The Furry Fandom and it's Pornography

Normally, I'd be posting on my own blog about how I've been traversing the waters of the Furry fandom.  However, it would be hypocritical about posting about pornography since I, myself, am guilty of creating Pornography at times on this site and on others.  So, to lessen the stigma of being a porn artist, I thought I'd post my thoughts here.

As a nudist, I often encountered pornography.  In fact, early in my twenties and late in my teens I encountered it often before I was a nudist.  Every day, in fact, I encountered pornography.  The reason was clear, I was avoiding it as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator at the time counseled us to do (yes, I'm officially, a Mormon).  Oh boy, was I avoiding it!  As a result, I came into contact with just about every type of pornography you can imagine.

So, to deal with it, I had to come to terms as to what I actually desired.  The manifestation of that desire was looking up nudism.  Pow!  Nudity didn't have to be all about sex! Or Attraction!  Or any thing base as it is.  After browsing Christian sites, I learned that the body is good and sex itself, is good too.  Then I learned that my ideas about God is screwed up.  I am guilty of making God in my image (A violation of the Second Commandment) and I seriously questioned the LDS faith.  Is the Church of Latter-day Saints the true Church now?  Or is it not? Note: my question was answered about two years ago when I found the Parowan Prophet's site; I'm convinced that the Church is true because the Son of Man desires to punish us Mormons extremely harshly for being "a disobedient bride," fortunately he sent a prophet to warn those who would listen as to what he was going to do. I'm not surprised that the prophet was rejected.  Most Mormons don't know their own doctrine and don't believe Him or follow his commandments and want their leaders to tell them what they want to hear -- that all is well in Zion, Zion prospereth, and how to attain perfection in this life.  While the Son of Man seethes with anger at his Chosen People -- the Mormons and everyone who lives in America.


I came to the conclusion that the Church is still true even though its leaders and some (or most?  I'll stick with some) aren't.  The church is perfect, the people in it aren't.  So back to Pornography and my nudism.

If you notice my work here, I am doing a comic.  Since everyone expected it to be spicy from the beginning I seriously questioned spicing it.  Isn't there enough pornography -- pictures of people having sex -- on So Furry already?  I came to the conclusion that I was right and rebelled, making a porn comic into a clean one simply by changing it's focus.  I chose to focus on "Nude is not Rude!"  instead of focusing on "Nude invites sex."

So, to the true Antagonist.  This comic is inspired by "The Bare Pit" by Noodtoonist (his first name is Stephen) (http://www.webcomicsnation.com/thebarepit/thebarepit/series.php?view=single&ID=20083).  The plan was to finish up the storyline in So Furry and move the comic to Web Comics Nation.  I'm questioning that plan.  The problem is, I'd be abandoning them and they would be left one (or two) clean comic(s) about nudism on a site that has a lot of porn comics. 


Although I don't consider myself to be a furry, I really can't do that.  So I'm continuing to publish my 3D comic there. I still need an Antagonist, though.  The person that hinders the people's natural right to be nude in the comic (it's in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Having thought about it, this Antagonist would be anti-nude because he thought that Nudism invited sexuality (he's also self righteous and works for the Textile industry by making clothes, he would also be anti-furrydom for much of the same reasons).  Thinking about his roots as a character, I put up his species to a vote.


I figured that if he were a "furry," it would even the playing field.  And voting they are!  So far, Fox is the one in the running.  Oh, as to my feelings about the Furry Fandom, with what I've seen on VCL and so furry, I frankly don't blame the world for isolating the fandom.  Some of the adult stuff is actually very bad, and very shocking. Frankly, there is consequences to our actions, and isolation and ridicule is one of them.

I wanted to post here to see where I can build bridges between the fandom and the mundanes.  Quite frankly, I really don't see how I can.  But I'm going to do it.  It's not really fair for the fandom to separate themselves, or the mundanes to separate you.  The fandom exists in its current form -- and I can't help but think if the Country was chock full of nudists (say, about 1 in 10 Americans were nudists who went nude or bare chested and bare breasted in public) they wouldn't have too much of a problem being accepted.


Although I bet that most of the depictions of sex on that site wouldn't exist (I'd say about 75% of the adult stuff on So Furry wouldn't have been made) because of their quality, I'd pretty much say that sex wouldn't have the stigma that it does have and people would welcome pictures of people having sex -- furry or otherwise.

But we don't live in a "perfect world" yet.  Although, I'd say that the furry fandom is a reaction -- a Reaction to the hypocritical prudery that Americans believe in.  Not the best reaction -- American nudism is that -- but a reaction none the less.  People hate the furry fandom because it exposes them as hypocrites (it's not just the Bestiality -- but the hypocrisy).  The fandom is a symptom, really.  A symptom of how bad our society has gotten in its attitude towards sex, the body, and other things I can't identify.  To become a pure nation and a pure land again, we Americans have to learn how to accept others as who they are and stop being inquitious and thinking of ourselves as separate from others.

Is it just me?

Or is D&D 3e more complex than Rolemaster?  I have just built the character du jour from scratch using the World of Warcraft roleplaying game and Advanced d20 Magic.  It took me about three hours to build; and I didn't pay attention to getting everything correct.

On that note, I wonder if D&D 3e is actually more complex than we could even imagine.  "We got this theory that Dungeons and Dragons is the best roleplaying game out there!"  If it is, then why all the complexity?  D&D 3.5 is absolutely, and needlessly complex.  In fact I think it is so complex that you need a spreadsheet or something to calculate all your skill bonuses.

So, that makes the strong case for retro-clones: Swords and Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and Castles and Crusades.  Even microlite d20.  So, what is it with D&D?  Why does it have to get complex with every generation?  I mean, 4e is complex enough.  With fourth edition, you definitely need software in order work it (DDI, anyone?).  Why do you need software to work fourth edition anyway?  But alas, that's the way it goes.

I think this is a good point to explain that I am beginning to see no point in complexity in a Roleplaying Game. Especially a game like Dungeons and Dragons.  However, as the game evolved and changed over many hands, we got complexity.  D&D 3e has even surpassed the complexity of the Fuzion system.  D&D 4e doubly so.  So, why the complexity in rules?  D&D is never going to compete par to par, and hand to hand with other Roleplaying Games if it keeps this up.  D&D should go back, way back, to the original games the Retroclones copy in order to stay competitive.  From D&D white box comes 4th Edition, whom people laud as perfect.  Sorry, sirs, I think the D&D White Box is much more perfect.

A Rant about a Review on Youtube

After watching a review of D&D 4th Edition vs. 3.5 Edition (which the reviewer said -- hey, we all know its better anyway), I was kind of perturbed that he said that all rogues are the same.  Blah, blah.  It's like he glossed over the feat selections.

Well, I'm going to prove him wrong. :D

There is something in the d20 SRD called Unearthed Arcana which provided you with all the variants one could use.  In my world, rogues are defined either by being criminals, or government agents (you know, James Bond types).  So you have to your typical thief type rogue, and then the rogues who operate under the Shattered Hand (orcs) or the Impossible Mission Force (The Republic of Devonshire) for example.  Rogues who work in Caithness are part of MI6 and are trained assassins and their code numbers usually start with . . . well . . . 00. :)  In Al-Caria, they are training as Assassins, in Northumberland - your typical spy.  In the Elvish nations, they are trained as quick and stealthy melee fighters who happened to be able to disarm traps.  If they are trained at court (no matter what kind of court), they are courtiers and diplomatic attaches.

Righteousness aside, and Miles Gloriosi aside; it is possible for a 3.5 Edition Rogue to be different and still be classed as a rogue.  So, what can be so wierd about that?  Huh?  In D&D 3.5, you can sell 4th by saying that character customizability was a weakness.  Or you can ignore it and say that it is possible to customize characters in 3.5 every bit as much as you can in 4th Edition.  So, why sell it up that a 3.5 rogue is the same as the next rogue?

Perhaps it is because we are losing a vital part of our play experience and its called imagination? The most important strength of playing RPGs is an exercise in imagination.  Break the rules, do creative things with the game . . . You don't have to play by the RAW (rules as Written).  Greywulf (Robin Stacey) doesn't play by the rules in 4th Edition.  He's a good example of taking a game like 4th Edition and doing creative things with it.  Sorry, who ever said that a 3.5 rogue is the same every time, but you just didn't look at the bigger picture.  4th has blinded you, made you forget what was capable of doing with 3.5 .

Oh and by golly, watch a movie or T.V. series that gives you D&D moments and forget which Edition is better.  Just get some friends together, get some dice, and play (Wizards of the Coast may have a bias, but their commercial is about encouraging people to have fun with RPGs). :)