Questions for Russian furry fans about anti-gay oppression
Posted by Patch Packrat on Tue 30 Jul 2013 - 02:18 —
Edited by GreenReaper, aquariusotter as of Tue 2 Feb 2021 - 07:24
Sometimes resented, but real, there is overlap of different groups that some might call a "furry/gay axis". It brings theories, stereotypes, appreciation and much discussion.
Does it happen in Russia too? Do some Russian furry fans wear rainbows as often as some in North America? Do they fear Russia's anti-gay oppression in current world news? Would they think twice about costuming in public, or holding meets, if they might be charged with illegally spreading information about "non-traditional sexual behavior"?
Is there a place on the web where international furry fans can easily connect with Russian furs to ask about their opinions and experiences?
[Image: Standing Proud by Taurin Fox]
About the authorPatch Packrat — read stories — contact (login required)
Fursuiter and unconditional linty hugger
Apart from common social networks (where you can find many Russian furs and furry communities), you can try to contact Russians on http://yiff.ru/forum.yiff forum. There's no other place that I know of where most of the Russian furs would be.
And myself (I'm bi), I'm not actively expressing my orientation in public, because homophobia in Russia existed always, even before that law was created. At furry events, it's okay, though, and most of furs that know me know of my orientation. What concerns me is that definition of "propaganda" in the law we are referring to is so vague, anything might be considered propaganda if need arises. For example, two same-sex furs (fursuits or not, doesn't matter) hugging in public to greet each other.
I'm a danish film director, and I would like to get in touch with one of you furry fans! I've found the furry-community very interesting for a while, but haven't been considering the whole LGBT aspect in it! I would like to get in touch and hope some of you will talk to me about it! I will be in Moscow until February!
Please email me for more information! Josephine.firstname.lastname@example.org
Well, I'd like to say that OF COURSE Russian gays feel oppressed. First reason - Russian mentality. And the second reason are the gays themselves - there's no need in propagandising their behavior. I have nothing personal (i'm bisexual), really, but, well, they do have their rights, actually. Louder they shout and less they have then. Okay, gay marriages are restricted in most countries. But hey, do they really need A PIECE OF PAPER which tells they're married? Why can't they just live together without that piece of paper? About kids. Oh yeah, kids, they're CUTE and stuff. But gays are kids themselves mostly! And by "gays" here I mean these guys who shout about their "rights". I believe it's like a lil' girl asking her mother for a doll. And, well, gays should know they just physically can't make them, so being a gay you choose to not have kids, right?
One my furry friend once explained that there are "gays" and "homosexuals" (I don't know, maybe that works just for Russians). By "gays" he meant these guys who yell about rights and other stuff they do on parades and by "homosexuals" he meant himself - he just don't need these parades, he knows his rights and he's quite happy with his boyfriend WITHOUT a piece of paper declaring them married. He doesn't shout "I'M GAY AND THAT'S COOL", he doesn't wear skintight pants and T-shirt of annoyingly bright and incongrous colors to just walk. And what do you think? He doesn't feel oppression!
So, two things, okay, at least one thing they should do to stop being oppressed - do not show their interests to EVERYONE or they should show them a very-very little. I don't say to stop being gay, it's their thoughts, their choice, but even just being a furry in country like Russia you MUST control your interests, and, i'll say it again, there's no need to shout about "IM TEH FURRY" on each corner.
Hayao, I agree with most of this, except:
1. Married people can legally share their belongings, and inherit their partner's realty and money in the unfortunate case of death. Also, they legally count as a family when, for example, no one but the family is allowed to visit someone in the hospital. This is the reason to marry.
2. I'm against gay parades myself, but the simple things like holding hands or kissing in public now can be called propaganda and lead to arrest.
Yup. That's Russia for us!
There's an explanation and i'll say about it third time here - RUSSIAN MENTALITY.
for english native speakers: sorry for my english =^///^///^=
Ive changed "mentality" of a lot people surrounding me.
All of ma friends
Know that im bi.
Even my buisness partners, i didnt make an "official coming out" to them but i cant remember when ive heard homophobian joke from them last time, because they all know my position.
Make your life your own pride parade. Make hundreds people around you respect you and your position, so when they hear the word "gay" next time they will remember your face, the face of their friend, job partner, brother, son, or just a well-mannered neighbor, and think "gay? So what. Being gay Is okay"...
Ah, hallo from Moscow ^^
I think you're stuck in a loop. Since marriage is a mark of maturity, you see gays asking for marriage as children because they're not married.
I would agree not to put the star of David on one's self if it's unnecessary, however, being discreet has its disadvantages too. It makes it far easier to bully someone if they are alone as an individual. It makes it harder for the individuals to network with those sympathetic to their identity, just as much as it protects them from those who are less so.
There is a balance to these things, the thing is being worried about the judgement of individuals will always be a concern no matter what walk of life one comes from. Really, governments shouldn't be involved in the inter-relationship concerns. If it is a religious practice, then the government's involvement is the government acting on behalf of the religion. (That being said, while I do think gays should have the right to get married, they should not have the right to perform the ceremony everywhere, a particular church should always have the right to decline, the state however, should not.)
Marriage is a bit more then just "Oh we're a couple" legally, it comes with a whole crapload of benefits. In the US for example you have the ability hand off social security benefits to them should you die earlier, less taxes, etc.
I would like to strongly dispute this common Russian theme about "propaganda", at least that coming from Russian English-speakers.
The reason why LGBT people hold pride parades and make efforts to celebrate LGBT identity in places like the United States, Germany, Brazil and elsewhere is because of how LGBT people were treated when there were no pride parades.
When people celebrate Pride, it's a rejection of all of those treatments and an embracing of their orientation. Offense on the basis of how "annoying" it looks, or how un-[insert name of country/continent here]-like it is, is logically unsound, as any of these displays usually do not vocally shame heterosexuals or demean their heterosexuality. So why is shame and annoyance only reserved for those who dress differently? Why is shame and annoyance only reserved for those who protest against brutality or for civil protections? Why is shame and annoyance only reserved for those who live openly as gay couples?
I mean, does any of what you said in your comment come off as a wee bit hypocritical? Isn't it cognitively dissonant to describe LGBT parades as "propaganda" to "recruit minors" (because we're totally a bunch of pedophiles who are ignorant of ages of consent) while LGBT people have been thoroughly demeaned and shamed through the educational and ritual propaganda of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) for 2000+ years?
Anyway, it is a misnomer to say that Russian LGBT people have their rights in the present, especially when few civil protections exist for people in the Russian Federation based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The way that such arguments come off is similar to the way that Christian fundamentalists in the US tell gays and lesbians that they are "already free to marry, just to the opposite sex." It comes off as "I won't try to make your life Hell on Earth, just as long as you know your place."
The sense of offense felt by Christians and Muslims, no matter where they are, to events like Pride parades or movies showing gay men kissing is utterly undeserved, untenable, unrealistic and unnecessary.
> is because of how LGBT people were treated when there were no pride parades.
Liberalism! That's why it works in USA and Europe.
I don't want to talk about politics, but that definitely won't work here, in Russia, at least in next 50-100 years (yup, huge number). Because of - i'm sorry for repeating it again and again - IMHO Russian mentality and lots of issues coming from it. I believe one of these issues comes from USSR (1921-1991), when government did GREAT AND HUGE job in ideological education and stuff. People piously believed in everything government said, so i think that "total Russian homophobia" comes from these times, when being homosexual was ILLEGAL. A few quite high officials in USSR were homosexuals, such as Nikolay Ezhov (dunno if english wiki has info about it), and despite how great they did their job (by job i mean for government itself) and how they were important - they were executed. Of course people were thinking something like "if government said that being homosexual is BAD, so it's true!". Look, just 20-30 years have passed as USSR collapsed and, of course, mentality changed a very-very bit.
>while LGBT people have been thoroughly demeaned and shamed through the educational and ritual propaganda of Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) for 2000+ years?
Do you want to change religions? Sorry, that was the first thought i got after reading that sentence.
As for describing parades as a "propaganda" - whaddya think? Russian mentality. Here in Russia everything strange and new usually gets negative reaction. Well, actually it's a normal reaction for 90% people EVERYWHERE, but here, i'd say, such things, when lot of gays dressed in bright clothes, may be perceived as a "propaganda".
>does any of what you said in your comment come off as a wee bit hypocritical?
> So why is shame and annoyance only reserved for those who dress differently? Why is shame and annoyance only reserved for those who protest against brutality or for civil protections? Why is shame and annoyance only reserved for those who live openly as gay couples?
You know, I keep thinking about it every freaking time I receive evil ironies after telling about my interests.
Listening to Pink Floyd? The Beatles? "LOL WHAT A SHITTY MUSIC"
Drawing strange anthropomorphic foxes? "LOL YOU'RE FREAKING NERD"
Long hair? "HAHHAHAHA LOL YOU'RE A GIRL"
Once I even got punched just for wearing fox tail. JUST BECAUSE I LOOKED ODD FOR SOMEBODY.
Is it enough to explain why the best way to gays in Russia (and everything ODD for most of Russian people) be a bit more quiet? Just try to make these parades not for ALL PEOPLE? Like renting a huge apartment to "celebrate" that? Like we furries do?
P.S. Sorry for my English and may be for a lil' incoherence in my comment.
Indeed, many country's politics saw homosexuality as evil, and many are still devided in this aspect. If you go into the UK you had the history of Alan Turing who was kicked out of the military in the 1950s when he came out of the closet. Since he could only do the science he loved with the country's backing, he killed himself as a result.
In the 70s the scientific community in the US was still stating that homosexuality was in fact a mental disease and thus could get you placed in a loony-bin, where I visited one last year and trust me even by today's standards they will make you nuts if you're there long enough. I was only there for 5 hours and ick... I'd rather be in isolation then in a hall with individuals randomly crying looking at you with crazy shifty eyes. Sadly, what it took for the psychology community to change their mind was heckling of their homosexual lectures.
Networking is a powerful force, and it's why governments that don't want to see changes try to stiffle them by making the meetings themselves illegal. Basically what Russia is doing would really fall under question of freedom of assembly if it were to happen in the US.
What you're saying by "Russian mentality" I think you're saying it's more a political issue tied with perceptions of nationalism and country pride. That's not unusual in the US either that ideas are dealt with the lenses of it being "unAmerican".
I've always thought of it this way: Find me a man who's blindly in love with their nation, and I'll find you a man who doesn't see anything of quality in themselves as an individual.
> If you go into the UK you had the history of Alan Turing who was kicked out of the military in the 1950s when he came out of the closet. Since he could only do the science he loved with the country's backing, he killed himself as a result.
Yeah, Alan Turing. That's an ideal example. At least British government in 2009 officially apologised. In 2009.
> it's more a political issue tied with perceptions of nationalism and country pride. That's not unusual in the US either that ideas are dealt with the lenses of it being "unAmerican".
Well, if we'll look deeper in history - yes, it's more a political issue, but still combined with mentality.
I think I have nothing more to say. ^^^
Because your bigoted post obviously shows that you lack an understanding of what you are really talking about, from the viewpoint of the American fight for gay rights, Let me tell you a thing.
From the late 1800's to the 1950's there was no such thing as gay people. That doesn't mean that people were not homosexuals, that just means that you were not allowed to come out. You were not allowed to show it in any way shape or form. It was to remain only in your mind, and never acted on. You were supposed to pretend to be straight and exude masculinity. You were supposed to marry a girl you didn't love, have children you didn't want, and live out a hollow existence as a ghost of a man. If you ever were caught displaying any kind of homosexual behavior you would loose your job, loose your wife, your kids, your home, your job. It was legal to discriminate in housing then. No one would rent to a homosexual. No one would sell to a homosexual. Often, if you were found to be a homosexual you would be declared legally insane. You would sometimes be carted off to a mental institution for drugging and shock therapy, or to a prison where you would probably be killed by other inmates, or you would be made a sex offender, and not allowed to show your face in public.
Then the 60's happened and in the communes, and Haigt Ashburry, and New York, those social barriers came down. Blacks met whites, white men met homosexual men, and Asians and so on. Following that it gave us gay people the courage to stand up and carry a banner and come out, just little, even if it was just in what had become our own neighborhoods. But even those weren't safe. The police would regularly raid. They would arrest without suspicion, unconstitutionally. They sometimes would not even go that far. Sometimes they would just drag us into an alleyway and beat us to a pulp, then pin the crime on blacks or some such. It wouldn't always be police too. The Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans was locked, and torched from the outside. 32 men, and one of their mothers died. Burned to death. Melted to the walls. Their only crime was being gay. The police never prosecuted for the crime, despite someone repeatedly, and loudly, taking claim for the arson. The men were left by the fire department for three days, one of the victims half hanging out the window, as a moral warning. We took the name "Gay" and took on the idea of ourselves as a minority. Along came a man named Harvey Milk, the first openly homosexual man elected to office in the united states. He was a San Francisco City Supervisor. Among his work to defeat a bill that would have fired all homosexual schoolteachers fired in the state of California he secured gay rights in the city, and solidified a lot of minority neighborhoods together and but a brief stop to a lot of deep seeded hate. For this, and being gay, he and mayor Moscone were assassinated by fellow city supervisor Dan White, who served 5 years in jail. He got off easy, because he claimed that his judgement was impaired because he ate too much junk food, and because one of the men he killed was "Just a homosexual". It was a kangaroo court. Following that, Aids came about, and we started dying by the hundreds. Our Family. See, because of all this gay people had no Family. They were each others family, and everyone knew everyone. So imagine if a third of your family started dropping dead, and no one had any clue why, except apparently the Christians, who claimed it was god's justice. So, we rallied.
"Just a homosexual." That is the key. That is what we are fighting. So what does this have to do with Marriage? As a legal concept marriage touches thousands of corners of American law, but more importantly it is a symbol. We rallied around the idea of marriage, because it was one aspect of our "culture" that straight people could relate too, and humanized us in the wake of our pain. The idea of marriage is that of an equal bond between two people, and if that equal bond can be made between two people of the same sex, then it also reveals itself in the mind, and implants the idea that it can also be an equal bond between two stratified groups in society. By attaining "Gay Marriage" It would give us a strong step to climb up on. It would make us equal under so many eyes of the law, irrefutably.
So, no. This isn't about Religion, or going against tradition, or marriage as a human right, but rather as the attainment of our most certain human right to be EQUAL under the LAW which is set fourth by the legislators which we elect to protect us, and the constitution which in turn protects us from them. It is about ensuring that none of the above could ever, ever, happen again and be gotten away with. It is about ending a silence. It is to make it that if we should so choose we can walk down the street holding the hand of the same sex and not be arrested. It is about being free of the fear of needless searchings, and beatings from the very authority that is supposed to secure us. Anything less than equal marriage, as defined under law as the word marriage, not "civil union" is to denote us a second class citizenry which secures the system of the hiding and fear, the abuse, and the pain of all gay people in the United States Of America which does still persist.
It is not about churches.
It is not about god.
It is not about tradition.
It is about equality under the law to be secure in our persons, lives, and ambitions from tyranny, as is our right. And THOSE are god given.
YES. Thank you. All of what you said, Thank You.
My only quibble is on the churches.
If it were not for the scriptures of churches propagandizing this hatred and visceral disgust to the public for 2000 years, the public codifying this disgust into the law of the state, and the state wantonly executing this law upon us, I don't know if we would have had a need for a civil rights movement pushing back with a demand for basic and greater civil respect in the first place.
So it's not about gods of any kind. But, given that "marriage" is a civil arrangement while "weddings" may or may not be religious, it should not have to be about religious institutions, their associated traditions or their visceral reactions to civil society.
The churches are not the only entites in this world that spout "hatred", seculars are just as cabilbe. You really think it's going to change anything by pointing at the church and trying to blame the entity as a whole for all of the world's problems? For making an enemy out of them?
Oh sure, it'll change things... exactly in the way the ignorant/manipulative of the churches want them to be changed. You acknowledging that being gay is tied with despising the religious. With people doing that, they wouldn't even NEED to write any propaganda you don't write for them yourself.
I've always been of the belief that with or without religion humanity would be just as corrupt and collectively stupid as it always has been. So that means to me, the later is the enemy.
However, I will concede one point, whenever a church contains the word "orthodox"; I'm typically not a fan of them. It's typically synonymous with, "we'll read and interpret things for you because you're too stupid/lazy to do otherwise." This typically leads to an arrogant pulpit and a scared and uneducated pew; a dangerous combination.
^ pseudo-intellectual rubbish, everything wrong with "every side is equal" mentality.
Creationism is not an equal belief to evolution. Religious faith is not equal to fact-based knowledge.
Righteous religious hate is worse than hate out of blind ignorance.
"humanity is corrupt and collectively stupid": No, speak for yourself.
"Righteous religious hate is worse than hate out of blind ignorance."
So you excuse your hate because it has a different motivational factor?
I rest my case on secular's capacity for corruption.
Good luck with your 'fire with fire', I'll go drink some water, thanks.
Yes, creationism is not an equal belief to evolution.
But creationism is also not an equal belief to Christianity (or Judaism, Buddhism or the thousand other variations of religious belief that do not believe that the Earth was created in seven days just like in Genesis).
A garish subset of one religion should not be used to tar and feather all religions, or even all variations of that one religion.
But the religious sub-threads are starting to look way too like the original question of persecution; religion is fine and dandy, and not currently being persecuted at all in a way that has anything to do with furry. Attacking religion, however, does cause the religious among us to get naturally defensive, so if you actually care about the original discussion, maybe don't bring it up so we don't get bogged down in it.
On the other hand, if you just want to prove your superior intellect by making off topic comments on the Internet, by all means, continue.
It's amazing how little you know about the gay culture.
Read a book called "Gay New York", it is about the enormous and open gay culture in New York city (and other American cities) in the 1920's.
Before the 1960's "dumbing down" of the gay "movement", which put ANY contact with the same sex in the gay column, it was perfectly acceptable and reasonable for say, a straight man, to have sexual contact with another man, without repercussions. Since people had a better feeling of "community" back then, they kept it under wraps.
However, 100% homosexual was looked down upon. It netted you no children (needed those to say, work a farm, or take care of you when you get older), and for the most part, "open" homosexuality was practiced, but they didn't demand a blanket "You must accept us OR ELSE" types of threats like today's homosexuals.
Basically, it wasn't "out in the open" because such things were kept behind closed doors, gay or straight.
Western gays ought to go over to Muslim countries and try to push their fundamentalist-sexuality, and see what happens. Last I heard, they still have execution on the books for homosexuality.
Far cry from the "mean bad words" by "bigots" in the Western World.
btw: The "Religion" aspect is very, very faint. Which is why the media and fundamentalist-gays need to constantly show one, or two "preachers", and then label the entire religion as bad. Gotta keep that victim routine going.
Yes, being straight was never celebrated publically---
Have you ever even watched a Disney film? ESPECIALLY prior to the 1960s?
I'll give you a tip.
If straight behavior was in a closet, than that closet was more expansive than the one held by Davey Jones.
But hey, at least Mrs. Teapot will tell us what all these pictures mean when we're older, huh?
You are aware, I hope, that the Upstairs Lounge arson wasn't a homophobic hate crime, but rather the act of a patron in a fit of spite?
True. The aftermath of the fire, however, was interesting.
- Wikipedia article on the Upstairs Lounge arson.
If anything, the concept of dignity in death was lost on the NO public when it came to patrons of a gay bar. How far we've come.
 - Alyne A. Pustanio (2010). "The Haunting Tragedy of the UpStairs Lounge". AlynePustiano.com.
 - Erik Ose (July 3, 2008). "Gay Weddings and 32 Funerals: Remembering the UpStairs Lounge Fire". Huffington Post.
 - Freund, Helen (June 22, 2013). "UpStairs Lounge fire provokes powerful memories 40 years later". New Orleans Times-Picayune. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
As for fearing of that anti-gay law and charging for illegal propaganda - OF COURSE they fear. And if i haven't heard of returning a law which declares LGBT illegal, i definitely can say that "illegal" propaganda is one of lots of stupid laws our quite selfish (homophobic in that situation) government made. BUT. As I already said, they should control their interests. On the other hand that law may work for just saying "gay" in public. YUP. We have lots of that kind stupid laws. And again - just Russian mentality. That's all i want to say.
This issue was brought up on FA last month. The resulting discussion in the comments will give you a good idea of how—at least some—Russian furries feel about this:
It's an interesting, if depressing, read.
Thanks, good contribution. Depressing, yes.
As an ex-russian, I guess I have a say.
STOP MIXING FURRY AND GAY. The way you do it almost makes one think the two are one and the same thing.
Well, I'll be...
No. It's not wrong to report on something that exists. That's not creating something new.
Culture mixes like a venn diagram. It's up to you to say "that's not my thing," not other people to tiptoe around you if it's theirs. It wont be an issue anyways when it's no longer shocking to be other than hetero. Consider aiming your unease at people who cause that, instead of people who are doing something about it.
I think his concern is more along the lines of Russian furries having to worry that their government will ignorantly believe that because someone is wearing a fursuit that they are engaging in gay propaganda. Which if what you write is true would be a legitimate concern. Stressing the lack of overlap would be best when dealing with Russian authorities.
This isn't San Francisco where people will shrug off any overlap.
Nuka's recent finding that heterosexuals are slightly more likely to wear fursuits than homosexuals may provide some comfort there.
If governments actually payed attention to surveys that weren't conducted by their own party/think tanks, I wouldn't be as concerned ;P
LOL. Did you assume i'm native to san francisco? It's a place of international population, a competitive place where weakness doesn't last long.
Overall, the thread reinforces that no denial of human rights was ever solved by segregating people apart and keeping meek and yes-sir about it. And some of the weak straw men showing up are relics from the 1950's in the US. If people want their culture to look backwards, too bad for them, but older generations don't live forever.
Not assuming you're a native, however you're certainly established in the culture there as has been evidenced by your prior articles. You'd certainly be seen more as a San Fran native then I as a Syracuse one, having little interest in basketball.
Ha, tell me about it :)
What do you mean by "gay" exactly?
When I use the word with people, we usually use it as a synonym for "homosexual"
Are you speaking of some sort of homosexual sub-culture?
Is this a cultural issue or a sexual orientation issue?
And what about Russian doctors. Don't tell me they are using ancient manuals that list homosexuality as a disorder.. ?
Russia hasn't listed homosexuality as a mental illness (officially) since their adoption of ICD-10 in 1999. But some countries still do, such as Turkey (hence a ban on LGBT military servicemembers in that country, and a "call in gay" excuse for getting out of the draft).
As is clear from the comments above, Russians generally do not appear to share the belief that homosexuality is something to be loud and proud about. As for regional furs, it should be remembered that for a long time, Russian furry fandom centered on The Lion King - a paean for heterosexual romance and childbearing over non-conventional male companionship if ever there was one.
Somehow I also don't see local furs boycotting Russian vodka (even if it is produced in Latvia).
Having been part of the Lion King fandom from day one, let me assure you, whatever the themes of the movie, that group was ultra-gay. Especially the russians in that group. They wrote some of the most evocative m/m slash.
Having been quite active in Lion King fandom myself, I would not describe that fandom as ultra-gay by any stretch. I know of several members who were active at the time I was who are gay or bisexual, and I know of several who are definitely straight. There certainly wasn't any prevailing sense of "gayness" about the fandom, and there was plenty of "Nala is the hottest thing on four legs" going around. The only Russian participant I recall was a less active member who later moved to the US, and he's definitely straight.
There's straight trees in the forest, but the forest is faaaabulous :)
Are we talking about Fire Island Pines? Perhaps there needs to be a Russian version . . . or a furry version!
The Lion King doesn't require Simba never to associate with Timon & Pumbaa again just because Nala hits on him -- they're right there at the end, sharing his spot atop Pride Rock, as equals.
The far right critcises The Lion King; the far left critcises The Lion King -- proof positive, if ever there was, that the movie is doing something right.
It seems like it's pretty easy for the Russian public to be turned against a cause if it looks to them like it's being pushed by some foreign power. I seem to remember that American support for Pussy Riot was used to turn Russian public opinion against them.
That said, Russia is in really bad shape, especially these days. Most Americans can't really appreciate or understand just how out of control things have been for generations, and the cynicism that that breeds.
Well, you're right and wrong at the same time.
Pussy Riot chose a pretty wrong place to make their uhh "punk pray" or how did they call it. Do you imagine some group of feminists dancing and screaming like crazy in your local church? I'm pretty sure you would be quite annoyed. If Pussy Riot would do that in the other place, i wouldn't even say a word - I ignore politics. :3
And i'll say it again - Russian mentality. That's the main explanation.
>Somehow I also don't see local furs boycotting Russian vodka (even if it is produced in Latvia).
Homosexuality has only been legal across America for a decade, and there are still leading American political and religious figures openly calling for it to be recriminalised. (One of them is likely to be elected Governor of Virginia -- where the gay furry Artdecade lives, for crying out loud!) And it's Russia you're worried about?!
This comment may well be downvoted; so be it. Just remember to vote the right way in any forthcoming US elections, because the consequences of fundie homophobes getting in will not be confined to a computer screen.
Flayrah is an international media, while a majority of our contributers are American there are some from Africa, Europe, etc.
In my comment below I would agree. However, I do think when it comes to human rights the internet does make it easy to peer over the fence and have empathy for those in less fortunate circumstance.
You also learn a lot of interesting things about the world and societal correlation as well. You used the term "fundie homophobe" which makes sense in Russia and America as there is some correlation with tying anti-gay with religion. On a world-wide swatch, religion is not what is not necessarily tied with homophobia.
China is a secular nations which have laws that are staunchly anti-gay.
Brazil has more Christian citizenry as a percentage than America or Russia (by around 20%) and has better gay rights laws.
While these two may be an exception and not a rule, it does go to show that one can't really pigeonhole religion as the sole oppressor of gays, nor secularism as the thing that will set it free.
Actually, the PRC hasn't listed homosexuality as a mental disorder (2001) or a criminal offense (1997) for a while. New LGBT organizations have been set up since, including a Chinese PFLAG (set up by a straight grandmother), a Beijing LGBT Center, Pride events, , LGBT films, a Chinese equivalent to the GLAAD Media Awards, and attempts to get the Chinese parliament to consider same-sex marriage. Furthermore, state and private media in the PRC are less likely to treat LGBT people with rank religious disgust, given that the meme of LGBT people being demonstrably evil was largely limited to minority Christian and Muslim edifices.
Right now, all of these are unimaginable in the predominately-Orthodox Christian Russian Federation, where both houses of Parliament (State Duma) passed the anti-gay gag laws unanimously.
If anything can be said about this stark difference between China and Russia, I say that it's religion interfering with understanding of human sexuality that is the key factor.
You know what's going to make this all the more sad? The reason Christians despise gays could all be linked to a possible mistranslation in the Bible.
The founder of the Protestants, Martin Luther, was one of the first to translate the Bible into a common man's language: German. Here was his take on Leviticus 18:22
"Du sollst nicht beim Knaben liegen wie beim Weibe; denn es ist ein Greuel."
Tip for translation, all nouns are uppercase in German Language. So you have "Du" (you) "Weibe" (woman) Greuel (abomination). So that only leaves one... Knaben.
Let's go to Google images, put in Knaben, let them give us some photos and--- huh... well those aren't grown men at all are they? They're kids... boys to be specific.
Now let's analyze Leviticus 18 as a whole. Notice in the rules there are no transitional jumps in the English version, it talks about incest line by line, then Leviticus 18:21 talks about kids and 18:23 talks about animals. So what sense does it make for us to go from children to grown men to animals? None.
However, if we go from kids, to kids, to animals then there's no transition jump...
To further prove the point let's go back to the Bible Luther translated, the Latin one. Leviticus 18:22 says "cum masculo non commisceberis coitu femineo quia abominatio est"
Ah masculo, it clearly means man... or does it?
I did a search through the entire Latin Bible for this word and it only occurs 3 times. Very few for it being synonymous with males. So here are the three times:
The first two are both infamous anti-gay lines and are unreliable to disprove the line, however the last one is very damning, especially taken with context. This chapter doesn't talk about sex, instead it discusses how much "God tax" one should basically pay and it breaks it down into different subsets of people.
Let's take a look. I'll bold some key words here.
Latin: ab uno mense usque ad annum quintum pro masculo dabuntur quinque sicli pro femina tres
English: From one month until the fifth year, for a male shall be given five sicles: for a female three.
Okay, so that's an odd coincidence, we're talking about boys here... so what I still haven't proved that grown men is a POSSIBLE use for masculo...
well two other lines in this same chapter make that theory go right out the window: 27:3 and 27:7
Latin: si fuerit masculus a vicesimo usque ad sexagesimum annum dabit quinquaginta siclos argenti ad mensuram sanctuarii
English: If it be a man from twenty years old unto sixty years old, he shall give fifty sicles of silver, after the weight of the sanctuary:
Latin: sexagenarius et ultra masculus dabit quindecim siclos femina decem
Enlgish: A man that is sixty years old or upward, shall give fifteen sicles: a woman ten.
So, as we see here, when we're talking about adult males in Latin the word masculo is not used, and instead seems to be replaced by masculus. Which by no coincidence occurs with far more frequency in the book.
Oh, and you think it's coincidence that a good chunk of these organizations who had demeaned grown-up homosexuality have been rocked to their very foundations by pedophilia scandals? The Catholic church, the boy scouts, college sports... If I were a fundie, I think that'd be called a 'sign'? Of course I'm no fool, child predators are everywhere, but there's a difference between a one off being discovered and a mass cover-up like those examples. If only the the Bible these groups cherish had a line against pedophilia that would make them see it as a sin--- oh wait... it did, it just was replaced by the so-called crime of homosexuality.
So even though, yes there are idiots in the pulpit and the pew who lash out at others because of their misguided beliefs; I'll remain as a Martin Luther, or a Fredrick Douglass. Those who will see the inherent flaws of those within religion present and prior, point them out, and hope that is but enough to untaint religion from it's use in the works of evil.
Even if that does change things, it won't be the last time such a revelation needs to be made.
All that you just wrote is linguistic semantics and parsing that is neither quotable nor accessible for the individual who is more concerned with quoting "Whatever 10:1" and its text rather than its historic application. Granted, you may be right about the problematic translation of Christian literature from the original vernacular, but those who choose like yourself who do take issue on that basis will likely only be listened to by not only those who are already inquisitive enough to find available doctrinal, linguistic or historical loopholes, but also those who are already disaffected (of whatever orientation) by anti-LGBT scripture who wish to find some sort of recourse from such "clobber" passages.
But isn't this the first mistake? Knowing the lack of explicit affirmation of, among other things, sexual orientation or gender identity, the only available recourses for more liberal/progressive Christians are to 1) cite and critically read into these discrepancies and 2) appeal to the "greater", more general values of characters such as Jesus. At least he is not recorded as issuing any explicit condemnation of homosexuality, otherwise we'd be in worse straits, historically speaking.
Permit me to at least consider the mental exercise of critical reading and appealing to the scriptures of least clobbering effect to be insufficient as a tool for building a more robust Abrahamic-religious narrative affirmation of LGBT identities.
I'm an atheist and was never LDS, but I think someone like Joseph Smith, Jr. had a good idea to write not just a new anthology of scripture, but also allow himself and his successors to write new scripture when deemed necessary. Like a constitution, it just seems to make more sense to amend, rather than interpret, the canon. It makes more sense to make explicit and plain the terms of, say, LGBT affirmation in the scripture itself, rather than seek a critical reading into literature which never sufficiently embraces anything of the sort. That has been done more recently by the Community of Christ church, an LDS denomination. (See also "Doctrine and Covenants" and "continuous revelation")
This is why I embrace the term "literalist" as used by Abrahamic religious liberals toward atheists. For me, interpretation and critical reading of any literature only goes so far until there is a frame of limitation which must, ultimately, break.
I would agree with that, there are certainly those that whenever you ask them a question they'll go BlahBlah 10:1 and spin it into whatever meaning they wish it to mean at the given time. There are even some that say it is the answer to everything... to that I say, "Fine, use the Bible to teach you how to drive a car then."
There are sometimes you need to creature your own thoughts, or explain them in a new way.
Martin Luther and his 95 Thesis which talked about the reason the Catholic church's use of power and indulgence was corrupt would be similar to those items above.
I don't think religion dying is an obtainable goal, but history indicates that it does evolve and change. Those that just plug their ears and quote passages all day are typically those just those along for the ride. Sadly, every thought or cultural group obtains these. I'm sure there are seculars who don't know an ounce of science or math to their name and are just seculars cause they feel it's trendy. Furry may be approaching that point as well.
And even if we did get rid of religion I don't think these philosophical conflicts would be resolved. An example is when the anon said above "Psudo-intellectual". It shows that those with thought are willing to break off other people who think into separate groups because their ideas make them uncomfortable, just as religion does.
Or in a more entertaining way, one could watch the South Park episode where Cartman tries to get a Wii before it was released entitled "Go God Go" which I feel is an accurate representation and is what I'm alluding to.
So after all this, I think that's why one should focus on getting gay rights and accept help from within and without religious institutions. It's best not to let the focus derail, and if one expects the world to accept the odd differences in themselves, they are going to have to accept the odd differences of those within other groups.
I don't know if you're a Russian fur or not, but if you are, good luck.
"I don't think religion dying is an obtainable goal"
Atheism isn't a goal though. Do you believe in leprechauns and accept that the earth is flat? If not, can we call you a flat-earth-denier dedicated to anti-leprechaunism? No, that would be absurd. It's the same with people who don't believe in superstition about invisible friends in the sky. It's not a thing, it's a lack of a thing.
Who worships odin and thinks they're going to Valhalla, or worships volcanos because it explains how eruptions come from angry gods under the ground? Some people want to hold it back, but people find better ways to explain the world, knowledge evolves and religions die. Human civilization is the tiniest blip in the age of the world- it would be hubris to think the history of religion says anything about permanence. this is a good trend.
Not talking about the existance of God, talking about the existance of people who believe in dieties, which do exist beyond any reasonable doubt.
Is secularism growing? Yes. Does that mean the rate of growth will sustain itself until it whole? Well, one cannot foresee the future but one can look at the past. And through the lens of the past the odds of that are next to nothing.
Growth eventually decays and tapers off. No group ever becomes the whole of humanity. It may seem like it at the time to some. I mean during the Protestant Reformation there was certainly an explosion of Christians who didn't see themselves as Catholic anymore, something unheard of prior. However, Catholicism didn't die, it's still around.
Ironically, it's the same creativity and imagination that allows us to project ourselves as fictional animal avatars that is the same that allows people to really believe that there is a grander purpose looked over by some omnipresent hand. That there is a great judge who punishes all those who human beings fail to, through corruption or mistake. It keeps them from going out and murdering all those they feel who wronged them because they believe they'll be punished in the future anyway. It's sort of a check and balance on the individual more then anything, and trust me, some of these people need that. (Not to say that check and balance doesn't always work because even those that call themselves believers would be so foolish as to try and believe they are the ones who can arrogantly dole out the justice of God, but that's another story all together)
But what does this have to do about obtaining gay rights? Absolutely nothing. So I'll stop the religious talk here.
Disclaimer: My comments have nothing to do with biblical interpretations, just Latin grammar.
The words masculus and masculo are essentially the same thing, both meaning man. Latin is very precise about which ending is used depending on how the word is used in the sentence, since sentence order is largely irrelevant. The loose analogy in English would be to look at "he runs" and "I run" and interpret "run" and "runs" to have different meanings.
In this case, "masculo" is being used because it's being used as "cum masculo" - "with a man" and "pro masculo" - "for a man". It's what's referred to as the ablative declension, and is used with most conjunctions. "Masculus", meanwhile, is the singular nominative, meaning that it is the subject of the sentence (and yes, given what I said before, that means you can say, "Masculus vivit," or, "Vivit masculus," and they both mean "The man lives.").
The forms you'd want to look for, were you trying to find all iterations of masculus in a Latin work, would be:
I hope this helps further your understanding of Latin!
So I looked into it, it looks like an explanation could be that in 27:6 the young male is being GIVEN money not having to pay it to another thus the change in the ending. When the male is paying it's masculus when they're receiving it seems to be masculos http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=3&c=27
So restraining any jokes about, "in Latin it seems God favors the pitchers over the catchers", it's just coincidence that masculo is used those three areas it seems. The two earliers ones are "cum masculo" (haha-- it's funny because those are talking about gay sex) and the later is "pro masculo". The age of the men is coincidental.
I also did go through the rest of Leviticus on the same and noted some passages where they used "masculus" and were talking about a little child. Particualarly the passages where they said you shouldn't be having sex with women for an amount of time after the bare a male child.
I still guess I'm kind of confused as to why Martin Luther in his German translation chose the word "Knaben" instead of "Mann" in his 1500s translation for Lev 20:13 and 18:22. Because Knaben is definately not synonymous with any male, it specifically means Youth. I asked my elderly German teacher in college directly about Knaben's meaning and asked her specifically "Could Knaben ever mean a grown man?" and she said "No." I didn't ask her why I was asking, I just said I was reading an older German book.
It's one of those questions I don't know if I can answer, lost to the passage of time and meaning. It's unfortunate really.
"And it's Russia you're worried about?!"
"You're worried about starving children in africa while people are ___ here?"
"You're worried about ___ here, while children are starving in africa?"
Is it impossible to have more than one concern at a time? Should people stop paying attention to world news? Don't derail, please. :)
I fear for Russia because that can be a model for our fundies to follow in their anti-gay politics. It's already said to be one place that anti-gay activists from this country are going to help draft these laws. So how am I supposed to feel that my country is unofficially exporting terror?
While my heart goes out to Russian gays, I will say that it's up to them to determine their own future. As an American, dealing with my own country and trying to push it in the right direction is hard enough. If it's broke and can't be fixed and gets worse, people leave. We live in a world where the quality of law and life are really what define a county. Therefore it's best to try and keep things best as you can closer to home. If things continue to fail, corrupt leaders will soon only have leadership over a husk. And husks can't pay taxes.
Reading about it would be interesting though.
I wonder if he realizes those same politicans who agree with his position on the gays would have his head on a pike for his fiscal standings.
It's sad to know that if I had an urge to visit international furry buddies at Rusfurence, bringing my fursuit into the country could get me arrested for more than crime against fashion. That's not right!
First of all the Fury fandom is an appreciation of all things anthropomorphic in art, literature, and fursuiting. As such our fandom is made of LGBT and straight, atheist and bible believing Christian, Mormon, and liberal and conservatives. As such there cannot be gay/ furry axis the fandom not one LGBT or Chitin trying to dominate the fandom with one view or the other but coming together in spite of our differences political and religiously because we like cartoon animals.
Trying to push sexual politics and identity is the same problem that got the fandom into trouble in the first place, by the way, from another Bay area sexual activist Confurence (http://www.flayrah.com/3377/opinion-misconceptions-about-origins-furry-fandom see comments) Now I wonder you are trying to make history repeat itself?
I'm in favor of the original post for a number of reasons:
If anything, driving a cross-section of this fandom into debt, prison, harassment by professional fascists, torture or suicide because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or other aspects which have no impact upon the content of their individual character is a problem that can at least compel some of us who live in less-troubled areas to 1) consider the advancements made for freedom, justice and compassion - the type that allows the freedom of expression inherent in the fandom's existence to persist - and 2) consider how much better our freedoms and equalities should be, for the future.
And it's affecting multiple walks of life. Right now, the position of gay athletes and tourists at the Sochi Olympics is in question because Russia contradicts the IOC on protections from the anti-LGBT laws. It's affecting businesses, politics, health, criminal and international justice, and so on, but it somehow can't - nay, shouldn't - affect a fandom that is touched at its literary and artistic roots by LGBT expression?
I would disagree with the final statement in that, what I see as the "roots" of furry: Animal Farm, Watership Down, Lady and the Tramp, Robin Hood, Lion King, Sonic the Hedgehog, My Little Pony etc, etc, or many of the mainstream gateways that people find out they enjoy anthroporphic animals are not LGBT expression.
Though, on the same token, maybe for some youngers it is the LGBT expression that is the roots, for me it was not though, I've been in the fandom for 10+ years. Do I consume media that isn't straight? Sure.
And at the opposite end, for those even older than me, it could have been things like old Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, funny animal comics. Or that fandom social gatherings started at Sci Fi conventions that it's the sci-fi genre that is the furry "root".
Some have even gone so far as to go to the Egyptian times, but of course it wasn't called furry and there wasn't a recorded "fandom" per say, so that's debatable.
However to say if LGBT expression ceased to exist that the furry fandom would be completely erraticated is a major stretch. It'd be like saying Republicans wouldn't exist without religion. It may seem as if religion is a prominent part of their culture, however I do know of secular Republicans. I was friends with one at one point in time, he was another roo fur.
I can't blame you for thinking it's the root of a the furry tree, but it's probably more accurate to call it a bough. Or one could just say it's a major subset of the furry network (because tree structures are becoming an outdated way of looking at natural orders).
Fandom is expression.
LBGT expression is rarely overt in roots, because it hasn't been allowed to be until recently.
Lists of what is or isn't roots get to be arbitrary with taste. So we can just as well list the many ways fandom does or doesn't make these things gaaaay:
Animal Farm, Watership Down: pre-1980's furry fandom.
Lady and the Tramp, Robin Hood, Lion King: Disney is SO gaaaay. Remember the Elton John soundtrack? Didn't you know that gay furry men have their first crush on Robin Hood? Even straight men who are only gay for furries do.
Sonic the Hedgehog: Like Batman and Robin... gaaaay duo
My Little Pony: OMG, next you're going to tell me Hello Kitty and Tinky Winky aren't gay.
But really, Fandom is expression. It's not just about the stories and characters, it's also about how fans express appreciation for them.
I actually do think there's an interesting point to be made about gayness in fandom, which I thought of given your Batman/Robin or Sonic/Tails example.
I was going to simply point out that those things aren't cannon and those kind of relationships are merely fandom concoctions, things which are usually parodied, etc.
However, one must look at the phenomenon of why such slash ideas exist. Why there's a lot of homo-erotic fan-fiction.
My hypothesis on this is because there is a fundimental lack of homosexual characters in "official" works. There's typically no hero in the fictional work that a gay person can project theirself onto, so instead they create one.
This especially is possible when cannon characters lend themselves to it, being single. Most fictional protagonists do appear to be single, and thus open the possibility them being molded by the consumers thoughts and desires. This pliability and ability to make them relatable is what makes characters workable in such ways.
Gay people are extremely expressive, and much more likely to express via a means that is indirect since in many cultures direct expression is punished. Which means those desires in fandom works will be more likely gay and go all out, they don't have to sell anything but how they feel, despite their audience being niche.
There aren't enough arthropod furries like Isiah Jacobs to be worried about Chitin.
Flayrah's readership is good at giving articulate and well reasoned responses from opposing viewpoints. I wouldn't want to miss those. But yours make me thankful for the "ignore user" feature.
Or ignore because I hit a nerve. You are proving my point.
The fandom is bigger than one very squeaky rat to push an moral equivalence: to pin on something the Furry Fandom is exclusively not (Bay Area LGBT with all the political trappings) or as the case in Furlandia corporate MTV and the Media.
I'll be watching you
I did some digging around I missed this because my own cutting back on media I have a bad case of media fatigue with the right and the left. I noticed a glaring omission:
“Under the amended law holding LGBT rallies is now prohibited as well as distribution of information aimed at forming non-traditional sexual concepts in children, describing such ties as attractive, promoting the distorted understanding of social equality of traditional and non-traditional relations and also unwanted solicitation of information that could provoke interest in such relations. “
This omission is it only applies to minors. Therefore, Except that Russian is a dictatorship and the maybe miss applied, will have no effect on the furry community as long as one does not involve distributing such information to minors. To simply put keep it furry, leave to politics out and you should have no problem.
I do not see this as a furry issue.
It's always about the children, particularly the man-children who run the government.
As a Republican, I think you'd know this.
The village idiot comes wrapped in an American flag and parroting Russian propaganda.
It's always like that with people who blindly hate. They don't care the source or meaning as long as they can use it against others. They don't understand the bible or the law they quote, just the tiny part they can appropriate to feel self righteous about inequality. They are tools for hate.
To pretend the Russian law does not affect human rights is to pretend that Jim Crow truly meant separate and equal. Back then, the same kind of people preached separation and ignoring politics.
But the Russian law is clear. It is not even pretending separation and equality. It says that gay people are less than human. "the 'distorted understanding' of social equality" means they will allow no equality. They consider gay people to be lower, like animals.
Furthermore it teaches the lie that an adult professing love to another adult of the same sex is a secret conspiracy to recruit kids for pedo perversion. Of course it isn't. it's like when Jim Crow treated blacks as lust monsters coming to rape white women. It's a fake justification to outlaw all such expression no matter what.
And here the village idiot preaches that it's just to protect kids, and not to look or care. Should a person like him even be trusted to care for an animal?
And what has this have anything have to do with being furry? Nothing. I got something controversial for you: get political paw out of the fandom ok. Being furry is about cartoon animals. I have my opinions on the Russian law more doubt that opposition because I cannot get a straight answer for ether side, still this is not the place form to bringing it.
Yes I got opposite feeling on LGBT politics in spite I lean lien individualism capitalism with a objectivist leanings I support freedom of association but no right to demand support from others. I do not think any laws supporting or denying lGBT should be passed as is not the role of a limited government. I Also believe the success of the furry fandom is common the love of cartoon animals in spite of our moral, national, cultural differences, and not using the fandom as a soapbox for political lifestyle activism. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
" I Also believe the success of the furry fandom is common the love of cartoon animals in spite of our moral, national, cultural differences, and not using the fandom as a soapbox for political lifestyle activism. That's my story and I am sticking to it."
Your icon didn't apparently get that memo...
Hey I got a freedom to role play , Acton is an inside joke with myself, he even wars GOP shits and is a conservative talk show host not by his own doing (my dig at conservative take show host) Acton was created with political satire in mind. But have a political fursona is different that using the fandom for outside political activism. I have my outside blags for that.
Now let me get to a really world example. I attend a fur met at a diner right in the middle what know as the Pink Triangle know for it gay friendly establishments. Some time I get friendly ribbing that I am the token straight guy in the group. I join in. One who is a good friend who my political opposite, we boss off issues of the day to get each other take. Were a good group because it bout of furrines not about or differences.
Well before I make more word salad I need to end this and move on.
Now shut up and listen, closet case.
This is not a fan group made of "cartoon animals." It's made of people. People do not live in an "objectivist" Randroid fantasy world. (With your appalling verbal skills, you wouldn't read enough to know who Rand is.) Here in this world, people are affected by injustice.
Here is a group of 1300 people who got together as furry fans, to display their hobby and set a world record for most fursuiters ever in one place.
Front row, 7th from left: he's wearing a rainbow paw t-shirt. This is a very popular t-shirt by a furry company. It is one of the most popular shirts that furries buy from a furry company. The shirt sells well because there are far more gay people in furry fandom than in the general population. There are hundreds of LGBT people in this photo. We know this from surveys that give the best data you can find about who joins this hobby.
In russia, these 1300 people are breaking the law. They are supporting one of their group to wear a rainbow around others of the group who are under 18.
Every person in this photo deserves support to be there, especially the one in the rainbow paw shirt. You would call it "political lifestyle activism" and separate some from the rest. But you are the one that doesn't belong. Your bullshit hate is not welcome and you need to stop pretending that you live in a cartoon world where other people don't matter.
Russian gay rights.
gay rights are only the top of the hill.
millions of people here suffer from breaking human rights every day.
It isnt like, only gays suffer but the other people live in pleasure and wealth.
10% of our country is under the poverty line by now.
And Putin spends more than 100 000 000 000 dollasr for the olympic games.
He is so sporty ^^
As for GAY RIGHTS.
Taurin Fox's picture is called "STANDING proud", doesn't it?
Not "sitting on a sofa at home, trembling with fear"? Sure?
As we know by statistics, minimum 2% of people on earth are gay.
There are 15 000 000 people in Moscow. This means that minimum 300 000 gays live here. Do you know how many people were standing proud near the government place, speaking for their rights, at the day they voted for anti-gay law? 30.
The other 299 970 gay people just got what they deserved, staying at home.
Hallo from Moscow.
Hoping to travel across USA one day.
P.S. forgive me my poor English, please)
75% of furries in Russia are gay or bisexual, but they do not suffer from anti-gay law (actually the law prohibits gay propaganda for children, nothing else). There are gays who go to radical political protests, something like Occupy Wallstreet. After they become arrested, they say that it happened because they are gays.
You don't have to live in Russia to know this is straight up bullshit. Oh, the neo-fascists who are hunting gays are only picking ones that do "gay propaganda for children"? Get a civilized country, liar.
Please mr. Anon, name a "civiled country" where there's no racism or homophobia at all by now.
Post new comment