# What is Consent to you? -- Furry Kinky Spaces verses Mainstream Kinky Spaces...



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

Heres a thing that's been inching my scalp for awhile...
Furry fandom, in it's kinky spaces, it* very* much unlike other kinky spaces. 

Looking strictly at furry fandom's kinky spaces, there doesn't seem to be a strong culture of consent here in the furry community that exists as common protocol in other kink communities.
While I'm not saying that all the BDSM folk are model kinksters all the time, I am saying is that standard protocols of consent seem to be weak here.

Would you agree? What are some strong consent protocols that you've seen in the community? Where are some weaknesses that you've seen?

Talk about your own experiences (*keep it pg-13*).


----------



## FoxyForest (Jul 15, 2018)

What the hell?


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

FoxyForest said:


> What the hell?


Problem?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

Oh god I know this thing. It reminds me of an arguement I had with Bagh and his cronies about public sex and I said it wasn't right because the person who walks up on it can't consent. Then they all got really pissed at me and got all upset about our "puritanical" society and that it would help teach kids about sex education. Can you guess my next reaction? "DON'T HAVE SEX IN FRONT OF KIDS!"


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Oh god I know this thing. It reminds me of an arguement I had with Bagh and his cronies about public sex and I said it wasn't right because the person who walks up on it can't consent. Then they all got really pissed at me and got all upset about our "puritanical" society and that it would help teach kids about sex education. Can you guess my next reaction? "DON'T HAVE SEX IN FRONT OF KIDS!"


I've had so many arguments about the question above in this fandom. It's kind of disturbing.
Not just "don't have sex in front of kids"-
*Don't have sex in public.
*
It's not just kids. The adults there didn't consent to seeing this shit either.


----------



## theawakening (Jul 15, 2018)

Not derailing; but we already have a thread for this, okay?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

theawakening said:


> Not derailing; but we already have a thread for this, okay?


This one is actually different.


----------



## theawakening (Jul 15, 2018)

Eh...


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

I've been talking about this on conjunction with other threads, but this is different. This thread it talking about the consent gap in this fandom. And like... how bad it is.


----------



## modfox (Jul 15, 2018)

ð


----------



## FoxyForest (Jul 15, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Problem?



Yes, this whole thread is just confusing.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 15, 2018)

Ok, I am going to need context here.

My take on consent: Unless otherwise stated, it's a no from me. 

I have never had any problems with consent, nor have anyone else I know of. If we're talking kinks we hammer those out beforehand, if we are talking RP.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

FoxyForest said:


> Yes, this whole thread is just confusing.





Yakamaru said:


> Ok, I am going to need context here.




I think a more blunt way to say it is, do you think bending someone over a park bench in public and slapping their ass is okay? Does it only matter if the two people doing the act consent or about the public around them who had no say in whether they see it or not?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2018)

So Percy, what experiences did you have that lead you to believe people aren't valuing consent as strongly as they should and how should we remedy this?


----------



## FoxyForest (Jul 15, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I think a more blunt way to say it is, do you think bending someone over a park bench in public and slapping their ass is okay? Does it only matter if the two people doing the act consent or about the public around them who had no say in whether they see it or not?



Why is it so hard for people to keep it in their pants or in the bedroom?


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 15, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> I think a more blunt way to say it is, do you think bending someone over a park bench in public and slapping their ass is okay? Does it only matter if the two people doing the act consent or about the public around them who had no say in whether they see it or not?


This is a PG-13 thread, as OP clearly stated in her first post. Why are you raving on about something that is *not* PG-13 in your post above?

My take on it is keep that shit to yourself and in the privacy of your own home. Public indecency is a thing, and you get punished for it accordingly. Though some people are actually *into* that shit.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

FoxyForest said:


> Why is it so hard for people to keep it in their pants or in the bedroom?


I don't know but I think I agree eith what you're getting at lol


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> This is a PG-13 thread, as OP clearly stated in her first post. Why are you raving on about something that is *not* PG-13 in your post above?
> 
> My take on it is keep that shit to yourself and in the privacy of your own home. Public indecency is a thing, and you get punished for it accordingly. Though some people are actually *into* that shit.


I had to be blunt about it because furries are degenerates and apparently a person on a leash didn't quite make peopl get the memo lol. Sorry though. Technically this whole forum is supposed to pg-13.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 15, 2018)

I miss licked because phone. 
Consent is permission to do x.
Someone walking up on sex acts can't consent to being involved, so it is somewhat of an issue to do sex things in public. You can be affectionate, but there is a line where you need to get a room.
Internet matters.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 15, 2018)

My phone is killing me...


----------



## Crimcyan (Jul 15, 2018)

This is why people hate furries


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 15, 2018)

Am I the only person who doesn't really know what event everybody's talking about?


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 15, 2018)

Okay, anything past a hug needs to have consent attached to it. Consent is a pretty clear action, too:




As for doing things like this in public, the keyword is PUBLIC. There are other people around you that haven't consented to seeing your actions and you, therefore, can have charges pressed against you. DON'T. DO. THE DEED. IN. PUBLIC.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Am I the only person who doesn't really know what event everybody's talking about?


No event in particular. Just the idea in general.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I miss licked because phone.
> Consent is permission to do x.
> Someone walking up on sex acts can't consent to being involved, so it is somewhat of an issue to do sex things in public. You can be affectionate, but there is a line where you need to get a room.
> Internet matters.


When you said you "miss licked" your phone I was reminded of like one of the worst things ever. There was this chick in my highschool that would clean her phone by licking the screen. And like any time someone said it was nasty she did it to spite them. God help me why did you give me that flashback lmao


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 15, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Am I the only person who doesn't really know what event everybody's talking about?


I don't think you want to know, mate.


----------



## theawakening (Jul 15, 2018)

> Am I the only person who doesn't really know what event everybody's talking about?



I am also too the one who does not meet the understandings.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 15, 2018)

The 50/50 split so far is concerning.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> So Percy, what experiences did you have that lead you to believe people aren't valuing consent as strongly as they should and how should we remedy this?


I had a full on argument with someone about walking someone on a leash in public.
If you do it in public, then you violated everyones consent and you have boundary issues. They got really uptight and wanted to "agree to disagree" but...
It made me concerned that people want to "agree to disagree" over something that's basic in other kink communities.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

FoxyForest said:


> Why is it so hard for people to keep it in their pants or in the bedroom?


Because walking someone on a leash isn't inherently sexual. Not all kinky things involve whats in your pants. Further, because of this, there isn't a lot of agreement on whats acceptable in public.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

From what I've seen in the thread so far though, there doesn't seem to be an understanding about kinky space in general...
Like, this question is a basic question of discussion in other kinky communities. It's basic. 

Also, theres a lack of understanding of kink verses sexual activity. Not all kinky activities involve sex but you still need to consent.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 15, 2018)

There's a lot of kink (including things that technically qualify as sexual) you can practice in public without issue, because it's not outwardly exposing anyone except the people involved to anything inappropriate. As long as you're not sexualizing the interaction with third parties directly, I wouldn't say that's a particular consent issue. For a PG-13 example, IDK, a guy (for whom this falls under kink) wearing lacy women's underwear under his clothes or something. Wearing it out in public is part of the experience, but it's the setting, not the people, that are important to it, and no random passer-by will be specifically involved, nor ever be the wiser.

There's a lot of sex/kink that absolutely does not belong in public, with exception for specific events (Folsom Street Fair, kink spaces, etc) which inherently come with different expectations. This would also extend to things like Mardi Gras - (partial) public nudity for instance is far as I can tell considered more acceptable in that context than going down the street on a random Monday. Stick to the standards for the context/event you're attending.

There's also a lot of stuff that falls in between the two. For those things, geography is going to be a major factor, as will framing. It'll be a wildly different thing if an Ed cosplayer walks an Ein fursuiter on a leash around an anime con (where there's more than adequate plausible deniability for the leash being kink-related at all) than walking down the main street with your sub on a leash in a moderately conservative American town. Certain acts may be considered socially acceptable in some areas, but not in others.


----------



## Filter (Jul 15, 2018)

It's a little weird, but unless the people involved are in full bondage gear or something that's obviously sexual, I wouldn't automatically assume that there's kink involved.

For what it's worth, I accidentally selected the first option, but the second better expresses my point of view. Obviously, leashing somebody against their will isn't consent... not to mention quite illegal.


----------



## Simo (Jul 15, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> There's also a lot of stuff that falls in between the two. For those things, geography is going to be a major factor, as will framing. It'll be a wildly different thing if an Ed cosplayer walks an Ein fursuiter on a leash around an anime con (where there's more than adequate plausible deniability for the leash being kink-related at all) than walking down the main street with your sub on a leash in a moderately conservative American town. Certain acts may be considered socially acceptable in some areas, but not in others.



That's a good perspective. I think here, in the majority of Baltimore, it'd be no big deal to walk somebody on a leash, but I can see a lotta places, it would raise eyebrows: small towns, and such.

But when I walk down the the train to work in the morning, I pass some blocks where the hookers are still out from the night before, and whoa, some of the things they wear! I've wanted to take pictures, sometime, as they can be quite funny. But they seem nice enough, I just say hi or good morning, and keep walking. Compared to a lot of stuff that happens here, somebody on a leash is not gonna seem like a big deal.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 15, 2018)

Simo said:


> That's a good perspective. I think here, in the majority of Baltimore, it'd be no big deal to walk somebody on a leash, but I can see is a lotta places, it would raise eyebrows.


Yeah, pretty much my point. A non-furry kinky friend of mine recently commented along the lines of "eh, it's NYC, nobody will give a shit" in regards to (coincidentally) walking someone on leash late at night in a New York suburb. Wouldn't do it in his local area, because attitudes are different.


----------



## Simo (Jul 15, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Yeah, pretty much my point. A non-furry kinky friend of mine recently commented along the lines of "eh, it's NYC, nobody will give a shit" in regards to (coincidentally) walking someone on leash late at night in a New York suburb. Wouldn't do it in his local area, because attitudes are different.



Yeah, that's my take on it, as well. Also, I was noting that a film like Batman Returns is rated PG, despite Cat-woman's rather, well, suggestive attire and actions. Not that I have seen too many folks with that style, though 

Also, a lotta cities on the US east coast (and elsewhere)  have so many other things to worry about: drugs, crime, getting shot, mugged, pollution, poverty, unemployment, homelessness...the person in suggestive attire walking somebody on a leash is low on the list of worries, here.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Yeah, pretty much my point. A non-furry kinky friend of mine recently commented along the lines of "eh, it's NYC, nobody will give a shit" in regards to (coincidentally) walking someone on leash late at night in a New York suburb. Wouldn't do it in his local area, because attitudes are different.


Actually. no.
You can't leash someone in public in NYC because the public can't consent to being witness to that.
You are right about kinky things that don't effect other people/people can't see. However, leashes in public is not okay.
I do not count kinky events to be public. The attendees consent by knowing what events they are going to. The public can't don't that.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 15, 2018)

Simo said:


> Yeah, that's my take on it, as well. Also, I was noting that a film like Batman Returns is rated PG, despite Cat-woman's rather, well, suggestive attire and actions. Not that I have seen too many folks with that style, though
> 
> Also, a lotta cities on the US east coast (and elsewhere)  have so many other things to worry about: drugs, crime, getting shot, mugged, pollution, poverty, unemployment, homelessness...the person in suggestive attire walking somebody on a leash is low on the list of worries, here.


That's... not a good reason to do lewd things in public. *facepalm*.


----------



## Simo (Jul 15, 2018)

PercyD said:


> That's... not a good reason to do lewd things in public. *facepalm*.



Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but here, it's no big deal.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Jul 15, 2018)

Filter said:


> For what it's worth, I accidentally selected the first option


Lol, I wasn't going to say anything but I accidentally voted no too -3-
I read the question, went down and read the thread a bit, and when I went back up to answer the question I misread it. 
Funny that both No votes happened by accident, Ovi's reaction should be worth it.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (Jul 15, 2018)

If I'm out walking I'd be pretty disgusted and pissed off to see some white hot degenerate acts in broad day light. Some things you only keep private, and fetishism is one of them.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 16, 2018)

Simo said:


> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but here, it's no big deal.


I have a whole other debate on problems and solutions for movie ratings, but I'll save it for another time. I choose to watch a movie with sexual content in it, and if I was ill informed, and not interested, I can turn off the movie. I can't turn off dave and cheryline walking buck naked while one one is on a leash peeing on a fire hydrant. There are specific kink events and things like mardi gras, but you know what you are getting into.


----------



## Simo (Jul 16, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I have a whole other debate on problems and solutions for movie ratings, but I'll save it for another time. I choose to watch a movie with sexual content in it, and if I was ill informed, and not interested, I can turn off the movie. I can't turn off dave and cheryline walking buck naked while one one is on a leash peeing on a fire hydrant. There are specific kink events and things like mardi gras, but you know what you are getting into.



Well, I'm just saying they are walking, on a leash...not naked, not peeing on things. That, here, is not going to cause any alarm, nor, in my mind, causes any harm. A lot of folks don't like more normative public displays of affection, and so long as things are kept to a level where they are not approaching the 'get a room' stage, I'd just see two folks, with one on a leash as playful. Again, I will have to agree to disagree, here, plus it's time to take my housemate out for his walk 

*looks for leash*

~

On a related note: I do find it VERY disturbing, when you see parents, who put their kids on leashes, which one does see. Here, there's a lack of consent, and even though it's not sexual, it sure is a creepy parenting style.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yea, people seem to take it to it's more extreme. Like, someone has to be naked or whatever.
What I'm saying is that it's not okay to walk people on leashed outside of a kinky space (period). No matter the circumstance. 

I've had people argue about toddlers on leashes, but that's obviously not kinky. (Unless you think it is. Then you probably have other issues you need to work through on your own.)


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Actually. no.
> You can't leash someone in public in NYC because the public can't consent to being witness to that.
> You are right about kinky things that don't effect other people/people can't see. However, leashes in public is not okay.
> I do not count kinky events to be public. The attendees consent by knowing what events they are going to. The public can't don't that.


From where I'm standing it's a nuanced matter, not a simple yes/no issue. One side of it is who is likely to witness it. Another side is how likely this is to happen. Yet another is how blatantly deviant it is. 

Walking down a quiet side street after dark is worlds different from walking down the main drag during peak business hours. Both of those are different from having a walk in the woods (and even then what woods they are and when will make a huge difference). Two people walking along with one happening to have a leash attached to a collar and the other happening to hold it is very different in character from the leash being used for overt power displays. There are multiple interacting scales, here, and I simply don't believe they must by necessity always add up to "no".

Existing in public space will always involve seeing or otherwise encountering some things you'd rather not (shrieking toddlers trigger migraines for me, personally). While I largely agree with showing people respect by not _involving_ them in something they did not have a chance to consent to, I do not agree with the notion that _seeing_ reasonably discreet displays is something that deserves this degree of blanket disapproval. Hell, stag/hen parties frequently seem to result in more kink-like public behavior than you see from actual kinky people. I'm not saying break out the leather harnesses and go to town, but if you can be low-key and discreet about it there's no reason in my eyes that you couldn't have a leashed walk long as you exercise good judgment about when and where.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> From where I'm standing it's a nuanced matter, not a simple yes/no issue. One side of it is who is likely to witness it. Another side is how likely this is to happen. Yet another is how blatantly deviant it is.
> 
> Walking down a quiet side street after dark is worlds different from walking down the main drag during peak business hours. Both of those are different from having a walk in the woods (and even then what woods they are and when will make a huge difference). Two people walking along with one happening to have a leash attached to a collar and the other happening to hold it is very different in character from the leash being used for overt power displays. There are multiple interacting scales, here, and I simply don't believe they must by necessity always add up to "no".
> 
> Existing in public space will always involve seeing or otherwise encountering some things you'd rather not (shrieking toddlers trigger migraines for me, personally). While I largely agree with showing people respect by not _involving_ them in something they did not have a chance to consent to, I do not agree with the notion that _seeing_ reasonably discreet displays is something that deserves this degree of blanket disapproval. Hell, stag/hen parties frequently seem to result in more kink-like public behavior than you see from actual kinky people. I'm not saying break out the leather harnesses and go to town, but if you can be low-key and discreet about it there's no reason in my eyes that you couldn't have a leashed walk long as you exercise good judgment about when and where.


I think this is over complicating things. Also, using shrieking toddlers and migraines is a bad example.

Shrieking toddlers is something that can't be controlled. They are babies. It's socially acceptable because they're children and they're still learning how to control themselves. However, we are talking about *two grown adults who want to do kinky things in public*. It's unreasonable for people who aren't even part of the kinky community to make accommodations for them. Doing kinky things is a choice, it's not a necessity.

The example I gave in the poll is pretty simple, especially since the answers are specific. Walking your partner on a leash in public (_where the public can see_) is a violation of consent.  I'm not sure about stag/hen parties, but if it's in a pre-established setting with a consenting audience, it's not violating consent. If it's *not* in a pre-established setting, and in public, then it's violating consent.

These blanket rules with impetus on who's watching and who's consenting_ is_ necessary. Boundaries are healthy and ensure that everyone involved is having fun. Me being exposed to two kinksters collaring and leashing on the subway while I'm on my way to work is not fun. It's violating my boundary because someone made a choice that lacks understanding about what is acceptable in public.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 16, 2018)

Well if people didn't already think we were degenerates...


----------



## Saiko (Jul 16, 2018)

I feel like consent isn’t the correct framework for this. It feels too indirect to me, but I’m not sure what would be better. The poll certainly feels unfair to me seeing as we can’t answer “no” without it sounding like we condone public sex. Perhaps some of us think it violates something else.

@Troj, @quoting_mungo, can either of you think of a better framework; or am I being silly?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 16, 2018)

I feel like I might reeeee because of how crazy people are. I feel like I'm sounding like my grandmother that gets annoyed at colored hair but jeez. We're now condoning sex in public. ._.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 16, 2018)

Furries are notoriously bad at consent.  I can't count on fingers and toes how many furries I hear talk about their experiences with someone trying to "yiff" them in their DMs well before consent or even introduction was on the table.
-
Running contrary to the idea that more sexual openness automatically equals better at consenting.
-
I think a lot of people are running into and discovering their kinks in the fandom.  Unlike the dedicated kink fandom, furries just have a lot of kinks.  If you have a fandom surrounded around sexual practices naturally consent is a big deal because that's how you interact with people on the average especially with kinks and fetishes that are unconventional.
-
Furries don't have that same sort of necessity.  It has the high sexuality but the lack of sexual understanding.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 16, 2018)

Saiko said:


> @Troj, @quoting_mungo, can either of you think of a better framework; or am I being silly?


Unfortunately, Troj is unavailable from what I've hear. She's going to be pretty unavailable for a couple of weeks. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Furries are notoriously bad at consent.  I can't count on fingers and toes how many furries I hear talk about their experiences with someone trying to "yiff" them in their DMs well before consent or even introduction was on the table.
> -
> Running contrary to the idea that more sexual openness automatically equals better at consenting.
> -
> ...


Personally I'd say it's more an issue of a lack of understanding of social, societal and personal cues/boundaries than consent. If people weren't so socially inept we wouldn't have these issues. What people perceive to be a consent issue, anyway. 

I've lost count of how many times people start listing their kinks/fetishes and/or ref sheet from as little as 2 minutes of total interaction. Tho personally I won't chalk it up to it being a consent issue, as it's too simple an answer. 

Furries are already in general social outcasts. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the socially inept are going to gather in one place, namely this fandom. Though I don't blame anyone for it. Everyone wants to have a place to belong to.


----------



## David Drake (Jul 16, 2018)

Simo said:


> Also, I was noting that a film like Batman Returns is rated PG, despite Cat-woman's rather, well, suggestive attire and actions.



Sorry to be "that guy" but Returns is rated PG-13 by the MPAA like all the Bat-films of the last several decades (I have issues with the MPAA but that's not important right now). It's one of my favorite films so I had to say something.

On-topic, I agree that legally blatant nudity and/or direct stimulation in public is unacceptible but anything else should be fine. But given the world we live in, it's in one's best interest to consider your area before doing dubiously-sexual-but-still-kinky stuff outside.

Also strict consent is needed by the parties involved with anything.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> There's a lot of kink (including things that technically qualify as sexual) you can practice in public without issue, because it's not outwardly exposing anyone except the people involved to anything inappropriate. As long as you're not sexualizing the interaction with third parties directly, I wouldn't say that's a particular consent issue. For a PG-13 example, IDK, a guy (for whom this falls under kink) wearing lacy women's underwear under his clothes or something. Wearing it out in public is part of the experience, but it's the setting, not the people, that are important to it, and no random passer-by will be specifically involved, nor ever be the wiser.
> 
> There's a lot of sex/kink that absolutely does not belong in public, with exception for specific events (Folsom Street Fair, kink spaces, etc) which inherently come with different expectations. This would also extend to things like Mardi Gras - (partial) public nudity for instance is far as I can tell considered more acceptable in that context than going down the street on a random Monday. Stick to the standards for the context/event you're attending.
> 
> There's also a lot of stuff that falls in between the two. For those things, geography is going to be a major factor, as will framing. It'll be a wildly different thing if an Ed cosplayer walks an Ein fursuiter on a leash around an anime con (where there's more than adequate plausible deniability for the leash being kink-related at all) than walking down the main street with your sub on a leash in a moderately conservative American town. Certain acts may be considered socially acceptable in some areas, but not in others.



I agree with Mungo. The context of the space is pretty important.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 16, 2018)

I find it hard to say that we are worse about consent than others, we just have way more kinks. That said, given what happens at ALL kinds of cons, there is a cultural shift that probably needs to happen; not to mention the idiot hordes that will defend a rapist caught red handed over the stupidest reasons. 

On the other hand, social ques and boundaries are a problem in this fandom, myself included on the social ques side.


----------



## Marcl (Jul 16, 2018)

I'm on the side, that that definition of consent if far too stretched. However, 'indecency' is the right word here. When we do or say in public something that's supposed to belong to our private space, we force other people into our intimate life. They have a right to feel repulsed. So it all goes back to the social standards, the matter of context, time, place, and even our own approach and behaviour.

(On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if some social standards were challenged and changed a little, but that's out of kink space.)

I actually some months ago read out of interest some rules by, let's say... kinky community. Of course there were rules for safety, for respect etc. But there were also rules to be considerate of people around. That they shouldn't be exposed to things that might make them feel uncomfortable. So there you go. Having someone on a leash in the middle of the day - definitely no. In other circumstances... that depends.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> I think this is over complicating things. Also, using shrieking toddlers and migraines is a bad example.
> 
> Shrieking toddlers is something that can't be controlled. They are babies. It's socially acceptable because they're children and they're still learning how to control themselves.


Is it easier to say "don't do it ever?" Of course it is. Nuance isn't _simple_. However, I think it is necessary.

I specifically used toddlers rather than infants in my example because toddlers damn well are _choosing_ to make a racket. Infants have no way of communicating other than crying. Toddlers do. Yes, they are children, and their guardians have limited control over them. That doesn't mean their behavior is not an inconvenience to the people around them, nor does it change the fact that it can and and often does result in intense physical pain for me. Obviously I accept that it happens, and as long as attempts are made to quiet the offending kid down I won't hold it against the parents unless it's blatantly obvious they've essentially trained the behavior, but I think it does illustrate quite well that we cannot expect public space to always be "safe". 

But by all means. Shitty music on leaky headphones is generally socially acceptable, and IMO a lot more disruptive than passing two people in the street who happen to be connected by a leash. 



PercyD said:


> Walking your partner on a leash in public (_where the public can see_) is a violation of consent.


I feel like your definition of "public" may be unnecessarily broad. If I'm reading you correctly it essentially includes everything but enclosed kink spaces and home-with-blinds-closed. Maybe this is because of the environment you live in, I don't know; I've always had access to paths where you're at least as likely as not to walk the length of it without running into another person. They're public paths, maintained by the city in case of the paved ones, but treating them as the same as a busy city street or the subway doesn't really strike me as a productive approach. 

If you're seeking out quiet streets or walking paths that see little traffic you've obviously made an effort to not be in people's face about it, and if you still run into someone, that should not invalidate the effort you took to find an unobtrusive space to do your thing. That's part of what I mean by nuance being necessary. 



Saiko said:


> I feel like consent isn’t the correct framework for this. It feels too indirect to me, but I’m not sure what would be better. The poll certainly feels unfair to me seeing as we can’t answer “no” without it sounding like we condone public sex. Perhaps some of us think it violates something else.
> 
> @Troj, @quoting_mungo, can either of you think of a better framework; or am I being silly?


I think it depends on the specific kink to some degree; public decorum feels like a better fit to me for most reasonably innocuous kinks (no nudity, groping, attention-seeking or outrageous gear), though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

At a furry con you're going to come across people dressed as dogs, so you should probably expect to see tennis balls, frizbees and leashes. 

In the park on a normal day it would be odd if somebody was walking another human on a leash. Not sexually violating, but *very* odd.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Saiko said:


> I feel like consent isn’t the correct framework for this. It feels too indirect to me, but I’m not sure what would be better. The poll certainly feels unfair to me seeing as we can’t answer “no” without it sounding like we condone public sex. Perhaps some of us think it violates something else.
> 
> @Troj, @quoting_mungo, can either of you think of a better framework; or am I being silly?


This is some good feedback, actually.
I haven't seen what Troj might say, but I'm curious about another way to phrase this concern. As I know it, kinksters in the furry community just don't practice a culture of consent like it's practiced in other kinky communities.

To be fair, the question above was intendeded to test one single scenario and provoke conversation (cause this is a thread). A street is a straight forward example of a public space.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Simo said:


> […]
> 
> ~
> 
> On a related note: I do find it VERY disturbing, when you see parents, who put their kids on leashes, which one does see. Here, there's a lack of consent, and even though it's not sexual, it sure is a creepy parenting style.


I used to agree? However, living in a metropolitan, high population area and constantly  ALMOST WALKING ONTOP OF TODDLERS is terrifying. TAT
Kids have like zero space awareness. It's a problem when they're at waist height and then they decide to just dash out right infront of you. At least with a harness and a lead, it generates natural space for the kid to go. At least until the child is old enough to learn and abide by foot traffic rules. 

I have also seen children dash off of side walks without a care. How have we survived as a species-


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Is it easier to say "don't do it ever?" Of course it is. Nuance isn't _simple_. However, I think it is necessary.
> 
> I specifically used toddlers rather than infants in my example because toddlers damn well are _choosing_ to make a racket. Infants have no way of communicating other than crying. Toddlers do. Yes, they are children, and their guardians have limited control over them. That doesn't mean their behavior is not an inconvenience to the people around them, nor does it change the fact that it can and and often does result in intense physical pain for me. Obviously I accept that it happens, and as long as attempts are made to quiet the offending kid down I won't hold it against the parents unless it's blatantly obvious they've essentially trained the behavior, but I think it does illustrate quite well that we cannot expect public space to always be "safe".
> 
> ...


 
Toddlers are still learning, though, and it's really strange to put a toddler on the same level of faculty as an adult whos choosing to be kinky. It's a bad example. The point also I  feel is mute, even with level of disruption.
*Demanding people who are not kinksters to accommodate the kinkster community (any kinkster community) so that people can be kinky in public is unreasonable.* And it bridges consent. That's the point of this thread. It's not about "safe" spaces, it's about the culture of consent. 

On your last point, you might be right. I currently live in a metropolitan area with a lot of people. However, my family lives in a rural area. You're still liable to seen on a *street*. In the poll question I said a street, which is universally a public place. I didn't say a path or an opened space. No one is going to police desolate places.

When talking about security, you have something called "fail on" and "fail off". "Fail on" or "fail opened" means that, in whatever scenario, if something goes wrong then you are still opened to do whatever you like. 
"Fail off" means that, in whatever scenario, if something goes wrong then you stop doing everything. 

I take a "fail off" approach when it comes to kinky things. It makes more sense to me. I want to be a responsible kinkster, and, I want to be in an environment where I am supported. It's less because I want to do PR for the whole furry community. I just want to identify people who have boundary issues.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

I wasn't aware that there was a large number of furries doing puppy roleplays in public spaces anyway?

Whenever that does happen people come down on them like a tonne of bricks.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Jul 16, 2018)

You have unlocked an achievement: 3 page long polite discussion.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Unfortunately, Troj is unavailable from what I've hear. She's going to be pretty unavailable for a couple of weeks.
> 
> 
> Personally I'd say it's more an issue of a lack of understanding of social, societal and personal cues/boundaries than consent. If people weren't so socially inept we wouldn't have these issues. What people perceive to be a consent issue, anyway.
> ...


That's kind of why I'm having this conversation and why I'm framing it as a *consent* issue.

People want to use lack of social skills as an excuse for bad behavior. While there is a degree of consideration, people are still learning, creating a culture of consent forces people to think about things from the perspective of others without admonishing them for their lack of social skills. 

It enforces hard boundaries. It requires that you *ask*. It makes you consider the space that your in. Even with this discussion, framing it as an issue of consent has made people think about different scenarios where things are okay instead of thinking about "decency".

Decency has a moral component that "morally grey" people won't consider. People start talking about beliefs instead of practical things like exposure and setting.

*With consent culture, it's purely technical. Beliefs are subjective, consent is purely objective. *


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Jul 16, 2018)

The more time I spend interacting with furries, the more I understand why this fandom has such a reputation.


----------



## Massan Otter (Jul 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I wasn't aware that there was a large number of furries doing puppy roleplays in public spaces anyway?
> 
> Whenever that does happen people come down on them like a tonne of bricks.



And much of the criticism would be from other furries!  This is one of the things that entertained me about the Batman Returns chat - I'm pretty sure a skintight, shiny animal suit like Catwoman's would make you pretty unpopular in the public areas of most furry cons.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> That's kind of why I'm having this conversation and why I'm framing it as a *consent* issue.
> 
> People want to use lack of social skills as an excuse for bad behavior. While there is a degree of consideration, people are still learning, creating a culture of consent forces people to think about things from the perspective of others without admonishing them for their lack of social skills.
> 
> ...


Well, people's lack of social skills I will only excuse up until a point. If someone are not willing and/or capable of learning some basic social skills despite months of effort on our part I will simply avoid them. 

This fandom I'd argue have the biggest portion of those who are socially inept because they can hide behind a Fursona. They disconnect from reality in some cases, disabling any ability to learn how to more properly deal with it, effectively living two lives where one life is vastly more preferable due to it being a lot more idealistic as opposed to realistic. And in turn when dealing with normal people they don't know how to behave, effectively falling back on their idealistic way of behaviour as opposed to one that could quite easily be a much more socially acceptable one. 

And yes, I agree.* Asking* is so damn simple, and yet helps prevent so many mishaps. Though the sole responsibility does not lie on them alone. *Telling* someone in a friendly manner what is and isn't OK is also a responsibility for the other party. No one party have the sole responsibility. 

Personally, I am more morally grey. I will look at the nuances about something and the context surrounding it. Context always matter, even when you think it doesn't. What someone may consider decent someone else may not. What someone may consider normal behaviour someone else may not. 

Though it will depend heavily on what kind of situation we're talking about here. An example of my own would be hugs. Over the internet I really don't care as you're not violating my personal space. If we're talking real life however, I can and will find it uncomfortable depending on the situation as I am not a hug person in general.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Well, people's lack of social skills I will only excuse up until a point. If someone are not willing and/or capable of learning some basic social skills despite months of effort on our part I will simply avoid them.
> 
> This fandom I'd argue have the biggest portion of those who are socially inept because they can hide behind a Fursona. They disconnect from reality in some cases, disabling any ability to learn how to more properly deal with it, effectively living two lives where one life is vastly more preferable due to it being a lot more idealistic as opposed to realistic. And in turn when dealing with normal people they don't know how to behave, effectively falling back on their idealistic way of behaviour as opposed to one that could quite easily be a much more socially acceptable one.
> 
> ...


I personally have very little tolerance for boundaries that I've set. I have the understanding that this may not be the most kind or supporting attitude. Then again, though, it's not my job to fix people.  

For that reason, I don't think this should be a conversation about decency. Decency itself is subjective. By it's nature, consent is not. That's why *other* kink communities have cultures of consent.


----------



## Skychickens (Jul 16, 2018)

I mean consent has to be from someone cognizant enough to be able to think for themselves case and point. Unless they say “yes” it is not consent. Unless they say “yes” and have a properly functioning brain, it is not consent. A kid cannot consent because they are nowhere near a fully functional brain. An elderly person with dementia also cannot consent for the same reason. A frightened person after a threat also cannot consent, again as they are not properly functioning. They are in fight or flight. 

Case. And. Point.

There are laws about public _indecency. _Don’t be naked or partaking in things meant behind closed doors.

However the example in the poll is a grey area for me. If you’re fully clothed and just kinda doing a leash thing okay. I’m even okay with those backpack leashes for kids—they have saved many a wandering adhd kid.

However if you’re being really aggressive with it and degrading...no. Nonononono.

It’s a really fine line and that sort of thing you simply must use your brain about.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 16, 2018)

I've only seen a person walking their partner on a leash in public once, and they both seemed happy with it.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Skychickens said:


> I mean consent has to be from someone cognizant enough to be able to think for themselves case and point. Unless they say “yes” it is not consent. Unless they say “yes” and have a properly functioning brain, it is not consent. A kid cannot consent because they are nowhere near a fully functional brain. An elderly person with dementia also cannot consent for the same reason. A frightened person after a threat also cannot consent, again as they are not properly functioning. They are in fight or flight.
> 
> Case. And. Point.
> 
> ...


Consent culture actually also includes the people in public.
The public can't consent because you didn't *ask* everyone in the scene. That's why it's okay to walk your partner in a kinky setting verses walking your partner on a public street.

It takes into consideration the audience. Most of the arguments I've seen on this thread are missing the consent of the audience and/or ask the public to make unreasonable accomodations for people who just want to be kinky in public.

It's not okay. It violates consent.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> I personally have very little tolerance for boundaries that I've set. I have the understanding that this may not be the most kind or supporting attitude. Then again, though, it's not my job to fix people.
> 
> For that reason, I don't think this should be a conversation about decency. Decency itself is subjective. By it's nature, consent is not. That's why *other* kink communities have cultures of consent.


Even consent can quite easily be subjective. A yes is a yes and a no is a no, or rather supposed to be, but even then there could be hidden meanings behind using those words and contradictory feelings on using the words. I've encountered women who in reality meant yes but said no, and when I stop they ask me why I've stopped. When I am told to stop I stop. I am not going to continue on the odd chance that someone actually likes telling people no despite wanting the opposite. I am not going to indulge someone's attention seeking behaviour. 

Consent isn't black and white. Even consent have a lot of nuances to it. Everything from how you feel to how you word yourself to body language used. 



PercyD said:


> Consent culture actually also includes the people in public.
> The public can't consent because you didn't *ask* everyone in the scene. That's why it's okay to walk your partner in a kinky setting verses walking your partner on a public street.
> 
> It takes into consideration the audience. Most of the arguments I've seen on this thread are missing the consent of the audience and/or ask the public to make unreasonable accomodations for people who just want to be kinky in public.
> ...


Are you going to ask literally everyone if it's OK that you can use a leash in public? 

That is
a) going to take a lot of fuckin' time
b) probably going to annoy some people simply for asking, they may just don't care
c) you are drawing unnecessary attention to yourself, effectively creating a situation that could quite easily end up in altercations that could otherwise have been avoided

I don't fancy that crap, but it's not harming anyone. If they start acting weird however, I will be one of the first to tell them to stop. 

It will also depend on what kind of leash we're talking about here. Is it one you wear around your neck? Is it one where someone else is walking with their end of the leash, effectively making it look like a master is walking around with his/her pet? Is it som other kind of leash?


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Even consent can quite easily be subjective. A yes is a yes and a no is a no, or rather supposed to be, but even then there could be hidden meanings behind using those words and contradictory feelings on using the words. I've encountered women who in reality meant yes but said no, and when I stop they ask me why I've stopped. When I am told to stop I stop. I am not going to continue on the odd chance that someone actually likes telling people no despite wanting the opposite. I am not going to indulge someone's attention seeking behaviour.
> 
> Consent isn't black and white. Even consent have a lot of nuances to it. Everything from how you feel to how you word yourself to body language used.
> 
> ...


*Actually, consent is black and white.* Like you said, someone saying "stop" or "no" is just that. Whatever else is going on is irrelevant.

*And that is kind of the point of not doing it in public in the first place.* It's easier to just not do the action out in a public space. Walking your partner is not a necessity. It's play. It's kink. It's better to be playful in a space that's accepting and opened, that's what we have kinky spaces for.

Using a public space for your kink and play is not just inappropriate. *Doing overtly kinky activities in a public space violates everyone else's consent who is there in the space with you. *


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

Doing sexual acts and walking someone on a leash are kind of different things. 

As long as it's not sexual, you do you. Sure it's odd and out of the ordinary towards other people, but you know what else is? Dressing up as a blue dog in public. Lol.

And before people state that walking people on a leash is a kink, according to society -wearing a fursuit is also a kink.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Doing sexual acts and walking someone on a leash are kind of different things.
> 
> As long as it's not sexual, you do you. Sure it's odd and out of the ordinary towards other people, but you know what else is? Dressing up as a blue dog in public. Lol.
> 
> And before people state that walking people on a leash is a kink, according to society -wearing a fursuit is also a kink.



Well yeah.

Look, whether or not it is a kink is irrelevant.  Fact is some people are uncomfortable with fursuiters, especially when they frequent places like parks.

It's like clown logic; they're strangers dressing up as animals.  To normies that can be damn creepy even if it's intended to be funloving and family friendly.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Doing sexual acts and walking someone on a leash are kind of different things.
> 
> As long as it's not sexual, you do you. Sure it's odd and out of the ordinary towards other people, but you know what else is? Dressing up as a blue dog in public. Lol.
> 
> And before people state that walking people on a leash is a kink, according to society -wearing a fursuit is also a kink.


Actually you have to consent to do kinky things too.
Walking on a leash is a kink. Wearing a fursuit can be a kink as well. Both of these things aren't illegal, but you wouldn't do them in a public space because it's violating the public's consent.

It's better to go wear you suit where everyone is comfortable with it and you can relax.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> *Actually, consent is black and white.* Like you said, someone saying "stop" or "no" is just that. Whatever else is going on is irrelevant.
> 
> *And that is kind of the point of not doing it in public in the first place.* It's easier to just not do the action out in a public space. Walking your partner is not a necessity. It's play. It's kink. It's better to be playful in a space that's accepting and opened, that's what we have kinky spaces for.
> 
> Using a public space for your kink and play is not just inappropriate. *Doing overtly kinky activities in a public space violates everyone else's consent who is there in the space with you. *


In reality, a no is supposed to be a no, and a yes is supposed to be a yes. Also in reality you have to consider all the nuances and context that comes with human interaction. Depending on the person and situation, a no may not necessarily mean a no, same for yes. It's not black and white, and it's counterproductive to only deal in absolutes. 

Are they hurting someone by wearing the leash?
Are they acting in a socially unfitting manner? i.e., pet/master behaviour?
Are they harassing someone else as a result of wearing that leash?

Sure, it's not exactly something I'd want my potential future kids to see, but it's not a danger to anyone.


----------



## Nihles (Jul 16, 2018)

Obviously sexual acts or nudity in public should be avoided since they could expose someone to something they might not be obvious ready to process or understand.

In my opinion though, kink play or doing a scene might not be obvious sexual; in the walking example above, the viewer would have to be mature enough to know what BDSM is.  Otherwise, it might just look like grown ups playing pretend or acting silly.

The exact time and location could also play a huge factor. Context is everything!


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

I saw a couple do this when I was around 12 or so. They were very respectful about it and never hinted towards anything sexual. My thoughts on seeing them were 'That's silly, they look happy though.' And then I moved on with my life. Lol.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> In reality, a no is supposed to be a no, and a yes is supposed to be a yes. Also in reality you have to consider all the nuances and context that comes with human interaction. Depending on the person and situation, a no may not necessarily mean a no, same for yes. It's not black and white, and it's counterproductive to only deal in absolutes.
> 
> Are they hurting someone by wearing the leash?
> Are they acting in a socially unfitting manner? i.e., pet/master behaviour?
> ...


By virtue of a grown adult leading another grown adult about by the leash, that is pet/master behavior.
That violates your own rules.

And like I said, the other nuances are irrelevant once someone says "no". I don't think that's up for discussion.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> I saw a couple do this when I was around 12 or so. They were very respectful about it and never hinted towards anything sexual. My thoughts on seeing them were 'That's silly, they look happy though.' And then I moved on with my life. Lol.


|DDD It's not about you as a kid though. It's about the concept of consenting audience.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Ah... furries…

So the conclusion I've come to is that there is very little concept of consenting culture here. Though, I don't know if it's because people haven't been to other kinkster communities or if it's just something about the furry community.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> |DDD It's not about you as a kid though. It's about the concept of consenting audience.


If it's pg13 most people will think it just looks silly. 
You got to be a pretty big closet pervert to know what the context is. Sorry to say, but the majority of society are the ones who will find it weird but then move on with their lives.


----------



## Sagt (Jul 16, 2018)

I'm going to join the group saying that this isn't about morality or consent. If anything, it's just about courtesy.

If it's overtly sexual and indecent, that's where I draw the line about whether it should be allowed. 

While wearing a leash in public is odd and possibly anti-social depending on the context, it hurts no one and it's pretty inoffensive tbh.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> If it's pg13 most people will think it just looks silly.
> You got to be a pretty big closet pervert to know what the context is. Sorry to say, but the majority of society are the ones who will find it weird but then move on with their lives.


Its not about perversion either, honey.

I have a question, have you ever been a part of any other kink community? Outside of the kinky side of the furry community, that is.


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Well yeah.
> 
> Look, whether or not it is a kink is irrelevant.  Fact is some people are uncomfortable with fursuiters, especially when they frequent places like parks.


wait, so why is this even a thread then? there's public fursuiters all over and no one seems to have a public thing against it?? help i'm really confused


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I'm going to join the group saying that this isn't about morality or consent. If anything, it's just about courtesy.
> 
> If it's overtly sexual and indecent, that's where I draw the line about whether it should be allowed. While wearing a leash in public is odd and possibly anti-social depending on the context, it hurts no one and it's pretty inoffensive tbh.


While I would agree with you, people often take courtesy as "optional". They also either don't care or don't realize that being uncourteous effects how the community reacts with you. 

Consent, however, is more black and white. It has more ramifications if you violate consent. That's why other kink communities have these rules, to keep things orderly and to keep those who don't follow the rules on the outside.

*Furries don't seem to have that*.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Oakie-Dokie said:


> wait, so why is this even a thread then? there's public fursuiters all over and no one seems to have a public thing against it?? help i'm really confused


Its a thread because people don't consider the consent of the public, or even know that that's a thing. That's a thing in other kinkster communities.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jul 16, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I'm going to join the group saying that this isn't about morality or consent. If anything, it's just about courtesy.
> 
> If it's overtly sexual and indecent, that's where I draw the line about whether it should be allowed. However, while wearing a leash in public is odd and possibly anti-social depending on the context, it hurts no one and it's pretty inoffensive tbh.



Correct. Using the opposing argument's logic, I don't consent to seeing the political campaigning signs on the side of the road either, and we know how contentious politics can be on either side in this forum. I don't consent to seeing a violent protest either, but it could happen, there is an array of things I can find disagreeable in which I could be exposed to when going outside and taking a walk around the city, but realistically speaking I already consented to the variety of different variables I could experience when I decide to go outside. 

This is an issue of social etiquette, some people don't have it, because not everybody is socially intelligent. Some people have no issue subjecting others to their weird kinks, but that's life. There will always be weirdos. The issue really isn't much more complicated than that.


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Its a thread because people don't consider the consent of the public, or even know that that's a thing. That's a thing in other kinkster communities.


so i have to have consent to wear a cosplay suit? because that's essentially what i read that conversation as.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> By virtue of a grown adult leading another grown adult about by the leash, that is pet/master behavior.
> That violates your own rules.
> 
> And like I said, the other nuances are irrelevant once someone says "no". I don't think that's up for discussion.


I haven't stated any rules. The only "rules" I've stated is to look at the nuances and context surrounding the event/situation. Something you seem to ignore.



PercyD said:


> While I would agree with you, people often take courtesy as "optional". They also either don't care or don't realize that being uncourteous effects how the community reacts with you.
> 
> Consent, however, is more black and white. It has more ramifications if you violate consent. That's why other kink communities have these rules, to keep things orderly and to keep those who don't follow the rules on the outside.
> 
> *Furries don't seem to have that*.


Courtesy *is* optional. It's not a mandatory thing.

I would recommend you try and stop speaking for others when you clearly don't.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Its not about perversion either, honey.
> 
> I have a question, have you ever been a part of any other kink community? Outside of the kinky side of the furry community, that is.



I'm not even in the kinky side of _this_ fandom, let alone others.  Please enlighten me what this has to do with some couple wearing a leash.


----------



## Nihles (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Ah... furries…
> 
> So the conclusion I've come to is that there is very little concept of consenting culture here. Though, I don't know if it's because people haven't been to other kinkster communities or if it's just something about the furry community.


The impression that I get is that the furry community skews younger than other communities, and furthmore, BDSM type stuff is a small subset. This would make for people who don't have a lot of experience thinking in these terms.  (myself included, I am takont this interesting question to some older non-fur kink friends now).


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> I'm not even in the kinky side of _this_ fandom, let alone others.  Please enlighten me what this has to do with some couple wearing a leash.


Okay! So.

In (Mainstream) Kinky communities there is this thing called *"Culture of Consent"*. It's a sort list of rules that determine how and where people play kinks. When going to do a kinky act (any sort of kinky act) there are 3 parties you need to consider:

The person asking for consent
The person giving consent
The audience watching (if applicable)

(Outside) of the furry community, you would not walk a person on a leash in public for example. This violates the consent of the audience, the public cannot realistically give consent. It has nothing to do with the action. It has nothing to do with the sort of people watching. In other kinky communities, if you violate ANY of the 3 parties, then you have commited a consent violation. You would be shunned in the community. No one would play with you, because you have boundary issues and you don't play safe.

Furries don't have this. This might be why furries catch so much shit in the kinkster community- there is no consent culture. Theres no concept of consent of the audience watching for many kinky furries and it's a problem. Also usually, people shuned in mainstream kink come to the furry community since theres no consent culture here.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> I haven't stated any rules. The only "rules" I've stated is to look at the nuances and context surrounding the event/situation. Something you seem to ignore.
> 
> 
> Courtesy *is* optional. It's not a mandatory thing.
> ...


Where have I spoken for any one? I was just stating fact.

And I keep telling you that theres no nuance when it comes to consent. I told you that when we began this conversation.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Correct. Using the opposing argument's logic, I don't consent to seeing the political campaigning signs on the side of the road either, and we know how contentious politics can be on either side in this forum. I don't consent to seeing a violent protest either, but it could happen, there is an array of things I can find disagreeable in which I could be exposed to when going outside and taking a walk around the city, but realistically speaking I already consented to the variety of different variables I could experience when I decide to go outside.
> 
> This is an issue of social etiquette, some people don't have it, because not everybody is socially intelligent. Some people have no issue subjecting others to their weird kinks, but that's life. There will always be weirdos. The issue really isn't much more complicated than that.


We're not talking about politics though. The thread clearly states we're talking about kinky activities and consent culture in that regard.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Okay! So.
> 
> In (Mainstream) Kinky communities there is this thing called *"Culture of Consent"*. It's a sort list of rules that determine how and where people play kinks. When going to do a kinky act (any sort of kinky act) there are 3 parties you need to consider:
> 
> ...


Huh... that's interesting.  What about the people who do this who are not in a community?  This is what I was referring to.  

Also careful on calling this fandom a community.  A lot of people disagree with that. ☆

Anyway you asked peoples opinions and we gave them. You don't have to agree.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> We're not talking about politics though. The thread clearly states we're talking about kinky activities and consent culture in that regard.



Doesn't matter, because when you go outside, you are consenting to a variety of possibilities, some of these can possibilities include somebody walking another person on a leash, somebody in a diaper, somebody who likes wearing panties, an obese man dressed as sailor moon. By going outside, you already consented to these incredibly unlikely, but possible experiences.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> Doesn't matter, because when you go outside, you are consenting to a variety of possibilities, some of these can possibilities include somebody walking another person on a leash, somebody in a diaper, somebody who likes wearing panties, an obese man dressed as sailor moon. By going outside, you already consented to these incredibly unlikely, but possible experiences.


It does matter because that's the topic...?
And no you're not. If those people go outside and they are doing that then they just violated consent culture and they probably should be people who you should avoid. That's the point.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Huh... that's interesting.  What about the people who do this who are not in a community?  This is what I was referring to.
> 
> Also careful on calling this fandom a community.  A lot of people disagree with that. ☆
> 
> Anyway you asked peoples opinions and we gave them. You don't have to agree.


Eh, they're interchangeable to me. I don't really get the difference between a 'fandom' and a 'community'. 

The people who violate consent culture, as I've said, they're normally shunned. It's how the BDSM community has been faring after 50 shades of grey.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> It does matter because that's the topic...?
> And if there are people doing that they just violated consent culture and they probably should be people who you should avoid. That's the point.



What? I was refuting your assertion that this was just a consent towards politics. My example includes this specific 'consent culture' you mentioned. My argument is, consent was already given the moment you stepped outside, to witness whatever expression of free will your constituents wish to legally express. This isn't about consent, it's social etiquette.


----------



## Marcl (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> It does matter because that's the topic...?
> And if there are people doing that they just violated consent culture and they probably should be people who you should avoid. That's the point.


So in other words, what you're saying by 'consent' is bu others understood as 'decency' or 'etiquette'.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> What? I was refuting your assertion that this was just a consent towards politics. My example includes this specific consent culture you mentioned. My argument is, consent was already given the moment you stepped outside, to witness whatever expression of free will your constituents wish to legally express. This isn't about consent, it's social etiquette.


No, it's not. |D Because we're specifically talking about kinky communities and the rules that they have for consent.
Oof.
I'm tired~.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> No, it's not. |D Because we're specifically talking about kinky communities and the rules that they have for consent.
> Oof.
> I'm tired~.



Are there some different rules at play in these kinky communities that I am not aware of? I mean, if they aren't breaking the law, I don't really see why it'd be any different.

Again, this is a issue of consent vs social etiquette. I am not defending the weirdos, I'm just saying there is a difference between the two.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Eh, they're interchangeable to me. I don't really get the difference between a 'fandom' and a 'community'.
> 
> The people who violate consent culture, as I've said, they're normally shunned. It's how the BDSM community has been faring after 50 shades of grey.


If they are not in a group, who shuns them? 
I have seen all kinds of people in this City and no one bats an eye. 
Once when I was working in the theater some guy dressed like a vampire had brought handcuffs with him. He then let this old lady go ahead of him in line and was very respectful. Kind of opened my eyes. Lol


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> If they are not in a group, who shuns them?
> I have seen all kinds of people in this City and no one bats an eye.
> Once when I was working in the theater some guy dressed like a vampire had brought handcuffs with him. He then let this old lady go ahead of him in line and was very respectful. Kind of opened my eyes. Lol


If you are looking for other kinky people to be kinky with, if your known to have boundary issues, no one will play with you.

-But did he cuff the old lady afterwards? Lol~.


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Where have I spoken for any one? I was just stating fact.
> 
> And I keep telling you that theres no nuance when it comes to consent. I told you that when we began this conversation.


An opinion is not a fact. This is your take on the topic. A topic people seem to agree, disagree and be neutral on.



PercyD said:


> Eh, they're interchangeable to me. I don't really get the difference between a 'fandom' and a 'community'.


And the English dictionary gets butchered as a result.



PercyD said:


> If you are looking for other kinky people to be kinky with, if your known to have boundary issues, no one will play with you.
> 
> -But did he cuff the old lady afterwards? Lol~.


And this is the problem right here. You are conflating kinks with the Furry fandom.

Sorry to break it to you, but you are doing everyone a disservice by doing so.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

Norwegians lamenting the butchery of the English language? How did that happen?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 16, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I'm going to join the group saying that this isn't about morality or consent. If anything, it's just about courtesy.
> 
> If it's overtly sexual and indecent, that's where I draw the line about whether it should be allowed.
> 
> While wearing a leash in public is odd and possibly anti-social depending on the context, it hurts no one and it's pretty inoffensive tbh.



Can you name me one context where wearing a leash is acceptable in public?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> I don't really get the difference between a 'fandom' and a 'community'.


A fandom is a group of people who share a common interest in a subject, such as a sports team, fictional series, or in this case cartoon animals.

A community sort of implies that they work together and coexist peacefully. 

They both could be considered synonyms, but the way we use them today has created some distinction.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> A fandom is a group of people who share a common interest in a subject, such as a sports team, fictional series, or in this case cartoon animals.
> 
> A community sort of implies that they work together and coexist peacefully.
> 
> They both could be considered synonyms, but the way we use them today has created some distinction.


Ahhhh, yea that's true.
I can't think of too many communities in that case. (lol, peacefully?) 
I actually think I like this nuance. It makes a distinction about relationships.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Ahhhh, yea that's true.
> I can't think of too many communities in that case. (lol, peacefully?)
> I actually think I like this nuance. It makes a distinction about relationships.


I always figured that the furry fandom isn't exactly a community in our present time, but I recognize the potential of us becoming one none the less.

Definitions aside, back to the discussion of leashes in public!


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I always figured that the furry fandom isn't exactly a community in our present time, but I recognize the potential of us becoming one none the less.
> 
> Definitions aside, back to the discussion of leashes in public!


I still say no TAT-

Really, it's more about consent culture and kinky communities. I want to call them kinky communities, now, because they have rules to protect each other from bad players. Fandoms necessarily don't have that.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> I still say no TAT-
> 
> Really, it's more about consent culture and kinky communities. I want to call them kinky communities, now, because they have rules to protect each other from bad players. Fandoms necessarily don't have that.


I always considered that if I am ever going to practice such personal things like wearing collars or leashes or whatever caters to my kinks openly, I should take the public's opinion into consideration. There of course will be people who are very uncomfortable with seeing things like that, and there of course are those who don't mind at all. Really it's up to you to decide though. Personally I wouldn't do something in public that might make a lot of people uncomfortable, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

To be honest I don't know why anybody would _want_ to do this kind of stuff in public settings where it's unexpected. 

The awkward feelings. God.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> If you are looking for other kinky people to be kinky with, if your known to have boundary issues, no one will play with you.
> 
> -But did he cuff the old lady afterwards? Lol~.


I don't think the couple I saw wanted to be kinky with other people. lol

And I have no idea. LOL


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

On this whole topic, I once came across a couple doing bondage things in the woods.

They're lucky I didn't ruin their day because I thought it was a rape at first and I was going to call the police.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> I don't think the couple I saw wanted to be kinky with other people. lol
> 
> And I have no idea. LOL


Lol~. 
Squiggy couples are an issue though. 
I will say that other kinky communities are a lot more concerned about their public image. Especiall after 50 shades of gray. Not really because they're concerned about bad PR. More that their community was inneudated with middle aged women who don't know how consent works or how to play safe. In BDSM the sub controls whats going on, actually. It's not just a dom hitting you. The later is abuse.

You also got a lot more nasty doms preying on people who don't know how to play safe. They definitely stepped up their consent culture stuff.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 16, 2018)

Run for the hills; the middle aged women are coming.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Run for the hills; the middle aged women are coming.


I'm adding this to my signature.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 16, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I'm adding this to my signature.


I feel honored to have inspired that quote.


----------



## KimberVaile (Jul 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Run for the hills; the middle aged women are coming.


You mean soccer moms.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 16, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Heres a thing that's been inching my scalp for awhile...
> Furry fandom, in it's kinky spaces, it* very* much unlike other kinky spaces.
> 
> Looking strictly at furry fandom's kinky spaces, there doesn't seem to be a strong culture of consent here in the furry community that exists as common protocol in other kink communities.
> ...


I think most people are consenting already; because if they're already wearing the BDSM stuff - than they (most likely) consented before putting it on.


----------



## Nihles (Jul 16, 2018)

The more I read and think about this, the more I think that Observer consent matters. I now hink it's inappropriate to subject other people to something that they may be incredibly uncomfortable with, even if it's their own hang up and not yours. And this doesn't just apply to BDSM stuff, if I were fursuiting out in a public space and was asked to leave then I would.


----------



## Lexiand (Jul 16, 2018)

Bagh... Is that you?


----------



## KimberVaile (Jul 16, 2018)

SveltColt said:


> Bagh... Is that you?


You had the same hunch too?


----------



## Lexiand (Jul 16, 2018)

KimberVaile said:


> You had the same hunch too?


yes


----------



## Sagt (Jul 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Can you name me one context where wearing a leash is acceptable in public?


I feel like I'll just be repeating what other people have already said in this thread. :l

It's not going to be controversial everywhere, so it depends on the location. Where I live right now, there are a lot of oldies who can be quite uptight and prudish, so I wouldn't be surprised for some people to object to it. However, where I used to live (to avoid being too specific, I was in CA), I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would become upset at something as harmless as wearing a leash in public. Similarly, I bet people in Amsterdam (I go there somewhat frequently) wouldn't care much.

Sure, it's odd, and it _can_ have some sexual connotations (although, I'll mention that it's not overtly or inherently sexual) to it, but I don't see why that's a reason to shame or otherwise not tolerate it. It's not like it's breaking any laws.

I guess it can be discourteous of some people's sensitivies (if they care about this stuff), but then again, it's unsightly at worst and unremarkable (or maybe even fun) at best. People can deal with it, just like they have to deal with other annoying things when they leave their private homes and enter public areas shared by (almost) all. Relative to some contentious things one might see in public, like religious people preaching on the street or political people protesting, a leash is quite inoffensive.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Can you name me one context where wearing a leash is acceptable in public?


If you're here in San Francisco (where I am) - you can wear one to restaurant, a library, a store, (or even a church); and no one will bat an eye twice.


----------



## Massan Otter (Jul 17, 2018)

Central Edinburgh during the Fringe festival (pretty much the whole of August) is another setting where no-one would be bothered.  You might get asked if you have fliers for your show though.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I feel like I'll just be repeating what other people have already said in this thread. :l
> 
> It's not going to be controversial everywhere, so it depends on the location. Where I live right now, there are a lot of oldies who can be quite uptight and prudish, so I wouldn't be surprised for some people to object to it. However, where I used to live (to avoid being too specific, I was in CA), I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would become upset at something as harmless as wearing a leash in public. Similarly, I bet people in Amsterdam (I go there somewhat frequently) wouldn't care much.
> 
> ...


It* does* have sexual connotations.  Who puts a leash on another human being unless you're suggesting a master-slave relationship?  And those kinds of relationships are strictly sexual these days.
-
Also someone expressing their religious freedom is a far cry from expressing kinks in public.  And yes, walking another human around on a leash like a dog is a fucking kink.  And if it's not a kink, is uncanny and creepily weird.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It* does* have sexual connotations.  Who puts a leash on another human being unless you're suggesting a master-slave relationship?  And those kinds of relationships are strictly sexual these days.
> -
> Also someone expressing their religious freedom is a far cry from expressing kinks in public.  And yes, walking another human around on a leash like a dog is a fucking kink.  And if it's not a kink, is uncanny and creepily weird.



Personally, I often keep LCS on a tight leash to stop him chasing rabbits.


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It* does* have sexual connotations.  Who puts a leash on another human being unless you're suggesting a master-slave relationship?  And those kinds of relationships are strictly sexual these days.
> -
> Also someone expressing their religious freedom is a far cry from expressing kinks in public.  And yes, walking another human around on a leash like a dog is a fucking kink.  And if it's not a kink, is uncanny and creepily weird.


my mom used to put me on a leash when we went out in public, does that make me her slave? or her my master? And more people are offended by people pushing their religion than a kink being expressed that is in no way challenging them personally. I think the real link you're making here is that being on a leash is like serving a master, which is not true at all.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Oakie-Dokie said:


> my mom used to put me on a leash when we went out in public, does that make me her slave? or her my master? And more people are offended by people pushing their religion than a kink being expressed that is in no way challenging them personally. I think the real link you're making here is that being on a leash is like serving a master, which is not true at all.



Question says "walk your partner on a leash," not your kid.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 17, 2018)

For the most part I agree with the contention that kinky activity in a public space needs to consider the consent of uninvolved viewers as well as the participants, and I also agree that context means a great deal (there are public places where I'd feel that walking a partner on a leash is somewhat inappropriate, and public places where I wouldn't).

However, I do need to respond to this:



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Also someone expressing their religious freedom is a far cry from expressing kinks in public.  And yes, walking another human around on a leash like a dog is a fucking kink.  And if it's not a kink, is uncanny and creepily weird.



I consider a lot of religious beliefs "creepily weird," and see no great difference between the public expression of them and the public expression of other kinks. Weird public behavior doesn't get a pass from me for being religious in origin.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Kumali said:


> For the most part I agree with the contention that kinky activity in a public space needs to consider the consent of uninvolved viewers as well as the participants, and I also agree that context means a great deal (there are public places where I'd feel that walking a partner on a leash is somewhat inappropriate, and public places where I wouldn't).
> 
> However, I do need to respond to this:
> 
> ...



There is a great difference because the expression of religion is:

A) Covered by law, under specific circumstances.

B) Ethically necessary.

Leashes are neither.  It can count as a public kink if you're using it on your partner.


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Question says "walk your partner on a leash," not your kid.


but it is literally the same thing?? lmao 
Take for example a Red Maple tree and a Sugar Maple tree. One is slightly different than the other, but they're both the same thing, serving the same purpose. you can even grow one from the cuttings of another, depending on the environment. Just because they "look" different doesn't mean they are different, and while both are pretty weird (I'll give ya that), neither are necessarily morally questionable.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> There is a great difference because the expression of religion is:
> 
> A) Covered by law, under specific circumstances.



And I'm not aware of there being specific laws barring the use of leashes between consenting adults in public. Maybe there are, in some places. But if not, it seems like it'd fall under "freedom of expression," similarly to, say, displaying a body piercing - in questionable taste, perhaps, but not illegal. I didn't ask to see a body piercing either, but presumably the person flaunting it isn't breaking any laws. (I live in a town where there's a LOT of body modification on display. Some of it makes me a bit queasy now and then, but that's my problem, no one else's. It's not my prerogative to force my aesthetic judgement on anyone else. And I wouldn't find leashes any more objectionable.)



ResolutionBlaze said:


> B) Ethically necessary.



We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. We just went through all that on the Furry Theologian thread that got removed. Not every religious expression is "ethically necessary," or indeed ethically defensible.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Kumali said:


> We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. We just went through all that on the Furry Theologian thread that got removed. Not every religious expression is "ethically necessary," or indeed ethically defensible.



If we are agreeing to disagree why do you insist on creating an argument?



Kumali said:


> And I'm not aware of there being specific laws barring the use of leashes between consenting adults in public. Maybe there are, in some places. But if not, it seems like it'd fall under "freedom of expression," similarly to, say, displaying a body piercing - in questionable taste, perhaps, but not illegal. I didn't ask to see a body piercing either, but presumably the person flaunting it isn't breaking any laws. (I live in a town where there's a LOT of body modification on display. Some of it makes me a bit queasy now and then, but that's my problem, no one else's. It's not my prerogative to force my aesthetic judgement on anyone else. And I wouldn't find leashes any more objectionable.



There are laws for being a sexual deviant in public.  You dont get to freely express your kink.

Exhibitionism is illegal.  Expressing kinks in public for the purpose of being seen by others is illegal.


----------



## Sagt (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Exhibitionism is illegal.  Expressing kinks in public for the purpose of being seen by others is illegal.


Wearing a leash isn't exhibitionism.

Exhibitionism is about nudity.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 17, 2018)

Lcs said:


> Wearing a leash isn't exhibitionism.
> 
> Exhibitionism is about nudity.



You're sort of correct. An exhibitionist by definition is someone who behaves in an extravagant way in order to attract attention. However, this can also include how one dresses. If one were to wear a leash, bondage gear, diapers, or latex clothing to make them resemble a dog, with the intention of being noticed for it, they could be considered an exhibitionist. Some kinks, when done publicly, have the characteristics of exhibitionist behavior. While nudity is the dominant example of exhibitionism, I would not agree that it is the only kind.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 17, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> You're sort of correct. An exhibitionist by definition is someone who behaves in an extravagant way in order to attract attention. However, this can also include how one dresses. If one were to wear a leash, bondage gear, diapers, or latex clothing to make them resemble a dog, with the intention of being noticed for it, they could be considered an exhibitionist. Some kinks, when done publicly, have the characteristics of exhibitionist behavior. While nudity is the dominant example of exhibitionism, I would not agree that it is the only kind.


By that logic... wouldn't fursuiting be considered an exhibitionist act?
I think it's wrong to assume what people are doing just for fun and what people are doing for a kink. If no one is hurting anyone and keeping it pg13 should we really just assume? Because when we do, we become no better then the media... In which people think that being a furry is a fetish. @ResolutionBlaze

We don't know these people. They could be a couple in middle school and are just doing it to be silly. 
Heaven knows I was a weird ass kid... my sister and I have both walked each other on a leash when we would pretend to be mama and baby cat. We had chokers with little bells on them too. We never thought about it being a kink. ( Dear Lord )

Look, at this point, and how lazor focused everyone here seems to think sex has to do with everything... I'm beginning to see why the media sees us as such.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 17, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> By that logic... wouldn't fursuiting be considered an exhibitionist act?
> I think it's wrong to assume what people are doing just for fun and what people are doing for a kink. If no one is hurting anyone and keeping it pg13 should we really just assume? Because when we do, we become no better then the media... In which people think that being a furry is a fetish. @ResolutionBlaze
> 
> We don't know these people. They could be a couple in middle school and are just doing it to be silly.
> ...


I'm glad you mentioned this since I actually forgot. We furries in particular do often get carried away with applying sexualized perception to many things that may have little to nothing to do with it. It is not necessarily unique to our fandom, but very prevalent still. This realization could be applied to the thread all together. Wearing certain accessories may not always be a kink, as your personal experience demonstrates.

Also, since you went ahead and pinged a certain user for what they said, I would like to argue that being a furry does contain at least some level of being a fetish for many. It's not what our fandom is all about, or it's core principles and values, like the media says, but one can't deny that it exists as part of our fandom, regardless of who takes part in it or not. Perhaps this might explain why we get carried away with assuming many other things might be a fetish as well, though please forgive me if it looks like I'm pointing fingers.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 17, 2018)

Regarding the question about fursuits/animal costumes. 
Animal costumes are a bit like cross-dressing. They can be anywhere between completely innocent and red-blooded raunchiness, depending on the person and how they're feeling. 
People mostly make the right call about which contexts are right for which kinds of expression.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 17, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I'm glad you mentioned this since I actually forgot. We furries in particular do often get carried away with applying sexualized perception to many things that may have little to nothing to do with it. It is not necessarily unique to our fandom, but very prevalent still. This realization could be applied to the thread all together. Wearing certain accessories may not always be a kink, as your personal experience demonstrates.
> 
> Also, since you went ahead and pinged a certain user for what they said, I would like to argue that being a furry does contain at least some level of being a fetish for many. It's not what our fandom is all about, or it's core principles and values, like the media says, but one can't deny that it exists as part of our fandom, regardless of who takes part in it or not. Perhaps this might explain why we get carried away with assuming many other things might be a fetish as well, though please forgive me if it looks like I'm pointing fingers.



Nah man, being in the furry fandom has nothing to do with all the kinks. In fact if you weren't into the fandom I can bet you will still be interested in the kinks. Kinks don't come with the fandom, kinks come from the people and their personal life in general.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Jul 17, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Kinks don't come with the fandom, kinks come from the people and their personal life in general.


I can agree with this statement. Our fandom does offer an accepting atmosphere, which might encourage many people with kinks to feel more comfortable expressing them to some degree.


----------



## Sagt (Jul 17, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> You're sort of correct. An exhibitionist by definition is someone who behaves in an extravagant way in order to attract attention. However, this can also include how one dresses. If one were to wear a leash, bondage gear, diapers, or latex clothing to make them resemble a dog, with the intention of being noticed for it, they could be considered an exhibitionist. Some kinks, when done publicly, have the characteristics of exhibitionist behavior. While nudity is the dominant example of exhibitionism, I would not agree that it is the only kind.


I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer here, but as I recall, the legal definition relates strictly to nudity.

I think there are some other laws against risqué choices of clothing (or accessories), but those vary regionally, and I doubt a leash is suggestive enough.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 17, 2018)

Lcs said:


> I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer here, but as I recall, the legal definition relates strictly to nudity.
> 
> I think there are some other laws against risqué choices of clothing (or accessories), but those vary regionally, and I doubt a leash is suggestive enough.



Honestly wouldn't surprise me at all if Theresa May appeared with a leash to match her chains, so it can't be illegal, lol.


----------



## Simo (Jul 17, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Honestly wouldn't surprise me at all if Theresa May appeared with a leash to match her chains, so it can't be illegal, lol.



That's funny! I once posted a thread here about Theresa May and her giant Jewelry...so yeah, a leash would seem almost like an understatement, compared to her normal neck-ware


----------



## Kumali (Jul 17, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Regarding the question about fursuits/animal costumes.
> Animal costumes are a bit like cross-dressing. They can be anywhere between completely innocent and red-blooded raunchiness, depending on the person and how they're feeling.
> People mostly make the right call about which contexts are right for which kinds of expression.



Indeed. I just finished a week as a guest lecturer at a college, and one of the students (late teens, female) wore cat ears to class every day. She was a great student, and none of the other 20-something class participants (most of whom were a good bit older) thought anything of it after the initial mild surprise and smiles when they first encountered her. I'd forgotten all about it until just now, which shows how unremarkable I found it to be.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If we are agreeing to disagree why do you insist on creating an argument?



The question makes no sense. If I'm agreeing to disagree, by definition I'm _not_ creating an argument, n'est-ce pas?

Unless of course you choose not to go along with the "agreement to disagree," in which case, fine, it's an argument. But it won't be me who started it. And I'll continue to stand by what I said.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> There are laws for being a sexual deviant in public.  You dont get to freely express your kink.
> 
> Exhibitionism is illegal.  Expressing kinks in public for the purpose of being seen by others is illegal.



For what it's worth, I wear a dog collar in public all the time. I don't consider it a kink or exhibitionism, just personal style. It just feels comfortable and I like the way it looks on me. What other people make of it is not my concern. 

If you find leashes to be kinky and exhibitionistic, and therefore expect wearing them in public to be illegal, you might feel the same way about my dog collar - to which all I can say is, I've been living in my city (in a red state in the south) for five years now, and have never once been accused of doing anything illegal. If there was a law against that particular personal adornment, you'd think I'd have run afoul of it by now, no?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Kumali said:


> The question makes no sense. If I'm agreeing to disagree, by definition I'm _not_ creating an argument, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> Unless of course you choose not to go along with the "agreement to disagree," in which case, fine, it's an argument. But it won't be me who started it. And I'll continue to stand by what I said


You don't get to say, "I think we should discontinue this argument" and proceed to put in your last word.  Maybe if you were summarizing your thoughts but you basically made an argument never made before and then said, "But let's agree to disagree" thus if I go against that I'm potentially seen as the villain here.  Don't put people in that position; if you're gonna say, "Let's agree to disagree" then leave it at that.  Don't add thoughts, don't add opinions, don't add arguments.  If you're finished arguing, then stop arguing.


Kumali said:


> For what it's worth, I wear a dog collar in public all the time. I don't consider it a kink or exhibitionism, just personal style. It just feels comfortable and I like the way it looks on me. *What other people make of it is not my concern. *
> 
> If you find leashes to be kinky and exhibitionistic, and therefore expect wearing them in public to be illegal, you might feel the same way about my dog collar - to which all I can say is, I've been living in my city (in a red state in the south) for five years now, and have never once been accused of doing anything illegal. If there was a law against that particular personal adornment, you'd think I'd have run afoul of it by now, no?


Actually, it _IS_ your concern.  That's why public decency laws exist.
-
And wearing a collar is different from having someone walk you on a leash.  The former is seen as a fashion choice because we see people having all sorts of collar-like designs (but they more closely resemble neck ribbons).  But a leash is a device that grants control over something.  Master-slave.  Master-pet.  Leashes aren't normal for human beings, even on children it is arguably odd; how much more concerning is it for an adult couple?
-
You may as well wear a mouth gag and shame people for being weirded out that an adult is wearing such a thing out in public.
-
People wonder why furries have such a bad rep; it's ironic because I've had to get training all my life to understand other people's perspective and I seem to be the only one here pointing it out.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 17, 2018)

Kumali said:


> The question makes no sense. If I'm agreeing to disagree, by definition I'm _not_ creating an argument, n'est-ce pas?
> 
> Unless of course you choose not to go along with the "agreement to disagree," in which case, fine, it's an argument. But it won't be me who started it. And I'll continue to stand by what I said.
> 
> ...



The majority of people out there probably don't care - (what someone else on the streets is wearing that they don't personally know); just so long as it's not blatently offensive to anyone, then I think most people just shrug these things off.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't get to say, "I think we should discontinue this argument" and proceed to put in your last word.  Maybe if you were summarizing your thoughts but you basically made an argument never made before and then said, "But let's agree to disagree" thus if I go against that I'm potentially seen as the villain here.  Don't put people in that position; if you're gonna say, "Let's agree to disagree" then leave it at that.  Don't add thoughts, don't add opinions, don't add arguments.  If you're finished arguing, then stop arguing.



Well, then, you and I have a different understanding of what "agreeing to disagree" means. 

The specific statement of yours I offered to "agree to disagree" about - which to my mind meant allowing you your opinion while also allowing me mine, a different and disagreeing one - was this:



ResolutionBlaze said:


> the expression of religion is [...] ethically necessary.



My opinion is that the expression of religion is not "ethically necessary," and in fact is often ethically indefensible. That's my opinion, to which I have as much right as you do to yours - and let's be clear: your statement is your _opinion_, not empirical fact. 

If you insist on framing that as an "argument," fine, but that wasn't my intent. I tried to be civil and allow us both our opinions; if you wish to twist it into a hostile exchange, that's unfortunate, but it's no doing of mine. I'm not putting anyone in any "position," or seeing you as a "villain."  (And I never said "I think we should discontinue this argument" or anything like it. Please do not attribute words to me that I did not say.)

Anyway, getting back to the original topic:



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Actually, it IS your concern.  That's why public decency laws exist.



And as I say, I haven't run afoul of "public decency laws" in the five years I've been living here and wearing my dog collar in public. So barring that, *what other people make of it is not my concern,* exactly as I said. Can you enlighten me as to why I should care what a total stranger thinks of my fashion choices if I'm (apparently) not breaking any laws?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> And wearing a collar is different from having someone walk you on a leash.  The former is seen as a fashion choice because we see people having all sorts of collar-like designs (but they more closely resemble neck ribbons).



Believe me, there's no mistaking my inch-wide brown leather dog collar with the leash ring on it for anything other than a dog collar. It most certainly does not "resemble neck ribbons." 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> But a leash is a device that grants control over something.  Master-slave.  Master-pet.  *Leashes aren't normal for human beings,* even on children it is arguably odd; how much more concerning is it for an adult couple?



And you are the arbiter of what is and isn't "normal" for human beings because...why, exactly? And "concerning" to whom? 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> You may as well wear a mouth gag and shame people for being weirded out that an adult is wearing such a thing out in public.



Well, again: would it actually be breaking the law? (Not a rhetorical question; I really would like to know the answer. I imagine, though, that it varies with context, as I maintained in the first place.) If not, well, some might see it as being in questionable taste, but as I said before, I see a lot of (to me) extreme body modifications around here that I consider to be in questionable taste too, but I don't take it upon myself to sic the police on those folks, or tell them to get off the street, or tell them they're wrong and sick and the sight of them disgusts me.

It's called tolerance. Life really would be pretty boring if we all dressed and presented the same way.

You're obviously bothered by the prospect of someone wearing a leash in public, and you're entitled to your opinion of the sight; you're even entitled to express your opinion. What you're not entitled to do is force your personal aesthetics on others, as long as the others are within the bounds of legality. You don't like it? Look the other way. Or go somewhere else, where you won't see sights that traumatize you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Kumali said:


> And as I say, I haven't run afoul of "public decency laws" in the five years I've been living here and wearing my dog collar in public. So barring that, *what other people make of it is not my concern,* exactly as I said. Can you enlighten me as to why I should care what a total stranger thinks of my fashion choices if I'm (apparently) not breaking any laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, there's no mistaking my inch-wide brown leather dog collar with the leash ring on it for anything other than a dog collar. It most certainly does not "resemble neck ribbons."


I never said it resembled neck ribbons, I said that similar things have been in style lately so it isn't hard for me to believe that some would be okay with it.


Kumali said:


> And you are the arbiter of what is and isn't "normal" for human beings because...why, exactly? And "concerning" to whom?


Why?  I may not get out much but I understand that walking your wife or husband on a leash isn't what normal humans do.  I... figured this was basic knowledge.  Sorry, but this screaming of "BUT WHAT IS NORMAL!?" isn't convincing me that this behavior is at all okay.  If normal didn't exist, or expectations of normal behavior, then our society wouldn't be the way it is.  So it's not me deciding it.


Kumali said:


> Well, again: would it actually be breaking the law? (Not a rhetorical question; I really would like to know the answer. I imagine, though, that it varies with context, as I maintained in the first place.) If not, well, some might see it as being in questionable taste, but as I said before, I see a lot of (to me) extreme body modifications around here that I consider to be in questionable taste too, but I don't take it upon myself to sic the police on those folks, or tell them to get off the street, or tell them they're wrong and sick and the sight of them disgusts me.


You realize that extreme body mods are more permanent than hooking a leash on your partner, right?  It's not exactly something you can just, y'know, take off.


Kumali said:


> It's called tolerance. Life really would be pretty boring if we all dressed and presented the same way.


We don't.  But we have these things called standards.


Kumali said:


> You're obviously bothered by the prospect of someone wearing a leash in public, and you're entitled to your opinion of the sight; you're even entitled to express your opinion. What you're not entitled to do is force your personal aesthetics on others, as long as the others are within the bounds of legality.* You don't like it? Look the other way. Or go somewhere else, where you won't see sights that traumatize you.*


How about you keep it in the fucking bedroom where it belongs and we wouldn't have these problems


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 17, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The majority of people out there probably don't care - (what someone else on the streets is wearing that they don't personally know); just so long as it's not blatently offensive to anyone, then I think most people just shrug these things off.


You remember at a con this year where a couple were romping in the middle of the main lobby floor?
-
Nobody said anything.  Yet many were disgusted by the act.  Many just went on their way, and tried to avoid it.
-
Assuming that just because nobody says anything they're okay with it is a failure to take in perspective.  A lot of times, these things are so awkward people would rather evacuate than confront it, even with something as sexual as that.
-
So when my friend here says this:



Kumali said:


> You don't like it? Look the other way. Or go somewhere else, where you won't see sights that traumatize you.


They fail to understand that people DO look the other way.  And they're extremely uncomfortable with a lot of things.  That's basically the first reaction to things like that.  So really, by being ignorant of other people's perspective and how they feel about the situation, you're more of the asshole than they are.
​


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You remember at a con this year where a couple were romping in the middle of the main lobby floor?
> -
> Nobody said anything.  Yet many were disgusted by the act.  Many just went on their way, and tried to avoid it.
> -
> ...


I agree. Sexual shit needs to stay private. End of story. No one consented to seeing that crap. What's next that people are gonna start supporting? Taking a crap like a dog in the middle of a park?


----------



## Kumali (Jul 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I may not get out much but I understand that walking your wife or husband on a leash isn't what normal humans do.  I... figured this was basic knowledge.  Sorry, but this screaming of "BUT WHAT IS NORMAL!?" isn't convincing me that this behavior is at all okay.  If normal didn't exist, or expectations of normal behavior, then our society wouldn't be the way it is.  So it's not me deciding it.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> we have these things called standards.



Indeed, and standards are different from place to place. I live in a pretty progressive area, as I mentioned, and while I've only seen leashes used in public here once or twice (so far), they haven't raised many eyebrows.

(I'd also venture to say that a lot of folks around here, myself included, find a leash a lot less offensive than, say, the confederate flags one sees here regularly. A matter of priorities, I guess.)

And I'll just throw this out there, on the topic of societal standards and "what normal humans do": there was a time not too long ago when a same-sex couple expressing affection in public, or an interracial couple being together at all, or a mother breast-feeding her baby in public, weren't considered "what normal humans did" according to "standards." Hell, I'm old enough to remember some of that, and I'm not that old.  Societal standards are what we the people decide they are, and as such they can evolve over time.

So, not saying leash-walking is likely to become a new societal standard anytime soon  but when one lives in a place like I do, one learns to keep an open mind and a sense of acceptance of activities mildly outside the "norm" as long as they're not harming anyone.

~

Having said all of which, I'll admit that I did vote "no" on the original question, on the grounds that uninvolved observers didn't give consent. But I'm even having second thoughts about that now, and it's quite possible that living where I do may be influencing that.

~

(Oh, and one more thing: nobody's screaming "BUT WHAT IS NORMAL!?", OK? Again: if you expect me to participate in a civilized discussion, do not misquote me.)


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 18, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Indeed, and standards are different from place to place. I live in a pretty progressive area, as I mentioned, and while I've only seen leashes used in public here once or twice (so far), they haven't raised many eyebrows.
> 
> (I'd also venture to say that a lot of folks around here, myself included, find a leash a lot less offensive than, say, the confederate flags one sees here regularly. A matter of priorities, I guess.)
> 
> ...


all I can do is applaud this. This shit needs to be a TED Talk oml


----------



## Saiko (Jul 18, 2018)

Honestly, of all the kinks someone might do in public, leash walking is probably one of the least bothersome. I wouldn’t do it, but I wouldn’t particularly care about seeing it either.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Jul 18, 2018)

The bystanders didn't consent to being part of your kink expression, therefor all public displays of kink behaviour are non-consensual, because they automatically involve the public eye.. _Which did not consent._

If I was in public and someone walked by with their partner on a leash, it would make me incredibly uncomfortable and feel borderline violated because I did not say I wanted to be part of their public sexual activity. This sort of activity is "exciting" to most _because_ it's public and people are seeing it, so that automatically involves anyone who does see it. Even if they're fully clothed and not touching one another in an inappropriate way, these expressions are still overtly sexual in nature (or directly related) and should be kept private.

I don't want to be part of someone's personal kink expressions. I don't want to be involved. I don't care what people do behind closed doors if it's safe and consensual (and not against the law), but I don't want to be a part of it and if someone forced me to be a part of it, I have _every right_ to be upset and object to that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 18, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> The bystanders didn't consent to being part of your kink expression, therefor all public displays of kink behaviour are non-consensual, because they automatically involve the public eye.. _Which did not consent._
> 
> If I was in public and someone walked by with their partner on a leash, it would make me incredibly uncomfortable and borderline violated because I did not say I wanted to be part of their public sexual activity. Even if they're fully clothed and not touching one another in an inappropriate way, these expressions are still overtly sexual in nature and should be kept private.



I agree mostly, but I think that there are social contexts in which the public space can reasonably be expected to be more flirty, such as during a carnival. 

So the context can change the situation a wee bit.


----------



## Massan Otter (Jul 18, 2018)

Where do you draw the line though?  I've known people into leather in a kinky way who will often wear leather items day to day, visibly in public.  That's public expression of a kink, but it's just a choice of clothing material and I haven't heard of anyone getting upset about it.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Jul 18, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I agree mostly, but I think that there are social contexts in which the public space can reasonably be expected to be more flirty, such as during a carnival.
> 
> So the context can change the situation a wee bit.



I thought that was already obvious. We don't need to be this pedantic- the topic was never about closed situations or events wherein one could be aware and make the decision to go based on what they're comfortable with seeing. The topic was about being kinky in public. Closed events where you require entry and would obviously have some idea of what to expect are not the same as going to the supermarket on some random Tuesday.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 18, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> I thought that was already obvious. We don't need to be this pedantic- the topic was never about closed situations or events wherein one could be aware and make the decision to go based on what they're comfortable with seeing. The topic was about being kinky in public. Closed events where you require entry and would obviously have some idea of what to expect are not the same as going to the supermarket on some random Tuesday.



Oh okay.



Massan Otter said:


> Where do you draw the line though?  I've known people into leather in a kinky way who will often wear leather items day to day, visibly in public.  That's public expression of a kink, but it's just a choice of clothing material and I haven't heard of anyone getting upset about it.



A leather jacket isn't perceptible as a kink, so nobody can tell.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 18, 2018)

We don't know these people. Is it really our job to assume it's a kink? It could be a lifestyle choice or really anything.

If it's kept pg13 it shouldn't be any less uncomfortable to people then dressing up in a fursuit. 
Remember folks, being a furry is considered a fetish. And I know for a fact that many people like to wear the suits out to public places.

I'm honestly surprised how judging the forums are on something we have absolutely no context on.


----------



## Simo (Jul 18, 2018)

Not to mention, most foxes in the fandom often need to be walked on a leash, just to keep them out of mischief and trouble. To just have them roam free, there's no telling the amount of mayhem and kinkiness they might spread to the unsuspecting and innocent. In this case the leash is really a preventative measure, doing the more delicate members of the public a great favor.

"A leash for every fox, and every fox on a leash", as the saying goes.

(This message not affiliated with the National Leash Manufacturers Association.)


----------



## Kumali (Jul 18, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> The bystanders didn't consent to being part of your kink expression, therefor all public displays of kink behaviour are non-consensual, because they automatically involve the public eye.. Which did not consent.
> 
> If I was in public and someone walked by with their partner on a leash, it would make me incredibly uncomfortable and feel borderline violated because I did not say I wanted to be part of their public sexual activity.



Understood, and I respect that. Still, I can't help thinking... The other evening, a complete stranger approached me in a public park, struck up a seemingly friendly conversation, and then handed me a fundamentalist Christian pamphlet. I felt WAY more violated and angry about that than if I had seen a couple playfully using a leash in public.

And before anybody says, "But that was an expression of religion, that's different from kink"...is it? I don't see that it is. In my opinion it isn't.

Therefore: replace the words "sexual" and "kink" with "religious" in this next quote and see how it reads:



Illuminaughty said:


> This sort of activity is "exciting" to most because it's public and people are seeing it, so that automatically involves anyone who does see it. Even if they're fully clothed and not touching one another in an inappropriate way, these expressions are still overtly sexual in nature (or directly related) and should be kept private.
> 
> I don't want to be part of someone's personal kink expressions. I don't want to be involved. I don't care what people do behind closed doors if it's safe and consensual (and not against the law), but I don't want to be a part of it and if someone forced me to be a part of it, I have every right to be upset and object to that.



For that matter, replace "in the fucking bedroom where it belongs" with "in your fucking church where it belongs" in this one:



ResolutionBlaze said:


> How about you keep it in the fucking bedroom where it belongs and we wouldn't have these problems



...and you'll see where I'm coming from with that sort of activity. Still, even then, I don't protest it, or demand that it be removed from public spaces, or lament the collapse of civilization when I encounter it; I'm not real happy that it's there, but I can avoid it easily enough if I wish to. The world's a big place.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 18, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> We don't know these people. Is it really our job to assume it's a kink? It could be a lifestyle choice or really anything.
> 
> If it's kept pg13 it shouldn't be any less uncomfortable to people then dressing up in a fursuit.
> Remember folks, being a furry is considered a fetish. And I know for a fact that many people like to wear the suits out to public places.
> ...



Well said. Thank you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 18, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> If it's kept pg13 it shouldn't be any less uncomfortable to people then dressing up in a fursuit.
> Remember folks, being a furry is considered a fetish. And I know for a fact that many people like to wear the suits out to public places.


People are uncomfortable with fursuits.  Hence why I think it's pushing the line when people decide to go visiting the park with a fursuit on, and then complain when security or police are called on them; it's creepy.  As I said; it's clown syndrome.


Yvvki said:


> We don't know these people. Is it really our job to assume it's a kink? It could be a lifestyle choice or really anything.


You don't get to say, "It could be a lifestyle choice" and not give an example of why that would be one.  Really?  A lifestyle choice?  This is what we are reducing it to?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 18, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Understood, and I respect that. Still, I can't help thinking... The other evening, a complete stranger approached me in a public park, struck up a seemingly friendly conversation, and then handed me a fundamentalist Christian pamphlet. I felt WAY more violated and angry about that than if I had seen a couple playfully using a leash in public.
> 
> And before anybody says, "But that was an expression of religion, that's different from kink"...is it? I don't see that it is. In my opinion it isn't.
> 
> ...


"See if you replace these words and situations with completely different things with no context, I'm actually right!  Checkmate!"
You realize that the expression of religious opinion is a protected right, yeah?  Kinks are not a protected right.  Nor should they be.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> People are uncomfortable with fursuits.  Hence why I think it's pushing the line when people decide to go visiting the park with a fursuit on, and then complain when security or police are called on them; it's creepy.  As I said; it's clown syndrome.
> 
> You don't get to say, "It could be a lifestyle choice" and not give an example of why that would be one.  Really?  A lifestyle choice?  This is what we are reducing it to?



Well when my sister and I were little we would do stuff like that, even in our early teens because we were pretending to be a cat or something. xD I was a weird ass kid. It was never thought of anything sexual.... Also I have seen a couple that did this and they were both asexual and it was not sexualised at all. It was just people having fun in a strange way.

Now if they were wearing a leash and lets say... humping someone, that's not a-ok. Even if it is kind of funny xDD.

Also about the fursuiting thing.... It should be fine as long as it's pg13. Parents have the right to be worried but I would argue that if you see something uncomfortable then don't let your kids interact with it.  The parks are big enough for all kinds of people/events. ( at least the ones I go to. )


----------



## Kumali (Jul 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> "See if you replace these words and situations with completely different things with no context, I'm actually right!  Checkmate!"





ResolutionBlaze said:


> You realize that the expression of religious opinion is a protected right, yeah?  Kinks are not a protected right.  Nor should they be.



In my opinion, someone forcing their religious beliefs on me in a public space is at least as objectionable as someone wearing an unconventional form of attire. I thought I was quite clear about that. I also thought I was quite clear that despite my distaste for public displays of religious proselytization, I don't argue that they should be banned. 

As for religion and kink being "completely different things," I came right out and said (and you're even quoting me saying): 



Kumali said:


> And before anybody says, "But that was an expression of religion, that's different from kink"...is it? I don't see that it is. In my opinion it isn't.



To expand on that: I, personally, find superstitious beliefs, magical thinking, the random obedience of self-chosen maxims from a book thousands of years old and loaded with contradictions and absurdities, and (especially) the expectation that others should do likewise, every bit as eccentric as wearing a fashion accessory that isn't mainstream. That's my opinion; I don't insist on its universal truth, and I respect others' right to disagree. But I do find it an useful parallel for the topic at hand, despite your cavalier dismissal.

Again: you find wearing a leash in public objectionable. Very well; I find distributing religious tracts to total strangers uninvited in public places objectionable. I also find the impulse to do so no more inherently worthy of respect than the desire to wear a leash in public for whatever reasons one may have to do that. But, unlike some self-appointed crusaders, I have no wish to remake the world as I might have it be, and I respect the rights of others to indulge in their religious activities, just as I expect them to respect others' rights of self-expression within legal bounds.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't get to say, "It could be a lifestyle choice" and not give an example of why that would be one.  Really?  A lifestyle choice?  This is what we are reducing it to?



Why not? That's exactly what my dog collar is.

And you don't get to say what other people do and don't get to say.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Jul 18, 2018)

Kumali said:


> For that matter, replace "in the fucking bedroom where it belongs" with "in your fucking church where it belongs" in this one:



That is not at all what I said. I don't use coarse language and I don't judge or hate people for what they like. But there are times and places when almost all things are inappropriate. You can wear your collar as much as you want, as a fashion accessory. But if you wish to use it as a kink accessory for activities that involve sexual motivations or gratification, please do those who don't want to be a part of your scene a service and keep it private. Thank you.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 18, 2018)

Illuminaughty said:


> That is not at all what I said. I don't use coarse language and I don't judge or hate people for what they like.



I didn't say you said that - I was quoting @ResolutionBlaze. The quote from RB appears in my post immediately after the words of mine you're quoting.



Illuminaughty said:


> But there are times and places when almost all things are inappropriate. You can wear your collar as much as you want, as a fashion accessory. But if you wish to use it as a kink accessory for activities that involve sexual motivations or gratification, please do those who don't want to be a part of your scene a service and keep it private. Thank you.



We're agreed on all of that. And I feel the same way about leashes.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 18, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You remember at a con this year where a couple were romping in the middle of the main lobby floor?
> -
> Nobody said anything.  Yet many were disgusted by the act.  Many just went on their way, and tried to avoid it.
> -
> ...



PDA's make some people uncomfortable - but the majority of folks out there - could care less if I'm making out with my boyfriend (in a parked car) on a dark road, that's off of an entrance to the beach.

And, when my BF asks me to make out - neither of us think to check if the neighbor down the road (sipping coffee in his car) might have a problem with any of it.

We've done alot more than makeout in his car, btw, and one needs to also "mind one's own business", once and a while, too.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Why not? That's exactly what my dog collar is.
> 
> *And you don't get to say what other people do and don't get to say.*


Do I seriously have to point out the pure irony of this statement?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> PDA's make some people uncomfortable - but the majority of folks out there - could care less if I'm making out with my boyfriend (in a parked car) on a dark road, that's off of an entrance to the beach.
> 
> And, when my BF asks me to make out - neither of us think to check if the neighbor down the road (sipping coffee in his car) might have a problem with any of it.
> 
> *We've done alot more than makeout in his car, btw, and one needs to also "mind one's own business", once and a while, too.*


And if a police officer taps on the car window?  You just gonna tell him to "mind his own business"?  Give me a break; just don't fuck in public, or in places where the chances of being seen are high.
-
This isn't rocket science I don't know why people make it such.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Well when my sister and I were little we would do stuff like that, even in our early teens because we were pretending to be a cat or something. xD I was a weird ass kid. It was never thought of anything sexual.... Also I have seen a couple that did this and they were both asexual and it was not sexualised at all. It was just people having fun in a strange way.
> 
> Now if they were wearing a leash and lets say... humping someone, that's not a-ok. Even if it is kind of funny xDD.
> 
> Also about the fursuiting thing.... It should be fine as long as it's pg13. Parents have the right to be worried but I would argue that if you see something uncomfortable then don't let your kids interact with it.  The parks are big enough for all kinds of people/events. ( at least the ones I go to. )


So your examples are when you were children, where it is common, teens who goof off all the time, and an asexual couple who wouldn't even be capable of thinking of it in a sexual way.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> To expand on that: I, personally, find superstitious beliefs, magical thinking, the random obedience of self-chosen maxims from a book thousands of years old and loaded with contradictions and absurdities, and (especially) the expectation that others should do likewise, every bit as eccentric as wearing a fashion accessory that isn't mainstream. That's my opinion; I don't insist on its universal truth, and I respect others' right to disagree. But I do find it an useful parallel for the topic at hand, despite your cavalier dismissal.


Just had to comment on this quick because... wew.  I love that you just had to point all this out, and slander religion as much as you naturally could before you discussed it.  Predictable if someone is gonna use a "religion r bad" argument.
-
I mean, you DO realize that the freedom to express your opinions, no matter how absurd, is necessary for a functional society.  It's not like we can silence wrongthink and have the same implications as, I dunno, not putting your wife or husband on a leash in public like a weirdo?  So yeah, it's a pretty poor comparison, you're basically saying, "Well I don't agree with this thing and this is allowed, how do you explain THAT!" while ignoring the implications should we censor those opinions as casually as we censor abnormal social behaviors.
-
Nobody really puts a leash on their partner and take them for a cutesie little walk if they're not trying to be seen.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So your examples are when you were children, where it is common, teens who goof off all the time, and an asexual couple who wouldn't even be capable of thinking of it in a sexual way.



I'm going off personal examples that prove it's not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
People should be allowed to wear whatever they want as long as they are pg13 about it.
Accessories included.

You can have your opinion and assume wearing an accessory is a kink, but keep in mind that it's still only your opinion. And guess what? Opinions differ between people.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

I'm so glad this degeneracy is staying on the internet because if I saw someone getting walked on a leash in day to day life I'd give up on humanity.


----------



## Oakie-Dokie (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And if a police officer taps on the car window?  You just gonna tell him to "mind his own business"?  Give me a break; just don't fuck in public, or in places where the chances of being seen are high.
> -
> This isn't rocket science I don't know why people make it such.


may I just comment on something??

While I don't necessarily condone said actions, there literally isn't any legitimate reason for a Police Officer to even be questioning them, in which case they do have the right context to tell said Officer to mind his own business. Sure, it's a little questionable, but they have the right to do so without being questioned.

And the same goes with said "kinky" leashes. If it isn't illegal, if it isn't specifically harming anyone, and if things are kept strictly PG (or at least PG-13) then said "kinker" or whatever is perfectly fine. People have the right to be uncomfortable, I know. But the people performing said actions have a freedom of expression too, and it would be a violation of their constitutional freedoms to force them not to wear said leash as well as it would be a violation of constitutional freedoms to make passerby have to be comfortable with the situation. If they don't like it, they can mind their own.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

Oakie-Dokie said:


> may I just comment on something??
> 
> While I don't necessarily condone said actions, there literally isn't any legitimate reason for a Police Officer to even be questioning them, in which case they do have the right context to tell said Officer to mind his own business. Sure, it's a little questionable, but they have the right to do so without being questioned.
> 
> And the same goes with said "kinky" leashes. If it isn't illegal, if it isn't specifically harming anyone, and if things are kept strictly PG (or at least PG-13) then said "kinker" or whatever is perfectly fine. People have the right to be uncomfortable, I know. But the people performing said actions have a freedom of expression too, and it would be a violation of their constitutional freedoms to force them not to wear said leash as well as it would be a violation of constitutional freedoms to make passerby have to be comfortable with the situation. If they don't like it, they can mind their own.


Do you know what public indecency is? And yes. The police officer has every right to question them. Telling a cop to mind their own business is probably gonna get you in worse trouble too. When he goes to write a ticket, you going to refuse to show your license in registration because you think you're in the right as well?


----------



## Dongding (Jul 19, 2018)

I'll just weigh in and duck out.

I think it has sexually charged connotations, but there's much worse things people are allowed to do. I wouldn't be that bothered about it.

Obviously it's not a matter of whether it's allowed to be done. It's acceptable in the eyes of the law.

In regards to consent? Yes, it is involving someone in what is almost surely a kink to the people in question. So if that's the case, it's definitely violating some sort of consent in regards to random passersby's willingness to be a part of the situation. But as @KimberVaile mentioned, if you go outside and interact with a society who's laws and _technically_ the culture that had decided to include those things in their laws, you are sort of consenting to the motivations behind those acts too.

It's like saying if someone has a sexual fetish for something seen as acceptable even though they themselves find it sexually appealing, that that person shouldn't be allowed to do it regardless of it's legality.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Do I seriously have to point out the pure irony of this statement?



Of course not - that's why there was a smiley emoticon after it, since it was self-consciously ironic and therefore (hopefully) humorous.

But beneath the jocularity there is a serious point: neither you nor anyone else here, including myself, has the right to control what others say, so long as we all remain within the forum guidelines. Starting a rebuttal with "You don't get to say..." strikes me as an assumption of an authority that one does not possess, which is why I tried to tweak it in a light, self-mocking way. But if you prefer that I remain serious in this conversation, I can do that too.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

@Illuminaughty appears to have blocked me, which is too bad, since they mistakenly thought I was attributing words to them that I wasn't and I corrected the misunderstanding in my very next post (I thought). And after that I even pointed out that we were in agreement, so I don't understand the point of the block, since I don't have any quarrel or disagreement with them. Oh well. (shrug)


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Oakie-Dokie said:


> may I just comment on something??
> 
> While I don't necessarily condone said actions, there literally isn't any legitimate reason for a Police Officer to even be questioning them, in which case they do have the right context to tell said Officer to mind his own business. Sure, it's a little questionable, but they have the right to do so without being questioned.
> 
> And the same goes with said "kinky" leashes. If it isn't illegal, if it isn't specifically harming anyone, and if things are kept strictly PG (or at least PG-13) then said "kinker" or whatever is perfectly fine. People have the right to be uncomfortable, I know. But the people performing said actions have a freedom of expression too, and it would be a violation of their constitutional freedoms to force them not to wear said leash as well as it would be a violation of constitutional freedoms to make passerby have to be comfortable with the situation. If they don't like it, they can mind their own.



Indecent exposure - Wikipedia

Also, please read up on _Barnes v. Glen Theatre_; public indecency is not covered as freedom of expression.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Indecent exposure - Wikipedia
> 
> Also, please read up on _Barnes v. Glen Theatre_; public indecency is not covered as freedom of expression.


Off-topic, I love court cases that show people that what they think is law is really not. Like those people who think that an officer can't order you out of your vehicle. Have some Pennsylvania v. Mimms.


----------



## theawakening (Jul 19, 2018)

Ah, who even needs to use kinks... in public? And who uses a human leash? smh weirdos


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> I'm going off personal examples that prove it's not as black and white as you seem to think it is.
> People should be allowed to wear whatever they want as long as they are pg13 about it.
> Accessories included.
> 
> You can have your opinion and assume wearing an accessory is a kink, but keep in mind that it's still only your opinion. And guess what? Opinions differ between people.



All the "it's just your opinion" argument means is that you've run out of genuine arguments to make, so you attempt to reduce my own argument into "merely an opinion" as a last dich effort to invalidate my position, even if it includes invalidating your own in the process.

"Its just your opinion" is not an intelligent way to participate in a conversation about ethics.  Dont play the Reletivist Fallacy.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Of course not - that's why there was a smiley emoticon after it, since it was self-consciously ironic and therefore (hopefully) humorous.
> 
> But beneath the jocularity there is a serious point: neither you nor anyone else here, including myself, has the right to control what others say, so long as we all remain within the forum guidelines. Starting a rebuttal with "You don't get to say..." strikes me as an assumption of an authority that one does not possess, which is why I tried to tweak it in a light, self-mocking way. But if you prefer that I remain serious in this conversation, I can do that too.



It would be best to stick to one tone as to avoid misunderstandings.

I'm using reasoning as the basis of saying what someone "gets to do". Its implied that certain arguments are valid and some invalid.  Which is true.


----------



## Sagt (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Indecent exposure - Wikipedia


That link wasn't very informative, considering that the vast majority of it was speaking about nudity and genital exposure, which is not on-topic.

I skimmed, but the only relevant piece of information I could see (and even with this, I believe it's still talking about clothing which exposes too much, rather than an accessory with some sexual connotations to it) was this, which is very vague in regards to something like wearing a leash:


			
				Wikipedia stuff said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, as a general rule, it is also commonly expected that people when they appear in a public place will be appropriately attired. Inappropriateness is viewed in context, so that, for example, what may be appropriate on a beach may be inappropriate in a street, school or workplace. Depending on the context, some degree of inappropriateness may be tolerated, and perhaps described as eccentric, but in extreme cases of inappropriateness it may be regarded as "crossing the line". Besides the social disapproval of such a state of dress, most jurisdictions have laws to "maintain social order", variously described as public nudity, indecent exposure, as an affront to public morality, public nuisance, besides others. What is an inappropriate state of dress in a particular context depends on the standards of decency of the community where an exposure takes place.


Is wearing a leash an "extreme case of inappropriateness"?

Also, like it acknowledges, *inappropriateness "depends on the standards of decency of the community where an exposure takes place."*


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Indecent exposure - Wikipedia



OK - here are the first three paragraphs from that article:

"Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. The term 'indecent exposure' is a legal expression. Social and community attitudes to the exposing of various body parts and laws covering what is referred to as indecent exposure vary significantly in different countries. It ranges from outright prohibition to prohibition of exposure of certain body parts, such as the genital area, buttocks or breasts.

"Decency is generally judged by the standards of the local community, which are seldom codified in specifics in law. Such standards may be based on religion, morality or tradition, or justified on the basis of 'necessary to public order.' Non-sexual exhibitionism or public nudity is sometimes considered indecent exposure. If sexual acts are performed, with or without an element of nudity, this can be considered gross indecency, which is usually a more serious criminal offence. In some countries, exposure of the body in breach of community standards of modesty is also considered to be public indecency.

"The legal and community standards of what states of undress constitute indecent exposure vary considerably and depend on the context in which the exposure takes place. These standards have also varied over time, making the definition of indecent exposure itself a complex topic."

All of that sounds pretty specific to nudity or degrees of undress. Nothing about wearing fetish apparel if one is otherwise clothed. Therefore irrelevant to the present discussion, it seems to me.

Perhaps you were thinking of "exhibitionism," and here's what Wikipedia has to say about that:

"Exhibitionism is the act of exposing in a public or semi-public context those parts of one's body that are not normally exposed – for example, the breasts, genitals or buttocks. The practice may arise from a desire or compulsion to expose themselves in such a manner to groups of friends or acquaintances, or to strangers for their amusement or sexual satisfaction or to shock the bystander. Exposing oneself only to an intimate partner is normally not regarded as exhibitionism. In law, the act of exhibitionism may be called indecent exposure, 'exposing one's person,' or other expressions."

Again, focused on nudity/exposure, which isn't what we're talking about. If you have a problem with the public wearing of fetish gear such as leashes, that's understandable, but such doesn't appear to fall under the category of "indecent exposure" or "exhibitionism" by these definitions. So let's not move those goalposts.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Also, please read up on Barnes v. Glen Theatre; public indecency is not covered as freedom of expression.



The 5-4 Supreme Court holding in Barnes v. Glen Theatre reads as follows: "States have the authority and right to regulate and/or ban nudity, as it is in the interests of both the government and society to preserve morality by statute. Nudity is not protected under the first amendment, nor expressive content."

Again, specific to nudity. Nothing there about the public wearing of fetish gear. Therefore, once again, irrelevant to the present discussion. (Interesting read, though - thanks for that.)


----------



## Sagt (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> All the "it's just your opinion" argument means is that you've run out of genuine arguments to make, so you attempt to reduce my own argument into "merely an opinion" as a last dich effort to invalidate my position, even if it includes invalidating your own in the process.
> 
> "Its just your opinion" is not an intelligent way to participate in a conversation about ethics.  Dont play the Reletivist Fallacy.


Alternatively, what she said could be interpreted as a way of ending a discussion which is going in circles. It's like saying "let's agree to disagree."


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

God is dead


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> OK - here are the first three paragraphs from that article:
> 
> "Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of his or her body, in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. The term 'indecent exposure' is a legal expression. Social and community attitudes to the exposing of various body parts and laws covering what is referred to as indecent exposure vary significantly in different countries. It ranges from outright prohibition to prohibition of exposure of certain body parts, such as the genital area, buttocks or breasts.
> 
> ...




It's a good thing I wasnt replying to you.  Wasnt talking about leashes in the context of this conversation.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Lcs said:


> That link wasn't very informative, considering that the vast majority of it was speaking about nudity and genital exposure, which is not on-topic.
> 
> I skimmed, but the only relevant piece of information I could see (and even with this, I believe it's still talking about clothing which exposes too much, rather than an accessory with some sexual connotations to it) was this, which is very vague in regards to something like wearing a leash:
> 
> ...



I love how both of you completely ignored the context of what I was replying to.

Hint: I wasnt talking about leashes here.


----------



## Sagt (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I love how both of you completely ignored the context of what I was replying to.
> 
> Hint: I wasnt talking about leashes here.


If you weren't, you certainly didn't make that clear.

In his message you quoted, he spoke about freedom of expression only in regards to leashes.

See here:


Oakie-Dokie said:


> But the people performing said actions have a freedom of expression too, and it would be a violation of their constitutional freedoms to force them not to wear said leash as well as it would be a violation of constitutional freedoms to make passerby have to be comfortable with the situation.


As a response to this, you linked a wikipedia article to indecent exposure, and then said that public indecency is not covered as freedom of expression.

This seemed like you were implying that wearing a leash is indecent exposure.

So...


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Just had to comment on this quick because... wew.  I love that you just had to point all this out, and slander religion as much as you naturally could before you discussed it.  Predictable if someone is gonna use a "religion r bad" argument.



I expressed an honest opinion about religion - or to be more specific, the monotheistic Abrahamic religions - which I have every right to do (and for what it's worth, my opinion is based on some degree of knowledge of those religions, having grown up Christian and studied the Bible in some depth). If you find that to be "slander," so be it; that's your opinion, to which you also have a right.

My point stands, though, which is that I find the impulse to display one's religious beliefs in public, and even force them on unconventional strangers, no more worthy of respect in and of itself than the impulse to wear legal fetish gear in public.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I mean, you DO realize that the freedom to express your opinions, no matter how absurd, is necessary for a functional society.  It's not like we can silence wrongthink and have the same implications as, I dunno, not putting your wife or husband on a leash in public like a weirdo? So yeah, it's a pretty poor comparison, you're basically saying, "Well I don't agree with this thing and this is allowed, how do you explain THAT!" while ignoring the implications should we censor those opinions as casually as we censor abnormal social behaviors.



I don't find it a poor comparison at all. So we disagree on that. And you're missing my larger point, which is that even though I may not agree with this or that "thing" that's allowed, and I may even consider it abnormal, I don't call for its censoring.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Nobody really puts a leash on their partner and take them for a cutesie little walk if they're not trying to be seen.



Probably not. Nor would they wear, let's say, a MAGA hat or a t-shirt with a confederate flag on it if they didn't intend those to be seen and their messages to be communicated, one would assume. I find those deeply offensive, but I still respect the individual's right to express himself/herself in such a way.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's a good thing I wasnt replying to you.  Wasnt talking about leashes in the context of this conversation.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> I love how both of you completely ignored the context of what I was replying to.
> 
> Hint: I wasnt talking about leashes here.



Then why did you even bring it up, if it's not relevant to the present conversation?

Tracing it back through this thread, as near as I can tell, the post with the Wikipedia "Indecent exposure" link and the reference to Barnes v. Glen Theatre ultimately sprang from @Connor J. Coyote's post #175, about PDAs and "making out," which are not necessarily the same thing as "fucking in public" (@ResolutionBlaze's term, post #177).

Even then, I'm not sure how relevant indecent exposure laws are to making out in one's car - depends how undressed the involved parties get, I suppose - and it surely doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread, as you just admitted yourself. So again: stop moving the goalposts.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Then why did you even bring it up, if it's not relevant to the present conversation?
> 
> Tracing it back through this thread, as near as I can tell, the post with the Wikipedia "Indecent exposure" link and the reference to Barnes v. Glen Theatre ultimately sprang from @Connor J. Coyote's post #175, about PDAs and "making out," which are not necessarily the same thing as "fucking in public" (@ResolutionBlaze's term, post #177).
> 
> Even then, I'm not sure how relevant indecent exposure laws are to making out in one's car - depends how undressed the involved parties get, I suppose - and it surely doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread, as you just admitted yourself. So again: stop moving the goalposts.



Maybe you should start paying attention.



Connor J. Coyote said:


> PDA's make some people uncomfortable - but the majority of folks out there - could care less if I'm making out with my boyfriend (in a parked car) on a dark road, that's off of an entrance to the beach.
> 
> And, when my BF asks me to make out - neither of us think to check if the neighbor down the road (sipping coffee in his car) might have a problem with any of it.
> 
> *We've done alot more than makeout in his car, btw, and one needs to also "mind one's own business", once and a while, too.*



And if you stuck to conversations you actually were addressed in this wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> PDA's make some people uncomfortable - but the majority of folks out there - could care less if I'm making out with my boyfriend (in a parked car) on a dark road, that's off of an entrance to the beach.
> 
> And, when my BF asks me to make out - neither of us think to check if the neighbor down the road (sipping coffee in his car) might have a problem with any of it.
> 
> *We've done alot more than makeout in his car, btw, and one needs to also "mind one's own business", once and a while, too.*





ResolutionBlaze said:


> Maybe you should start paying attention.



Yes, I was well aware of what Connor said, and while it's true that "doing a lot more than making out" MIGHT go as far as getting naked and fucking, it doesn't necessarily; that was your assumption. By your own reasoning, if the parties aren't indecently exposed, indecent exposure laws are irrelevant even to heavy making out.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> And if you stuck to conversations you actually were addressed in this wouldn't be a problem.



This is an open discussion on a public forum. I intend to respond to whomever I wish, whenever I wish. If you want a private conversation, take it to pm's.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Yes, I was well aware of what Connor said, and while it's true that "doing a lot more than making out" MIGHT go as far as getting naked and fucking, it doesn't necessarily; that was your assumption. By your own reasoning, if the parties aren't indecently exposed, indecent exposure laws are irrelevant even to heavy making out.



Heavy making out isnt even ideal in public and you can be called out on it.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Heavy making out isnt even ideal in public and you can be called out on it.



Fine. But is it illegal, according to the indecent exposure laws you're citing? And is it "in public" if it's in a car?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Fine. But is it illegal, according to the indecent exposure laws you're citing? And is it "in public" if it's in a car?



Uh, yeah.  That's why you take it out somewhere quiet if you're getting naughty.

I dont understand how this is difficult for people to accept; things do not need to be in public.  Leashes are odd and often sexual and make people uncomfortable for really no reason.

The irony here is that I am into Exhibitionism.


----------



## Simo (Jul 19, 2018)

Huh, now I want to start a religion where the collar is a sacred symbol, and my 'followers' are led by leashes


----------



## Massan Otter (Jul 19, 2018)

I follow a guy on Twitter who has a mission to take pictures at every railway station in the UK wearing a pup hood, and he has a blog about his progress too.  It has never occurred to me to find this anything other than endearing and funny, and he doesn't seem to get many negative reactions.  I'd have no worries if I bumped into him or his friends with my 4 and 5-year old nephews either, as they wouldn't need any explanation beyond "they're playing a game where he's his doggy".  
Reading this thread, I guess this places me firmly at the more relaxed, tolerant end of things!


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I follow a guy on Twitter who has a mission to take pictures at every railway station in the UK wearing a pup hood, and he has a blog about his progress too.  It has never occurred to me to find this anything other than endearing and funny, and he doesn't seem to get many negative reactions.  I'd have no worries if I bumped into him or his friends with my 4 and 5-year old nephews either, as they wouldn't need any explanation beyond "they're playing a game where he's his doggy".
> Reading this thread, I guess this places me firmly at the more relaxed, tolerant end of things!


I'm tolerant. But not uncouth


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> By your own reasoning, if the parties aren't indecently exposed, indecent exposure laws are irrelevant even to heavy making out.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> Heavy making out isnt even ideal in public and you can be called out on it.





Kumali said:


> Fine. But is it illegal, according to the indecent exposure laws you're citing? And is it "in public" if it's in a car?





ResolutionBlaze said:


> Uh, yeah.



On what grounds is it illegal, then, if we've established that the parties are sufficiently clothed to be in accordance with indecent exposure laws? "Creating a nuisance," maybe, but if they're in their own car as Connor said...?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's why you take it out somewhere quiet if you're getting naughty.



I'm fine with that; it just seems from this thread that you and I have different opinions on whether certain activities are "naughty."



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I dont understand how this is difficult for people to accept; things do not need to be in public.  Leashes are odd and often sexual and make people uncomfortable for really no reason.



Burqas are odd (to me) and have sexual overtones and make me uncomfortable and "do not need to be in public." Yet people wear them and are well within their rights to do so, and I respect that.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> On what grounds is it illegal, then, if we've established that the parties are sufficiently clothed to be in accordance with indecent exposure laws? "Creating a nuisance," maybe, but if they're in their own car as Connor said...?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Comparing a burqa to a leash. Wow.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

Simo said:


> Huh, now I want to start a religion where the collar is a sacred symbol, and my 'followers' are led by leashes



Well, if you did that, the public wearing of collars and leashes would then have to be protected as an expression of religion, wouldn't it? Maybe it'd even be encouraged, if your religion went mainstream enough. 

And that'd be that...easy way to bypass this whole question...


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> On what grounds is it illegal, then, if we've established that the parties are sufficiently clothed to be in accordance with indecent exposure laws? "Creating a nuisance," maybe, but if they're in their own car as Connor said...?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Burqas?  Really?  Burqas are religious and literally cover the body in order to DESEXUALIZE.

And I should have clarified I meant that making out wasnt a public activity not that it was illegal


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> Comparing a burqa to a leash. Wow.



_Absolutely_ I'm comparing a burqa to a leash. At least insofar as 1) I see them both as symbols of submission and subservience, and 2) the public display of both is voluntary and is presumably intended to deliberately send a visual message to all who see it.

I may not have "consented" to have someone's religious beliefs paraded before me quite so forcefully, but I tolerate it, because it's not illegal, and it causes no actual harm to me or anyone else who sees it. That tolerance is part of living in a civilized society, no? So I'm just making the parallel - entirely valid, in my view - between wearing a burqa in public and wearing a leash in public. No significant difference in my opinion.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> _Absolutely_ I'm comparing a burqa to a leash. At least insofar as 1) I see them both as symbols of submission and subservience, and 2) the public display of both is voluntary and is presumably intended to deliberately send a visual message to all who see it.
> 
> I may not have "consented" to have someone's religious beliefs paraded before me quite so forcefully, but I tolerate it, because it's not illegal, and it causes no actual harm to me or anyone else who sees it. That tolerance is part of living in a civilized society, no? So I'm just making the parallel - entirely valid, in my view - between wearing a burqa in public and wearing a leash in public. No significant difference in my opinion.



I've already addressed this weak comparison between religion and kink.  I'll just let you re read what I've posted until then I'm ignoring this.


----------



## Massan Otter (Jul 19, 2018)

Thinking about this, consent is very important to me.  So if I saw a couple engaging in a bit of al fresco puppy play in a public place, I would be sure to ask before petting the pupper!


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Jul 19, 2018)

Kumali said:


> _Absolutely_ I'm comparing a burqa to a leash. At least insofar as 1) I see them both as symbols of submission and subservience, and 2) the public display of both is voluntary and is presumably intended to deliberately send a visual message to all who see it.
> 
> I may not have "consented" to have someone's religious beliefs paraded before me quite so forcefully, but I tolerate it, because it's not illegal, and it causes no actual harm to me or anyone else who sees it. That tolerance is part of living in a civilized society, no? So I'm just making the parallel - entirely valid, in my view - between wearing a burqa in public and wearing a leash in public. No significant difference in my opinion.


As a response to your two. It's not always voluntary. And no. They are still not the same. 



Massan Otter said:


> Thinking about this, consent is very important to me.  So if I saw a couple engaging in a bit of al fresco puppy play in a public place, I would be sure to ask before petting the pupper!


Good lord. If you guys support this stuff so much, why don't you actually go out there and try it? You'd probably get the cops called on you, or people would be very angry with you, and no one will want to hire you. We don't live in some furry lala land where you can do whatever sexual bullshit you want. Keep it in the bedroom.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> All the "it's just your opinion" argument means is that you've run out of genuine arguments to make, so you attempt to reduce my own argument into "merely an opinion" as a last dich effort to invalidate my position, even if it includes invalidating your own in the process.
> 
> "Its just your opinion" is not an intelligent way to participate in a conversation about ethics.  Dont play the Reletivist Fallacy.


Oh boy the salt is real with you. 

If you weren't talking about leashes then wtf, what in the heck are you arguing with me about?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Oh boy the salt is real with you.
> 
> If you weren't talking about leashes then wtf, what in the heck are you arguing with me about?



When did I say we weren't talking about leashes?


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> When did I say we weren't talking about leashes?


Oh wait... I think I understand you.... You only don't want to talk to people about the topic when you are proven wrong. 
Then you continue to argue with someone else just because they happened to use personal information and not the same facts that said other people use against you.

I read the entire thread you know.... If you want, I can quote the other people who presented you with the hard logic? <_<


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I've already addressed this weak comparison between religion and kink.  I'll just let you re read what I've posted until then I'm ignoring this.



You may find it a weak comparison. I don't. Difference of opinion.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

Ovi the Dragon said:


> It's not always voluntary.



So much the worse for anyone defending it, then.



Ovi the Dragon said:


> And no. They are still not the same.



To repeat what I said:



Kumali said:


> _Absolutely_ I'm comparing a burqa to a leash. At least insofar as 1) *I see them both as symbols of submission and subservience, and 2) the public display of both is voluntary and is presumably intended to deliberately send a visual message to all who see it.*





Kumali said:


> I may not have "consented" to have someone's religious beliefs paraded before me quite so forcefully, but I tolerate it, because it's not illegal, and it causes no actual harm to me or anyone else who sees it. That tolerance is part of living in a civilized society, no? *So I'm just making the parallel - entirely valid, in my view - between wearing a burqa in public and wearing a leash in public. No significant difference in my opinion.*



I didn't say they were the same, but I did say there's a valid parallel between the two in my mind, and I explained why. If your only response to that is "And no. They are still not the same," then, again, we have a difference of opinion, and most likely neither of us is going to convince the other to change views.

And you know what? _That's OK._ I've been saying all through this thread - at least I think I have - that the bottom line is tolerance of each other's choices and quirks, within bounds of legality.



Ovi the Dragon said:


> Good lord. If you guys support this stuff so much, why don't you actually go out there and try it? You'd probably get the cops called on you, or people would be very angry with you, and no one will want to hire you.



When I've seen leashes in public, no one called the cops. Where I live, as I've said, it doesn't attract much more than the occasional raised eyebrow. I wear a dog collar all the time and am doing fine professionally. (You've got me tempted to try a leash now - if I do that I'll let you know how it goes.) 



Ovi the Dragon said:


> We don't live in some furry lala land where you can do whatever sexual bullshit you want. Keep it in the bedroom.



As long as it's legal and hurts no one, I'll express myself as I wish where I wish, and allow all others to do the same.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> When did I say we weren't talking about leashes?



Posts 196 and 197. Here they are, in full:



ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's a good thing I wasnt replying to you.  Wasnt talking about leashes in the context of this conversation.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> I love how both of you completely ignored the context of what I was replying to.
> 
> Hint: I wasnt talking about leashes here.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Jul 19, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> just don't fuck in public, or in places where the chances of being seen are high.
> -
> This isn't rocket science I don't know why people make it such.



Nope.. it isn't rocket science; we make out with each other on a dark road - just to make sure that we're not being seen.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> And if you stuck to conversations you actually were addressed in this wouldn't be a problem.



Last time I checked - this topic is (on an open forum), on an open public thread. Thus, if I wish to address someone or something, then that's my privy as user here.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 19, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Oh wait... I think I understand you.... You only don't want to talk to people about the topic when you are proven wrong.
> Then you continue to argue with someone else just because they happened to use personal information and not the same facts that said other people use against you.
> 
> I read the entire thread you know.... If you want, I can quote the other people who presented you with the hard logic? <_<


Please do, I have no idea what you're referring to.  Please post it so I can prove you wrong.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> You may find it a weak comparison. I don't. Difference of opinion.


What, just because its an opinion you hold means it is free from criticism?  You realize reasoning and logic are things that exist, right?  Opinions are not above reasoning.  You can play the Subjectivist Fallacy all you want.
-
Allow me to break it down for you;
-
I found the position that Burqas and Leashes are similar enough for direct comparisons lacking; mostly because your reasoning is flawed and relies on False Equivalence, and the presumption that just because two objects share something similar means they can function as direct comparisons is ignorant, to say the least, as it ignores all the factors that involved implementing religion into society, the accommodations needed to be made for religion, the necessity of religious protection, the history of religious tolerance and the consequences of isolating religion or confining yourself to one religion (as opposed to the lack of consequences for leaving your leash in the bedroom), the list goes on and on and on.
-
And now that I put it into question, you announce the Subjectivist Fallacy with the presupposition that because it is an opinion you hold, I, therefore, cannot object to it with validity; your opinion is an invalid one.  Not because it's not your opinion, but because it doesn't hold up to any reasoning and you use lack of reasoning for your own arguments.
-
Logical fallacies.  Learn them.  It makes your arguments wonderfully better as you know what to watch out for and avoid.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Last time I checked - this topic is (on an open forum), on an open public thread. Thus, if I wish to address someone or something, then that's my privy as user here.


I'm 100% certain nobody is questioning your right to post.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Posts 196 and 197. Here they are, in full:


Yeah, was I talking to you in the quote you replied to?  No.
-
I'm allowed to have separate conversations with people in a deviated topic, and I'm also allowed to call you out when you barge into the conversation thinking you understand what's going on without even bothering to read that I was replying to a different proposition, not the original one.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Please do, I have no idea what you're referring to.  Please post it so I can prove you wrong.


They have already quoted you so if you want to ignore them, that's on you.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> As long as it's legal and hurts no one, I'll express myself as I wish where I wish, and allow all others to do the same.


You're naive if you think your ethics end at the boundaries of legality.


Kumali said:


> I didn't say they were the same, but I did say there's a valid parallel between the two in my mind, and I explained why. If your only response to that is "And no. They are still not the same," then, again, we have a difference of opinion, and most likely neither of us is going to convince the other to change views.


You did not make a valid parallel.  You ignored pretty much a majority of the necessity and history of religious tolerance and assumed that just because a parallel can be made means that your argument is automatically valid.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> They have already quoted you so if you want to ignore them, that's on you.


I'm 100% certain that I've made dedicated replies to everyone in this thread, whereas you jumped on to try and accuse me.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Jul 20, 2018)

Consent to me is a bag of Doritos and a cheeseburger.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I'm 100% certain that I've made dedicated replies to everyone in this thread, whereas you jumped on to try and accuse me.


It's because the points you make in your debates have already been talked about, do you only read what people say to you? Or do you read the entire forum?


----------



## Yakamaru (Jul 20, 2018)

This thread still going on? Geez.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> It's because the points you make in your debates have already been talked about, do you only read what people say to you? Or do you read the entire forum?



If these points have been talked about then they would be simple to overturn.

But I am not convinced that my position is unreasonable.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What, just because its an opinion you hold means it is free from criticism?



Never said that, or even implied it.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I found the position that Burqas and Leashes are similar enough for direct comparisons lacking; mostly because your reasoning is flawed and relies on False Equivalence, and the presumption that just because two objects share something similar means they can function as direct comparisons is ignorant, to say the least



Those are expressions of your _opinion_, nothing more, and thus carrying no more weight than mine. You claim my opinion relies on "False Equivalence," but you don't elaborate. I gave several reasons why I find the equivalence valid; in what way is the equivalence false? You say "just because two objects share something similar means they can function as direct comparisons is ignorant, to say the least"...OK, then, why exactly do you find it so?



ResolutionBlaze said:


> it ignores all the factors that involved implementing religion into society, the accommodations needed to be made for religion,



I already said I don't give eccentric behavior a special pass simply for being religious in nature. Perhaps you do, and that's your prerogative, but not everybody shares a sense of obligation to give religion special coddling in contemporary society. And of course you're entitled to disagree with me or anyone else on that topic, but your position doesn't automatically put you in the right or make your arguments any more inherently authoritative simply for being on the side of religion.

Again: I don't object to religious expression being present in public (up to a point, anyway), even if I personally disagree with it or find it morally or logically questionable. By the same token, I don't object to open statements of political beliefs that don't agree with mine (again, up to a point). It's a "live and let live" attitude I try to cultivate. I would like other members of the society I live in to take the same attitude to unconventional attire (e.g. leashes), if they harm no one, since we've already established in this thread that they don't violate any indecent exposure laws.

And to take it a step further: if someone vociferously objects to such unconventional attire that's not religious in nature but defends equally unconventional attire or behavior that is, I have every right to point out the double standard.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> And now that I put it into question, you announce the Subjectivist Fallacy with the presupposition that because it is an opinion you hold, I, therefore, cannot object to it with validity;



Never said that either. You can object to my opinions with exactly the same validity with which I can object to your opinions. But no more than that, on either side, without _factual_ evidence to back up those opinions.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> your opinion is an invalid one.  Not because it's not your opinion, but because it doesn't hold up to any reasoning and you use lack of reasoning for your own arguments.



No more than you are, seems to me. Earlier in this thread I enumerated several of the reasons I find religious expression no more worthy of special respect than any other. You're free to dismiss that with "your opinion is an invalid one," though that seems to be the same sort of weak objection you're accusing me of, but your statement "it doesn't hold up to any reasoning and you use lack of reasoning for your own arguments" strikes me as unsupportable, already contradicted by earlier posts of mine.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yeah, was I talking to you in the quote you replied to?  No.
> -
> I'm allowed to have separate conversations with people in a deviated topic, and I'm also allowed to call you out when you barge into the conversation thinking you understand what's going on without even bothering to read that I was replying to a different proposition, not the original one.



You asked a question on an open thread, I answered it. As I said in post #202:



Kumali said:


> This is an open discussion on a public forum. I intend to respond to whomever I wish, whenever I wish. If you want a private conversation, take it to pm's.



(And, you're dodging the fact that you've been caught contradicting yourself. That seems more relevant to the discussion than who answered your question.)


----------



## bhutrflai (Jul 20, 2018)

Okami & I were at Walmart not long ago...we passed a heavyset man wearing a shirt that said "Keep Calm and Call Me Sir". Bright red shirt, so it caught my eye. The part that made me cringe just a little was when I saw the symbols incorporated into the design...a blindfold, a whip, and a ball-gag. 

All I could do was smh. If this man wants to wear a shirt that advertises to the whole world that he is /wants to be a dom, then so be it. 

Who am I to say what clothes or accessories another person is allowed to wear? It's called Freedom of Expression & while it's not a law, it is one of the best things about the good old USA.

I could care less how anyone wants to express themselves, even if they want to wear a leash & be led around by another person. If you don't want to see it, look the other damn way. Its the same argument I'd use if someone commented about 2 men holding hands while they walk down the street. In Atlanta, no one cares. But where we live is pretty 'bible-happy' so there would def be some comments around here. 

And as far as consent from the public around you, most people have some respect for what their fellow humans have to look at, they'll keep their kinks at home or at least under cover. But there are those who just want shock value, and they are putting themselves on display just for the attention, good or bad.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 20, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> This thread still going on? Geez.



Oh, it's just getting good.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

bhutrflai said:


> Okami & I were at Walmart not long ago...we passed a heavyset man wearing a shirt that said "Keep Calm and Call Me Sir". Bright red shirt, so it caught my eye. The part that made me cringe just a little was when I saw the symbols incorporated into the design...a blindfold, a whip, and a ball-gag.
> 
> All I could do was smh. If this man wants to wear a shirt that advertises to the whole world that he is /wants to be a dom, then so be it.
> 
> ...


Homosexual couples holding hands isn't the same as walking your partner on a leash.  One is affectionate, one is blatantly sexual.
-
So no, people don't need to look away; people need to stop being freaks and keep their sexual kinks in the fucking bedroom.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> You asked a question on an open thread, I answered it. As I said in post #202:
> 
> 
> 
> (And, you're dodging the fact that you've been caught contradicting yourself. That seems more relevant to the discussion than who answered your question.)


Hey, here's how conversations work since you obviously can't figure it out;
-
When two people are having a separate discussion, barging in and talking about something entirely different is... inappropriate, to put it nicely.
-
So next time, how about you take a moment to look at the person I was replying to and understand the context of what I am replying to before flapping your gums, okay?  It's easy; a fifth grader could do it.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 20, 2018)

bhutrflai said:


> Okami & I were at Walmart not long ago...we passed a heavyset man wearing a shirt that said "Keep Calm and Call Me Sir". Bright red shirt, so it caught my eye. The part that made me cringe just a little was when I saw the symbols incorporated into the design...a blindfold, a whip, and a ball-gag.
> 
> All I could do was smh. If this man wants to wear a shirt that advertises to the whole world that he is /wants to be a dom, then so be it.
> 
> ...


His shirt isn't a kinky act, though. (It's just gawed awful, lol).

This isn't a thread about freedom of speech. It's a thread about kinky behavior, consent, and drilling down into what is acceptable for the public to make accommodations for. Two men holding hands isn't kinky. It's a couple being affectionate. This is not a point I'm going to argue about since any thing else would be homophobic (and I'm not about that).

The public is willing to make accommodations for PDA like kissing. Two full grown adults where one is leading the other around on a leash is not a reasonable accommodation. You're welcome to do it, you won't be arrested or any thing. *However, in other kink communities, you will be shunned and critized for violating the culture of consent. *
There seems to be a grey area about this in the _furry fandom_. A few posts back, we were talking about how theres only pockets of furry community with rules in place with a well developed culture of consent to protect it's members such as conventions.  *General furry fandom's kink community doesn't have a consensus on consent culture like other kinky communities do and this is really problematic. *


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Never said that, or even implied it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


-
I've already challenged your points, and you keep ignoring it.  So since you're choosing to remain ignorant:
-
Religion has had different developments as opposed to public kinks.  Religion has history, it has important ties to speech, and it is necessary for it to be balanced out for the preservation of peace between people.
-
Kinks, however, are so insignificant that suppressing them has no effect on its importance.  Kinks have a time and place; the bedroom.  Expressing those in public has no ties to the necessity of expression, it has no ties to necessity, it has no ties to keeping peace between peoples.  It has no history that involves war and conflict.  It is the literal opposite of the Burqa you compare it to (Burqas hide sexuality whereas leashes express sexual kinks on adults).
-
This isn't hard to understand.  You made a poor comparison; own up to it instead of inventing word salads.


Kumali said:


> Those are expressions of your _opinion_, nothing more, and thus carrying no more weight than mine. You claim my opinion relies on "False Equivalence," but you don't elaborate. I gave several reasons why I find the equivalence valid; in what way is the equivalence false? You say "just because two objects share something similar means they can function as direct comparisons is ignorant, to say the least"...OK, then, why exactly do you find it so?


Subjectivist Fallacy, you don't seem to get what that means:  It means that you're saying that just because we have differing opinions means that neither are right or wrong, and a refusal to participate in reasoning as a result.  I pointed out fallacies in your argument; you must contend with that in order to have validty.  That's how it works.  Instead, you continue to push the Subjectivist Fallacy.
-
Whenever I call out a Fallacy, instead of contending with it, it's "just my opinion" and you proceed to move the goalpost by saying, "well we need_ factual_ evidence" despite your argument gaping with holes.  I claimed that you did not take into account the differences of importance and the differences of necessity between religion and kinks.



Kumali said:


> And to take it a step further: if someone vociferously objects to such unconventional attire that's not religious in nature but defends equally unconventional attire or behavior that is, I have every right to point out the double standard.


It's not a double standard; a double standard suggests that both religion and kinks are under the same standards; they are not, because both vary on importance, and are not equal in expression, and are not equal in necessity.


Kumali said:


> Never said that either. You can object to my opinions with exactly the same validity with which I can object to your opinions. But no more than that, on either side, without _factual_ evidence to back up those opinions.
> 
> 
> No more than you are, seems to me. Earlier in this thread I enumerated several of the reasons I find religious expression no more worthy of special respect than any other. You're free to dismiss that with "your opinion is an invalid one," though that seems to be the same sort of weak objection you're accusing me of, but your statement "it doesn't hold up to any reasoning and you use lack of reasoning for your own arguments" strikes me as unsupportable, already contradicted by earlier posts of mine.


You're moving goalposts; I said your argument is invalid because it is fallacious; now you're saying I need to prove it is invalid using more "solid" and "factual" evidence (as though fallacies aren't a deeply rooted system for just that)
-
I dismissed it because it is an invalid claim; you made a direct comparison where none exists.  In order to point out a "double standard" both things you point out have to actually be under the same standard.  You're basically saying along the lines of "Ice cream should be illegal because ice cream sales spike when crimes spike therefore it is a double standard."
-
I already said that religious protection is necessary for the preservation of peace between people.  Kinks don't even come CLOSE to that amount of necessity.  And that's just one thing.  I could go on but I'm working.
-
In short, you just keep repeating, "It's just your opinion" in order to devalue my argument, despite your own being full of fallacious holes that you refuse to address.


----------



## Kumali (Jul 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Hey, here's how conversations work *since you obviously can't figure it out;*
> -
> When two people are having a separate discussion, *barging in* and talking about something entirely different is... inappropriate, to put it nicely.
> -
> So next time, how about you take a moment to look at the person I was replying to and understand the context of what I am replying to *before flapping your gums, okay?  It's easy; a fifth grader could do it.*



Hold it. How about *YOU* address me in a civil tone, like I've been addressing you, okay?

I'll answer your subsequent post later, but I'm going to say this now: I don't tolerate childish insults and abuse. I'll only say that once.

~

As for "barging in" on "two people are having a separate discussion": again: you asked a question, I provided an answer. And for the third time:



Kumali said:


> This is an open discussion on a public forum. I intend to respond to whomever I wish, whenever I wish. If you want a private conversation, take it to pm's.


----------



## theawakening (Jul 20, 2018)

Ah.... this is still good whatsoever.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Hold it. How about *YOU* address me in a civil tone, like I've been addressing you, okay?
> 
> I'll answer your subsequent post later, but I'm going to say this now: I don't tolerate childish insults and abuse. I'll only say that once.
> 
> ...


Yea, Kumali. I don't know whats going on but I do know that language in the quote is unnecessary.

@ResolutionBlaze it's not okay to be condescending to people like that. If you're feeling frustrated, maybe you ought to step away a bit.


----------



## bhutrflai (Jul 20, 2018)

If the couple with the leash was dressed in "normal" attire and innocently walking around, I'd still see no problem with it. I wouldn't have cared if our kids had seen it when they were younger. I could easily explain that its just a game or whatever. There is no reason for me to give a full explanation to my young child.

But if the couple in question was dressed in a suggestive manner ("slutty" attire, latex suit, or even a fursuit) and was acting in a sexual manner, then yes of course, I would see a problem with it, especially if it is in a family friendly public venue. Now, if it was late evening, in a non crowded area, then as an adult I can just walk away. There is nothing that says I have to watch what other people are doing. So what if it offends my eyes? I'm not going to go voice my opinion unless there is a threat of harm. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Homosexual couples holding hands isn't the same as walking your partner on a leash.  One is affectionate, one is blatantly sexual.
> -
> So no, people don't need to look away; people need to stop being freaks and keep their sexual kinks in the fucking bedroom.


Who are you to say that the wearing of a collar & leash isn't a sign of affection? And that the holding of hands couldnt be blatantly sexual? 

And freaks are everywhere!! Imagine how many people are hiding their kinks in plain sight, under their clothes, getting their own secret thrill? You could be standing next to one in a checkout line. Yes, I realize that you wouldn't be seeing it, but now you will be thinking about whether or not the person next to you is hiding anything!


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If these points have been talked about then they would be simple to overturn.
> 
> But I am not convinced that my position is unreasonable.


Your entire argument is based on an opinionated assumption. 
Yet you call other people stupid and unreasonable.


----------



## Marcl (Jul 20, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> This thread still going on? Geez.


Yeah, I guess they are starting another 'Last Post Win' thread. The topic was talked through. Now it's all to personal preferences.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

Marcl said:


> Yeah, I guess they are starting another 'Last Post Win' thread. The topic was talked through. Now it's all to personal preferences.


To be fair, it was interesting talking to the Original Poster about this.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 20, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> To be fair, it was interesting talking to the Original Poster about this.


*Kissy face~*


----------



## PercyD (Jul 20, 2018)

Marcl said:


> Yeah, I guess they are starting another 'Last Post Win' thread. The topic was talked through. Now it's all to personal preferences.


I mean I did invite everyone to talk about their experiences. It seems people just want to argue about things that have nothing to do with kinks. *Squint.*


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

PercyD said:


> I mean I did invite everyone to talk about their experiences. It seems people just want to argue about things that have nothing to do with kinks. *Squint.*


Maybe you should pull aside those people and give them a 'what for' eh?


----------



## PercyD (Jul 20, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Maybe you should pull aside those people and give them a 'what for' eh?


Lol, too lazy to mod. I'm just hoping people would come to talk about things on their own and drown out the people wanting to talk about (politics) for some reason.

I really liked the discussion about fandom verses community, since consent culture is a kink community thing they came up with to protect it's members and make it easier to play safe.
Does the furry (community) really have *anything* to make things safe? Like, do they have strict rules at cons at least? I haven't been to a con.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Lol, too lazy to mod. I'm just hoping people would come to talk about things on their own and drown out the people wanting to talk about (politics) for some reason.
> 
> I really liked the discussion about fandom verses community, since consent culture is a kink community thing they came up with to protect it's members and make it easier to play safe.
> Does the furry (community) really have *anything* to make thins safe? Like, do they have strict rules at cons at least? I haven't been to a con.


Pretty sure it does have strick rules at the cons.

I think the problem you are having with this fandom is that even though people bring kinks to it... it's not essentially meant to be a kinky fandom. 
There should be some sort of educated guideline in place though. 
I just personally don't think walking someone on a leash in itself is sexual. I believe objects are not sexual until you make them sexual with; let's say, body language. 
I mean yes it is out of the ordinary, and it may be even childish to do so. But if they are covered up properly with non revealing clothing and walking upright. I really don't see the big deal.


----------



## PercyD (Jul 20, 2018)

Yvvki said:


> Pretty sure it does have strick rules at the cons.
> 
> I think the problem you are having with this fandom is that even though people bring kinks to it... it's not essentially meant to be a kinky fandom.
> There should be some sort of educated guideline in place though.
> ...


Well, it's not sexual but it's kinky. Theres a clear distinction, and maybe I see it because I have to see it. I'm asexual. I only do kinks that don't involve sex.
Kinky activities shouldn't be done in public because you need everyone's consent for kinky activities. Period. It's just a safe, responsible way to play. 
There are a number of things that can go wrong with walking your partner on a leash in public. It has nothing to do with children seeing, or offending traditionalists or any thing like that. You can get the police called on you, you can get accosted by horrible people, or it's just not as fun because you aren't in a supportive environment.
It's just unsafe, and looked down upon by more structured communities.

And honey,_ kink exists in every fandom_. That's just a thing. However, unlike other fandoms, theres something about the furry fandom where theres a higher level of irresponsible kinksters in general. I'm still wrapping my head around why. I would agree that there needs to be a set standard here. It's getting better for commission artists to not get paid minimum wage. Kinksters should step up.


----------



## Yvvki (Jul 20, 2018)

PercyD said:


> Well, it's not sexual but it's kinky. Theres a clear distinction, and maybe I see it because I have to see it. I'm asexual. I only do kinks that don't involve sex.
> Kinky activities shouldn't be done in public because you need everyone's consent for kinky activities. Period. It's just a safe, responsible way to play.
> There are a number of things that can go wrong with walking your partner on a leash in public. It has nothing to do with children seeing, or offending traditionalists or any thing like that. You can get the police called on you, you can get accosted by horrible people, or it's just not as fun because you aren't in a supportive environment.
> It's just unsafe, and looked down upon by more structured communities.
> ...


Ah sorry, a lot of people on here think it's sexual... Sorry to confuse the two.

Idk, maybe it's because I'm not looking for it so I don't think anything of it? I'm demisexual so I tend to miss a lot of innuendos because I'm just not looking for it. n.n;

Where I live, the police have more important matters to attend to, then worrying about some non sexual act happening in public, that may or may not make people uncomfortable.

It could just be lack of social skills that lead them into doing this more often then in other fandoms? Also I noticed that a lot of young people are the ones that are mostly into the weird stuff. haha


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

bhutrflai said:


> If the couple with the leash was dressed in "normal" attire and innocently walking around, I'd still see no problem with it. I wouldn't have cared if our kids had seen it when they were younger. I could easily explain that its just a game or whatever. There is no reason for me to give a full explanation to my young child.
> 
> But if the couple in question was dressed in a suggestive manner ("slutty" attire, latex suit, or even a fursuit) and was acting in a sexual manner, then yes of course, I would see a problem with it, especially if it is in a family friendly public venue. Now, if it was late evening, in a non crowded area, then as an adult I can just walk away. There is nothing that says I have to watch what other people are doing. So what if it offends my eyes? I'm not going to go voice my opinion unless there is a threat of harm.


If someone consciously puts a leash on their partner and goes walking around in public, they aren't doing so innocently; they are doing so to be seen.  Name me one scenario where that would be appropriate behavior.
-
And I don't have to sit there and tolerate something that should be kept in the bedroom being displayed out in public.  Give me one reason that I should have to stand for something when I have had no intention of being exposed to it?  Why should my discomfort be disregarded because two people want to enjoy themselves?  Why should everyone else they go by be disregarded?  Why are you disregarding so many other people so you can justify using a leash on your partner?


bhutrflai said:


> Who are you to say that the wearing of a collar & leash isn't a sign of affection? And that the holding of hands couldnt be blatantly sexual?
> 
> And freaks are everywhere!! Imagine how many people are hiding their kinks in plain sight, under their clothes, getting their own secret thrill? You could be standing next to one in a checkout line. Yes, I realize that you wouldn't be seeing it, but now you will be thinking about whether or not the person next to you is hiding anything!



Basic human interaction says it.  Stop playing a Relativist Fallacy.  Holding hands is among the least sexual thing you could do, with the exception of other even more prudish cultures, and is common among people in America and Europe.  In these regions this is acceptable because it is minimal contact but isn't blatantly sexual.
-
Now, I can't think of a single culture where wearing a collar isn't a kink of some kind unless it involves genuine slavery.  The leash is a near-universal symbol of restraint, ownership, and slavery.  Couples in America and Europe aren't going around enslaving their husbands and wives, so clearly it is meant to be conveyed sexually.
-
And no I don't care what people do in their private life.  That's my entire argument.  It reduces my conception to pure hypotheticals.  If you want to be an Exhibitionist, jerk your partner off in public and hidden away, if you don't get caught, good for you.  If you do, don't come complaining.  Accept the consequences.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Jul 20, 2018)

Kumali said:


> Hold it. How about *YOU* address me in a civil tone, like I've been addressing you, okay?
> 
> I'll answer your subsequent post later, but I'm going to say this now: I don't tolerate childish insults and abuse. I'll only say that once.


Then don't tolerate it.  Lemme just pull your argument that you made earlier out of the bag:
-
If you don't like it, go away.  Yeah, kinda sucks when someone makes you uncomfortable and the best they can come up with is "well don't look at it".
-
I'm not gonna sit here and be told that the public discomfort toward something is unjustified, or be told that somehow your kink deserves special privileges in public despite being both pointless, unnecessary, and abnormal.  As though everyone's discomfort is invalid and your pleasure valid.
-
Allow me a few minutes and I will calm down.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Jul 20, 2018)

Closing this down because it's way too close to encouraging others to break the rules, even if the opening post doesn't.  This just has too many toes across the line.


----------

