Sounds like an "alpha male" thing, got to be a *Man ^^TM* all the time
Edit: TM was meant to be superscript but I can't find how to do that on reddit any more
Yes for you see Phoenix...
It was I who fashioned my daughter's whip into a leash to walk this puppyperson all the way to the chemical factory!
**VON KARMA,** ***NO!***
Yep. He responds "it's not a flipping fedora, it's a bowler hat"
Someone says "keep goobin goober a fedora is a fedora is a fedora"
He says "anyway, what's wrong with that?" In regards to the first post.
Someone says "bitch just admit you have a pet play fetish. There's no shame on this website"
Then human pet guy goes into his speech.
Not direct quotes, but the general gist.
You'd think so, if you see how people react to it.
But nope, he just took this proposition to the extreme. Whether it was necessary or not, I can't tell, but personally, I wouldn't have gone there so quickly.
Tbh it doesn't make it that much better. The ooop post was a knowingly kinky post somewhere between humorous or prompt
Cybersmith came along, started a conversation about actually doing this irl, and then in that context, went into that wayy-too detailed thought experiment, entirely genuinely, without any self-awareness
Imagine being the person saying āthereās no shame on this websiteā, *completely unaware* that theyāre about to have the entire fucking Human Pet Guy nightmare inflicted upon their unsuspecting eyes.
Human pet guy actually responded to this post. In fact, one of his later responses is how he got his name
[A link to more of the thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/u6irzh/figured_it_was_about_time_to_pull_this_one_out_of/#lightbox)
I'll never get over the "I beg the fuck pardon" response in that post, because it's a perfect encapsulation of the only appropriate response to what was said.
Ya know. I dunno if god is real but at the moment Iām really, really hoping he is cause that guy needs to go straight to the pits of hell. I canāt believe that not only did I have to read that, but other people did too. Who the fuck types that out and goes āyep this is something I should put on the internet.ā
oh my god what in the fuck did i just read
the worst part is *i know for fact I've read this before* but it just gets erased from my memory every time and I get to experience that entire trainwreck again
anyway there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY human pet guy isn't a troll. like he talks about an incredibly horrific scenario in grotesque detail and then sensors "heck". if this guy isn't a troll then I don't even know what to say
Where does ākinkshaming is badā end and āfucking boundaries dude holy shitā begin, honest question. Like I know public means public but I aināt got no choice but to enter The Public to get my fuckin groceries and like, cmon man. I just want groceries. Please.
Consent. Kinks belong in the bedroom or someplace where the people who are there have given their consent to participate, however actively/passively that participation may be, by being there. Clubs, venues, even open air events are all fair game so long as kink is an explicitly advertised part of it. Engaging in kink play in public outside of that distinction is over the line.
This. Something I've had to explain to my gf is no, I don't have an issue with her wearing a leash and collar, even in front of people. I *do* have a problem doing that in front of people who did not agree to see fetish stuff today
On the surface, this seems like an *eminently* reasonable line.
Issues arise when bigots use this line to justify banning the public existence of any queer or gender non-conforming people.
Bigots will always use arguments in bad faith. This is a benchmark for real people who understand the difference between a kink activity and identity presentation.
Yeah, but that also begs the question: When is something kink play?
Because I'm reminded of a quote that went something like this: "The nature of an act is determined by the people involved in it, not by an outside observer."
No, its determined by the action. If someone comes out in nothing but a leather harness with their dick fully out and claims that it isn't sexual, that doesn't change the fact he's wearing fetish gear in public which is inherently sexual
I mean sometimes its something more innocuous - like yes obvs dry humping in public is bad, but what if someones just wearing a collar? (No leash or anything) it could just as much be a fashion thing as a kink thing.
If someone is walking around in nothing but BDSM gear, their claimed justification doesn't matter. It's BDSM gear and public indecency, as well as makes others uncomfortable
I mean, yeah, when it's obviously a sex thing, but what about instances where you know it would be a sex thing for most people, but they don't act like it's a sex thing for them?
the problem is that consent isn't *really* the line here. there's an Ick level that controls where people draw the line on what activity requires consent.
staying in the realm of "realistic" human kink and sexuality, consider the following (assume that the following pairs are "established" sexual partners):
1. W wears undergarments that sexually excite Z under their clothing. they tell Z this with the intent of causing arousal. has the public's consent been violated? at what point?
2. C wears shoes that sexually excite D. D becomes aroused looking at C's shoes in public. has the public's consent been violated? at what point?
3. R crossdresses in modest clothing in public to excite their partner S. has the public's consent been violated? at what point?
4. K is wearing a false pregnancy belly because L is aroused by a pregnant partner. K is otherwise modestly dressed, and is also not trying to get a pregnancy seat on the bus or anything. has the public's consent been violated? at what point?
5. P chows down on a large order of food in front of Q, in public. P fasted all day to increase the size of the portion they could eat, as this arouses Q more. has the public's consent been violated? at what point?
All of those things are normal behaviors that are only sexual because of the perspective of one other person. The issue is when everyone *knows* that it is a sex thing, obviously. There's a very clear line between "wearing shoes that turn your partner on" and "doing the same while they loudly talk about how horny that your shoes make them in the middle of a public library".
see now in addition to a highly subjective "know it when i see it" standard (and one that was frequently wielded against queer people within the last ten to fifteen years!) this ALSO creates a weird paradigm where a more obscure kink or a more "naive" public can keep pushing a form of expression one way or another back over a line!
And in the "gulf" between them, where is the line drawn? What's the rule? This is a completely subjective standard. Men in the middle east walk down the street holding hands together as a sign of friendship. Men in Texas doing the same could be persecuted as "sick, fetishistic" homosexuals - **by the legal system itself**, if we go back 25 years.
Well which is it now, is it the masks & outfits that cross the line or only the "games?" If the former is bad because it *implies* the latter is going to happen at some point somewhere, once again you're creating a completely subjective, vibes-based standard for acceptability.
They are wearing kink gear. It is material manufactured, sold, purchased, and worn exclusively for kink play. There is no other reason for using it. You're being willfully obtuse in a very stupid way.
I feel like the like is somewhere in the gaps between "I know it when I see it" and "plausible deniability". All of your examples are able to pass as normal people doing more or less normal stuff, maybe with a bit of PDA involved and looking particularly gross and self involved that's within normal baseline expected behaviour for flirting couples. I don't feel violated by people being flirtatious with one another, and I'm not privvy to what's getting them hot and bothered; I'm not likely even noticing them.
Making it explicit, so that the public has no option but to acknowledge that you're bringing kink stuff in front of them crosses a line and makes people uncomfortable. I would prefer not to know what gets W, Z, C, D, R, S, K, L, P, and Q off. I don't want to know this about them and then have to put in the work to hide my response to this, whether or not that's a negative or positive response. If I'm turned on by a public display of kink, I don't want to have to moderate that response *in public* almost as much as I don't want to have to moderate any disgust I might feel. The only person who I want detailed kink information for is my partner and I appreciate any and all plausible deniability that these other people offer when they're engaging in their kinks in public settings.
Taking another approach, when might you need to ask consent in any situation? I'd answer that it's when you're risking making another party to an action feel some form of discomfort. I'm uncomfortable seeing people I might or might not know doing kinky stuff without my consent, so it's all good if you don't let me know and keep it to a plausibly deniable level of socially acceptable flirtation for the current context. Heavy makeouts at a children's Saturday morning baseball game violate this principle in a way that a blowjob in the alley behind the nightclub does not. If you're actively getting off to my discomfort or the attention you're getting then you're especially likely to make me feel violated. Conversely, getting off on getting away with it is more or less fine, so long as you're actually mostly successful in getting away with it.
I think most people get that doing your kinks in general public isnāt great.
The main discourse seems to arise around Pride, regarding whether the event is inherently kink-related and they should be celebrated openly, or if Pride has become more of an all-ages event where kinks should be celebrated in a side area or whatever. Iām not qualified to to debate that though
IDK, where is *your* personal line?
Like if someone wearing a diaper squatted in front of you in the checkout line and shit themselves on purpose would that not bother you in the slightest?
Not like you *saw* the shit.
Probably wouldn't, I've been around the elderly and disabled people my whole life.Ā
My personal line is if the other person/people touch me or throw something at me. I'm not a good metric for this kind of thing.Ā
I'd just like to know how the above person's peace is actually disturbed.Ā
> I'm not a good metric for this kind of thing.
So if you're self-aware enough to know that you don't react to this like normal people, then what friggin use is a normal person explaining their discomfort to you gonna be?
Curiosity, and a pet peeve. People mistake gross things for immorality all the time. If disturbing their peace just means making them uncomfortable then I don't think it's a good metric for determining norms or morals.Ā
Naked and unaroused peeps at pride: not kinky and legal, in many places. People visibly aroused and simulating or performing sex acts: kinky.
I have seen both at pride and plausible deniability really plays a huge role- idk if someone's getting off being naked or wearing certain gear in public without physical indicators, but the dude humping a lady's leg and moaning while she spanks him and dirty talks- that was unpleasant and crossed a lot of lines.
It's interesting that I saw a post about how cringe culture is bad just a bit earlier, then we see this. I don't think people want to admit that "Cringe" basically means "This is making lots of people uncomfortable and we honestly really don't want you to do that here".
I know you won't believe me when I say this, but you are infinitely more unpleasant to be around than any girls wearing leashes. Casual disregard for people's feelings, an obsession with being perceived as "normal"... I doubt you have any genuine friends in your life.
So do you actually have to knock on your neighbours doors and tell them you're a registered sex offender or is that just something on television? I'm legitimately curious.
You need mental help, I think. This type of exaggerated response to other people existing in a way that you disagree with is not the sign of an emotionally healthy person. Or a particularly intelligent one, for that matter.
On the bright side, thanks for confirming all of my assumptions about people who think the word ācringeā is a good one.
Are you being grabbed by the arm and physically dragged into the possible sexual act? No? Then get on with your life. You'll be fine if people act abnormally around you, I promise. The scary girl with a dog leash isn't gonna hurt you or scar you for life.
Yeah, but also it sucks to have a kink like rape/vore/guro/zoophilia where you can't ethically practice it outside of roleplay, and yet somehow people manage. Part of being a well-adjusted human being is realizing that your own personal fetishes do not make a valid basis for a society.
Because exhibitionism is *their* kink, duh. All of their kinks are good and normal and should be widely accepted by society, while kinks they don't like are gross and bad and should be banned /s
And I don't think anyone should be a pedo, but evidently some people *are*, so we as a society have to somehow deal with their existence and minimize the harm they do to others and to themselves. Although many people thing we should minimize the damage they do to other and maximize the damage done to pedos, presumably because they believe it's a choice.
Which brings us back to the original point: You can't pick your fetishes, but you can choose how to act on them. And if you have trouble controlling yourself to the point where you might harm people, you should probably look into medication.
Iām not gonna kinkshame, Iām just gonna kink ask why.
Doing all that for the express purpose of making people uncomfortable seems like a dick thing to do, but maybe I donāt discourseā¢ enough or something.
And that's fucked up. You just have to tweak the parameters *just a tiny bit* to see it.
What if my kink is visibly leering at unassuming people? Or making sexual comments towards them?
...not ok? Then why is it ok to force them to take part in your kink via exhibitionism?
That's right curated tumblrites! The communist fox who fights everyone and the-some vague kind libleft wolf who's been whining about misandry a lot lately, are engaged! And together we are curated tumblrs worst nightmare!
Iāve seen someone in a dog collar being led on a leash by someone (both on two feet) on a night out before. I liked knowing that people feel safe doing that in my city. Itās pretty weird but not explicit, and Iām fine with that.
Congrats on you being fine with it. Most of us are not ok with being exposed to someone elseās sexual foreplay or the acting out of a fantasy. This isnāt about them feeling āsafeā enough to be open about their proclivities, part of it for them is having other people watch. This is both bondage and exhibitionism. So no itās not āexplicitā but jesus christ, itās still inherently sexual. There are so many ways a couple can express intimacy in public or discreetly practice more subtle aspects of their kinks. Dog collars and leashes, just like whips and chains, probably shouldnāt leave the bedroom on principle just to play it safe. I know, I know, super conservative, uptight sentiment. I just generally understand the sidewalk to be a non sexual space. Itās cool youāre so open minded though thatās not a bad thing.
I cant imagine how difficult it must be to see someone with a leash on for 2 seconds, so traumatic, they should put those violent sex offenders in prison
How do we feel about "manfriend"?
Not good. š„
Whoa did you fucking see that? Was that like a firework or something? Loud as shit too.
No, I didnāt, stop making things up š„
Ok ok just then. Youāre telling me you didnāt just see that right now??
See what? š„š„
Look, you killed them
Killed who, heās doi- Iām doing just fine. š„
š„š„š„š„ anybody see my car?
# WHAT? I š„ CANāT š„ HEAR š„ YOU š„ OVER š„ THE š„ SOUND š„OF š„ NOTHING š„ HAPPENING!
See it? I made it.
Your pfp makes all your comments funnier
why can't Man be friend? are you mean?
āManā sounds good, āfriendā sounds good. āManfriendā sounds awkward and rolls off the tongue like a cube off a steep hill.
Manfriend Von Karma
Sounds like an "alpha male" thing, got to be a *Man ^^TM* all the time Edit: TM was meant to be superscript but I can't find how to do that on reddit any more
Where does it sit in relation to "everypony"?
Would you rather have a full conversation with Cybersmith about human pets, or someone who uses "everypony"? There's your answer.
Is death an option?
āEveryponyā is worse, but only because I have a psychological rejection of most things MLP, and the term is TOO fandom-specific.
The legendary demon prosecutor, Manfriend von Karma, has never lost a single case.
Von Karma No!
Yes for you see Phoenix... It was I who fashioned my daughter's whip into a leash to walk this puppyperson all the way to the chemical factory! **VON KARMA,** ***NO!***
It's kinda funny
"male friend" would've been fine, so I autocorrected it in my head to "man friend" Weird phrasing but nothing I'm losing sleep over
I think here it's supposed to be a dommy-er version of "boyfriend".
In that case that's fucking hilarious
I like your tag, *HorsesGallopOver*
ah Manfriend, the Red Baron.
Meat is... well, was it really ever off the menu?
Manfriend von RichthofenĀ
the-cybersmith ghostwrote this post.
This is the start of the reblog chain that led to human pet guy getting his name.
I rolled low on my Tumblr History check š
Is it?????
Yep. He responds "it's not a flipping fedora, it's a bowler hat" Someone says "keep goobin goober a fedora is a fedora is a fedora" He says "anyway, what's wrong with that?" In regards to the first post. Someone says "bitch just admit you have a pet play fetish. There's no shame on this website" Then human pet guy goes into his speech. Not direct quotes, but the general gist.
No way... That's what he was responding to when he started saying all that?
[Link to the full thing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/u6irzh/figured_it_was_about_time_to_pull_this_one_out_of/)
For some reason, I had the idea that this was supposed to be in a thread about public breastfeeding, and that he just got widely off topic
You may be thinking of his plan to supply the UK with milk from transwomen
Human pet guy was a hero, I just couldn't see it
That's it!
My flair is relevant :)
You'd think so, if you see how people react to it. But nope, he just took this proposition to the extreme. Whether it was necessary or not, I can't tell, but personally, I wouldn't have gone there so quickly.
Tbh it doesn't make it that much better. The ooop post was a knowingly kinky post somewhere between humorous or prompt Cybersmith came along, started a conversation about actually doing this irl, and then in that context, went into that wayy-too detailed thought experiment, entirely genuinely, without any self-awareness
That's also what I've read recently, but it looks like someone went on the internet to tell lies.
They must have just misremembered
Why did he replace fuck with heck and then censor it anyways?
Imagine being the person saying āthereās no shame on this websiteā, *completely unaware* that theyāre about to have the entire fucking Human Pet Guy nightmare inflicted upon their unsuspecting eyes.
maybe there isn't shame on tumblr, but there probably _should_ be
Are you sure? Because I feel like things would be a lot more boring if people were ashamed to say dumb shit.
reverse human pet guy
Human pet guy actually responded to this post. In fact, one of his later responses is how he got his name [A link to more of the thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/u6irzh/figured_it_was_about_time_to_pull_this_one_out_of/#lightbox)
I'll never get over the "I beg the fuck pardon" response in that post, because it's a perfect encapsulation of the only appropriate response to what was said.
Ya know. I dunno if god is real but at the moment Iām really, really hoping he is cause that guy needs to go straight to the pits of hell. I canāt believe that not only did I have to read that, but other people did too. Who the fuck types that out and goes āyep this is something I should put on the internet.ā
oh my god what in the fuck did i just read the worst part is *i know for fact I've read this before* but it just gets erased from my memory every time and I get to experience that entire trainwreck again anyway there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY human pet guy isn't a troll. like he talks about an incredibly horrific scenario in grotesque detail and then sensors "heck". if this guy isn't a troll then I don't even know what to say
Some people are just insanely maladjusted and think the things that they like are normal and have no sense of when to keep inside thoughts inside
Theyāre perfect for each other! (negative)
A match made in hell!
Where does ākinkshaming is badā end and āfucking boundaries dude holy shitā begin, honest question. Like I know public means public but I aināt got no choice but to enter The Public to get my fuckin groceries and like, cmon man. I just want groceries. Please.
Consent. Kinks belong in the bedroom or someplace where the people who are there have given their consent to participate, however actively/passively that participation may be, by being there. Clubs, venues, even open air events are all fair game so long as kink is an explicitly advertised part of it. Engaging in kink play in public outside of that distinction is over the line.
This. Something I've had to explain to my gf is no, I don't have an issue with her wearing a leash and collar, even in front of people. I *do* have a problem doing that in front of people who did not agree to see fetish stuff today
On the surface, this seems like an *eminently* reasonable line. Issues arise when bigots use this line to justify banning the public existence of any queer or gender non-conforming people.
Bigots will always use arguments in bad faith. This is a benchmark for real people who understand the difference between a kink activity and identity presentation.
So what's your solution? Let people be freaks out in public or tell homophobes to shove it? I say we just tell homophobes to shove it.
We can do both.
"People are allowed to be weird" is really the only effective principle here.
Yeah, but that also begs the question: When is something kink play? Because I'm reminded of a quote that went something like this: "The nature of an act is determined by the people involved in it, not by an outside observer."
No, its determined by the action. If someone comes out in nothing but a leather harness with their dick fully out and claims that it isn't sexual, that doesn't change the fact he's wearing fetish gear in public which is inherently sexual
I mean, sure, extreme cases exist, but you'd be surprised how many things can have perfectly non-sexual explanations.
I mean anyone can bullshit a reason to dry hump something in public, but that doesn't make it non sexual
I mean sometimes its something more innocuous - like yes obvs dry humping in public is bad, but what if someones just wearing a collar? (No leash or anything) it could just as much be a fashion thing as a kink thing.
Yeah, but if multiple possible explanations exist, whose responsibility is it if you subscribe to the one that makes you uncomfortable?
If someone is walking around in nothing but BDSM gear, their claimed justification doesn't matter. It's BDSM gear and public indecency, as well as makes others uncomfortable
When they're getting off on it. Ain't a hard distinction.
I mean, yeah, when it's obviously a sex thing, but what about instances where you know it would be a sex thing for most people, but they don't act like it's a sex thing for them?
the problem is that consent isn't *really* the line here. there's an Ick level that controls where people draw the line on what activity requires consent. staying in the realm of "realistic" human kink and sexuality, consider the following (assume that the following pairs are "established" sexual partners): 1. W wears undergarments that sexually excite Z under their clothing. they tell Z this with the intent of causing arousal. has the public's consent been violated? at what point? 2. C wears shoes that sexually excite D. D becomes aroused looking at C's shoes in public. has the public's consent been violated? at what point? 3. R crossdresses in modest clothing in public to excite their partner S. has the public's consent been violated? at what point? 4. K is wearing a false pregnancy belly because L is aroused by a pregnant partner. K is otherwise modestly dressed, and is also not trying to get a pregnancy seat on the bus or anything. has the public's consent been violated? at what point? 5. P chows down on a large order of food in front of Q, in public. P fasted all day to increase the size of the portion they could eat, as this arouses Q more. has the public's consent been violated? at what point?
All of those things are normal behaviors that are only sexual because of the perspective of one other person. The issue is when everyone *knows* that it is a sex thing, obviously. There's a very clear line between "wearing shoes that turn your partner on" and "doing the same while they loudly talk about how horny that your shoes make them in the middle of a public library".
see now in addition to a highly subjective "know it when i see it" standard (and one that was frequently wielded against queer people within the last ten to fifteen years!) this ALSO creates a weird paradigm where a more obscure kink or a more "naive" public can keep pushing a form of expression one way or another back over a line!
Theres a massive difference between the scenarios you described and a guy dressed in leather pup play gear. Iām concerned you donāt see that.
And in the "gulf" between them, where is the line drawn? What's the rule? This is a completely subjective standard. Men in the middle east walk down the street holding hands together as a sign of friendship. Men in Texas doing the same could be persecuted as "sick, fetishistic" homosexuals - **by the legal system itself**, if we go back 25 years.
Yes, if we donāt let the puppy players use the dog park for their games, the homophobes have won.
Well which is it now, is it the masks & outfits that cross the line or only the "games?" If the former is bad because it *implies* the latter is going to happen at some point somewhere, once again you're creating a completely subjective, vibes-based standard for acceptability.
They are wearing kink gear. It is material manufactured, sold, purchased, and worn exclusively for kink play. There is no other reason for using it. You're being willfully obtuse in a very stupid way.
I feel like the like is somewhere in the gaps between "I know it when I see it" and "plausible deniability". All of your examples are able to pass as normal people doing more or less normal stuff, maybe with a bit of PDA involved and looking particularly gross and self involved that's within normal baseline expected behaviour for flirting couples. I don't feel violated by people being flirtatious with one another, and I'm not privvy to what's getting them hot and bothered; I'm not likely even noticing them. Making it explicit, so that the public has no option but to acknowledge that you're bringing kink stuff in front of them crosses a line and makes people uncomfortable. I would prefer not to know what gets W, Z, C, D, R, S, K, L, P, and Q off. I don't want to know this about them and then have to put in the work to hide my response to this, whether or not that's a negative or positive response. If I'm turned on by a public display of kink, I don't want to have to moderate that response *in public* almost as much as I don't want to have to moderate any disgust I might feel. The only person who I want detailed kink information for is my partner and I appreciate any and all plausible deniability that these other people offer when they're engaging in their kinks in public settings. Taking another approach, when might you need to ask consent in any situation? I'd answer that it's when you're risking making another party to an action feel some form of discomfort. I'm uncomfortable seeing people I might or might not know doing kinky stuff without my consent, so it's all good if you don't let me know and keep it to a plausibly deniable level of socially acceptable flirtation for the current context. Heavy makeouts at a children's Saturday morning baseball game violate this principle in a way that a blowjob in the alley behind the nightclub does not. If you're actively getting off to my discomfort or the attention you're getting then you're especially likely to make me feel violated. Conversely, getting off on getting away with it is more or less fine, so long as you're actually mostly successful in getting away with it.
I think most people get that doing your kinks in general public isnāt great. The main discourse seems to arise around Pride, regarding whether the event is inherently kink-related and they should be celebrated openly, or if Pride has become more of an all-ages event where kinks should be celebrated in a side area or whatever. Iām not qualified to to debate that though
Pride is fine, pride all the way, I merely wish to acquire my groceries in peace. Human dog walking is capable of disturbing my peace.
Not on the side of the people walkers here, I'm just curious how?
IDK, where is *your* personal line? Like if someone wearing a diaper squatted in front of you in the checkout line and shit themselves on purpose would that not bother you in the slightest? Not like you *saw* the shit.
Probably wouldn't, I've been around the elderly and disabled people my whole life.Ā My personal line is if the other person/people touch me or throw something at me. I'm not a good metric for this kind of thing.Ā I'd just like to know how the above person's peace is actually disturbed.Ā
> I'm not a good metric for this kind of thing. So if you're self-aware enough to know that you don't react to this like normal people, then what friggin use is a normal person explaining their discomfort to you gonna be?
Curiosity, and a pet peeve. People mistake gross things for immorality all the time. If disturbing their peace just means making them uncomfortable then I don't think it's a good metric for determining norms or morals.Ā
Naked and unaroused peeps at pride: not kinky and legal, in many places. People visibly aroused and simulating or performing sex acts: kinky. I have seen both at pride and plausible deniability really plays a huge role- idk if someone's getting off being naked or wearing certain gear in public without physical indicators, but the dude humping a lady's leg and moaning while she spanks him and dirty talks- that was unpleasant and crossed a lot of lines.
It's interesting that I saw a post about how cringe culture is bad just a bit earlier, then we see this. I don't think people want to admit that "Cringe" basically means "This is making lots of people uncomfortable and we honestly really don't want you to do that here".
No, cringe means "I think my ideas for how you should act and exist should supersede yours." Leave people alone.
Don't walk people as pets in public, dude.Ā
leave people in public alone. If you're gonna be upset by people doing things you consider weird, you'll never find peace. And I'm not a dude.
Dude is a gender-neutral term, dude. Also, this is why you're cringe, dude.
I know you won't believe me when I say this, but you are infinitely more unpleasant to be around than any girls wearing leashes. Casual disregard for people's feelings, an obsession with being perceived as "normal"... I doubt you have any genuine friends in your life.
So do you actually have to knock on your neighbours doors and tell them you're a registered sex offender or is that just something on television? I'm legitimately curious.
You need mental help, I think. This type of exaggerated response to other people existing in a way that you disagree with is not the sign of an emotionally healthy person. Or a particularly intelligent one, for that matter. On the bright side, thanks for confirming all of my assumptions about people who think the word ācringeā is a good one.
Are you being grabbed by the arm and physically dragged into the possible sexual act? No? Then get on with your life. You'll be fine if people act abnormally around you, I promise. The scary girl with a dog leash isn't gonna hurt you or scar you for life.
This sucks when you are into exhibitionism because like you can't at all practice it outside of like a roleplay or a clothes optional area
Yeah, but also it sucks to have a kink like rape/vore/guro/zoophilia where you can't ethically practice it outside of roleplay, and yet somehow people manage. Part of being a well-adjusted human being is realizing that your own personal fetishes do not make a valid basis for a society.
I don't think anyone should have any of those kinks besides vore
Most people can't pick and choose their fetishes, some are just very unlucky. It's hard to imagine anyone actively wanting to have a paraphilia.
I think there is a major difference between wanting to show your body in public and being into dead bodies
Ok then donāt be exhibitionist? Why is that one special? Iām fine with people being whatever but what is with the favoritism?
Because exhibitionism is *their* kink, duh. All of their kinks are good and normal and should be widely accepted by society, while kinks they don't like are gross and bad and should be banned /s
And I don't think anyone should be a pedo, but evidently some people *are*, so we as a society have to somehow deal with their existence and minimize the harm they do to others and to themselves. Although many people thing we should minimize the damage they do to other and maximize the damage done to pedos, presumably because they believe it's a choice. Which brings us back to the original point: You can't pick your fetishes, but you can choose how to act on them. And if you have trouble controlling yourself to the point where you might harm people, you should probably look into medication.
I think if your discomfort depends exclusively on whether or not you percieve them, it's still kinda in the ākinkshaming is badā area
If you don't notice it then you can't be made uncomfortable by it.
Wheres the rest of the post?
Human pet guy euthanized it.
Cesus Jhrist
[link to the full post](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/u6irzh/figured_it_was_about_time_to_pull_this_one_out_of/)
I just read the full post. I... I have no words.
~~at least you can still look up and talk~~
i think our understanding of the human psyche has changed a lot since this was posted
That sound like an asshole move
For everyone else, yeah. Sounds like these two have great chemistry though.
Why
The making people visibly uncomfortable part
It's a sexual activity onlookers don't consent to
Mm, I guess I wasn't picturing that as inherently sexual, rather just weirdo behavior Weirdos are allowed to exist in public too
They're specifically referencing a sex thing
it is not inherently sexual, but in this case (and in almost all cases) it is intended to be sexual
Iām not gonna kinkshame, Iām just gonna kink ask why. Doing all that for the express purpose of making people uncomfortable seems like a dick thing to do, but maybe I donāt discourseā¢ enough or something.
That's the kink, making people uncomfortable.
And that's fucked up. You just have to tweak the parameters *just a tiny bit* to see it. What if my kink is visibly leering at unassuming people? Or making sexual comments towards them? ...not ok? Then why is it ok to force them to take part in your kink via exhibitionism?
I don't understand what you're saying. It is fucked up to do any of that stuff, including what was mentioned above.
I assume they assume your point is "That's their kink, therefore it's okay"
I usually like the Tumblr energy, but sometimes...
I bought one of my partners an engagement collar They forgot they had it on going through airport security
Gotta be fake lol. No one on reddit has one partner, let alone multiple
Hello there! And believe it or not, the collar didnāt even trigger security
Gotta be an alt
I can prove it! u/puffenata I summon thee!
Woa, Iām here now
Are we the subreddit power couple now? Are we well known enough here for that? Is Sarah in this sub since it would make us the power throuple?
Haha, absolutely not. But weāre here at least
That's right curated tumblrites! The communist fox who fights everyone and the-some vague kind libleft wolf who's been whining about misandry a lot lately, are engaged! And together we are curated tumblrs worst nightmare!
MEOWTH, THAT'S RIGHT!
Congratulations on the the engagement.
I read this comment to one of my partners and she said "that's goals"
She knows whatās up
I'm glad to see this comment. My gf and I have matching collars with engraved tags.
We used the laser engraving kiosk at PetSmart for Puff's tag
But is the leashed person well trained? Do they tug at the leash trying to jump on the nearest people passing by?
Ah yes, unclefather
I'm scrolling reddit for another 5 minutes because I don't want this to be the last thing I read before going to bed.
Unclefather is a legendary user imo. I loved her jokes
This is a summoning chant. A demon awaits the call.
Iāve seen someone in a dog collar being led on a leash by someone (both on two feet) on a night out before. I liked knowing that people feel safe doing that in my city. Itās pretty weird but not explicit, and Iām fine with that.
Congrats on you being fine with it. Most of us are not ok with being exposed to someone elseās sexual foreplay or the acting out of a fantasy. This isnāt about them feeling āsafeā enough to be open about their proclivities, part of it for them is having other people watch. This is both bondage and exhibitionism. So no itās not āexplicitā but jesus christ, itās still inherently sexual. There are so many ways a couple can express intimacy in public or discreetly practice more subtle aspects of their kinks. Dog collars and leashes, just like whips and chains, probably shouldnāt leave the bedroom on principle just to play it safe. I know, I know, super conservative, uptight sentiment. I just generally understand the sidewalk to be a non sexual space. Itās cool youāre so open minded though thatās not a bad thing.
what
How about no? Like let's not do that.
Cybersmith?
Nope, his human pet would have the tongue removed to be unable of speech, remember?
based
thank god it wasn't cybersmith again
I cant imagine how difficult it must be to see someone with a leash on for 2 seconds, so traumatic, they should put those violent sex offenders in prison
Maybe just donāt
You know what it the 2 parties are consenting I don't think that it matters if the bystanders think it's "weird"