Why is furry porn okay? I have enjoyed furry porn for a long time but have come reasons as to why I should doubt why it should be fine due to a recent experience. I would like your opinions as to why it’s fine and why it wouldn’t lead to something like zoophilia, thanks :)
Topic: Why is it okay?
Posted under General
There's no objective answer to your question. There's no universal truth or magic reason, so instead you should ask yourself:
Am I okay with furry porn?
If yea, continue to enjoy yourself. If nay, jus stop. That is that.
And furry porn doesn't lead to zoophilia more than drinking wine leads to drinking pure ethanol.
That's just not how the brain works.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Why is furry porn okay?
"Why is drawn porn okay?" I would ask, it's all fiction... just because you have fun with GTA doesn't mean you will go on a killing spree or stealing lots of cars, it's the same with other works that deal with fiction, NSFW or not.
It's somewhat a jump of saying that liking furry porn can lead to zoophilia, there are furry works that deal with ferals sure but most of the time it's just dummies who like their anthro characters doing stuff. Still furry works that have ferals on it that goes back to what I said: if people have fun with it without interfering with real life, it's harmless smut entertainment, let's also not ignore that there are feral works that only have ferals dealing with other ferals on it so some people like to see themselves as these characters than anything related to something else.
Of course, if someone after dealing with feral hentai does have strange urges (including other "problematic" genres in fictional porn) that may interfere in real life it's highly recommended to seek therapy, you can still get help.
I don’t see myself as having any issues with it, I have enjoyed this content for a long time without issue but what about other people? I have researched this topic a bit and I suppose I just want reassurance that I’m not a bad person propagating zoophilial behaviors overall. I get this is a silly fear but I still can’t shake it.
The only people who are looking at furry porn and deciding they want to have sex with animals in real life as a result are people who would have done that anyways.
Any normal person can enjoy furry porn while having no attraction to real animals whatsoever, just like how plenty of people enjoy porn while having no desire to have sex in general :y
cosmalxiezhi said:
have come reasons as to why I should doubt why it should be fine due to a recent experience
Care to elaborate?
cosmalxiezhi said:
I have researched this topic a bit and I suppose I just want reassurance that I’m not a bad person propagating zoophilial behaviors overall. I get this is a silly fear but I still can’t shake it.
Here's some truths:
- Homosexual can't become heterosexual by looking at straight porn
- Trans people can't become cis by looking at cis people
- Asexual people can't become sex-addict by looking at porn.
That's not how the brain works. You can discover you are a zoophile by looking at furry porn, but you won't become one.
Furries enjoy anthropomorphic animals, not real animals, and sexualizing random objects is common: just think about shoe fetishes.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Why is furry porn okay? I have enjoyed furry porn for a long time but have come reasons as to why I should doubt why it should be fine due to a recent experience. I would like your opinions as to why it’s fine and why it wouldn’t lead to something like zoophilia, thanks :)
cosmalxiezhi said:
I don’t see myself as having any issues with it, I have enjoyed this content for a long time without issue but what about other people? I have researched this topic a bit and I suppose I just want reassurance that I’m not a bad person propagating zoophilial behaviors overall. I get this is a silly fear but I still can’t shake it.
You can rest assured, the fact that you can personally acknowledge that something feels wrong or immoral just shows that your sense of morality is intact.
That is, you are fully capable of distinguishing between what is acceptable to do in real-life and what is not.
Furry porn does not bring any harm to real-life peoples or animals, so it is completely fine to like it without feeling ashamed or guilty.
On the other hand, engaging in actual abusive behaviour that brings harm to real-life peoples or animals is not fine and should not be encouraged.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Why is furry porn okay? I have enjoyed furry porn for a long time but have come reasons as to why I should doubt why it should be fine due to a recent experience. I would like your opinions as to why it’s fine and why it wouldn’t lead to something like zoophilia, thanks :)
What if for every art concept you ban, every other group in society also gets one.
You think furry art might make people want animals? Ok, ban all songs and movies and games that glorify and promote crime in case that promotes violent crime. The racists get to ban interracial porn and the feminists get to ban all rape porn except the kind they buy (in books).
IMO it's cool not just because it's fiction. The very nature of furry porn being unrealistic and fantasy-driven makes it easier to separate from real life. But generally speaking, even then, my personal suspension of disbelief is strong enough to get enjoyment out of it.
So, at the end of the day, it's the perferct balance between getting horny entertainment and not feeling shame from creating/consuming it.
redphoenix42 said:
You think furry art might make people want animals? Ok, ban all songs and movies and games that glorify and promote crime in case that promotes violent crime. The racists get to ban interracial porn and the feminists get to ban all rape porn except the kind they buy (in books).
This is another can of worms. Basically the hypocrisy of anti-authoritarianism. At such extreme levels, anti-authoritarian becomes authoritarian in its means to achieve the goals. Guess the line should be drawn at "live and let live" imo.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Why is furry porn okay? I have enjoyed furry porn for a long time but have come reasons as to why I should doubt why it should be fine due to a recent experience. I would like your opinions as to why it’s fine and why it wouldn’t lead to something like zoophilia, thanks :)
People seem to (erroneously) assume that if someone likes something in ANY art, NSFW or otherwise, then they must also enjoy it in real life.
I love old, historical art pieces, especially ones with weapons in use. I once did a research paper detailing weapons in art, and the way their portrayal evolved over time. Just because I very much enjoy that kind of art, that doesn't mean I want to actually hurt or kill anyone in real life.
In the same regards, I have some kinks in furry art, that are ESPECIALLY bad in real life, like non-con. As a victim of SA myself, I absolutely abhor it in real life.
It is one thing to understand the morality of actions and their consequences and that works of fiction are not real, but folks also have to understand that works of pure fiction don't necessarily have to follow these same points of morality that we have in our day-to-day lives.
I'm not gonna ostracize someone for liking bestiality in artwork and works of fiction. If it crosses that threshold into real life, that's when I will have a problem.
kadachi-kun said:
Care to elaborate?
Sure, basically some guy talked about how it’s reprehensible to depict any character with animal traits (so anthros or anything like it I guess) in a sexual way and cited statistics like zoophiles being more “prevalent” in the furry community and such. Also said that stuff involving anything to do with (fictional) sex having much more of an impact on people than something else like fictional violence or whatever.
Guy was saying that this sort of content would influence people to harm animals irl, because it’s “different” to other fictional content, I don’t really think this is true but I’m having a hard time shaking off my doubts, it really sucks tbh. I know I’m never going to do anything but I suppose my mind wanders to other peoples, but I can’t say for sure. I don’t know why this affected me so much but I’d like to move on from it at this point.
I’d say it’s bullshit due to how much modern media that depicts animal-like characters having attractive features or even just being able to have an anthro character have sex in games (elder scrolls, baldurs gate 3 etc). Never heard of anything being wrong with that, y’know?
cosmalxiezhi said:
Sure, basically some guy talked about how it’s reprehensible to depict any character with animal traits (so anthros or anything like it I guess) in a sexual way and cited statistics like zoophiles being more “prevalent” in the furry community and such. Also said that stuff involving anything to do with (fictional) sex having much more of an impact on people than something else like fictional violence or whatever.Guy was saying that this sort of content would influence people to harm animals irl, because it’s “different” to other fictional content, I don’t really think this is true but I’m having a hard time shaking off my doubts, it really sucks tbh. I know I’m never going to do anything but I suppose my mind wanders to other peoples, but I can’t say for sure. I don’t know why this affected me so much but I’d like to move on from it at this point.
I’d say it’s bullshit due to how much modern media that depicts animal-like characters having attractive features or even just being able to have an anthro character have sex in games (elder scrolls, baldurs gate 3 etc). Never heard of anything being wrong with that, y’know?
Should maybe mention this was some dude on reddit that I’m talking about.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Sure, basically some guy talked about how it’s reprehensible to depict any character with animal traits (so anthros or anything like it I guess) in a sexual way and cited statistics like zoophiles being more “prevalent” in the furry community and such. Also said that stuff involving anything to do with (fictional) sex having much more of an impact on people than something else like fictional violence or whatever.Guy was saying that this sort of content would influence people to harm animals irl, because it’s “different” to other fictional content, I don’t really think this is true but I’m having a hard time shaking off my doubts, it really sucks tbh. I know I’m never going to do anything but I suppose my mind wanders to other peoples, but I can’t say for sure. I don’t know why this affected me so much but I’d like to move on from it at this point.
post hoc ergo propter hoc, correlation ≠ causation.
there being more zoophiles in furry spaces (assuming that's true) does not mean that being in furry spaces would make someone more likely to be a zoophile.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Should maybe mention this was some dude on reddit that I’m talking about.
well, there's your problem.
I've been browsing yiff for over a decade and haven't found myself feel any sort of weird way towards animals, like it seems you have. Maybe it's bad; maybe real porn is bad. Maybe this is worse; maybe that's worse... who knows. Doesn't have a seemingly negative effect on me so I choose to use it when it suits me.
My vague assumption is that it's not a "doorway" to other interests for the vast majority of people who masturbate to it. At least any more than any other form of pornography is to unseemly pursuits
cosmalxiezhi said:
cited statistics like zoophiles being more “prevalent” in the furry community and such
That's true, but it's the other way around: Zoophiles like furry art because it's the closest widespread, legal porn to their sexual preference. As I said, you are not, and you won't become a zoophile for looking at furry porn.
Also, the very fact you worry to be a bad person is a good sign that you are not: bad person don't stress about being bad.
Updated
cosmalxiezhi said:
Should maybe mention this was some dude on reddit that I’m talking about.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Oh that's a wrap...
cosmalxiezhi said:
Guy was saying that this sort of content would influence people to harm animals irl
"Oh wow, Loona is kinda hot! Guess I'll go rape my neighbor's dog!"
...said no one ever.
cosmalxiezhi said:
[...S]ome guy talked about how it’s reprehensible to depict any character with animal traits [...] in a sexual way[...] Also said that stuff involving anything to do with (fictional) sex having much more of an impact on people than something else like fictional violence or whatever.
That's a hilarious distinction to draw, cuz there's a long-running tradition of people who similarly have no idea what they are talking about saying violence in interactive media is "different" than violence in non-interactive media in a way that makes people into murderers... and also a sect that says they aren't different & all violence in media makes people violent. It's the exact same thing, different target... with the same lack of supporting evidence.
cosmalxiezhi said:
I have enjoyed this content for a long time without issue but what about other people? [...] I suppose I just want reassurance that I’m not a bad person propagating zoophilial behaviors overall...
Even if there was some evidence that one causes the other (which, to reiterate, I sure haven't seen any), in no way does that mean an individual consumer holds responsibility for the actions of others. Just like with the firestorm over the Columbine shooters playing Doom, that doesn't mean you're culpable for enjoying something a monster enjoys. I don't find it reasonable to hold id Software or the scores of Doom fans who miraculously /s managed to go through life without killing or even harming another human being responsible for Columbine, & I likewise have trouble seeing cause to feel shame because some other furry's detestable actions.
At most, I'd argue these things serve to make these individuals aware of their pre-existing predilections; if they instead created them, you think there'd be an overall increase in violent crime & bestiality that can be easily & directly tied to the increasing popularity, acceptance, & volume of violent video games & pornographic furry art, respectively. In fact, you can make such claims about gender identity & sexual orientation, but again, the explanation for the correlation isn't that it changes them to feel that way, it's that this makes such individuals more likely to discover these things about themselves & feel comfortable telling others about it.
In that sense, it could even be argued it's an overall boon to society; if idiotic zoophiles feel comfortable self-reporting (directly or indirectly) on their predilections towards IRL animals because they think others who enjoy feral art hold the same desires, then that makes it easier to protect animals from being exposed to these individuals, & better enables law enforcement to apprehend these individuals when it's too late.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Sure, basically some guy talked about how it’s reprehensible to depict any character with animal traits (so anthros or anything like it I guess) in a sexual way and cited statistics like zoophiles being more “prevalent” in the furry community and such.
cosmalxiezhi said:
Should maybe mention this was some dude on reddit that I’m talking about.
Reddit is not a reliable source for information since it is mostly an echo chamber that can lean to one side of an extreme or the other.
Plus, people can pull things out of their asses, hit you with the "Source: trust me bro", and still gets hundred of upvotes because they appear to have the moral high-ground.
If you really want to be objective about it, hear from the people who actually did the research.
For example, Furscience's A Decade of Psychological Research on the Furry Fandom (2023).
Book Chapter Excerpt
Fetishes: Zoophilia
The question of whether furries are sexually attracted to animals is, in
essence, a question about a specific fetish—zoophilia. It makes sense why, at
least at first glance, a layperson might suspect that furries would be sexually
attracted to non-human animals: seeing pin-ups of characters with animal
ears, tails, muzzles, and genitals, coupled with the fact that furries are, as
we’ve seen, fairly open about discussing their sexual interests, might lead
some to assume that furries are more likely than the average person to show
an interest in zoophilia. Indeed, even academics who study zoophilia, but
who have relatively little expertise on the furry fandom, have suggested that
furries may be connected to zoophilia (Zidenberg, 2021).
To contextualize these findings, let’s first look at how common various
kinks and fetishes are within the furry fandom. In the same 2019 study
above, we also asked furries to indicate the extent to which they had more
than “just a little” interest in various unusual sexual behaviors. The most
common of these interests include attraction to non-human objects (e.g.,
shoes, panties; 42.7%), being watched by strangers (34.2%), non-sexual parts
of the body (e.g., feet; 26.6%), exposing oneself to others (26.0%), and being
insulted or humiliated by a partner (24.2%). And in a later, 2022 study of
both online and convention-going furries, we asked furries to indicate, based
on an open-ended list we gathered in an earlier study, the extent to which
they had at least somewhat of an interest in various kinks and fetishes. Some
of the most common results were: BDSM (65.6%), costumed sex (e.g.,
cosplay, outfits, fursuits; 54.2%), transformation (52.4%), impregnation
(49.6%), hypnosis / mind control (44.2%), pet play (43.2%), specific
materials / textures (e.g., leather; 40.1%), sizeplay (33.9%), humiliation
(32.1%), feet / shoes (29.5%), watersports (26.0%), vore (25.4%), inflation
/ expansion (21.5%), ageplay (13.3%), and yes, zoophilia (13.3%).
As the list above makes clear, zoophilia is far from the most common
paraphilia endorsed by furries, and is, in fact, endorsed by a relatively small
number of furries. For comparison, rates of zoophilia have been estimated, at
various points, to be between 2% and 8% of the general population (Baltieri,
2017; Kinsey et al., 1948; Hunt, 1974), although at least two caveats are
warranted in interpreting this data. First, it should be noted that in these
studies (unlike our own), the authors were assessing the frequency with
which people had actually engaged in sexual behaviors with animals, not the
extent of their attraction to fantasies of doing so—as such, they are likely be
underestimations, since many, if not most people who fantasize about doing
so may not act on this urge. Second, such studies were conducted in the
general public, a group who, as we’ve mentioned above, relative to furries,
are less inclined to be as open and honest about their sexual proclivities as
furries. For these reasons, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about
whether or not rates of zoophilia are meaningfully higher in the furry fandom
than they are in the general public.
It’s also worth noting that, despite furries’ openness and acceptance
toward sexuality in general and most kinks and fetishes specifically, there is
a strong stigma directed toward zoophiles within the furry fandom.
Whether this is because furries, due to their tendency to anthropomorphize
animals, may feel a greater sense of empathy toward animals and a greater
felt need to protect them, or whether it’s simply a matter of wanting to
distance or gatekeep those who embody a common stereotype about furries
remains to be seen in future research. However, we can, at present, see
themes of this discrimination in the open-ended responses of participants in
our studies who self-identify as zoophiles or as zoosexuals:
“I'm also zoosexual and many young furries frown upon that.”
“I'm also a non-practicing zoophile, and will remain so, unless the laws
change. The feral artwork is an excellent outlet, and means of managing
this deviancy. Unfortunately [,] the Fandom isn't so welcoming towards
that, and in many cases, outright hostile.”
“Pedophile, zoophile Furry art is a safe space to forever bury these under
layers of fantasy and separation from anything remotely real. At the same
time, ostracization from the discovery of my preferences is a constant
background fear behind the otherwise freeing experience of interacting
with a relatively open-minded community.”
“Furries are pretty bigoted against zoos, especially the younger
generations. Besides the general purity spiral already ongoing within the
younger groups of the fandom, and the already not too uncommon [sic]
negative human gut reflex against bestiality, there's also the fact that zoo
and furry have a lot of overlap, and this causes zoos in denial about
themselves as well as those who fear undue association to wish
zoosexuals just stopped existing. They verbalize this misguided wish with
hate speech, harassment, misinformation and just general cancel
culture.”
“Zoophile often leads to drama and controversy.”
“Being a zoo in furry spaces either means complete demonization or
complete acceptance based entirely on the people you surround yourself
with. There's very little in-between these days.”
“Yes, I am a zoophile. There are a number of furs who despise folks like
me. This is likely influenced by the zoosadism leaks a while back as well
as society's views in general. I am NOT a zoosadist. I am in love with my
dog. Why would I hurt her? Zoosadist and rapist are labels applied to me
without merit. So I have to keep this side of myself mostly hidden from
furs. Otherwise [,] I would likely be banned and ostracized from the few
furry spaces I do occupy.”
Taken together, the present data suggest that, despite the prevalence of a
wide range of kinks and fetishes in the furry fandom, zoophilia is highly
stigmatized by furries and, relatively speaking, comprises a fairly small
minority of furries. To this end, it would be factually incorrect to
characterize furries as people with a sexual attraction to non-human animals.
thegreatwolfgang said:
If you really want to be objective about it, hear from the people who actually did the research.
For example, Furscience's A Decade of Psychological Research on the Furry Fandom (2023).
I just want to say that I wouldn't really 100% trust FurScience's data to be representative of the entire furry community.
I think I've voiced my concerns about the quality of their data before on here. my main problem was the fact that all of their data was, as far as I could tell, exclusively con-goers at a handful of cons (con-goers who wanted to and had the time to fill out a survey, at that), so a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of furries. there's several anomalies that would seem to contradict what (I think) I know about the community, most obviously their findings on fursuit ownership stating that ~12% owned a full fursuit sounds absurd if you account for _all_ furries, and on fursona popularity horses/equines seem extremely underrepresented (also nearly every quadruped smaller than a cat and bats all being considered "rodents" is very strange).
dba_afish said:
I just want to say that I wouldn't really 100% trust FurScience's data to be representative of the entire furry community.
I don't believe they had explicitly made that claim of their research was representative of the entire furry community worldwide.
Sure, they may have used "the furry fandom" loosely throughout their research, but what other term could they use to describe the groups they had done their surveys on?
I think I've voiced my concerns about the quality of their data before on here. my main problem was the fact that all of their data was, as far as I could tell, exclusively con-goers at a handful of cons (con-goers who wanted to and had the time to fill out a survey, at that), so a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of furries.
I also believe that they do separate out results from con-going furries and online furries in the book (and their other studies) whenever relevant, with the data for the specific chapter above being mainly derived from a supposed 2022 online study they had done.
Granted, it does look a little dubious because they did not really cite or have released any actual published material or detailed statistics for that matter. Maybe it was merely data from an online survey?
I did some digging around on the website and they did release some supplementary information on the previous 2019 online study they did.
On the section for fetishes, they received 827 unique responses with the popularity for each fetish being mostly the same.
However, it does also lack behind in actually providing detailed statistics and demographic data.
there's several anomalies that would seem to contradict what (I think) I know about the community, most obviously their findings on fursuit ownership stating that ~12% owned a full fursuit sounds absurd if you account for _all_ furries, and on fursona popularity horses/equines seem extremely underrepresented (also nearly every quadruped smaller than a cat and bats all being considered "rodents" is very strange).
They were transparent about where they got their data from.
Fursuit Ownership
On fursuit ownership, the study they cited was the International Furry Survey: Summer 2011.
- Sample Size: "Our sample consisted of 1,761 furries and 179 non-furries."
- Sample Source: "In this survey, approximately 55% of our sample (N = 1,154) came from online sources (e.g. Wikifur, local furry forums, Flayrah, Furry News Network, etc…), while approximately 45% of our sample (N = 877) came from respondents at Anthrocon, 2011."
- Nationality: 75.1% (N = 1274) was from the US, with the remaining coming from 40 different countries outside the US.
- Furries who own fursuits: The results indicate that only about 10-15% of the furry fandom actually owns a (full) fursuit.
- If we assume 12% of ~2000 participants, it would be 240 fully-suited furries.
- This study would just show that 240 out of 2000 furries have fursuits and a majority of those furry respondents were from the US.
- Whether or not 2000 participants could be representative to the whole population of an unknown number of furries worldwide is up for debate.
Fursona Popularity
On fursona popularity, the main study they cited was the International Online Furry Survey: Winter 2011.
- Sample Size: "Our sample consisted of 4,338 furries and 485 non-furries."
- Sample Source: Online, with the majority being from FurAffinity for both furries and non-furries.
- Nationality: 66.97% were from the US.
- They also added the disclaimer: "It’s important to note that this should NOT be taken as indicative of the number of furries from each of these global areas: our survey was only in English (which would make it less likely to be answered in many countries), and we only initially targeted a North American population. As such, it is very likely that there are far more furries in non-North American countries than are portrayed here."
- Percentages: Horses are placed 17th (< 2%) in category for most popular fursona species.
- I guess this is debatable? Of note is that (a) horses would be what I assume to be pure horse breeds, (b) equines are not a category by themselves, with unicorns and donkeys being placed in other categories, and (c) it still outranks the entirety of aquatic (e.g., shark, orca, dolphin, etc.) and dinosaur species just to name a few arguably more popular species IMO.
- It is also worth noting is that Bronies/MLP only started to become popular around the late 2010 and early 2011, around the same time this study was conducted.
- On a separate note, they made this disclaimer for addressing the 'rodents' category: "Also note that this category breakdown is not meant to reflect biological taxonomy or cladistics, but instead is meant to be a close approximation of how groups of similar species “clustered” (e.g. the authors know that a wolverine and a badger are not “rodents”, but included them in with “small furry mammals” for ease of analysis)."
They also cited a second more-recent survey done on species popularity, the Summer 2020 Survey. However, the results are mostly the same, albeit with a much smaller sample.
- Sample Size: 559
- Sample Source: Online.
- Nationality: USA @ 34.9%, Canada @ 16.5%, China @ 11.1%, UK @ 9.1%, Germany @ 8.2%, Finland @ 4.5%, Australia @ 1.3%, France @ 1.3%, The Netherlands @ 1.3%, Portugal @ 1.1%.
- Percentage: Horse @ 1.1%, still overtaking sergals (0.9%), sharks (0.6%), gryphons (0.6%), snakes (0.6%), and dinosaurs (0.4%, the last in the category).
Furries are not even fake animals. They are human/animal hybrid beings that has traits from both species, essentially its own thing. The main appeal of furries is fantasy, something that is impossible in real life. The main reason why zoophilia is bad and illegal is because real life animals cannot consent, not because you like animal characteristics.
Updated
idontcare566 said:
Furries are not even fake animals. They are human/animal hybrid beings that has traits from both species, essentially its own thing. The main appeal of furries is fantasy, something that is impossible in real life. The main reason why zoophilia is bad and illegal is because real life animals cannot consent, not because you like animal characteristics.
Thing is, from what I've seen, many detractors don't actually buy this argument. In their view, the attraction to animal characteristics is inherently immoral regardless of context. They don't care about anthropomorphism/intelligence/consent. And they don't accept the "it's just fiction" argument either. They'll dismiss all this as "cope" and call you a zoophile regardless.
Unfortunately, not much can be done about this. Trying to debate these haters is a massive waste of time and energy since they have no genuine interest in hearing you out or reconsidering their point of view, and mocking them will only result in abuse and harassment.
Therefore, the best action is to just block and ignore. (And report, if they start making bona fide violent threats.)
Updated
Not that I am disagreeing the answers already posted in this thread, but I do want to call out the implicit bias associated with asking "Is it ok to do X" to a bunch people currently engaged in doing X. (For clarity, X is being a furry) That said, I do think basically every response I've read is well written and thought out enough that these implicit biases are accounted for.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Book Chapter Excerpt
To add to this, since the text doesn't dive too deep into the matter beyond acknowledging that Zoophiles are generally excluded from Furry spaces. Zoophilia is immoral due to animals being unable to provide informed consent. The same reason why Pedophilia is also immoral. A kid can say "yes", but they lack the ability to fully evaluate their decisions and the resulting consequences. Even if they were old enough to have some holistic understanding of the situation (e.g. 15/16/17), the sheer discrepancy in their ability to understand the situation compared to adults is why these latter years are still considered minors and have legal protections. In the case of Zoophilia, its even more clear cut as an animal explicitly cannot say yes/no and do not have any long term reasoning abilities. It's this ethical failing why Zoophiles are excluded from Furry spaces, not due to some arbitrary choice to otherize a group.
Furry art and media does not fail this ethical test as there is no second party. It's all fiction. Even feral art is not subject to this failing as there is no actual animal involved in the situation. It may be distasteful to some and can result in hostilities, but no real animal is being harmed. Same reason why you can legally shoot a guy in Call of Duty, but not real life.
kadachi-kun said:
Thing is, from what I've seen, many detractors don't actually buy this argument. In their view, the attraction to animal characteristics is inherently immoral regardless of context. They don't care about anthropomorphism/intelligence/consent. And they don't accept the "it's just fiction" argument either. They'll dismiss all this as "cope" and call you a zoophile regardless.Unfortunately, not much can be done about this. Trying to debate these haters is a massive waste of time and energy since they have no genuine interest in hearing you out or reconsidering their point of view, and mocking them will only result in abuse and harassment.
Therefore, the best action is to just block and ignore. (And report, if they start making bona fide violent threats.)
There are people who also believe being just gay or interracial dating is immoral and degenerate so I see their arguments as null and close-minded. I think many people outside the fandom tolerate anthro material online but most of them draw the line at feral. I have seen many people crushing on Nick Wilde and they're not even furries. Those haters that are concerned about the "ethics" of cartoon animals, especially when the characters are anthro just feels so stupid and pointless.
Updated
This thread is a really good read!
Some reading Music: Persona 5 Ost - The Days When My Mother Was There
If you like it and it's not hurting anyone than go for it!
There's as much of a connection to fluff and Z' as there is
to peeps who enjoy Mortal Kombat and peeps that tear peoples
heads off with a spinning kick. Poes are wacky online, don't
get drawn into their shenanigans unless you want too, Dood!
╹‿╹)