Honestly dont think so but its been a thing Ive seen people going on for years and its a constant discourse that starts up all over again from it.

I don’t think so even tho I think furry porn in general is much more zoophilic than ppl like to admit

But I think you should be good

I think zoophilia deals more with real animals instead of anthro art. I don't feel it's the same thing. you can draw me bits anytime you want to lol

No, anatomically-correct genitalia doesn't associate you with zoophilia in any way. The people who think that are just ignorant.

No it wouldn't, is always nice to see anatomically correct furries, it adds more to their personalities, no just a copy and paste were everyone is the same.

Personally I don't think so, no.
Your toony style also puts another layer of separation between your art and such things.

Ok cause I don't want some jerk accusing me of sometime without knowing all the facts

Hopefully that won't happen, but even SFW artists (especially feral/quadruped artists) have been accused by ignorant idiots. At the least, those that are willing to listen/see things as they truly are should see any accusations as false.

Nope, no association

Everyone is desperate to prove how Woke they are, and to prove themselves on the Right Side of History, so there's always going to be someone jumping on some little thing to give themselves something to fight for. Art is art, some enjoy it for what it is, others want to use it to prove a point or show themselves better than someone else.

The point is, no matter how much you alter your style or your content to please others, someone will always find fault in it, and the only way you'll avoid scrutiny altogether is to quit, which would be a tragedy

No. As long as you draw cartoon animals with human sexual anatomy. My character Phantom Bunny is essentially a human woman with a cartoon rabbit head and tail. She looks nothing like an actual rabbit. If you add a dick to Mickey Mouse, you're drawing a dick on a cartoon character, not a mouse that actually lives in the world.

I Slasher and the female characters have human sexual anatomy but some of the other male characters have correct ones. Maybe I should do a poll I don't think FA has one.

I think your style being animation based isn't a problem. I use human sexual organs on my characters because I tend to think of them as human, more like Goofy, less like Pluto.

Depends whether you think that intelligent talking bipeds which normally wear clothes for modestly are animals or people.

Well with my character they pretty much are people since I was creating a worlds with them.

I tend to prefer it when stories just allude to such details, and have strategic things or poses to block details, so the stories remain NSFW because of the nature of the scene, rather than because of outright nudity. But that's just my preference - you're the artist. :)

Also, 'modesty' not 'modestly'. Grr, stupid typo.

I would not say it immediately puts you in association with Zoophiles, I would say that it puts you in a bit of a... precarious place. Everyone has differing views whether they admit it or not.

Foremost, I do not go out of my way to find this kind of art or most NSFW art because I don't care about NSFW art and I keep filters on so I don't have to see pornography constantly. I turn the filters off when I come across a new artist who's art style I like. If they have relatively little or no porn I will add them to my watch list, as I generally don't want to be associated with porn. (There are a few exceptions to this as I really like an artists art style.) However, the times that I have come across art of characters that have anatomically correct genetalia for that species? I do become suspicious of the person, but I won't just immediately call them a Zoophile. It requires more context than just genetalia. I run by the rule of if the characters involved are of human level Sentience, Cognition AND Anthropomorphic in the sense of they stand upright like humans, then it is fine.

- If the character (s) meet these things and have human genetalia, I have no suspicion.
- If the character (s) meet these things but has anatomically correct genetalia, I won't call the people involved zoophiles but it is certainly... odd.
- If the character (s) are anthropomorphic and not at human level Sentience or Cognition, regardless of what genetalia type is used I will be suspicious.
- If the character (s) are feral and anatomically correct, I become very suspicious and just leave the profile immediately.
- If the character (s) are feral and anatomically correct but have human level Sentience and Cognition, I still become very suspicious and generally leave the profile immediately.
- If the character (s) are feral and have human genetalia ( I will be confused ) and I will be fairly suspicious and will generally leave immediately.

I make a bit of an exception for male genetalia as male human genetalia on just about any character looks rather bad and out of place. So a mix of somewhere between human, and species correct is fine.

In the end, use what you want to use but understand that everyone has different views. If you use anatomically correct stuff you will inevitably make some number of people think of you differently. Do I personally think of you differently because of what you use? Not really, I dont even look at your NSFW stuff and you don't exhibit Zoophile tendencies from what I have seen. Not to get into politics but seeing as though most furries seem to be on the same political side and overwhelmingly accepting of most stuff? You likely won't catch much Flak, I would advise to stay away from using anatomically correct bits but again use what you want.

Have a great day ~ M.W.

^^^ Pretty much how I feel about it too. At the end of the day it is all fiction however depending on the certain design choices, it will raise my suspicions.

It was something I had thought about but not fully until it came up more frequent it's one of the reasons why I don't do that much of the adult art.

What are these design choices you mean?

Oh the person above pretty much stated it all. The design choices I meant were of an anthropomorphic character having anatomically correct genitalia of their species. Now giving anthro characters those features doesn't make you a zoophile by any means, BUT it might still raise the question of "why did one decided to go with that genital design choice? They could have just gone for a more humanistic genital instead." Generally folks don't care too much about it as long the character isn't a feral with anatomical correct genitals being sexualized.

But I think with how you've designed your anthro characters I think you'll be mostly fine. It's very stylized to the point it doesn't fully resemble an actual feral animal. So you could pretty much do whatever with their genital design. Heck you can create your own design of one for them if you like.

No. It is still a cartoon, it is not real. Zoophilia is related to actual animals in real life.

People who use this logic also think video games and video nasties create shooters and mass murderers in real life, they are utter idiots.

I just thought of a better response and that would be sex is just like violence in horror movies, no matter how gory, detailed, extreme or how much the blood, guts and bone there is on screen it doesn't matter, it might make you uncomfortable personally in the end it is still all fake and nobody got hurt for real.

It is all pretend.

I thought about this for a while. I think one of the things that separates "furry" stuff from general cartoons is that it takes its subject matter seriously, and in an adult manner. So if the general theme is that you're animalizing the human form with various animal traits, or humanizing animals, I'd think that their genitalia would play into that as well in an, again, adult and serious manner, and how far or what direction you go is really up to you.
Also I'd classify beastiality as involving sex between a human and an animal without sapience. At least that's what creates the issues with beastiality and consent. So If you're just talking about the pure physicality of 'fantasy body/character building' I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that furries with animal penis's are equivalent. If you feel that way then you'd have to consider any sort of sexual protrayal of any character with any animal trait as beastiality, and the same would then go for aliens and anything Kirk boned in Star Trek.
Beyond that I think that A) most people would want a horse's junk (including a lot of women) if given the chance, for purely asthetic reasons, and the canine knot kind of creates its own sexual situations that furries seem to have fun with, and B) no one really cares, I think, unless they have a problem with sex, or furries in general. If they did care about beastiality I think they'd be better off condemning actual zoophiles in the fandom. But it's sort of a moot point to go after fantastical hybrid art unless you're just looking for an excuse to hate furries, which are always going to include an adult, sexual, animal element to them.