From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:37:55 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <2070@ontek.com>, john@ontek.com (John Alan Stanley) writes:
> In article <69702@ut-emx.uucp> hepfox@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Peyton) writes:

>> Perhaps.  Or maybe it is just that _any_ mention of such things is seen
>> as being a loud statement, because one does not see such things very often
>> in our society.  From what I have seen, it is the folks who think there is

Hm... Whatever the "outside" world is, as you call it, for some reason when I'm
around "furry" groups, sexuality is a big factor whichever way you turn...
seems more so than the world at large.

>> too much sexuality that seem to be making the most noise.  Or perhaps we
>> are both indulging our biases too much, hmmm?

Most noise?  Hm... I suppose I would have to make some sort of a study on that
in order to be able to support or contradict that one.  All I know is that a
whole lot of the furry art I run into is on the "furvert" side.

(Please notice that so far I am only stating my perceptions on this, however
right or wrong...)

> }But these
> }people should realize that they, too, have a responsibility to keep
> }their activities confined to "furry" subjects when they associate
> }themselves with furrydom.
> 
> Ah, here is the crux of the matter.  This statement bothers me.  I suppose
> that means we should avoid talking about politics, cars, friends, or
> anything else not strictly "furry" when we are in "furry" space as well, eh?
> Somehow, that image is not an appealing one, and it seems to give lie to
> your assertions of tolerance.  Fact is, furry gatherings are just like any
> other social group.  People will discuss what concerns them, and you are
> free to join in or ignore them as you will.  There is no way to prevent
> this, and no conceivable reason to do so.  The folks who are concerned with
> gay issues will discuss them, the folks who like guns will discuss them, etc.
> If you don't like the discussion, find someone else to talk to!

Well, it might be kind of questionable when a large part of the discussion goes
off about homosexuality, etc. without any pretense of being related to
furrydom.  (Every time I post a response to the Denial of Humanity thread, I'm
not helping things at all -- I think I'd best ignore that thread until somebody
manages to tie it into furrydom.  =)  )

> 
> }	Does that mean furries can't (or shouldn't) enjoy furry
> }erotica?  No.  But by the same token, they don't have to either.
> 
> What on earth does that mean?  I suppose I don't have to do anything except

Hm.  Looks like a pretty simple statement to me, and looks like you're reading
a lot more into it.  "Does that mean furries can't (or shouldn't) enjoy
furry erotica?  No."  Simple 'nuff.  "But by the same token, they don't
*have* to either" (emphasis mine).  Looks like you ought to re-read that
statement before you fly off the handle.

(Note that I speak with a certain tone of irony in my voice.  =)  )

> for a moment consider that grounds for removal from the show.  You seem to
> find any sort of display of sexuality to be repugnant.  I am sorry about that,

I sincerely doubt that, after talking with him.  You seem to be making some
broad assumptions here.  Just because he may happen to be speaking about
consideration of those pesky prudes like myself does not mean that he *has* to
be one of those prudes as well...

> Ah well, we seem to have strayed from the points Elf!! was trying to discuss.
> Instead, we get to debate once again "Why Sex Is Bad, and Don't Touch That!"
> I'd be disappointed if it were not so damn predictable...

I'll have to throw in my penny's worth here that, once a bunch of enlightened
furries took the time to explain to me just what Elf was trying to say in his
original posting, I'd wholeheartedly agree with his assertions that furrydom
should not be associated with a particular sexual lifestyle and such...  So,
I'm not quite so sure that the topic *has* strayed.

Hm... Just for the sake of seeing where you stand on this, what say if I
happened to put together a furry convention in Iowa that didn't have any furry
art that had, say, nudity (well-furred furries that aren't anatomically
explicit don't count, such as Rhudiprrt.  =)  ), sexual acts, graphic violence,
etc. depicted?  Would I be guilty of censorship or some such crime?  (This
isn't necessarily directly related to the topic at hand, nor am I trying to
make a point.  I just want to try to get an idea of what sort of values are
being expressed here, as I have repeatedly shown my ability to completely miss
what one is trying to say...)

-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613