> 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.
So queer the fandom got booted out of the anime cons it spawned out of for being so. Unchained from the narrow views of the anime community, our power only grew.
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.