Article From NM

(Welp. I'm going to use their own creation against them. You'll see why in my article on these "maga-papers".)

I think there were a few good points in here, but the rest of the article really kills the good. If you hack out 80% of this article and keep only the good paragraphs, you might have something. The hilarious thing is, there's more to this than meets they eye.

There are a lot of upcoming-city local pop/college publishers (Boston's got the Weekly Dig for example) that love to be on the "pulsing vein of culture itself" and produce weekly papers with soft covers, creating this new generation of "maga-papers" (MP's). As much as I love the Dig and the style of "f**k traditional journalism!" journalism at times, it really is more about 30-somethings trying to stay hip with the college crowd while simultaneously alienating their readers. They'll do it in tiny chunks so that not everyone's insulted all the time, mind you. After all, their target audience are your jaw-slacking late high school/college types whose pseudo-savvy with words and rebellious ideals keep 4chan running.

What's funny is, these MP's really create a niche in culture unto itself, where knowing a little about everything is better than knowing a lot about something. Backed by a constant stream of anger towards how things work and the angst of the early 20's and a love for city culture like trendy places to eat, local concerts and microbreweries, their reader base really carves out a notch of their own. At times, it's almost like a casual reader belongs with the crowd. Their comics and local flavor/attitude help establish someone but after an issue or two it becomes readily apparent that: No, you're not as cool as these folks; no, you're not as angry and cutting-edge as they are and above all; no, a trained monkey with a pack of basics, a JD hangover from the breakup a week ago and a life losing meaning due to 'the system' can't make a publication better than them.

Furries are just a scapegoat in the long run. In the end, they'll pick on a bunch of specialist groups and focus on their negative aspects, using them as an overtone for a "positive" article. Feeling negatively about something in a positive light makes it ok, you see. Progressive social groups whether they be charities or fetish folk who come out in public to make a contribution to society, will be targeted all the same due tot he fact that their readers are most likely not a part of them. In fact, it's hard to imagine your average reader of the MP's that's a die-hard about it does, much of anything other than pub crawl and hit up the internet hate machine when they get home at night.

Oh wait, I'm spinning a positive group of social progressives in a negative light, aren't I? Well, you must admit that these publications really are necessary to making competent members of society. Without that initial spark, where's the energy to get these kids on the train to being a better person? Anger and surface understanding is an easy path, but does allow for a lot of people to alter their perception and get out there to do something worthwhile. Who knows? Maybe that next article about the plight of southern Mexico's guerrilla war or the plight of moderate Muslims living in Europe might actually get someone to get active.

Damn. See, there I go. Taking a point, spinning it negatively, turning it around and made you forget my original point, didn't I? That's how easy it is. Ten minutes and a half-smirk about how clever I'm being. Trust me folks, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't get angry about how wrong they are or how little fact-checking they did, instead, laugh at them for needing to open up Pandora's Box to get attention to begin with. We know furries are a terrific group and sure, there's some sexual deviance from the norm. In the end, we're different on the outside and inside in a lot of cases, and it's easy to point us out.

Stay the course. We're still awesome.

~Tyler Barg

"Grain of salt" indeed... either he got trolled and isn't willing to admit to it, or he left it in as the flame fodder it clearly is. Nice how he never owns up to the last line and the decidedly negative impression it leaves, too.

One could imagine how much better an interview with Kage would have gone, but this makes me wonder---we don't really have many knowledgeable, media-savvy representatives of the fandom out there, do we?

Ed complains that every time the media comes out to interview Furries, some pervert will go right for the camera and talk about screwing dogs.

Or 400-pound men abusing the elevators at furry cons.

-- 
iSKUNK!

Let me check the count. I'd bet it's more than "every other" and would be more than 1/2 the paragraphs.

Paragraphs 1 & 2 (I count the 2 sentences as paragraph 2), no mention.

Paragraph 3:
"Sexuality certainly plays a part—" and nearly 1/2 the paragraph is about sex.

Paragraph 4:
"Furries are even touchier about the 2001 Vanity Fair feature," and most of the paragraph is about sex.

Paragraph 5:
"Furries indulge their needs to touch and be touched without shame.
"it’s easy to believe they are the 21st century’s libertines."

Paragraph 6: no sex.

Paragraph 7: "For Furries, it’s a fandom, a hobby and a lifestyle, not a fetish."
This paragraph contradicts the other paragraphs so far,
but isn't about sex.

Paragraph 8-20 are all about the bear fursuiter, and are NOT about sex.
Not bad for 12 paragraphs.

(Subject change starting Paragraph 21...)

Paragraph 21-22, not about sex. We make up for that with 22.

Paragraph 22: " His identification with the Furry community could be a combination of factors:"
"that his sexuality is always in flux. He’s settled on the term “trisexual,” which is kind of like a sexual agnostic. He’s willing to try anything once."
Therefore, furry identification is connected to sex.

Paragraph 23-32, not about sex, about radio and so on.
Not bad-if the rest of the article conformed.

Paragraph 33: "The condition hasn’t stopped him from finding a mate,"
which comes in out of nowhere to open the paragraph.

Paragraph 34-35, not about sex.

Paragraph 36, we switch subjects again, now focusing entirely on sex.
Paragraph 36 begins with a non-furry who's never interacted significantly with the
furry community, who has no degrees in any academic pursuit, but bills herself as
a sex expert, and is consulted both in the Vanity Fair article and here to cement
the sex-furry connection in people's minds, as if she's qualified to speak on the
subject.
Special irony is that the article includes the words
"admits she’s guilty of over-emphasizing the sexual side of Furry fandom"
and the article does it AGAIN while saying so.

36-42 are entirely about sex.
Paragraph 43 sneaks in:
"Although untrained, Gates considers herself almost a social anthropologist,"

Although untrained, I'm diagnosing her as a twit.

43-55 actually don't get into sex, partially because Dr Gerbasi, who IS a licensed
professional, is quoted here.

Paragraph 56 is when the other guy comes in, where he claims Dr G's making the
community sound too clean.
Paragraph 57 is when he said the Vanity Fair article was the furries' fault.
I'd say both were to draw the connections as well, and I'd count them towards the total.
Paragraph 58-59 move in that direction as well. I'd count 59 as pushing that "agenda."

Paragraph 60:"“In 2001-2002, people were yiffing in the hallways, having orgy rooms everywhere and over 80 percent of the artwork was dirty,”
the paragraph specifies furry=sex maniac.

Paragraph 61:"back in the 1970s organizers were disappointed at the convention turnout, and started selling it as an alternative lifestyle to attract gays, sado-masochists and swingers to fill out their numbers."
Interesting comment, considering that furries first had ANY fur convention of ANY
size in 1987. http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/History
(How hard was it to find that? Less than 1 minute if you know about Wikifur.
I typed in "history" in the searchbar and that was the article that came up.)

Paragraph 62:"“Once they realize they’re accepted by Furries, they start crying more and more for that acceptance and getting yiffy all the time.”

Paragraph 63. no sex.
Paragraph 64 is about bestiality. He implies anywhere up to 70% of furries would engage
in that activity.

Paragraph 65:"“[Furries] are into it, but it’s just to what degree,” he says, matter-of-factly. “When it comes to bestiality, it’s still a major hush-hush, because it’s illegal. I’ll tell you many, many more Furs are into that stuff than what they’re willing to admit. They’ll tell when they get to know you.”

So, the fact that all of us have said "we're not into this" isn't us telling the
truth, it's us HIDING the truth.

Paragraph 66 says that Paragraph 65 may not apply to the NM guys in the article.
Which pretty much contradicts what they just said.

The last section is back to NM,
where we see the NM "exceptions" getting ready to have sex.
At least, that's what we're being led to believe, this is the prologue for an orgy.

"As the car pulls away, he considers the question of what might happen next back at Fur Central.
He answers: “I don’t think you want to know.”"

I stopped counting, but then, I've had enough.

It seems roughly 50% of the article, and the 50% that it is, is pretty consistent
in portraying an image of "sex and perversion".

Just send me all your possessions and get back to the farm.