I read your comment in the modlog. My response would be that no one’s boundaries are violated merely by seeing a person who is visibly kinky in public, any more than they are violated by seeing someone who is visibly queer in public. For more in-depth reasoning as to why, I would refer you to this Tumblr post: https://i.imgur.com/ZuTbOq0.png
To be clear about something, I am responding to most of the things you say here because, well, you’re a gay furry. I’m a queer kinkster. People like you and I need one another, because if we fringe weirdos don’t defend one another, who will? I’d like to believe that we’re on the same side. I know I’ll fight for your rights when it comes down to it. I would do it without reciprocation, but I hope you can be convinced to do the same for me.
I never claimed I was being forced to participate, only that it does, in fact, violate boundaries to do so.
There’s a massive difference between “furry” and “kinky.” Walking around in a dog costume does not immediately mean it’s for kinky or sexual reasons, and to assume so, while not a huge leap considering how much of the fandom is pretty open about their sexuality, is just largely incorrect. I’m personally not one to engage in a lot of that behavior, so I don’t appreciate the comparison. The same can not be said for blatant kink gear.
Again, I want to reiterate: you do you. I won’t stop anyone from going out like that, freedom of speech and expression and all that, but I certainly won’t respect or associate with them.
Seeing someone wearing kink gear tells you absolutely nothing about their sex life. There are plenty of people who participate exclusively in nonsexual kink. Your assumption that seeing someone in a leather harness means you know how they fuck is akin to someone who only knows about the furry community via pop culture assuming that they know how someone in a fursuit fucks. In both cases this is a mark of ignorance about the subculture, and the solution is greater visibility and education rather than expressing disgust that someone dares to participate in a subculture you don’t understand.
You are, of course, allowed to disrespect people who are visibly kinky. But I am also allowed to believe this makes you rather shitty at supporting sexual minorities and is probably rooted in internalized sex negativity and queerphobia. There is nothing more sexual or violating about seeing someone in BDSM gear than there is in seeing a lingerie commercial. Furthermore, your willingness to respect someone should not depend on whether they do things that cause you discomfort but are ultimately harmless.
I have met many, many people who are too traumatized to engage in “normal” sex, who have found sexual expression and healing in BDSM. Lots of people practice kink without having anything close to what someone else considers sex – but it might still be sex to us.
The guy you’re talking to is over the line. People are telling him about their lived experiences that contradict his ignorant expectations, and he’s just tuning it out and continuing with his thing. He has some kind of damage that’s playing out here and it’s shitty that he’s getting it all over us.
That’s also a very good point. Even kink that in no way involves genitals can be sex for some.
I’m hoping this person can be reached because they’re queer and belong to a vilified subculture, but they’ve clearly swallowed a lot of conservative propaganda. That won’t be undone by one conversation, unfortunately.
You’re really going far to ignore the entire reason “kink gear” exists or was created in the first place and labelling me the weird one for acknowledging this reason.
Okay, sure, let’s say the only reason kink and kink gear have ever existed or could ever exist is for boning. So? Who cares? Lingerie exists primarily for sexy reasons, but no one cares about lingerie commercials. Even things as mundane as wedding rings imply that those wearing them fuck regularly. People only care about leather harnesses and pup masks because they’re weird. The sex bit doesn’t matter. Sex is shoved in our faces all day every day by advertisers, and heavily implied by many of the social signals we send one another, yet it only becomes problematic to most people when it’s implied someone is doing a sex thing they find strange.
I don’t think you’re weird at all. I think you are, tragically, quite normal. Your attitude is a pervasive one even among people who really should know better. Like, for example, gay furries. And there are any number of queer kinksters out there who think furries are disgusting zoophiles flaunting their fetish in public whenever they wear fursuits. Sadly, vilified subgroups often hold the exact same prejudices toward one another that outsiders hold toward all of them. Why they can’t see it’s all the same bullshit is beyond me, but there you go.
Your personal feelings of disgust are not a basis for morality. You are, naturally, perfectly free to not respect people who wear kink gear in public. But I think that’s pretty inexcusable. Harmless but weird behavior is not a good reason to disrespect someone. But perhaps the more salient point is that anti-kink rhetoric is nigh indistinguishable from queerphobic rhetoric. Both equate feeling uncomfortable to being harmed, and both are used to bludgeon people into conformity with social norms. You may think you are expressing a harmless opinion, but the fact is that whenever you complain about kinky people daring to exist too loudly you are reinforcing the precise kind of thinking that will be turned against you by homophobes.
What’s the difference between you seeing someone in a pup mask and immediately envisioning a BDSM orgy and a homophobe seeing two men kissing and immediately envisioning them rimming each other? Both actions imply the people involved may have sex but do not guarantee it. If you can’t look at someone of a certain proclivity without imagining them committing sexual acts you find vile, not only is that you problem, but the revulsion you feel is identical to the revulsion a homophobe feels toward queerness. Identical. I hope you think about that.
Rationally I know that, but I nevertheless feel compelled to try. And I’m not just arguing for their sake. I’m arguing for the sake of any undecided onlookers.
I read your comment in the modlog. My response would be that no one’s boundaries are violated merely by seeing a person who is visibly kinky in public, any more than they are violated by seeing someone who is visibly queer in public. For more in-depth reasoning as to why, I would refer you to this Tumblr post: https://i.imgur.com/ZuTbOq0.png
To be clear about something, I am responding to most of the things you say here because, well, you’re a gay furry. I’m a queer kinkster. People like you and I need one another, because if we fringe weirdos don’t defend one another, who will? I’d like to believe that we’re on the same side. I know I’ll fight for your rights when it comes down to it. I would do it without reciprocation, but I hope you can be convinced to do the same for me.
I never claimed I was being forced to participate, only that it does, in fact, violate boundaries to do so.
There’s a massive difference between “furry” and “kinky.” Walking around in a dog costume does not immediately mean it’s for kinky or sexual reasons, and to assume so, while not a huge leap considering how much of the fandom is pretty open about their sexuality, is just largely incorrect. I’m personally not one to engage in a lot of that behavior, so I don’t appreciate the comparison. The same can not be said for blatant kink gear.
Again, I want to reiterate: you do you. I won’t stop anyone from going out like that, freedom of speech and expression and all that, but I certainly won’t respect or associate with them.
Seeing someone wearing kink gear tells you absolutely nothing about their sex life. There are plenty of people who participate exclusively in nonsexual kink. Your assumption that seeing someone in a leather harness means you know how they fuck is akin to someone who only knows about the furry community via pop culture assuming that they know how someone in a fursuit fucks. In both cases this is a mark of ignorance about the subculture, and the solution is greater visibility and education rather than expressing disgust that someone dares to participate in a subculture you don’t understand.
You are, of course, allowed to disrespect people who are visibly kinky. But I am also allowed to believe this makes you rather shitty at supporting sexual minorities and is probably rooted in internalized sex negativity and queerphobia. There is nothing more sexual or violating about seeing someone in BDSM gear than there is in seeing a lingerie commercial. Furthermore, your willingness to respect someone should not depend on whether they do things that cause you discomfort but are ultimately harmless.
I have met many, many people who are too traumatized to engage in “normal” sex, who have found sexual expression and healing in BDSM. Lots of people practice kink without having anything close to what someone else considers sex – but it might still be sex to us.
The guy you’re talking to is over the line. People are telling him about their lived experiences that contradict his ignorant expectations, and he’s just tuning it out and continuing with his thing. He has some kind of damage that’s playing out here and it’s shitty that he’s getting it all over us.
That’s also a very good point. Even kink that in no way involves genitals can be sex for some.
I’m hoping this person can be reached because they’re queer and belong to a vilified subculture, but they’ve clearly swallowed a lot of conservative propaganda. That won’t be undone by one conversation, unfortunately.
They’re willing to be queer under a fursuit and a pseudonym. I wish them acceptance.
You’re really going far to ignore the entire reason “kink gear” exists or was created in the first place and labelling me the weird one for acknowledging this reason.
Okay, sure, let’s say the only reason kink and kink gear have ever existed or could ever exist is for boning. So? Who cares? Lingerie exists primarily for sexy reasons, but no one cares about lingerie commercials. Even things as mundane as wedding rings imply that those wearing them fuck regularly. People only care about leather harnesses and pup masks because they’re weird. The sex bit doesn’t matter. Sex is shoved in our faces all day every day by advertisers, and heavily implied by many of the social signals we send one another, yet it only becomes problematic to most people when it’s implied someone is doing a sex thing they find strange.
I don’t think you’re weird at all. I think you are, tragically, quite normal. Your attitude is a pervasive one even among people who really should know better. Like, for example, gay furries. And there are any number of queer kinksters out there who think furries are disgusting zoophiles flaunting their fetish in public whenever they wear fursuits. Sadly, vilified subgroups often hold the exact same prejudices toward one another that outsiders hold toward all of them. Why they can’t see it’s all the same bullshit is beyond me, but there you go.
Your personal feelings of disgust are not a basis for morality. You are, naturally, perfectly free to not respect people who wear kink gear in public. But I think that’s pretty inexcusable. Harmless but weird behavior is not a good reason to disrespect someone. But perhaps the more salient point is that anti-kink rhetoric is nigh indistinguishable from queerphobic rhetoric. Both equate feeling uncomfortable to being harmed, and both are used to bludgeon people into conformity with social norms. You may think you are expressing a harmless opinion, but the fact is that whenever you complain about kinky people daring to exist too loudly you are reinforcing the precise kind of thinking that will be turned against you by homophobes.
What’s the difference between you seeing someone in a pup mask and immediately envisioning a BDSM orgy and a homophobe seeing two men kissing and immediately envisioning them rimming each other? Both actions imply the people involved may have sex but do not guarantee it. If you can’t look at someone of a certain proclivity without imagining them committing sexual acts you find vile, not only is that you problem, but the revulsion you feel is identical to the revulsion a homophobe feels toward queerness. Identical. I hope you think about that.
He’s not interested in changing.
Rationally I know that, but I nevertheless feel compelled to try. And I’m not just arguing for their sake. I’m arguing for the sake of any undecided onlookers.
Yeah, that’s fair. I certainly appreciate it, I don’t have the patience to continue but it’s nice to feel represented.