@shitpostalotl@r0se i think i'd personally mind that less, but i wouldn't at all rule out someone else being uncomfy about that.
"just depends" feels kinda reductive, but you're right that it is ultimately subjective. functionally, it's just an avatar- if it conveys what you want people to perceive you as, it performs the task well. we don't necessarily have hard and fast rules for what constitutes an "appropriate" avatar, but we can draw lines if and when we take issue with things. that's usually how building social rules works.
hell, i'm sure my current avatar's looming demeanour might extend beyond someone's personal threshold- if that means they don't want to interact with me, that's okay. they'd probably have a hard time conveying that my avatar is explicitly pornographic and shouldn't be shown in public spaces, but they are well within their right to block me indiscriminately and move on.
@shitpostalotl@r0se i see pup hoods as distinct from furry avatars. pup hoods specifically lean into kink territory for me, whereas a "run-of-the-mill" furry avatar is just that- an avatar.
you draw an interesting distinction where some may be turned on by seeing their fursona, i've personally not heard of this. most furries i know hold their fursona as an identity (with anything sexual being an addition), meanwhile i've not heard of a pup hood owner who doesn't use it for kink.
if the owner is personally turned on by their own avatar, it's much up to their discretion on if they feel it's appropriate to bring that into non-sexual spaces. i don't believe this is contradictory, as every account with a pup mask avatar that i've personally seen has a feed flooded with kink play content.
@r0se@shitpostalotl a mix between "i'm not particularly into this but you've made it the very face i'm engaging with" and "this particular account isn't a kink space". wrong time and wrong place, i suppose. otherwise, i don't care what consenting adults get up to in their own cohorts
@ari@arimelody.space