There is a furry called Sky who kind of defends fursuit sex or somewhat (which is, of course, fine), but the way he does it makes it sound entirely horse-s@!#.
Here is a stupid phrase he made up (I hope it's made up): “Fall in love with the fursuiter, never fall in love with the fursuit,” and he claims it's a common term. He claims that you must be attracted to the person inside and have nothing to do with the costume (AT ALL, I think) and whatever. Same thing with fursona icons or something.
He thinks that if it affects some kind of “sexual orientation,” then somehow, to him, it might be a problem, I think. Not sure if that's what he meant, but it's really dumb when yet, to a lot of others, IT'S KIND OF THE POINT.
I mean, I can understand if it takes over you in a life, damaging way, but having it as at least a requirement shouldn't be consider harmful at all. Especially if the person has no attraction to yucky, smelly humans (like it's a closet dream or something).
I've never had sex in a fursuit before (though I should understand it by now), but I did kind of had a thing for icons as a symbol maybe. Without them, then it just feels pointless.
Question is, do you agree or is it also fine to have it like this too? I've also wondered if it’s true that this kind of idea is common or it’s just him again.
* * *
Dear Diamond Man,
Not to evoke your ire against me, but Papabear would agree with the statement, “Fall in love with the fursuiter, never fall in love with the fursuit.” What this says—and I haven’t heard it put this way before, so wouldn’t know if it is considered cliché within the fandom or not—is simply that you should not be shallow and base your relationships on appearances. It is a corollary to the much more familiar “beauty is only skin deep.” One might fall “in love” with a beautiful woman because she is extremely attractive, but if you court her and marry her only to find out that, inside, she is a very ugly person, then you have landed yourself in a very nasty situation.
Any mature, deep relationship is based on a foundation of who each person is and not what he or she wears. Think of a fursuit as if it were clothing. Who would you rather fall in love with? A man who dresses impeccably in Hugo Boss and Armani but who does drugs, cheats, steals, and hurts other people? Or a guy who dresses in tattered jeans and a stained shirt but is kind, loving, and caring? Now, turn that Armani into an amazing dragon suit complete with movable wings, animatronic facial expressions, cool Medieval leather gear, and LED-glowing eyes. Inside that remarkable dragon is still a person who is a big, pardon me, piece of crap.
And, guess what? That person is not going to wear that fursuit 24/7. If he or she is anything like me, the fursuit will only stay on a couple hours at most, and, once it comes off, voilá! Out comes the buttmunch whom you have chosen as a mate.
As a furry, I certainly understand the physical attraction to fursuits, fursonas, avatars, furry art, etc. But I would never base a relationship just on that one aspect, and neither should you. Now, if you meet a super person and he or she happens to have an awesome fursuit, then bonus! But, if not, I certainly hope you wouldn’t reject someone in your life simply because you don’t care for that person’s fursona and fursuit. Such things should not be a requirement.
As for whether or not this idea is “common,” I’ll let my readers chime in on that one.
A note on comments: Comments on letters to Papabear are welcome, especially those that offer extra helpful advice and add something to the conversation that is of use to the letter writer and those reading this column. Also welcome are constructive criticisms and opposing views. What is NOT welcome are hateful, hurtful comments, flaming, and trolling. Such comments will be deleted from this site. Thank you.