From: john@ontek.com (John Alan Stanley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
Subject: Re: Furries and sexuality (again)
Keywords: sex furry sex gay sex
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:19:10 GMT
Organization: Ontek Corporation -- Laguna Hills, California

In article <1992Apr7.072818.11351@muddcs.claremont.edu> dgreen@jarthur.claremont.edu (David 'Mishael' Green) writes:
}
}What, do you mean that if I can't say, "Hey, can we talk about something else,
}this makes me really uncomfortable."?  That strikes me as a conceivable reason
}(hey, I conceived of it, didn't I?) call for the halt of such a disccussion.

Sure, if you are taling with a group of friends, that is entirely reasonable.
What I was responding to though, was this:

}->In article <69702@ut-emx.uucp> hepfox@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Peyton) writes:
}->}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.

That sounds to me like he is asking that _no one_, anywhere, at any time
during a "furry" event, do anything which is not directly furry.  That 
strikes me as being far too restrictive.  Please address that issue.

}->}	Does that mean furries can't (or shouldn't) enjoy furry
}->}erotica?  No.  But by the same token, they don't have to either.

}Whoah, whoah!  He never _once_ said you had to stop enjoying furry erotica.
}What he said was that no one _had_ to enjoy furry erotica.  By my
}interpretation this means that if someone wants to enjoy furry art, literature,
}what-have-you, that erotica doesn't have to be -- and, in my opinion, shouldn't
}be -- the sum and substance of that, that if you want animation, if you want
}a novel that doesn't happen to be erotic, that if you want art depicting 
}furries that isn't suggestive, you can go out and find that.

Ah, I seem to have misinterpreted what was said.  My apologies.  I certainly
agree that no one is at all obliged to enjoy furry erotica.  It would be nice
if people didn't feel they needed to be so strident about not liking it,
but whatever...

}That gets hard when it begins to seem that a large majority of the art that
}is out there is erotica.  Yes, perhaps it is a little selfish to complain
}that people aren't drawing what _you_ want them to draw... but it does seem
}that there's more than just a small call for the non-erotica out there.
}Perhaps it's time that this call be listened to with more than just
}half-an-ear.

There is a significant amount of furry erotica around, no doubt about it.
And when people who buy art stop buying it, I have no doubt that a lot of
it will go away; such is the nature of things.  So, if you like, you can
blame me and the rest of us who enjoy such things.  But there is quite a 
lot of furry art which is in no way erotic which you can buy.  So what's
the problem?

}->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...
}
}'Sfunny, I didn't once see "Why Sex Is Bad, and Don't Touch That!" in that
}article.  What I saw was, "Hey, can't we recognize furriness and sexuality as
}two entirely different issues," and "Erotica isn't the only reason for furries
}being furries."  Both of which seem quite valid points to me...

Yeah, that was a gratuitous and cheap shot.  I'm afraid I let my penchant
for turning a cute phrase overrule my better judegment there.  But the point
I was making still stands, in that the discussion has moved beyond the 
original points.  No real problem, I just was a bit disappointed that there
was no real discussion of what Elf was saying.

JAS