fchan

http://us-p.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/Kkatman/Comics/FYI_141.jpg

It's amusing how so many people don't seem to know or understand this information.

>>4

Thank you, this needed to be said.

>>4

I'll be tolerant of your particular "sexuality, religion, fetishes, etc." if you'll be discreet in how you go about sharing it, lest you are perceived as representative of the fandom as a whole. A cumulative lack of discretion brought about the reputation that we endlessly bemoan and argue about. Continued indiscretion should not and will not be tolerated. Be mindful of others where and when such topics are shared.

Furry fandom is what we make it. Do we choose to make it "largely about the porn", or are we going to consider the bigger picture that can be painted with anthropomorphics? Seek out a broader range of furry content. Surely, sexuality has always been a core element of what makes "furry fandom" it's own thing, but it's never been the ONLY thing...unless it's the only thing for YOU.

>>10
See, here's where we differ. You claim the fandom is totally driven by porn. I can think of several furry artists who are in it just for the pretty pictures, with any erotic content secondary. Zeriara, Hibbary, Cotney, Hellcorpceo, und so weiter. In case you haven't been listening to the moderates in the fandom, furry=/= yiff.

>>12

Right on! I find that the most intolerent people are the ones who are complain the most about others being intolerent of them.

Intolerance should never be tolerated :P

And the fandom, whatever it might be NOW, began based on the porn. Ask any of the artists who have been here since the early days (if you can find them, the newer generation has worked pretty tirelessly to run them off).

This comic IS correct. There IS porn in any fandom. Furry just doesn't hide it. If your fandom isn't obviously open to sexual deviancy, you're less likely to show off your she-male Spock porn (I've seen it). But since furry is totally open to porn, nobody holds any back.

This comic gets it absolutely right.

>>13

Nah, Furries aren't so much intolerant as xenophobic (or a reverse, whatever). We don't take kindly to outsiders and all that. Any bashing from outside the fandom is met with hostility, and some of the loud ones have this weird delusion that furries are persecuted. If that's true, I wouldn't know. I've never been forced to sit in the back of a bus or anything like that, so if we're being persecuted, it's some damn gentle persecution.

>>4
>>10
>>11

from one of the original organizers of the first furry con and the days before heavy porn and sex:

"
I don't know when it happened, but one day, someone (...) decided that "furry" fandom had everything in the world with Sexuality. This assertion, when first stated, struck myself an many other fans, as ridiculous- laughable. So much so, in fact, that we didn't acknowledge the threat that this idea posed.... Starting with ConFurence 3 (...), fandom changed forever. A certain individual with a presence on (...) "furrymuck", decided to extend free invitations to ConFurence to anyone who had a character on FurryMuck... (...)
They were, for the most part, people whose presence on furrymuck was purely of a sexual nature. When these people came to CF3, they brought their interests with them- whips, dog collars, condoms, chains, and S&M relationships began to be more plentiful than comics at ConFurence."

--Eric Blumrich, Aug 27, 1998

I asked some reputable sources to provide some corrobarating evidence of the "advertisements" aimed at attracting people to ConFurence for the sexuality, but no one seems to have saved any copies, not even a page out of the L.A. Weekly. I can only consider the advertising to be hearsay until someone without a reputation for being a bullshitter comes forward with an eyewitness account.

>>22

>>23 precicely my point, thank you for saying that crassly insteadly of politely.

fair fair direct doesent equal crass, *bows*  we still said the same thing tho.