that was a really really well typed out explanation of thoughts. I know this topic is a really hard one to navigate sometimes, but you made yourself so clear.

When it comes to beastiality and zoo i agree 100 percent with you.

i kinda dont know how to convey my own thoughts on the matter, but i really like what you had to say and it very much made my own brain turn on the thoughts. So thank you for that

I am a Furry, but one that just loves unique designs that aren't a copy-paste of a Elf, Neko or something else. I do not find animals in real-life appealing unless they're a juicy steak on my plate next to a pile of potatoes~

I think Zoophilia is a crime and abuse toward the animal, it causes anxiety and fear in the animal. They are not the same as Humans and require more protection from people who wish to sexually abuse them.

An image is an image, but actually finding an animal attractive and wanting to act on that is just wrong. But that's my personal view as someone who has been a voice for Animal Rights and Protection since I was a child. ^^

I personally look at it this way.
Is the creature able to know, understand, consent, or deny based on their own thoughts and express these thoughts in some manner to other creatures? Or are they literally just a normal everyday animal?
A character like Mr.Ed the Horse is able to talk, argue, and have his own opinions on things... Sure he's not anthro, he is just a horse physically. However if you were to ask him for NSFW things he could say yes or no based on his opinions.
Regular horses are smart and understand commands and form bonds with people ...but you can't ask them for NSFW stuff and expect an answer. They can't express complex opinions.
For me that's what separates a "Feral" from a "Non-Anthro". A beast from something that has a sense of person.

Edited to add - This of course means IRL stuff is off the table because while Humans are animals... we have more complex thoughts and it's not fair to assume your pet is cool with it just because they don't protest. I know they may to the same with others of their kind but there is a difference in intent.

if anatomically correct furry nsfw *is not* considered zoophilia, then what is it?

Thats exactly what it is.....*Anatomical Correctness*. If Im hopefully not Misunderstanding the Question.
When you get down to it, and be honest and straight-foreword with it, its just retaining the original form mimic'd from IRL.
Zoology: : Knowing Mating Habits and Junk Details has Zero Baring on Zoophilia. Unless you are seeking such Content as "Finger-Bait Material"
But I also just kinda view it as, "Its not Human. So I cant ""Expect"" it to have Human Junk." But of course we still do it as a Design Choice, because LOL, its not real, so it doesn't Really Matter.

You know my Additional Thoughts over in the Group.

I totally get this POV too, which is why I said I believe it's more of a "byproduct" of being a furry than anything - it just goes along well with what a furry character already is, and just so happens to also be inspired by real animals.
But then you actually think of the implications of that, and conversations like this are born!
But I totally get seeing it as an aesthetics thing that you don't have any desire to complicate with morality. That's totally valid.

good words. my personal line is pretty clear between sexual fixation on real animals and erotica of fiction like... idk dragons, werewolves, whatever sentient fantasy creature. ive been in the furry fandom long enough that you kind of learn the tells people leave online when they take things too far and fixate on actual animals. like i hate scrolling thru furry twitter and happening upon someone who takes photos of animals rear ends and genitals at the zoo. its fucking weird lmao. a lot of zoophiles hide out of shame, but theres a lot who are just really crazy and fully into their delusions that animals can consent, and thats how you get people out here swearing up and down that their pets can consent to being molested and abuse

ive seen pets that are survivors of sexual abuse. its terrible, they suffer mentally and physically and in some cases the hurt is so extreme that they cant be rehabilitated. and it really fucks me up that some people just choose to ignore that and say with certainty that the animals asked for it. wanted it. whatever

i dont think its Wrong necessarily that we want to fit weird shapes in our holes and want sensations and pleasure. making weird dildos and porn isnt automatically evil. but somewhere i think wires got crossed and then you get some people in the fandom who make dildos by doing real life cast molds of animals genitals and runaway anthropomorphism of serious real world consequences believing that a dogs natural impulse to hump you means that its definitely a good idea and wont hurt them to sexually abuse them. idk

This is a really good take and I feel the same way.

I think practicing zoophiles largely neglect to mention how badly this kind of abuse harms animals who’ve experienced it. There’s no ‘consent’ that they can give and their altered maladaptive behaviors are proof of such. Animals can be traumatized, too.

like i know plenty of people love porn involving parts being too big but like. for a real animal being sexually abused thats an actual issue of harm. you can legitimately seriously physically harm an animal by sexually abusing them. idc if its human or animal, rape hurts mentally AND physically

Exactly.

I appreciate this response so much!

"you kind of learn the tells people leave online when they take things too far and fixate on actual animals"

Absolutely. I've read hundreds of profiles, seen all kinds of people from all walks of life and watched how they interact with the nsfw side of the fandom in different ways. 9/10 people who enjoy bestiality will never out themselves publicly in any way because they have just enough basic social awareness not to, but that doesn't mean they don't still, and that they have no red flags.

This is why I have an issue with people firmly standing in the "it's all just art and fantasy and does no harm" argument. They're ignoring the red flags and the reality of these things in favor of protecting their own ability to enjoy whatever they want consequence free, basically. That's what it seems to boil down to.


Totally agree with all of that! Weirdness, taboo and the unconventional doesn't have to mean evil and immoral, so long as we're actually being honest about our intentions and HOLDING EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE which is furry challenge: level impossible.

i think this is something a lot of younger furries miss when they lump together a really wide net for bestiality that includes nonhuman genitals and fictional characters along with real depictions of abuse. a lot of them dont have the years of experience older furries have had in the fandom and recognizing signs. its good to be wary and alert, but when youre young and reactionary its really easy to get swept up into excessive alarmism too

in the end its too black and white to just say "fiction doesnt equal reality" or "fiction affects reality" 100% of the time because BOTH are ultimately true, in different contexts and scenarios. jaws as a fictional movie had a huge impact on how people viewed real sharks and hurt many species in reality. but i could also say my vore fetish has never hurt anyone and the very idea of murdering someone and eating them is obviously out of the question an evil act, im not stupid. you really have to look at the bigger picture and use critical thinking skills to suss out each answer. an adult who is into furries or childrens cartoons wont automatically be a sexual predator but you should always look out for red flags anyways because sometimes, someone will be a predator. its an endless topic, youll just always have to assess individual situations. thats fucking life

Yesssssss. All of the yes.

I think this is a very good and nuanced take. It's hard because I am all for fantasy is fantasy, but you are right there are people who do awful things who can blend into that space. If you're into fantasy things and depictions, it makes sense that the people who are into it in real life will also plant themselves in thst group...

It's one of those things that's hard to find a way to address it other than not engaging at all or being hyper aware and critical of the people who join. It's unfortunate, because there's so many fun things to draw and explore that can attract bad people with nefarious intentions. It begets the question of whether it's acceptable to draw anything that can easily attract awful people.

And I'd rather in this case be able to explore what I want in fantasy and just try to remove bad faith actors where I can. It's a hard pill to swallow, for sure. I wish it was easier to just be able to do that and not worry about those people! One could argue it's selfish, and I can't really disagree with that. But I just want to be able to do what I'd like at the end of the day, just like everyone else, while trying my best to make sure I am aware of and critical of those who aren't just liking the fantasy aspect.

THis. This. This.
Put better than I could, much obliged.

I believe there's also something to be said about how bestiality correlates to other unethical tactics with animals. The way they artificially inseminate cows by working their whole arm into its ass to stimulate it can't be seen as something simply "for work" for the cow. It likely becomes more traumatizing if the resulting calf is sent away to be turned into a steak. This is all to say bestiality will always be abusive. There's no positive ethics involved in the practice.

As for zoophilia, that line with furry art constantly remains blurry, but with the fantasy of unfiltered sexuality, there would eventually come the inclusion of animal behavior, and that's a fair connection to make. It's more about the escape from a system of rules that humanity has built to one where ideas and beliefs can be explored. It's why I say that it's both a lie and the truth to say "furry fandom is all about sex."

I think this is a really good read on it. My personal line is pretty similar. I really don’t mind drawing ‘feral’ art of monsters, dragons, etc. that are capable of consent even if they are animalistic in appearance.

The issue for me is creating and/or consuming content that closely resembles common victims of real-life animal abuse. Certainly, a Doberman who could talk would pass the Harkness test, but porn of it still would undeniably attract to those who abuse animals IRL. I don’t want to take commissions from folks that would encourage people like that to follow me. I believe it crosses an ethical line.

It’s the same with loli/shota for me. Sure, this character may canonically be 40,000 year old fey-being that just happens to look like a prepubescent girl, but that doesn’t mean NSFW content of her looks any less like child exploitation material.

I think the human fascination with animals and inserting ourselves into nonhuman personas is totally fine, and most lines on NSFW content of it will be largely arbitrary depending on the person. But your document is a really great explanation and viewpoint and I’m happy you spoke up.

very well writen, thank you.

Honestly I think all furry porn is inheritantly zoophillic in its own way, because at any point you look at furry porn, you are attracted to at least some part of an animal. But someone made the point to me that if the attraction to the animal only begins at anthropomorphism (the portrayed of human personality or characteristics) then it can't technically be classified as zoophilic in nature. It's a fine line when put that way, but as furries are, they block you over everything if your opinion on something doesn't line up with theirs so really it's just in the eye of the beholder. Personally for me, there's a huge difference between being attracted to an animal (zoophilia) and wanting to fuck said animal (beastiality) and I draw the line when someone wants to physically touch an animal sexual in any way, which is why I also find HumanXferal nasty.

I don't have an X account anymore, so I never saw the vid, thankfully. And it's funny, I've been called a zoo, myself, just for BEING a furry, and my comeback that has always shut the accusers up was "my sona's fictional, how am I zoo?" Lol. It's even more hillarious to me when they try to come back with "YoU jUsT aRe," and I respond back with "that's like saying MLK is racist with no evidence and the only thing you can say is 'he just is,' because your word is all you have without evidence." Shuts them up right quick as they then try to delve further into personal insults xD

I think you're kinda missing my point, respectfully! Or didn't read the doc I shared

No, that's largely my experience from irl, and what I responded. I'm not necessarily detracting from what you said versus adding additional info from personal experience. And you're also not wrong, I've still yet to read the doc you shared largely because of real life obligations around the house here and with fam.

I don't understand why you'd respond to something without reading it 😭 it's not adding anything.

I have a very simple philosophy

Art/creative works = fiction

Real life = real life

Very simple way of differentiating fiction and real life.

I agree with this!

And I fully understand not everyone feels that way or is comfortable with all depictions of fantasy. I think it's something at lot of artists and viewers struggle with, what is "okay" or not. And I think that's up to every individual person to draw their own lines and say what they are and are not okay with seeing, drawing, or viewing.

I think many people are interested in things in fantasy that they are not into in real life (for example, I am onto size difference of small female and large male, but in real life I don't/can't handle big things). It's fantasy, after all. It's not real. I can fantasize about or draw things that appeal to me without wanting or desiring the real experiences.

BUT I fully respect people who take a stance and say "yeah but it squicks me out/makes me uncomfortable/I don't want to see or engage with it." I think we are all entitled to curate our spaces and not force ourselves to be comfortable with things we don't want to see. I think furry fandom has a place for everyone, as long as we all are respectful of each other's fantasy material. Being supportive of fantasy (not talking about irl things, I agree there 100%) for others does not mean we have to be around it. And it's okay to step away from what we don't like while acknowledging others can like it without it being for us.

too true!!!! best summary 10/10 ^v^

I understand that this simplification is attractive, but it leaves the door open for ignoring a lot of red flags from people who are, behind the scenes, unabashedly partaking in and enjoying content of harmful and abusive paraphilias. Simplifying it like this justifies cub art as well, but if you're ok with defending that as well then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It's not my responsibility to control what people do with their imagination, even if it is what I can consider very gross and unappealing. While there are extremes out there in terms of fictional content such as cub, people are responsible for what they do with their own imaginations, not me.

I disagree in the same vein as pig here.
The "short, catchy, and stupid" rhetoric "Fantasy!=Reality" line exists completely to miss the point and strawman valid criticism of some content.
People that criticize fringe content are not accusing artists of being omnipotent beings that are summoning scenarios into reality. They are criticizing the acts of creating and sharing art that promotes, sexualizes, glorifies etc... heinous acts or ideas.

If a political cartoonist makes a shitty comic featuring a fictional scenario that presents a racist as an admirable aspirational character, this "work of art" clearly deserves scrutiny and condemnation.

It is painfully easy to take the stance of "it's fiction so it doesn't matter" because it absolves you of all self-reflection. But this ignores the reality of human psychology and the influence of media on our beliefs and behaviors.

I completely disagree with this view on things. Don't let us normalize zoophilia in the furry fandom.
Zoophiles are horrible people.

Most furries aren't into actual animals, they are in the not being human part. Into a fictional abstraction.

From my perspective I can say that IRL animal parts are disgusting and not sexually attractive. I am into an abstracted artistic version of them projected onto me and others, but not because I am into actual animals, but because I am into not being a human.

I will never identify as zoophile as it is actually defined and will boycott and call out anyone who does.

You can draw or not draw whatever you want (exceptions apply), but don't identify people as something they aren't because they draw or enjoy whatever art they want.

And what even is "anatomically correct" furry art? It's a very vague description.

But generally, furry art = furry art.

oh, of course I agree to the general anti-bestiality takes. I just strongly disagree to conflating furry nsfw art with it.

I believe you're agreeing with Sepia's statements more than you might realize (and which she explained very well already just below here).

She isn't attempting to normalize the term zoophile as relates to enjoyers of anatomically-correct genitalia in furry art. Also, she makes a clear distinction of where she feels the separation is in the document. I think with a revisitation you might find a lot in common. :)

I'm not trying to normalize something that's already very normalized in our fandom. It doesn't seem like you understood what I was trying to say here. I'm attempting to separate the idea of zoophilic attraction that's already accepted by most in the fandom (even if it's not called that for reasons I already explained) from actual bestiality, which I think can help all of us value transparency in our relationship to the sexual side of the fandom and be better for it. Not talking about this stuff or trying to turn it into a black and white issue, good vs evil, is what keeps people from learning, thinking critically, growing and improving.

Anatomically correct = non human genitalia.

The issue I have is that you seem to conflate non-human genitals with zoophilia. That is just wrong.

How is it wrong though?
What do you call a dog dick in art? Is it not a dog dick anymore because it's on an anthropomorphized dog?
Because it's art, does it make it any less animal anatomy? It doesn't, it still is what it is; a sexual depiction of real animal anatomy. You can't say it's just a completely fantasy creation separate from animals.
Which is what "zoophilia" means; a sexual attraction to animals. "Zoophilia" does NOT mean "a desire to rape animals" like you seem to believe it does. That's just not what the word has ever meant in its history.

Furry is non-sexual and sexual attraction / appreciation of anthropomorphic (this includes four legged / multi-limbed anthros) characters in sci-fi movies, cartoons, and TV. Not IRL animals. We are into a certain type of characters with animal features, not actual animals, even if we draw them with IRL inspired features. It isn't intrinsically zoophile, but what I would call "anthrophile" or "cryptophile". Or also, often Teratophilia. That's all fine terms. But we as a community refuse the label of zoophilia anywhere near our stuff. And the conflation of zoophilia and nsfw furry art hurts artists and consumers, if you realize it or not.

Drawn dog dicks are not real dog dicks. Did you ever see a real dog dick? They are not attractive in the slightest. I personally do not have any attraction to real life animals, and most do not either. It's the fantasy dick shape of non-existent anthropomorphic creatures that is attractive to most in certain context. Or the thought of being one. I can enjoy werewolves without enjoying actual wolves. I can enjoy sapient anime wolves without enjoying actual wolves. It's the FICTIONAL creatures most of us feel attracted to. We do not waste a single thought on IRL animals, in fact most drawings of animal genitals aren't even accurate, because IRL animal dicks look very ugly. I say this as someone who studied zoology and animal anatomy.

I personally can separate a fictional drawn dick from the real thing, like I know that people who draw gore aren't violent people either. Like, I know people who don't want human sex IRL but find human dicks drawn by the right person attractive.

I think it is wrong to conflate furry art with zoophilia, except if it actually actively glorifies zoophilia. And it's not good to just ignore the full definition of zoophilia, the thought or actual act of pursuing sexual activities with animals IRL.

All in all: Most furries and furry artists I know actively disagree with you on your characterization of consumers and producers of what you define as "anatomically correct" furry art. It also conflates aesthetic attractions in art and the numerous other reasons people are furries with the zoophilia which most people associate with people who want actual animal sex, not fictional one.

I get what you're saying, I really do. And I agree that it's not an attraction to an animal that leads us to find realistic anatomy on an anthro attractive. The two are very different entities, clearly. That's why the NSFW furry sphere is as big as it is; we all understand this and know that people who partake in bestiality are the outliers.

I appreciate that by calling NSFW furry "zoophilic", that you are thereby comparing the artistic elements/character to an actual animal *which is what the term is based off of, as it existed long before the concept of a fantasy animal-human being could exist for personal artistic enjoyment and roleplaying purposes*, which just doesn't have a clear "yes" or a "no" answer as to if that is 100% accurate or not.

"Zoophilic" does apply to NSFW furry attraction, in every way except for taking into account the animals' consciousness, but doesn't, because that is a huge part of what an animal *is*. That is why we don't typically call ourselves animals, because we possess that higher understanding of the world... Even though we humans ARE animals. I guess in a funny way, this "humans are animals" logic applies perfectly to this issue at large. Something that's usually ignored simply because it's easier and people typically want to think as little as possible about semantics, but is still the basis of truth, y'know? Something that's valuable to not just forget about because it's convenient and more comfortable.

Complex and nuanced thinking leads to the most growth, a better world for all of us, and I find a lot of value in that. That's why I've brought all of this up, not to upset anybody but to have an honest conversation and gather others' opinions on it, so I thank you for sharing yours and getting me to think even deeper.

I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I think it is worth considering that a lot of furry NSFW involves genitals that are inspired by the anatomy of real life animals in some way but have been stylized to such a degree that they may as well belong to a fantasy being. Like…the standard “knotted dog dick” you see most people draw—smooth curves, rounded knot, minimal veining—does not actually resemble any appendage on any living creature. I do not think that attraction to that kind of shape, which was mostly designed by humans to be appealing to humans, can or should be described as “zoophilic,” and I personally think this argument extends to a lot of anthro furry characters in general because they are so many layers of aesthetic abstraction away from a real animal.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/h7n2brmjr44wx2fyxvlgs/thoughts.rtf?rlkey=shn8njzzt0d82l53t5zo9mb6o&dl=0

Nah, won't show up unless I register an account, ah well...

Try just putting the post into twitter video downloaded and download the mp4

DISCLAIMER: This is me talking on things as I know of them now, and I do not know everything. If anything it is a ramble of thoughts that I know not everyone will agree with, which is fine. I am not here to really debate, just give my current opinion and thoughts on the matter, and in general.

---

A very nuanced topic tbh, but I think most things like this have to be. It also brings up a bunch of other things to think about as well when it comes to how we view things.

Paraphilias in general are still very new to being looked at compared to other things, that I know of, and I'm still learning about them myself in bits and pieces over time, so even professionals are not entirely sure where they come from or what exactly creates a paraphilia(born that way, environment during developmental stages, etc).

Much like other people in these comments, at this point in time, I have come to the conclusion that simply having a paraphilia is not the same as actually acting on the attraction. One is simply thoughts, the other is harmful actions. And as most people should agree with...

THOUGHT CRIMES DO NOT EXIST!

To start trying to police how people think is to say that anyone that has even a smidge of an unsavory thought is a dangerous criminal to those around them and that they should be punished and locked up, or worse, to keep others safe. Problem is, that includes those with intrusive thoughts, or ANY thoughts those in the place of power say are unsavory — like they're already trying to do with queer people and the whole trying to label the community as pedophiles and the like.

This kind of thinking nosedives right into the territory of fascism, declaring that people who don't fall into this box that you deem as "right" or "good" means they should be exterminated. That anyone that doesn't adhere to what you deem to be the only true pure way as lesser than human and so should not be treated as such.

This is also where I wish people would bring back the idea of a squick and not jump to directly accusing someone of something horrible or labeling them as something most would see as abhorrent and unforgivable. There of course will always be exceptions to this, and I am not asking for anyone to go out of their way to interact with those they wish to avoid. Your online space is yours to cater to your own preferences and for your own comfort and safety. It's not up to other people to police themselves for you so do what you need to and keep yourself safe.

A fact that I think a lot of people have to come to terms with is that even the worst person you know, is still human whether any of us want them to be or not. Which then brings in the thought that anyone can be bad, just as anyone can be good. Denying that you can be bad in itself makes you a bad person because you will not be able to see anything you do as harmful, etc, etc.

Paraphiles with any kind of paraphilia should be allowed to seek help without the fear of being shunned or imprisoned when they had no plan to act on their attraction. As mentioned above, even the worst person you know is still human, and so human rights still apply. The right to seek help for their mental health is just as much theirs as it is yours, etc, etc. Professionals, from what I understand, will help them to manage the attraction because it isn't something that can be "cured", that I know of. But because of the mindset that says attraction/thought automatically means action, most people who would seek help do not.

Neil Gaiman wrote an essay called Why defend freedom of icky speech which is an interesting read, and talks about how trying to censor things can easily lead to those in places of power using anything as a means to silence and get rid of those they don't like because, as Neil says:

"The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made."

I will stop the rambling there as it's kind of veered from the actual topic and more into surrounding things.

- - -

Back to being more on topic though, I am someone who likes the idea of things being correct anatomically. Not because of anything to do with attraction — I am asexual and really don't care about attraction to anyone or anything — but more because I just like biology and things that make sense to the creature. Including trying to figure out how such things would work on fantasy species by taking what I know of real creatures and creating something new. It's one of the reasons why it's kind of become a pet peeve that a lot of the fandom just shoves dog or horse dick onto anything and everything as if no other dick idea exists. LOL
That being said I'm not someone to go out of my way to tell others what to do because after all, it's fantasy and personal preference, and changing things up can be fun.

But because I like anatomical correctness on creatures — which isn't just about genitals either, I get just as prickly about things like people putting paw pads on rabbits, and lumping hyenas in with canines — a portion of the internet and people offline would equate me with being a zoophile, even if that's not the case at all.

There's also the entire thing that I have seen people bring up that, whether bipedal or quadrupedal, someone who is a zoophile will not care because it's the animal parts and appearance that they like. They are actively enjoying your bipedal furry nsfw just as much as the quadrupedal nsfw they come across because of the fact the characters are animals. Two legs, four legs, no legs, whatever, the fact it is not human is what they like.

- - -

I feel like I have typed more than needed, and also brain is fried from having to do math, so cannot think of anything else to add besides...

Brains are weird. How they work is weird. Humans are weird as well. They are more complicated than what everyone thinks they are, and we are still learning about shit as we go.

This. 100%.

Thank you for sharing this wonderful insight. You put it all so much more eloquently than I could and I really enjoyed reading it and agree with the majority of what you put here!

This is a complex topic, I can write a long text in personal messages, but in short - love for anthropomorphic ANIMALS in part, if a person came to furry exclusively for NSFW content - this is definitely latent bestiality, and in general this is already to a greater or lesser extent latent bestiality because furries, as characters, and not people, are anthropomorphic ANIMALS, this is one. Two - anatomically correct genitals, yes, this is more of a latent bestiality, BUT the context is important here. If a person orders such art because he considers a furry (which is true for me) as a humanoid ANIMAL and believes that such genitals are more accurate - then this is very distant bestiality, he may not even like the look of the genitals, but he believes that it would be more logical for the character to look this way. But if a person places the main emphasis on the genitals in order, so to speak, to legally look at a horse’s penis without more... judgmental glances, or something - then when he orders a character with similar genitals and thoughts, then this is where you really should be wary . Simply, I can also describe that the same ordinary centaurs may or may not be an object of bestiality - it all depends on the person and his thoughts. Well, above all, one thought - if latent bestiality and love for animal genitals does not develop into something real, then this can still be understood

That's a spooky journal title to see.
I've not heard of this video but I assume it will certainly cause me quite a lot of anxiety! Without reading into your doc or watching the video I suppose I'll mention my own stance-

I don't see fictional content as some magical thing that's completely disconnected from one's own desires. If you only like something in a fictional setting, you are still liking it in some capacity. I think that nsfw feral art is zoophilia, and that it's fine. If people are attracted to animals, cartoon or not, I think that's fine. It's how you act on those desires that matters, and I certainly think it's a much better idea to have furry art be the outlet than the alternative.

Hahaha I bet it was, it is scary to talk about these things in fear of being grouped in with abusive and unwell people just by association of talking about it but I feel I've explained my thoughts well enough to where if that still happens, it's fully not my fault.

But also I don't understand why you'd comment without reading what I've shared as it can't really add anything of value to this conversation otherwise.

I hope no hate crowds come to bully you over this, and that you never delete this journal or anything else over it. And my apologies for commenting without reading first, I figured it would be best to mention my stance without other thoughts influencing it. Also just anxiety I guess >v<

Sorry, I can't entertain justifying bestiality at all. Happy trails, hope your journey leads you to a healthier understanding of all of this but for now after presenting what I have and you still justifying, condoning it and also trying to guilt me/other readers into seeing bestiality as a benign misunderstood thing by dragging in a suicide story that's completely unrelated, I'm gonna have to block.

This stance hinges on the belief that a "consensual" sexual relationship can exist between real-world animals and people. While you focus on things like physical harm or force, you neglect entirely the coercive nature of that relationship. coercive sex is rape.
Does a child have a 'choice' if their parent makes sexual advances? no.
Does a slave have a 'choice' if their master makes sexual advances? no.
Does an animal have a 'choice' if the being that houses, feeds, and owns them makes sexual advances? no.
Generally speaking, all domestic animals learn the behavior "don't bite the hand that feeds you".
A person seeking and desiring a sexual relationship with an animal is clearly biased and not a reliable or trustworthy judge of the "body language" of that animal (not that body language is sufficient for consent anyways).
Repeat your statement "as long as the animals aren’t hurt, forced and abused it should be accepted" with
"as long as the children aren’t hurt, forced and abused it should be accepted"
You are unwittingly pedaling the idea that "forced" sex only occurs through physical force
And then, of course, there is the hopeless task of communicating consent (with absolute certainty) between species that do not even share an understanding of the concept of consent. Since I'm being brief and there are a million discussions about the later, I'll just leave you with the former questions for you to judge this belief you hold against your other beliefs. Question if they are logically consistent.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, as well as providing context
for the start of this conversation! I can see a lot of people coming in here
to discuss this perennially difficult topic! I salute your courage, as well!

I agree fully on the practice of bestiality:
even in the hypothetical events of such acts that bear no physical nor psychological harm,
the fact that animals have the social status only slightly higher than that of property,
there would never be an equal footing in a relationship like that, it would always
be exploitation and abuse.

On the pro-bestiality arguments:
The industrial meat complex argument is a nonsensical "two wrongs make a right" fallacy,
although it does condemn an industry that should be condemned.

The "animals can consent" line of thinking equates the sexual realities of humans and animals
in impossible ways. Animals can "consent" to mating in their own sexual context.
They can't consent to a sexual relationship in the human context.
You have discussed and explained that excellently in your article.

For the appreciation of animals in furry community, especially the erotic appreciation:
it would be better if we all owned up to the fact that sexual arousal is an automatic
response to certain stimuli, and animals are close enough to humans in anatomy
and behavior that our perceptive categories for the two overlap and intersect.
Historically and culturally, humans have always used animals to represent
exaggerated human virtues, physiological, emotional and spiritual,
and we have tried to emulate those, as well.

There is nothing out of the ordinary in looking at certain animals
and desiring to possess their admirable properties, or to enjoy them,
and the fictional representation of humans with animal attributes –
and I would argue that even "feral"/quadrupedal/animal-bodied characters
fundamentally remain people with some pleasing cosmetic alterations –
is a safe way of enjoying this fantasy.

It's important to note that attraction to animal people can rely on animal appearance
as a marker for the animal stereotype that is partially or completely made up
and culturally constructed, with the thematic associations
of wolves with violence and noble savagery,
of foxes with cunning, playfulness and flirtatious femininity,
of cats with (again) feminine grace and mercurial duality of affection and pettiness,
of dogs with loyalty, communality and energetic outdoorsmanship,
of deer with regal elegance, natural mystique and hunting culture,
of raptors with proud love of freedom and sharp-eyed vigilance,
of horses with physical power, fast travel and honest work
and so on, and so forth. Sometimes, we are attracted to person
with wolfish or avian vibe, style, affect, and the animal body
is just a way of conveying that specific personality aspect.

That said, there is the problem of "being too much into feral dogs":
as per the fabled Harkness Test, if the character shows communicative
and mental capabilities on par with that of a human, any concern
about copulating with them becomes moot, however, given that
1) there are no uplifted dogs and horses on Earth, and no dog or horse-shaped aliens; and
2) there *is* the criminal and harmful practice of sexually abusing dogs and similar animals
any depiction of "feral" furry characters of those high-contact and accessible species
being erotically engaged will always bear this uncomfortable ambiguity,
and it may be read as bestiality content by those who support
or even practice sexual animal abuse.

But "ambiguity" is not the final condemnation, and although your stated aversion
to depicting the species from that danger zone, if you make it clear enough
that your intentions and endorsements lie elsewhere, I think it's okay
to go wild while depicting talking animals "anatomically correct"
furries in sexual contexts, sure.

Important things to keep in mind for when the moral guardians come calling,
when you haven't ever done anything to deserve the blame
for normalizing or condoning animal abuse:

1) fiction is fiction; it can be interrogated and analyzed,
but forgetting of its intangible nature is a good way to drive oneself crazy;

2) attraction is not a moral category; no matter the object, the psycho-physiological response
to a certain image or a concept says nothing about the person –
but their attempts to advocate and launder for inherently
harmful practices, let along engaging in those practices,
may indeed paint them a certain way before the common morality and the law;

3) human sexuality is messy; we must work to avoid this messiness
translating into actual harm, but same as with fiction,
it is impossible to force the limitations of propriety
on the dark bubbling cauldron of apish yearnings
in our bodies – only on our actions.

There is a massive, but well-done video essay on the subject of problematic fiction by Natalie Wynn
that has come to my attention recently, and you may find it worth your time.

Re: “too much into feral dogs”

I don’t think Pig meant to argue against the Harkness test or anything with that line. I think they were just pointing out that sometimes you look at someone’s art and you can tell that they have spent hours and hours of their lives referencing and reproducing exceptionally realistic animal genitalia and you say to yourself “this person is definitely attracted to real animals.” Sometimes things are just obviously on a whole other level from “normal” furry shenanigans, ya know? No, the art isn’t a crime, but there are certain you-know-it-when-you-see-it qualities that tip you off that there is something unusual going on behind the art.

I did interpret that line in the way you have explained –
I only used a paraphrased version of it to talk about
the inherent difficulty of depicting animal-like characters
with human communication and cognitive abilities.

Yes, when trying to distance oneself from bestiality-endorsing artists,
it is useful to browse their gallery and take stock of how frequent
and detailed are the depictions of animal characters behaving
like animals, rather than animal-shaped people,
and having suspiciously detailed non-human
genitals and such.

The "normalcy" where furry erotica is concerned is what's being examined here, though:
I go through a lot of NSFW pictures week-to-week, and although I personally
am squeamish about animalistic private parts, I can see a lot of artists
of all levels and styles depict their characters with those,
all with various rate of frequency.

I think the only way we can all reconcile this issue is to reserve severe judgment
for explicit cases of bestiality advocacy, and let all the dragons, centaurs,
lion kings, baltos and bagheeras remain the grey zone.
It is self-evident that most people who are into
furry erotica are attracted to animal traits
to some degree, even if calling furries
"zoophiles" would be a bit of a stretch.

Thank you for reading and engaging!

I stand firmly in the "consenting, sapient, adults only in NSFW pornography" club. Here is why I think that stance is completely bullet-proof:

The completely nonsensical and derivative terminology around this discussion
To start- much of this discourse stems from the fact that zoophilia, animal, and bestiality are well-defined useful terms for the present world we live in. Words exist BECAUSE they are useful categorizations. In a world such as many that are depicted in feral furry porn or a game like mass effect- they are ill-defined. A blue alien person is a non-human animal. Is having sex with them 'bestiality'? I think they would probably take offense to such terminology lol. Such terms would need to be redefined or more specific definitions along the lines of sapience/intelligence would need to be introduced. Clearly, it would not be immoral for a human to have sex with a sapient consenting adult blue alien person, and likewise for a sapient consenting adult "feral-body" lion-thing. In fact, one could (rightly) argue that it would be immoral to deny such beings bodily autonomy in real life. "Anthro" furries (and many 'normies') are already familiar with this concept whether they realize it or not via feral dragons. Since they are more commonly depicted as sapient in popular media it is more acceptable to want to smash with them. Most feral nsfw artists just extend this concept to different body forms.

What Furry Means
There are many definitions of "Furry" out there, but I think one of the most acknowledged definitions is "people that are fans of anthropomorphic animals". I think it is important to note that NSFW illustrations of non-sapient ferals have literally nothing to do with anthropomorphism and probably don't belong in a furry space. That is just illustrated zoophilia/bestiality. NSFW illustrations of sapient ferals depict anthropomorphism in the most classical (and important for NSFW) way, and absolutely belong in the "furry" space.

The Struggle of Sapient Ferals in NSFW
I believe one of the major reasons for the scrutiny around feral NSFW in furry lies in the fact that sapience in inherently non-visual. There is no way to tell by looking at art if the character is supposed to be human-minded or not. Of course, the vast majority of furry feral artists do things like giving the characters humanized eyes and facial expressions to convey this in the visual subtext of the image (which is MASSIVELY important in determining sex appeal to the human brain. You can see this by searching order:score feral in e621. "dead-eyed" ferals are almost nonexistent). Artists can also add disclaimers or verbal dialogue to make it more concrete. In my view, a mutual understanding that all NSFW feral characters are supposed to be sapient in this "anthropomorphism-focued" fandom would be ideal.

Furry Rhetoric
Due to the complexity of this topic and aversion to confrontation, many furries adopt short and dumb rhetoric one-liners like "fantasy isn't reality" to hand-wave any complex discussion and absolve themselves of any self-reflection and analysis of their media consumption or production (and, yes, this topic is complex. It deals with existential questions like "what is sapience", and "how does pornography consumption affect sexual scripts and beliefs"). On the other end of the spectrum you get furries that think the morality of pornography is determined by the curvature of the character's spine (lmfao). The reality of these debates is that the answer is fairly complex and doesn't fit in a tweet. There are a lot of arguments to be made against pornography that sexualizes deeply heinous and immoral acts like rape (as well as research to back those arguments up). These arguments are quite verbose and cumbersome, but I'd be happy to provide them to those interested.

p.s.
This fandom is terribly lacking in moral direction due to avoiding talking about these topics and immaturity of furries in general, so thank you for making this journal as a discussion entry point.

My take on all this, I don't really care what someone is into, as long as they don't do things that are immoral or illegal in real life.

Feral body anatomy really does nothing for me in a sexual sense (thankfully), so I still trend highly towards human-shaped bodies, just with animal features. As for genitals, I think really only the general canid knot type on canid characters is what I prefer over human-type genitals, with varying opinions on other animal types, so we'll call the human-type a good 2nd place overall. My big line for personal taste there is how "realistic" they're drawn. If they're like, one solid color, and devoid of details like veins and such, it feels sort of like..."idealized", if you get what I mean. Like, the interesting shape is utilized, but it doesn't feel like we're flirting too hard with the real thing. It's when it has all those realistic details that my attraction quickly goes away.

Did between like a skim and a full read of your post, and part of what I gleamed is that you may feel uncomfortable if you think you're indulging someone's zoo kink too much? I think that's a perfecrtly fine stance to have. If someone is raising red flags and generally giving you bad vibes with their intent towards your content, you should have the right to deny working with them, and even block them.

My main problem with the zoo discourse is people who are so quick to call someone a zoo and socially shun them based on flimsy evidence. Your take is certainly more nuanced than these types of people, who don't even bother to listen to dissent, their mind is already made up. In fact, I feel like they probably only care about the feeling of perceived moral superiorty their position grants them, more than they care about why they believe said position.

Your first few words regarding FA being a good place for 'Discussion?'
tsk, tsk, tsk
smh
Let's see how long your Journal lasts, given the topic/Title 'Word' alone? (I ain't gonna be the one reporting you/it, but rest assured, someone will).

Moving on, 'cause I also happen to respect and support free speech...

Not familiar with the video you're talking about, just being up front and honest 'bout that.

The topic? THAT I'm very well aware of, and have been for over half a century. (I grew up on a working ranch, in a ranching/farming community. Ribald jokes/jests/gossip is never a rare thing!)

Taking the IRL word/definition out of it, 'cause as you've already stated, THIS is an imaginary/anthro/furry creation we're all a member/visitor of...

If a creature is capable of cognizant thought (It knows/it's aware/capable of rational thinking and realizing/reacting to its environment based on free will (ie not 'Instincts' alone)?

It's no fur off my back who/what anything chooses to tryst with. Consensual, have at it!

There. That's as concise as I can present my meager .02 worth on this one!

Good luck with the reaction(s)!

It is! It's the only place I frequent that's most like a forum and where people can leave long messages. People are usually pretty thoughtful here.

I mean I'll be surprised if it's deleted or etc but we'll see I guess. I hope it's not because I think discussions surrounding this are really important even if they're uncomfortable at first and messy to navigate!

Thanks for the reply :)

Wheh the hell did "non anthro" get turned into "feral" in the fandom??? I keep seeing people use feral instead and naturally the people who claim all non anthro is zoo have latched onto it saying "well its feral and not ok". To me feral means a normal animal, non anthro is a non humanized sapient like dragons or gryphon or a horse with a normal body form.

If a non upright walking non humanoid style furry is sapient, I would rather everyone be careful with language and use non anthro instead of feral. Calling it feral seems to play into the hands of extremists who want to ban any non anthro art. RL beastiality is wrong, and art of sapient on non sapient is bad as well, but you have people trying to claim anything not humanized in some way is zoo despite any sapience and we really shouldn't be encouraging these extremists.

The only part about this that is more of a nitpick for me, is about calling quadrupedal furry characters “non-anthro”.

If they talk and express like that of a human, and are sapient like a human then they do fall into the anthro category — anthropomorphic meaning “human-like”, which doesn’t just mean walking on two legs.
The only difference is they walk on four legs/a natural stance, than on two.

But as said, this is more of a nitpick technicality on my end than anything else. LOL

Well problem with quadruped is it implies four limbs, there are some with more than four, though rare and I always felt non-anthro worked better as a catch all. Non anthro has been used since time immemorial in the fandom But either one works well enough in most case, long as its not feral which I feel carries a non sapient weight to it.

I've seen people use 'quads' to make this distinction, but it just never really caught on. Even people that make it clear their art is of sapient "ferals" still use the terminology 'feral'. As you point out, quadruped can be inaccurate as a catch-all. Furry just really lacks a common language for this. I haven't really seen anyone use non-anthro

The issue I personally take with conflating drawn fetishes with reality is, who and on what basis, has the right to draw the line.

It's understandable that many refuse to draw honest-to-god bestiality fetish, everyone has the right to pick the work that doesn't cause them mental distress. However, slightly echoing latter bit from the twitter video, I don't really see these topics brought up about, say, drawn violence, or at least less so. Now 2 evils don't make a right and I don't want to swing around fallacies as my argument, but: "There is nothing to be gained from a bestiality interaction besides the gratification of the person, and that can never be right." couldn't the same then be said about drawing other potentially problematic content?

If we keep vigilant about real abusers, call them out when there's proof beyond doubt, I still feel keeping furry weird is a better moto than caving into pressure of the ones who, in my eyes, seem to have a control fetish basically.

tldr: mostly agreement

I draw the line where it makes me uncomfortable, with the red flags I have personally learned, from my own perspective and experience. And that's all anyone can do. If you feel like the art someone is posting or enjoying gives you the feeling that they're into sinister shit, then don't associate. No need to complicate it more than that or say any one person has the authority to say what's right and wrong. There's no clear cut answer to that and there can't be.

It ultimately comes down to trust, if you want to say "art =/= reality", you're choosing to believe someone when they say "they wouldn't do the real thing" - but then comes the question of if giving them the benefit of the doubt is even worth it at all, if the consequences of them lying about it will perpetuate activities that are abusive/illegal, for the sake of protecting total liberty. I don't believe that is ever worth it, thus my stance. Often people defend this argument, IME, to protect their own freedom to partake in and enjoy whatever they want without consequences. What else could really be the motivation?

Personal lines like that are necessary, definitely. No one can/should have ability to force us to draw something we don't want to, problems arise when we get these crowds of people who come after someone once they , say, sprinkle in some feral art among their, usually, anthro gallery. Have seen that around, hell, I think you posted something like that, which you've now removed?

I think I stand by majority of people being good people, hell, there's various little statistics where people find it hard to be assholes in RPG games and how you need to dissociate to even play an evil character, much less morally be able to do such things in RL, given one doesn't have a -pathy of kind, in which case then, whether you perpetuate something or not might any notable effect on the end result. Of course echo chambers can push decent people past that border, but where does that become a slippery slope and how true is a slippery slope?

I don't think I'm for a total liberty per se, I think political art involving certain things probably shouldn't be allowed in wide public spaces. But when it comes to furry art I think I'd feel dissonance seeing certain topics banned where plenty arguments can be made for other, similar topics, however, proponents for them having high social standing or positions of power keep those lines open. Do I mind cub being banned on FA? Not at all. Would I exit the room if some artist who draws it enters a room at a con? Not really. Lines need to be drawn somewhere, but I honestly think having this setup where different sites allow different things is not a bad way about it.

I do feel like people are too outright scared of the word zoophilia to consider the etymology of the surrounding concepts, but that furry is inherently xeno-philic as a concept (perhaps that's a more digestible term), and people who judge others for, say, putting animal genitalia on anthros, more often than not are scared to admit they are into the other than they are taking morally complicated stance after introspection of the societal outcome of their individual actions. Hence, in a way, one could argue that avoiding creating such art (when it's not against individual convictions), even if it sapience-coded, is putting fuel in the pro-moral-policing crowds engine, aka having a negative ripple of its own. To me the line drawn in real life is comprehensive, enforceable, understandable where as fantasy, even considering possible negative ripples in the furry fabric, cannot condone "justified" & targeted actions taken on, for example, this Cenny dude.

Basically, the motivation is same as something like freedom of religion.

Hmm, for some strange reason I cannot open up your dropbox file.

So what am I missing?

Posted screenshots of it here:
https://twitter.com/SEPIAFLUX/status/1771977505462694039?t=YS5yTYN7jeWDqrDsbtNLZg&s=19

Thank you. And it seems we both agree and disagree with some key points you made, with me ultimately feeling at the end of the day it is just works of fiction. Sure, works of fiction can cause immense harm by those who are unable (or unwilling) to separate fantasy and reality, but I'd like to think we don't label everything by what the outliers are doing.

Keep being you, and hopefully I can commission your wonderful talent. :3

Read the document for now at least and i do agree on the actual zoo parts. Like, i've seen what you described, and what it does, through other people's posts, and is why i can only go with it in art, all characters involved usually have the inteligence and the like to show their emotions the way humans want to portray them. (like more beastial lookingl characters being able to talk)

The genetalia part i often saw as a way to further express oneself, giving more exoticness, or even just variaty, to the designs if you wanted to have them (my case), which is why we also see a lot of characters with human bits too which i get.

Fundamentally, my attitude is that is if it passes the Harkness Test, it's probably fine, and that we should ultimately judge people by their intentions, attitudes/beliefs, and, above all, their actions.

What ultimately matters is that people do not excuse, attempt, support, or perpetrate actual harm, exploitation, and abuse against vulnerable parties (e.g., kids and actual animals).

Me personally, my brain sorts Nick Wilde and real-world foxes into different boxes, to the point where they're best seen as entirely different beings with some overlapping traits. Thus, to my mind, someone who thinks dragons are hot shouldn't be considered a zoophile, any more than someone who likes shooting zombies or terrorists in a video game should be seen as someone who wants to commit actual murder, or someone who has spicy BDSM fanasies would actually enjoy being seriously hurt or wants to genuinely hurt someone else.

Re: Bestiality, the reality is that even if, say, a great ape, dolphin, octopus, or other creature could theoretically consent to contact with a human, we still can't be certain that we can interpret their cues and understand their psychology well enough to avoid causing any distress, hurt, or harm.

As intriguing as the question of who can consent and how we can tell itself might be, I don't want to give animal abusers any potential openings by broaching the topic even in the best faith, because you know those people will weaponize cases of dolphins or apes initiating contact with humans to justify just straight-up abusing their cat. So, I reckon it's best to not even broach that topic, even in the name of innocent philosophical inquiry or debate.

... "However, that's harder to do as there isn't any sapient non-human animals in our world, so it would be unfair to call it bestiality."
That is a good way to articulate it, I hadn't thought to word it like that but... Yes! Exactly. The separation is valid.

"Maybe finding a place of belonging could steer those people away from their degenerative ways and find healthy ways to explore their sexuality"
I don't know if I buy this either though. I honestly and truly feel like the sexual enjoyment of animal features for most in the fandom comes secondary, and not primarily. Fantasy being the foundation, and not attraction to animals.
Though certainly for some it is the other way around, and then maybe that argument could be used to say that it is a healthy outlet that detaches from the real world animal abuse for the greater good.

It's messy! But putting it all into words helps so much. It helps me anyway! I appreciate your comment and stance very much, thank you!

"I think that's what you are trying to say - there is both sides of the coin here, and it's important to shed light to both of them?"

100%! yes. You're expanding on what I said so well I appreciate it :>
I really feel like we need to start being realistic and honest about it, and hold each other accountable, instead of continuing to turn a blind eye to red flags because people are too scared to call out red flags. I feel like it's the most responsible way to go about being into NSFW furry work.

"I think this approach is not really helpful, as there seems to me unnecessary segregation because of it."

I have to disagree actually, I think it's safer to block people out that show you even a small red flag than to trust people you really don't know the true intentions of. It just seems like the best course of action to me.
I understand that this could lead people to being falsely "accused" but... You've got to weigh the pros and cons;
At best, they are being truthful and indulging in zoophilic attraction entirely in fantasy via art - also, if this involves themes of a non sapient character, I automatically have a problem with even if it was theoretically provable to be strictly fiction for them. It's just not a mentally healthy kink to indulge in.
At worst, they're partaking in real animal bestiality content in one way or another to fuel their desire and perpetuating the content, as well as worsening their own mental state because of it if nothing else.
Over the years of looking at tons of nsfw furry art and interacting with people, I find it quite easy to spot who's into it for the art/fantasy/character design aesthetic of it, using it for expression, and who (in my opinion; all I have) is fixated on the animal aspects of it that would lead me to believe there's something more sinister at the root of their desire in the art they enjoy in the fandom. It's a safe, socially acceptable (I mean relative to blatant bestiality content) way to indulge their desires if they choose to use it that way. And it's very easy to do covertly, at least as it presents to people who don't try to read between the lines of all someone presents of themselves online. (People who leave it at "fantasy =/= reality")
For me personally I make conscious effort to never swayed by "popular opinion" and don't make those judgements lightly, and would encourage others to be that way too. But yeah sometimes it's just too much to ignore and I have to block people, even if I have no "evidence" other than their galleries, comments, likes or favorites. It's a worthwhile tradeoff though, for the greater good of protecting animals who're the victim of people having these desires and acting on them.


"what if our judgement is a false positive and we go after someone who is undeserving of the ridicule?"

That's exactly where the accountability part comes in I think - striving to not being worthy of ridicule by being honest and transparent. If you get "witch hunted", why is it? Is it complete bs, or are they onto something? Have you ever publicly condemned bestiality or have you stayed suspiciously silent about it? Usually when I see callouts, they ARE onto something. The red flags are very real.
It's holding OURSELVES accountable to where we're asking ourselves "what about this is turning me on exactly?", and making sure we're being healthy about it while acknowledging it can be a razor's edge sometimes and be taken that way especially for people who like realistic anatomy or sapient ferals.
It's something we should take seriously and do our best to be transparent about. Not be afraid to explain exactly why you disagree with it, explain yourself as best as you can. Gain knowledge and experience to know how to navigate those conversations. That's all we can do. At the end of the day we know what our own truths are and nothing outside of that really matters, so I'd just encourage people to 1. police themselves, hold themselves accountable to be healthy about their fetishes and 2. surround themselves with people who are capable of thinking critically ignoring everybody else. As long as we're doing our best to stop the normalizing bestiality, what more can we do?

It's funny cause I just made a journal about Zoophilia/bestiality not too long ago. My biggest gripe about it is the hypocrisy of many people who are against it.
They always claim they are against zoophilia because it's abuse to an animal, and some (if not many) also eat some meat, or get their animals spayed or neutered. And I must ask, why is bestiality abuse so bad but the abuse of cutting off an animal's reproductive parts is not abuse? The hypocrisy is the worst part and I will never understand why we are so adamant on chastising one form of abuse and so openly supporting another just cause it's socially acceptable. (And anyone who says spay/neuter isn't abusive cause the animal doesn't react to it has never seen an animal be castrated or been around an adult animal that was recently neutered)
I hope that doesn't come out that I was attaching you personally cause I certainly was not, that was just my own view on that subject.

As far as what, in furry art, is considered Zoophilia, I can see anatomically correct art being considered that, and while that might be icky, if it keeps people real Zoos from doing those things to real animals then I don't see the harm in it (and most "zoo" art does do it's best to show the animal is enjoying it, so it gets rid of the rape aspect.
So basically, I can definitely understand how true feral art could be zoophilia, but it's better than practicing the real thing.

With all that said, this is not me saying you should be comfortable with the thought of any feral/non-anthro art you make attracting zoos. Your comfort should always be the most important thing with what you draw. The problem with modern day/commissioned art is that artists are so stressed for money (understandably) that they may take on something they don't originally feel safe making, or they change their views artistically, and that can put a mental strain on them and can really hurt. So if making feral art makes you uncomfortable, REGARDLESS if it is defined as zoophilia or not, because of the possibility of it being used by someone with darker intentions or practices, then you shouldn't feel bad for discontinuing that or changing things up.
I know this wasn't the main point of your journal, I just wanted to add that in.

Thanks for your input! I appreciate it!
Luckily nowadays I'm able to be more selective. I feel like I'm just starting to untangle myself from my old views that leaned more towards "it's all just fantasy and not real and I don't care what people do with it", so I feel like it'll only get better from here. :) I already feel like a huge weight has been lifted by finally finding the words to describe my stance on the entire issue and hoping that people who don't agree with it will steer clear of me.

As far as not watching the video but seeing screenshots of their other posts, Husky Bro is trying first to redefine zoophilia which isn't how that works

zoophilia- sexual attraction of a human toward a nonhuman animal, which may involve the experience of sexual fantasies about the animal or the pursuit of real sexual contact with it (i.e., bestiality).

If he self identified as a zoophilic person, he wants to bang a real animal not a fictional anthropomorphized version / humanoid creature. Screenshots of his chats and associates show this is extremely likely the case.

I don't think it's worthwhile to debate the writings / video essays that begin with a false premise.

Mmm it's always been a difficult subject, especially when you're trying to interpret how others are consuming this kind of content.

I tend to enjoy a lot of "drawn bestiality" type content but drawn animals are very clearly separated in my mind from the real life ones. I have zero attraction to the real life content or animals in general. I just think it is a hot purely as a fantasy. It's really not that deep to me.

The issue does come with interacting with others who like similar content. I used to interact with people somewhat often and even tried to make some friends but it was always just too uncomfortable. I've thankfully never met someone who outwardly admitted to animal abuse or being into real life animals but I have met a few people who have made me...wonder. It's just not really pleasant to risk becoming friends with someone who can't separate fantasy from real life.

I've found it's better to just mind my own business and try not to risk getting mixed in with the wrong crowd basically, lol.

With this community so (rightfully) against animal abuse, I think we will always have a difficult time identifying ourselves on a spectrum shared with the people we abhor. And given the current, generalized mental state of our community, I fear that even speaking these loaded terms and engaging this subject matter is enough to ruin lives - it would seem a lot of adults in this fandom are mentally immature, unable to consider, think critically, or learn about the things they don't understand or dislike; quickly choosing judgement, anger, and hate without considering logic, facts, and kindness. I've been in this fandom for over two decades, and never have I felt so unsure and scared of what our art represents, how we/others interpret our art, and what our fellow furries think of each other and what we are doing here. I'm genuinely terrified of interacting with any opinions around this subject matter (I don't even feel comfortable saying the words), but it's something that has also been stuck, brewing in my head for the last decades, given a lot of unaddressed, hard-to-swallow pills about our fandom and fantasy art, in general.

I don't think you even need to consider the anatomically correct NSFW bits because, at the end of the day, we have created these characters composed of animal parts. What does the character having a wolf's head mean? Why do we like fox tails, cat paws, shiny scales, wings, and muscled equines? We could be consuming art with people that look like people, but they look like animals... why? What even is a furry? Heck, what does "FurAffinity" mean? There is no escaping that we have created things with animal-like features and attributes, even if the species is completely fictional - it's all based on the structures and patterns of the animals we abstract from, and we are attracted to this. I don't think I've reached any conclusions or peace amongst these old and new questions, beyond accepting that (for me) the art is more about self-expression and fantastical escapism. I am not pursuing this art because I want it to be real or literal, because I recognize the boundaries between real life, art, and fantasy.

Also, all of this drama has really made it clear that we need to encourage more kindness in the fandom. Sure, there are people we don't want in our spaces, but the kind thing to do, if they are actually, verifiably struggling with something clearly outside of our acceptability, is to get them help, with sincerity and dignity, even if we then choose to exclude them. The last thing we need is to advocate for more blind hate and violence in this community, even if deserved, as it encourages everyone to look for things they maybe can't correctly identify before lashing out with life-threatening consequences. This and similar incidents have done so much damage to real people falsely, wrongly, and maliciously accused of things taken out of context, intentionally misrepresented, and generally misunderstood. We are tearing ourselves apart over definitions, subjectivity, and fantastical ideas that really only exist in our minds, instead of focusing on preventing and ending real animal abuse.

Read a bit of it on mobile here. Personally, I don't think all NSFW furry art is categorically zoophilia because of how tied linguistically "zoophilia" and "beastiality" are outright tied to each other with the specific context of having sex with real animals, or feral tetrapods as a whole along with other wildlife anatomies that are not primate. Even then, attraction to non homo sapien primates is a slippery slope to getting you a scene like Gordy's party from NOPE (2022).

Sex with regular humans can already be dangerous or injury prone. Not getting into details, but I sustained an injury to my left arm and hand just last night being frisky with my spouse, and we didn't even go a particular long run around the baseball bases. Add a lack of communication method that is reliable, and beastiality is just outright unsafe and dangerous regardless of what deranged "consent" politics the zoophile is trying to loop out of.

I don't think zoophilia in relation to furry art is "harmless" in a 50/50 split. It can really go either way depending on how the individual approaches it. BDSM *should* be a harmless kink on paper, but the actual way people go about consuming it in fiction or real life is periodically toxic and damaging to their social relationships, and everyone likes to think they are a responsible kinkster until they are kicked out of a house, homeless, and someone else (that would be me) is footing their bills and rent out of sympathy. I don't know how many times I've had to smooth things over for other kinksters who are being idiots, but I don't think enough furries are responsible enough in how they approach zoophilia in art or fiction, which leads to drastic irl consequences.

I think the smartest thing people could do in this type of political landscape is harshly avoid feral of REAL animal species and fantasy creatures based in mostly real feral anatomy with a realistic art style (toony is a Grey area) which for example would be to say you "hellhound" with otherwise dalmatian anatomy mixed in with Horns and floating wings that is conveniently sapient and sentient is a "free pass". No, it's not. If you show it without the lore to a passerby on the street and they identify it as beastiality art for its feral dog boner, it's on that person for playing with fire and to decide how disgusting they want to be perceived as by the other person.

A hard lean into mythical creatures with historical connotations of intelligence and ability to shape-shift would be a safe bet to curb people who are ready to strike folks out and mark them off preemptively within reason due to not wanting to be associated with feral art. Otherwise, your own species. Currently, I just stay away from feral art if I figure out that's all the person posts. Not because I'm afraid of being called a zoophile (I'm not) but really, because I'm not a zoo. I don't find the art attractive or wank material, and am better off consulting animal anatomy guidebooks if I want to improve my own art rather than look at horny feral art.

As for what "anatomically correct" "furry art" is: none of it is anatomically correct because "furries" are not real, and if bipedal, they are more simian or primate in anatomy than their animal heads would make us believe expressly due to how human artists have given them generally human physiology. From a medical standpoint, isolating human or primate anatomy to just our faces and extremities is amusing when it comes to how anthropomorphic most furry art is. It's basically just teratophilia kink if people want to get creative.

On a side note, I find teratophilia kink in art is often repackaged heteronormativity regardless of if the characters presented are straight or not. As to how that all plays out as a conclusion, I won't get into that now since I think I'm droning on farther than I want atm. At the end of it all, just keep blocking people who may be nasty about fictional content while being aware that there are people (in larger quantities than I personally expected to deal with in person) that justify their caution, resentment, or even rage. This is a cold stone to swallow when you are a kinkster, that there are people who ruined the perceptions of you before you even met, but it must go down and sit in the belly eventually.

Thanks for the feedback, your input was very insightful to read!

"If you show it without the lore to a passerby on the street and they identify it as beastiality art for its feral dog boner, it's on that person for playing with fire and to decide how disgusting they want to be perceived as by the other person."
100% agree with this. It's playing with fire enjoying or creating art of any character that resembles a real animal and people should take accountability for that and be prepared to talk about it and not just rely on "art =/= reality!!"

"As for what "anatomically correct" "furry art" is: none of it is anatomically correct because "furries" are not real,"
I get this POV but I think it's disingenuous to claim they bare no resemblance to animals and that it's on purpose that they do, yknow? All of what I've elaborated on is basically to say that I think it's fine to admire and enjoy animals' anatomy for its aesthetics and beauty, so long as it's not driven by a desire for the *actual* animal as a whole including its consciousness and the dynamic that creates with a human in a sexual context.

Yeah, and that bit is assuming already that you aren't "flashing" the passerby with artwork too btw, and that they were already okay with seeing an example of art even if you also noted it was basically 18+. Some guys are all "yeah I'm 18+!!! " and then it's like a theoretical anime bunny furry with huge dong and they suddenly change their mind.


Medically and anatomically speaking, we can partially agree to disagree (?) that much furry art imposes human physiology on the character design even if they physically have an animal head, paws, tail, etc. This isn't denying the attributes are there, it is saying that they are so anthropomorphically executed if not *actual* feral tetrapod or quadruped designs, the human physiology is completely imposed as the basis of where they are doing their real life studies in order to perform the art in true animated dynamics either in conposition or literal animation due to relying on human or primate body mechanics for movements depicted. This attraction to the human form with extra steps I feel like is fine (A in basic college cultural anthropology has me *knowing* it's typical behavior) but as we have said, people can take an attraction to a mere part of an animal to a level of unhealthy fetishism that can hurt the animals involved and other people. I will always think that it's okay to study the animal form and appreciate the varying physical features, but some furries sadly are just sex pests about how they approach these differences in anatomy.

That's roughly where I would put the line: As long as all of the IRL participants are enthusiastically consenting human adults, do what you want.

"This is something that I have struggled and stressed over immensely as a NSFW furry artist who does draw anatomically correct genitalia. A reality that coincides with anatomically correct NSFW sapient furry art existing is that people who partake in bestiality or enjoy bestiality content, can very well enjoy the same art."

As an artist who has drawn and wants to draw animals being their strange gross selves weather that be the speculative sexual behaviors of paleoart, a non real though very grounded critter, or an animal that actually exists and is alive, this has always been on my mind bothering me. It is conflicting and a bit stressful.

On one hand I want to illustrate the intriguing behaviors of our fauna weather that be them hunting, sleeping, reproducing, ect, and actually showcase the art I've made to share the interest of the curious anatomy and behaviors of these animals. But then on the other hand, given the nature of the art, it's basically free food for those who are into and practice bestiality.
It don't feel good bro.

Took the words out of my mouth, I agree. I find beauty and enjoyment in all of that too. I trust my own intentions with it, but I don't and never can trust how others are going to enjoy it and for what purposes. It's hard to grapple with.
I'm moving further and further away mentally from wanting to draw pet animals (canines, equines, etc) in NSFW, just because it's a lot harder for me to justify that it's not being enjoyed in that kind of way.
With fantasy ferals there's at least some separation there, in that those animals don't exist and can't be harmed because some art made someone feel the need to carry it out irl. I mean I'm sure it still could, but I feel like it's less dangerous to condone.

I know this is 3 months old now but I just happened upon it while looking at your page out of curiosity and I gotta say, I really agree wholeheartedly with you on all of this

It's a topic I GENERALLY avoid discussing unless I have to, honestly

My general rule that I abide by is, no matter WHAT the scenario or creature, if I'm using a feral creature in a nsfw scenario of any kind, that creature is to be treated as sentient and consenting. I do my best to ensure that any art I get of such things conveys that, but even when it's not as clear, it still applies.

Beastiality will never be acceptable to me

I'm also a firm believer in separation fiction and art from reality. The two are naturally a bit intertwined at times but me having art of my feral dinosaur ocs doin' their thing together does not mean I support beastiality lol
MY fiction and what MY characters are depicted in/engage in does NOT have any impact on my real-world actions if that makes sense. Like, I'm not gonna commission art of a horse in a nsfw scene and then go and try to, well, you know, with one
I bring this part up because there's a lot of people out there who ignore that separation and paint us as bad people/actual zoophiles/beastiality-committers JUST because of the art we have
And I don't think it's fair OR right to just lump everyone together, in fact, it only does everyone more harm than good to do that

That's all I care to say on this matter but I'm glad to see there are a lot of people who align with my stance on this stuff

Sorry for rambling a little there towards the end, I've dealt with a bunch of hateful people falsely lumping me in with those who actually abuse animals irl and so I feel this need to definitively separate myself from those people just to feel safe lol

Thanks for the comment! I appreciate your insight & input and I'm glad this conversation helped you feel a bit more sane lol. It's way better to talk about this stuff and be open about what's not acceptable than to just be too afraid to and let that ambiguity let certain people feel like they get a pass.

Sorry to bother you after months of this being posted, but it did kind of bring up why I like the so called "ferals" in the first place. This will be tipsy rambling, and I hope you don't mind it terribly. But yeah first of all? Don't fuck animals and minors, now, that being out of the way...
As I thought about your post, yes, bestiality is always wrong, this much I don't think can be questioned, and it's weird we have to openly state it as furry artists. That part sucks. The furry scene was so different 10 years ago, but I guess, that comes with pushing 30 - being more aware and the naivety being drained from you. (I did... meet some bad cases myself. Thankfully? Just a few.)
"Ferals" are fun, however you wanna call them ("Lady and the Tramp" is not a nature documentary, but yet, we can emphatise with those cartoon dogs - and on the topic, as I always say, if you see a dog in ahegao orgasm, that's... yeah. it's anthropomorphising). They're fun as is teratophilia, as is a tentacle fetish - with tentacles, you don't REALLY expect that an actual octopus would keep you bound and keep you pumping with many orgasms, and that you would be down for that scenario - it's a symbol of an idea, just like a giant big dicked werewolf is. Oh no, the Powerful Presence Will Force Me Through Many Orgasms And I Have No Choice. I'd argue it's moreso xenophilia - attraction to something other than yourself, and distancing yourself from the restraints of humanity's restraints - than wanting to actually find animal-like features attractive. "This character is in rut/heat" and it works for a scenario when you're just, y'know, horny. But then you have people who, uh, one had a "dane" in their username.
I don't have any point to make but yeah I getchu. Shit is wild out there.

I absolutely agree with you here. After discussing with everybody about this and also having it marinate for months, I am more in the camp now of believing enjoying anatomically correct animal genitalia to be, most times, teratophilia or xenophilia and actual zoophilia being more rare. Your point about tentacles illustrates that well too.

Though that being said I still air on the side of caution when it comes to feral canines especially (equines too but I digress), as canines are most commonly abused, so anyone who seems a little too obsessed with feral canine NSFW art is to be avoided for my own comfort level.
There may be no zoophilic intentions with it, but why take the risk. I don't take the risk, and don't have a problem blocking people for it either. I'm not gonna wait for someone to come out publicly as a zoophile to treat them like one if they're presenting themselves that way.
They're more than welcome to go to other artists who view it differently, it just weighs on me too heavily morally to turn a blind eye to it now.

Oh yeah, absolutely. To me, having talked with many people on the topic over the course of years, for a big chunk of them said ferals also help them with body image issues - you're still expressing The Horny while not having to compare your own body to your character's. Another thing I noted is that since we're human, we're more likely to spot if a drawing of human anatomy looks off - more animal-like traits tend to have more leeway for mistakes. And let's be real, human anatomy can be a real bitch to learn lol (All of which are probably points already made in the comments before but bah)
But also, by all means - the block button exists for a reason, I've gotten way more lentient with it over the years too lol. I think it's also partially since the furry fandom feels to me way bigger than the small group I had starting out. Anyway - hope we're chill, though!