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.
How's putting on an animal costume creepy or weird? It's not like they are fucking in the street.
Just go to a Disney world you'll see costumed mascots roaming the park, are you going to have a problem with that? Maybe you should look inside and figure out what your problem is.
Something tells me they are turned on by the furry porn and reacting the same way Republicans loudly denounce gay porn after they watch it
If you scroll through Reddit, or Bluesky, or many general online discussion centers you'll see very clearly sexualized pictures of furry characters. The majority of images of those characters I run in to are sexualized, so that's the impression left about those costumes.
I didn't spend the last 35 years seeing a community of Disney fans constantly posting images of Mickey Mouse in a tight thong and Goofy staring at it and drooling. If I had then seeing kids going to a social event put on by members of that same community wearing those same costumers would definitely seem weird.
It's why I compared it to gimp suits. They're commonly seen as part of enacting a sexual fetish. People are wearing them in the street would seem weird and creepy, even if they weren't fucking in the street. If they were fucking in the street it would go from creepy and weird to actively committing a crime.
What you're complaining about is seeing actual fetish content on a website. Like, there's porn and porn-adjacent stuff on the internet? Wowzers! It's like seeing celebrity pictures in skimpy clothes on the celeb subs, or women in bikinis on Sports Illustrated.
What you need to do is curate your content a bit more, not police others' preferences.
I'm saying I think being sexually attracted to animals or imaginary animal-human hybrids is weird and creepy, and having lots of sexualized animal art then wearing those costumes in public only makes it worse.
And what I'm saying is that it's 100% fine for you to dislike someone else's jam, but it's not fine to want that stuff gone from public view in spaces where it's otherwise acceptable. As someone else said, it's the same argument people use against LGBTQ+ content.
Having sex with animals is illegal and immoral. Having sex with minors is illegal and immoral. Images sexualizing children are generally unwelcome, because that's fucked up. Images sexualizing animals have somehow become welcome, even though that is also fucked up.
People vocalizing dislike of any thing could be said to be using the same arguments used by racists and homophobes if you replace the actual thing they dislike with "gays" or "blacks." This has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ anything. That's a lazy excuse to try to make people saying anything you don't like look bad.
I really don't want to go on defending something I don't really care about, but antro animals are not the same thing as actual animals. We generally consider it immoral to have sex with animals because they don't have the intelligence to consent, and furry characters clearly have human intelligence.
Sure, and people try to "moral wash" pedophilia in the same way with imaginary 10 year old girls who are clearly designed to look and act 10 and yet said to be moral to have sex with because they're really thousands of years old. Both of them are looking for imaginary justifications for immoral acts.
dude, damn near nobody is cumming in their $8000+ fursuit or covering it with lube.
Having a basic low cost gimp suit to get dirty with use and a really nice expensive gimp suit that you keep clean doesn't make wearing either one in public any less weird.
Except for your argument is dog shit based on your own previous statements in this thread. It would be much more apt to say that we put on our Sunday best when we're out in public, but when we're specifically going to play with with each other in private we're wearing board shorts and tank tops. Almost like there are two completely different types of clothing for different situations. your falsely trying to say they are one in the same thing.
I'm not trying to preach anything, I very definitely do see them as the same thing. Having a different "suit" to keep looking nice and not all matted and caked in bodily fluids doesn't mean wearing the nice one in public is less creepy. It's changing into the "sunday best" gimp suit.
If a group of people suddenly decided they liked having wearing gas masks and adult sized baby diapers and roleplaying as babies during sex it would be creepy and weird, and them wearing the same sort of outfit in public even more so regardless of how fancy their public gas masks and diapers look.
Wanting to have sex with animals or anthropomorphized animals in general is creepy. The sexualized art is creepy, the all of it. There is nothing about it I don't find to be weird and creepy.