POLL: Gallery pic questionairre and censorship bias

[Guest]

Personally I get nothing out of pics of women on ebay.

 

Call me a pervert if you like, but I think what makes fur sexy is the women who wear them. And ebay models...sometimes....not always...have very little sex appeal. Now I KNOW some of you like them because of a beautiful fur being modelled; but personally I do not find that sexy in itself. Beautiful maybe; and entirely appropriate as a post.

 

Personally; and I am going to get crucified for this ; Linda Evans in fur is not interesting because her character isn't. Now Joan Collins is pure evil and therefore exciting. Not that I want to exclude Linda Evans pics as I know some of you love her; some of you like the "natural" look too. But its not what fur vampery is about to me and some great fur vamp pics are under threat of exclusion as being repetitive if sequence, or inferior quality as maybe you can't see the fur texture.

 

HOWEVER. Some of my vidcap posts are under attack as being not good quality; NOT the repetitive boring ebay stuff and I wouldn't opress them either.

 

SO. Lets have a little poll.

 

Which of these pics do you find sexiest or worthy of inclusion in the gallery? Please remember three of them are up for EVICTION.

 

 

1.

 

Rejected: reason: racial stereotyping ( this is getting mental....a friend of mine got bollocked in New York in work for saying happy christmas to someone in December...ENOUGH! I am not christian but its a christian festival ffs! And this image is in NO WAY making a racial inference. We are also on the verge of some members wanting right wing women in fur banned lol! )

 

2.

 

rejected: reason part of a sequence...a few the same.

 

 

3.

 

Rejected: reason: I have no idea. Its a shag with a chick in mink captured in cartoon by Bill Ward

 

4.

 

posted by OFF from ebay...never under threat of eviction...neither should it be; though it is not interesting to me

 

5.

at first rejected. Reason: not worthy due to being a vidcap and part of a sequence. Mara Lane btw.

 

 

6.

 

Another ebay image ...good quality pic but jeans are not sexy to me; at least not here. A very run of the mill image IMHO BUT entirely appropriate.

 

7. .

 

posted by me just to show I am not anti all ebay images! Not included in poll. But are not the boots and stuf better than a casual chick in jeans to many of us? If so; is it JUST fur which excites some of us? Or is the fur part of the allure? If the latter....then surely we must cater for this too.

 

 

NOT that I am getting at OFF. He works very hard backstage and I appreciate it. BUT I object to the inference that a vidcap or sequence is not as interesting and worthy of posting.

 

I think that images with fur that are posted in the mainstream or where the fur is used sexually enticing have as much or if not more relevance t othe gallery as SOME ebay images....you know; minging coats and models that aren't being sexy.

 

Whoops we can only vote for 6 options.

 

Anyway my fave is Mara Lane sequence. The whole sequence is necessary to see her dominate and seduce by exhaling smoke in the guys face ; and aslo to see the full wrap of mink.

 

So lets just have fun with this and it helps us to know what kind of images we want to see. Comments also welcome.

 

SHOULD the mods be excluding images on their personal intepretation of the rules like the ones currently under threat; IF they are not a clear breach of CoC ? To me; the fact that someone has gone to the trouble of sourcing and posting an image then obviously they like it. It is my opinon that some of these will hit a pleasant nervous shiver in some of you as they did in me and its why I posted them: I would go as far as to say that some images have much much wider appeal than just fur fetishism and are a good advert for fur and our den. Others are nothing more than ads to sell coats.....and pretty medicore ones at that.

Edited June 4, 2007 by Guest

[wallee]

First off, they're all to small to really tell.

 

However...

 

#1 COULD be construed as racist by some. It's out.

 

#2 If it was in the smoking gallery, maybe but a fur collar and a haze of smoke? Not sexy.

 

#3 Looks like a sexual situation. We're NOT A PORN SITE.

 

#4 Ugly and poor quality fur does not qualify as a quality pic.

 

#5 You say the whole sequence is need to show her blowing smoke in some poor smucks face. No and she's not doing so in that shot. We don't need all 100 frames of a sequence when there is no appreciable difference in the pics. Quality not quantity.

 

#6 See #4

 

We are the mods of this site and it is our job to keep it as neat and tidy and unoffensive to as many memebers as possible.

Just because OFF, in his endless and mostly thankless efforts to police the gallery, doesn't deem it appropriate does not make it a personal attack on you.

 

It's not about posting the most pictures, it's about posting the BEST pictures.

 

Thanks OFF, for all your hard work in the gallery.

[Guest]

Nevertheless wallee the ebay pics are in there and to me they are not good. I thamked OFF too for all his hard work but remember if it were not for the research of people like Tryxie and myself and others there wouldn't be any pics to sort. And when you get a knockback like this over what I think are great images it is upsetting.

 

You accuse me of posting porn but I have NEVER posted so much as A nude on fur. Your avatar....which you love...hardly qualifies as a fur pic to me its a nude. NOT that I am knocking it...if it does it for you then fine!

 

To you you dont like the smoking but some of us do. The fur collar on the blonde is not obscured and is good qaulity. The fact she is smoking and beautiful adds to it and is nice in sequence.

 

the sequences are NOT hundreds just a few. I think there were 4 or 5 in that sequence and in those days it was a PRIVILIGE for a woman to blow smoke at you. You can force us to live by your rules but DON'T change history. Smoking was as much part of seductive behaviour as fur in Hollywood of the fifties and I can't believe that attitude here. If its relevant its releavnt and I FIND IT on of the sexiest groups of images in the gallery. TWELVE thousand images in the gallery and less than 400 with fur and smoking? Gimme a break. Its MARA LANE ffs.

 

Number one COULD NO F**** WAY be construed as racist by anyone in their right minds; and is a massive infringement of artistsic expression to suggest so.

 

Miss Theresa does very similar stuff and hasn't a racist bone in her body.

 

THE INTENTION has to be racist. Clearly it is not.

 

The mask is black. Black is associated with evil. Because we are afraid of the dark. Some of us are not; some of us LOVE the dark.

 

None of that part of our culture has ANYTHING to do with "black" people. They aren't even Black in colour actually. They may want to claim the word but if in our culture it means evil and dark glamour and ftishsim then that is acceptable. In fact; you would struggle to find a black person who would agree with you; and its that kind of nonsense which detracts from very real racial issues.

 

The image should go back in.

 

It is an image which makes the lips beautiful. That is all. It is ART.

Bill Ward has work in Art galeries all over the world. It is NOT porn. How can drawings be porn???? No gentalia is shown either.

[Guest]

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10033/F26913ca.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10033/F18016ca.JPG

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10033/F17760b.JPG

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10033/F26807cb.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10033/F16163ca.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10042/021.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10711/Gorgeous__019.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10296/e37f.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10033/F4124fd.jpg

 

http://vdsden.thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/VSS08.jpg

Sorry boss. Needs to be put in focus.

 

It's all shabby crap anyway so what the hell

 

 

 

OFF

[JGalanos]

TOS -- I was unaware this was a Rant and Rave Sunday. Can you send me a note a few days prior to the next one so I can pen it on my calendar? 8)

[wallee]

Knowing fully that you would turn this into a long winded debate I took the time to look at some of the full size versions of these pics.

 

1 and 2 in my opinion show such a small and in 1 shitty quality fur they should be dumped for that alone. Quality not quantity.

 

3 shows a sexual act taking place and a hand on boob situation. Both of those clearly breach the CoC. If a sex act is not porn, what's your definition of porn. Just because someone drew it and didn't photograph it doesn't make it art. Secondly the "fur" rendered is so poorly done it may not even be fur. Reason #2 to dump it.

[Guest]

Wallee you are a phillistine.

 

I shouldn't be HAVING to do this!

 

I am a lecturer in visual image and its impact in culture and society; I am also a qualified History teacher and lecturer in anthropology and Art; and also work in conservation . I am fed up of my considered opinions being deemed as rants because I do you the respect of fully adressing the issues.

 

Number one shows silver fox in a fetishistic situation. It is highly artistic and IMHO is FAR more likely to cause a surge in interest in fur in mainstream culture than all of OFF's ebay images. Even the ones he has posted above are of NO interst to me sexually since the women are NOT being sexy; and the photos are NOT objectively erotic to anyone but a fur fetishist. number one IS. Ask Miss T....she gets PAID for this stuff remember?

 

Number two has a fur collar and a very sexy blonde in it. FAR more people would find that sexy than the ebay images. The combination of blonde hair red leather fox/coyote fur and smoking makes a statement sexually in the traidtions of twnetieth century cultural references.

 

A drawing is NOT a boob. Your avatar is a boob. Its a collection of lines drawn by an artist. Bill Ward's work always featured fur and its important that we are aware of the time that EVERYONE associated fur (and smoking) with sex. Its a depiction of a mink stole...can't be anything else.

It was done in the fifties; an era of mccarthyism and censorship and you deem it bad now in 2007??? gimme a break; what is the world coming to.

 

"WISE MEN RECORD THEIR PAST SO FOOLS CAN MEET THEIR TOMORROWS".

[wallee]

First off, you asked for our opinions. Mine are expressed as a mod of these forums. If you really don't want to listen to what people have to say, at least those who disagree with you, don't ask.

 

Secondly dispite whatever qualifactions you have, just because it's your opinion doesn't make it law.

 

Thirdly, the ward cartoon depicts a sexual act. Not allowed here. If the girl were clearly under the legal age it would be consider inappropriate by most people, hopefully including you. Whether it's art or not doesn't matter in this case.

 

From the CoC.

Hyperlinks to any photograph that is sexually explicit in nature. This would include any sexual act (sexual intercourse, masturbation, oral sex, etc.) or any photograph that features male or female genitalia (aka crotch shots) See item ii in subsection B.

[Guest]

read the rules. It is a drawing not a photo.

 

Under international law a drawing even depicting underage cannot be subject for prosecution. It how hentai art and 3 d animation porn sites get away with it.

No I do not agree with it ; and I would not take it to that extreme.

 

BUT if you took the bill Ward cartoon and your avatar out in th street I have no doubt which people woul find most ffensive. Cartoons and Art could traditionally go where photos couldn't; and if we start cnsoring mainstream Art from 50/60 years ago...especially just fun stuff...then weher does that leave us?

 

I asked opinion yes. I will also give it back . Debate leads to solution and truth . It isn't a Mexican stand off.

 

I have been talking to OFF today and he has been talking computer stuff to me. I don't understand it; its like double dutch to me. So I rcognise his opinion ...and workers...when it is superior to mine.

 

BUT I am the most qualified here on visual image and culture. If I post a pic there is a reason behind it. I don't post porn and I don't post fur as such. I CANNOT post native stuff as it always involves copyright breach; but will regularly link to it and would if I could.

 

Likewise. tryxie is the most qualified in fashion here; her knolwedge is second to none...yet regularly her comments have been ignored and EVERY man and his dog think their opinion is equivalent to hers, It is NOT.

 

If I want a house designed I go to OFF.

If I want a cartoon doing I would go to Lord; I wish he would have more positive input on that and find his posts knowlegeable and would never challenge him on that.

If I want to know about a model or the spirit of a collection....of which fur may just be aprt...I go to tryxie.

If I want an opinion on law I would ask our resident solicitor.

An opinion on cinema and I woul ask Worker.

 

 

PROFESSIONAL opinion counts wallee. And it does on visual image too.

 

Now I want everyone to give their opinions as unless I am very wrong then its you and Off who are off at a taste tangent not the rest of us; and I am NOT moderating your tastes; but if I was I would be careful how I did it.

I wouldn't even cut the based ebay stuff as some people like it; indeed I like some of it. But I like vampy types see not natural types like OFF...each to thei own. BOTh can be accomodated without personal bias.

 

BIZARRE is not a reason for censorship especially when a lame excuse of race is used to enforce a taste censorship.

[Guest]

Okay my girfrind has just been round the neighhbours. An Asian family and a west Indian family.

 

She asked them if they found anything offensive in that mask pic.

 

They said (and remember that one family is moslem) that it is beautiful.

 

Here is my girlfriends opinion on the issue.

 

"Its just a really intriguing and beautiful image...what is wrong with you? The ebay images; even the above links , are only interesting if I want to buy the coat. But the girl in the mask; that is highly charged with eroticism"

[Guest]

I'm done with this discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFF

[wallee]

I never said your opinion doesn't count. I said it's not law.

 

Your focus is far too narrow. You've zeroed in on the word photograph overlooking the words sexual act. Your ignoring the "spirit" of the rule. You've also overlooked the piss poor depiction of fur. Both valid reasons to dump the pic in this case.

 

And while pic 1 my be beautiful and intriguing to some, it is still entirely possible some may find it offensive. Just because you don't doesn't negate the possibility. Also, again your overlooking the piss poor depiction of fur. Which is more than likely the reason it was dumped.

 

Just because there's a scap of fur showing doesn't make it a quality, gallery worthy picture.

 

Quality not Quantity.

[Guest]

It is NOT a scrap of fur. It is being USED as a statement. ONLY the mask and the fur and the lips matter in this picture....don't you get it??????????

Image over personality...its the Borg with fur and sex.

 

If people find ART offensive or imaterial then they are phillistines.

 

If I have any faith in human nature left then the quiet people here will rise against this censorship; I believe you underestimate the intelligence of people here and I believe they will vote for iconic imagery over every day stuff.

 

I believ 1 and 5 will be the most popular; and because the fur IS being used sexually and alluringly ....where as in the ebay pics it quite clearly is NOT.

 

Jimmy Paige gets the idea.

 

If you are done with this discussion OFF bfore being prepared to see the reslts of the poll it says something.

 

If it doesn't go my way then I will concede; he and his model represent fur in the way that it was always designed to for women: for sexual allure and status ; even in aboriginal cultures....not warmth and sex toy; though I am quite happy with those too.

 

BUT I will not while I believe that there IS a place for such images in our gallery without personal taste being used to judge. STOP turning it round like I am the opressor when it is I who want the freedom for all tastes to be acknowledged and represented....wthout mods deciding what is an isn't "decent" or "tasteful" UNLSS it breaches CoC ...which 1 certainly doesn't and 3. is a cartoon ffs.

 

May I also add that my culture; in fact our mainstream culture... is influenced unlike the US by Gothic influences in ART, architecture, sexuality, fashion and music. Americans like Marilyn MAnson...no disrespect to him...can play at it but to some of us it is real. from Byron and Shelley through to Sacher Masoch and popluar culture such as The Avengers and Malcolm McLaren and Vivien Westwood, to European cultural influences such as carnival ; the mask...and specifically the black mask....has nothing to do with race . THAT is why I feel so strongly about this. You may look at it and see the Black and white minstrels, or see something alien and bizarre. BUT I look at it and see beauty in darkness; the Gothic spirit: without darkness there is no light and no truth. Some Americans who have explored this will know of what I speak so I am not being anti American.....just trying to work out why you find something I find beautiful bizarre. But you generally see kids in black as goths and deviants: in our society they are poets and artists and masters of theatre. Miss Theresa would understand this image; because she is an artist too. In fact she could well have created it. This is our culture which is being classed as bizarre and offensive...and for no reason relevant in the CoC.

[Guest]

I'll keep my comments (mostly) to myself but I have voted & for me it's a no-brainer, people talk of opening up the fetish side of things then they crush photo's such as No.1.....? Stunning..... maybe some should get themselves across to the Venice carnival & such masquerades

[ReFur]

This is a copy of my post on the Pub thread:

 

ToS,

 

I am not speaking for the admins of other mods. I am speaking as someone who had been on your side for a very long time. (Did you catch the past tense there?)

 

Understand something. We have a team that runs the den. OFF and Wallee are not your problem.

 

The problem is you are not in charge. And, you do not decide the rules here. You have to accept this if you want to stay here.

 

I had been a long time supporter of yours, ToS. My posts prove it. On the mods forum I also have been as well. No longer! Personally am feed up with your rants and mental drain on the mod staff, and have been for several months.

 

To me you are addicted to drama and fighting. That is just not what we are about. This also has nothing to do with Nationality, which is a card you love to play when you are fighting your "wars,"

 

It is simply about your place in life. And, for you that is where you obviously need to be. That is not something the Den has to share.

 

Of all of your posts there is always some war or enemy to fight.

 

...Maybe you need to find a different site that is based on love of fighting instead of love of fur?

 

...Or, maybe you should take your energies and start your own site. And, I am not being mean when I say this. Maybe you should. The Fur Den is not trying to be everything in the Internet fur world.

 

...Or, why don't you go to another site for this need to fight and come here for fur? We would both be better off.

 

But, understand something. You are not hijacking The Fur Den.

 

Do we care about our membership. Absolutely. More than you can know.

 

And, that is why I am posting this post on the boards. You are one member, that is important to me. But, your behavior drives away a lot of people I care about, too.

 

Enough is enough ToS!

 

Linda

[Guest]

I am hijacking the den?

 

LOOK AT THE POLL. There IS a call for what I have posted and there is NO reason but for control freak mentality it should not be allowed to stand.

 

It isn't ME who is hijacking the den. It is you mods.

 

This place could encompass all our interests but SOME mods don't want it to.

 

It isn't me who is the aggressor here; it is those who try to oppress perfectly valid imagery.

 

Well said furelli.

 

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

I am not a control freak; I wouldn't even want to be a mod.

 

I do love fur Linda; and I am prepared to fight FOR it. Unlike some people

who just bury their head in the sand.

And I am prepared to fight for imagery that the bulk of people enjoy; or indeed even a minority of people enjoy. If OFF was the only one who enjoyed the ebay images then I would fight for his right too.

 

Just live and let live huh? Then I wouldn't have to fight.

 

Some of us like fur in a fashion context. ALLOW the expression of that.

Some people like the naturalistic/conservation element of fur. ALLOW expression and disussion of that.

Some people understand the reality of the threat to fur and we should allow discussion of that to come up with counter action.

Some like the femme fatale/femdom stuff: allow expression of that; some of us like classic glamour; some dominatrix stuff. Its not for someone else to judge IF it has real fur in it.

Some like southern charms. Allow expression of that without a mod being judgemental. That is the biggest single factor that has driven people from here. We all understand the limitations of the server but slating perfectly acceptable images form s/c on grounds of taste is upsteting for those who find and post.

 

It isn't me who picked this fight. I posted images which I thought people would like and they don't breach CoC. So I am fighting for them; and dom NOT want to attack anyone else. hell I would even support teddy bear pics if there is a call for it. GET OFF OUR BACKS AND STOP BEING JUDGEMENTAL. If its fur and people like it and its within coc leave it. Period.

 

Let the poll decide.

 

the mask pic is tasteful, beautiful, has fur, is NOT racist; is only bizarre to those who have a parochial view of the world. it is more than just a fur image; it is truly truly beautiful. ONLY the lips and fur are being focussed on and THAT is what the mask is for.

 

As furelli says; in Venice that was what the mask did. Focus off personality and on sexuality. If you find that offensive then we are lost as a society for freedom of expression. And I will fight for what I love Linda; and it is this photo....and the use of fur in it.

[ReFur]

Don't you get it ToS? You are guest here. Follow our rules and respect that we run the den or find a different place to hang out.

 

Simple.

 

Linda

[FrBrGr]

I was asked my opinion of the mask pic a week or so ago, and my opinion was although IMHO it sucked as a fur pic, and although it wasn't formatted properly to be included in the Gallery, it was in no way a racist pic. It escapes me why it could ever be construed as being so. That being said, if OFF had ruled it out because, in his opinion, it sucked, or it violated the Code of Conduct, or if it was not fur focused, or if the "fur" in the pic was obviously faux fur, or really - pretty much any old reason OFF would have had to discard that pic or any pic that anybody submits for his approval to be included in the Gallery - It is his business, and I completely and totally support him 1000%. He was charged with the responsibility to be the chief moderator and caretaker of the Gallery, and he has done a magnificent job!! His decisions are rarely challenged by the other mods or admins, and I'll be damned if they are going to be challenged in a public forum! Especially the way you've chosen to do it, ToS! You are trying to discredit OFF's contributions or the website's management by running this poll of yours, and frankly, ToS, the only person you have discredited is yourself. That's why this is ending right here, right now. Call me a Facist for doing it; I don't care. I have said this before, and when necessary, I will say it again. The Fur Den was created and established as a benign dictatorship. A lot of people cringe when they hear that, and I have been counseled to never say it again even though my position has always ensured the best possible interests for the Den. Well, since AKcoyote has joined me as an owner of the site, it's true - It's no longer a benign dictatorship, but guess what? I can still say no.

 

I am locking the thread. Against my better judgement, I am not deleting it. Now then - Can we get back to enjoyng our fur . . . ?