Too bad she won't draw male/male art, and won't say why. I don't trust that she doesn't have some sort of prejudice.

Unless she's changed since I found out what I found out.

If you had checked the commission info tab of my FA page, you'd see that I lifted the gay porn ban a long time go. :T
What prejudice are you talking about? Everyone has a preference on what they like, and don't like to draw.

Glad to hear you did that! I just recall (and cannot find) a comment exchange where I felt like you actually had, like, a moral problem with homosexuality.

Glad I was wrong! ~:>

Why should she or any artist feel obligated to draw anything? Why is she obligated to explain herself to anyone about what she will or won't draw or why she does or doesn't draw something? Sounds to me you are making a judgement on an artist based on them drawing something you personally like to see. Is that how you want people to approach you? If you like M/M things do you want them coming to you grilling you about why you don't like M/F things or F/F? Do you feel obligated to explain your sexual preference in art towards complete strangers for their own satisfaction to check and make sure you are "OK" under you personal philosophies and way of thinking? To quantify if you're ok to be 'trusted' based on you liking thing thing they happen to like and find socially acceptable?

I guess the bottom line of what I'm trying to say is, "WHO ARE YOU?"

I don't understand most of that post.

As to who I am, I'm a bisexual/gay furry that's interested not only in gay furry art for sexual reasons, but also interested in combating anti-LGBT bias in all shapes and forms. I had picked up a hint of anti-LGBT bias in a series of comments with Kayla, and from my perspective, she didn't seem to want to make it clear that she didn't have such a bias. However, I was clearly wrong and am glad that I was so.

I don't like Gay or Lesbian porn, that is my preference. I didn't say I didn't like people that were gay or lesbian themselves.

I believe you.

But my point is, who are you for anybody to have to explain themselves to? I'm glad you had your misgivings corrected but I'm just saying, people shouldn't feel obligated to explain themselves to complete strangers on an opinion they have. If you preferred Strawberry Jam over Grape Jelly, it wouldn't be my place to come to you (someone you don't know) and demand you tell me why you like Strawberry over Grape.

That's all I'm saying.

I am these:
1. A potential commissioner
2. An LGBT activist

I don't know where you came up with "obligation." I sure don't see that word used or implied.

Quote- "Too bad she won't draw male/male art, and won't say why. I don't trust that she doesn't have some sort of prejudice."

Obligation comes from the "won't say why" portion. As in she has an obligation to explain to someone (would have at the time assumed you since you asked the question) of why she will or won't draw m/m art.

People shouldn't take offense if someone decides they do or don't want to draw certain subject matter and it shouldn't automatically lead to that person being "prejudice" if they don't want to draw m/m or f/f art. There are m/m artist who won't draw m/f or f art and their moral standing is never questioned. That's all I'm saying.

As for being a LGBT activist, no offense, looking at one's own biases first may should be a priority before questioning other people's just saying. Having one's own house in order and all.

I don't understand the link between "she won't tell me why" and "she is obligated to tell me why."

Obligate - To bind, compel, or constrain by a social, legal, or moral tie.

She won't tell you why. Why should she tell you why? Why should she be compelled to tell you why. Why is she bound to tell you why? Why is she obligated to tell you why. Why YOU. Why are you one for her to offer this information up for? Why should it matter if she does or does not tell you why? Why ask why?

Can you show me where I bound, compelled, or constrained?

You compelled when you made this statement "I don't trust that she doesn't have some sort of prejudice."

Compel - com·pel
   [kuhm-pel] Show IPA verb, com·pelled, com·pel·ling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to force or drive, especially to a course of action

By making the statement you did she would be forced to answer the charge of being prejudice to disprove the accusation of your mistrust of her on the topic. If she says nothing and ignores your request, it would lead to probably proving to you that she is prejudice which would be a blight on her reputation and labeling her a sexual orientation bigot. If she answers you, she is doing so not of her own choice but simply to dispel this accusation, thus making you happy.

The root question again is why should she have to answer to this scrutiny at all? She initial statement should have been enough without the addition of exterior motives beyond what she initially said.

But come to think of it, she didn't even bring up any sort of orientation bias in the original post of this journal at all. That was something you introduced in your original comment.

Now really, no offense, being an activist and all, I'm going to assume when you do your advocating you do so with a command of the English language to best communicate you position for others to understand. If I haven't made my point clear by now, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to find any other way to express myself to you in English that would be understandable .

You still haven't shown a link between asking a question and compelling the person being asked to answer it. You just talked a lot.


The root question again is why should she have to answer to this scrutiny at all? She initial statement should have been enough without the addition of exterior motives beyond what she initially said.

She does not have to answer to this scrutiny at all. Her obligation to answer is equal to my obligation to cede that the initial statement was "enough without the addition of exterior motives beyond what she initially said." That is to say none.


But come to think of it, she didn't even bring up any sort of orientation bias in the original post of this journal at all. That was something you introduced in your original comment.

This journal isn't even in Kayla's account, so what on earth are you talking about?


Now really, no offense, being an activist and all, I'm going to assume when you do your advocating you do so with a command of the English language to best communicate you position for others to understand.

Okay, if we're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, you misspelled "you" in "communicate your position."

Do you have anything substantial to add, or are we done here?

Why. Why Kayla and Razr. Why must you be awake when I am in dream land? Damn you, England! Y U SLEEP WHEN ALL AWAKE.

xD we just like to hide from ya