The whole furry thing is creepy as hell. It's weird. Wanting to have sex with anthropomorphized animals is not a thing that should be normalized.
And it's even creepier when they add things like "kitten" or showing anthropomorphized animal kids.
And thank you to Unruffled [they/them] / Flatworm7591 @lemmy.dbzer0.com for this sane and reasonable response.
And thanks to recursive_recursion who seems to be an alt of Flatworm for continuing that sane and reasonable response. Note that in over 1,400 comments here I've never once said a single word against trans people. Not once.
It really bothers me when people lie about racism. So many people really do experience it so much in life, and lying using false racism accusations as a sword and shield to make other people look bad and make themselves look like the victim is demeaning to every real instance people suffer.
Hopefully one day this person realizes that lying about transphobia for the same reasons does the same thing.
The costumes(with some exceptions) are just costumes though, not everyone who has a fursuit is even into the kinky stuff, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions and generalizations. It's not all sexual.
If anything you might be the one oversexualizing here
How do you tell if someone wearing a fur suit is into the kinky stuff or not? I can’t tell out in public personally.
I’m asking sincerely as I don’t mind furries generally. To each their own and all that! But I do mind when people are involving others in their kink without consent.
Same way you go around assuming most people aren't wearing vibrators and butt plugs in public, because some definitely do but it's probably best not to make negative assumptions about people.
Personally though I don't even mind if people do kink in public so long as on a functional level it's not noticeable or at risk of making others uncomfortable.
Mm that's a good point on the wearable sex toys. I'll make negative assumptions about people wearing those and knowingly involving non-consenting people in the kink though. Even if the other people are unaware. That's creepy and borders on rape-like tendencies.
It's directly involving non consenting, unaware, people in their sexual fetish. It's definitely creepy and not okay.
Yeah that's the line for me with any kink or fetish. You can't involve others without their consent and still be morally correct.
I don't think this actually is the line though, take masturbation for example, most folk masturbate to other people they know, technically this is involving others in a sexual way without consent but it's considered completely ok and normal because ultimately you're not doing anything TO them.
Same with wearing a buttplug in public, is it kinda strange? Yeah, sure, you can even say it's offputting and I would at least in some cases agree, but on a moral level you're not doing anything TO anyone, that's in my eyes the real line, if they don't know and have no way of knowing then it's not really causing harm.
Compare it to say flashing strangers in public, now you're doing something TO people, without consent and that is bad.
Hmm I like your point about masturbation. To narrow in on where my personal line is: the physically present part. I do think if one is wearing a sex toy in public with the purpose of getting the thrill of interacting with people without consent it isn’t morally ok. Intention matters.
Now that I know fur suits that people wear in public are not used sexually (or at least that’s what I’ve been told here), my opinion on the public suit wearing has shifted a little to a more positive one.
I know there’s an argument in there that what people don’t know won’t hurt them, but I disagree. It hurts the offender as well as the subjects when leaning into enjoying using people without consent.
I think the argument about it being a mentally unhealthy activity to do that causes harm to the one doing it is a much stronger argument, granted I don't think it is universally true that that is the case, I would definitely agree it is harmful a majority of the time to a majority of the people who do it.
But I would also say at this point we then have to ask if self harm is immoral, I think that we are no longer in the realm of morality any more and more in the realm of harm reduction seeing as while it is not generally good to harm yourself (mentally or otherwise) calling it immoral also seems incorrect. It's bad, but not for moral reasons?
So does masturbation usually. I think you need a more detailed explanation of what actually makes a thing wrong and where that line is.
No, it doesn't. There's a huge distinction between the natural human act of masturbation possibly imagining a person in your head but not involving them in any way in reality, and secretly masturbating while sitting next to others in public and very literally involving them in your fetish.
On a physical level sure, but on a moral level I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. I don't even really have a horse in this race since it's not something I do or have any interest in doing but it seems pretty obvious that this doesn't really harm anyone, you're not forcing anyone to do anything, you're not doing anything TO anyone, and unless they take your clothes off they won't know,
masturbation: getting off while thinking about someone in another room this:getting off while thinking about someone in the same room
if the only difference is proximity then what even is your argument considering proximity has no moral dimension?
Not all people are even capable of seeing a mental image of another person, it's not a real thing but an aspect of the mind and memory. It is by it's very nature completely different from physically involving another person in your fetish without their knowledge or consent.
can you define "physically involving another person"
There's another person physically there. Secretly wearing some sexual insert or vibrating panties and getting off because people are near is ethically the same as pulling your dick out and jerking off staring at a sleeping stranger.
Just because a person isn't aware doesn't mean you're doing something moral. It's still wrong to rape a person in a coma.
First of all, under my moral framework which I already described the coma example would be very morally wrong because you are doing something TO someone, which I have already said is my dividing line. Which makes it functionally different than anything else we've discussed and therefore not a good comparison.
Secondly when it comes to the sleeping stranger there's also a difference, you are running a very high risk of traumatizing them which also would fall into the doing something TO someone category and therefore be morally wrong even if it's only based on probability, you are risking immoral outcomes for pleasure which is fucked up.
But if you're just wearing a sex toy you're not doing anything to anyone except yourself as there's no risk someone decides to randomly strip search you in public and if they did that would put THEM in the wrong. Do you see the difference now? Getting off to other people isn't the same as doing something to them, you aren't actually physically involving them because they aren't forced in any way to interact with what is happening.
Your next argument is about being physically there having a moral quality to it so now you have to define physically there, for example, would it be ok if they were in the next room? Is that still "physically there"? Is it a line of sight thing? If you can see them it's wrong but if you can't then it's ok? You must make a choice here where you either claim all masturbation is wrong if you're thinking about real people or you must find a way to describe "being physically there" that excludes masturbating while thinking about someone but includes all possible ways of being "physically there"
This is fundamentally an impossible task as being "physically there" is a gradient spectrum concept, you can measure it in physical distance, for example how many meters away someone is, you can measure it by sight/sound, or by conceptual 'thereness' which is probably the closest to what you're actually trying to describe but far too vague to be useful which is the problem you're running into here, for example I will assume that you would also oppose to someone masturbating to a video feed of another person who is unaware yes? Even if that individual is on the other side of the planet, they are still being 'physically involved' albeit indirectly if you use a general concept of 'thereness'.
The thing is I think you're also conflating harm to the other person and the mental state of the acting individual, if someone is doing something like that then it's generally safe to say that they are not engaging in mentally healthy behavior yes? It is generally not mentally healthy to masturbate to live video of people unaware you can see them even though it doesn't harm those people yes?
But something being bad for you to do because it is harmful to the way you view other people and something being bad to do because it harms those other people directly are two different things and I think you are treating both as the same thing in your arguments here without realizing that's what you're doing.
I don't secretly masturbate around people. You are mistaking a philosophical argument for actual behavior.
How is a simple honest comment trolling? The moderation here is insane. When someone makes a page long plea trying to say it's alright to do a thing most consider immoral it does seem like they're invested in it.
Meh, not super invested, just wouldn't really mind if I somehow found out someone was wearing a toy in public. If anything I'm a little weirded out by how much you seem to be obsessed with marking the sexual behavior of others as immoral when it's not actually hurting anyone. Kind of reminds me of Republican anti gay talking points from the 90s
Pretty easy does the suit have "holes"
Are the holes in the sex fur suits really obvious or something? I wouldn't know which is why I'm asking.
BIG ZIPPER also those are called murr suits not fur suits.... they are generally a lot less nice and more functional. I don't own either but have thought of getting one of the really thin printed fabric types to go with my hood.
You want people to be more understanding of furry culture? Don't answer sincere questions like this.
With honesty?
All caps "BIG ZIPPER" doesn't tell me much other than you're possibly being sarcastic and treating me like I'm dumb for asking.
Oh come on, I'm being sincere here. Wouldn't there be zippers regardless to get in and out of the suit?
Are the zippers really obvious when it's a sex suit vs a fur suit?
yes, they are made to be operated with gloved hands
But like.....how? I can't search for fur suits vs sex suits at the moment and just telling me "zippers" isn't giving me a clear image of how they're different.
Thank you! This is perfect - yeah I can see how obvious that would be even from afar.
Im sorry if I was being obtuse, my point was that you have likely never seen a murr suit, just furr suits.
I can appreciate how obvious these things seem to those that are in the community, so I really hope you don't take offense to my questions. I just don't know! But I am curious. And thank you again for answering my question :)
not your questions but your hostile attitude leaves a lot to be desired
Right back at ya lol
That's why I said I can appreciate how obvious these things seem to you. You made it clear that I should've already known these things with how you replied to me. But they're not as obvious to those of us outside of the community.
If you present yourself as someone who has spent decades interacting with the community ... I will expect you have basic knowledge of the community.
Not interacting. Just in communities that have overlap.
Why do you keep reinterpreting my comments like that?
Like I'm going to ask or look that closely at someone in public?
You would see it from 10 to 20ft away assuming you have decent vision
Right. I'm the one over sexualizing the anthropomorphized animals people post blatantly sexual pictures of all over the internet. My mistake.
I'm not denying SOME of it is sexual, but what you're doing is assuming that MOST or ALL of it is sexual, which is both wrong and also the result of cognitive biases and a good example of why extrapolation from anecdotes is a bad idea especially when it's fueled by confirmation bias
The Internet is full of those sexualized pictures. The pictures came before the suits were something most people could easily buy.
The sexualization started before people started wearing them in public for other things. The only reason the response wasn't people freaking out was most didn't know that and kids just see cute animal mascots.
It still seems like forcing the public to participate in a fetish without consent.
This is it. 25 years ago you couldnt easily buy a fursuit. All of my expierence with furries have been sexual dipictions and art online. its all sexual (that ive seen). Even the one furry couple i met at a party, they werent in dress, and him and his girl tried to "pick me up" and I declined, but someone told me after they were furries. I didnt care, but ive never seen it presented out of a sexual context. And this is a new thing, it's new to a lot of people for the fact you couldnt get these outfits so easily a decade ot two ago. So its new, it is odd, not to use this word odd in a negitive way, but objectivly its odd, and many dont understand.
so you grow up online seeing sexual furry art everywhere, and then now today see a furry ..at the zoo(come on).. the mental connection is visceral from the only other exposure outsiders have seen.
I honestly find it irresponsible this group that went to a zoo.
because of this connection of fur suits and sexual fetish, it very hard for some outsiders not to feel like its unconsentually exposing this fetish to the public.
This mirrors my experience really closely. It all presented as sexual from the start.
There's a furry community in my area that specifically targets people from the age of 13-23 years old for their gatherings. I find that problematic as well.
Can you please stop trying to work backwards from your conclusion to the supporting evidence.
I got into the fandom from reading Ozzy and Millie https://ozyandmillie.org/
I have no idea what you're talking about, that doesn't seem like a response to the comment you responded to. It's definitely not me saying how you got interested in anything.