# Furry porn versus drawn bestiality: Where to draw the line



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

_Disclaimer 1:_ If you have _no interest whatsoever_ in any and all topics regarding the sexual side of the fandom and wish to distance yourself from people who do, this thread is not aimed toward you. The best course of action if you are one of those people is to look for another thread. If you as such a person, choose to disregard that advice and read this thread anyhow, I would like to encourage you _not_ to state your disapproval in this thread, unless you believe that it is relevant to the discussion. Thank you.

_Disclaimer 2:_ I realise that the words _bestiality_ and _zoophilic_ are rather controversial among furries, especially in this context. It should be noted that I by posting this thread aren't aiming to find a definite black-and-white and universally agreeable distinction between the two terms in the title; that would be both pointless and offensive. Where (if) one chooses to draw that line is _completely subjective_, and a matter for everyone to decide for themselves!

_Disclaimer 3: _I do not _under any circumstances_ endorse committing sexual acts with animals in real life.

With that said, I might dare to move onto the actual topic at hand. The reason for posting this thread is that I've come across a very colourful array of opinions on the matter when talking to individuals, and I thought that it'd be interesting to see what a more collective view would be.

Almost all furry _porn_ is to a varying extent zoophilic in nature when compared to "normal" porn. With the exception of "hairy people"-esque themes, the furry fandom largely revolves around applying human features to animals (or animal features to humans, depending on context and preference. (I generally prefer using the former term)) to varying degrees. Furries who enjoy furry porn often do so because they enjoy seeing those animal features, whatever they may be, applied also in a _sexual context_. They would not look at it without them, which is why I find the term zoophilic to be applicable. 

This makes the question of when (at which level of anthropomorphism) and how (how that level of anthropomorphism is is displayed) a furry character ceases to be a _furry_ character and instead becomes an _animal_ character all the more interesting. Since this almost exclusively concerns drawn pictures, the obvious factor to consider would be the physical anthropomorphism (or zoomorphism) applied to the character. 

Is the presence of a quadruped or otherwise realistically drawn character enough to disqualify it as _furry_? What about a more humanoid character with genitalia drawn in a manner resembling that of some animal, or the other way around?

I don't think those traits alone are enough to make a judgement, as one of the most prominent traits of the human species is our _sapience_. Sapience is, however, not an immediately externally visible trait. It makes itself visible through the actions that a sapient being chooses to perform. Sapience can thus not be drawn in itself, but it must rather be _implied_. This places another sliding scale into the question: How heavily must sapience be implied to even allow a character to be considered as anthropomorphic? _How_ should sapience be implied; are human facial expressions enough? Does participation in various fetishisms count?

_Must_ sapience be implied to make the distinction at all? Does the level of sapience implied to make the distinction vary with how realistically a predominantly animalistic character is drawn? Is a character with heavily anthropomorphic physical traits but lacking in implied sapience (perhaps even possessing an implied lack of such) closer to a furry character or an animal one?

My _personal_ view on the subject (and I'm not asking you to agree!) is that the line is drawn according to implied sapience exclusively, with almost no regard to the physical traits of the character. A quadruped canine drawn in a manner where it's clearly displaying its ability to reason in a humanesque manner, be it through a human facial expression fitting the situation or other actions exclusive to humanity, is "furry" to me in any context. Much like how I would treat a talking dog displaying intelligence as a fellow man. A human or zoomorphic, humanoid character drawn in a manner provoking a lack of such abilities is far closer to an animal according to me, and as such far more inappropriate to use in any sexual context.

What are your views on the matter?


----------



## Deo (Nov 8, 2011)

If it has animal genitalia that's also way too far for me because then I know you had to go look that shit up. "Reference" photos my ass, that's bestiality porn motherfucker.
Then again, I don't look at any furry or anthropomorphic porn. I just have no sexual drive in "oh yeah, look at that animal headed person!" FAPFAPFAP. 

Furry things are non-sexual to me and that's how I like it; artistic and nonsexual.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Nov 8, 2011)

[yt]ussCHoQttyQ[/yt]


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

The inability to reason, think critically, and display sound judgement are all the primary reasons for acts of pedophilia and bestiality being illegal (And immoral). 

Without appropriate context though it's easy to find the gray area. If your dog could talk and hold an intelligent conversation that would likely not stop someone from calling the police if they looked out their window and saw you fucking it. For the same reason it's easy to consider a piece of work 'drawn bestiality' if the image in and of itself does nothing to convey the sapience of the creature.

Going back to your preface though, I think you discount the people who look at pornography both real and drawn and prefer the real thing (or have no real strong preference). There could be a number of reasons outside of the animal features that make someone aroused by a furry image, especially when most of the images involve extremely idealized, hypersexualized characters with body types many would consider unrealistic.

I would say that enjoying an image (drawn or otherwise) of two dogs fucking would indeed imply zoophiliac tendencies, though :V


----------



## Armaetus (Nov 8, 2011)

Avoid it altogether?


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

Zaraphayx said:


> I think you discount the people who look at pornography both real and drawn and prefer the real thing (or have no real strong preference). There could be a number of reasons outside of the animal features that make someone aroused by a furry image, especially when most of the images involve extremely idealized, hypersexualized characters with body types many would consider unrealistic.



You're correct. Of course there could be features outside of the animal ones that attract an audience for any given piece of pornography, but I was working on the premise of the hypothetical audience for our furry porn would not be interested in it without the furry bit.



Zaraphayx said:


> I would say that enjoying an image (drawn or otherwise) of two dogs fucking would indeed imply zoophiliac tendencies, though :V



I'm implying that _almost any_ furry porn has zoophilic tendencies to a varying degree. A picture of "two dogs fucking" being an extreme example, of course.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2011)

Feral is pushing it so hard that the eruption of drama from it thrusts it in everyone's faces and explodes to the spotlight.


----------



## Calemeyr (Nov 8, 2011)

I'll take artistic nudity or erotica over pornography any day, thank you very much. And most furry porn is horribly drawn and too silly/disgusting to be erotic, so why would I look at it?

Sidenote: If the species isn't anthropomorphic at all and is just a species that looks anthropomorphic and is sentient, it's not zoophilia. It's Arcturian poontang, also known as a trekkie fantasy.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Feral is pushing it so hard that the eruption of drama from it thrusts it in everyone's faces and explodes to the spotlight.



If I had only heard differing opinions about "feral" art, I wouldn't have posted this thread. However, several people I've talked to have had some very "restrictive" opinions even about the most humanoid furries you could think of.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> You're correct. Of course there could be features outside of the animal ones that attract an audience for any given piece of pornography, but I was working on the premise of the hypothetical audience for our furry porn would not be interested in it without the furry bit.



Not that I've done any demographic research or even bothered to see if anyone else has; but my own anecdotal experiences are that furries who can -only- be sexually aroused by an image is if it's furry are a minority who mostly exist in .jpg format as a screenshot distributed across the tubes for a laugh.

Given that your assertion is based on a hypothetical audience though I would agree that yes, those people are probably 'closeted' zoophiles.





> I'm implying that _almost any_ furry porn has zoophilic tendencies to a varying degree.



I think this is a much more difficult claim to argue both for and against considering the limited amount of research that's been done on Zoophilia is fairly non-conclusive. It's also almost impossible to debate against such an open qualifier as 'a varying degree'; so I don't really have anywhere else to go with this other than saying that even people who have never seen furry porn in their lives, or have had sex with an animal could potentially host zoophiliac tendencies to 'a varying degree'. :V


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

Zaraphayx said:


> Not that I've done any demographic research or even bothered to see if anyone else has; but my own anecdotal experiences are that furries who can *-only-* be sexually aroused by an image is if it's furry are a minority who mostly exist in .jpg format as a screenshot distributed across the tubes for a laugh.
> 
> Given that your assertion is based on a hypothetical audience though I would agree that yes, those people are probably 'closeted' zoophiles.



I'm not assuming an audience that _only_ gets aroused by furry pornography, I'm assuming an audience who finds any one image depicting "furry porn" to be _more_ or _predominantly_ arousing because of the presence of furries or animalistic features in a to them sexually appealing situation.



Zaraphayx said:


> I think this is a much more difficult claim to argue both for and against considering the limited amount of research that's been done on Zoophilia is fairly non-conclusive. It's also almost impossible to debate against such an open qualifier as 'a varying degree'; so I don't really have anywhere else to go with this other than saying that even people who have never seen furry porn in their lives, or have had sex with an animal could potentially host zoophiliac tendencies to 'a varying degree'. :V



You're right in a way, but I think "a varying degree" works quite well if we bind it to the characters: A human with cat ears has a _very small_ zoophilic tendency, but it's still possibly there if that character is placed in a sexual situation where a part of the focus would be on the ears. A sapient quadruped could be considered to be the opposite of that, while a photograph or drawing of _just a dog_ would be the opposite of _just a human._


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> I'm not assuming an audience that _only_ gets aroused by furry pornography, I'm assuming an audience who finds any one image depicting "furry porn" to be _more_ or _predominantly_ arousing because of the presence of furries or animalistic features in a to them sexually appealing situation.



I have a tendency to believe that it's more than just the features themselves.

I think people tend to project the personality traits they find more appealing onto animals commonly kept as pets, That's why you see an overwhelming amount of canine and feline characters and not a whole lot of hogs, snails, and three toed sloths. I would venture a guess that the number of canine/feline characters outnumbers many other categories combined (With a few exceptions). There is also the matter of cultural personifications of animals and how that is projected onto the character; many people often look at these qualities when choosing their own fursona.

It's very easy to look at another human being and see evil or dishonesty in them, especially when it's a female porn star anyone who can rub two braincells together KNOWS is being paid for that "orgasm". Most people do not even believe animals are capable of such motivations or qualities because frankly, they are entirely human concepts. One of the most common reasons I've been given when asking why someone prefers furry porn isn't that 'animal heads turn me on'; it's that the connection between the two characters looks more genuine and real.




> You're right in a way, but I think "a varying degree" works quite well if we bind it to the characters: A human with cat ears has a _very small_ zoophilic tendency, but it's still possibly there if that character is placed in a sexual situation where a part of the focus would be on the ears. A sapient quadruped could be considered to be the opposite of that, while a photograph or drawing of _just a dog_ would be the opposite of _just a human._



Again I tend to think that the appeal of cat-girls leans more towards the 'fun loving and innocent' personality we attribute to cats than it has to do with the physiology of the cat itself. I think that you are right in thinking that an attraction to a dog, even if it were sapient, is zoophiliac in nature however.

I think the real question is how different/similar ARE 'humans with animal qualities' vs 'animals with human qualities'.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

What the fuck am I doing.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 8, 2011)

Shape is not all there is to furry. Furry describes a character who is possessed of a combination of animal and human  characteristics in such a way that the new character is significantly  different from the character's real or canon form. In any case feral art falls into the furry-related category like pokemon or digimon which means it's still relevant. Lastly the question of sentience vs sapience has absolutely no meaning because it isn't real. Arguing over how sapient a character in a drawing is is just stupid.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Shape is not all there is to furry. Furry describes a character who is possessed of a combination of animal and human  characteristics in such a way that the new character is significantly  different from the character's real or canon form.



Thanks Webster.



> In any case feral art falls into the furry-related category like pokemon or digimon which means it's still relevant.



Did anyone question it's relevance?



> Lastly the question of sentience vs sapience has absolutely no meaning because it isn't real.



I don't recall that being questioned either. :V



> Arguing over how sapient a character in a drawing is is just stupid.



Anything sounds ridiculous when you remove the context and simplify it.

Here let me try.

"Some guy who pretty much only logs into the forums to defend his paraphilia from criticism posted something dumb in a thread today"

...wait.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

Zaraphayx said:


> I have a tendency to believe that it's more than just the features themselves.
> 
> I think people tend to project the personality traits they find more appealing onto animals commonly kept as pets, That's why you see an overwhelming amount of canine and feline characters and not a whole lot of hogs, snails, and three toed sloths. I would venture a guess that the number of canine/feline characters outnumbers many other categories combined (With a few exceptions). There is also the matter of cultural personifications of animals and how that is projected onto the character; many people often look at these qualities when choosing their own fursona.
> 
> ...



Those are very valid points, but I believe that they're one layer of abstraction above the issue at hand: No matter what the _reasoning behind_ the attraction to animal features is, it's still an attraction to animal features and thus zoophilic in nature. _That isn't a bad thing._ Those reasons may be used to place an _individual_ (artist or viewer) on another place on the "zoophile scale", but I don't think they can't be applied to the art as such.

However, if we are to acknowledge those points and move to their layer of abstraction, it begs the question of why some _very sleazy_ furry porn is as popular as it seems to be; by applying a "porn star atmosphere" to it, you're effectively stripping it of its supposed innocence.



Zaraphayx said:


> I think the real question is how different/similar ARE 'humans with animal qualities' vs 'animals with human qualities'.



That's one of the questions I was aiming to raise interest for with this thread; where does the line between those go? What treats are to be considered above others when making that distinction?


----------



## BRN (Nov 8, 2011)

Interesting thread idea. While I'll reserve my opinion on where the line is and what actions should be taken, I have to question, though; should you locate a plausible way for this line to be drawn, what actions do _you_ intend to take r.e. the art that falls on the "wrong" side?


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

SIX said:


> Interesting thread idea. While I'll reserve my opinion on where the line is and what actions should be taken, I have to question, though; should you locate a plausible way for this line to be drawn, what actions do _you_ intend to take r.e. the art that falls on the "wrong" side?



In short, none at all. 

If that line would disagree with my ideals, I'd give it some contemplation at most. I don't believe in letting social norms and what is commonly acceptable rule one's life, _as long as no one is getting hurt by not doing so._

I must, however, point out that your question is flawed. A straight, black-and-white line without a grey area simply cannot exist on matters of this nature. There is no truly objective way of measuring the "wrongness" of images in this context.


----------



## BRN (Nov 8, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> In short, none at all.
> 
> If that line would disagree with my ideals, I'd give it some contemplation at most. I don't believe in letting social norms and what is commonly acceptable rule one's life, _as long as no one is getting hurt by not doing so._
> 
> I must, however, point out that your question is flawed. A straight, black-and-white line without a grey area simply cannot exist on matters of this nature. There is no truly objective way of measuring the "wrongness" of images in this context.



I quite appreciate your worldview. 

You're quite right about my question; matters of subjectivity [art] can rarely have a determined objective line at any point and on any characterisation. Given several pieces of fine art to rank in order of quality, it would be immensely difficult to rank them and call the ranking 'correct'. Naturally the most we could go by is popular opinion, but that in itself is problematic for several reasons; it's fallacy to assume that the popular opinion is correct because of its popularity.

In matters of subjectivity, then, it becomes the case that no _correct_ answer can be found for "where the line can be drawn"; you're entirely correct in calling the close cases a 'grey area'. I'm, however, more inclined to say the 'line' is more like an asymptote. 

Semantic arguments such as this one are quite interesting and the distinction between furry art and drawn bestiality has actually been a consideration of mine for quite some time. In the general case [though subject to the points I raised about 'popular opinion'] the definition of 'anthropomorphic' for furries is 'humanoid bipedal'; as such, in the general case, creatures like Pokemon are not obviously anthropomorphic. Naturally since Pokemon and similar critters is the basis for most of the art I enjoy, view and commission, adult or not, I'm quite invested in this argument. However, I'm also busy, and will have to leave for now. Looking forward to this thread's development.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> Those are very valid points, but I believe that they're one layer of abstraction above the issue at hand: No matter what the _reasoning behind_ the attraction to animal features is, it's still an attraction to animal features and thus zoophilic in nature. _That isn't a bad thing._ Those reasons may be used to place an _individual_ (artist or viewer) on another place on the "zoophile scale", but I don't think they can't be applied to the art as such.



Perhaps. While I agree that it is definitely inherently zoophilic to sexualize animals no matter how human or for whatever psychological reason,  I am just not necessarily sure where to quantify such intangibles on a 'scale'. 

Another point to consider is this: as a human being who is attracted to the human form (with few exceptions), I have a hard time  perceiving attraction to primarily human characters as zoophilic. I  rarely if ever see this distinction made unless it comes to furry.  Since, as far as I know, thinking alien chicks from sci-fi franchises  are sexy isn't something considered overtly sexually deviant.

However, if we are to acknowledge those points and move to their layer of abstraction, it begs the question of why some _very sleazy_ furry porn is as popular as it seems to be; by applying a "porn star atmosphere" to it, you're effectively stripping it of its supposed innocence.[/QUOTE]

This is true and I would again suggest that hypersexualized/idealized characters are the primary cause for that, as it is with many forms of drawn pornography. Why furry specifically? That I can't answer. Maybe it's the community's relative ambivalence towards extreme fetishism that draws so many sexual deviants in. I do not really hang out in any furry fetish circles enough to have a good take on it. 

Like I said, I have no intentions of pretending like I have some sort of  meaningful evidence to back what I'm saying up; it's all mostly  theorizing and perception of anecdotal data on my part; as I imagine it is for anyone since last I checked there is no census going around asking 'why do you fap to cartoon animals'



> That's one of the questions I was aiming to raise interest for with this thread; where does the line between those go? What treats are to be considered above others when making that distinction?



I imagine this is going to strongly vary from person to person. In my case I find there to be a marked distinction between a character like Scooby Doo, who is a dog (including many canine mannerisms) with human sentience, and say, Fox McCloud, who is for all intents and purposes a humanoid with animal features.

I'm not really sure how to quantify those traits, but that might just be because I've been up way too long and it's taken me what feels like forever to type this in a readable format. There's also a gray area larger than Fat Bastards ass surrounding this whole subject that is quite literally impossible to resolve in any objective fashion.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

SIX said:


> I quite appreciate your worldview.



Thank you.



SIX said:


> . . . I'm, however, more inclined to say the 'line' is more like an asymptote.



Perhaps. It's mainly a question of wording; I'm hardly using the word "line" in the express purpose of describing something long and straight.



Zaraphayx said:


> Perhaps. While I agree that it is definitely inherently zoophilic to sexualize animals no matter how human or for whatever psychological reason,  I am just not necessarily sure where to quantify such intangibles on a 'scale'.



While a set-in-stone scale for something like zoophilia is a stupid concept, you must realise that I'm not using it as such. I merely use the word scale in order to put down that there's a sliding difference between people who are attracted to animals in a manner similar to your cat girl example and people who are attracted to animals "because of animals", if you catch my drift. It's not black-and-white, but rather people who in some way reside within the spectrum merely reside in different parts of it. There is (aside from in ridiculous extremes that aren't worth considering) no point where you can take an image, change three pixels and suddenly flip it from "not zoophilic" into zoophilic. You can merely make an image of this nature more or less so until it reaches an extreme.



Zaraphayx said:


> Another point to consider is this: as a human being who is attracted to the human form (with few exceptions),* I have a hard time  perceiving attraction to primarily human characters as zoophilic.* I  rarely if ever see this distinction made unless it comes to furry.



My reasoning is that if there are animal features present in a work intended to be sexually appealing, it is to some degree zoophilic in nature.



Zaraphayx said:


> Since, as far as I know, thinking alien chicks from sci-fi franchises  are sexy isn't something considered overtly sexually deviant.



No, but they're always made with _tits 'n ass_ in mind, don't you think?



Zaraphayx said:


> I imagine this is going to strongly vary from person to person. In my case I find there to be a marked distinction between a character like Scooby Doo, who is a dog (including many canine mannerisms) with human sentience, and say, Fox McCloud, who is for all intents and purposes a humanoid with animal features.



Oh, it is without doubt going to vary from person to person! That there are distinctions between Scooby Doo and Fox McCloud, I don't think anybody will argue. It's how we value those distinctions that's interesting.



Zaraphayx said:


> I'm not really sure how to quantify those traits, but that might just be because I've been up way too long and it's taken me what feels like forever to type this in a readable format.



It's alright, I got up at six in the evening. _Yesterday._



Zaraphayx said:


> There's also a gray area larger than Fat Bastards ass surrounding this whole subject that is quite literally impossible to resolve in any objective fashion.



If this was objectively resolvable, I wouldn't have spent time making an 800-word write-up on it.


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2011)

I'm particularly fond of anthros as close to their original species as possible. I don't mind what are essentially humans with animal bits stuck on them (the typical furry), but if you like a particular species; you want that species to show right?

But this brings to question, just how much animal can you inject into a character and for them to not essentially become animals? For example, this iguana anthro was designed to be a animalistic as possible.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5901668/

So is she furry or just a sexualized iguana?

As a big transformation fan, there is also the issue of how animal you can make them; and it still being ok to make sexual content on them. Take for instance "Commission by arania - Transformation tease" in my gallery, which is very NSFW to anyone that checks it out. She essentially turns into some feral beast, but she's still herself inside and consenting to her husbands advances. 

Sexual activity regarding none existent and human intelligence species seems to be let off a lot more lightly on FA than if, say, they were banging a feral dog/horse. If you're a dragon fan, chances are you may like adult art regarding dragonessess (NSFW). But are these not feral beings?

It's always been a difficult topic for furries.


----------



## Zaraphayx (Nov 8, 2011)

Let me just say I normally avoid this topic because people tend to view it as an all or  nothing sort of deal and polarize around one side of the argument. I'm  sort of glad I caught this thread in it's infancy and make no mistake  that I admire your attempt to pose the question in a different way. This  is definitely not something I would have undertaken on this forum 



FF_CCSa1F said:


> While a set-in-stone scale for something like zoophilia is a stupid concept, you must realise that I'm not using it as such.



Of course, there is a reason I put the word scale in quotes.



> I merely use the word scale in order to put down that there's a sliding difference between people who are attracted to animals in a manner similar to your cat girl example and people who are attracted to animals "because of animals", if you catch my drift. It's not black-and-white, but rather people who in some way reside within the spectrum merely reside in different parts of it. There is (aside from in ridiculous extremes that aren't worth considering) no point where you can take an image, change three pixels and suddenly flip it from "not zoophilic" into zoophilic. You can merely make an image of this nature more or less so until it reaches an extreme.



I completely agree.



> My reasoning is that if there are animal features present in a work intended to be sexually appealing, it is to some degree zoophilic in nature.



Do you consider it zoophilic then in any context outside of furry? (for example a model wearing cat ears and lingerie?) Or even if it's purely behavioral and not directly appearance related? I understand this is another case of extremes but I feel it necessary to question such boundaries to get a better understanding of what you're trying to convey.



> No, but they're always made with _tits 'n ass_ in mind, don't you think?



Aren't a good number of furry characters too?



> Oh, it is without doubt going to vary from person to person! That there are distinctions between Scooby Doo and Fox McCloud, I don't think anybody will argue. It's how we value those distinctions that's interesting.



Indeed.


> It's alright, I got up at six in the evening. _Yesterday._



Insomnia is awesome.




> If this was objectively resolvable, I wouldn't have spent time making an 800-word write-up on it.



Fair enough :V


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 8, 2011)

The line is pretty bloody wonky for me, since dragons are pretty much already animals anyway :V

But an alligator? No. Alligator-_lady_? Shit yeah. I generally don't mind if they're pretty close to the animal side of the line just so long as they're not an _actual_ animal, that's way too creepy. If they're clearly not a real animal and are a made-up creation then I can happily ascribe them humanoid intelligence, emotions and... desires :3


----------



## Aetius (Nov 8, 2011)

Ban it all, there is no line to draw.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 8, 2011)

Zaraphayx said:


> Let me just say I normally avoid this topic because people tend to view it as an all or  nothing sort of deal and polarize around one side of the argument.



That's what I'm here for!



Zaraphayx said:


> I'm  sort of glad I caught this thread in it's infancy and make no mistake  that I admire your attempt to pose the question in a different way. This  is definitely not something I would have undertaken on this forum



Thank you, I'm glad to hear that you find it interesting.



Zaraphayx said:


> Of course, there is a reason I put the word scale in quotes.



Right!



Zaraphayx said:


> Do you consider it zoophilic then in any context outside of furry? (for example a model wearing cat ears and lingerie?) Or even if it's purely behavioral and not directly appearance related? I understand this is another case of extremes but I feel it necessary to question such boundaries to get a better understanding of what you're trying to convey.



I consider the context of sexuality to be the main factor in this. If a model is wearing cat ears and underwear in a sexual situation, then I would indeed place it in "the zoophilia scale", but it is in the extreme "less zoophilic" end of it. A model "playing cat" with no clothing to suggest it would take that same spot. A model wearing the aforementioned things while walking on a catwalk in order to display a new design would not qualify for that position. 



Zaraphayx said:


> Aren't a good number of furry characters too?



Indeed, but a good number of them also aren't, and even more possess other traits which are brought forward stronger than them. I believe it's those that are the most relevant here; a "sexy alien girl" would never make it if the majority of the straight males who watched the sci-fi film didn't find her attractive, and that slimy alien tentacle belly sure won't take care of that!

I'll hereby reserve the right to correct this and any further posts made by me tonight, I'm devilishly tired.


----------



## BRN (Nov 8, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> While a set-in-stone scale for something like zoophilia is a stupid concept, you must realise that I'm not using it as such. I merely use the word scale in order to put down that there's a sliding difference between people who are attracted to animals in a manner similar to your cat girl example and people who are attracted to animals "because of animals", if you catch my drift. It's not black-and-white, but rather people who in some way reside within the spectrum merely reside in different parts of it. There is (aside from in ridiculous extremes that aren't worth considering) no point where you can take an image, change three pixels and suddenly flip it from "not zoophilic" into zoophilic. You can merely make an image of this nature more or less so until it reaches an extreme.
> 
> 
> *My reasoning is that if there are animal features present in a work intended to be sexually appealing, it is to some degree zoophilic in nature*.



It's hard to argue against the final premise of your argument, but then again, there is no actual reason to argue against it. It presents itself as correct. But what are the ramifications? Is there some further conclusion we can make from this premise or is it, in a sense, a trivial admonishment? 

After all it could be argued that no rational human has any moral qualm with zoophilia, even if they find the concept distasteful; sexual attraction is nothing to make into a demon. The moral qualms come from partaking in or supporting bestiality, due to the difficulty that arises from attempting to validate animal consent.

As such the difference - the line - between adult furry material and drawn bestiality would be merely semantic, as no actual bestiality takes part in either case, despite the sliding scale of zoophilia in each; both are merely the realisation into art of some zoophiliac fantasy that already exists in the mind. No moral qualm.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 8, 2011)

Deo said:


> If it has animal genitalia that's also way too far for me because then I know you had to go look that shit up. "Reference" photos my ass, that's bestiality porn motherfucker.
> Then again, I don't look at any furry or anthropomorphic porn. I just have no sexual drive in "oh yeah, look at that animal headed person!" FAPFAPFAP.
> 
> Furry things are non-sexual to me and that's how I like it; artistic and nonsexual.


Correction:





That being said, drawn bestiality is wrong.
However, artists sometimes draw in-proportionate heads on their characters, toony or not. For example, in real life, a chipmunk's eyes are on the side of their head. Yet, when drawn by an artist, they mold the head so the eyes are in front and the ears are on the tippy top of the head. Observe my avatar for a reference. When furry artists do that, it kind of ticks me off. They also do this to many other rodents.


----------



## thewall (Nov 8, 2011)

I regard all of it as sick and wrong, but most would defend it by asking:  Is it a variation of the human form?  Actually, my personal conviction is:  Don't do it


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 8, 2011)

SIX said:


> As such the difference - the line - between adult furry material and drawn bestiality would be merely semantic, as no actual bestiality takes part in either case, despite the sliding scale of zoophilia in each; both are merely the realisation into art of some zoophiliac fantasy that already exists in the mind. No moral qualm.


Though not morally reprehensible in itself, something about the wording of this leaves me with a feeling that brings to mind trying to swallow something, but.....awww fuck it, I've got nothing right now  
My spell check doesn't know the word 'zoophilia' XD


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 8, 2011)

FF_CCSa1F said:


> I consider the context of sexuality to be the main factor in this. If a model is wearing cat ears and underwear in a sexual situation, then I would indeed place it in "the zoophilia scale", but it is in the extreme "less zoophilic" end of it. A model "playing cat" with no clothing to suggest it would take that same spot. A model wearing the aforementioned things while walking on a catwalk in order to display a new design would not qualify for that position.



The problem I find is that armchair psychology is not real psychology, and the accuracy of this may be decidedly different from person to person, rather than being something universal. For some reason, I'm sure some people get hot for animal features, while I only get hot for human features. I find animal features attractive in a cute way, which is in no way sexual. The more human a girl is drawn, the more sexually attractive I may find her; cuteness can factor into the overall appeal, but in my perspective, it's inaccurate to state the animal stuff is sexual itself.

You're ignoring that uniqueness, cuteness, bizarreness, etc, do appeal to people quite a bit, and that side of it is not necessarily sexual just because the human side is showing private parts. Of course, there are people who are turned on by that stuff, but the point is that this issue does not have one answer that applies to everyone. I don't think we have the sociological data, and psychological understanding to make a proper conclusion.


----------



## thewall (Nov 8, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> The problem I find is that armchair psychology is not real psychology, and the accuracy of this may be decidedly different from person to person, rather than being something universal. For some reason, I'm sure some people get hot for animal features, while I only get hot for human features. I find animal features attractive in a cute way, which is in no way sexual. The more human a girl is drawn, the more sexually attractive I may find her; cuteness can factor into the overall appeal, but in my perspective, it's inaccurate to state the animal stuff is sexual itself.
> 
> You're ignoring that uniqueness, cuteness, bizarreness, etc, do appeal to people quite a bit, and that side of it is not necessarily sexual just because the human side is showing private parts. Of course, there are people who are turned on by that stuff, but the point is that this issue does not have one answer that applies to everyone. I don't think we have the sociological data, and psychological understanding to make a proper conclusion.



</thread>


----------



## Rotsala (Nov 8, 2011)

I'm a weird fucker and I like weird porn

That's all I have to contribute


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 8, 2011)

In my opinion, it can depend on how the genetailia was drawn in order to denote from regular weird porn to Zoophilia. 
Other than that, Furry porn is about the same as Twilek or Asari and Shepard porn. :V


----------



## Leafblower29 (Nov 8, 2011)

I think they're both okay.


----------



## Aktosh (Nov 8, 2011)

For me when it is drawn to animal like or realistic it's to close to bestiality but facial expressions and such are somewhat relevant to. 

For instance: Feral is basically bestiality facial expressions, self-conciseness or not. I normally don't have problems with animal penis if it isn't drawn to realistic (Like thin, red and weird shaped..) Blotches artwork is a great example of this. ugh. 


Lastly, probably the most important thing to me is the "sapience". I don't get turned on by two beasts mindlessly fucking each other. The emotions are the thing that makes it somewhat human. Because if the thing that makes us as a race stand up along other races isn't there it's just animals fucking each other and thus bestiality.

(sry for cheesyness, lol)


----------



## Carnie (Nov 8, 2011)

Dude who cares


----------



## Aktosh (Nov 8, 2011)

EggCarton said:


> Dude who cares




and the shitstorm begins.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 8, 2011)

On an opinion-based note: animal genitalia. It's gross! I would view any image with animal genitalia to be on the bestiality side. I have a hard time seeing the human aspects of the characters as anything more than dumb excuses to 'justify' the animal genitalia. As far as I can tell, if it wasn't of a zoophilic nature, the animal genitalia wouldn't be there, just implied.

My person angle is more black and white on this topic.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 8, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> On an opinion-based note: animal genitalia. It's gross! I would view any image with animal genitalia to be on the bestiality side. I have a hard time seeing the human aspects of the characters as anything more than dumb excuses to 'justify' the animal genitalia. As far as I can tell, if it wasn't of a zoophilic nature, the animal genitalia wouldn't be there, just implied.
> 
> My person angle is more black and white on this topic.


Dog dicks are not a turn-on for me, either. I wouldn't call images of anthro characters with slippery throbbing red rockets 'bestiality', however.


----------



## BRN (Nov 8, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> On an opinion-based note: animal genitalia. It's gross! I would view any image with animal genitalia to be on the bestiality side. I have a hard time seeing the human aspects of the characters as anything more than dumb excuses to 'justify' the animal genitalia. As far as I can tell, if it wasn't of a zoophilic nature, the animal genitalia wouldn't be there, just implied.
> 
> My person angle is more black and white on this topic.


 


Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Dog dicks are not a turn-on for me, either. I wouldn't call images of anthro characters with slippery throbbing red rockets 'bestiality', however.



So are we saying dogdick is a neccessary part of the "line", but that there's more to it than that?


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> On an opinion-based note: animal genitalia. It's gross! I would view any image with animal genitalia to be on the bestiality side. I have a hard time seeing the human aspects of the characters as anything more than dumb excuses to 'justify' the animal genitalia. As far as I can tell, if it wasn't of a zoophilic nature, the animal genitalia wouldn't be there, just implied.
> 
> My person angle is more black and white on this topic.



It looks kind of weird for a highly animalistic character like a furry to have completely human genitalia. With females it's easier to get away with, but human wangs stand out. I'd personally aim for some mix between species, neither human or feral. Only makes sense given the rest of their body is a human/animal mix.

That said, my character Dean has a human wang, but his excuse is he's more of a ex-human monster than a furry.


----------



## Heimdal (Nov 8, 2011)

SIX said:


> So are we saying dogdick is a neccessary part of the "line", but that there's more to it than that?



I'm saying that I do not comprehend any reason for dogdick (adding in required research to draw it right) beyond a zoophilic interest (or scientific). Why else would they ever need to be drawn? I'm no psychologist certainly, but my brain does not compute.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 8, 2011)

I think it would be necessary to draw the humanoid wang on a furry. Because some of those sausages drawn on furries creep me out. For example, the barbed dick of the lion.


----------



## BRN (Nov 8, 2011)

Heimdal said:


> I'm saying that I do not comprehend any reason for dogdick (adding in required research to draw it right) beyond a zoophilic interest (or scientific). Why else would they ever need to be drawn? I'm no psychologist certainly, but my brain does not compute.



Zoophiliac here meaning an attraction to animals?

    It's not neccessary that someone is a zoophile for them to like other types of phallus. "Fantasy" dicks sold as dildos don't always have zoophiliac connotations; it's hard to say that something designed to resemble, idunnobro, a dragon's dong is inherently zoophiliac when all it is, is a toy designed to create pleasure via exotic shapes and such. Similarly, one could argue that the same principle applies to art; of which the pornographic kind is normally an expression of fantasy. The shape of the phallus may be a further part of that fantasy, rather than the way it is for the sake of zoophilia [which, as far as I'm aware, runs deeper than simply an attraction to animal genitals; even a dog's cock on a human body wouldn't be attractive to a zoophile, I'd imagine]

Ribbed and studded condoms are sold commonly; it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to think that it's possible for "knotted" condoms to one day exist. Yes, the source of these ideas are questionable, but the enjoyment of them isn't neccessarily an expression of zoophilia.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2011)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> I think it would be necessary to draw the humanoid wang on a furry. Because some of those sausages drawn on furries creep me out. For example, the barbed dick of the lion.


Wouldn't a barbed dick hurt like hell though?


----------



## NerdyMunk (Nov 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Wouldn't a barbed dick hurt like hell though?


Exactly.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2011)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> Exactly.


And that is why real life anthros are a bad idea, no one would want to have sex with a guy...
Well maybe once, but never again.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Nov 8, 2011)

ChipmunkBoy92 said:


> However, artists sometimes draw in-proportionate heads on their characters, toony or not. For example, in real life, a chipmunk's eyes are on the side of their head. Yet, when drawn by an artist, they mold the head so the eyes are in front and the ears are on the tippy top of the head. Observe my avatar for a reference. When furry artists do that, it kind of ticks me off. They also do this to many other rodents.



Why the hell do you have it as your avatar, then?


----------



## Rex Aeterna (Nov 8, 2011)

i don't know what to say really. all i know is some of that furry stuff is pretty damn hot i think. Meeya from Dr. Comet and  Krystal from star fox are probably my favorites. i say that stuff from Clubstrips is pretty hot as well. you just need know where to find it. you can make fun of me all you want. i don't care. i will continue to do what i do cause i'm....LIKE A BOSS(sounded lame..but who cares i guess lol).


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 9, 2011)

SIX said:


> It's hard to argue against the final premise of your argument, but then again, there is no actual reason to argue against it. It presents itself as correct. But what are the ramifications? Is there some further conclusion we can make from this premise or is it, in a sense, a trivial admonishment?
> 
> After all it could be argued that no rational human has any moral qualm with zoophilia, even if they find the concept distasteful; sexual attraction is nothing to make into a demon. The moral qualms come from partaking in or supporting bestiality, due to the difficulty that arises from attempting to validate animal consent.
> 
> As such the difference - the line - between adult furry material and drawn bestiality would be merely semantic, as no actual bestiality takes part in either case, despite the sliding scale of zoophilia in each; both are merely the realisation into art of some zoophiliac fantasy that already exists in the mind. No moral qualm.



I don't consider it to be much more than an observation. I'm not trying to put forward my opinion _on_ the subject, merely my opinion _surrounding_ it. The "line" between drawn bestiality and furry porn is indeed semantic, as well as a matter of some value mainly to the furry community; furries tend to have a bit of an issue when presented with the subject.



Heimdal said:


> The problem I find is that armchair psychology is not real psychology, and the accuracy of this may be decidedly different from person to person, rather than being something universal. For some reason, I'm sure some people get hot for animal features, while I only get hot for human features. I find animal features attractive in a cute way, which is in no way sexual. The more human a girl is drawn, the more sexually attractive I may find her; cuteness can factor into the overall appeal, but in my perspective, it's inaccurate to state the animal stuff is sexual itself.



As I put forward in a post aimed toward Zaraphayx on the first page, I think that the reasoning _behind_ an attraction toward animal features to be a different thing all together. While the attraction might not be sexual in itself in your case, it still makes any given piece of art more attractive to you (to a degree, of course). I don't think that the piece of art in itself can be judged by the views of the artist or the viewer, but it should rather be judged individually. From that point of view, I do think that any presence of animal features in a sexual context could be seen as zoophilic, _to a varying degree._

You do have a very valid point about armchair psychology though, and your opinion on the matter is worth at least as much as mine. I openly admit to having _no bloody idea_ about what I'm talking about.



Heimdal said:


> You're ignoring that uniqueness, cuteness, bizarreness, etc, do appeal to people quite a bit, and that side of it is not necessarily sexual just because the human side is showing private parts.



I think that by actively finding content where the human side is showing private parts does translate that "innocent liking" into something sexual. Why would one go through the extra effort of finding adult content with such features if there wasn't some sexual attraction present toward them?



Heimdal said:


> Of course, there are people who are turned on by that stuff, *but the point is that this issue does not have one answer that applies to everyone. I don't think we have the sociological data, and psychological understanding to make a proper conclusion.*



Neither do I! I'm just interested in hearing different opinions on the matter, and yours is a great one at that.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 9, 2011)

Deo said:


> If it has animal genitalia that's also way too far for me because then I know you had to go look that shit up. "Reference" photos my ass, that's bestiality porn motherfucker.



Or just other artists as reference/inspiration. I've seen plenty of furry porn to know exactly what it looks like :V
For me, the line is whether it's on two legs or four. Dragons being a notable exception, being assumed to have super-human intelligence either way.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 9, 2011)

Animal dicks are my line.

Why would you even want that?


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 11, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Animal dicks are my line.
> 
> *Why would you even want that?*


 
I'd be surprised if too many people at all knew that. Isn't it a bit like asking _why_ someone is gay or chooses to participate in or look at fetishism?


----------



## Ricky (Nov 11, 2011)

animal dicks, feral porn

people pretty much already said it


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

I could link to two accounts that illustrate the difference perfectly

but "waah callout waah"

also, from Wikipedia's article on zoophilia



> Anthropomorphism
> While in practice the terms "non-human" and "animal" are identical, fiction is filled with anthropomorphic characters and races that sit in-between them, such as the various aliens from Star Trek, or Neytiri from Avatar. While the network censors and the majority of people accept anthropomorphic non-humans as legitimate targets for romantic affection, not everyone does.[11] Technically this view is in conflict with legal definitions of bestiality, because the same legal systems define animals as 'vertebrates that aren't human', but no one has ever challenged such imagery being broadcast at prime time. Care should be taken that when discussing fictional or hypothetical cases, both parties are using the same dividing line between person and non-person.


----------



## Iovis (Nov 13, 2011)

Deo said:


> If it has animal genitalia that's also way too far for me because then I know you had to go look that shit up. "Reference" photos my ass, that's bestiality porn motherfucker.


This comment actually made me somewhat curious about how accurately dog dicks are represented in the fandom. I wont post sources (lolinstaban) but after about 10 minutes of research I have discovered that most pictures are way too anatomically accurate in regards to the junk between their legs. I'm not sure why I expected otherwise. >:|

It also makes me glad that my favorite artists draw human-like dicks. :]


----------



## Ames (Nov 13, 2011)

My favorite artists don't draw dicks at all. :\


----------



## Iovis (Nov 13, 2011)

JamesB said:


> My favorite artists don't draw dicks at all. :\


... WHAT?!

Son.... I am disappoint. :|


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Nov 13, 2011)

The main problem everyone has with zoophilia is that the animal of interest cannot consent / doesn't know what's happening. Hence I'm going to base my argument on that, because it's easily defined.

Furry art does not deal even slightly with the sentience of it's subjects. In fact, neither does normal filmed human porn (with some exceptions): You get people grunting and moaning whilst having sex. What's there to prove that those people are sentient? When people watch porn, they don't want a disclaimer at the start where everyone fills out a psychometric analysis to prove that they're fit to do it, it just doesn't happen.

Trying to tease an answer out of what is basically just a series of pictures designed to turn people on seems like a pointless task. Even if you did say "This is obviously an animal", they'll just say "No, it's a feral. It has a human mind inside that (obviously) animal body!" The problem with this is that it encourages endorsers of cub-porn to do likewise:

"That character is obviously underage."
"Well, I can guarantee that it's an adult mind trapped in a child's body, so it's all legit."
What?


----------



## shteev (Nov 16, 2011)

The only thing I care about is if the subject is a humanoid, meaning they stand upright, have a human body structure, and have the mind of a human.
Also, I look at gay furry porn, meaning the subjects are cognitive enough to have a sexual preference.
Basically, if it can think like us, it's not beastiality.


----------



## shteev (Nov 16, 2011)

Also, why bitch about the damn _dicks_? The character has Fur, animal face structure, and, in most cases, paws/claws. If you're gonna complain about the genitals, complain about the other animal shit first.


----------



## Wyldfyre (Nov 18, 2011)

I'm not really a fan of feral porn, but as long as the character has enough features to distinguish it as at least somewhat anthro, I'm not really fussed about any other details. (Unless it's some OTT fetishist picture, in which case I disregard it completely.)

Thing is, bestiality is an act, whereas furry porn is literally (at this point in time) impossible. Given that technicality, I don't really think the two are comparable. Of course that's just me going terminology-Nazi as always.

Ignoring that however, I see your point. My views though may come across as slightly crazy, but they make sense to me.
Personally, I love the variety of genitals throughout life, especially canines. I don't get what gets people's undies in a twist. Yeah, I like dog cock. Does that mean I intend to go have sex with one? Hell no. 
Does it increase the likelihood that I _might_? Well, maybe. Just about as much as average people with guns are more likely to murder someone. 
Does it mean that I may have zoophilic tendencies? Probably, but so what? I have no urge to act on them, and I'm not selfish enough to just do it just "because". I'm not bothering anyone or anything, what's the problem? 

I enjoy my interest through legal art/pornography and silicone within my own residence. Nobody knows unless I tell them. Although I do feel slightly embarrassed/shameful about it, I don't see that I'm doing any harm to anything or anyone, so I see no problem.


----------



## FF_CCSa1F (Nov 18, 2011)

I admire your outspokenness, Wyldfyre.


----------



## Calemeyr (Nov 18, 2011)

I can look at hot sergals because they aren't real animals and aren't even anthropomorphic. I could replace the word "sergal" with "elf" or "vulcan" and nothing would change. In fact that sounds pretty good right there.

See? I can look at erotic drawings but associate them with humans. That's because they're drawn to show sentience. When it starts getting weird is (well, all the fetish porn is weird)...ok really weird, is when people make _feral_ porn. This is when it moves away from "humans in fursuits" to "dog with human brain, but you don't know that unless I tell you." 

Really, it's along the same lines as cub. If it looks like a kid, it's a kid. If it looks like a wild animal, it's a wild animal. I don't give a shit what's inside the dog's head or that the guy stopped growing when he was ten. All that matters is how it's drawn. Impression is more important than intention when it comes to visual media, because it's how consumers receive the media. Remember that.


----------

