I think it’s the fact that furries tend to bring their kink public. I have not consented to engage in your sex games. If he showed up to a ceremony in leather and a ballgag no one would be ok with it, but the fur suit is the equivalent and I’m expected to applaud.
the fur suit is the equivalent [of] leather and a ballgag
I mean, no. It’s really not.
I do get what you’re saying and generally agree otherwise. That one was just a bit much.
I agree. I’ve seen furries in public and while I find them odd, I never saw any of their costumes as inherently sexual.
You sound like the kind of person that wants to ban drag story time at the libraries because “kids shouldn’t be exposed to someone’s kink”
So the distinction I feel here is that women are people. If a man wants to dress like a woman, sure, most people can interact with women in public, whatever. If you want to call them both, broadly, a form of cosplay, then drag is a costume that doesn’t fundamentally change much. Animals aren’t people.
Would you say the same about police officers, nurses, nuns, motorcycle wear and so on?
If the body isnt indecently exposed i find it hard to draw the line, since everything and nothing is someones kink.
We established that there is sexual and non sexual furries. As each of my examples is both non sexual and sexual for some people, it is impossible to deem the one as right and the other as wrong on that basis.
Interestingly it is you, that seems to consider animal suits and behaviour as a sex thing. So maybe you need to own up to your kinks you little furry.
A big part of this misconception is actually from That Episode. You can actually google the phrase That Episode. No need to even specify the show, just those two words are enough (but the show is CSI). There’s a bunch to read into if you’d like, but the important bit is that a big part of public opinion - which has only recently begun to change, and only in some parts of the internet - comes from That Episode’s portrayal of furries
