Made by @distempetor
I want to clarify that there's no right or wrong answer to the following because the dilemma isn't as black and white as people believe and that's the spirit of debate. Agreeing to disagree should be the way to go, not harassing, cancelling and labelling people as something they are not. It is childish and does no one any favours. Honestly the ones doing this are the same people who are high-minded moralists who get so focused on their own feelings that they believe anyone challenging their opinions is the scum of the earth.
Terminology explained:
In the eyes of furries against ‘feral porn’:
Feral: An animal shaped character that exhibits human characteristics like intelligence and sapience. But shouldn’t be sexualised for some reason.
Anthro: An animal character with a humanised body. Has human sapience and intelligence.
In my eyes:
Feral: A realistic and life-like depiction of an animal that lacks all anthropomorphic qualities. Behaves like the animal it depicts. Can’t convey human emotions or thought.
Zoomorphic: An animal shaped character that exhibits human characteristics like intelligence and sapience.
Anthropomorphic: An animal character with a humanised body. Has human sapience and intelligence.
By definition, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic are both anthropomorphic.
For the sake of clarity, the terms used below will be the former.
Beginnings
So I had some time to beat a dead horse as I've been so called ‘exposed’ as being a nasty deplorable freaky person and I'm interested in letting my views out because everyone is hellbent on curbstomping me and my arguments to the core.
So that I don't have to explain my reasoning every time, I've compiled this wall of text. This is not a comprehensive essay as the subject could go way deeper.
Where does one draw the line when creating porn of fictional characters? The issue anti-ferals like to bring up is the issue of consent. In fact, that and ‘sexualisation’ of animal anatomy is the entire reason they have a problem with it in the first place.
To make things clear, my feral characters can consent. My characters are fictional, of-adult age, some wear clothes and have the cognitive ability and intelligence of humans, therefore legally they can consent. (Technically speaking, my characters are by definition, anthro as they exhibit human characteristics and behaviour. But we all know that they are referring to feral porn as porn of animal-shaped characters.) But I really don't care about consent in my art as some of my characters are 'wild' dinosaurs. Gore, rape and murder art also features an unconsenting character so consent is the least of my worries.
For clarity's sake, the following food for thought are targeted towards those who believe that only some kinds of furry porn are bad and others good. (In order to challenge their mentality and give them something to think about).
Is all furry porn zoophilic?
Yes and no. Furry porn is zoophilic by the same definition that murder/gore art is violent, or corpses in a sexual context is necrophilic. The terms describe the art’s qualities, not the artist’s morals and values. It’s simply taboo art; art that isn’t illegal to view or create and isn’t socially acceptable. That’s the nature of such art. It’s unfair to label one group of artists as degenerate without labelling all artists of all taboo art degenerates. That would be hypocritical. The artist of ‘zoophilic’ art isn’t necessarily a zoophile as is a guro artist a sadist. What about dysmorphic asexuals who are repulsed by human bodies? Would they not have the right to depict their animal character in the way that makes them comfortable? What about sexually traumatised people that can only find comfort in porn that barely resembles humanised bodies? Is it fair to call them zoophiles?
Feral porn is wrong because the characters are animal shaped.
Why does body shape matter in the first place? Anthro furry porn is still around 75% animal. Feral porn just happens to be 100% animal shaped. And by ‘animal shaped’ I mean solely to do with body type, excluding human sapience, colour and behaviour. Anthro furries are by definition, over 50% animal. If less than 50% then they are humans with animal traits, not animals with human traits. So whether you like it or not, anthro furries are still animals, just like ferals.
(Yes i know humans are animals stop pointing that out)
(Considering the Spyro legends franchise: why can the bipedal elder dragons be sexualised but Spyro and Cynder can’t solely because they are quadrupedal? Very stupid logic. Both types can consent. Same scenario with TLK, Simba and Timon are differently shaped yet have the same intelligence and sapience. )
But feral porn is different as it turns zoophiles on!
Zoophiles are into all kinds of furry porn, feral or not. You can’t keep only one kind of art zoophiles like and ban the other. The sensible thing is to ban all of it if you are truly concerned about making zoophiles horny.
But it’s not zoophilic if it’s 75% animal since it’s not fully animal.
Why is that any better? It’s ‘less zoophilic’ but zoophilic nonetheless. Replace the word ‘animal’ with child and see how you now sound like a pedophile. ‘Oh but it’s not pedophilic if it’s only 75% child since it’s not fully a child.’ Not a good argument. It's still porn of an animal.
Ok, but is it not better to make furry porn that is less than 100% animal?
Still doesn’t change the overall ‘zoophilic’ label. If you are so concerned over this, why support furry porn at all? You can argue all day that 100% animal is horrible zoo bait but there are characters that are 90% animal shaped that you take no issue with. Take Brian Griffin, Nick Wilde from zootopia or Timon from TLK. The only ‘human body’ trait they have is being bipedal. Clearly a minor human trait that constitutes to only around 10% but still enough that anti-ferals regard it as non-zoophilic. They are all still 90% animal shaped. The majority of people against feral porn believe that porn of these characters isn’t zoophilic just because they are bipedal, despite the characters being over 90% animal. It’s still an animal. It just has human traits. Sometimes, I see people freak out over and call feral porn of animals that barely resemble their real life counterpart (like sparkle dogs, MLP ponies or most pokemon) zoophilic, but act chill over porn of anthros that do a much better job at resembling their real life counterpart than the feral ones, like anthros with hyper realistic dog heads sucking human dick. And Brian Griffin is quite literally a pet, but is ok to sexualise according to anti-feral's logic.
Well it’s also not zoophilic because they can hold stuff, drive and wear clothes!
I hate to break it to you but in the grand majority of instances, feral characters can do the same exact thing no problem. Take for example, the ponies from MLP, they can do practically everything a human can do. Why is this even an argument?
But it's an anthro therefore it is 100% ethical.
Where do you stand on let's just say, gorilla porn? If feral porn antis take issue with feral porn because the animal isn't ‘anthro shaped’ then what can they say about gorilla porn? Afterall, gorillas and most primates have what you could call an ‘anthro’ form in reality. How does one make ethical ‘anthro’ gorilla porn when gorillas are already anthro?
(I could easily trace this image over (or use it as a reference) using one of my ‘anthro’ characters and no one would bat an eyelid.)
Same scenario here.
Ok let's expand the bracket a little, what about human relatives? How far back the lineage do we go until it is ‘unethical’ to create porn of? What if there was a distinct species that looked entirely human, form and all, but lacked the sapience? Surely if your fursona was one of these beings then sexualising them should be ok right? Would porn of these creatures be classed as feral or anthro porn according to them? I also see furries (generally the anti-feral kind) that simp for a feral character and turn them bipedal just to draw porn of them and suddenly it's ok. Isn't that the same argument people use for porn of aged up canonically child characters? I wonder what anti-ferals think of that? Surely they should stand against this too?
But feral porn sexualises animal genitals and animal shaped bodies!
Exactly why it’s all ‘zoophilic’ art, well done in spotting that.
Those opposed to feral porn argue that it’s what is depicted (animal body in a sexual manner) that makes it zoophilic and wrong, but riddle me this: What do anti-ferals think about an anthro wolf head sucking dick?
Would they try to argue in favour of it using comparable arguments I'm proposing, like ‘they have an anthro shape so that makes it ok’. If you erase the bodies and leave only the head and dick, how do we know if the piece depicted anthro or feral characters?? A wolf head sucking dick is still a wolf head sucking dick, no matter the type of character. What is left sounds quite zoophilic to them, does it not? Where do they draw the line?
And don’t forget about anthros with very realistic animal heads. Why is it sucking dick (very realistic animal head sucking dick btw) not zoophilic just because it has a human body?
What about dog heads with ‘fuck-me eyes’ (think of that one scene of Nala from TLK) or ahego faces? That's still sexualising a lion face is it not? Once again, where do we draw the line? Do we need to make a furry porn no-no bible? This is a clear depiction of inconsistency in anti-feral beliefs and it really annoys me just how hypocritical they are.
At least some think a step ahead and go against art of anthros with non-human genitals so I can applaud their consistency in morals. If only they applied this rationale to the point above… (Baffles me that they only take issue with sexualising animal genitals but not other animal parts used in that way too)
Now apply your logic to maws, paws, tails etc etc. These features exist in both ferals and anthros, don’t forget this. It’s still zoophilic if a paw jerks off a dick (no matter if the character is anthro or feral) the same way it’s pedophilic if a toddler hand jerks off a dick. It still sexualises animal parts, therefore it’s still zoophilic no matter what route you go down.
But feral porn still normalises beastiality!
And gore art normalises murder and necrophilic art normalises necrophilia and video games normalise violence and BDSM normalises rape. Unless you are very immature or have severe mental impairments where your brain blurs the line between fiction and reality, this shouldn’t be a problem to you. Why is fiction only bad if you don’t like it? Plenty of anti-ferals draw gore art so would it be fair to tell them they are normalising violence?
Does that make me a zoophile to draw and support furry porn?
Not unless you are one. Drawing gore or torture art doesn’t make you a murderer or a violent person the same way zoophilic art doesn’t make you a zoophile. Art is just art, the grand majority of time it doesn’t represent the artist's morals or values.
Consider this: art of a colourful dog being gutted is a-okay but art of the same dog with a cock isn’t. So the porn art is ‘proof that the artist is a zoophile and dangerous to animals’, but the art of the dog with guts hanging out doesn’t mean the artist wants to kill animals? Huh? Where’s the consistency in logic?
Well, paleoartists and zoologists don’t make zoophilic art because it’s ‘scientific’.
This one’s an interesting argument because there is a lot of nuance to this. For example, safari videos and photos of animals mating aren't classed as zoophilia but there’s a real chance a zoophile could get off to it.
When I first found this image out of context, I had no idea that it was supposed to be ‘feral furry porn’ and not just a paleoartist’s depiction.
(By https://www.furaffinity.net/user/technesaurus)
A furry seeing this image on a furry site will see it as furry porn (usually), but a paleontologist seeing it on an art gallery display may not see it in a sexual manner. In reality, the drawing was intended to be ‘porn’, not a ‘depiction of nature’ (or could be both technically, i’m not the artist so i don't know.).
So if an anti-feral sees this out of context and decides that it isn’t meant to be porn therefore is fine, why is it suddenly ok to them? Just because it looks ‘educational’? What difference would it make if it was intended to be porn or not? Would they still stand by their claim if they found out the true context behind the art?
And why do they turn around and tell me that my dragons fucking is much much worse? Especially when my dragons can actually consent, have sapience, display human emotion, talk etc etc. My dragon porn is 100 times more anthro and human-like than dinosaur porn yet my porn is the problematic version??? Shouldn't they be condemning all art like this to stay consistent? (And calling the paleoartist a zoophile as well haha). See how ambiguous this can get?
What about sexualising robots and vehicles?
Believe it or not I’ve seen people draw sexualised planes. They appear to have a feral looking anatomy but ARE NOT animals. I’m super curious on what anti-ferals think about this. After all, they aren’t shaped like humans and honestly look more like animals.
Here’s a textbook example:
At least some think a step ahead and go against art of anthros with non-human genitals so I can applaud their consistency in morals. If only they applied this rationale to the point above… (Baffles me that they only take issue with sexualising animal genitals but not other animal parts used in that way too)
Now apply your logic to maws, paws, tails etc etc. These features exist in both ferals and anthros, don’t forget this. It’s still zoophilic if a paw jerks off a dick (no matter if the character is anthro or feral) the same way it’s pedophilic if a toddler hand jerks off a dick. It still sexualises animal parts, therefore it’s still zoophilic no matter what route you go down.
But feral porn still normalises beastiality!
And gore art normalises murder and necrophilic art normalises necrophilia and video games normalise violence and BDSM normalises rape. Unless you are very immature or have severe mental impairments where your brain blurs the line between fiction and reality, this shouldn’t be a problem to you. Why is fiction only bad if you don’t like it? Plenty of anti-ferals draw gore art so would it be fair to tell them they are normalising violence?
Does that make me a zoophile to draw and support furry porn?
Not unless you are one. Drawing gore or torture art doesn’t make you a murderer or a violent person the same way zoophilic art doesn’t make you a zoophile. Art is just art, the grand majority of time it doesn’t represent the artist's morals or values.
Consider this: art of a colourful dog being gutted is a-okay but art of the same dog with a cock isn’t. So the porn art is ‘proof that the artist is a zoophile and dangerous to animals’, but the art of the dog with guts hanging out doesn’t mean the artist wants to kill animals? Huh? Where’s the consistency in logic?
Well, paleoartists and zoologists don’t make zoophilic art because it’s ‘scientific’.
This one’s an interesting argument because there is a lot of nuance to this. For example, safari videos and photos of animals mating aren't classed as zoophilia but there’s a real chance a zoophile could get off to it.
When I first found this image out of context, I had no idea that it was supposed to be ‘feral furry porn’ and not just a paleoartist’s depiction.
(By https://www.furaffinity.net/user/technesaurus)
A furry seeing this image on a furry site will see it as furry porn (usually), but a paleontologist seeing it on an art gallery display may not see it in a sexual manner. In reality, the drawing was intended to be ‘porn’, not a ‘depiction of nature’ (or could be both technically, i’m not the artist so i don't know.).
So if an anti-feral sees this out of context and decides that it isn’t meant to be porn therefore is fine, why is it suddenly ok to them? Just because it looks ‘educational’? What difference would it make if it was intended to be porn or not? Would they still stand by their claim if they found out the true context behind the art?
And why do they turn around and tell me that my dragons fucking is much much worse? Especially when my dragons can actually consent, have sapience, display human emotion, talk etc etc. My dragon porn is 100 times more anthro and human-like than dinosaur porn yet my porn is the problematic version??? Shouldn't they be condemning all art like this to stay consistent? (And calling the paleoartist a zoophile as well haha). See how ambiguous this can get?
What about sexualising robots and vehicles?
Believe it or not I’ve seen people draw sexualised planes. They appear to have a feral looking anatomy but ARE NOT animals. I’m super curious on what anti-ferals think about this. After all, they aren’t shaped like humans and honestly look more like animals.
Here’s a textbook example:
https://www.furaffinity.net/user/aetos/
These planes are non-anthro and aren’t even animals, yet look very feral.
Conclusions
So now that you might believe that all furry porn is zoophilic, would you call the entire furry fandom zoophiles? I'm sure they would be very happy with you. You see how that is going full circle back to anti-furry sentiment. Repeating myself again: see how easy it is for me to find all these inconsistencies?
By the way, I’m not arguing that furry porn harmful or that zoophilia is ok (if your reading comprehension is really bad, you might believe that I'm arguing in favour of beastiality), because frankly I don’t care. I only care if you go around hurting actual animals and jerking it to beastiality photos/videos.
But I'm also not trying to say that all furry porn isn’t weird, it is weird, especially to those outside the fandom.
And this is exactly why it’s useless to delve deep into this whole ethical dilemma due to so many grey areas and nuances. And there is absolutely no reason to go around making bewares about people ESPECIALLY when this topic is very nuanced. Stop letting your emotions cloud your logic.
Still feel weird around feral porn? Cool, we have the right to opinions, just don't go around calling those that do, morally inferior zoophiles. Still not a fan of your reasoning though.
Extras:
Comments
Post a Comment