Why the Anti-furry Feral Arguments Fail

 WARNING: This isn't a place meant to be read for minors. If you are a minor, do not read. I do not know if it's too much, but I put this warning here anyway.

 

 

For many years, the rise of finding 'anthropomorphic' characters attractive has been on the rise, however, there has been on and off drama involving a debate about what kind of anthropomorphism is required in order to make it morally alright, and that usually involves the topic of "ferals", which is more commonly more referred to four-legged beings mainly focused on canines, and felines. Does there need to be some form of 'humanoid' body to make it acceptable? There has also been arguments claiming that what counts as "anthro" or anthropomorphic is that they must have two legs as well, even though anthropomorphism has never required that.

Let me tell you that such debate has been ridiculous from the start considering why 'anthro porn' or otherwise pornographic or 'NSFW' forms of anthropomorphic animals existed in the first place. The desire for anthropomorphic NSFW situations was always about animal parts in the first place, but with human characteristics mixed in. Anthropomorphic animals such as Nick Wilde isn't attractive to some because of the human characteristics, they are attractive because of both animal parts, and human characteristics. Otherwise if it was just about humans needing to be focused, then why is it 'anthro porn' and not 'human porn'? Due to this, the psychological reasoning as to why some "ferals" appear attractive as well to many, is because of both the non-human parts and the mixture of human parts (i.e. sapience and/or human like emotion). There has never truly been a true line crossed between the two.

So let's give out the arguments once and for all to shame and roast what is likely, and on topic, the worst type of people in the furry fandom, the anti-ferals. Though this is also a shame and roast for anti-ferals that are outside of the fandom too!

Originally written from elsewhere, I thought to expand it here with likely editing and/or additional content. Let's get these two definitions over with:

===The definition of zoophilia===

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/zoophilia

": an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or imagined contact"

===The definition of animal=== 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/animal

": any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (such as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (such as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation"

Errr... 2- ": one of the lower animals (see lower entry 3 sense 3) as distinguished from human beings"

Well, basically an animal that isn't human includes the full body, the legs if any, tail if any, face, intelligence level, and pretty much the rest. Of course is varies species by species, but hopefully the picture is understood here. Note that nothing in here is saying that four legs and a main body is enough. Four legs and a body is only part of it, just like a head, tail, and some other parts. Remember this...

===Now Onto the Arguments===

 

Argument: "Being attracted to (or wanting to ****) characters like Nala, Balto, and some other ones is literally the same as being into, or wanting to ****, actual animals!"

Why that argument fails: An actual animal is a realistic earth animal that has no sapience and has no natural human behavior. If a non-human character like Balto happens to have human sapience and human emotion, then it naturally becomes anthropomorphic by definition. The sapience, emotion, and physical emotional facial expressions (regardless of fiction or becoming real) for example are in fact, a form of human characteristics, which is what makes this different than real non-sapient animals. Such personal reasoning for such "feral" is exactly the same reasoning as having 'human shoulders' or standing on two legs. The psychological reasoning are the same. You cannot decide that the other one doesn't count and then turn around and want to **** realistic dog heads over human shoulders.

Note that many anti-ferals are unlikely going to freak out about characters like him being used in certain scenarios. But likely will freak out if an even less realistic animal shaped body on fours was used in the same manner just because it's on fours.

Argument: "But the four-legged beings uses an main 'animal body' so it's different and therefor like actual animals!"

Why that argument fails: A body isn't the only thing required for it to be a truly animal, and even then, many 'ferals' don't even use an accurate realistic body, thus, making such argument even less of logical sense. And speaking of less accurate "ferals", Nick Wilde has animals parts all over himself; he's basically just a two-legged animated fox shaped being. To accuse someone as a zoophila for liking a MLP horse looking only 10% horse but then turn around and drool over Nick Wilde (which is 95% fox) is truly hypocritical. The two-legged argument here clearly fails here.

Even if it did used a realistic body, it doesn't change the fact that the levels of intelligence, human like expression (which is physical too), and natural possibility of behavior is also what makes a being exist, so with those being in, it's still not a real 'animal'.

Argument: "The reason why characters like Nick Wilde is attractive is because of all those human characteristics, so the focus on the animal isn't there anymore!"

Why that argument fails: There is a reason why anthropomorphic p*rn is anthropomorphic p*rn and not human p*rn. Human characteristics isn't the sole reason why Nick Wilde is attracted. The actual reason(s) are of the fact that they're not human, has a lot of non-human parts (animals suspiciously usually), and because of the human characteristics. Human characteristics is a reason, it's just not the only reason, and additionally, animal parts are literally the sole focus as to why Nick Wilde and/or certain other anthropomorphic animals are used as pornography (e.g. the fox head). If animal parts were not the focus on sexual focus, then what's the point of anthropomorphic porn then? Why use a FOX HEAD, PAW, and/or OTHER ANIMAL PARTS if none of that is the reason as to why some like characters like that?

Thus, quadruple animals being enjoyed partly with human emotion expression and sapience is the same exact psychological reason as liking characters like Nick Wilde. Both are using animals and human characteristics as the primary focus.

Argument: "But four-legged creatures are not anthro!"

Why that argument fails: Wrong, as long as they have some form of human characteristic either through physical such as human-like facial design and/or expression or inside, they are anthro. "Anthro" or "anthropomorphism" never required a 'humanoid' shape body. The idea that being anthropomorphic is a two-legged being that can walk like a human was a stereotype to begin with. There is truly no real difference here.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anthropomorphism

Found from Google I think: an·thro·po·mor·phism

"the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object."

 

Argument: "But you like the feral for less human looking reasons, so it's zoophilia!"

Why that argument fails: I might of already kinda explained this but I'll just use this anyway: Using Nick Wilde and Balto as an example, they both are: Not human, both has a lot of animal parts, but both are sapient which is a human characteristic, and (even though not truly needed) both don't even 100% look like a real animal. Both the attraction reasons for them are of two reasons: Non-human parts, and human characteristic in it's own form. Two-legs doesn't change the fact that Nick Wilde is not a human and uses a majority of animal parts. One human feature does not physiologically change it! 

It's either two things: It's all zoophilia, or it's neither except for actual true animal (realistic non-sapient).

Argument: "But (using a different definition of zoophilia) even if my dog was sapient and consensual, being attracted to it is still zoophilia and that's the problem."

Why that argument fails: That argument ignores the entire reason why zoophilia was an issue in the first place. The main issue is that animals do not consent like humans. If dogs in real life ended up becoming sapient and consensual, then the entire problem for why zoophilia is an issue in the first place would be gone for this. So even if it was still technically zoophilia by some lose definition, "zoophilia" for those types of "dogs" would no longer be an issue by itself as the fantasy would be about wanting to screw beings that can consent except for the type preferring only non-consensual non-human animals.

If this is about only some dogs, then that would still mean "zoophilia" would have a consensual outlet like how heterosexuality can have outlets with consensual human adults (while some human adults do not), and that's if the person finds both types attractive as some people are exclusively attractive for sapient beings partly for their sapience feelings (making it just like how some furries prefer certain ferals over actual animals).

If this is still about the 'animal' shaped body again, then I will say that this argument still stands for that and that I already explained that there is no difference between a two-legged anthro like Nick Wilde and a four-legged anthro (due to human sapience through such being).

Argument: "But it's like the cub thing! It's also like the 1000 year old thing!"

Why those two arguments failed: The issue with minors is that they don't consent. The issue with animals is that they don't consent. It's solved with a being being an adult and is consensual. Not only that, but even with the "It's like the 1000 year old excuse" argument, then I'll tell you this: Do you really truly want to compare it? Would you freak out if an adult human body had a realistic or even somewhat cartoony child head on it? Yes? Then why would you be alright with an animal head on top of a human adult looking body then? Let that sink in!

It's also not as artificially fake as saying that an obvious child and child mentality character is technically 1000 years old as the majority of "feral" characters feels different and visually feels difference mainly due to sapience from inside to outside through expression. Balto's face for example feels very different than that of the real dog species Balto was based on. Don't you dare tell me that it doesn't count while turning around and saying two-legs count for Zootopia characters.

Anthropomorphic animals by nature are animals, but with human characteristics added in some way. Many of us already accepted a special exceptional route from the beginning of many anthropomorphic p*rn. The preferences for many people is a scale, and there is no real difference between a human body with a wolf head on it than Nick Wilde, and neither is an unrealistic or somewhat realistic "feral" shaped being that has emotional human-like faces and/or is sapience. It's all within the anthropomorphic scale (as defined), and part of the reasoning why such anthropomorphic characters were attractive to many is because of the non-human features (animals) that exist with them.

Besides, even the cub thing is a bit debatable alone. Why? Because some cubs don't even look like real children. Some are entirely lacking of a child look where the only "child-like" feature is a type of fictional label. So I don't even think a person is truly a pedophile for that alone. There is an adult looking "cat" looking character that apparently is supposed to be a 'baby dragon'. There is also a 'fiction' argument for some content but I'm putting that aside for this point.

Argument: "But zoophiles like it!"

Why that argument fails: Well actually, it's technically true that some actual zoophiles like it, however, many zoophiles are also into two-legged anthropomorphic characters as well according to what I heard. To ban furry feral porn all together is to ban nearly all furry porn. Even then, it's not even an issue for a zoophile to enjoy less realistic furry porn as there is no evidence that it causes it. The person would of likely abused an animal anyway, probably even sooner if a victimless outlet was taken away.

 

Argument: "But it can create a safe haven for zoophiles!"

Why that argument fails: Such possibility applies to even two-legged furry websites! Nearly everything in that fandom has this possibility. The key to handling this in certain websites however is to make sure they aren't using the place (feral or not) to promote bestiality when it comes to that topic. I also want to point out that a furry person who holds such place are not automatically responsible for what a zoophilia does unless the law describes so. If a zoophile feels inspired to abuse an animal because of some furry content, then that blame should, morally speaking, fully go toward the zoophile for thinking that and to anyone (if any) who according to law created a complicit into it. If a zoophile is using the site for illegal purposes for example, then that's one of the things the creator needs to step in to stop it assuming no one else is stopping it enough.

Just in case it's hard to read. The word is "parts".

 

Argument: "But someone who liked feral porn offended, that proves feral p*rn leads to bestiality!"

Why that argument fails: There is no proven link between such fiction and acting out, especially considering that there are many people who finds many feral characters attractive and doesn't do it. To blame the fiction because the person who liked it actually acted out is like blaming violent video games or knifes because a person that happen to like video games or has used a knife for cutting steak has committed violence via guns or a knife. It's a fallacy, just like blaming victimless outlets involving controversial child "dolls" because someone who did it had one with them.

Such fallacious blame completely avoids the real issue (the person's personality) and blames the wrong thing. Taking away these things isn't magically going to cure zoophilia, nor does it stop certain zoophiles from acting out. Heck, if the zoophila who planned the offense had their fiction taken away from them, they probably would not only still act out, but probably even sooner too.

Don't forget too, there are likely stories where people who liked two-legged anthropomorphic characters also offended.

__________________

In the end, "furry" is about animals with human characteristics either visually and/or non-visually. The reason why anthropomorphic characters are attractive is due to the joy of finding non-human animals with special characteristics attractive. The reason why it's not zoophilia or bestiality for two-legged is due to how different such feelings are for them, which exists in anthropomorphic four-legged beings too. There is never truly a difference under the physiologically reasoning as to why, and it's time for many people to realize that fact.

The definition of "zoophilia" and "animal" fails to create a line between sapient creatures such as Balto, Pokemon, and/or some others, and two-legged sapient creatures. It's either all zoophilia, or not. Pick one, and stop dictating that there is a real difference when there isn't. It's morally wrong to harass someone for falling in love with a fantasy creature such as a "feral" Pokemon, Balto, or whatever else fits the sapient or sapient like creature category. It's also morally wrong to accuse someone as a "zoophile" for liking sapient feral p*rn. Such a claim is extremely harmful, and is misinformation. Preferring Balto over real animals is harmless. Publicly accusing someone who has such preference a "zoophile" is harmful and it's a form of grooming manipulation to make someone who isn't into real animals think they are a "zoophile" for it. It's a form of abusive behavior.

There are people who likes four-legs and two-legs and doesn't prefer real animals. There are 'zoos' who likes both. There are criminals who liked both. The reasoning why some people like both are the same. Nothing makes two legs and/or a different spine shape back a difference, and it's time to realized this.

Real "zoophilia" involving pure art is about a fully 100% accurate (including head) animal with no sapience. If level of intellegence is hidden, then it should at least be judged by the first part and specific purpose.

 

_________________

Where the images were found, and some or all has been edited after:

baltotrilogy.fandom.com/wiki/B…
zootopia.fandom.com/wiki/Nick_…
hero.fandom.com/wiki/Twilight_…
pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Fennek…
knowyourmeme.com/memes/crying-…
imgflip.com/memetemplate/27966…

This article might get updated.