3 ms·

> Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an a

by dpark 10y ago

> Yes, you could make the argument that it was (setting aside the question of how "furry sex" differs from "normal sex"). Consider the following quote from an article on Winston Churchill I think you're answering a much different question than what I asked. You seem to be answering whether it existed before it had a name. I was asking whether it was normal before it had a name. I have no idea whether Churchill was actually a "furry" but I don't think giving it a name suddenly made it abnormal. To whatever extend "furry" behavior is normal or abnormal, it was the same before and after it had a name.

wolfgang42 10y ago
Admittedly I did not make this point particularly clearly. [I also realized as I was writing this reply that I made a possibly unwarranted assumption: that Churchill's actions were well-known and generally accepted at the time. I took from the quote that he was doing this at dinner parties, but have no idea what the public scope was. The remainder of the reply continues with this assumption, but I would want to do more research before continuing to use this particular example.] I'm interpreting "normal" as considered not out of the ordinary by a reference group (as opposed to e.g. within one standard deviation of the mean). This brings the opinions of the group (here the general public) into play. I argue that giving it a name did, in fact, make it abnormal. It is difficult to discuss anything without having words to describe it with, in part because no clear boundaries have yet been defined. As a result, these sorts of things fall into a grey zone where they can't really be described as "normal" or "abnormal" (even if individual instances could be called "unusual"). Once they have been classified, they can be given a name (e.g. "furry"), and also the group as a whole can then be easily classified as normal or abnormal.
- dpark 10y ago
  Holding someone's hand and calling them a pet name at dinner is not the same as having one's private sex/romance practices publicly known. I doubt that if Churchill was engaging in furry fetishes that it was well known. But even if it were well-known that wouldn't mean it was generally accepted as normal. But it's weird debating Churchill since I have no idea if it's even true or if it's made up or or wildly misinterpreted. I don't agree with the naming argument. It might be harder to discuss something without a label on it but the underlying behavior can still be seen as normal or abnormal. We didn't have a real word for cisgender until recently but it doesn't seem to have made a difference in how cisgender people are perceived. We still don't have a word for people who are sexually excited by Ikea couches but it's pretty unusual/abnormal regardless. (I don't see unusual and abnormal as meaningfully different here.)

by dpark 10y ago

wolfgang42 10y ago

Admittedly I did not make this point particularly clearly. [I also realized as I was writing this reply that I made a possibly unwarranted assumption: that Churchill's actions were well-known and generally accepted at the time. I took from the quote that he was doing this at dinner parties, but have no idea what the public scope was. The remainder of the reply continues with this assumption, but I would want to do more research before continuing to use this particular example.] I'm interpreting "normal" as considered not out of the ordinary by a reference group (as opposed to e.g. within one standard deviation of the mean). This brings the opinions of the group (here the general public) into play. I argue that giving it a name did, in fact, make it abnormal. It is difficult to discuss anything without having words to describe it with, in part because no clear boundaries have yet been defined. As a result, these sorts of things fall into a grey zone where they can't really be described as "normal" or "abnormal" (even if individual instances could be called "unusual"). Once they have been classified, they can be given a name (e.g. "furry"), and also the group as a whole can then be easily classified as normal or abnormal.

dpark 10y ago
Holding someone's hand and calling them a pet name at dinner is not the same as having one's private sex/romance practices publicly known. I doubt that if Churchill was engaging in furry fetishes that it was well known. But even if it were well-known that wouldn't mean it was generally accepted as normal. But it's weird debating Churchill since I have no idea if it's even true or if it's made up or or wildly misinterpreted. I don't agree with the naming argument. It might be harder to discuss something without a label on it but the underlying behavior can still be seen as normal or abnormal. We didn't have a real word for cisgender until recently but it doesn't seem to have made a difference in how cisgender people are perceived. We still don't have a word for people who are sexually excited by Ikea couches but it's pretty unusual/abnormal regardless. (I don't see unusual and abnormal as meaningfully different here.)