WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

[plonq]

To his defence, it looked like he was trying to ride her in the proper way that one would ride a horse, but those bulky fake animal bags make movement a bit awkward.

Comments

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

"Fake animal bags", eh?
That's got to be the most cynical way of referring to fursuits that I have ever heard from a furry.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I stole that label from perro, who used it a couple of times at the MFF closing ceremonies. It is meant in an affectionate tongue-in-cheek manner rather than cynically.

Also that's kind of exactly what a fursuit is...

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Well that's interesting, because it just doesn't come across as affectionate tongue-in-cheek right now. Maybe you just had to be there to appreciate it properly, but I've seen people equally high up on the totem pole in charge of cons do some pretty lame shit, so that doesn't excuse or explain anything away. It sounds derogatory to me.

[atara.livejournal.com]

I think you had to be there.

...and... they really *are* bags made out of fake animal fur.

*edit: and I'm also going to point out that the comment CAME from a fursuiter. ;)

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

I know who Perro is. And as I said, it doesn't excuse it.

And most derogatory terms are usually defensible as truth by those who use them. You just challenge anyone who uses some sort of slur for something or some group of people, and the first words that come out of their mouth is that oh yes, those people/things really ARE what they say they are. So what you and Plonq are saying exactly fits that pattern. Cynical doesn't necessarily mean complete falsehood. It's just a very negative way of looking at things.

I'll just drop the word "cynical" if that helps - but it sure as heck sounds like the very worst way I've heard any fur refer to fursuits...

But there's no denying that it's a very deprecating way of referring to fursuits. All three words in it are wrong anyway. They aren't bags. The head component certainly isn't a bag, and neither are several other parts. The base material may be fake fur, but the word "fake" takes on a different meaning when you re-use it in that way. In particular, the fursuits that go for a greater degree of realism would find "fake" to be grossly insulting. And "animal" is only half true - they are anthropomorphs.

[atara.livejournal.com]

Sorry, my mistake. They're made out of woven rainbows and fairy dreams. Sorry for being racist, or whatever the fuck you're on about.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

BTW, interesting strategy to prove to me that this whole thing was not meant in the very mean spirited cynical sense that I initially figured it was. I had already caved on the use of the word "cynical", and I had already apologized for letting my interpretation of those three words spoil the joke. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have taken that as a victory and ran with it. But nooooooo, you had to come in with your victorious grand finishing move, or whatever that was supposed to be, and ruin it for yourself. Thanks!

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Anyway, let me just say that I approve of photographs of fursuits mounting giant pony plushies. ;-) The cynical extremely self-deprecating terminology ruins it for me though. Sorry.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I understand that you find the turn of phrase disparaging and offensive. All I can do is assure you is that I did not mean it that way, but I will concede that something which was funny when spoken may not have translated as well to text.

I think that it is a wonderfully wry, humorous deconstruction of what a fursuit is at a high level. I love it conceptually on a meta level as well, because when one dons a fursuit, we are in effect double-bagging. After all, in the end we are all just a brain encased in a big walking meatbag.

Anyway, perhaps you were right when you commented earlier that you just "had to be there". I did not get the feeling that anybody in the audience that day took his comment as anything but an affectionate quip.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

And that's fine. Also, contrasting it with "meatbag", like you've done here, certainly helps to convey the intended meaning.

At best, I find it to be a curious absurdity. And honestly, if I was in the audience, I probably would have laughed too, but only because it is so ridiculously bad that it is leant a humourous aspect if it is delivered properly. In text, jokes tend towards a dead-pan delivery unless the writer makes an effort otherwise, and as a joke I don't think this joke works very well with such a delivery.