| > assuming your request for more context comes out of a sincere desire to increase your understanding, I hope this helped. I appreciate the benefit of the doubt -- I was trying to approach it with the assumption that there's probably some perspective that I wasn't aware of. > sneak wanted OP to be less openly queer in their personal blog for their own comfort I can see how it may be interpreted that way. To me it read more like "hey, great content, presentation of it wasn't for me" in a way to convey feedback in the event the author wanted to better capture their attention. I didn't get the sense that there was an expectation that the author change their writing style to accommodate their preferences. re-reading this, I don't think I appreciated that it was really in defense of the readers rather than the content > I also ask you to be more considerate and respectful of other readers who may enjoy my work I'm surmising that the real problem statement is: > I'm sure there are non-sexual furries but the subculture is primarily a sexual one (same as with BDSM) which I can appreciate as a generalization, I suppose I wouldn't have personally considered furries as under the queer umbrella, but I'm certainly no voice of authority on the matter. I suppose there's also the possibility that 'furries' was a dog whistle for 'queer', and being less charitable to sneak, I could better understand finding disrespect in the post. |
The furry subculture is deeply queer, both conceptually and in terms of its members. But "queer" doesn't mean "sexual".