Undoubtedly it's a good article although it is rather basic. I guess in 1999 when the Internet was still a relatively new (and certainly slow) beast, that was to be expected. It is written with a fairness and balance that is so often overlooked, particularly at a time when the media were looking to sensationalise the Fandom if they were covering it at all.
Many good points are raised, particularly the spirituality regarding furriness but this is something that Bizarre were never really going to cover. Bizarre is hardly a deep or philosophical magazine - it celebrates openness and diversity (which is where the Fandom fits in) but this article would be far too high-brow for Bizarre (and indeed, sadly, most modern media in the Western World).
Having said that, by attributing furries to the animals we inspire to be is a good journalistic tool and one that rings true for the majority of us. Regarding the openness of the Fandom, that is also true but like any group of people, generalisations can only take you so far. Some of the furs I have met have been rather closed-minded about a lot of things.
Equally I have always found the line between spirituality and sexuality hard to distinguish - I don't know where one ends and the other begins - so to say that the Fandom is not a sexual one I think is not strictly true. Sex is a deeply spiritual and primeval act and one that, being in tune to our animal sides, would surely come to the fore? It's an interesting dilemma - perhaps I should take it to furrythinkers or somewhere lols.
Despite this, I am sure the Fandom has evolved in ten years and therefore to use statements about today's Fandom and attribute them back to 1999 would be harsh. The article itself is a fairly written, balanced and interesting piece and I see why you like it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 11:12 pm (UTC)Many good points are raised, particularly the spirituality regarding furriness but this is something that Bizarre were never really going to cover. Bizarre is hardly a deep or philosophical magazine - it celebrates openness and diversity (which is where the Fandom fits in) but this article would be far too high-brow for Bizarre (and indeed, sadly, most modern media in the Western World).
Having said that, by attributing furries to the animals we inspire to be is a good journalistic tool and one that rings true for the majority of us. Regarding the openness of the Fandom, that is also true but like any group of people, generalisations can only take you so far. Some of the furs I have met have been rather closed-minded about a lot of things.
Equally I have always found the line between spirituality and sexuality hard to distinguish - I don't know where one ends and the other begins - so to say that the Fandom is not a sexual one I think is not strictly true. Sex is a deeply spiritual and primeval act and one that, being in tune to our animal sides, would surely come to the fore? It's an interesting dilemma - perhaps I should take it to furrythinkers or somewhere lols.
Despite this, I am sure the Fandom has evolved in ten years and therefore to use statements about today's Fandom and attribute them back to 1999 would be harsh. The article itself is a fairly written, balanced and interesting piece and I see why you like it.