My wife and I were talking about this and it made me wonder if anybody even actually gives a crap about furries at all, or if hating them is just an internet meme and nobody actually cares IRL.
I give a crap in that they’re people and should be treated respectfully like you’d treat anyone. Other than that as long as no one’s getting hurt I really don’t bother myself with dictating how others should live their lives. Life’s short, do what makes you happy.
There’s all sorts of things that the majority of folks don’t sexualize that some people do. Are you going to get upset about someone wearing knee high socks in public just because it is a fetish for some people?
I would think it’s weird for the people who fetishize knee high socks to wear them in public. So I don’t think it’s necessary bad for anyone to wear furry stuff, but it is if they get off to it.
I don’t think they’re incapable, just impolite. Like I’m sure someone could wear a butt plug out and about without feeling stimulated. But I think it’d still be impolite. Maybe the best comparison I can think of would be maid outfits. I don’t think it’d be good to wear them out and about if you have a fetish for them, even if you aren’t aroused at the moment.
I think its worth noting that this could be happening right now. Anyone wearing sandels might be subject to someone finding their feet attractive! The horror! :) As a side note, lots of people wear clothing that’s revealing but most of us aren’t up in arms because someone is revealing part of their cleavage. I’m specificlly refering to people wearing pants down around their bum. With there ass cleavage hanging out :)
Yeah, for me it's like people who go ALL in on collecting kitsch. Is it a bit cringe? Sure. Is it hurting anyone? No, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. And if you have the guts to stand up and show it proudly, man, more power to you.
from what i’ve heard talking to other furries, “embracing the cringe” is a somewhat common part of the fandom for a lot of us. “furry hate” is just an evolved form of school kids making fun of eachother for liking different things.
there’s just something so freeing about saying “yeah i pretend to be a dog on the internet for fun”, especially when you just know it’s gonna make someone somewhere SO MAD for literally no worthwhile reason.
Personally, I see it similar to wearing BSDM gear or those cropped hentai shirts in public. Are you free to do it? Yes, but I’m also going to judge you for it
First, you have to consider the issue of logistics - if women are, say, 10% less effective, on average, than male recruits, then you are essentially dragging around 9 troops for every 10 mouths. That adds up, especially when running logistics is one of the most challenging parts of pre-modern warfare.
Second, you do have to consider the issue of sexual violence performed upon the minority gender (ie women in this case) disrupting cohesion. It's difficult to trust your rapist, or people who side with him. Also one of the reasons Russia's military is so dysfunctional, though in Russia's case it's male-on-male rape.
Third, you have to consider the possibility of pregnancy. Soldiers fuck. Each other and locals, it's unavoidable. In a time before reliable birth control, a woman who ends up pregnant has her logistics footprint increased AND her combat efficacy decreased.
Fourth, you have to consider that most pre-modern armies were not standing, professional armies. There wasn't strict criteria to get in, it was "Your city-state/village/fief is getting called to arms, round up your warriors and send them to the ad-hoc army that's forming". As such, it would be difficult to ensure that the women who arrive meet that 10% standard.
Different societies with traditions of female warriors resolve the issue in various ways. In the raiding warfare of the Vikings and Celts, there is widespread evidence for women warriors, because 20 lbs and less dense bones is a disadvantage in individual or small scale combat, but far from an insurmountable one. If you were fierce and eager, that was enough. This is also why female pirates pop up surprisingly often for a profession that involves being stuck on a ship with a bunch of sailors - personal prowess counts for more in boarding actions than mass. Many steppe tribes also have plentiful evidence for women warriors, and this is likely back to the mass argument - namely, that when you're on top of a 1000 pound horse, 20 lbs either way is not gonna make much of a difference.
Some societies, like the Sengoku-era Japanese, trained their noblewomen in the arts of war, allowing them to act as makeshift garrison troops in a pinch - much more useful than just another mouth to feed in a siege. Because of this, and the fact that the way of the samurai is the way of the horse and bow, women also participated even in the mass field warfare of the Sengoku era, though obviously not in numbers comparable to men. Some European noblewomen were similarly trained, but it was much less common due to deeply-rooted cultural misogyny. The Sikhs also trained women in warfare and had significant female participation, but I only know the rudimentary details of that.
Obviously all of this is irrelevant in the context of modern warfare. But it's good to understand the 'whys' of widespread historical phenomena, like women being excluded from military service.
Your first point assumes women need as much food as men. This isn’t true, women need significantly less food due to their smaller size and lower metabolism on average.
There's actually a double-edged sword on this point - women consume fewer calories under ordinary circumstances, but when building muscle, have comparable food requirements to men. Due to hormonal differences, women lose muscle faster than men, which adds an additional time requirement for maintaining physical condition, and makes food shortages much worse with regards to decreasing combat efficacy. Not only that, but there are other issues of logistics - keeping troops clothed, shoed, etc - that would unambiguously suffer from the '10% less effective' problem without any significant offset.
You see, Ukrainians have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down - Putin.
We may have saved the Ukrainian government hundreds of dollars in counter-propaganda efforts in our collective millions of man-hours of shitposting! Hundreds!
Unfortunately, because we’re not at war with Russia it can’t count as treason, but there’s a whole host of other laws he violated so they could definitely get him on something.
Actually, subverting the foreign policy of the United States is actually a form of treason.
Like, you can say “I think we should trade with Cuba”
You cannot provide funding to a company that ships aid to Cuba. That is illegal, and actually a form of treason.
What Musk did is the latter. He saw a geopolitical situation the state department was handling, and inserted himself and his company into it. Up to thst point is fine. But then he inserted himself into the decision-making process of US strategic command because we was a vendor to the government.
If you supply rockets to send up satellites, the time to object is before you agree and load payloads to send up satellites. Not during or after.
If that's the case, then we should also keep in mind that they are in fact not "based af" but just acting like it out of their own oppotunistic reasons.
Maybe... but even then there are competent ones not getting caught and those so clearly running only on populism that it's not even surprising when they screw up... again.
noncredibledefense
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.