Now THIS is bound to help the furry fandom's public image ...

Here's a nice bit of news that's sure to give the furry fandom even more pleasant and fair media coverage and public reaction that it already has (*bites knuckles*): a man in Washington state has been put in jail for 30 days and is forbidden from owning pets for two full years after having been caught having sex with his two dogs. And – as you can guess from what I've written previously – he's a furry.

Great.

Troy Whitson entered an Alford plea Monday in Lewis County Superior Court, meaning he admitted no wrongdoing but acknowledged he'd likely be convicted.

The 21-year-old from the town of Cinebar (SI'-ne-bahr) is restricted from owning animals for two years.

His malamutes have been placed with new owners.

Prosecutor Michael Golden said Whitson is a member of a group known as Furries who identify with animals and dress the part in makeup, ears and tail.

Grrr ... How I hate media misrepresentation. You could devote a lifetime to explaining something to folks and the general masses, and then one sloppy news report comes in and you're screwed. For example, the above makes it sound like all furries dress in make-up and costumes (known as "fursuits"), which is actually a behavior undertaken by only the more ardent followers and/or fanatics of the fandom. Most furries are really no different than anyone else; the only thing that makes them a furry is they happen to identify with the furry fandom and take part in it, writing stories, making art, attending conventions, whatever.

But of course, the point of the article is less about the guy being a furry, than about him ... well, screwing the pooch(es). (Oh God, even I think I should be shot for that horror-of-a-pun.)

While I certainly am one of the most vehement animal abuse-haters in the land, this time I cannot really condemn the guy for his acts. First, because the report fails to state just how much abuse the dogs were submitted to (if any – I'm talking physical pain and beatings here, not just the sex), and second ... This is all relative to personal moralities and what is Right and Wrong, but personally ... I really don't care about the guy having sex with his dogs. Instead of viewing all this through morals and values and whatever, I try and view things logically and rationally: who's being hurt? Who isn't?

Quite simply: if the dogs are not physically or psychologically harmed in any way (and I'm not saying they weren't, I'm just stipulating here), and nor is the human ... then quite literally, "where is the harm"? Should we not do things, just because of societal taboos or popular stigma or such, even if, in specific conditions and situations, there's actually no harm being done?

I know this is the single oddest post I've ever made to date (and "oddest" is light compared to what some of you may be calling it), but I just wanna lay it out. Say the animal isn't physically hurt (and nor is the man), nor is it bullied into submission but willingly accepts the act (because – well, it's sex. Feels good for many animals as well as humans) – then what would be the real harm in doing it?

Yes, societal taboos, stigmas and general no-no's do have their worth and importance, because often they are rule of thumbs that apply to general situations. But if the stars align and all that ... well, personally, I really can't condemn it. Not that I'd ever do it myself, but if others do it, I'm just not gonna raise such a fuss about it.

Unless the animal actually is harmed. In which case my tolerance tends to turn south rather quickly. And a brick flies through the air towards the guy's skull.

Okay, enough about that ...