FA+
Shop
my stance on the twitter fire
5 years ago
so....I think it's time I said my piece when it comes to the shit-storm that's happening on twitter.
for those that don't know, the issue right now is that a lot of people are claiming that feral art equals zoophilia...and here is what i have to say on that
Feral art is not inherently zoophilia. Theres a huge HUGE difference between an actual lion and Simba. Most feral characters are just as humanized, sentient and emotive as their anthro counterparts. People have grown up and liked "feral" animals since forever. Most of us that are 90's kids literally grew up with The Lion King, Balto and what-have you. I can guarantee that the larger majority of us would never EVER think of an actual animal in that way at all. Its the human aspect of the cartoon characters that we like...that's the point. Humans have a hard time empathizing with things that aren't them...so we put human traits on things to be able to relate....yes you can empathize with your dog, but in your instinctual brain, your not really on the same level of understanding.
Most of us grew up with crushes on Simba, Nala....most of the cast....Balto...even Spirit the stallion has his fair share of people crushing on him and hes way more animalistic then the other examples, but we can empathize and relate to his human internal monologue.
Its terrifying, and downright not ok for others to just throw a super harmful label at people just cause their sona's are on 4 and not 2. What difference does it make? How is it fair that my sona, who is a fox that i prefer to be feral stanced, is deemed zoophilac, and yet others can have animal sonas that are fully anatomically correct and they get a pass cause they are on two? if they are the same level of obvious sentience, can speak and consent...what the issue?
My non-furry friend, when asked, has the same logic i had. Liking feral art does NOT mean we wanna actually go out and rape animals. That's fucking gross, deplorable and needs to be stopped. No one in their right mind would ever EVER want to harm animals like that. I sure as fuck don't, but that doesn't mean
I don't enjoy a style popularized by FUCKING DISNEY! that's all there is too it...its a style preference. Fuck man, her mom who is SUPER judgmental has a crush on Aslan from The lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.....does this mean shes nothing more then a filthy animal fucker that wants to sleep with actual lions? or is it the HUMAN VOICE, MANNERISMS AND PERSONALITY HE WAS GIVEN that she likes? hmmmm I wonder
I despise the fact that actual zoophiles are trying to hide behind the "feral" label, and those that are legit hurting animals need to be stopped, and burned alive...but feral art is not endorsing that, its not at all. Most dragon sonas I see are feral....so why to they get a pass? Is it cause they are mythical and the rules don't apply? Whats good for the goose SHOULD be good for the gander....
People are loosing their clients, their friends, their support systems over this....we need to stop squabbling over shit that legit doesn't matter and focus on the actual issue of those that actually hurt animals. Those mosnters need to be stopped, not the people that just prefer their art a certain way. Reality is not fantasy and they dont always have to play off eachother.
thats all i had to say on this....if its obvious the character is humanized enough to clearly express, emote, speak and consent then there should be no issues.....and if there is anyone that has a sona thats anthro but anatomically correct for that animal should consider themselves hypocrites....its still an animal, isnt it?
now, i expect backlash from this...but i encourage healthy discussion in the comments. Explain to me why feral is bad....with logic and reasoning....lets talk it out. Maybe theres something im missing....maybe not. Either way....i prefer feral art and i always will.
for those that don't know, the issue right now is that a lot of people are claiming that feral art equals zoophilia...and here is what i have to say on that
Feral art is not inherently zoophilia. Theres a huge HUGE difference between an actual lion and Simba. Most feral characters are just as humanized, sentient and emotive as their anthro counterparts. People have grown up and liked "feral" animals since forever. Most of us that are 90's kids literally grew up with The Lion King, Balto and what-have you. I can guarantee that the larger majority of us would never EVER think of an actual animal in that way at all. Its the human aspect of the cartoon characters that we like...that's the point. Humans have a hard time empathizing with things that aren't them...so we put human traits on things to be able to relate....yes you can empathize with your dog, but in your instinctual brain, your not really on the same level of understanding.
Most of us grew up with crushes on Simba, Nala....most of the cast....Balto...even Spirit the stallion has his fair share of people crushing on him and hes way more animalistic then the other examples, but we can empathize and relate to his human internal monologue.
Its terrifying, and downright not ok for others to just throw a super harmful label at people just cause their sona's are on 4 and not 2. What difference does it make? How is it fair that my sona, who is a fox that i prefer to be feral stanced, is deemed zoophilac, and yet others can have animal sonas that are fully anatomically correct and they get a pass cause they are on two? if they are the same level of obvious sentience, can speak and consent...what the issue?
My non-furry friend, when asked, has the same logic i had. Liking feral art does NOT mean we wanna actually go out and rape animals. That's fucking gross, deplorable and needs to be stopped. No one in their right mind would ever EVER want to harm animals like that. I sure as fuck don't, but that doesn't mean
I don't enjoy a style popularized by FUCKING DISNEY! that's all there is too it...its a style preference. Fuck man, her mom who is SUPER judgmental has a crush on Aslan from The lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.....does this mean shes nothing more then a filthy animal fucker that wants to sleep with actual lions? or is it the HUMAN VOICE, MANNERISMS AND PERSONALITY HE WAS GIVEN that she likes? hmmmm I wonder
I despise the fact that actual zoophiles are trying to hide behind the "feral" label, and those that are legit hurting animals need to be stopped, and burned alive...but feral art is not endorsing that, its not at all. Most dragon sonas I see are feral....so why to they get a pass? Is it cause they are mythical and the rules don't apply? Whats good for the goose SHOULD be good for the gander....
People are loosing their clients, their friends, their support systems over this....we need to stop squabbling over shit that legit doesn't matter and focus on the actual issue of those that actually hurt animals. Those mosnters need to be stopped, not the people that just prefer their art a certain way. Reality is not fantasy and they dont always have to play off eachother.
thats all i had to say on this....if its obvious the character is humanized enough to clearly express, emote, speak and consent then there should be no issues.....and if there is anyone that has a sona thats anthro but anatomically correct for that animal should consider themselves hypocrites....its still an animal, isnt it?
now, i expect backlash from this...but i encourage healthy discussion in the comments. Explain to me why feral is bad....with logic and reasoning....lets talk it out. Maybe theres something im missing....maybe not. Either way....i prefer feral art and i always will.
Twitter is also a dumpster fire, or echo chamber. I give you credit for expressing the "not popular" opinion here, and leaving it open for intelligent discussion. Posting it there would probably get people with pitchforks after you.
The "new, hip site" springing from this shall not be named, but I guess feral art is forbidden there. Maybe the sfw stuff isn't. I don't know. That would eliminate a lot of fanart...
Also, I speak as someone who doesn't look at nsfw stuff anyway, so I won't argue the nsfw feral either pro or con.
I "think" it all l stemmed from a human x Pokemon image, or anthro x feral. I don't exactly know. I also am not wanting to debate the sentience/intelligence/humanism of Pokemon. That's been an issue for some years, now, especially their starter forms.
As for, uh...anatomically correct anthros, I suppose that's either an aesthetic choice, or a "what if" thing, perhaps evolution. I don't think what kind of donger someone gives an anthro character means they're "hot for Spot" any more than someone who's curious what being in a feral body would be like, but wants to keep their character's human intelligence/sentience. Most sfw feral art falls into the "cute" or "dignified/majestic" category. Humans have long desired animal traits, or described people in animalistic ways (someone is "a snake, shark, viper, fox, dog..." or "quick as a cat," etc. Furries go a step further, granted. It doesn't mean furry=sex w/animals. Feral (clean) art is just a branch of furry. So is nsfw feral a branch of nsfw furry?
Anthro x feral or feral x feral nsfw art is likely going to be the issue that divides, and sentience won't matter, if it's a real animal species. It isn't obvious from a drawn image. Whether one is for or against that art, that will be the point that may eventually get it removed or banned.
What it boils down to is what's in a person's mind, and we don't have a clear way to know that. But the "thought police" are coming regardless...and they're not concerned with more evidence than an art image to judge a person guilty.
If its a "what if" for an anthro to have a typical animal gential and its fine then it should be fine for feral too. There literal only difference is how many "legs" they have. Im against humanXferal, since thats a step to far for me, but then again, there are people that revel in pics of their dragons with human knights ect....so why is the line drawn there?
as for pokemon, the way i see it...as long as its not a canon "baby" pokemon its fine as the babies in the games/official canon cannot breed at all. Anything else should be fine since a charmander COULD theroetically choose not to evolve. Same with the mons that use the stones.
Sentience should matter entirely. Thats the whole point. People are lumping all feral art in one category and thats just not fair. Generalizing something like that with a term like zoophilia labels many good people with a sick, twisted mindset....good people that can have their lives ruined simply because the like they style of The Lion King more then Beastars.
The feral x feral is an issue, simply for existing, with that group. Even though we're clearly given suggestions of it in TLK when Nala leads Simba on when they're adults.
I'm not into nsfw, especially adult (mature that is artistic like old world art I used to tolerate before IMVU gave us porn ads, and I locked sfw on forever), but "sex happens," and humans express it differently from animals for a reason. That's what the "pro" side hinges on, where the "anti" side says it doesn't matter. If we'd been born quadrupedal, but with big brains and sentience (and somehow got this far with tech, science, etc without thumbs), would they be against anthros?
Well, the ferals have that, uh... "equipment" as well, so yes, the only difference is the number of legs in that respect. I've seen transformation art where the anthro turns feral, and vice versa. I'm sure nsfw exits of it as well, and the "package" probably remains the same, stylistically.
I've never really gotten into Pokemon, but I believe that's the reasoning it was allowed on here when it was debated, just not some forms.
I've not seen Beastars, but what fanart I've seen of it, I don't think I'd enjoy that art style. I guess it also has vore, from one person who saw just enough to be turned away from it.
In my opinion, clean feral art should be fine, period. Mature is just how they appear in nature. Audubon nature books aren't porn, and are highly detailed, and show sheaths, usually. If they try banning those, a lot of non-furs will suddenly be on your side in the scientific community.
Maybe there needs to be a coalition of feral fans who dislike the ones who use it to shield their abusing animals, and get as much attention on these platforms to speak out against it, and thus draw and define some lines, to get the zoophiles separated from them.
when it comes to Beastars...no it doesnt have vore XD it has animals eating other animals as they would in nature, but thats super frowned upon in their society....but its not vore.
No one in these fandoms looks at a real lion like "hmm you know what, that's hot." It's just like the same people that say cartoon humans are harmful for children, putting unrealistic delusions in their head on how people are supposed to look and act. It's just a cartoon, grow up.
If they want to actually help real animals and real people, then do that instead of wasting everyone's time looking at nonissue fantasy characters. Those few bad eggs that do hide behind characters need to be weeded out instead of being slumped into a whole group of people that have nothing to do with it. It just makes it harder to find those sorts of disgusting people when everyone is being accused.
If they have SUCH an issue with people liking cartoon animals, then I say they need to take down Hallmark and their atrocious cards first! No more cute comic book dogs telling me happy birthday and that they "dig it." NO MORE HAPPY HOWLIDAYS It's ruining our lives man lmao