FA+
Shop
Drama: PA Senate Staffer Sex Scandal
16 years ago
An aide to the Pennsylvania state Senator Jane Orie has been caught trying to solicit sex from a 15 year old. More specifically, he apparently wanted the sexual acts to involve fursuits and (and potential other oddities). This news seems to be exploding in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg primarily, but has reached CNN and some other major organizations. It will, no doubt, spread.
This is, as I like to say, is not a good situation to be in.
http://www.fox43.com/news/wpmt-pmne.....0,636921.story
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com.....18/detail.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/.....ostumesex.html
http://kdka.com/politics/Panda.cost.....2.1024045.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pit...../s_627410.html
http://wbztv.com/politics/furry.sex.....2.1024853.html
\http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/.....t,842435.shtml
Alan Berlin, aka "Alan Panda", was caught using furry sites like Pounced to solicit sex from strangers and, more specifically, certain minors. I'd like to reiterate the "sex with strangers" thing because he wasn't merely focused on minors, though he was focused on younger Furs (in their mid-20's). The Senate was removed from his position immediately, and was arrested rather swiftly. Several news agencies are already reporting the story, regarding links to Pounced and AnthroCon. In short, this is definitely FUBAR for many organizations involved, FA included.
We've even caught (and banned) "Alan Panda" on Fur Affinity, though I thank the Mr. Berlin for never having actually used the site beyond viewing art. He had no comments, notes or favorites. For that I am eternally grateful.
I'd like to re-iterate two things from this:
1) There are bad lemons among any group, small or large. One person is not a representative of the group, but it can hurt the image as a whole. It's important to learn from this rather than merely create drama over the incident. Remember, this not specifically a "Furry" problem so much as it is a perverted individual who just happened to be a furry.
The fandom can be an openly sexual community, and unfortunately, this can attract individuals like the one in question.
2) If FA is contacted I will comply fully with the police and any other official bodies involved. Mr. Berlin's usage of the site was next to minimal, but I will not tolerate people use FA to solicit sex from minors or any OTHER illegal activity.
I imagine there are some of you out there who may be defending Mr. Berlin. Don't. He knew what he was doing, and he caught. He got caught by the individuals parents. If you're fooling around online or in real life... you need to be aware that the person on the other end may not be of legal age, and the ramifications that come with that can be severe.
- Dragoneer
PS - I don't like writing these kinds of journals, I really don't. They make the fandom look bad. I'd love to stand quiet on this, but this news is going to spread, and spread fast. It happened to a Senator's aide, and that's just not something that's going to stay quiet. Because of that, I'd rather be one of the first to stand up in front of everybody and say "I'm not going to tolerate this shit".
If you're going fuck up and do something like this get the hell out of this fandom first.
This is, as I like to say, is not a good situation to be in.
http://www.fox43.com/news/wpmt-pmne.....0,636921.story
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com.....18/detail.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/.....ostumesex.html
http://kdka.com/politics/Panda.cost.....2.1024045.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pit...../s_627410.html
http://wbztv.com/politics/furry.sex.....2.1024853.html
\http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/.....t,842435.shtml
Alan Berlin, aka "Alan Panda", was caught using furry sites like Pounced to solicit sex from strangers and, more specifically, certain minors. I'd like to reiterate the "sex with strangers" thing because he wasn't merely focused on minors, though he was focused on younger Furs (in their mid-20's). The Senate was removed from his position immediately, and was arrested rather swiftly. Several news agencies are already reporting the story, regarding links to Pounced and AnthroCon. In short, this is definitely FUBAR for many organizations involved, FA included.
We've even caught (and banned) "Alan Panda" on Fur Affinity, though I thank the Mr. Berlin for never having actually used the site beyond viewing art. He had no comments, notes or favorites. For that I am eternally grateful.
I'd like to re-iterate two things from this:
1) There are bad lemons among any group, small or large. One person is not a representative of the group, but it can hurt the image as a whole. It's important to learn from this rather than merely create drama over the incident. Remember, this not specifically a "Furry" problem so much as it is a perverted individual who just happened to be a furry.
The fandom can be an openly sexual community, and unfortunately, this can attract individuals like the one in question.
2) If FA is contacted I will comply fully with the police and any other official bodies involved. Mr. Berlin's usage of the site was next to minimal, but I will not tolerate people use FA to solicit sex from minors or any OTHER illegal activity.
I imagine there are some of you out there who may be defending Mr. Berlin. Don't. He knew what he was doing, and he caught. He got caught by the individuals parents. If you're fooling around online or in real life... you need to be aware that the person on the other end may not be of legal age, and the ramifications that come with that can be severe.
- Dragoneer
PS - I don't like writing these kinds of journals, I really don't. They make the fandom look bad. I'd love to stand quiet on this, but this news is going to spread, and spread fast. It happened to a Senator's aide, and that's just not something that's going to stay quiet. Because of that, I'd rather be one of the first to stand up in front of everybody and say "I'm not going to tolerate this shit".
If you're going fuck up and do something like this get the hell out of this fandom first.
Just what we need, MORE bad publicity.
You know, I wonder who made those suit heads as they look rather familiar. I bet they'd shit bricks to find out there's an image of them on a new site in relation to this stuff.
Completely off.
I'm not saying what he did was right, but get your facts straight.
I was wondering what kind of bad media barrage Uncle Kage will suffer on next anthrocon
like dragoneer. some people think dragoneer is "important" but nobody gives a fuck about him outside of fa, and why should they? same bullshit "celebrity" crap people pull. kage is a nobody, just like everybody else. from what i hear, just like dragoneer, he didn't even start ac just took it over.
too much credit for too little work
not saying that i hate idolized people just they are no better than anyone else in my mind
its better than just be the classic slob-fur ;)
the whole fursuit thing doesnt bother me at all, i just hate people who try to seduce younger people or even minors online...
good thing he got caught!
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
1.) Allowing a pedophile/ephibophile or regressed offenders to be a part of a group does not equate to encouraging sex with a minor.
2.) Happiness and a feeling of belonging can help contribute to therapy. Unless the offender has a dossier that indicates severe mental disease, most of the times these behaviors can be controlled, even if the initial impulse cannot be interrupted.
3.) A person is not the sum total of what they want to stick their Sgt. Johnson into. We find the act to be reprehensible, but that nuance does not define the person.
The position I take is "I do not condone sex with children." That's really all that needs be done. No extra social vigil or prejudging required. The important thing is to not encourage those sorts of actions. The only thing that puts you in the same water with them is rushing to their defense or committing the same crime, and being vocal against it removes you from that pool very quickly.
true, however, a convicted pedophile usually has restrictions on where they're allowed to congregate and if there could be children there, they aren't allowed... so, this guy's likely not going to be going to AC ever again (as it's considered a "family friendly" con and there are usually at least a handful of children in attendance.)
2.) Happiness and a feeling of belonging can help contribute to therapy. Unless the offender has a dossier that indicates severe mental disease, most of the times these behaviors can be controlled, even if the initial impulse cannot be interrupted.
granted, however, given the variance of ages of people in the fandom, that sense of belonging can quickly turn to temptation if the person's target profile of child were present. remember, pedophelia is a disease (of sorts) and the cumpulsion very likely going to always be there for them to battle... it's like alcoholism in a way, once you're an alcoholic, you will always have to be on your guard for the cravings. no matter how much of a warm-fuzzy they may get, sooner or later, those compulsions will rise to the surface
3.) A person is not the sum total of what they want to stick their Sgt. Johnson into. We find the act to be reprehensible, but that nuance does not define the person.
again, this depends on the severity. someone could be mildly drawn to children but they could be drawn to them massively. if a person has a hard time controlling those impulses, then yeah, i'd say that what they want to put their johnson into is likely going to define them.
and people use definitions of what their sexuality is (basically, what they like to have sex with) all the time... gay, straight, bi...?
The position I take is "I do not condone sex with children." That's really all that needs be done. No extra social vigil or prejudging required. The important thing is to not encourage those sorts of actions. The only thing that puts you in the same water with them is rushing to their defense or committing the same crime, and being vocal against it removes you from that pool very quickly.
i agree in part... personally, i think there should be some sort of social "vigil" in a way... i mean, my reasoning for this view is that children and adolescents usually don't have enough information or experience at hand to make the most sound decisions on what to do. if you remember when you were 5-10, basically most of those days it was about exploring new things, trying new stuff, experiencing new experiences... once you start to get to puberty, your hormones start running the show and the changes that the person's body goes through makes it difficult most times to render a sound decision as there are factors pushing them in one direction or another (for example, when you were 17-20 (or when you turn 17-20) the sexual impulse in men starts to get very strong and can very easily cloud one's judgement (be honest, how many people make the smartest decisions when they're horny as hell?)
but i do completely agree that being vocal is a wise idea. not in that it helps people know where you stand and also, being silent about things like this is in a way enabling the act... also, by denying that there is a problem associated with this is just as bad imo because denying it is turning a blind eye to the predators out there that haven't been caught yet.
sometimes you just got to raise a little hell, raise a little hell, Raise a little hell.
Nowadays, if you are good with computers you are pretty valuable.
I personally think that the majority of furries are still relatively nerdy though. :3
geek
Slang.
–noun
1. a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.
2. a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)
3. a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.
I don't do any of those things. XD I'm not a computer expert or enthusiast, although, I know MANY MANY MANY furries (and nonfurs) who are. LOL Again, good to have them around. :D I'm also likable and I don't bite off the heads of chickens. LOL
nerd
/nɜrd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nurd] Show IPA
–noun Slang.
1. a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.
2. an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit: a computer nerd.
This one might be more accurate to describe the majority of the furry community, even though I and many others are not "obsessed" with furry at all. Some of us just take it as a fun hobby, yet do not become obsessed. On the other hand, some furs DO take furry way too far... and they are sometimes stupid, irritating, ineffectual, and usually unattractive. >.>
When you get a group of "individuals" together and have them make and enforce the rules, that becomes a mob rule mentality, and that's how you get villagers with torches and pitchforks looking to punish anyone who doesn't agree with them. That's a dangerous way to be.
What I'm primarily saying is, if you have a friend that's looking at actual child porn, you should realize the activity is both illegal and immoral and try to convince them to stop. If you can't, then you need to take a step back and really assess whether or not this person should be in your life. Similar rules apply to everyone, including groups. If we find ourselves offended or overall disappointed with people, there is no reason to continue associating with them unless we can actually help them or they are recovering.
It's like a group of friends I know out here. They have house parties once a month and certain people are cool to come in, some aren't. Every once in a while, they'll invite someone that will make a douche of themselves, and they aren't allowed back. Is that a terrible thing? No, because they are looking out for their best interests. Which is what we should all be doing.
There are a lot of things about some people that piss me off- I take it directly up with them, if I can, and ask them to stop. If they don't, after repeated requests not to make racist jokes, for example, then I might consider cutting them loose from my circle of friends. But what if you only have one incident, told third-hand to base your judgement on? I think that's what we have here. It becomes a difficult choice after that, and I'd hate to think that I was wrong about someone if they'd been accused of child-abuse by a liar (it happens, sadly) and their life is in pieces because of it. This Berlin character may not be a "real" pedophile, either, just a goof with a poor sense of judgement- he was propositioning an adolescent who may well have been interested, too, which is a whole other problem on it's own... No, I'm so not saying the kid was inviting it, just to let folks know.
I'm just saying that we can't go about tossing folks out of our Fandom based on stuff like that. He hasn't been tried yet, the evidence isn't yet in the public eye, he hasn't been convicted, and people are yelling "burn him at the stake!" Gods.
Yes, by all means, we should look out for our best interests in regards to watch-dogging for predators who might be only using the Fandom to gain access to under-age youth, but let's do it with some actual evidence first, please.
Thanks for responding, by the way- I appreciate it.
Good luck with that. I've been arguing that very point for over a decade now, to deaf and disbelieving ears.
I really, really wish FA stuck with the decision not to allow cub fur stuff on here. I don't care what people say about fantasy vs. reality, allowing cub stuff is an open invitation to sexualizing youths, be they real or imaginary.
but it does make sense. i mean, furry is one of those all welcoming atmospheres and with the right recipe, it can act as a sort of enabling of whatever fantasy, kink or fetish you may have if you know there are others in your circle that have either tried it or are supportive of it.
if you have a particular fetish, i'd ask if you explored it moreso since joining the fandom than before you joined (but that would be making an assumption that you have a fetish or whatever.)
Really though, I "joined" the fandom because I grew up on Disney and Don Bluth movies and I'm a huge fan of fantasy creatures, anthromorphs included. I was absolutely flabbergasted when I learned of these seedy, sexualized underside to furry, but I've since become desensitized to it now, more or less. It just blows me away that the more and more I talk to people on this site, people ask less "what cartoons did you watch as a kid?" and more "so are you a gore or inflation type of guy?" Why does sex have to be involved with this at all? -_-
Anyway, please if you can find that link. I want to post something in the forums soon bringing this whole issue of cub art up again. It may be entirely fruitless, and I know I don't own this site or anything, but as long as FA is the leading site for furry art and community out there we should re-evaluate the image we give off and the kind of members we encourage and welcome here.
and the fandom being oversexed? well, take thousands of sexually and socially starved geeks, pile them into a place where anything goes, no fantasy is taboo and it's bound to happen.
Your right though, they are not saying things like "Furries are known for outrageous sexual behavior" or making the head line "Senator's aid wants to have fursuit sex with minor"
When Mr. Panda here decided to place his need for self gratification ahead of all other considerations, he did considerable harm to a lot of folks out there who don't deserve to be associated with his nasty activities.
Bad as it was, the coverage could have been a lot worse, and you can be thankful this didn't happen 6 -- 10 years ago.
So yeah, little problem in America.
(really, this has nothing on Josef Fritzl)
Sometimes becuase of events like this (and fanatics) laws could be twisted to hurt.
But let's hope for the best like others saw that this will go away and be yesterdays news.
Not much else to say.
Or MTV.
Or CSI.
Blah. It's.. hard being in a fandom that everyone else makes fun of.
Just ignore people if ya get harassed. Fuck em if they can't take a joke, as J.R. "Bob" Dobbs says.
Last nit I'm not gonna even bother about. Pessimism won't help :3
i really hope that anyone coming back from AC isn't going to risk bringing something like Softpaw magazine across the border (shit, they'd sieze that anyway as it IS considered obscene afaik in canada.) especially if the border is being extra picky those days.
I didn't really know what to say, apart from "he got arrested? good".
I hope "innocent" and uninvolved furs won't suffer from it.
Not much to that, time to go back to normal lifes.
you speak of heresy. we're all perfectly innocent and perfectly behaved individuals.
It's such a touchy subject matter.
-Jiry
Response: Sad truth. Perception is key. I know it's wrong but this is how society works. Skinny guy clad in chains and piercings all over his body just offered to babysit your child. Already a judgment is placed on the type of person this guy really is and well.....does that mean he won't be able to watch the children. Probably not.
That was just a rough example but, it's hard to deny that self expression is a definitional guide of ones self.....in public eye whether it's correct or not.
Quote: "Just like all the people blaming Grand Theft Auto for an increase in violence among children."
Response: As much as I know how ridiculous that claim is ;p, I still have to accept the fact that it does have the capability to educate a child into different aspects of certain lifestyles. Drugs, sex and money could open the door to...well....drugs, sex and money. It's hard to dispute that GTA is not a educational tool for impressionable kids.....just not the solid reason kids become violent. There's a plethora of underlying reasons behind that. I call GTA an enabler ;p
-Jir
People who think a drawing makes someone do bad things are using a scapegoat. The bad things were already in the person's head to begin with. Just like how people want to scapegoat video games, rap music, comic books, rock and roll, violence in cartoons, and on and on.
Okay, you don't like cub art. But there are people who don't like Michelangelo's David or da Vince's Vitruvarian Man, believing both to be pornographic and wanting them destroyed/censored/altered. Should we let those people decide what is art and what is a crime?
as for scapegoats? well, it was bound to happen sooner or later... not the scapegoats, a subset of the fandom crying "Pariah" because they feel targeted but when really, if they are paying attention to the situation, they're NOT being the scapegoats. anyone that's bawwing that they're a scapegoat is just drama-whoring imo... lame and tiresome. if they would take a second to step out of their tantrum and see that the issue isn't the cubs but the pedophiles, then they should realise that putting up a fuss about this is... well, childish.
aaand the rest of what you have to say is loaded with rather silly arguments. why should i bother? you know how i feel, you won't change that of me and if you want to call me a prick because of that, go right ahead... i really don't care.
*rolls his eyes* That's a straw man. It's not the furries who are crying scapegoat. It's the courts and the media making scapegoats as to why some people break the law. Why did kills kill other kids at a school? It's certainly not because they're homicidal. It has to be video games and rock music! So video games and rock music cause killings in schools! Or, Jack Thompson would have you believe so and has tried to get video games banned. I'm sorry that you find it lame and tiresome when a group of people tries to point out the logical fallacy of blaming them for one person breaking the law. Perhaps you should avoid those kinds of conversations.
As for the rest of what I have to say being loaded with "silly arguments," just dismissing valid points doesn't make them less valid. If you can't refute them, then just say so. Are you denying that there are people who make an issue of David's penis showing?
i'm sure that if there is anything to be done about this from a legal standpoint, if it's something that's generally agreed upon in the fandom or not is really rather inconsequential i'd say. yes, people can speak their mind to their representatives or statesmen or governors... etc... but if the final decision as to the laws surrounding this and the case with Mr Berlin were to affect anyone in the fandom negatively, well, what can be done? not much (to be realistic about it...) unless there are more governors in teh fandom that haven't come forward *shrugs*
if you're talking about the fallacy of blaming things like videogames for violent behavior, i'll agree with you on that... it's rather idiotic (as anyone that's got two spare braincells in their head should be able to tell fantasy from reality in this respct.) however, if the scapegoat for Mr Berlin is going to be the cub porn, and if the legal system were to be set that even underage characters in sexual situations regardless if they're fictitous or not are to be considered obscene (and punishable by law) then... well, if that's all that's done, what's the real harm? honestly? when the day is over, in the end they're just images. at the least you'd still have your health and freedom, right?
and lastly, the reason why that last paragraph i felt was just being silly is this... don't try and say that the work of the masters is somehow comparable to furry porn... it just isn't. one group of artworks are classical examples of the skil and dedication that the masters of the renaissance exerted to make works of timeless beauty... the other is pictures on a screen or paper meant to give someone a cheap thrill. the one is so VERY much not in the same league of the other. and wether anyone considers those classic pieces pornographic is just being a stuck up prude... they're just naked. (whereas cub porn usually has way more going on than just naked characters.) and lastly, i don't think anyone would have any hesitation to tearing up a piece of paper with cartoon characters drawn on it and yet people would probably hesitate (or be restrained by the authorities) were they to try and destroy DaVinci's work.
It would set a precedent, and those can be very damaging over time. On the other hand, a drawing can't hurt anybody. Well, maybe someone's feelings if it's a parody of someone and they're not thick-skinned about it. If we're talking about genuine pedophiles, and if they are hypothetically "feeding their need" with drawings rather than real photographs or, worst case, actual children, then what happens when we make drawings illegal? And we're not even talking realistic drawings, we're talking cartoons that make Sonic the Hedgehog fan art seem museum quality.
Once that precedent is set, it will be built upon. And it won't stop at "cub art." Believe me, someone will use that precedent to make furry porn into bestiality, and even though it's just a drawing, it will be made just as illegal. And from there, depending on how the times shift and how the government feels, other kinds of art will be deemed offensive and risky. This is what has happened with other legal precedents in the past, which is why you're always hearing lawyers bring up other trials as a part of their prosecuting or defense arguments.
"don't try and say that the work of the masters is somehow comparable to furry porn... it just isn't."
Isn't it? I know of a furry artist here on FA that has had his artwork sought after and displayed in a museum. Ask Bob Drake.
And is it really a matter of quality? Let's say someone did spend time and effort and materials making his or her magnum opus, on par with the skill and dedication of the masters, and it just happens to be cub art. Now what's the difference? I'm not saying these great works of art don't deserve their places, and I'm not saying cub art should be framed and put up over your fireplace. And the people who are against these great works now WANT to tear it up or smash it just as readily as you might tear a piece of paper. I appreciate your stance that David is a great work of art, but the reason WHY it needs to be guarded is there is someone out there who feels strongly that it depicts filth, promotes promiscuity and homosexuality, and desensitizes people to pornographic imagery. I think they're completely wrong. I agree with you that they are great works of art.
But having said all that, removing our opinions of the art in question, and ignoring the fact that a huge slab of marble lovingly chiseled into a naked man costs way more than a piece of paper and colored pencils to doodle with, is there a difference between wanting to take a sledgehammer to David or a paper shredder to cub art in the eyes of history?
besides, we really shouldn't let ourselves start to talk about such hypotheticals really, all that we can do is debate hypothetical situations because we're not the ones that are going to be making any laws if any are to be made. besides, i don't know about the rest of the fandom, but Furry isn't the be-all-end-all thing for me and i'm positively certain that if the art were to be taken from the fandom, people would still keep in touch with eachother. the fandom has survived much much worse, i'm sure that it'll survive more things than what could be thrown at it.
though, re: the statue of David. you're kinda missing the point. it's not that it's made with better quality materials, it's that Davis is priceless in that he cannot be replaced. the person that sculpted him is gone. any modern artist would be able to recreate (as best they can) whatever works they have made were they to be vandalized or destroyed. DaVinci can't rightly come out of the grave to re-carve David anyway.
lastly though, i have more faith in the judicial systems of the US and Canada than to enter into something blindly... i mean, the obscenity test that they've got going for the circuit of appeals regarding the artistic merit is (i'd say) making some positive headway. afaik so far it basically asks the question of works on a case by case basis... which, to me, is a sign that once cub porn is considered obscene (and against the law) i do see that there will be some standard furry art that will be put under scrutiny, but again, given that it's not absolute, we'll just have to wait and see. i know i'm not a lawmaker so i'll leave that task in the hands of those that have earned the positions OF lawmakers.
I think we should point out two things here.
The first is that David was considered scandalous at the time of its unveiling, for all that we've come to accept it in the centuries since.
And the second is that David was not sculpted by DaVinci. The artist was Michaelangelo.
A single incorrect fact lends suspicion to credibility of the rest of any statement.
furry porn in almost all it's shapes and sizes is VERY replaceable because the artists that do them are still alive and haven't been dead for centuries.
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2009/05.....ars-in-prison/
Furries add another layer of abstraction to the mix -- now they're not just drawings, but they're not even human drawings! -- but I suspect that would be an awfully weak defense if it actually came down to a legal challenge.
The "virtual child porn" link is tenuous at best. What we actually face is worse: an ambiguous law (and Supreme Court ruling) that can applied on a whim. Nebulous laws are the worst of all!
Really, I couldn't blame any archive operator for banning anything that could possibly be construed as child pornography. I think an operator who doesn't monitor archive submissions at all could get away with the Youtube approach, i.e., don't take something down until someone flags it and points it out to you -- but I also suspect that from a legal standpoint, if someone does flag a line drawing of an eight-year-old girl with cat ears and manga eyes in a provocative pose and you don't take it down, you'd better be prepared to go to court to keep it up. And you'd better be prepared to be portrayed as the guy who thinks there's a constitutional right to display CHILD PORN CHILD PORN CHILD PORN thank you God Bless America. (To wit, the lawyer on your side better be really damn good.)
A lot of people make the association that if you ban cub art you have to ban rape art, murder art, etc. But come on people; let's use some common sense, here. Think of the kind of people you are welcoming in to the community with open arms with this kind of stuff. -_-
could you imagine the outcry if some members of news organizations, browsed this site and uncovered some of the cub images on it....I know those who are in support of keeping such things available for anyone with an account to view it say that its not technically porn with underage participants that its characters who look young, But the world is not filled with rational persons who would listen to such an argument, to most people, including myself, if it looks like it is under age, drawn, photographed or whatever the medium, it is underaged, artist's intent or not.
and yes, i agree with you. that this fandom has so many pedo-positive things going for it and the permissive and supporting atmosphere regarding it, i'm surprised that there haven't been more caught as of late (though that makes me cringe thinking of the ones that aren't seen... guess they're kinda like cockroaches. stomp one, miss 100)
If people are so skiddish about cub art, why not just make them change the genre to "chibi art" as that's basically what it is.
Cub porn =/= Pedophilic.
And no, I don't draw cub stuff. I may one day in the future draw chibi, but not cub. That's a personal taste. But no problem with cub as it's a lesser evil than others (rape, vore ((when the one being eaten is obviously not agreeing with it)), excessive violence, etc.)
(Yes, I do love to be a devil's advocate, but the point is there to contemplate.)
Well... sortof. The reason child pornography is illegal (well, the main reason) is that a child is incapable of giving informed consent. And the reason I feel "virtual child porn" should be legal is that no real child is harmed. The rights of virtual children should never be an issue.
An honest mistake about party affiliation, I'm sure.
The guy did a stupid and horrible thing. Luckily, from the sounds of it, nothing came to fruition, so thank the powers at hand for that. But just like any story of this nature, it'll be in the news for a week or so and then it'll be gone from the public mindset. In one ear, out the other.
Plus on the other of PA it just going to be mention in passing as secondary story. Because everyone in Pittsburgh side is kinda focus on the Penguins in the Stanley Cup Finals of NHL. So it might get mention as after certain minutes. But sometihng else might over shadow this.
hell, i'd be more than willing to condemn alan panda's actions if a camera crew honestly wanted passers by's opinions on the whole thing.
it'd go something like this "i think what he did is disgusting and i hope he never comes back." (which i'd wager is a sentiment that a lot of us are holding about now.)
Frankly, if this becomes a ticker item on CNN's broadcast I'll be surprised.
It's on the US page. Look under "Northeast".
Well, we don't have to worry about it showing up on TV at least until CNN writes it's own article for the website.
And people are surprised and upset that bad publicity occurs because.....?
10/10 RED
Though seeing as the man wasn't involved with domestic terrorism, and you're willing to assist with anything asked, I wouldn't fret it. His lj friends, I'd expect maybe a few to get an inquiry call, this site. Nah. *noogie*
Ffffff I missed that story!
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1360203/
Tiburon's wife, Rose, made a journal about it:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/477396/
unless it's worth money
then I feel rich
In other news: man, the babyfurs are gonna have it rough this weekend.
"hey dragoneer, you know why furry has problems with the media?
this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1447283/
c'mon man your own "furry leaders" are inviting the media to cons and you're complaining because some political fuckup got busted?????? you should be more pissed that yer own people are causing all the problems by bringing the media in the first place.
you can't blame this guy for getting busted when the "popular" furry peeps are wagging their dicks are the camera
its on yer own site too ffs"
I fear the kind of publicity you would bring to the fandom.
Just saying "blah, no media at our cons!" isn't going to make you in any way safe.
Yeah... I really can't wait for this to be old news, haha.
IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS THIS.
But they don't listen. They're focused on the WHY, but don't want to deal with it properly at the same time.
Bad education? Wrong friends? No acceptance in social matters? Irrelevant. He played shooters, that's the reason why. And why? Because that's not their fault. They can just lay the blame on other things, and don't have to bother themselves with it too long.
That's what they are like. 'They' means some of us too, maybe all of us - somewhere. But not everyone is so selfish as especially THEY are.
Problem is, there are even more gullible persons out there. Persons who don't give a damn about thinking on themselves, they just read what others have written and believe in it.
What are we? Is Humanity, is being human always such a good thing...? Then, WHAT is being human defined like? If THAT is being human, it's not so great at all. I'd like to define it independent from what the majority of people are doing. I'd like to define it from what I believe would be right.
And that just ISN'T right.
I'm offending all those gullible persons out there who'll say it's because he's a furry!
Because it's always like that. People are in need of a scapegoat, just to be free of reprovals themselves. They just don't see if someone is mobbed by others, and as soon as he's running amok they blame the shooters for it, not the actual causers! That's what is annoying me, it's as if you'd say 87% of all persons running amok are playing these games, 100% are eating bread - so annihilate bread!!!
WTF, seriously.
Now it happened that one perverted asshole who rapes kids was a Furry.
So annihilate Furries, that's what they will say.
They don't care, even if he's the first Furry who 'attracted attention' in this way. They'll use it as excuse and reason for enraging the whole fandom by new laws and/or stuff, at least they could do so, like they wanted to forbid violence in Videogames. Fine, they didn't, but they wanted to. And that's what counts - the image of these games has been damaged irrevocably - for lots of people, those games are the big reason why.
But they AREN'T.
People just don't want to see they have made a fault, by mobbing the person. The person itself is a sick bastard nevertheless - if we're talking about raping little kids. Persons who are running amok have their good reasons of disengaging , at least 70 - 80 % of them. People have to change their manners of interacting with those they call 'freaks', 'outsider' and 'abnormal'. That was my point, 'social' interaction in general. Blaming things they aren't used with for bad things.
I didn't refer to this sick bastard in any means - I just said the fact of him being a Furry will be used against our IN FACT blameless fandom, once again.
A), kick those bastard's asses, people who like to rape little innocent kids have to be punished, not only jailed. Rapers in general.
and
B), be less anti-social to guys who don't comply with our expectations.
I've always been some kind of an so called 'outsider', so I know what humans are able to do. Just to have their fun and to feel better, more valuable. People who have to make others small to be big themselves are the true 'outsiders' - anti-social assholes who don't care about others.
Not only the classic 'outsider' knows what I'm talking about. Disabled persons, persons who don't look like others would expect them to look or persons who like things others don't like. They all get targets of fucking bullies with inferiority complex which just can feel great if they have others to poke on.
And because of that, because he happened to be a Furry, all of us who are normal Furries aren't able to say so without being looked at in disgust, without making ourselves targets of all those anti-social bastards out there. Just because of one single sick kid-fucking bastard.
Plus, telling people that being furry is weird is like telling people being gay is weird. Which is to say, you can't tell someone they can't live in a certain way if it isn't illegal to live that way. Being a homosexual isn't illegal (as far as I know, at least) and neither is being furry. Things like pedophelia and beastiality are illegal, so you can agree or disagree with the morality of such things, but you can't disagree with whether or not it IS legal or illegal, because it either is or isn't.
And you should tell THEM, not me/us. WE know. But THEY don't. Apparently.
^.^°
So I dunno. We'll have to see.
AC is usually good about handling the bad media.
These are the people who's conversation opener is what their biggest fetish is. The chance to talk to someone about their ~~LIFESTYLE~~ and how COOL AND NEAT it is is pretty much the biggest thing in the world.
None of the people I've EVER seen interviewed about furry things at a con has had any sense in their head.
There's been plenty of coverage of the fandom from reporters and such that have simply bought con admission and OBSERVED. Casually chatted with other people like they were part of the fandom and then went and reported on it. Anthrocon staff can 'forbid' media from getting press passes, but they can't do background checks on everyone who wants to register.
And I prefer it that way.
Everyone's making this out to be OMG BIG DEAL when it's one freak that got caught in a group of freaks that haven't yet.
I found this it's a video about it
:S
I don't usally watch FOX news so I don't know how reliable they really are butt.. if this goes lives every parents in america would think furry are all pedos (is FOx news is a big news company?)
I hope fa won't be affected.
Do you think you will get any media trying to contact you for a interview?
Since there has been cases like this on facebook and Myspace and the owner have been interviewed.
just in the offchance are you prepaired? I've got a gut feeling this is going to be big
This particular report was far less inflammatory than others I've seen. Big difference between "may have been involved", and the outright saying that he was a Furry, as seen in most other reports.
And considering how influential by the media is the people it will bring some unwanted attention
Its best not to give the press more reasons to be against the fandom. as you said this is a problem from an individual and not from the fandom.
Lets hope people wont be paranoid to thing that all furries are criminals like this guy
Pervs like this will always exists, just hope people become more aware of them and learn how to avoid.
Guess ya can be thankful his lack of using FA should mean less hasstle for you neer. Id hate to see respected furs being bogged down and hasstled because of randoms in the fandom being complete and utter morons.
Sounds like the guy wasnt too involved in the fandom, so it could be worse, could have been another well respected artist/animator/writer/general fur which would have been a much bigger dent to our already marked public image
However, the news media knows that, so they try to go for the people who are overly talkative.
Most people using the fandom merely for sex don't do that.
Oh well, bound to get a few bad people I mean we are such a large and very very welcoming community for the most part it seems.
Nonetheless, this obviously serves as a warning to many members of the fandom: if you're going to fool around, at least be sure about the age of whoever you intend to be fooling with; it is understandable that that may not be possible with so many anonymous persons throughout the fandom, in which case, just don't do anything you might later regret...
and we don't know if he was a furry or just using the fandom to catch little kids.
They might not have convicted him yet, but you can come to conclusions for yourself. Criminal trials are simply the government's procedure for determining if someone is to be punished for something, and how.
Enjoy your v&.
Furthermore, do you ever say "hey person claiming to be 15, let's meet in your backyard tomorrow at midnight and have furry sex!"? That's the problem here. The guy (allegedly) had REAL intentions to do REAL things to a REAL 15 year old.
You're right, innocent until proven guilty, but there is already enough evidence here to conclude the guy is some kind of perv and that he is reflecting badly on the fandom as a whole.
I think that's proof enough.
1) It was on an Affidavit that's publicly available under the Right To Know Law (I think). I'm sure if you ask the PA Attorney General's office you can get your very own copy.
2) WPMT FOX 43 is an affiliate of FOX Broadcasting and is not directly connected with FOX News. It's not even owned by FOX, it's owned by Tribune Broadcasting. I doubt they even have the budget to fabricate evidence.
I'm a 40-ish brick-throwing wheelchair punk from hell, he's an overweight pasty-faced uber-religious Republican, there is not exactly any love lost here. That being said this is straight out of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", a great book, can't recommend it enough.
Now, what I am looking for.
* A babyfur
* Someone who is between the ages of 20 and 25 (we can talk about edging that either direction)
* Someone who has completed or is in the process of finishing their college degree or technical training
* Someone who can drive and has their own car. It’s amazing to me how many furs don’t even know how to drive.
* Someone who is intelligent and has goals and a purpose for their life
* Someone who can work and contribute to household expenses
* Someone who is an independent adult but can let go of that and enjoy being babied
That doesn't sound like someone who's targeting kids. There's one fact to be determined, weather he knew he was dealing with a kid or not, and until then the only reason to throw him under a bus is because he's a Republican (enough reason in my books but whatever). Three years ago I found that someone I'd been chatting with online was 14. Fortunately I'm A: Hetero and B: Don't cyber or anything like that. But it could have been very different.
Anyway, kicking him off the site because of an accusation, rather than say, an actual conviction- seems a little harsh on Dragoneer's part. It's so easy to ruin a guy's life with an accusation of child-abuse, even if it were "innocent". But, like him, I'm leaning toward "guilty" as much as I'm hoping he isn't.
The stuff in italics- is that from Alan Panda's profile on Pounced? Just curious (never been to the site myself).
There was a wave of hysteria in Britain some years back where the homes and offices of two pediatricians were vandalized, as if they were what, running offices or something? Yeah, people in herds WILL go that far. Now dig this... Chris Morris did a special at that time that daringly spoofed and put a mirror up to the whole thing, absolutely unbelievable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Eye_Special
It's on YouTube in it's entirety, easy to find. Now I love Edward Gorey, Charles Addams, Gahan Wilson, and enjoy the hell out of a lot of jaw-dropping twistedly dark satire, but he actually makes me cringe! I'm a wee bit more comfortable with his special on animals, twisted but um.... well you know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgKCas5xJ34
Sen. Orie fired him. I'd say that was a helluvalot harsher.
Some folks sneer at furries for their drama or for just being creatively-imaginative enough to actually enjoy cartoons into adulthood, or for wearing vastly mis-understood costumes, but I think we may do more damage to our fandom by being as knee-jerk and ignorant as the rest of the public in how we react to things like this... O___O
It's a cautious approach I use when it comes to things like this. I completely despise pedophiles. I actively fucking HATE them. But to me, an accusation is all that this is: it has yet to be proven in a court of law that this man is a youth-raping predator. We seem to be forgetting that very important aspect of this whole situation and are bringing out the pitchforks and torches, screaming for this fool's head.
Just something to think about.
I think however crazy people think that furries/costumers are, that media attention would be a welcome thing. Majority of news casts covering AC that you can find on youtube present furries as a fun or quirky thing. They usually interview someone who just says it's a fun time to act crazy. That sort of thing should be encouraged.
Finally, someone gets it.
Avoiding the media is only going to raise suspicion and make it look like we're hiding something. The best way to control public image, is for the fandom to keep a GOOD image.
Kage is one of the few individuals in the fandom who has managed to encourage positive stories from the media.
But I still think that it's a giant crock of shit that so many furries have to depend on Kage to smooth over shit that shouldn't have come up in the first place.
But there it is.
[make a comment about individual cases]
[pop culture reference]
Well, that's about all I have to say about this, as is the same with most cases. You seem to be pretty ready for damage control when needed, dude. Good on ya.
When politics get involved, however...
All jokes aside. I am sure it will work out. In all honesty there is nothing that this community is going through that gays, porn studios, various religions and cultures have not gone through before. The best way to actually deal with this is honesty.
A culture can explain itself. Panicked people and the guilty cannot.
If you enjoy Furry or are Furry or not. This is a form of expression, a form of creativity. If anything is out of the norm then it will be a target of hearsay the best thing to do is not over react, dont get violent or evasive if someone brings up the stereotype and for the love of any sanity that might be there. DONT REINFORCE THE BAD LIGHT THOUGH ACTION OR WORDS!
This may or may not affect things as well. though i do not know the details or ramifications of this case.
still...
I personally think that after all of this blows over, FA and/or some cons should try to get together to help out animal shelters or something in the cities they work in... To try to help our image and help the communities at the same time. Although, generally only negative material is reflected in the news these days so I'm not sure that would do us any good.
and that's before we REALLY hurt them.
Just my personal opinion as a former parent.
This of course is just something I HEARD so I do not have the facts.
*looks up*
don't answer that
*looks down*
you either
Oh, I guess he did. >.>
If you're going fuck up and do something like this get the hell out of this fandom first.
Placed in bold for emphasis. Please don't jeopardize our reputations by defiling your own.
My reputation isn't smeared or in jeopardy because of some random pervert's actions.
If someone points at me and yells "PERVERT!", I'd just stick my tongue out at them, or like.. laugh.
Why the frak should we hide? We've got nothing to be ashamed of in liking art, cartoons and costuming ideas with animal themes...
Let's all get ahold of ourselves here, nobody's reputation will be defiled. There are weirdos and lunatics everywhere, and it's impossible to purge any large open community of them.
However, this incident lands very close to home for a lot of other, similar events that have happened in recent news which elevates the importance and relevance of this story. I'm sure you're aware of the case of a certain California artist who was recently found guilty to possession of child pornography, and also of the multiple cases lately involving arrests and action in the case of artwork and publications depicting fictitious child abuse, including a Japanese rape-themed game. There is a debate and battle over interpretations of First Amendment rights and freedom of expression that is very important, because the precedents set and where the lines get drawn have a huge impact on entering into the territory of thought-crime and prosecuting people for no more reason than their personal expression and fantasies being "disturbing" or "obscene" under certain individuals' moral impetus.
If he knew the person he was chatting with was 15 and he solicited them for sex and there is ample evidence to prove that - then he was wrong, he's committed a crime and he should be punished accordingly. If his "crime" was fantasizing or role-playing with a consenting individual about sexually explicit situations, with the understanding or belief that the other person was an adult (even as a default presumption), then he's done nothing wrong. In the anonymous space of the internet, if someone does not identify themselves as a minor, should an adult be guilty of committing a crime should they engage in fantasy chat or solicitation with someone should they be a minor? Personally, I do not believe so. That minor's parents or legal guardians have a responsibility to keep them safe and prevent them from engaging in such acts or suffer the consequences as ANY parent or guardian should in any other situation. I really believe that the crux of this case centers (or should center, at least) around whether or not Mr. Berlin HAD FOREKNOWLEDGE that who he was speaking to was indeed a minor.
I think this case, like others of recent note, lies in a grey area where the outcome may set precedence or even law for years to come, so they are very important for people to follow and respond to. This is history in the making.
Still doesn't mean he knew the kid was underage, though; lots of people old enough to legally have sex with adults live with their parents. Of course, even if he was unwitting it won't matter to the law, I don't think. There was a local fur in this state who got convicted of similar stuff when he went to visit his mate who turned out to be underage and lying about his age.
The poor guy's life is ruined either way, most likely. People have pretty knee-jerk reactions to the title of pedophile, even if the kid might've only been a couple months from being legal.
Pretty sure the kid would have to be furry, though. If it was a much younger person the idea of, uh, playing with someone dressed as a cuddly animal might be appealing for its own sake, but how many non-furry teenagers are you going to attract with a mascot costume?
On a tangent, I wonder how much clearer people would think about the issue if we didn't use the "P word" for both the person who gets involved with jailbait and the person who molests babies. I've actually seen people's opinions do a 180 when told a certain sex offender's offense against a minor was the former kind and not the latter. (Which isn't to say we should be encouraging ignoring the age of consent... just that they feel like two entirely different kinds of crime, and one is a lot less torch-and-pitchfork-mob-worthy than the other.)
I'd wager a lot of teenagers who don't really think about how they are jailbait. I know at least one local fur whose Pounced ad has given his age as 18 ever since he was 16 (consent in this state is at 17). Awful stuff.
I can only pray that some people in my class don't get wind from this, I wouldn't make next year. =/
In most cases this will probably blow over. Lately I'm starting to think that the sooner everyone knows what a furry is, and make an opinion of them, the better. Then they can laugh, jeer, get angry, or not care, and get over it.
What I don't get is how someone who's obviously intelligent enough to be a staffer for a state senator is yet stupid enough to commit acts like this. If there's one thing there is about politics, it's loyalty. That's loyalty to your boss, their party, and everything they stand for. From just this aspect alone, the risk and repercussions of what you do as a staffer on your boss should (keyword) deter any reasonable person from doing something like this. It's something that most political staffers, at any level, are told: what you do will be infinitely connected to the person they work for.
Which, given his line of work, makes just the dangerous embers for this to trigger. If it was Joe Schmo who was into this, no one would really care. But put yourself on a stage that involves an elected official and it explodes. I fail to comprehend how this guy was idiotic enough not to realize all this. Extremely unfortunate.
That, of course, doesn't even begin to address the other consequences of what this guy did. There's plenty of arguments out there that "furries are [insert taboo noun here]." Unfortunately, he's become the perfect example and epitome of that, and it couldn't have fallen into a worse category than involving minors.
Shortly put, what a fuckup. :\
Politicians.... powerful, corrupt and... FURRY? See how a subculture of pedophilia and bestiality has become so powerful that it has spread to even high ranking government positions... more at 11.
Unfortunately, now that I saw the video
...eh, I felt like being random, maybe its the Monster I'm drinking. *sip* Feel free to ignore. XP
We're going to need Uncle Kage to turn into Mecha Cockroach or something.
ack.
THEY WERE FURRIES (or in the fandom in general) THEMSELVES.
How's that make you feel?
Plus, all they did was lulz a bit and Kage came out and gave them an umbrella when it started ratining and had a good laugh with them.
The fandom needs to stop taking itself so seriously.
ONE HUNDRED SERIOUS BABIES!!!!!!!!!!
People fucking in fursuits is weird and all .. but NEVER as bad in the public eye as pedophilia.
The problem here is that mister pervert has done it with a kid!
Neer, I'm glad you're handling this the way you are.
Dont come at me with this "wrong" thing...because you're wrong. And the supreme court of the USA ruled the same way as well. They said the same thing i'm saying.
But you also have to realize one thing, the courts in america are not a GOOD reference at all, unless homosexuality should be wrong as well?
Your telling people straight up that their wrong, so I wouldn't exactly try to backpedal on a forum that can EASILY reread what you just said...
You also never see people posting RL pics of themselves gutting people or being asphyxiated like you do with babyfurs, sitting in diapers while snuggling with their "blankies". Realistically, none of those things can be passed over into reality (gore can be, but how often do you hear about some dude gutting people because it gets him off?), but cub/pedo stuff can.
Obviously cub stuff that is intended to be of a sexual nature should be unacceptable. Otherwise, there is still a fine line between what can be considered as "cute" and what can be considered as "creepy as hell" and obviously fetish-based.
I can easily say that Gore that is intended to be of a sexual nature should be unacceptable. You can insert any fetish in where I put gore and it would fit just as well as cub
What I've been trying to say, is that if for some reason, the media or say the COPS track down that pedophile aide guy to this site, and find all that cub porn, it would be safe to assume we're all FUCKED. We would all be guilty by association. Chances are, they'd assume that if the equivalent to child porn is allowed on this site, therefore every one of its members must condone it, and are therefore all guilty. Just because people shouldn't make assumptions, doesn't mean that they won't and don't.
Just because they assume doesn't mean its right. They need some education about it. Also remember that the US Supreme court ruled that it's not an offense for that either. to draw something completely fictional that doesn't look like a real child. So there is some backup for us as well.
To quote someone else
"A lot of people have memtioned how, if it is banned, it will mean a lot of other stuff will need to be banned as well. Well, it won't *need* to be banned, but it will certainly weaken any arguments that can be made against doing so. It's the good old slippery slope. Drawings portraying underage sex get banned, because it is immoral and illegal. So why should drawings of full humans having sex with full animals not be banned, since beastiality is immoral and illegal? What about vore? Cannibalism is immoral and illegal, too. Nonconsentual sex? Ditto. What else? Oh, pictures of angry furries with blood all over need to be banned, too, since murder is immoral and illegal. Even if they just have a cut, well, that's assault, and guess what? You guessed it! Immoral and illegal." <---Xodiac form this journal http://dragoniade.livejournal.com/12551.html
To sum it up it'll take everything down with it if they try to attack "pedophilia" with babyfurs
Though actually, the PROTECT Act of 2003 already exists, and I'll quote it too:
"# Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
# Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
There's still lolicon in Japan...that says a lot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_.....picting_minors
Not to mention people's IPs will be tracked.
And in CONCLUSION, I as well as many others feel that cub/babyfur porn shouldn't be allowed on this site any more than actual child porn.
There would be other stuff taken off as well and FA wouldn't be how it is today.
and 2. This isn't your site. To be honest you shouldn't be bringing up how you want it banned. Don't like it leave. Period. The fact you stayed means you're bearing with it. And they're not going to unban it because of this. For many reasons.
You feel that way then go to DA. End
Wow. THAT'S a generalization if I ever saw one.
Fallacies aside, I think you need to realize that just because you make that association doesn't mean EVERYONE will, and just because you and a few other will make that association does make it true. There are a few people outside the fandom who think of furries as gross dogdiddlers. But does everyone think that? No. Do all furries diddle their dogs? No.
Yes, there will be the occasional person who does, but that's just a numbers game. With a fandom this large, you're going to have bad apples that spoil the bunch, as someone said earlier. But that's true for any group of people, for any fandom.
Regardless of all this, though, good on you to perpetuate ignorance :D You're doing America proud.
And no, you are wrong. In very many cases cub art is merely a substitute for child porn. Cub art and the furry fandom's acceptance and promotion of it is what draws in many pedophiles in to the furry scene to begin with, I believe. Everywhere else on the Internet bans child porn, but FA virtually allows it so long as you stick fox tails and ears on everything.
You may be interested to read this article, as well: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20.....05/manga-porn/
But -- and this is a very important 'but' -- until such time as it ever does go to the Supreme Court, it not only remains standing as a validated law, but now has the power of a precedent, and that is a very powerful totem in the courts. It is now a heavyweight and will remain that way until the Supremes rule against it.
If it ever gets there.
"1st amendment what? What does this have to do with the case?
This is a matter of 'obscenity.' The man was not making these. He purchased them. There is no speech violation here.
Now, on the matter of 'obscenity' - nobody was being hurt by this. No. Body. The Comics Defense guys were on the right side here, but the defendant caved to pressure, and now he's locked in. Unless the dude was sending copies of his porn to minors, there was no case here. And yet... there we go. Sigh"
I fail to see the problem.
For me, at least, I like furries because I like Don Bluth, Disney and Warner Brothers cartoons. I like fantasy creatures.
I never once grouped sex and furries/cartoons together in my mind until I logged onto the Internet.
So no, furries/animal cartoons aren't the problem here. I have no idea what you're on about.
I don't think I'll have enough fingers and toes.
If you ever wondered why all the guys who make the headlines are old and creepy, it's because they're always the ones who are too stupid to know any better, and then say/do things which show their lack of better judgment. Pretty shitty predators if you ask me! I don't think most teenagers got anything to worry about if the worst sexual deviants out there are weird old guys in fursuits and diapers, lol
And by the way, have you been seeing the news about all these guys with loli porn being arrested? I guess that means you'll have to clear out your gallery then.
Also, I don't see anything in my gallery that needs to be cleared out?
And I dunno. I just looked at your front page, I don't want to go into your gallery.
UR A PEDO!
perhaps you could explain how you came to that conclusion, since it's a pretty outrageous claim to make on the internet.
here's an easy way to remember: your computer's at your desk, and my computer's at my desk
And you're still a pedo.
Why don't you just go sit in the corner and keep fapping to kids.
And one year under the limit is still under aged. He tried to sex up a kid.
Come on, no more bad reps for the fandom. ><
Oh wait.
this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1447283/
c'mon man your own "furry leaders" are inviting the media to cons and you're complaining because some political fuckup got busted?????? you should be more pissed that yer own people are causing all the problems by bringing the media in the first place.
you can't blame this guy for getting busted when the "popular" furry peeps are wagging their dicks are the camera
its on yer own site too ffs
If the media shows up to the events that are well managed, we'll get good press. Would you rather we only have the bad press outbursts like this one? c'mon!
ac staffers invited em there.
Reporters have gotten indoor footage and photos of cons before without permission. The 1st amendment carries a long, long way.
However, the convention itself is a private affair. One has to purchase a badge in order to attend any of the events within the Convention areas, and attendees have to adhere to the rules of conduct set down by the Convention, or they can be thrown out.
The media is pretty much free to record anything that goes on in the non-convention areas of the hotel, but they cannot do so within the designated con areas without the con's permission.
My point still stands.
The Art Show, the Dealer's Room, the Panels, The Masquerade, the Hospitality Suite -- any room or hall that is designated Con territory and requires a badge to enter. All of these are off-limits to non-attendees. Even private parties are technically off-limits, though since those aren't part of the con itself, Media can gain access through private invitations. Otherwise, unless the media is invited and escorted through the con, all they can do is watch and film furries walking back and forth from the lobby.
For that matter, the only public places in a hotel are the lobby, the shops and the restaurant. Everything else is considered private.
So why not invite the media to see how boring the fandom really is?
Because, more often than not, that is not the story the media wants. Boring is boring, and not good material for a media story, especially for TV. The freakier the appearance, the more visual it is, the better they like it. So they will focus on whatever they consider to be interesting to the point of hyperfocusing, ignoring everything else (save to give them a swift, passing mention), resulting in a very biased and unbalanced presentation of Furries.
Doesn't mean that they'll fabricate anything, but they will certainly omit whatever they feel is unnecessary. It also doesn't mean that this is what is guaranteed to happen, but, as past occurrences have proven, it is guaranteed to be the most likely.
All of the private convention only activities are BORING and make terrible stories! All the stuff in the lobby is just as edgy if not worse, as it's not policed as thoroughly.
By keeping the media out of the convention space, we're only making things worse by letting them assume they're missing out on the really edgy stuff... so why keep them out at all?
Unless your media reporter is furry friendly to begin with -- and even that is not a guarantee as the material has to go through his editors and publishers who may have other ideas -- there is no way to ensure a piece will be positive, or even neutral. Letting them in is far more likely to do more harm than their filming or taking notes from the lobby.
I don,t think there's any way outta this.
Unless we point them to a freakier fandom.
if there's one.
AC is a FAMILY CONVENTION for fans of anthropomorphics and cartooning. There's no harm in having the media there. It's not some secret underground society, it's a convention, to which ANYONE can buy membership.
there've been furries that were getting pretty frisky in the seating area one night at an AC past.
Ha! ha ha! ha ha ha ha! hahahahahahahaha! Hah... hahahaha!
People into BDSM would also say it isn't "only" a fetish - it's also about learning some fucked up philosophy, the appreciation and use of whips, chains, the making of clothing from leather straps, and knot tying.
And as a disclaimer I'm not saying for YOU it must be this way, nor is it for me. This is the way it is for the furry fandom, though.
AC, however, does not focus on what a large part of the "furry fandom" does. It focuses on the part that IS family friendly.
BDSM STARTED from a fetish. Furry started with something family friendly-- cartooning. And that, essentially, is what AC is. A cartooning convention. Fans of cartoons, cartoon animals, and related artwork.
1) Furry is, today, primarily about cartoon animal porn. (and several unrelated fetishes)
2) Anthrocon is about furry.
3) Anthrocon is about something that is about, primarily, cartoon animal porn. (and several unrelated fetishes)
Cartoon animal porn and other fetishes are not generally considered family friendly. Even if anthrocon does a good job of downplaying the sexuality issue, the theme of the hour is still something based around sexuality and fetishism.
Now, that they choose to focus on individual facets of furry that by themselves can be removed from the fetishism (such as developing the skill of drawing) does not change that the focus of the con is about furry, which is today about fetishism. Even if they at AC keep the sexuality related material to a minimum, most of the participants are there not because they share some hobby but because they share a fetish.
An average person I'm sure could be quite comfortable at the con if they didn't know that the con was about "furry," or didn't know what "furry" was actually about. Costumes and the skill of drawing cartoon animals would not be in themselves disturbing until the person realizes the ends to which many of the costumes and most of the drawing skills were to be used- namely the acting out of strange sexual fantasies, or the production of porn about said fantasies.
An anthrocon workshop could focus on "cartooning," and a person could stumble in and remain undisturbed as long as they do not know what "cartoons" most of the participants would be interested in looking at or drawing. Similarly, a person could stumble into a knot-tying workshop and be undisturbed until it dawns on them to what end the BDSM knots are going to be used by, in all likelihood, all the other participants.
You're saying that TECHNICALLY one could say that AC is family friendly. Yes, but TECHNICALLY you could say that a BDSM knot tying workshop is family friendly too. It's all rather droll- hence, laughter.
Hah hah hah
Mind you there are sectioned off portions of artist alley for 18+, but that's the same at any convention, furry or non. Take anime for example.
I can,t believe that people are proud of saying that they STOLE their entry to a con ..
Do you go around saying you shoplift stores as well?
This is a normal thing to have happen and assuming that a reporter won't go 'undercover' to get a juicy story is pretty naive.
The links are all to the same story of Alan Berlin's case, just on different news sites.
None of them have anything to do with the cons or interviews with any other furry.
This is not what anybody needs right now.
Well if this makes the news here l think l might be in for it at work like normal. I hate those people that use the fandom as a tool for having underage sex.
This wont be the last high profile person getting busted as a furry/sex predator.
That being said, I am not the least bit outraged. First, if this were a 40 year old female babyfur, why do I get the feeling there wouldn't be as much outrage? Especially, if she were a drop-dead gorgeous female? Because it would be het? Because it's every boy's fantasy to fuck a milf? Second, the underaged guy, in question, was 15 -- one year under the age of consent in PA, but legal in other places. Then there is the issue that committing a crime at 15 in PA gets you tried as an adult. So it seems a little inconsistent to be outraged on one hand but ready and willing to send someone that age to a real prison if they committed a crime. If he were 13 years old, then I would be outraged, but by the time you are 15, you are already well into highschool and ought to be old enough to make informed sexual decisions for yourself. They may not be the best decisions, but people that age do have the capacity to make an informed one, should they so choose to do so. Personally, I find 15 to be way to immature for my own tastes, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it is some innocent child who didn't know what he was getting himself into.
As for it becoming a big news story, I highly doubt it. For one thing, the economy is so shitty these days that people have better things to worry about. You'll notice that missing white women and girls, which used to be the rage only two years ago, have a maximum life of 3 days on major news outlets. People just don't give as much of a fuck anymore, and for good reason. Plus, the next couple of weeks is going to be absolutely dominated by the fallout from GM's impending bankruptcy on Monday. This is huge news in the rust-belt states, like PA, where so many manufacturing jobs are at stake (parts suppliers, etc.). I bet the GM fallout will also bury this story in local coverage, as well.
When I first heard about it I actually facepalmed.
I just wonder what this will do to Anthrocon... Fortunately there's 4 weeks of news cycle before then so maybe some straight non-furry person will do something much worse in the meantime and everyone will forget about this mess.
>>The fandom can be an openly sexual community, and unfortunately, this can attract individuals like the one in question.
While we're on the topic of image, it might be appropriate to bring up of the subject of animal sexual abuse.
As you know, we have users on FA who have boasted, in their journals and on their submission pages, about their sexual abuse of animals. In your opinion, do these active zoophiles threaten the image of our fandom and of FA in the same manner that the actions of active pedophiles do?
For my part, I would say that the damage to us could be even more severe; after all. we are furries.
Mark
How far would these people have to go before you banned them as you banned Alan Panda?
Mark
Not damaged by art, or by imaginary stories, but by people who actually do, in real life, what so many furries are often accused of doing by trolls.
Mark
(cuz really, no one else said it? *shock*)
I really don't have anything more to say then what is in the comments, other then shaking my head at all the hate towards babyfurs D:
there are good babyfurs people, it IS possible D:
broad brush much, dude?
Makes me realize the government doesn't know jack about furries.
Thank god.
Please also consider that there are many behaviors that you probably wouldn't tolerate from people utilizing this site for purposes unrelated to that behavior. If you're aware that the user in question was utilizing the site to solicit minors, it definitely doesn't come off that way by what you said regarding the user's habits on the site.
I am only somewhat concerned that it may come off as unprofessional in the remote circumstance that this story isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you ended up banning somebody for some unsavory behavior that you don't want yourself or FA to be associated with for personal reasons, and then it turns out the criminal allegations are false, it would expose the banning's political nature; yet another drama fiasco waiting to happen, the way I see it.
Right now, most people will see that the ban was made understandably, although it is pretty much unnecessary if what you said in your journal is true. I would've weighed the consequences of getting personally involved in the matter by making a ban of a nature not strictly defined by a violation of the site's TOS, or else you'll find the inconsistency of banning one potential criminal bringing lots of people to lobby you personally to ban some more. Especially ones that have similar political rationalization, such as say, potential zoophiles, potential sex offenders, and so on.
From me to you, and speaking as somebody who's had to play admin PR a lot in the past, I just don't want people to say your bias / personal interests in this case are showing too much, or it might have the opposite effect of what you want and draw attention to yourself rather than letting the story go away on its own and stuff. GTK stuff !
and that the fandom (and this site) has been too open doors i'd say is part of the issue that people are debating. overly permissive leading to objectionable content.
p.s. suggesting that furries should all come together is geek social fallacy #1... that all ostracizers are evil. which isn't the case if you take the time to understand the group dynamics involved in this very very diverse group. that's like saying that since i'm a furry, i should accept things that turn my stomach for the sake of the community.
p.s. what's that last part have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure I didn't make that point at all, and it's off on an irrelevant tangent anyway....
Too late.
On that note, I'd also like to mention that I would love to talk to him and ask him what the holy fuck he was thinking...
Also you needn't worry about draconian measures being taken because there's already an arena where a limit similar to this one is in effect, and it hasn't affected pornography or horror: the public arena.
Just like interest taken in anthropomorphic animals for any other/additional reasons.
If you meant non-anthropomorphic animals you should have said so, though it would have had little relevance to furry.
Either stay on topic, or be more clear when you write.
On the other hand, if you wish to insinuate that because anthropomorphic animals share characteristics with real ones, liking erotic furry art is zoophilia, your reasoning will lead you to some obviously wrong conclusions.
i.e. Because someone likes to eat oranges, and oranges are citrus fruits, contain citric acids, contain sugar, and are have a "warm" color, they'll like eating limes. Because pale people and dead people share the characteristic of being pale, anybody who is attracted to a pale person is a necrophiliac. Because furry art and Jackson Pollock paintings both have paint, colors, and canvasses, all furries like Pollock paintings. I could go on.
Furthermore, if people with sexual interest in anthropomorphic animals were really just zoophiles, there would be no point in seeking out art to satisfy their desires other than that of zoomorphic animals.
They are the same in the same way that oranges are lemons and pale people are corpses. Having some properties in common doesn't automatically make two things members of the same group. I've already explained this.
>>"If one is getting off to the human aspect (which I find that very hard to believe), then they are pretty good at ignoring the rest of the content. If one is getting off to the animal aspect, then yeah, it's probably a safe bet that they find something about animals to be sexually attractive or arousing."
You're making a false dilemma here. You've just assumed that someone can't be attracted to the combination of animal and human features, as some completely different kind of creature.
Not all furries who find anthropomorphic animals attractive like zoomorphic animals that way. That's why they don't all seek out erotic art of them, as I explained.
I, for one, am not attracted to zoomorphic animals, but anthro ones can be quite nice. Also, dog dicks are gross. Two feet > four feet, unless it's a taur or a dragon.
>>"I don't really desire to verify this, but I'm quite certain that bestiality/zoophilia boards have forums dedicated to things furry. Isn't that the ultimate fantasy for a zoophile? To be sexually involved with an animal that walks and talks?"
Some do. The relevance is not obvious. Many *chan boards have sections for furry art, but that doesn't mean that most *chan board users are furries, or that the users of those subsections peruse the others. This very site has users like photographers and people who draw humans exclusively - their presence here doesn't mean anything.
Zoophiles fantasize about regular animals. Not all of them fantasize about anthropomorphic animals, just like people who fantasize about anthros don't all fantasize about four-legged aninmals. I don't know why you'd assume they would all like animal people, as an animal person has a different physical form and psychology, as you yourself mention.
Anthropomorphic animals have more traits in common than just bipedalism. There's the human frame and porportions, differences in digit placement, oftentimes facial structure, mammary placement, mammaries in general, etc.
One of your assumptions was that liking one thing with characteristics of a second thing entailed that you liked
the second thing too. It's false.
>>"The only differences are now it can walk, possibly talk (this isn't usually suggested in drawing) and may have an intellect that rivals our own (again, not usually suggested in drawing)."
People conceive of anthro characters as intelligent. This may not always be obvious from pictures, but mainstream anthro characters in films, comics, video games, and whatnot are often depicted that way, as are peoples character's in stories, in role playing, in art featuring tool use or speech bubbles, and most likely in peoples fantasies.
>>"The only differences are now it can walk, possibly talk (this isn't usually suggested in drawing) and may have an intellect that rivals our own (again, not usually suggested in drawing). It's not human, other than it possessing a humanoid type body, but it more represents an animal that actually exists and that we can relate to."
This is irrelevant. Sex with non-human species is wrong when they are not on equal footing with their masters and do not have the mental capacity to give informed consent. It's for this reason that sex with any real world species of animal we know of is wrong, and not because they look different from us.
Excluding tastes, sexual attraction to zoomorphic animals is repulsive because satisfaction of the desire requires wrongdoing - the infliction of harm on an innocent.
>>"Getting off to that walking horse doesn't necessarily mean you'll get off to it's four legged counterpart, I'll agree."
Okay, then we agree that liking animal people and liking zoomorphic animals are two different things, and one does not require the other.
>>"However, it wouldn't surprise me if you did, as Java, Wildwulf and Ebonlupus have demonstrated."
Statistically, furries have about the same amount of members with zoophilic tendencies as society as a whole.
>>"You're still getting off to some sort of animal attribute, regardless if you rationalize it as "hey man, he can walk and talk now, so it's cool", cause it isn't cool and it's still goofy and creepy."
I think your misunderstanding of the idea of anthropomorphism is pretty goofy. Your argument style of repeating certain claims over and over isn't too cool either.
As was described in the moments before the character met her execution, in the great short story 'The Dead Lady of Clown Town' http://www.webscription.net/chapter.....520953___2.htm .
When the soldiers had killed Charley-is-my-darling and were trying to hack off the head of the S-woman until one of them thought to freeze her into crystals, Joan said:
"Should we be strange to you, we animals of Earth that you have brought to the stars? We shared the same sun, the same oceans, the same sky. We are all from Manhome. How do you know that we would not have caught up with you if we had all stayed at home together? My people were dogs. They loved you before you made a woman-shaped thing out of my mother. Should I not love you still? The miracle is not that you have made people out of us. The miracle is that it took us so long to understand it. We are people now, and so are you. You will be sorry for what you are going to do to me, but remember that I shall love your sorrow, too, because great and good things will come out of it."
Maybe, but UNLIKE a zoophile, I DON'T want to be sexually involved with a animal that DOESN'T walk or talk.
Superhuman fantasy. Not subhuman.
That said, I'm glad the stupid sonofabitch got caught. What a tool...
http://lacy.timduru.org/gallery.php.....lder&id=75 and here it is.
Not everyone is into the whole fursuit thing. Some are just in it for the art.
As far as I can tell, we're now mostly Russian. :)
Mark
Mark
And I must be honest: Some people sure are overracting, especially in cases like this. Even though bad media is trying is defamate the furry community, most of the people are still wise and won't swallow the bad information straight away.
And you know people, the criminals who are accusing their own illeagal or unmoral act to be "someone else's" fault than their own: Those people are just pathetic. If people can't take responsibility of their own act, shame on them. End of story.
...Berlin identified himself as Alan The Panda with interests in baking, board games, classical music, fine dining, movies, travel, wine -- and diapers. The cartoon panda on his Pounced.org page wears a diaper.
..."I am looking for a babyfur to be my mate and companion in a long-term committed relationship," he wrote. "I've been thinking quite a bit lately about where I am in life and what I'm looking for." The site said he was single, seeking a male ages 20 to 25 -- someone who can "enjoy being babied."
............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
-Black Tie
THIS.
The louder voice is always the most heard.
lololol
Like it or not, the fandom is full of social outcasts, many who have never had a normal social life and end up immersing themselves way too deeply into this fantasy world where they think everything is okay as long as it's their character doing it, not themselves.
That said, a big breaking story like this was f'n bound to happen. The fandom is full of people that lack any good judgment at all. We put up with them online all the time and they do a great job filling up Encyclopedia Dramatica's "Furry Fandom Portal". Unfortunately, we also deal with them in the real life at cons, local furry meets, and in the more extreme situations really bad roommate decisions.
Basically, we all should have a good idea what we signed up for getting into a fandom full of fuck-ups. If you can't roll with the punches and laugh at stupid people when the dumbest of the dumb end up in the media, you really shouldn't make yourself too visible in the fandom.
ack! real thigs sucks.
I liked furry a lot more when it was far more obscure...
FurryMUCK and such, and nowadays everyone who knows SL knows furries and hates them. (And I hate most of SL furries too specially those with poorly recolored avs)
I have been in the fandom for a long time and i have seen the rise of every group in furry and now there is HUGE rise in child porn and people who are interested in that.
lol Thanks for the laugh.
which it really shouldn't be.
***
Furry: "Hmm... have you ever had a sexual fantasy about bugs bunny, Taz or any other animated character?"
Furry: "Taz... check"
Liscence: *BING*
Furry: "Baloo the Bear"
Liscence: *BING*
Furry: "Hugs and Tugs bear"
Liscence: *BZZZZT "FAILFAILFAIL"*
Furry: (Launched into the air violently)
Mark
Definitely NOT a good year for furry fandom, is it?
Get back on topic, plz.
(Yes. He's a furry too)
soo... with this new case (and the precident it's set) cub porn actually COULD shut down FA or any other art site that hosts it in the US?
that's news i like hearing >:)
I love you dragoneer >:c
<3
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
That makes me kinda sad to be a furry..s eriously ._.
If people can make all these other types of furry art websites why don't the babyfurs(who are into the porn aspect) make their own website and leave FA alone?
._. Just a thought that passed through my head.
I'd feel more comfortable in this site especially after these if cub porn was banned.
I dunno.
I'm just... thinking and typing...
Nope, this is just the eventual result of years of allowing every sick fuck to slime their way in and associate their stupidity with furry fandom (thanks loads, Merlino!) in an attempt to legitimize their illegal fetish.
ANTHROCOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!
Let the great furry cleansing begin hah!
heres some quotes from LJ that I feel cover this quite well:
"He is a disgusting pedophile who used the furry world, my world, as a way to feed his perversion."
"Good. Prisons need more real criminals, and the fandom needs less pedophiles"
also anyone know what panda suit he had? cops said they didnt find it. and no its not the same one from the maker of his other suit that people have already found out about.
....good luck at the cons you guys hahahaha
Cheers.
-Z
Stories like this only make headlines because ignorant parents aren't doing what needs to be done.
Oh, and stop calling him a pedophile. Unless something specifically states he looked for prepubescent people (12 and under, in other words CHILDREN), he's not a pedophile. There's a different word for people who are attracted to teenagers (internet claims it's ephebophilia), but get your terminology straight. Until then, I'm just to assume you idiots are members of Focus on the Family.
Seriously, you're all running around like a bunch of christians with their bibles high in the air.
I THINK the age of consent in PA is 16... But still, the dude was like, 40. And that's just creepy... If he was like, early-mid 20's, I don' think it'd be THAT big of a deal.
Besides, how many furries here do you think rub one off to porn involving teenagers? Or teenager appearing characters? How many people pleasure themselves to Tails? (he's 8 in the video games and 4.5 in the tv series, by the way, according to Sega) So, yeah, hypocrites much?
[sup]
… ‘ squeezing one off to an imaginary, non-existent creature ’ …[sup]But Dragoneer, dahling … is it unacceptably wierd to rub one out over prawhnz of your scalie-mon self?
*facepalm*
This going to be a small topic at Islington furmeet..i just know it...
"The Furry Fandom is a large collection of individuals who share similar interests in anthropomorphic themes across art, literature, and costuming. It does not encourage sexual actions with minors, nor does it condone them. There is a chance, regrettably, that there are members among the Furry Fandom who may perform illegal or reprehensible actions - much as any other open-membership group would have. However, these individuals are not indicative of the majority of the Furry Fandom, and their actions are not supported or condoned by the Furry Fandom."
General enough statement?
But if you assume that is how it'll be with no effort to change it, then that's how it'll be.
I'm not exactly the type willing to accept that.
But you agree it's a good enough statement, yes? Then send it to the writers and editors of those articles. Try to convince big names in the fandom, those who run sites and cons, to send that message out.
*shrug*
thing is, we can't get rid of cub-porn (the really nasty shit) as that would be evil and censorship and all orwellian and all that razzmatazz that people like to spout. oh, and don't forget the bullshit "slippery slope" argument about "well, what's next then? Macro? beastiality? Vore?"
and this last point (which really makes me sick) is that we can only catch them when they're red handed... and knowing what victims of rape and pedophilia have to deal with, that's just not good enough.
and i'm willing to say it. i don't care if people think i'm a dick, asshole, douchebag or whatever. this fandom needs a serious kick in the ass and though i am not going to be the one to do it (i'm not in any position to do so) i WILL state my opinion on the matter.
If I don't like it, I don't look at it, and I press the back button. I've unseen worse.
Now, there are certain behaviors I will make it known I don't think is sane/right/tolerable, mainly to do with diapers, and actual touching of children. But ageplay stuff isn't all that bad, and in moderation the cubspeak can be kinda cute.
Damn studs.
However, the art I can live with. Wearing sleepers at home I can live it. IRL in person behaviors? No.
LOLOLOL
I think social fallacy #1 is especially applicable to the furry fandom.
Someone was brilliant enough to bring up the fact that the parents were apparently completely unaware of the online conversations between the 15-year-old and Alan_Panda. 15 is old enough to be responsible for words and actions, and young enough to be subject to parental oversight. I'm not blaming the parents OR the kid here, but responsibility is responsibility - there's plenty to go around. I'm not blaming the fandom for apparently welcoming this guy, either, but maybe we should rethink things a little - and I welcome the dr4m4 that may result from said rethinking. I know I will still be around after the dust clears.
---
Whoooaaa... Holy. Shit. Right now, on Hoda and Kathy Lee (I know, garbage lol) they are talking about a live show with PEOPLE DRESSED IN ANIMAL SUITS performing a review for young children in Tampa, FL. Some outfit named Party Animals, apparently a troupe that travels from city to city. Im gonna have to google this. It could be danger to good, white American kids!
(I can just see crowds of angry, illiterate fundies outside the venue awaiting their chance to get the guy in the turkey suit)
and yes, i agree with you. that this fandom has so many pedo-positive things going for it and the permissive and supporting atmosphere regarding it, i'm surprised that there haven't been more caught as of late (though that makes me cringe thinking of the ones that aren't seen... guess they're kinda like cockroaches. stomp one, miss 100)
if they were to ignore the votes based off of fallacies and slippery slope arguments, i'd bet that this wouldn't have happened (well, at least here on FA.)
In any case I think it's all pretty well FUBAR now. Glad I never got more involved in it than I did.
Compare it to the way some OTHER organizations deal with that issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_.....ex_abuse_cases
}:>
"Well, thanks to the Internet... I'm now bored with sex."
- Fry, Futurama
Furry in the house (Parody of Cory in the House)
Whoo!
Yeah!
Yeah. What's up?
Go Furry! (Go, go!)
Go Furry! (go, go, go, go!)
Listen up: here we go!
I'm the freak show, watching you,
getting it done.
and I'm officially the candidate
for having some yiff. You know
(you better get out Furry)
(yea yea)
I'm talking 'bout all-out yiffing
and we're getting it started.
Mr. President, do you mind some preteen yiffing?
Washington D.C wil be never the same.
cuz we've got a
Furry, Furry, Furry
in the House.
yea. It's a scandal every week, baby
Furry, Furry, Furry
Check it out.
That's right, I'm in the House
He's gonna sex it up and ruin it (yiff it up)
Take it all and rearrange it (just a little girl)
Got a new scandal, Hey Uncle Sam!(look out kids)
we've got a Furry in the House (yiff-ing!)
Furry in the House!
I'm your furry!
I know I know, I'm going to hell for what I've done XD;; *shot for ruining the furry name and making a bad song worse*
how would you like the first gay sex you had to be with this maroon? yik http://www.furaffinity.net/img/smilies/retard.png
As far as I'm concerned, this guy doesn't exist, he never existed, he's not a furry because he never existed, and I don't care who he is or what he did because he's not part of the same crowd of people I associate with because he never existed. But that's just me.
People need to stop making this such a big crusade against FURSECUTERS, keep their fetishes to themselves and generally get out of the house and find other hobbies.
though, some will do so for entirely selfish means (i mean, how many people whom watch Dragoneer truly do it because his art is good? i'd bet there are at least 10 furries that wartch him simply because he's the site owner.)
I am NOT making a crusade against fursecuters, in fact I was speaking to just the opposite in imploring that people do NOT get into fights with the protesters that will be at AC, because the conditions for one side or the other to start a fight will be rife, and the fight will undoubtedly be seen by most of the populace as started by the furries whether or not it actually was. In addition to this, the news will undoubtedly also have crews there because we're high visibility at the moment. We don't need more bad publicity.
FUCK
"If you're going fuck up and do something like this get the hell out of this fandom first."
I am NOT making a crusade against fursecuters, in fact I was speaking to just the opposite in imploring that people do NOT get into fights with the protesters that will be at AC, because the conditions for one side or the other to start a fight will be rife, and the fight will undoubtedly be seen by most of the populace as started by the furries whether or not it actually was. In addition to this, the news will undoubtedly also have crews there because we're high visibility at the moment. We don't need more bad publicity.
I got class mates that know I'm a furfag, and it wouldn't suprpise me if more knew, but I live in Sweden, so we won't even this news here.
I´m just curious :3