Watching the ongoing dispute in the fandom concerning cub art, it's occurred to me that many of the people wanting to push those in favor of cub stuff out of the fandom, don't seem to apply the same standards to furries with a feral fetish.

I know this isn't a new idea, but nowadays I thought it was especially pertinent. Regardless of how I might personally feel on the matter, I don't think I understand why people who correlate cub with pedophilia IRL, don't want to suppose the same connection exists between feral porn and real bestiality.

Am I meant to take this as meaning that people in the anti-cub crowd view sexual abuse of kids to be worse than the same abuse towards animals? Given that there have been people in the fandom who went on to actually molest animals - and then you look at other things like murrsuits, feral dakimakuras & other merchandise, and all the well-received comics about ferals doing sexy things - you would think those wanting to minimize any implications of sexual crimes in the fandom would take feral stuff more seriously, but they don't.

Hypocriticism.

You could observe that people treat more intelligent animals with more respect than stupider animals, so humans get more respect than animals, and thus the abuse of humans is taken more seriously than the abuse of animals.

I don't actually think you should take people at their word about their motivations, though. You have to look at what they do. If what they do is push those who like cub out, the most straightforward explanation is that they are discomforted by seeing or hearing about cub, and are not so discomforted by feral.

The rest is probably just post-hoc rationalization. There's probably some people that genuinely are trying to "Minimize any implications of sexual crimes in the fandom". But I'd have difficulty believing that is more than 2% of the anti-cub crowd.

AoBird said:
Hypocriticism.

*Sigh* Yeah, I at least wanted to pose the question while giving them the benefit of a doubt, but that's what I thought too.

savageorange said:
You could observe that people treat more intelligent animals with more respect than stupider animals, so humans get more respect than animals, and thus the abuse of humans is taken more seriously than the abuse of animals.

I don't actually think you should take people at their word about their motivations, though. You have to look at what they do. If what they do is push those who like cub out, the most straightforward explanation is that they are discomforted by seeing or hearing about cub, and are not so discomforted by feral.

The rest is probably just post-hoc rationalization. There's probably some people that genuinely are trying to "Minimize any implications of sexual crimes in the fandom". But I'd have difficulty believing that is more than 2% of the anti-cub crowd.

I get that. I guess my hang-up came more from a place of wondering how the art itself factored into these people's logic, but looking at it from a real-world perspective that makes sense.

As far as judging by actions goes, that makes sense too, though for the sake of the argument I wanted to avoid doing it just because, well... honestly if I did, I'd have little more than a bunch of examples of mean-spirited, hateful and fearmongering people. I wanted to try and avoid saying every anti-cub person was like that just because it'd be a poor argument to make. That's a straightforward explanation, though I suppose the next step after determining that would be to ask why they would be more comfortable with one than the other, but of course that's best asked to an actual person.

Hehe, sorry if my wording was a bit pretentious. I didn't want to, but I honestly agree about that not really being the common interest in... most of those people, unfortunately. From what I've seen, it looks like that's less the underlying reason and more just the excuse, which is pretty shady; using the threat of sexual predators to essentially bully people. Damn shame...

Cub is fine...hell I even think loli and shota is fine. I really don't care what is depicted in art. It's not real.

I've also found in my own experience that there isn't always a straight line between a fetish and real life...in fact there may be no line at all. For instance I like incest porn, does that mean I want to fuck my mom/sister? God no. So knowing that about myself I find it hard to judge people and act like every fetish absolutely MUST manifest itself in the real world, because that's just not true.

I'v heard this kind of argument a lot about all sorts of fetishes, but i'v always looked at it like if we're all busy jacking off to drawings of furry kids and feral animals then we're not actually molesting kids and animals.

Like I would think that if you were constantly walking around with those kinds of thoughts in your head then surely you would be more likely to actually act on them if you couldn't go home and rub one out to at least quiet them down for a while.

I don't know, thats probably incredibly fucked up but if it is i'm sure someone will let me know.

My opinion on this is literally
post #1307654
This also goes for feral

Dyrone said:
Cub is fine...hell I even think loli and shota is fine. I really don't care what is depicted in art. It's not real.

I've also found in my own experience that there isn't always a straight line between a fetish and real life...in fact there may be no line at all. For instance I like incest porn, does that mean I want to fuck my mom/sister? God no. So knowing that about myself I find it hard to judge people and act like every fetish absolutely MUST manifest itself in the real world, because that's just not true.

Basically this.

I enjoy SOME loli/shota/cub stuff. (Generally the happy stuff) -- I will peel your face off with my fingernails if you look at my little niece with unclean eyes. I enjoy feral stuff. Once, when curious and the internet was a less terrifying place with fewer FBI agents, I looked up some RL feral stuff. SO MUCH NOPE. Oh my god nope. nope nope nope. It looks weird, it's uncomfortable, it looks bad and wrong and weird and not good. nope.

It's like rape fantasies in ways. Someone might enjoy the idea of being cornered and forcefully taken by the EVIL and TERRIBLE Lord Villianous-- but in 99.99999% of cases, well, that does not translate to RL... That doesn't mean that people can't engage in "rape play" where one pretends to not want it, but in the end, it's consenting.

Fantasy lets us explore these things.

As for the cub/feral thing.. It does seem a bit hypocritical -- but I suspect it's because most people feel more empathy for humans over animals, when you get down to it. That and.... we have pretty conclusive proof and evidence that being sexual with kids fucks with them mentally and emotionally and socially.... while a dog... well, we don't have that evidence. and in ways, an adult dog *is* a little more capable of consenting than a child is. It's WAY more complicated than that, of course, but I'm thinking outloud here.

There's also the fact that a lot of proclaimed zoophiles are generally REALLY focused on animal welfare-- making good care of their animals, focusing on their care, on obtaining consent from animals, of generally doing their best to be a good partner for their critters.... rather than obtaining a furry harem. (I remember, in horror, reading a long detailed guide about how-to-dog-fuck and how-to-dolphin-sex and it was.... uh.. memorable.)

Pedophiles on the other hand, very much have the reputation of being a predator manipulating a child without much care for them. If your typical zoophile was sneakily trying to screw the neighbor's dog, then that would probably be a different story.

Plus... ferals TEND to be depicted as intelligent creatures, OR the aggressors who are taking what they want, rather than the victims. whereas cubs are typically children and nothing but children. Which means not fully capable of consenting and making decisions.

Anyway-- don't fuck dogs, don't fuck kids, don't hurt anyone. Enjoy your fantasies, don't act on the bad ones. But fantasize all your want. just leave real world beings out of it.

To me neither is wrong, it's just people pushing an agenda.

When I called furries out on twitter about Tacklebox drawing "cub" none could give me any solid proof that anyone into Cub porn is a real pedophile or child molester except a few RARE cases, (that you shouldn't base your opinion off as fact) but these cases do not mean everyone is going to to act the same way, just like how not every furry is going to go out and fuck their dog, which so many furries say isnt true, but say anyone into cub is a child rapist.

How I see it: Furries like anthrofied animals, rape, gore, vore, watersports, all kinds of fetishes, yet they somehow draw the line at young fictional non-human animal characters and say that it just normalizes pedophilia.

but they say nothing about rape porn, incest, or cucking (basically cheating on Significant Other).

All it is, is hypocrisy.

I like rape, cub, incest, and a few other things, but i'm not going to go out and do any of these IRL.

Edit: The only people who act on their fantasies, or what they see in porn or even games, are usually not right in the end to begin with, but that's just me.

fucking a child tends to cause worse suffering (if not worse, at lwast more easily obsrvable suffering) for the victim than fucking an animal. so thats probably why attraction to kids is viewed as much worse thing than attraction to ferals.

Both are inherently non-consensual, but for different reasons. Children are unable to consent until they grow up, but animals are never able to consent. I’m not into feral, however I’ve seen some artists draw “smart ferals” with sapient intellect and/or human speech. I view that on the same level as say, non-anthro MLP porn.

Most people would probably say cub is worse than feral as humans usually place human (or humanoid) life above the life of a non-intelligent animal.

People getting upset about a bunch of pixels is what I see.

Skatole said:
[...] animals are never able to consent.

That is incorrect.

Many humans are too empathically crippled to recognize even a foreign human language as meaningful. It's one of several phenomena that allow racists to caricature ethnicities as animal-like stereotypes; whatever does not instantly make sense to them, they presume is objectively meaningless, therefore these strange people and their moon language are "not really people" because of course "people" only speak [language here].

Naturally, recognizing that an actual animal's expressions might mean anything is out of the question for such a primitive mind, unless it suits their agenda to imagine it one way or another of course.

If a human being was to actually learn an animal language (which is possible and generally a requirement of people who actually work with animals), it becomes extremely clear how the given animal feels about any situation, sexual or otherwise.

But even a fool can tell that an animal that is vocalizing / struggling / viciously attacking is not okay with what is going on, whereas a calm animal that isn't resisting or attacking anyone in any way is just fine, right?

Well, no. It turns out there are people too stupid to do that.

Would-be "animal rights activists" exploit such fools with a double-standard delusional mind game where animals have human traits or psychology when they want them to, but don't when they don't. This is similar to apotheosis wherein a person or group claims to be the only speaker or representative for a given demographic - and will even talk over said demographic should self-representation be at odds with the apotheist's agenda.

Naturally, most animals are not able to communicate in a human language or understand the convoluted system behind how their nature and interests are misrepresented for the sake of corporations in order to object to it, so the people speaking for them have essentially no opposition.

Thus, these speakers pretend that animals are helpless victims against "rape" (e.g. that a human can somehow rape a horse unarmed with no special equipment) or general exploitation while simultaneously claiming that:

• Animals can cry (most can't; these are discharge from eye infections)
• Animals can smile (pet dogs sort of can; but most animals who are "smiling" are baring their fangs to warn perceived threats away)
• Animals can laugh (most can't; some animals have laugh-like calls which may be meant as threatening or warning; some animals have laugh-like pants when dehydrated or overheating)

Yet animals can't resist a rape or consent to sex in any way?? Awful strange how this is just about the only human thing animals can't do.

ARAs place animals on a human pedestal while also explicitly dehumanizing them, as it suits them.

And in the process, these people reveal that they understand absolutely nothing about animals, clearly don't care about their well-being as they disguise health conditions as human expressions, and are merely exploiting that the public doesn't either because they have found a way to profit off of doing so.

Chaser said:
People getting upset about a bunch of pixels is what I see.

yes, my avatar has that effect

Of course I was going to have to respond to this topic.

Anyway, there is a lot I want to say, and trying to argue every point would be impossible, so I'm just going to give a short version of my positions:

1) I think that animals can, in fact, consent. That said, it's unlikely that any argument or debate here will change anyone's mind, because e621 just isn't a great platform for these sorts of discussions.

2) I don't think that human children can meaningfully consent, and I think they are generally harmed by sexual interactions with adults.

3) Trying to argue that this is all a matter of hypocrisy is dumb, because you are assuming a lot of things about the viewer of feral art and their viewpoints. For instance, if I were the sort of person who wanted to censor cub art, there would be no hypocrisy there, at least with respect to my position on feral art, since my position on the real-life counterparts differs between the two.

4) I'm not that sort of person. I think s long as someone isn't actually harming any children, I don't see any problem with them looking at cub art.

5) Even if a person looking at cub art is a pedophile, as long as it remains in fantasy rather than action, I don't see the issue. People can't really control their attractions, but they can control their actions - to some extent I consider the demonization of (non-acting) pedophiles to be overall harmful, for various reasons.

6) To answer the question directly, none of the above is particularly relevant - the fact is that in our society anything relating to the sexual exploitation of children is considered extremely taboo. Even more so than other major taboos. The reaction to cub porn is not inherently logical, it is emotional. It resembles, in some way, this ultimate taboo, and so people react more strongly to it than they react to things related to lesser taboos.

7) A lot of the arguments / issues people have with zoophilia in real life simply don't apply to feral drawings. Things like intelligence or a language barrier are not necessarily a problem when you might be dealing with a picture of a dragon, who is speaking English and seems more intelligent than most humans.

8) I feel like this topic is bordering on flame-bait, bringing up very sensitive issues and making debatable assertions on topics where people can't speak entirely freely... I don't like it.

Clawdragons said:

2) I don't think that human children can meaningfully consent

Why? I'm not necessarily disagreing, I'm genuinly curious. This is an important argument on the topic and I've never fully understood it; I'd like to.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Why? I'm not necessarily disagreing, I'm genuinly curious. This is an important argument on the topic and I've never fully understood it; I'd like to.

Because, besides "feeling good", they do not understand the implication on the other spheres of life.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Why? I'm not necessarily disagreing, I'm genuinly curious. This is an important argument on the topic and I've never fully understood it; I'd like to.

Because kids are basically raised, from the moment they're born, to obey. They want to please and impress people. "Stop crying, you're embarassing me," "behave or you won't get dessert" ... we basically put into them that being a "good kid" means obeying adults. and they know that "getting in trouble" is bad. and they want to impress adults and older peopel they think are cool.

For an animal there's social pressure, but good dog, anyone who's tried to give a pet a bath can tell you that they'll let you know when they're not happy.

On which note, I need to go clean the cuts on my arms from miss poopy paws.

you're kidding, right? yeah, no difference between some chick fellating her pet and having sex with a child who is not mentally and sexually developed.

i hate both obvi, but one is fine and the other is rape. the debate on mere depiction is something i don't give less of a shit about, but there's your answer on why people are much more disturbed by one over the other.

possiblyawerewolf said:
you're kidding, right? yeah, no difference between some chick fellating her pet and having sex with a child who is not mentally and sexually developed.

i hate both obvi, but one is fine and the other is rape. the debate on mere depiction is something i don't give less of a shit about, but there's your answer on why people are much more disturbed by one over the other.

There is, children are not that mentally incapable. Hell, some are even smarter than fully grown adults.

SnowWolf said:
Because kids are basically raised, from the moment they're born, to obey. They want to please and impress people. "Stop crying, you're embarassing me," "behave or you won't get dessert" ... we basically put into them that being a "good kid" means obeying adults. and they know that "getting in trouble" is bad. and they want to impress adults and older peopel they think are cool.

For an animal there's social pressure, but good dog, anyone who's tried to give a pet a bath can tell you that they'll let you know when they're not happy.

On which note, I need to go clean the cuts on my arms from miss poopy paws.

To expands a little more now that I have time-- an animal--especially a dog-- has some social and emotional pressure to want to obey and please their owner as well, but this gets a lot more complicated with a little human being who's learning how to be a person. Parental and teacher pressure pushes "Conform and obey" even when they're uncomfortable. Kids tend to be really squirmy because they have a lot of energy, but we tell them "sit still"... we tell them to deal with discomfort, and generally to endure and behave. All of this lines them up to be socialized towards being obediant to an adult that tells them to listen.

At the same time, kids really look up to adults and teens and stuff and want to impress them: I remember being a little kid and BURSTING with excitement whenever I had something COOL to share with my adults. I LOVED telling my silicon-valley uncle about how i learned a computer thing, I LOVED talking about hte games I was playing, because he played games too. I LOVED telling my artist grandma about the ART CONTEST I won and how i was the BEST IN THE WHOLE SCHOOL. Heck, I lived on a road that got a lot of foot traffic, and I can remember sitting on the wall and sinking songs from the lion king, hoping someone would "discover" me because I sang so well. (Spoiler: I am tone deaf)

So, it's basically really hard to allow a child to make an informed choice here, because they are biased. If they make an adult mad, it's bad.

I mean, there are parenting tips out there which boil down to... "Instead of asking your child what they want for dinner, present them with choices instead" -- and this is pretty great in some places, because "hot dogs or hamburgers" is easier than "What of ALL THE FOOD EVER"... but it also gives them the illusion of choice. Just like the tip that says "Don't say "it's time to go the the park" ask if they want to go to the park--then they have the feeling that they made a choice and will go along with it better.

So then you get mister pedo, who asks things like "Do you want to play a grown up game with me? It's a big secret, you can't tell anyone." and it becomes really hard for a kid to say "naw, thanks." --ESPECIALLY since most child sexual abuse isn't "Mister stranger offering a lolipop" ... it's people the kid already knows. An uncle, a family friend, a teacher or family member. People they are invested in obeying.

Most kids aren't Dennis the menace blazing around laughing and disobeying everyone. Most kids are good kids, y'know?

And kids don't understand what sex is. Maybe they get the mechanics, or know that it's where babies come from, but they don't get the social context that it has. Sexual development and enlightenment is something that takes time. Heck, I honestly don't think most people in their early 20s can *really* make smart choices about sex. I'm not a prude or anything, just, a lot of people have sex with other people because they want to be worthy of their attention and affection, not because they want to good feels. And in our current society, we place a lot of significance on virginity and love-with-sex. Kids don't understand all this.

and all of this --and other aspects too--leads to kids not really being able to make an informed and adult choice.

Maybe in a different society where sex was a more open thing and the taboos around sex were very different, then maybe stuff would be different, but we don't live in that society or world. I'm not sure that that society has ever really existed.

So.. that's why a kid can't really meaningfully consent.

The dog, on the other hand, doesn't HAVE any social damage or emotional uncertainty if they're a bad person because they let uncle joey touch them. Their family is owner and any other doggos/peopel around them. They're not kids who have to deal with the rest of the world after they hit 20. Dogs refuse or deny based on the concept of "I don't like that touch" ... it CAN 100% be a forced thing, and "on no, must obey owner" .... but this goes back to that zoophilia thing -- a lot of them are really focused on letting the animal decide if it's play time or not.

(and again, the repeat: neither of these are good things. I"m not saying Zoophilia is a good thing. Just discussing why furries might accept zoophilia over pediphilia, generally.)

Clawdragons said:
Of course I was going to have to respond to this topic.

I mean you didn't have to, but yeah, semantics.

1) I think that animals can, in fact, consent. That said, it's unlikely that any argument or debate here will change anyone's mind, because e621 just isn't a great platform for these sorts of discussions.

2) I don't think that human children can meaningfully consent, and I think they are generally harmed by sexual interactions with adults.

Could you elaborate a bit on why? I don't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge on all this stuff, but I'm inclined to disagree mostly due to The way I see it, an animal consenting to sex is similar to a minor trying to initiate sex with an adult. In both cases the party in question did indeed express a basic desire to have sex, but in the minor's case it's considered harmful because it may negatively impact the child mentally or socially (which is empirically true). We've gone with the assumption that this isn't the case for the animal, but we've established that we don't actually know if this is true or not, so at the very least I think saying that an animal can consent is jumping to conclusions.

3) Trying to argue that this is all a matter of hypocrisy is dumb, because you are assuming a lot of things about the viewer of feral art and their viewpoints. For instance, if I were the sort of person who wanted to censor cub art, there would be no hypocrisy there, at least with respect to my position on feral art, since my position on the real-life counterparts differs between the two.

My contention with the matter isn't simply about people wanting to censor anything, because I agree; the simple desire to censor something isn't hypocritical on its own (or at least if it is that's a whole other can of worms). Instead, it's with people in the camp of wanting to censor cub, who do conflate it with real pedophilia in order to justify their position, yet they fail to extend the same logic to feral. I know good and well that not every anti-cub person things like this, but in my experience the argument is common enough that I felt the need to call it into question, because I believe that it in particular is hypocritical.

4) I'm not that sort of person. I think s long as someone isn't actually harming any children, I don't see any problem with them looking at cub art.

5) Even if a person looking at cub art is a pedophile, as long as it remains in fantasy rather than action, I don't see the issue. People can't really control their attractions, but they can control their actions - to some extent I consider the demonization of (non-acting) pedophiles to be overall harmful, for various reasons.

6) To answer the question directly, none of the above is particularly relevant - the fact is that in our society anything relating to the sexual exploitation of children is considered extremely taboo. Even more so than other major taboos. The reaction to cub porn is not inherently logical, it is emotional. It resembles, in some way, this ultimate taboo, and so people react more strongly to it than they react to things related to lesser taboos.

I agree with you on these!

7) A lot of the arguments / issues people have with zoophilia in real life simply don't apply to feral drawings. Things like intelligence or a language barrier are not necessarily a problem when you might be dealing with a picture of a dragon, who is speaking English and seems more intelligent than most humans.

This is true, but it leads into another facet of the anti-cub position that I might also criticize. It's very true that in the realm of imagination you could give a feral character the right characteristics for you to feel alright with fantasizing about sex with it, but just as well you could do just the same to a fictional minor, yes? For instance, you could simply give them an adult's mental/personality traits, or you could imagine them only "appearing" young but actually being of legal age (and in fact many media characters fit this description). And yet, there are also those against cub who assert that this doesn't matter, conflating a fictional character that's seemingly a minor with an actual minor, and therefore in some cases extending that to the argument that even superficially young characters correspond to real children.

8) I feel like this topic is bordering on flame-bait, bringing up very sensitive issues and making debatable assertions on topics where people can't speak entirely freely... I don't like it.

I'm sorry that it came off that way. In truth I'm only speaking from my own experiences interacting with people with this position, so I certainly couldn't claim that my viewpoint is objective. Again I can agree that being anti-cub doesn't necessarily mean one things like this, but from what I've seen, enough people do that I felt the need to look at the argument critically. The only real reason why I made a post out of it was to hear others' opinions on the matter, and it seems that worked!

possiblyawerewolf said:
you're kidding, right? yeah, no difference between some chick fellating her pet and having sex with a child who is not mentally and sexually developed.

i hate both obvi, but one is fine and the other is rape. the debate on mere depiction is something i don't give less of a shit about, but there's your answer on why people are much more disturbed by one over the other.

Well, rape is the engaging in a sexual act with someone without their consent, and the argument for having sex with a minor is that they lack the developmental capacity to consent as an adult does. Are you saying that an animal has this capacity, then? If so, what makes you say that?

BitFly said:
Well, rape is the engaging in a sexual act with someone without their consent, and the argument for having sex with a minor is that they lack the developmental capacity to consent as an adult does. Are you saying that an animal has this capacity, then? If so, what makes you say that?

i care not for the argument of consent, it's about damage. humans as a species require consent for sex; many other species just take it in the wild.

that said, as long as a bestophile's animals aren't physically harmed or forced in spite of demonstrated obstinance of engaging in a sexual act, i don't care. some animals which are good communicators and who possess consciousness to the level of desire can be determined as consenting or nonconsenting; which is moot regardless. if nothing's being harmed, i don't care.

children, on the other hand, have their sexuality and mental shape altered by sexual experiences pre-development. regardless, they aren't human yet, the way you'd say a duckling isn't a loon. sexual activity can lead to infection and pregnancy, not to mention it is (for almost but not all) seen as a vastly important decision and act. they cannot do anything of themselves or be trusted with their unable brains, let alone make decisions around this activity.

children "fooling around", while less than desirable, is at least seen as normal behaviour between two subjects excitedly experimenting. this should be discouraged somewhat, but is nowhere near arguable to a grown person using an incapable subject as a cocksleve.

the only disagreement to be rationally had with bestiality that does not negatively effect any partner is the infectiousness. while incredibly rare, if another species' strong infection or disease is able to cross a special barrier and is sexually transmitted... well, that's how AIDS happened and thousands died. there's really no going around that, as it is with m/f incestuous relationships and the higher possibility of deformed infants via conception. the metaphoric "bad apple" that spoils the bunch for these specific sexual deviants, so to speak

Inherently, no, they're both equally fictional and a social taboo theme wise. But since there's a lot more people, especially "popular" people, into feral, that's largely untouchable. Cub porn on the other hand is less popular, and an easy target since if you call someone a pedo, odds are not many are going to dispute that claim in fear of similar harassment.

Some say it's more a matter of morality, but honestly furries are the LAST people to start preaching about morality. The same sorts of people who call cub CP, and the people into it pedos will recoil and protest when you call them zoophiles for sexualizing animal characters and having an expensive animal dildo on their shelf. That's not to say you're not allowed to find anything unacceptable just because you're also into weird shit, but to assume the absolute worst (to the point of lumping them in with actual criminals/criminal acts) for one party in particular for no other reason than "I don't like it/I feel that way", and then follow that up with harassment is BS. At that point you're no better than the out of touch politicians who argue till their blue in the face that violent media turns everyone into dangerous killers, rapists, thieves, etc and needs to be banned.

Also why is the "consent" even a factor when talking about drawings? They aren't sentient, they can neither give or refuse consent. It doesn't matter how it works in real life, it's fiction, things work however you, the creator, want them too, nothing's inherent.

Feral porn is the drawn equivalent of bestiality/zoophilia porn so I can't say I'm for it or for the people that are into it.

Cub is worse though by lightyears, it's a known tactic that pedophiles groom children with child porn (of many kinds in fact) in order to convince them it's ok for adults to sexually assault them.

I'd argue that the art enables the behavior (obviously not the majority) but it's still dangerous that sites like this one host it.

Qaus said:
Feral porn is the drawn equivalent of bestiality/zoophilia porn so I can't say I'm for it or for the people that are into it.

As opposed to other furry porn/sexualized content involving animals...? Having a human frame doesn't erase the animal head, paws, feet, tail, and overall fact that it's the animal features that cause you to find it alluring, otherwise you'd just look at human characters. If one's guilty of zoophilia, all of it is.

Cub is worse though by lightyears, it's a known tactic that pedophiles groom children with child porn (of many kinds in fact) in order to convince them it's ok for adults to sexually assault them.

And do you have any evidence to back up a serious claim like that? "X and Y share a theme, therefore they're basically the same." isn't an argument. Not liking it's one thing, but you're trying to link it to a fairly serious crime.

I'd argue that the art enables the behavior (obviously not the majority) but it's still dangerous that sites like this one host it.

>has several images of rape art in their favs
>trying to argue taboo art encourages crime and suggests said content shouldn't be allowed

So where exactly does that train of logic start/stop? Just at the things "you" personally object to?

*puts on the education hat*

possiblyawerewolf said:
the only disagreement to be rationally had with bestiality that does not negatively effect any partner is the infectiousness. while incredibly rare, if another species' strong infection or disease is able to cross a special barrier and is sexually transmitted...

That's called a zoonotic disease, or hte process of Zoonosis

This (a disease that can be passed between humans and animals) is not an uncommon thing. There are many many things that can infect both you and an animal.

Ebola is a zoonotic disease. The animal carrier is probably the fruit bat. Since ebola is spread via body fluids--this would include an animal's meat--it can be pretty easy to spread. Primates can also catch Ebola. So can dogs, though they don't have symptoms. Not all strains of a disease are equal. Think of it like a dog: some dog breeds might look a lot a like, but others are extremely different, but they're all still dogs.

Salmonella is also a zoonotic disease. Humans, cats, dogs and reptiles can all get and carry salmonella.

Swine flu, bird flu, aardvark flu. rabies... all zoonotic.

In fact of the 1415 pathogens we know about that can infect humans, 61% of them are zoonotic.

and it works the other way too -- we can give animals illnesses too.

The "sexually transmitted" barrier is hardly necessary. If something is transmitted via fluids, licking is generally enough. There's not a special magic to putting a penis inside a vagina.

well, that's how AIDS happened and thousands died.

False.

We don't KNOW where HIV came from. Actually there are a lot of unexplained and baffling questions about where HIV comes from and why it's only 'recently' crossed over to humans.

However the most likely reason is that someone killed an ape, skinned it, cut it up and probably ate it. This was probably back in 1910 or so and there's a lot of history involved here and that's getting into social and political changes, colonialism and lots of other things... BUT the important part for this is that the HIV *epidemic* in the USA didn't start until the 79's and 80's, where it was known as a disease that only infected gay men, in part because this was in the middle of america's sexual revolution and transmittable diseases were not as wide spread, so casual sex was taking off. HIV/AIDS was regarded by some as "god's wrath" and a punishment for being gay. ... (which is why it was called GRID at first -- Gay related Immune Deficiency.) (Also "gay cancer") ...

Obviously, that's bullshit.

But man, never underestimate the human capacity to lack compassion. To best guesses, the "HIV came from a dude who fucked a monkey" theory came from someone who's general goal was to dehumanize and attack the gay people who were afflicted with HIV/AIDS, by comparing them to ... well, monkey-fuckers.

So, perpetuating that idea is basically a really unpleasant thing. :(

Qaus said:
Cub is worse though by lightyears, it's a known tactic that pedophiles groom children with child porn (of many kinds in fact) in order to convince them it's ok for adults to sexually assault them.

Generally speaking "This thing can be used for a bad thing by bad people" isn't the best reason to remove it. Some murderers have used knives and it's a well known tactic that they stab people with them!

While it's true this happens, that's bad people doing bad things, not a direct result of the item itself existing.

SnowWolf said:
Some murderers have used knives and it's a well known tactic that they stab people with them!

Some murderers use books, pillows and condoms. Lets remove them too.
Lets remove everything, even the air we breathe because it can be used to murder people.

Some people like to apply this faulty logic everywhere, just like with "Let us spy on your and we will protect you from "terrorists"".
These "Terrorists" won't magically disappear by you spying one everyone, that's just like doctor giving you pills for temperature when you are sick.
Baindaid fix, treating the aftereffects instead of the actual cause of the problem.

Same thing with "You watch cub you are a pedo", but watching movies and playing video games where you murder people doesn't make you a murderer.

Or that women double standard bull. When something is inconvenient "I'm a woman [gentler gender]" and also the opposite when that suits them "I'm a woman [equal to men]". Like, fuck off, you can't be the /type/ whenever it suites you. Pick one and stick with it, it is either or. No changing!

AoBird said:
Some murderers use books, pillows and condoms. Lets remove them too.
Lets remove everything, even the air we breathe because it can be used to murder people.

Some people like to apply this faulty logic everywhere, just like with "Let us spy on your and we will protect you from "terrorists"".
These "Terrorists" won't magically disappear by you spying one everyone, that's just like doctor giving you pills for temperature when you are sick.
Baindaid fix, treating the aftereffects instead of the actual cause of the problem.

Same thing with "You watch cub you are a pedo", but watching movies and playing video games where you murder people doesn't make you a murderer.

Or that women double standard bull. When something is inconvenient "I'm a woman [gentler gender]" and also the opposite when that suits them "I'm a woman [equal to men]". Like, fuck off, you can't be the /type/ whenever it suites you. Pick one and stick with it, it is either or. No changing!

calm.

down.
here, on earth.

EightyNine said:
calm.

down.
here, on earth.

I'm perfectly calm, I was just giving some examples of stupidity.

Water and air are poisonous (I'm talking about the safe to drink and breath kind, it's about concentration) so yeah, we should definitely remove them according to the logic of some people xD