Being sexually attracted to stylized animated depictions of thing, or fantasy versions of thing, is not the same as being attracted to real-life thing. The best non-pedo/loli example of this is furries. It is a verifiable fact that there are people who are sexually attracted to anthropomorphized cartoon depictions of animals, or who engage in sexual fantasy play in which they pretend to be animals, yet have no sexual interest in real animals. There are definitely also people who are into both. Not all furries are actual zoophiles, not all lolicons are actual pedophiles. Disliking the content is not a good reason to ignore this distinction.
“Guys, stooooop, it’s super unfair for you to call me a dogfucker! I didn’t even fuck a dog, I just jerk off all the time to explicitly stated drawings of dogs! Stooooooop!”
Drawings of dogs, or drawings of fantastical, speaking, intelligent non-human creatures? They are completely different. The comparison to lolicon/pedos is a poor one.
If you think furry porn is weird or gross, fine, but don’t pretend it is in any way some kind of animal abuse fantasy.
I’m not attempting to talk about the “furry community” though, I’m talking about the distinction between being into bestiality and being into furry porn. The non-pornographic aspects of the furry fandom are not relevant to the discussion whatsoever.
Being sexually attracted to stylized animated depictions of thing, or fantasy versions of thing, is not the same as being attracted to real-life thing. The best non-pedo/loli example of this is furries. It is a verifiable fact that there are people who are sexually attracted to anthropomorphized cartoon depictions of animals, or who engage in sexual fantasy play in which they pretend to be animals, yet have no sexual interest in real animals. There are definitely also people who are into both. Not all furries are actual zoophiles, not all lolicons are actual pedophiles. Disliking the content is not a good reason to ignore this distinction.
I see your argument that a lolicon ≠ a pedophile, but it still seems hella unethical to goon to an anime character that looks like a kid
“Guys, stooooop, it’s super unfair for you to call me a dogfucker! I didn’t even fuck a dog, I just jerk off all the time to explicitly stated drawings of dogs! Stooooooop!”
a zoophile and a furry are NOT the same thing
Agreed. But he didn’t say “anthro dog”, he said “dog”. There’s plenty of drawn zoophile porn out there.
Did I say that they were? Or are you just so defensive that you’re reading your insecurities into what I said?
HAH.
Drawings of dogs, or drawings of fantastical, speaking, intelligent non-human creatures? They are completely different. The comparison to lolicon/pedos is a poor one.
If you think furry porn is weird or gross, fine, but don’t pretend it is in any way some kind of animal abuse fantasy.
I like how in your desire to hear yourself speak on behalf of the furry community, you limit the furry community to its porn.
I’m not attempting to talk about the “furry community” though, I’m talking about the distinction between being into bestiality and being into furry porn. The non-pornographic aspects of the furry fandom are not relevant to the discussion whatsoever.
Damn. Glad I never said anything about furries.
Brave of you to say so. I usually also bring up dark romance novels as well. I mean the trauma informed stuff.
There’s interesting conversation to be had around this topic but no one ever actually wants to have that discussion.