise, your portrayal on what was the biggest show in the world at the time matters more.
And, also, just a personal anecdote, I had at least one friend call me after watching the episode on rerun and tell me it reminded them of me, and it's not that bad, but I still don't want to be associated in half the population's minds with semen stains on a raccoon suit, you know?
(I think the Vanity Fair/CSI things just had bad timing for furries as the whole Burned Fur thing was in high gear about that same time; it's one thing to have a bunch of malcontents off in one corner grumbling that you're creepy, it's another to have a group of outside sources highlight most everything they've been grumbling about, so it kind of hurt worse than it might have at another time.)
I think with time we forget how big a show CSI was; it's not just that it was negative, it was also, like, it. It's kind of why the Vanity Fair article was so big; there used to be a "furries in the media" website, and they covered, for instance, some low rent porn mag's trip to a furry convention. Since they were already a porn, they could actually show some really fucked up stuff, and the actual text of the article was actually fucking mean. They were making fun of us. It was a literal media hit job. They were actually trying to make us look bad. But nobody gave a shit outside of this now defunct website (and they only gave a shit because they were trying to be exhaustive in their coverage of ... coverage), because this was a tiny knock off of Hustler that I ... fucking don't even remember the name of.
But Vanity Fair was a major publication that has some clout and still manages to be what we'd call now an "influencer" of tastes and is also available in most grocery store check out aisles. When Dumbshit magazine I don't even remember says "hey, get a load of these guys, let's poke'em and see what happen!", nobody cares. When Vanity Fair says "eh, mostly harmless ... but kinda creepy", it fucking stings.
Likewise, your portrayal on what was the biggest show in the world at the time matters more.
And, also, just a personal anecdote, I had at least one friend call me after watching the episode on rerun and tell me it reminded them of me, and it's not that bad, but I still don't want to be associated in half the population's minds with semen stains on a raccoon suit, you know?
(I think the Vanity Fair/CSI things just had bad timing for furries as the whole Burned Fur thing was in high gear about that same time; it's one thing to have a bunch of malcontents off in one corner grumbling that you're creepy, it's another to have a group of outside sources highlight most everything they've been grumbling about, so it kind of hurt worse than it might have at another time.)