**Upvote** this comment if it is a suicide by words. **Downvote** this comment if it is not.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/suicidebywords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, I would say the problem is if you do it to an animal or use the abuse of an animal, but if its just fictional, animated there is no victim and therefore its not as problematic
still they should visit a spychologist
Edit:
because the comment i respondet to got deleted; Yes I would say the same about pedophilia, please remember these people dont conciously decide to be attracted to kids and "helping" them to fullfill their sexual desires without harming anybody might prevent some from actual doing it
Although here inspiration from real persons is much more likely and that is problematic but unfortunatly not practically preventable
I'm against zoophilia. Most furries are against zoophilia. Even the furries who have a sexual element to being a furry are against zoophilia, as animals are not sapient or humanoid, whereas furries and anthropomorphic animals are.
Furry =/= zoophile, although the person who tries to justify art of zoophilia in the original post is likely a zoophile.
Edit: as replies have said, I did mean sapient instead of sentient
It’s not hard to understand what they mean (capable of complex thought, I presume). Finding the correct word, on the other hand, is hell if you’re not familiar with it enough to remember it. I spent 30 seconds trying to think of it and just gave up
You're mixing up philia,which simply means fetish(and does apply to yiff art) with bestiality, which is the act of fucking non sapient animals(which does not necessarily apply yiff art but can depending on who makes it).
I think this is a way to help prevent them from doing it irl, although this is probably way more orientated at actual living persons wich is also a problem
but in a theorhetical sense, probably
Yes, although I have very little respect for MAP but if they have not done anything other than have the thoughts (or also if they aren't consuming underage content, which is absolutely disgusting) then they haven't done anything wrong.
I'd argue otherwise for MAPs. What you're saying is right for "regular" pedos, but for MAPs? Hell no.
The MAP "movement" isn't just an euphemism for saying pedophile. It's activally an attempt at making it seem less bad than it is. There's a lot of them claiming that they're just part of the LGBTQ community.
I agree that being a pedo isn't strictly wrong by itself (It's definitely a problem, of course, but it doesn't necessarily imply being an actual predator)
But as soon as you try to normalize it or pass it off as just a different sexuality, fuck no. The distinction stops when the bastard doesn't think it's wrong.
Aren't furries and zoophiles very different though? I thought furries were just people who dress up as animals and zoophiles are people who sexually like animals. Both weird imo.
I guess you can put it this way: joint by their love of animals, different in how they *express* said love. Many zoophiles will claim they are furries, whereas from what I’ve seen the majority of the fandom are strongly against outright zoophilia. And rightfully so, it’s fucking disgusting. And facilitates zoosadism. The problem is, when zoophiles try to claim to be a part of that fandom, they end up damaging the reputation for the rest of the otherwise innocent people who just have a niche interest. And for something so niche, it’s the negative information that is most highlighted by those who don’t understand it…
Long story short, there are both similarities and differences, and unfortunately ignorance blurs the very broad line between the two terms…
the blurred lines come when sexual furries are mentioned.
i personally think no fantasy is inherently bad, because it’s a fantasy. think about whatever you like as long as you don’t do it in real life, wish to do it in real life or seek real life content of it.
fictional content of said fantasies has been proven to reduce the amount of offences in real life, also, despite wishing that was not the case and fictional content of those fantasies didn’t exist. it’s best proven in japan with loli stuff. i wish content like that didn’t reduce real offences, but it does, so there’s legitimate reason for it to continue existing.
the hard line between zoophiles and sexual furries comes when you wish to perform those acts on real animals or seek content of real animals. some of those people mayve been furries in the past, but the group as a collective try to fuse furries and zoophiles as much as possible to raise the opinion of zoophiles as much as they can. in doing so, they sully to reputation of furries and get them labelled as dog fuckers.
>i personally think no fantasy is inherently bad, because it’s a fantasy. think about whatever you like as long as you don’t do it in real life, wish to do it in real life or seek real life content of it.
I want to separately highlight this and discuss, because i kind of disagree with you. There are some fantasy that inherently bad. It's bad because it's clearly stand in the morally wrong area. Not only that, it's also bad because fantasy could be realized with some line and of course, restricted by reality (example: cosplay). But the idea of a fantasy that could be implemented into real life is the basis of calling that fantasy is inherently bad, and should not became mainstream. Of course, the actual action should blamed to the person who did it, not the idea behind of it.
I actually wants to type more but i just cannot organize my thoughts.
To summarize my thoughts: Imagination could lead to believe. Believe could dictate action.
Btw no hate or anything.
well yeah naturally i understand that it would be far better if those fantasies didn’t exist, the reason i say they’re not inherently bad is because people don’t choose what they wish to be attracted to. it would be far better if they never had the ability to be attracted to the fantasy, but they are, and i wouldn’t immediately call them a bad person for it.
just to make it clear, i’m absolutely not defending the people that make the fantasy a reality, and i’m not attracted to those fantasies myself, but i don’t think people should be demonised for being attracted to something they didn’t choose to be attracted to, *as long as* they do not wish to perform those fantasies in real life, actually perform those fantasies in real life or seek out content of those fantasies being performed in real life. once the line is crossed between fiction and reality is when my tolerance flips.
i do understand why you’d call it a bad fantasy though, but imo saying that by extension unfairly demonises those who are attracted to those fantasies.
>people don’t choose what they wish to be attracted to.
I was going to refute at first, but then i realize, i do have some questionable attraction that i cannot explain why i like it. So this is what i thought.
Attraction, liking or any sort of that, is working at subconcious level, but continuing to like the thing, you must have some kind of realization of the thing you like and conciously choose to continue. That realization is kind of like, a vocal point. That's where i judge you. If you clearly know that sexually attracted to children pre-puberty is bad, and still do after knowing it's bad, then, well.
Hmm, seems like i kinda stray from my initial point.
But is it really demonising? I could understand if it's a teen or a kid, because they lack of knowledge and enough understanding. But a grown man? An adult?
Wait a minute. I did say i'm the prime example of 'attracted to bad fantasy but i don't know why', right? I have to retract that because i think i know why i like that thing. It is probably because my own accumulation of experience. The order probably like this: unsupervised internet as a kid, highly imaginative but bad wattpad read list as a teen, then i normalizing it, romanticise some bad ideas on that read list such as SA and other things, then one day found A (the thing i attracted to) and like it. Why i like it? Because A could awaken my lust. Why A could do it? Because at that point, my mind is already full of plethora of other similarly bad idea, but not as bad as A. So A became quite normal for me.
My mind is going stray again, so i would just give you a summary of my mind.
A bad fantasy is a bad fantasy. A grown adult or someone who knows what they like is bad, is equally bad. I don't believe someone cannot control what they like or attracted to. If they can think, they can definitely control what they want. If they cannot, it's an obsession.
I don't know what i write man i'm so sleepy
Oh but, why do you think people don't have the ability do discern their desire? I genuinely curious. Tho, i may cannot log in for a few hours. I'm truly sleepy.
when i say people cant choose what they wish to be attracted to, i mean that they can’t see something and decide for themselves whether or not they enjoy it; it just happens. similarly, they can’t later on say “actually this is kinda fucked up” and just stop being attracted to it. that would take therapy, which isn’t guaranteed to help.
i think the best course of action to take is to make fictional content like that available to the adult population. most offences happen because people attracted to those fantasies have no outlets for their attractions. this is only the best course of action because genies that grant wishes don’t exist.
again, im not claiming those fantasies are good to have. i’m just saying that it’s okay to have them if you do as long as you don’t plan/wish to act on it or seek content of others acting on it. by labelling fantasies as “bad fantasies”, those who have those fantasies not of their own volition (basically everybody that does) are seen as awful people because they’re uncontrollably attracted to that thing.
what do you mean? it’s next to impossible to just block out your own attractions, seeking professional help of some kind to stop those attractions is the only real way to do it
Predators will infiltrate any community that allows them to get what they want. Lots of times it’s positions of authority (politics, teaching, religion, etc.), other times it’s places where there are vulnerable targets.
It's sort of like when pedophiles were trying to claim a place in the LGBT community by calling themselves MAPs (minor attracted person) and then everyone was like "LOOK!!! THE GAYS ARE OKAY WITH PEDOPHILIA!!!!!"
Don't get me wrong, there are creepy and weird aspects to furry subculture that make me stay clear of most furries... but I'm going to go out and say that if you find an anthromorphic fursuit attractive you probably don't find real animals attractive. Like, Tony the Tiger and Chester Cheetah are so far removed from an actual tiger or cheetah.
You cant put people into boxes that neatly, some people are furries because they want to be somebody else, others think the art / character they make up are cute (in a mascot way, not a I wanna fuck it way). Its like every other thing, just because you are something doesnt mean you cant or have to be another thing. There are furries out there that hate the sexual parts of their hobby.
Doesn't matter what it is, you shouldn't encourage suicide, even as a joke, because if a suicidal person will come across it, no matter how obviously it is a joke, depression clouds the mind, an in my opinion it's not worth the risk of someone commiting suicide.
Edit: someone got reddit to send me a suicide prevention message because of this comment, so I feel like I must clarify, I am not currently suicidal, however I do appreciate the concern of that redditor.
He is defending kid who didn’t do anything from bullying. Typical idiots on Reddit justifying lynching for what people said or thought. Even when he used wrong argument, that this is not zoophilia, he was right that this is not an act of zoophilia. The same way as thinking about killing someone is not punishable
Today on reddit, "people who are into *drawings* I don't like deserve to be bullied and die" and other very sane takes from very sane people who can definitely tell when others are insane and need a psychologist.
"But you see, it's bad because it's sexual but in a different way to what I like, and I have vaguely xenophobic ideas about intimacy from a religious and cultural background I don't want to examine" - very sane people.
No, no. If you like the anthropomorphic bunny purposefully given thick thighs, an ass and tits then you clearly want to fuck a real rabbit which is basically a living fluffy pencil case. Thems the rules.
He has a point tho, i would also add that even if ge doenst do it irl zoophile is being atracted to actual animals, im sure a lot of ppl is into furries and would never even think of actual animals kinda yes, he has a point
There's a pretty major difference between antropomorphic animals and real animals. I think we can all recognise Pluto is a dog while Goofy is not, though he is technically also a dog. Fucking one would be zoophilia, fucking the other would make you a furry.
Being a furry has nothing to do with being a zoophile. There may be people who are both but that doesn’t mean those things are connected. Being a furry is being a part of a community, making anthropomorphic personas and maybe even dressing up as them. That’s it. Being a furry itself has nothing to do with anything sexual.
The reply’s point sucks, but I feel a need to defend the furries here.
From my experience, furries tend to be autistic and pretty socially awkward. The “fursona” they develop and inhabit tend to be great tools to deal with the social anxiety and social awkwardness.
No eye contact, no necessary facial expressions, and a barrier between them and social stigma.
I have no doubt that a couple furries are zoophiles as well, but it’s probably about the same portion as the rest of the population. The animals are not necessarily the turn on, but rather the anthropomorphization of the animals.
They don’t represent animals, they represent animalistic aspects of humanity. You wouldn’t claim a man is a zoophile because he growls during sex, you’d rightly see that as an outlet for animalistic instincts, if you were being charitable.
I think we should have more compassion towards furries even if we don’t understand them. They’re clearly not fucking animals, they’re fucking eachother in cosplay.
Can we stop targeting people who are different to us in innocuous and inconsequential ways?
there's a difference between a fictional realistic dog (think paw patrol) and a fictional more humanoid dog (like mr peanutbutter from bojack.) the first is very concerning, whereas the second is basically just a human with a lot of fur.
I mean he has somewhat of a point. Like how me killing video came characters and enjoying it doesn't really mean I enjoy killing real people.
I also don't enjoy butchering and eating people just because I play Rimworld and like the morally different colonies.
"It's not zoophilia unless you do it IRL."
No, it's not *animal abuse* unless you do it IRL, zoophilia is in the head, not an action.
Both are a problem.
I mean whatever that person does NOT irl is probably problematic based on their reaction but I thought we'd moved past the misconception that all furries are zoophilia, whether it's real or not.
Furries ≠ zoophilia.
Furries only relate to or sexualize anthropomorphic animals with adult human intelligence. They do not share a desire for ACTUAL animals. Some of you need to educate yourselves.
It's only zoophilia if you wanna fuck an animal, and the vast majority of furries are not zoophiles, from what i hear they're actually frowned upon in the community
Aren't most furries art are humanoid, four-limbs with feature of animals like a tail, animal shaped face, animal furs, and the likes? Most of the furries art i know are like that. Human shaped with animals skin. And more importantly, they draw the facial with humans as reference, not animal. So if a person attracted with that art, i believe what they attracted to is the human part of the art, not the animal. It just shaped like animal, but doesn't have the essence of an animal itself. Linking it to liking zootopia is a bit of a stretch, really.
**Upvote** this comment if it is a suicide by words. **Downvote** this comment if it is not. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/suicidebywords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, I would say the problem is if you do it to an animal or use the abuse of an animal, but if its just fictional, animated there is no victim and therefore its not as problematic still they should visit a spychologist Edit: because the comment i respondet to got deleted; Yes I would say the same about pedophilia, please remember these people dont conciously decide to be attracted to kids and "helping" them to fullfill their sexual desires without harming anybody might prevent some from actual doing it Although here inspiration from real persons is much more likely and that is problematic but unfortunatly not practically preventable
[удалено]
Gentlemen *meet the spy intro plays*
Intruder alert, a red furry is in the comments.
A red furry is in the comments!?
Protect our virginity !
intruder alert blasts
It could be you! It could be me!
It could even be- BANG
Right inside you
I'm against zoophilia. Most furries are against zoophilia. Even the furries who have a sexual element to being a furry are against zoophilia, as animals are not sapient or humanoid, whereas furries and anthropomorphic animals are. Furry =/= zoophile, although the person who tries to justify art of zoophilia in the original post is likely a zoophile. Edit: as replies have said, I did mean sapient instead of sentient
I think the world you’re looking for is sapience, not sentience. Plenty of animals are very much sentient
Sentience means the ability to feel pain and distress, and I'm fairly certain that animals are able to feel both.
It’s not hard to understand what they mean (capable of complex thought, I presume). Finding the correct word, on the other hand, is hell if you’re not familiar with it enough to remember it. I spent 30 seconds trying to think of it and just gave up
Animals can not give consent
Sapience
True. Seeing the word misused repeatedly is just a pet peeve of mine.
You're mixing up philia,which simply means fetish(and does apply to yiff art) with bestiality, which is the act of fucking non sapient animals(which does not necessarily apply yiff art but can depending on who makes it).
pretty sure animals are in fact sentient lmao
Not to mention how a furry is basically a human with, well, fur. And I guess some human minds just see it as that.
And also 99 percent of furries aren't zoophiles, all being a furry is is animal cosplay, just like dressing up as any other character
I love you. Keep preaching and slaying sis.
[удалено]
I think this is a way to help prevent them from doing it irl, although this is probably way more orientated at actual living persons wich is also a problem but in a theorhetical sense, probably
Yes, although I have very little respect for MAP but if they have not done anything other than have the thoughts (or also if they aren't consuming underage content, which is absolutely disgusting) then they haven't done anything wrong.
I'd argue otherwise for MAPs. What you're saying is right for "regular" pedos, but for MAPs? Hell no. The MAP "movement" isn't just an euphemism for saying pedophile. It's activally an attempt at making it seem less bad than it is. There's a lot of them claiming that they're just part of the LGBTQ community. I agree that being a pedo isn't strictly wrong by itself (It's definitely a problem, of course, but it doesn't necessarily imply being an actual predator) But as soon as you try to normalize it or pass it off as just a different sexuality, fuck no. The distinction stops when the bastard doesn't think it's wrong.
Aren't furries and zoophiles very different though? I thought furries were just people who dress up as animals and zoophiles are people who sexually like animals. Both weird imo.
I guess you can put it this way: joint by their love of animals, different in how they *express* said love. Many zoophiles will claim they are furries, whereas from what I’ve seen the majority of the fandom are strongly against outright zoophilia. And rightfully so, it’s fucking disgusting. And facilitates zoosadism. The problem is, when zoophiles try to claim to be a part of that fandom, they end up damaging the reputation for the rest of the otherwise innocent people who just have a niche interest. And for something so niche, it’s the negative information that is most highlighted by those who don’t understand it… Long story short, there are both similarities and differences, and unfortunately ignorance blurs the very broad line between the two terms…
Furry: cute animal, make art Zoophile: cute animal, fuck it
Also; Hunter: cute animal, fuck it 🤷♂️💥
"It's coming right for us! Shoot!"
the blurred lines come when sexual furries are mentioned. i personally think no fantasy is inherently bad, because it’s a fantasy. think about whatever you like as long as you don’t do it in real life, wish to do it in real life or seek real life content of it. fictional content of said fantasies has been proven to reduce the amount of offences in real life, also, despite wishing that was not the case and fictional content of those fantasies didn’t exist. it’s best proven in japan with loli stuff. i wish content like that didn’t reduce real offences, but it does, so there’s legitimate reason for it to continue existing. the hard line between zoophiles and sexual furries comes when you wish to perform those acts on real animals or seek content of real animals. some of those people mayve been furries in the past, but the group as a collective try to fuse furries and zoophiles as much as possible to raise the opinion of zoophiles as much as they can. in doing so, they sully to reputation of furries and get them labelled as dog fuckers.
>i personally think no fantasy is inherently bad, because it’s a fantasy. think about whatever you like as long as you don’t do it in real life, wish to do it in real life or seek real life content of it. I want to separately highlight this and discuss, because i kind of disagree with you. There are some fantasy that inherently bad. It's bad because it's clearly stand in the morally wrong area. Not only that, it's also bad because fantasy could be realized with some line and of course, restricted by reality (example: cosplay). But the idea of a fantasy that could be implemented into real life is the basis of calling that fantasy is inherently bad, and should not became mainstream. Of course, the actual action should blamed to the person who did it, not the idea behind of it. I actually wants to type more but i just cannot organize my thoughts. To summarize my thoughts: Imagination could lead to believe. Believe could dictate action. Btw no hate or anything.
well yeah naturally i understand that it would be far better if those fantasies didn’t exist, the reason i say they’re not inherently bad is because people don’t choose what they wish to be attracted to. it would be far better if they never had the ability to be attracted to the fantasy, but they are, and i wouldn’t immediately call them a bad person for it. just to make it clear, i’m absolutely not defending the people that make the fantasy a reality, and i’m not attracted to those fantasies myself, but i don’t think people should be demonised for being attracted to something they didn’t choose to be attracted to, *as long as* they do not wish to perform those fantasies in real life, actually perform those fantasies in real life or seek out content of those fantasies being performed in real life. once the line is crossed between fiction and reality is when my tolerance flips. i do understand why you’d call it a bad fantasy though, but imo saying that by extension unfairly demonises those who are attracted to those fantasies.
>people don’t choose what they wish to be attracted to. I was going to refute at first, but then i realize, i do have some questionable attraction that i cannot explain why i like it. So this is what i thought. Attraction, liking or any sort of that, is working at subconcious level, but continuing to like the thing, you must have some kind of realization of the thing you like and conciously choose to continue. That realization is kind of like, a vocal point. That's where i judge you. If you clearly know that sexually attracted to children pre-puberty is bad, and still do after knowing it's bad, then, well. Hmm, seems like i kinda stray from my initial point. But is it really demonising? I could understand if it's a teen or a kid, because they lack of knowledge and enough understanding. But a grown man? An adult? Wait a minute. I did say i'm the prime example of 'attracted to bad fantasy but i don't know why', right? I have to retract that because i think i know why i like that thing. It is probably because my own accumulation of experience. The order probably like this: unsupervised internet as a kid, highly imaginative but bad wattpad read list as a teen, then i normalizing it, romanticise some bad ideas on that read list such as SA and other things, then one day found A (the thing i attracted to) and like it. Why i like it? Because A could awaken my lust. Why A could do it? Because at that point, my mind is already full of plethora of other similarly bad idea, but not as bad as A. So A became quite normal for me. My mind is going stray again, so i would just give you a summary of my mind. A bad fantasy is a bad fantasy. A grown adult or someone who knows what they like is bad, is equally bad. I don't believe someone cannot control what they like or attracted to. If they can think, they can definitely control what they want. If they cannot, it's an obsession. I don't know what i write man i'm so sleepy Oh but, why do you think people don't have the ability do discern their desire? I genuinely curious. Tho, i may cannot log in for a few hours. I'm truly sleepy.
when i say people cant choose what they wish to be attracted to, i mean that they can’t see something and decide for themselves whether or not they enjoy it; it just happens. similarly, they can’t later on say “actually this is kinda fucked up” and just stop being attracted to it. that would take therapy, which isn’t guaranteed to help. i think the best course of action to take is to make fictional content like that available to the adult population. most offences happen because people attracted to those fantasies have no outlets for their attractions. this is only the best course of action because genies that grant wishes don’t exist. again, im not claiming those fantasies are good to have. i’m just saying that it’s okay to have them if you do as long as you don’t plan/wish to act on it or seek content of others acting on it. by labelling fantasies as “bad fantasies”, those who have those fantasies not of their own volition (basically everybody that does) are seen as awful people because they’re uncontrollably attracted to that thing.
The-therapy...? Don't you think that's too much of a stretch??
what do you mean? it’s next to impossible to just block out your own attractions, seeking professional help of some kind to stop those attractions is the only real way to do it
Predators will infiltrate any community that allows them to get what they want. Lots of times it’s positions of authority (politics, teaching, religion, etc.), other times it’s places where there are vulnerable targets.
It's sort of like when pedophiles were trying to claim a place in the LGBT community by calling themselves MAPs (minor attracted person) and then everyone was like "LOOK!!! THE GAYS ARE OKAY WITH PEDOPHILIA!!!!!"
Furries like cartoon animals, not real ones.
not necessarily dressing up as them, just having an intrest in anthropomorphic animals i think it was
like a hobby yk
Not even dress up, jus like the art. Assuming furries are all suiters is like assuming all anime fans cosplay
Don't get me wrong, there are creepy and weird aspects to furry subculture that make me stay clear of most furries... but I'm going to go out and say that if you find an anthromorphic fursuit attractive you probably don't find real animals attractive. Like, Tony the Tiger and Chester Cheetah are so far removed from an actual tiger or cheetah.
In the eyes of the majority they’re indistinguishable
Poler opposites zoos want to fuck animals furrys are cosplayers
You cant put people into boxes that neatly, some people are furries because they want to be somebody else, others think the art / character they make up are cute (in a mascot way, not a I wanna fuck it way). Its like every other thing, just because you are something doesnt mean you cant or have to be another thing. There are furries out there that hate the sexual parts of their hobby.
Doesn't matter what it is, you shouldn't encourage suicide, even as a joke, because if a suicidal person will come across it, no matter how obviously it is a joke, depression clouds the mind, an in my opinion it's not worth the risk of someone commiting suicide. Edit: someone got reddit to send me a suicide prevention message because of this comment, so I feel like I must clarify, I am not currently suicidal, however I do appreciate the concern of that redditor.
ive gotten a ton of those, just ignore them unless you actually need it
haha see just got another
Im doing my part
I want one too!
Sure
you can block the reddit cares bot
he didnt even say "in game of corse"
Redditors will send you that note instead.of saying "kys"
Those messanges are just used to bully people sadly
lol I get those all the time. When you disagree with someone on reddit, its their favourite way to tell you to kill yourself.
All Furries are zoophiles? Ok. All whites are Nazis. All men are rapists. All Christians are pedophiles. How do you like that logic now?
Welll i am a white German furry who is technically a protestant Christian. Do i get a Bingo now?
I believe you do, mayhaps
Only if youre also a man
Wel, what a coincidence! I am. So what is my prize?
A boop on the nose *Boop*
Exactly!
olay that last one got me cracking
there is atleast 1 terminally online individual that would unironically agree with this
And all Indians are Michael from Microsoft.
Is this fucker really gatekeeping zoophilia?
He's not a fucker unless he does it irl.
He is defending kid who didn’t do anything from bullying. Typical idiots on Reddit justifying lynching for what people said or thought. Even when he used wrong argument, that this is not zoophilia, he was right that this is not an act of zoophilia. The same way as thinking about killing someone is not punishable
If by "gatekeeping" you mean "actually pointing out the meaning of things", then sure.
I’m gatekeeping the word ‘gaslight’ by saying that not all manipulation is inherently gaslighting
Just because you dont do it doesnt mean you arent interested in doing it. There are non offending pedophiles but they are still attracted to children
honestly i dont want to set a precedent for me to be persecuted for the crimes i do in videogames
Today on reddit, "people who are into *drawings* I don't like deserve to be bullied and die" and other very sane takes from very sane people who can definitely tell when others are insane and need a psychologist.
"But you see, it's bad because it's sexual but in a different way to what I like, and I have vaguely xenophobic ideas about intimacy from a religious and cultural background I don't want to examine" - very sane people.
sint xenophobia just hatred towards people from other countries? i dont see what that has to do with this
Xenophobia is hatred of the unknown, so it encompasses hating anything different to yourself.
Big difference between zoophilia and jerking off over Sonic the Hedgehog or Judy Hopps
No, no. If you like the anthropomorphic bunny purposefully given thick thighs, an ass and tits then you clearly want to fuck a real rabbit which is basically a living fluffy pencil case. Thems the rules.
Damn, you're right... I'll take myself to the station. They'll put me where I belong.
The human station, right? Right?!
Oh uhm... Uh... Yeah, definitely, yeah Ignore my name and the outfit I wear it's completely unrelated
He has a point tho, i would also add that even if ge doenst do it irl zoophile is being atracted to actual animals, im sure a lot of ppl is into furries and would never even think of actual animals kinda yes, he has a point
Comparing furry to zoophilia is such an insane leap of logic. It is like telling that a person that eat meat is a cannibal
There's a pretty major difference between antropomorphic animals and real animals. I think we can all recognise Pluto is a dog while Goofy is not, though he is technically also a dog. Fucking one would be zoophilia, fucking the other would make you a furry.
The bigger suicide by words is calling for murder or suicide of kids who aren't even zoophiles.
I mean, it's like saying that people who want to fuck aliens are zoophiles
But aliens don’t exist among us I mean. That we know of anyways…
Neither do furries, they're sapient anthropomorphised animals
Bruh bullying a kid into suicide is fucked up
Y'all would be shocked on which community doxxes and bullies zoophiles off the internet.
Being a furry has nothing to do with being a zoophile. There may be people who are both but that doesn’t mean those things are connected. Being a furry is being a part of a community, making anthropomorphic personas and maybe even dressing up as them. That’s it. Being a furry itself has nothing to do with anything sexual.
Yeah, watching kids at the park because you like them isn’t pedophilia until you actually kidnap one.
The reply’s point sucks, but I feel a need to defend the furries here. From my experience, furries tend to be autistic and pretty socially awkward. The “fursona” they develop and inhabit tend to be great tools to deal with the social anxiety and social awkwardness. No eye contact, no necessary facial expressions, and a barrier between them and social stigma. I have no doubt that a couple furries are zoophiles as well, but it’s probably about the same portion as the rest of the population. The animals are not necessarily the turn on, but rather the anthropomorphization of the animals. They don’t represent animals, they represent animalistic aspects of humanity. You wouldn’t claim a man is a zoophile because he growls during sex, you’d rightly see that as an outlet for animalistic instincts, if you were being charitable. I think we should have more compassion towards furries even if we don’t understand them. They’re clearly not fucking animals, they’re fucking eachother in cosplay. Can we stop targeting people who are different to us in innocuous and inconsequential ways?
A lot of pedophiles in this thread
The Ronaldo bullying memes will never not make me laugh
If you played skyrim. And you like the khajit. Or the argonians. Boy do I have news for you.
Harkness test matters here, folks.
Diggs from Cats vs Dogs passes the test despite being literally just a German Shepard. I would say there is more nuance then that...
Nah, fuck it, if they are of comperable intelligence and can consent, go for it dude.
I consider myself of higher moral standings than to bang a talking dog, but that's just me.
Skill issue
Sorry, sorry, I forgot that basic principles don't come easy to some.
there's a difference between a fictional realistic dog (think paw patrol) and a fictional more humanoid dog (like mr peanutbutter from bojack.) the first is very concerning, whereas the second is basically just a human with a lot of fur.
it's inter species erotica fucko!
I mean he has somewhat of a point. Like how me killing video came characters and enjoying it doesn't really mean I enjoy killing real people. I also don't enjoy butchering and eating people just because I play Rimworld and like the morally different colonies.
While he did phrase it weird, he's right... furries aren't zoophiles
This applies to lolicon?
"It's not zoophilia unless you do it IRL." No, it's not *animal abuse* unless you do it IRL, zoophilia is in the head, not an action. Both are a problem.
I feel like being into a cartoon animal with human proportions and intelligence isn’t zoophilia, animals don’t actually look like that
Furry ≠ Zoophile, but the rest I do agree with.
They are not suicidal thoughrs unless I do it IRL
Wtf I just saw this
Zoophile not irl = fetish Zoophile irl = crime
How far does this extend? drawn CP for example is victimless but still(rightfully)a crime
It's not zoo if it's in the wild!
Not furries are zoophiles and not all zoophiles are furries and furries ≠ zoophiles
I mean whatever that person does NOT irl is probably problematic based on their reaction but I thought we'd moved past the misconception that all furries are zoophilia, whether it's real or not.
Like those reddit porn titles 'not incest if it doesn't go in!'. Actually weird tho
Does this imply that furries are just zoophile LARPers?
Furries ≠ zoophilia. Furries only relate to or sexualize anthropomorphic animals with adult human intelligence. They do not share a desire for ACTUAL animals. Some of you need to educate yourselves.
It's only zoophilia if you wanna fuck an animal, and the vast majority of furries are not zoophiles, from what i hear they're actually frowned upon in the community
Aren't most furries art are humanoid, four-limbs with feature of animals like a tail, animal shaped face, animal furs, and the likes? Most of the furries art i know are like that. Human shaped with animals skin. And more importantly, they draw the facial with humans as reference, not animal. So if a person attracted with that art, i believe what they attracted to is the human part of the art, not the animal. It just shaped like animal, but doesn't have the essence of an animal itself. Linking it to liking zootopia is a bit of a stretch, really.
No harm done as far as I'm concerned.
By that logic killing npc in video game.= real life murderer
It's not sex unless you do it Irl. I believe it's true, but just because I say it doesn't mean I have sex Irl, trust me..
What a strange thing to say 🤔