So, Doods, Came across this story that may be a copypasta but raised a
pretty good question that I feel is closely tied to the culture of
fursuiting and the anonymity it allows.

So the story goes like this:
> Guy goes to a furry party
> Guy has attractive female furry grinding on him
> one thing leads to another and biz goes down
(zipper only being in the back)
> after the biz goes down the girl turns out to be a guy with some really good hygiene and a feminine suit
> This fact freaks out the top and he literally flees the party, never to speak of it again.

Now, it goes without saying that this is a very dangerous scenario
for the bottom since you really don't know how a guy is going to
react in a situation like that.
But what I'm getting at is how would YOU react in the top's shoes?
What if you were doing the biz and later found out that player 2 was
a gender you weren't into?

For me personally, I'd just chalk it up as a new experience and call it a day.
Sure, I'd question my sexuality for a week or so but, quickly defeat it with-
"What I saw is what I was into, I'm still me at the end of the day, Dood"

Though I can't say I don't get where the other guy was coming from,
Having something you like turned out to be something you dislike or
even outright hate in that way can be more than a peep can handle
and could cause them to act irrationally.

Though that's kinda the risk that comes standard with a lack of
communication when fursuiting, Sometimes you expect one and get
another. I feel like the guy should have known this and mellowed
out accordingly but-

Ahhhh, Saying I'm conflicted would be an understatement!
What are your thoughts on this, dood?

What Would You Have Done In His Shoes?

Fursuiting is for boomers.

Look, some people care about sex, some people care about gender, some care about both, and some care about neither.

I care about sex, so I'd be pretty damn upset to find out that the sex didn't match what they were presenting, though I'd probably express my upset rather than run from it.

It's definitely a big deal, but I feel like, unless the person actually goes as far as to lie, it's kind of on you if you don't figure it out one way or another. You don't have to fuck before seeing them nude. There are a lot of stories of this happening, and all I can think of when I hear them is how the hell someone doesn't notice the genitals of the people they're fucking, although it makes more sense with a fursuit than the usual cases obviously. There are still pretty easy ways you could figure it out once you've established that you're gonna do it, though.

My take: lying is wrong, as is deliberately deceiving people, but it's impossible to judge someone's intent if they simply never say anything, and it's pretty much on you if you don't even ask or do anything that would clue you in on it. Really, just don't bang strangers at cons- especially if they're in fursuits- if this is the kind of thing that bothers you. I'd be more worried about STDs if I were the kind to indulge in that sort of behavior anyway.

I'm bi, so it wouldn't be a huge deal for me personally, but I think it's important to be upfront about everything in situations like this. Before "biz goes down" the bottom should of said "before we start, I should tell you I'm a guy, so you don't get surprised" or alternatively, "before we start, I should tell you I'm trans, so you don't get surprised"

Tricking someone into having sex with a gender, sex, or person they don't want to have sex with is basically unconsentual sex (dare I say the r-word?), and we all know that's messed up.

secretfox said:
I'm bi, so it wouldn't be a huge deal for me, but I think it's important to be upfront about everything in situations like this. Before "biz goes down" the bottom should of said "before we start, I should tell you I'm a guy, so you don't get surprised"

Tricking someone into having sex with a gender, sex, or person they don't want to have sex with is basically unconsentual sex (dare I say the r-word?), and we all know that's messed up.

This doesn't sit right with me, Dood.
They're not tricking anybody, Heck the peep could have identified
as feminine, hints the feminine suit. so saying "oh yeah I'm a guy"
may not have cross the dood's mind in that scenario.

I'm not saying, not saying would have been the right thing but
I understand them not saying if it never came up, ya know?
Assumptions were made on both sides but, saying one was tricking
the other just sounds wrong and kinda mean.

Honestly feel like if this bugged the guy enough he
should have made sure with proper communication before
doing the biz with a complete stranger.
He wasn't tricked, he just didn't ask.
=P

notkastar said:
This doesn't sit right with me, Dood.
They're not tricking anybody, Heck the peep could have identified
as feminine, hints the feminine suit. so saying "oh yeah I'm a guy"
may not have cross the dood's mind in that scenario.

I'm not saying, not saying would have been the right thing but
I understand them not saying if it never came up, ya know?
Assumptions were made on both sides but, saying one was tricking
the other just sounds wrong and kinda mean.

Honestly feel like if this bugged the guy enough he
should have made sure with proper communication before
doing the biz with a complete stranger.
He wasn't tricked, he just didn't ask.
=P

You are right, I shouldn't of assumed that they were tricking, sorry. I'm not sure why my mind went in that direction

I still say they should of told the other person. Even if they identified as a woman, they should of said, "just to let you know I'm trans" or something similar.
If they just forgot, or didn't think about it, it's forgivable, but still not good. I believe it is the duty of the individual to disclose everything, not the other person to ask, although it could be a good idea to ask just in case if you aren't sure

In general everyone has the right to know who they are having sex with

secretfox said:
You are right, I shouldn't of assumed that they were tricking, sorry. I'm not sure why my mind went in that direction

I still say they should of told the other person. Even if they identified as a woman, they should of said, "just to let you know I'm trans" or something similar.
If they just forgot, or didn't think about it, it's forgivable, but still not good.

In general everyone has the right to know who they are having sex with

Problem there is that somebody who's lived as a trans is used to no longer needing to explain it. They can't be expected to bring it up to everybody--they'd have no reason to until somebody notices the cock and balls and suddenly questions it. In the listed scenario, the guy literally ran away, didn't even ask for an explanation. This can remind the girl/femboy (we don't know in this case) to bring it up in the future, but that doesn't help what already happened.

furrin_gok said:
Problem there is that somebody who's lived as a trans is used to no longer needing to explain it. They can't be expected to bring it up to everybody

I feel like it's not asking too much that they disclose it to their sexual partners. I'm not saying that they should tell everyone, just those people. If I had something about me that might upset someone if they found out after sex, I'd disclose it every time. Proper communication is important, and it is a responsibility of both parties.

I'd presume that if you're the kind of guy who'd fuck a stranger in the ass without even seeing their face first, you don't really get to be picky. You don't stick your dick in a gloryhole then complain that there's not a German supermodel on the other side.

>female furry

ratte said:
>female furry

It was you, wasn't it?

notkastar said:

What Would You Have Done In His Shoes?

post #2496092

People trying to pretend rape isn't rape by blaming the victim is genuinely disturbing to me. If you lack basic and vital information about your sexual partner that would have caused you to deny consent to the sexual activities to begin with, it's rape, plain and simple.
Was it stupid on the man's part? Yeah, but so is not keeping an eye on your drink at a bar, or walking down a dark alleyway at night, still doesn't make it suddenly not a crime when somebody takes advantage of a situation like this. Additionally, as this is a party am I to assume alcohol was involved, thus adding another layer of exploitation to the entire thing? Did the "female" suiter also manage to somehow go through this entire process without ever once saying a single word until after the fact? That would further show deliberate intent.
There's nothing "irrational" about being angry in this situation, this is quite literally being tricked into having sex with somebody who is not compatible with your orientation. Consent and infromation are important prior to any and all sexual encounters, doubly so for when you are putting more trust into a partner such as those wearing full-body suits or otherwise being obscurred to you in some way.

votp said:
People trying to pretend rape isn't rape by blaming the victim is genuinely disturbing to me. If you lack basic and vital information about your sexual partner that would have caused you to deny consent to the sexual activities to begin with, it's rape, plain and simple.
Was it stupid on the man's part? Yeah, but so is not keeping an eye on your drink at a bar, or walking down a dark alleyway at night, still doesn't make it suddenly not a crime when somebody takes advantage of a situation like this. Additionally, as this is a party am I to assume alcohol was involved, thus adding another layer of exploitation to the entire thing? Did the "female" suiter also manage to somehow go through this entire process without ever once saying a single word until after the fact? That would further show deliberate intent.
There's nothing "irrational" about being angry in this situation, this is quite literally being tricked into having sex with somebody who is not compatible with your orientation. Consent and infromation are important prior to any and all sexual encounters, doubly so for when you are putting more trust into a partner such as those wearing full-body suits or otherwise being obscurred to you in some way.

Hold on a sec cowboy,
In this scenario, neither party properly communicated or may not have even been
drunk for that matter. True the bottom was the one to start things but since
neither party said anything I feel both are to blame.

And 'taking advantage' and examples you give implies that the bottom knew
the man was straight and was actively trying to deceive him which, all
things considered in this scenario, is just waaaay too unlikely to believe.
(How was the bottom suppose to know in the first place?)

More likely, assumptions were made that no one bothered to follow up on.
Assumptions being that the peep I'm banging in a girl and that the peep
banging me is into me, Dood.
=P

Edit:
I do understand your point and why the peep would be furious,
though as long as there was no malicious intent on the bottom's end
like activity trying to trick the top which seems pretty improbable
Saying it was assault just sounds incorrect, Think regreat fits
better since all of this could have been cleared up if they said
a word, Dood

I don't think I could definitely say without knowing more about fursuiting culture/real-life furry culture & the specifics of this party or whatever. But I'm leaning towards what VotP is saying. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the fursuit sex to match the person's sex. As such, I'd say the burden lies on the female-fursuit guy to disclose that. Seems awfully negligent if not outright deceptive to omit such a fact.

Well, this is a mine field, but I'll try to navigate it.

votp said:
If you lack basic and vital information about your sexual partner that would have caused you to deny consent to the sexual activities to begin with, it's rape, plain and simple.

But regretting what you willfully did after the fact isn't rape. How is the suiter to know what's relevant to their partner's sexual preferences if the partner doesn't ask? But this scenario is extremely light on details, and it's those details that will really determine what the deal was. Though presumably the non-suiter at least had the opportunity to ask anything relevant about their partner before having sex?

Like, presume the suiter was a trans woman, and things started getting heavy before they had an opportunity to mention it, and she then felt unsafe to mention it and didn't want to stop it out of fear that the non-suiter would get angry and physical (especially if this is a party that had alcohol, and she didn't know if he had any or not). Did she still rape him then? Alternatively, it could be more like you suggest, the suiter was a cis guy and purposely lead the non-suiter on, purposely hiding his sex until afterward, which would make it more deceptive. Or or, maybe the suiter did say they were actually a guy, but because of the suit or other room chatter/noise, the non-suiter didn't hear and kept going, while the suiter thought they did hear and didn't care. So who's at fault?

Either way though, anonymous fursuit sex sounds like a terrible idea to begin with to me (if you don't know who's in the suit to know their sex, how could you also know their STD/STI status, or their age, or other potentially legally or personally relevant factors?), and if there was alcohol involved, then in some jurisdictions it could be statutory rape right there. Ultimately, we don't have enough details to make a proper judgement, and any judgements we can make will be dependent on our own assumptions of the situation.

popoto said:
I don't think I could definitely say without knowing more about fursuiting culture/real-life furry culture & the specifics of this party or whatever. But I'm leaning towards what VotP is saying. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the fursuit sex to match the person's sex. As such, I'd say the burden lies on the female-fursuit guy to disclose that. Seems awfully negligent if not outright deceptive to omit such a fact.

The problem with that is that with the freedom the suiting community has,
one has the freedom to present as any gender or sex they most feel comfortable as.
It's not that the fact was omitted, it just never came up, ya know?

While I definitely see where you're coming from with things seeming deceptive on the
bottom's end. Maybe they wanted to present themselves as feminine because
they identified as which and weren't afraid to show it to the world through
their suit. Combine this with no words being exchanged and doing it through
the backdoor and- well- Grey Area where one can easily blame the other, Dood.

watsit said:
Well, this is a mine field, but I'll try to navigate it.

But regretting what you willfully did after the fact isn't rape. How is the suiter to know what's relevant to their partner's sexual preferences if the partner doesn't ask? But this scenario is extremely light on details, and it's those details that will really determine what the deal was. Though presumably the non-suiter at least had the opportunity to ask anything relevant about their partner before having sex?

Like, presume the suiter was a trans woman, and things started getting heavy before they had an opportunity to mention it, and she then felt unsafe to mention it and didn't want to stop it out of fear that the non-suiter would get angry and physical (especially if this is a party that had alcohol, and she didn't know if he had any or not). Did she still rape him then? Alternatively, it could be more like you suggest, the suiter was a cis guy and purposely lead the non-suiter on, purposely hiding his sex until afterward, which would make it more deceptive. Or or, maybe the suiter did say they were actually a guy, but because of the suit or other room chatter/noise, the non-suiter didn't hear and kept going, while the suiter thought they did hear and didn't care. So who's at fault?

Either way though, anonymous fursuit sex sounds like a terrible idea to begin with to me (if you don't know who's in the suit to know their sex, how could you also know their STD/STI status, or their age, or other potentially legally or personally relevant factors?), and if there was alcohol involved, then in some jurisdictions it could be statutory rape right there. Ultimately, we don't have enough details to make a proper judgement, and any judgements we can make will be dependent on our own assumptions of the situation.

You make some spectacular points, dood! ◠‿◠)
We really don't know all the factors at play in a scenario like this
and to put a finer point on it a wise person wouldn't find themselves
in a scenario like this, to begin with.

But I can't deny it's such an interesting topic!
what if you found yourselves in such a scenario
and how would you react that what you expected
isn't what you got on such a major scale?

If you are sober (a safe assumption as, in order to be drinking, the suiter would have needed to remove the head piece in order to do so) I'm of the standpoint that you really, really shouldn't be having sex with anyone who is intoxicated or otherwise not in a fully-coherent state of mind. In many places this is considered rape in and of itself, by the way. This is a party atmosphere with adults, intoxication and those taking advantage of those under the influence of alcohol or other substances is a safe assumption to make. The entire story does sound fabricated, although I lean on the side of the victim, and yes, he is a victim, having every right to be angry.

If you don't feel safe revealing your actual sex then what the actual fuck are you doing in this situation? Why are you randomly grinding on strangers if your actual sex is something you're afraid of revealing?

votp said:
If you are sober (a safe assumption as, in order to be drinking, the suiter would have needed to remove the head piece in order to do so) I'm of the standpoint that you really, really shouldn't be having sex with anyone who is intoxicated or otherwise not in a fully-coherent state of mind. In many places this is considered rape in and of itself, by the way. This is a party atmosphere with adults, intoxication and those taking advantage of those under the influence of alcohol or other substances is a safe assumption to make. The entire story does sound fabricated, although I lean on the side of the victim, and yes, he is a victim, having every right to be angry.

If you don't feel safe revealing your actual sex then what the actual fuck are you doing in this situation? Why are you randomly grinding on strangers if your actual sex is something you're afraid of revealing?

For all we know, the bottom could have been drunk themselves and the top could have been sober.
Completely flipping the script at that point, Dood.
(Bottom would be loosening up and grinding on peeps while the top just rolling with it)

Though I get your point on why he has the right to be angry.
Just saying he really has himself to blame since the bottom
wasn't going out of their way to trick them, they just
never bothered to ask who's behind the suit, Dood.
=P

votp said:
If you are sober (a safe assumption as, in order to be drinking, the suiter would have needed to remove the head piece in order to do so) I'm of the standpoint that you really, really shouldn't be having sex with anyone who is intoxicated or otherwise not in a fully-coherent state of mind. In many places this is considered rape in and of itself, by the way. This is a party atmosphere with adults, intoxication and those taking advantage of those under the influence of alcohol or other substances is a safe assumption to make. The entire story does sound fabricated, although I lean on the side of the victim, and yes, he is a victim, having every right to be angry.

Problem is, we have nowhere near enough information to know who the victim is, if anyone/either of them is. All we know is that a guy had sex with someone in a feminine-looking fursuit, then got scared and had a flight response when he found out the suiter was physically male after having sex with them. Were one, the other, both, or neither of them drunk? Did the suiter lead-on and purposely deceive the non-suiter? Did the suiter make an effort to tell people they were male and the non-suiter unluckily fell through the cracks? Did the non-suiter have the ability to ask who he was going to have sex with? Was there any outside pressure for them to have sex?

votp said:
If you don't feel safe revealing your actual sex then what the actual fuck are you doing in this situation? Why are you randomly grinding on strangers if your actual sex is something you're afraid of revealing?

Maybe it was their room/party. Maybe they were drunk. Maybe they didn't realize how sexual things were getting until it was too late to back out without risking their ire.

Sure, maybe it was entirely the suiter's fault and the non-suiter was deceptively conned into having gay sex. He'd be right to be angry. Or maybe he willfully ignored all the indications that the suiter was male, but was more interested in getting laid with something that looked feminine, and only after getting off did he start caring about who was in the suit. In which case, it's on him. Either case is plausible, and we can't know which is more likely given the information.

In the absence of any other factors, I would say as the briefest possible solution that fault in the situation lies primarily on the head of the initiator and to a lesser degree on the second party, I'd say 80/20. The scenario given, the suited individual was the initiator. If the initiator had been our protagonist, fault would be on his part. That seems the most fair way, given the limited information.

notkastar said:
The problem with that is that with the freedom the suiting community has,
one has the freedom to present as any gender or sex they most feel comfortable as.
It's not that the fact was omitted, it just never came up, ya know?

While I definitely see where you're coming from with things seeming deceptive on the
bottom's end. Maybe they wanted to present themselves as feminine because
they identified as which and weren't afraid to show it to the world through
their suit. Combine this with no words being exchanged and doing it through
the backdoor and- well- Grey Area where one can easily blame the other, Dood.

That's a fair viewpoint. Though as Watsit said we're all just making assumptions here. We can play the "what-if?" game for a long time. The real answer is highly dependent on the details.

popoto said:
That's a fair viewpoint. Though as Watsit said we're all just making assumptions here. We can play the "what-if?" game for a long time. The real answer is highly dependent on the details.

Totally, Dood. ╹‿╹)
Though I have got to say it's been one of the best rounds of the
"what-if" game I've ever had, it would be awesome if things got
more on track with the topic, with-
"How would you personally react if you found yourself in this scenario."
Rather if the person this story came from was in the wrong or right of things.

I feel like that could lead to even more interesting and informative
replies than the ones we've gotten so far! ◠‿◠)

furrin_gok said:
Look, some people care about sex, some people care about gender, some care about both, and some care about neither.

I care about sex, so I'd be pretty damn upset to find out that the sex didn't match what they were presenting, though I'd probably express my upset rather than run from it.

I support this attitude.

Although the case of the story could only happen to me in an somehow different Alternate Universe... because I would check very careful many things before engaging in sex with anyone. I am pretty distrusful in such matters.

notkastar said:
Hold on a sec cowboy,
In this scenario, neither party properly communicated or may not have even been
drunk for that matter. True the bottom was the one to start things but since
neither party said anything I feel both are to blame.

And 'taking advantage' and examples you give implies that the bottom knew
the man was straight and was actively trying to deceive him which, all
things considered in this scenario, is just waaaay too unlikely to believe.
(How was the bottom suppose to know in the first place?)

More likely, assumptions were made that no one bothered to follow up on.
Assumptions being that the peep I'm banging in a girl and that the peep
banging me is into me, Dood.
=P

Edit:
I do understand your point and why the peep would be furious,
though as long as there was no malicious intent on the bottom's end
like activity trying to trick the top which seems pretty improbable
Saying it was assault just sounds incorrect, Think regreat fits
better since all of this could have been cleared up if they said
a word, Dood

I get where VotP is coming from. It wasn't an intentional breach of consent, but any breach of consent is considered rape. Makes me wonder if there's another word like "manslaughter" for accidental murders.

furrin_gok said:
I get where VotP is coming from. It wasn't an intentional breach of consent, but any breach of consent is considered rape. Makes me wonder if there's another word like "manslaughter" for accidental murders.

Gray Rape.

notkastar said:
What Would You Have Done In His Shoes?

Walked off in them. It's more practical than collecting them in the closet.

As for the scenario, were I in it, I wouldn't have gone to the party (I don't like parties), nor would I have engaged in sex with anyone without first knowing the arrangement of their genitals (and it's highly unlikely that I would have engaged in it even if I had known). I certainly would be sober as I don't indulge in alcohol or drugs. Considering all that, I suppose I would never be in his shoes.

We can go around and around in circles trying to assign blame all we want, but the subject of the scenario should take this as a learning experience. At the very least, never have sex with someone you don't know the genitals of.

furrin_gok said:
I get where VotP is coming from. It wasn't an intentional breach of consent, but any breach of consent is considered rape. Makes me wonder if there's another word like "manslaughter" for accidental murders.

How do we get to bringing up manslaughter here before the fact that the Gay Panic Defence is still a thing in a lot of places.
Not to victim-blame, but do not attempt to influence someone into orientation_play in real life

I wouldn't have sex with someone unless I know what I'm getting before I put my dick in them.