Holy crap, I've posted something on here for the first time in over a year! I'm alright; nobody worry 'bout me.

So lately I've been seeing a lot of discourse and controversy surrounding the use of "feral" characters in NSFW art. For those who don't know, a "feral" consists of a furry character that walks on all fours, or has a similar anatomy to that of a regular animal, with the added bonus of being able to talk, think, and emote like a human. As someone who likes ferals more than anthros in general, I believe that the "talking, thinking and emoting like a human" aspect is #1 when it comes to this sort of thing. Animals are dear to me. I love animals, but I'm not sexually attracted to real animals. Maybe to REALISTIC animals, but not REAL ones. They could look like a real animal (think live-action Disney), but as long as they are able to hypothetically appropriately consent, then there really is no issue to it, is there?

Alongside that, it is incredibly important to separate fiction from reality. Animals are weird. I love 'em, but there's nothing attractive about ANY type of animal -- except humans, I suppose, since we are technically animals. But I digress. When you create a fictional animal character, you are able to turn them into whatever you want. After all, they're just characters. But if you're gonna make NSFW of it, I will only support it if it passes the Harkness Test. And if it DOES pass the Harkness Test, I ask you, what's the trouble? If an anthro with a head that looks EXACTLY like the artist's pet dog is OK, what's wrong with a talking four-legger?

Be a furry. Not a zoophile. I'm open for discussion. See ya next year! :P