I apologize to Bear Magazine for my comments.

[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/#!/Boxtech/status/26056328485015552″]

I am very sincere in my apology, and hope that Bear Magazine will accept it. They won Best Bear Publication of 2010 fair and square. Who am I to judge the magazine for what it has done for the community, especially if people like it enough to vote for it?

Then comes the question. Will I retract my tweet? Will I delete it so no one will see it when “Bear Magazine” is searched for on Twitter? No. That’s the way I thought about it at the time. Okay, so this is all the editor’s fault that I think this way. And I don’t like the images in the magazine. All this animosity I’ll eventually get to.

On the other hand, ALL BEAR and Euro-Bear are both published in Europe and the voting for the Best of the Bears is strongly US centric; 100% Beef and A Bear’s Life both seem to be fading. Also, did anyone think that Harbour City Bears Weekly Newsletter would have won anyway? Bear Magazine has been continuing to publish and attempts to appeal to the Bears. Bears at Large? Not necessarily, but to Bears none the less.

So where did my opinion of Bear Magazine come from? Let’s turn back the clock to 2009 for a bit and visit Bear Magazine issue 69. In the magazine, the editor, whom shall not be named, wrote a scathing article about how chubby does not equal bear. (Planet Bears posted an article that linked to a response to the article posted to LiveJournal. Both articles post the contents of the original article for everyone to peruse.) In this assertion, he is correct. In order to be a bear, you do not have to be chubby. Although not to my personal tastes, muscle Bears and the not so chubby bears are still bears in their own right. Where he goes wrong is asserting that chubby bears are not bears at all. He claims that BearFilms and Cyberbears have been continuously creating chub porn without a fit bear in sight. I don’t know about you, but looking through at least the BearFilms.com catalogue, I find plenty of fit bears alongside chubby bears and otters. Yes, I’m calling bullshit on claiming that BearFilms and Cyberbears do not include fit bears. I don’t want to just call out muscle bears as some of the bears in Bear Magazine don’t have six pack abs. Some do have a little bit of a rounder middle, but you must admit when scanning through Bear Magazine or it’s X-rated companion BearPlay, they are all fit bears. Does this show as just the ideal for the bear community? Is there an ideal for the bear community?

I beg to differ. I believe there is not one. There are bears of all shapes and sizes, as well as color and creed. Should a magazine that is trying to represent itself as covering the entire bear community not show more of a variety of men? Maybe, maybe not. How can I put down someone with a particular business model? It’s their choice to only present these types of bears in the magazine. While some may think they really should be calling it Musclebear, they were the first to snatch up the name of Bear Magazine before anyone else did. 100% Beef came out of the original Bear Magazine and they show bears of all types without discrimination. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen anything of the original Bear Magazine, but I feel comfortable that 100% Beef continued the tradition that started with the original Bear.

Did the editor ever apologize to the community for his assertions? Nope. While in the next issue of Bear, there was a response to his article about how wrong he was. This was a letter to the editor and not from someone who was also part of Bear Magazine. In the documentary Bear Nation directed by Malcolm Ingram, the editor was interviewed about his article and claimed that he just wrote it to spark a discussion in the community, not to stick up his nose and alienate a good portion of the community. I’m sorry, Mr. Editor-In-Chief. I didn’t believe one word of it.

After this recent debacle I decided to think upon my words. Do I have an impression of Bear Magazine that I really shouldn’t? They did get a large majority of the votes in the Best of the Bears Awards 2010. They must be liked by a good majority of the bear community to that. So I picked up the most recent issue of Bear Magazine. I must say I do not regret my purchase. Not because it gives me ammo, but more of the opposite. It’s actually pretty good!

This issue’s cover features Robert Gonzalez. A muscle bound, neatly trimmed bearded, lightly furry Latino. While not to my personal liking, he’s not half bad. This trend in the models continues through most of the models in the magazine. As I said before, some of the bears in here don’t have 6 packs, but are definitely more fit. The closest to someone my type was on page 23 who I couldn’t quite figure out what his name was. (I would have loved to be the tailor measuring his inseam.) The articles in this issue are all interesting and some are very artful. The pages are high quality gloss and the images stand out because of it.

Ooooo. They even have a short review of Starcraft II. However, Mengsk? A Hotty? I don’t see it. Totally Jim Raynor. And why wasn’t Tychus mentioned at all?! Never mind, I’m going on a tangent.

The magazine includes articles about woofy Top Chefs, Music reviews, and an article on Bearracuda. This is really a very well put together magazine. But . . .

Mr. Editor-In-Chief. Yeah, I’m talking to you. I assume that the layout, and approval. and editing of the articles are all you. I appreciate what you do to create this wonderful magazine. I have one piece of advice for you.

SHUT. UP.

Is there anything you yourself can write that would not antagonize a majority of the bear community? Your editorial in this issue, a year after “Jabba The Bear I Am Not”, just brought the whole thing back again. Starting off by childishly sticking out your tongue at the backlash from the previous article and saying “Ha ha! Take that suckers. We’re still around,” then continuing to defame the community you are trying to be a niche of by putting it in quotes! Yes, Mr. Editor-In-Chief, to you we’re not the Bear Community; we’re the “so-called ‘Bear Community’”. I just quoted that! Issue 73, page 8, paragraph 2, sentence 3, word 12. You’re simultaneously trying to be a part of a community while spitting on it like some piece of disgusting garbage on the streets. You love your muscle bear niche, Mr. Editor-In-Chief, I get that. I really do. However, your editorials are representing the rest of the bear community as scum. In the movie BearCity, Tyler referred to the muscle bears as the “Third Bear Reich”. I feel like you’re demonstrating the truth of this in your articles. Unlike you, by the end of the movie, the truth is shown. Muscle bears are just another niche of bears, and are still part of the bear community.

I respect your opinions, Mr. Editor-In-Chief. In reality, I disrespect the way you arrogantly say them. I can understand a statement stating that most people think bears are what happened “after you lost the battle of the bulge” (Simon from BearCity), that not all bears are chubby, but please, do not disregard them as not being bears. Do not alienate anyone who is not fit from being a bear. Do not invalidate the bear community. Bear Magazine is part of the bear community. Invalidating the community will invalidate your magazine.

Bear Magazine and its companion BearPlay are representing a niche of the bear community that may not be as well known, the fit and muscular bears. That’s perfectly okay. Keep doing what you’re doing. However, Mr. Editor-In-Chief, as your staff deserves an apology from me, I believe that the entire bear community deserves an apology from you.