The thing is, it actually blew up the whole Burned Furs thing back in the day, and a LOT of the stuff is coming from former puriteens (former as in no longer teens), anti-any kind of porn crusaders, people trying to start drama, and, frankly, a very loud but small subsect of of Sex Averse Aces who tend to be the Ace equivalent of an early 00's gay man calling ANY heterosexual (or bisexual who's not currently in a homosexual relationship) breeder (yes those existed, and yes they were an annoyingly loud part for a bit). And it just gets into people confused about things that were in the original burned furs manifesto, like the whole plushiphile thing, or lifestylers, or spiritual furries, especially those outside the fandom because these things are either yet another, man we really fucked up on raising Gen-Z in being able to differentiate fiction and reality and critical literacy, or such a non-issue that the only people that actually care are involved in the fandom somehow, either through being in it or (as per the meme) likely to be in it in 5 years after their edge gets sanded off.
I'm thinking about that one Warrior Cats artist who was accused of being a zoophile for *very briefly* including cat balls in a Multi-Animator Project part. Mind you, there are *children's toys* of male animals that depict them with balls, and it was such a fast-paced, high-action fight scene animation that you would literally have to pause it and be looking for cat balls in order to see said cat balls.
At one point I was in possession of a very anatomically-correct lion figure - It’s a bit dumb to get so worked up over a slight flash of nuts, on a, y’know, literal naked animal.
@@iccigato9921 Might be Alex Harrier ? I know that in their 'Do or die' part we can see Longtail's balls for a sec. But I'm not sure if there was drama around this animation or if it was another one.
When in strange universes just remember the 3 rules of sex and you'll be alright. 1: Can it even give consent 2: Can it currently give consent 3: Can it make you breakfast in the morning. (Must be intelligent enough)
@@glenyssmith261Thank you for that clarification, the thing is... the "consent" of a child is like the "consent" of someone on drugs, technically they can SAY they consent, but it's about their state of mind. They can't consent because there's no awareness of context or consequence.
With the whole "feral" discourse aside, I do completely agree on one thing Lago mentioned here. People should indeed focus more on curating their own microcosm of the fandom. To simply block and avoid the things they don't subjectively like or disagree with instead of pushing their own subjectivity onto others like they're the voice of the fandom at large. Agree to disagree and move on, unless actual people or animals are being literally harmed. That's one reason why I walked away from Twitter a while ago, because the site is literally designed to incite arguments and drama over stuff like this. Voice an unpopular opinion? Dozens of people with an opposing viewpoint come out of the woodwork to shame and shun you, then make callout posts to get even more people involved in the discourse. There's no room for civil discussion, understanding or nuance in an environment like that. To me, it's not worth the stress and toll on my mental health to look down every rabbit hole and learn of every so-called bad apple in the fandom. I just want to do my thing, take away what I enjoy from the fandom and find like-minded people who share similar interests. If nobody is getting hurt, is that too much to ask?
It also applies to the perception of the fandom. Many anti-furs and furries look at the fandom as a whole and judge everyone accordingly, when in reality big sects of furries are just "here are some cute drawings I made :D." and nothing else. I'm thinking r/furry type content.
While I agree with most of what you said - this thought process of "if nobody is getting hurt" is what's been harmful to having an honest conversation on the lines of where feral sits and what's considered, for lack of better words, morally acceptable. You can say the same thing about actual loli/cub porn, pure bestiality porn (only drawn or animated). There are artists who actively use real life animals for reference when drawing genitalia, the founder of Bad Dragon and now owner of e621 (the most popular adult furry sites) has expressed the following, "“Let’s face it, for a lot of us this is the closest we’re (legally) going to get to the real thing-I’m in it for the experience and the love-and I’m planning to do live casts (ie, a gator cock cast from a live gator) too,” Varka wrote. Potential live-casts included vaginas and penises from horses, ponies, cows, sheep, dogs, and “most anything else human usable that people might be interested in.” - Ana Valens, "Bad Dragon’s kingdom of fantasy sex toys is caged by ‘queer’ capitalism" Not to be taken out of context, they never went through with this but it's the actual consideration that's enough for me. All of these forms of art are openly welcomed on almost every furry adult website, even in this video Lago presented other toy businesses that actually use live-casting. There's a glaring issue and conversation to be had yet there's no room for civil discussion because people use scapegoat phrases like this or absolutes to get out of it. There's too much black and white thinking in this community, but this exists in all communities to some extent.
@@Buuuuhhhhhhh When I stop to consider your point, I can acknowledge you make a good case here. I truly wish there was a more civil means of discussing the nuances of this topic without people jumping to extremes. That's why places like Twitter are horrible for such discussions, because the site literally encourages that kind of behavior. When I stop to reflect, I start to realize that's exactly why I had that kind of take on the matter to begin with. I was too afraid of the backlash for asking nuanced questions on the matter, so took the "if nobody is getting hurt" approach instead.
See this is the proper response. I don't like M/M NSFW art, so I just mute the tag and move on with my life instead of getting into a row over two guys banging. Yet some people just have to go on and on about how 'the gays' are, I dunno existing? Like I dunno, some people man.
My fursona is completely feral, save for the occasional talking moments. I've been accused of being a zoophile just for that multiple times. It's honestly ridiculous. My fursona is a feral cat because of the FFUCKING. ARISTOCATS. The Disney movie!! And my sona is also aroace. Just like me. It's really fucking creepy and weird when someone's first reaction upon seeing a feral fursona is instantly thinking that the creator is a zoo. I don't, have never, and will never like any sort of nsfw in the furry fandom. I'm here because of Disney, Looney Tunes, Pokémon, and Felix the Cat. That's it. I just like art of silly animals doing silly things. Think Louis Wain :)
@@TheTrumpReaper Correct. I absolutely love his works. Whilst some say he was going crazy due to an illness, I attribute that to him losing his wife and his kitten Peter being the only comfort he had.
On the topic of "different shapes", it's generally seen as just different and new shapes and not something that is equated to the real animal counterpart. It can definitely be a way for those interested in harming real animals to have that outlet and that can cause problems of its own (usually more normalization of the idea), but I rarely see that personally. More often than not, it's just wanting to get more creative with designs and not wanting to settle with the "basic shape". A lot of monster artists give the characters involved exotic shapes, but have no interest in actual animals. Variety is the spice of life in a way (as someone who draws different kinds of bits) tl;dr realistic bits aren't a direct sign for someone being a zoof, and can just be for the sake of variety in shapes
As far as the whole “animal genitalia in anthro art” argument is concerned, my thoughts pretty much line up with Vagovirt’s. I think it’s the same as trying to write it off as zoophilic cause your anthro character retains the animalistic paw design of said species instead of a human one. I’ve seen plenty of artists draw the anatomically correct genitalia on a canine anthro (regardless of gender) cause it just makes sense. Everything else that was drawn from the furry ears, fangs and muzzle, to the Digigrade legs, tail and paw shapes are animalistic and resembles the canine look, why stop doing that suddenly at the end by slapping a generic human dong on it and calling it a day? (Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the use of human genitalia in anthro art makes for bad or lazy style direction, this is just to make a point.) I can’t say the reason is the same for everyone who does it, but I agree with your points. It’s different. It’s like seeing an exotic alien dong. There are different kinds that varies in shape, size and color and is not just the same human variant. Some even mix n match them on their anthro characters. Me personally, I don’t mind them in NSFW art. Wether they decide to draw them on or not. The way I see it, so as long as both parties are consenting 18+ adults, it doesn’t matter to me if they have the anatomically correct genitalia or not. Depending on the artist, It can just be personal preference as well for the sake of maintaining a style in their more spicy characters.
It shouldn't be called feral then. Feral implies a state of mind that is animalistic in nature, as is ordained by society. Making furry characters nearly anatomically correct to their IRL or mythological counter parts while having the minds of humans is already treading a razor thin line if said characters have the bodies of animals.
@@the_furry_inside_your_walls639this isn’t about feral characters though, they were talking about animal genitals on anthropomorphic characters, not feral characters….
I completely agree with you on the topic of a purely creative difference. Then again I am ace so I dont nessecarily see this kind of thing in the same way others would, but wouldn't it get boring drawing the same thing over and over again?
@@jyjori Seen plenty of blatant racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and ableism in comment sections on this site, along with confederate flag apologia, anti-Ukranian and Palestinian takes including and up to calling for their total extermination, and other not-so-subtle white nationalist dog whistles... Well, bullhorns more like.
This is a subject that I continue to be incredibly torn about. On one hand, the Harkness test sounds pretty solid to me, if an adult creature can communicate in the same way a human can and thus give clear consent, should there be a problem just because it isn't actually a human? But also, if the only thing differentiating an animal from one you could find in real life is its ability to communicate in a human language, one has to wonder what it is that makes the character attractive to you in the first place. I will say, though, that suggesting that sticking a rocket (for example) (so to speak) on an otherwise human-shaped character automatically makes the piece zoophillic in nature is ridiculous to me. Like, okay, how about werewolves for a specific example? The kind that are like Worgen; wherein, this person is a wolf-person. They're practically human in every way but with a wolf "skin" (as in what that word is in games like Overwatch). Should I be accused of being attracted to animals if I find something like that enticing? Because that's just a bare-bones definition of what a furry character is. Or what about a character that *is* a human but is depicted as having animal, ahem, anatomical features? Is that now suspicious? I really don't think so. Because it's about whether or not a character could be considered equal to a human person. I would consider most fursonas to be a person, because they function identically to a human being. Therefore it should stand to reason that attraction to them is not an indicator of attraction to an animal. Stars I hope that made sense.
This is the same thing as my belief that the age of consent should not apply in certain situations, like when a person sneaks into a bar or night club and goes home with someone, or lies about their age well enough. I make that statement, and I look at the people who are agreeing with me, and I think, "Wow, I'm on the wrong side here"
@@-Vob how are they equivalent? Humans are naturally attracted to anthropomorphia. From a biological perspective, the only thing we are attracted by is sapient expressions (mostly in faces). We are not attracted to eachother because we look like humans. We really are just significantly intelligent, sapient primates. How is it any different if another creature went through a identical transformation but with a different animal derivative. They are both animals, and yet its us that looks closer in apperance and features to our primates than a cartoon anthro does to any animal in the real world. *If we went by your logic, cartoon humans look like actual humans* . What you are saying here is a objectively provable fallacy, brought by the specific evolution of our limbic system to participate sapaint communication.
I think the word for it is “Semi-anthro”(or semi-feral) I’m pretty sure the term is. In which such characters display sapient behavior on a human level of thinking, expressing, talking verbally and pretty much having the very BASIC principles of an anthro character, but all while retaining their four legged “feral” stance. (Like Steele or Georgette) Some even with the ability to move their front digits individually. There are furs who got into the fandom cause they took a special liking to characters like Nala or RedXIII.
and I think this type of thing is where a lot of the discourse comes from imo, bc I know people who would view that as literally just "Feral." It's really strange and interesting to see the ways various terms are used, and I think being careful about the way we definite things is helpful (✿^‿^)
Idk, the most popular smut sites have stuff like disneys robin hood and zootopia characters as "semi-anthro". Feral there usually means all limb proportions alike to the original animal. Zoophile there is another category and usually does not include feral. It's stuff that generally looks like not passing the harkness test basically. All people I know use the definitions from the popular site. Your circle might be different. But you are talking about changing definitions here. Which might not be a bad idea tho...
Also btw my view on the whole feral thing is that most furry quadrupedal animals (like, animals that actually exist irl) or artwork that has furry characters with “correct” anatomical proportions (a talking dog that could consent that is just plain up a dog physically, like Brian from family guy) are off the table as just feral. Dragons however are entirely fictional, and are big enough to *generally* be ok (atleast in my eyes) Wolf characters like the one from league that DO stand on four legs however are exempt since generally they are basically human just in a wolfs body (IN MY OPINION!!) TLDR: most feral animals/sea life in furry artwork that have mostly accurate features/sizes/and or stand on four legs are feral, but feral dragons are okay since they are entirely fictional. If you get what I mean
The second I heard the sentence “Can they consent?” in reference to ferals, I immediately knew it wouldn’t be civil 💀 Even as a feral artist (most of my ocs are feral characters), I stay FAR away from even touching that topic.
I remember the last time I witnessed this discourse happened it coincided with the BG3 trailer dropping wherein the player character is about to have s3x with a druid in his feral bear form. It was met with universal praise, and strangely, no one was accusing the devs of spreading "z00phile ideology" or whatever. No one took it all that seriously, there was no moral back and forth about whether it was okay to include it; everyone just went with it and said "lmao awesome". My point here is that almost everyone who takes the 'feral debate' seriously should... not. Furry twitter and discourse warriors in general take themselves far too seriously concerning silly topics no one irl would ever understand or care about. Just curate your personal online space and chill out, tbh.
Well my character is a "Feral" because it is an 4 legged Dragon. But I have never seen anyone getting mad of Dragon feral artwork. And you know there is a lot of it in the Fandom.
@@NillaVilleneither is a cartoon dog. The line should be if they posses a sapaint expression. Trying to gate keep based on a what look too much isn't going to work, dragons are a case in point.
@@maxcardif9879 I think they mean that Dragons are fantasy creatures while dogs, even if cartoony in a depiction, are based on real-life animals. Plus Dragons are often shown as sapient, which is what makes them more "acceptable" than other feral art
@@ItsChevnotJeffyou can have a sapaint cartoon feral animal. All lion King characters are sapaint but also feral. In the remake they DONT have sapaint expressions but are still feral. You can have both just like the dragon.
For me it depends on how cartoony the feral is drawn, whether they're given animal genitalia or not, the intelligence level, and if their species is real or how closely it resembles irl animals. Dragons are ok to me since they're not real and are usually pretty far removed from real life reptiles design-wise. Aurelion Sol also leans more humanoid imo, he has human-like mannerisms and even hands with opposable thumbs. Also tbh his voice and personality is hot and I'd let him raw me. I don't care if I'm a degen for saying that. Personally, I would be nervous letting someone who jacks off to drawings of anatomically correct dogs near irl dogs. The Lion King characters are a gray area for me. I can see someone being attracted to the characters because of their personalities, voices, etc. I had a crush on Scar when I was a kid because his voice was hot to me. However, seeing non-anthro Scar with anatomically correct genitals just feels icky. It's also less likely someone would harm a lion. Unlike dogs, you can't just buy or adopt one and they're way more likely to kill you. Humanoid furry characters with animal genitalia don't gross me out. When the animal junk is attached to an attractive human physique it's hot and idk why lol.
I don't have any characters like that but I hate it too. Isn't "feral" supposed to refer to something that's like savage or something? Whenever I hear it I just think of those running and screaming infected human zombies from Dead Island or something.
@@MisterJohnDoeFeral in the context of furries usually means non-bipedal. It can also mean closer to animal than human. Take Simba for example, he's feral by furries standards.
@@hahahaidk7807 It's such a bad way to go about describing quadrupedal characters that think, talk, and act like humans with the bodies of animals. I don't think the people supporting "feral" understand just how tone-deaf and freaky it is to classify something that they think is okay because it involves consent "feral". Some definitions cannot, and will not be changed by society's standards, no matter how much a fringe group tries to do so. The kinds of people who have an unga-bunga attraction to that sorta stuff alone are walking a REALLY thin line.
Often on top of displaying intelligence and the ability to consent I judge things morally based on its realism. I have a strong negative reaction to when people draw a really realistic dog and say that since it could consent its all okay, I feel that to some extent the ability to detach something from reality enough ties in strongly to it. Its like, if you liked NSFW of something unrealistic, cartoony to the point its pretty damn detached from reality while also displaying consent and intelligence, that I feel would be a lot more fine. If you liked NSFW of something the same but it looks just like a dog, rather than a cartoon that you can displace from reality somewhat, it'd be more weird to me and I tend to stay away from that a lot. The realism of it is important to know I feel, screwing cartoons and screwing real looking dogs can be pretty damn different. Edit: Also gonna note, I saw another opinion on this just a bit ago that I feel is very accurate too on this. People who make feral art don't make it to associate it with "the real thing", its actually the opposite. They usually are drawing feral works because they have no interest in real life animals and so the fictional world is different completely to them. Its a form of xenofiction, separated from reality to a point that the creator's sexual attraction in the real world isn't even a factor in it. It being tied to fiction can be a big means of not being interested in real life similarities due to the fact that fiction and fantasy is applied, and in my opinion its better when its majorly applied to separate it even more from real life.
To me, characters like the lion king are semi fearl, semi anthro. While yes, their anatomy, correct and walk on all fours or two, If they can talk, have emotions, an adult, act human, and are aware of their actions, I say their fair game. Same applies to completely anthro characters with correct schlong attaomy. As long you wouldn't bonk an actual animal in real life, who cares? Now, if it's something like completely fearl as in they can't talk, have emotions, or doesn't act human in the slightest, then you absolutely can not. That would 100% be zoophilia and you need to be investigated. That's my take, so take it as you will. Also, saying going fearl sounds like the furry version of im going insane or going postal
The problem is that we know that a lot of "zetas" and "map's" have an interest in feral/loli porn, since people USUALLY draw NSFW content of the things they are attracted to. Knowing that, it's kinda hard for me to feel comfortable interacting with someone who is into this stuff, even if they claim they only like it because it's fictional, and don't openly support zoophilia/pedophilia. I don't think all feral NSFW artists are evil zoophiles, but at the same time I don't really want to be associated or interact with them... I hope it makes sense.
@@noirenard_you could make the same argument that alot of people who partake in furry media are zoophiles, groomers and pedophiles or are more inclined to be because of the parameters discussed in the video
@@noirenard_ That seems entirely fair to me. I know being in the anime fandom, as well, means I have to deal with a lot of loli/shota-cons and I just have to put on my hazmat suit and go: "I can't stop you from making this art, and I don't even think the law should be able to stop you (necessarily, there are obvious caveats). But I don't have to overtly support you either."
Hearth shouldve lost their credibility they moment they starting misrepresenting themselves having DID because they’re polytherian. But yeah they totally wanted to pin the turn in attention on Benji
its one of them things i'm not into, but dont care much about :p unless its realistic by my own standards. i don't make a fuss about it even then, but i actively dislike and avoid "cookies" and actual real animal shapes. the line is so all over the place though, so i get why people are constantly fighting. i just wish people wouldn't assume the WORST of someone who draws the line somewhere they don't - but even then i get THAT because of people in the fandom who messed it up for everyone else. u know who.
Exactly, I usually see furries drawing adult art of stuff like Balto and Simba as opposed to actual dumb cartoon characters like the Sheep dog in The Little Mermaid, the ShihTzu from Shrek 2 or Den the dog from Full Metal Alchemist. It's obviously because Simba and Balto have human personalities which allows for attraction vs just acting like a literal animal.
I think the one unnerving part of this discussion I found (at least on Twitter) is when I see someone that is pro feral, the people in their engagements will sometimes end up with that good old "zeta" symbol
I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective, because author. This is something that does pop up occasionally in the realm of omegaverse or "A/B/O" content, and a big feature of A/B/O is features of (male) canine anatomy. A lot of what attracts people to the concept of canine anatomy is the whole, hormone-driven adult-fun-times, and the eventual unwilling closeness and aftermath (tying) that inevitably comes with it. So Alphas/Omegas experience overwhelming animalistic hormones because of their anatomical characteristics, which makes consent a muddy thing in the first place, and the aftermath generally appeals to an eventual tenderness (usually - depends on the tastes of the author in question.) So to draw the obvious comparison: These tend to be humans with alternate physical characteristics, or werewolves. No one has (in my experience, at least) compared any of these characters to feral/zoo-ish characters, despite the straight up near-guaranteed dubious consent of the relationship, or the physical anatomical differences. So would a furry / anthro character with those same anatomical differences be considered feral/zooish? IMO, no. If they're sapient enough to give consent, I kind of draw the parallel to omegaverse content. I feel like the question has to be further sublimated to _'what about the feral character attracts you?'_ Is it the aesthetic of an animal shape or the conceptual ideas around it? Is it straight up seeing an animal-shaped character going at it with another character (whatever the shape?). I also wonder the reverse. Does a human-shaped dong on an otherwise furry character somehow make that less feral/zooish? I mean the rest of the character is similarly animal-shaped, right?
Yes, there are lots of people that feel putting humanoid genitals on a furry character makes it less zoo-ish, and more acceptable. I have seen so many comments saying as such on posts both where it's done, and not done being upset. I also think people tend to be much more forgiving to written media, than illustrative on this/these topic BC of the reaction to seeing it flashed in front of your eyes. But that's just what I've experienced or seen lurking in both communities, esp furry one. I would feel there would be others that would see adding a dog's genital on a human as being zoo-ish as well. But it would be pretty reaching, as they are primarily humans with just an alternate biology. I feel people even in the furry fandom, would be more twisted on the dubious content that tends to be more popular. Personally I don't care as long as people's intent on making the content are not creepy/predatory, and they ain't hurting people lol. Oh and I'll let people who are into feral reply to what they find attractive. The couple of people whom I talked to, some were very into the concept of animal genitals, due to the differing anatomy. And some because they grew up watching media with animals so it's easier to project onto those characters than human ones. I would imagine there are several alternate reasons though. An interesting discussion topic for sure.
My feelings on it is pretty much that I understand the distinction and the whole harkness test thing. But I feel about Feral NSFW the same as I do with Child NSFW Art. Sure it's all fictional, but child nsfw art is used to groom children by normalizing it through the relations depicted and gets the viewer, artist, and potential victims to lower their guard and normalize it in their head. Making it harder for them to blur the lines between "It's just fiction" and reality and making it less likely for victims to report crimes against themselves as it's seen as normal by them now. Obviously it's not the same since showing your dog NSFW won't normalize it in their head, but I do believe that the art might desensitize people to the actions depicted. Because without talk bubbles there isn't much of a difference between a pic of two dogs doing it and a drawing of two feral characters doing it. It also provides a convenient cover for actual zoos, and helps them apply features to real animals that don't exist like believing animals can consent and defense of "non verbal consent".
This is probably the most sensible take. We should be investigating exactly the type of art is being used in these criminal acts, not bundling everything in that makes us uncomfortable. I think so long as if you were to take off the creatures anthropomorphia, if it becomes identical to a human, then it doesnt matter how extreme the anthropomorphia is, because there will always be a hard cap on how animalistic you can make them. There is only so far you can go in showing anthropomorphic derivatives, while being still a unambiguously human in connotation. That ambiguity is were gr00ming is supplemented
I understand where your coming from, but I feel when it comes to media the normalization argument isn't the best. It's a line of logic that I feel can apply to too many aspects of media that when pushed further can start to border on media puritanism. Its the same line of logic that made people think video games make people killers.
I dunno, sometimes I think about Nala's eyes when I'm on the bus. Then I just kinda shrug and realize how I'm in this deep after 20+ years anyway, those kinda thoughts just come with the territory.
You could say I've been a furry since 2005, though I was completely unaware of the fandom itself until around 2010. I've been involved in it since then, and consuming all types of furry media for nearly two decades now. This includes feral porn. I've seen people posting and liking feral porn going as far back as I can remember. But people only recently started having a problem with it, like 4 or 5 years ago. Back then, the people who drew and viewed it were no more likely to be zoophiles than those who drew and viewed anthro porn. This still seems to be true today. I don't recall seeing anything back then to suggest that zoophiles preferred ferals over anthros. I don't even know if this recent discourse about feral porn has driven an uptick in interest from zoophiles and become a self-fullfilling sort of thing. So where did this discourse even come from? How did it get so big? Some people I've posed this question to have mentioned the possibility of the whole entire "feral porn is zoophilia" thing being a psyop from that nazi fruitbird site. I heard someone say that those trolls infiltrated Amino back in like 2018 and spread it around to the kids on there. I'd like to see some proof of that, though, because it would be nice to know for sure, and to have something concrete to share about it.
Recently, there's been people decrying furries using ACAB when talking about fandom cops, as it trivializes police brutality. I can agree with that, as it seems more politically active people are letting their fetishes bleed into their politics (or maybe its vice versa?) It's not even relegated to furry, as proship vs antiship discourse has become more vocal in internet communities . I think people need to think with their brain instead of their libido.
I can confirm. Hornbuckle, a Transgender Male TF fetish artist who had success before in the TF community with no one caring about his politics or that he transitioned yet was still welcomed by the TF community, decided alienated his audience by posting his politics in a featured post saying that anyone that voted for Trump is a terrorist. He broke the one rule about fetishes. You don't bring politics into fetishes.
I agree but people have to realize there is an active targeting for the furry fandom outside of antifur and leftwing/rightwing politics. Pron is less than half of the community and most of that is behind closed doors, yes there are some distasteful people that swing open the flood gates and unfortunately that's what we are being represented by. Politically its just a bashing because people crave power and who knew a band of autistic traumatized and 'cringe' people are easy pickings?
That honestly enrages me. You can tell the people who make that sort of thing have never faced actual oppression in their lives besides Twitter teenager calling them weird.
you can see people in these comments calling TEENAGERS AND KIDS puriteens and denoting them using political anti-sex movements and its horrifically creepy, even after ive stopped really caring to an extent about these type of drama, i cant in good conscience ever support the side that wants to villify children. they also love to try to justify themselves by using real world brutality like as you said thats beyond fucked up, ive seen people unironically say anti-whatevers are the same people who want to ban pride events/burn books. genuinely unhinged.
This whole argument is goofy, and I really do think the "fiction does not necessarily result in people acting on said fiction" argument is by far the most well fitting and oldest. It's existed for decades at this point, and I think there's enough data out there to show that it's probably able to be applied here, as well. Violent movies don't turn people into murderers, violent games don't turn people into mass murderers, watching porn does not turn people into rapists. At the end of the day, I feel like zoophiles *existing* is not really a good excuse to call for the banning or justifies harassment of people who enjoy feral artwork. Even if I do think there may need to be limits on accuracy, and aren't a fan of it myself.
people in the comments keep bringing up "what about the character attracts you?" "what parts?" "I'm more concerned about the body shapes" etc etc I think you all are barking up the wrong tree, you're taking all of this too literally if you ask me. the fact of the matter is, people VERY OFTEN find the raw, "animal" nature of intimacy appealing. these things are often expressed in fiction via anything from metaphors, to ABO, to straight up using animal characters. it's called "doggy style" for a reason: dogs do the deed a lot like we do, and we see ourselves in them. People often like varying "parts" for similar reasons- the situational utility of the knot, the fantasy of a new or different sensation, etc. Obviously some people are just like "I just thing this thing is sexy" but I really think the biggest piece of the puzzle a lot of people are missing, is simply that sex is one of the most instinctual things we do as humans, and playing that up that aspect appeals to people. (i'm not even that much of a furry i just find the whole feral thing pretty easy to wrap my head around tbh)
I feel like we're asking all the wrong questions when it comes to feral, because, let's face it, "they could hypothetically consent tho" just isn't a compelling argument to someone who's against it. Because it'd be just as easy to invent a fictional child who has an adult's mind for the sake of r34, but that's a pretty widely unaccepted excuse (ie, "she's actually a 5000000000 year old dragon so it's okay"). I think the more important question is: is this feeding demand for irl animal abuse material? I'm of the opinion that it's not (in general, though there's nothing stopping zoos from being into it too). Completely fictional animals are totally out of the count, in my opinion. Is anyone in danger of abusing a dragon, or a werewolf, or whatever? Obviously not. Realistic animals probably fall into a spectrum, based on context, on a case-by-case basis. I'm not terribly worried for the lionesses of the world. If someone writes smut about their fantasy of banging the family dog? I'd consider that a red flag. What about the pieces that fall in between, though? In short, it's complicated. but also, the argument that it acts as cover for zoophiles to look at animalistic bits just... doesn't hold water for me, logistically. To the best of my knowledge, it's not a crime to go to the surface web, google dot com, and type "horse penis". Zoophiles don't _need_ drawn feral nsfw the way a lolicon needs drawn cp, at least when it comes to animal parts and animals mating with each other. It's also, as far as I'm aware, not illegal to own or look at animal abuse material, just illegal to have directly harmed the animal yourself (and maybe to create the nsfw? I don't know, I haven't exactly felt the need to know). A zoo is just gonna look up like, pictures of dogs yawning to get their maw kicks. Do zoos consume and make fictional feral content? Sure, I have no doubts plenty do. But they don't _need_ to go to those lengths the way a pedo might.
Would the same standards apply to stuff like Centaurs and Satyrs? Humans with animal aspects? Can you consider art of a centaur “feral”? Because Yknow, their bottom half is a whole horse? Not technically furry, but I think it falls into a similar category.
On the Greek side of things, what about a god like Zeus shape shifting into a goose and doing the deed with a human woman? These ideas are not even remotely new to the furry community.
Satyrs are usually just drawn as guys with goat legs and horns and in the original mythology they're just dudes with horse tails and massive junk. I don't think they should be considered feral or even furry at all since they're mostly human-like. They'd fall into the same territory as cat girls/boys. I would consider centaurs to be in a grey area since they have the completely human upper half. Also as someone who's into centaurs it's the human half that makes them attractive to me.
As long as no person or animal is hurt or used/treated in a bad and negative way for the art's process, I don't have an issue with it. As soon as one of those lines is broken, then I'll take complaint. As long as people know what "restraining" means and keeps fantasy separate from reality, I feel it's fine. The issue is, however, most people that get notoriety for this stuff turn out to have broken one of those lines. Another question I have is that majority, if not all, complaints revolve are visual art material, not written. I bet there are more than a handful of books that go into detail with beings that teeter on this scale in which not many bring up. Of course, I know its due to publicity and effort. Writing a book or story can be harder in some ways than drawing art. That aside, my only two exceptions are through pokemon: Cinderace is one I feel at home with personality and thematics, so it helps me picture things better. The other are flareons but not mainly sexual. About 80-90% of the time, I just look for fluffy flareons that are comfy and being hugged, so little interest sexually in that regard. And that's all. I have very, very picky tastes, so mainly Cinderace is my one big exception. I know many will dislike this whole comment, but I do agree with Benji here; Its heavily suggestive due to how fine of a line we humans draw with nearly everything out there. Nearly everything is in a grey. There are many things I wont stand by, such as underage and loli stuff since its morally wrong to do such deeds with them for more than just consent. They barely lived long enough to truly understand a whole lot, which I believe should be developed much more before giving consent. More or less, I agree with about every statement Benji gave here. I hope you're doing well by the way, Benji. Stay strong, bunny
As a non furry I've never looked at Simba and thought about if he could consent to um that until the first minute of this video.... I tell ya, conversations only furries would have or take seriously. Time to sit back and watch the circus show!
Its pretty bad but there are questions that do need to be asked here. Everything gray being taboo isnt going to sustain itself but nor is abusing that line that is faded into oblivion. Fucking stupid but in the internet we have to explain why and how we are breathing and someone would still shoot you down as an assaulter
Even cartoon animals that can talk but walk on four legs I still call "anthro", because they're still being anthropomorphised by being able to speak and have intelligence. The term "feral" makes me think of real animals and I don't like that.
Yeah like I think we have to start adding modifiers to "anthro(pomorph)" because there is visual anthropomorphization (aka visual furry art, not-human thing resembles a human enough to invoke the same impulsive feeling we'd have for another human) and literary anthropomorphization (the not-human thing can think/talk/communicate/etc just as a human can).
I like feral but I only like cartoony adult animals and really stylized ones like you see in furry art that don't have realistic proportions. Meanwhile feral makes it seem like they would look and behave like an actual animal, it's an annoying word for the fandom to use.
I'm fine with feral NSFW. As long as the character is an adult, is sapient and can make its own decisions and give consent, then i dont really care what people do.
I think it's pretty reasonable to say "even though I'm not a fan of something, if the characters are obviously able to consent I don't see a big issue." a lot of people on the internet seem to have trouble distinguishing between "this makes me feel gross and weird" and "this is morally reprehensible." plus, if you're even remotely aware of the kink community, you know there's a big gap between what someone might look at art of and what they would ever remotely want to do irl. all in all, it's been a valuable lesson for me to just not get on someone's case morally about something just because I don't personally like it. and yes, stan Aurelion Sol.
The way I see the "below the belt" region in terms of humanoid vs. animalistic is in terms of further differentiating characters from each other in a way that is relevant to the content being portrayed as the central focus. Size difference is one method (An elephant will naturally have a more significant presence than a field mouse, for an exaggerated example), but there's also differentiating characters and how they interact with each other within the situations being portrayed, which can be emphasized with animalistic anatomy down south. How canine or equine parts work are wildly different from each other, and the receptive partner has different ways of engaging with such anatomy in both cases, for a popular example. Some artists like to play around with the anatomy as part of the way characters engage before, during, and after the conclusion of the engagement, and part of that anatomical difference can be in the amount of "product" and how such "product" is dispensed. There's also how these anatomical differences may play into other fetishistic desires and portrayals, such as BDSM or body worship type situations. It can even be played for comedic effect (Most commonly with how canine anatomy functions to lock both partners together).
Defining what sexuality is and is not ok based on aesthetics is the basis of the entire Homophobic viewpoint. It is the definition of anti-LGBT to derive the basis of the morality of a sexual act based on the look of the individuals involved as opposed to their ability to consent to that act. Feral is simply so far down the chain of "Looks" that most people don't really give it a second thought, because there aren't feral creatures in the real world capable of consent, so it's an easy line in the sand to draw because we have no real life cases where the counterpoint could be argued. What is ok sexualy is not a matter of aesthetics, it is a matter of consent, and the quicker the kids realize this the better. This is why we fight so hard about the concept of kink at pride, because celebration of queerness is more then the simple bounds of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender. It is a celebration of that which society considers odd but is still a matter of consent between adults, a celebration of being able to make your own independent choices that don't hurt others. The concept of Family friendly will always be a wrapper for anti LGBT+ bigotry framing the concept of the nuclear family as the most correct option. Be weird, be queer, practice consent.
If a creature is 'Self-Aware' and possesses intelligence, I've never had a problem with them being 'Adult' or engaging in whatever 'Adult behavior' they wish. (Provided they're engaging in said behavior with willing partners!) It annoys the Hell out of me how so many warp/malign/slander such things as being rapists/animal-rapists. ffs... It's IMAGINARY, for Pete's sake!!!
I would argue that the 3000 year old loli doesn't pass the Harkness test. Hear me out. The Harkness test specifically asks whether a being is an adult *for its species*. As in, is this being at the level of development and maturity that would be considered an adult? A character may be canonically hundreds or thousands of years old, but still a child developmentally due to a much slower aging process. The same could be said for the reverse, being a character that is technically younger, but developmentally more advanced. For an example of a character who does pass imo despite the age difference, Inuyasha. Canonically, he is over 100 years old, and Kagome is 15. But due to Inuyasha's much slower aging process, he's still developmentally 15. Loli defenders use the 3000 years old loophole because they only want you to pay attention to the number itself, not why the number is important. Edit: You are correct in your assessment of people who like "exotic" shapes below the belt. For me, the very idea of doing anything with a real animal is nauseating. But a fantasy being with a different shape for a different sexual experience? That shit's fun. And I've been honestly surprised at the growing discourse surrounding it. Exotic dongs have been part of the furry fandom from the very beginning and nobody ever took it as the desire for actual animals.
Heres a good one for you to think about. In Mass Effect, Salarians have an average age span of 40 human years, they mature stupendously fast. What folks don't realize that in the event IF there was another equally intelligent, equally self aware and sapient race that we happened to bump into one way or another, theres such a low chance of them being "anthropomorphic" in the truest definition of the word that we could be talking to space beetles with 20 legs. Astrobiology kinda dips into this doesn't it? Our social norms are entirely based around US as a species, and since we have no real world experience of this matter, who are we to plant flags and judge how a quadrupedal or non bipedal humanoid should be depicted in erotica of any kind? Sapience and having a functioning society has always been a number one factor on this entire matter purely on a logical and scientific standpoint. At the very least feudal society at best. Just some geeky food for thought adding to the OP's post here.
I would say perhaps we need to add "biological age" due to the prevalence of time travel and such in fantasy and sci-fi stories. Like, technically Aang would pass the harkness test becaus he is 110 or so years old. But biologically, he's just a kid.
my problem lies in that "for its species" can be completely meaningless when we make up a species that looks like a baby its entire life. Take most first-evolution pokemon. It's entirely possible for, say, a snivy to reproduce with another pokemon, and have its snivy offspring evolve into serperior, but it is still the older one. There are very specific pokemon _defined_ as baby pokemon who biologically cannot reproduce until they evolve (mime jr, cleffa, etc) who I think we could probably unequivocally argue aren't an adult for its species. But the many first evos who are designed to look like baby forms of their evolved counterparts, what then? You could create a loli species that, for all intents and purposes, looks like a human child when it reaches maturity. I don't know that "for its species" passes that sniff test, necessarily. no hate to my pokefuckers out there btw, I find pokemon designs so divorced from actual real animals that I don't consider it in zoo territory, but it's kind of the obvious example
@Romanticoutlaw I see what you're saying here and would like to offer a rebuttal. The entire reason child/adult and animal/human like intelligence pairings are immoral is due to the power imbalance and lack of ability to consent. Which is why loli is creepy in most cases, since the being doesn't just look like a child, they are developmentally and functionally also children. You could argue that wanting to be with a fully mature, developed being that still looks like a child is weird. However, there are real, living people with disorders that affect their bodily aging without affecting their mental development. Would you say that those people shouldn't date because of their physical appearance alone? Look up Shauna Rae for an example of what I mean.
@NexLegacyAccount a solid rebuttal. I don't think a person with such a condition is unable to consent. But I also think it'd be a HUGE red flag if someone fetishized that condition, or went out of their way to seek people with that condition to sleep with. By creating a fictional person in that situation with the explicit point to sexualize them, imo, that person would just be finding a loophole for their pedo interests. If a character who looked like that was a fully developed character who also happened to have normal, non-fetishistic sex, I wouldn't mind. But I can't say I've ever seen that kind of content from the "she's actually a 1000000 year old dragon" crowd.
the way i see it, if youre the kind of person who thinks "id fuck a dog if it wasnt illegal" then thats bad. people who think red xiii from final fantasy is hot arent the problem
my opinions on this are simple: I do not like it, and thus I do not interact with it. if I see it, I block it (and/or the user who shared it). I have enough going on in my life to sit down and argue morality with dweebs on the internet. each side can argue their point on what is what and how they feel about it, all I care about is how I feel; and I don't care for it. that being said! fav asol skin? (default is pretty rad but I love his mecha skin while using the obsidian chroma). fav warwick skin? fav...uhhh Drake? LOL
My view has always been this when it comes to 'feral' content, when it comes to the furry fandom, going into my own definition. Which yes, does admittedly relate to the Harkness Test. This being, can they talk or otherwise communicate what they want, whether verbally or even telepathically and magically? Are they of human or comparable intelligence? Are they adults? With this, that feral does NOT equal zoo. That there is a difference. Whether they be a humanoid or quadrupedal. Characters like Nala from Lion King? I don't see an issue with such. Even certain Pokémon comics or creative works, mattering how Pokémon are being shown and that they aren't being presented as 'animals' but actually having human comparable intelligent (Especially since they can even be more intelligent then humans and trainers). With this, having the means of communicating their own wants and desires. Admittedly, this would need to include a Pokémon being able to say no... Since consent can be muddled mattering how you view the relationship between a trainer and Pokémon. Considering the power dynamic.
You have a fair conclusion. For me, I do think splitting the conversation into quadro (quadruped anthro) vs feral would help the back and forth discussions a lot. The discussion here is on that line of humanity which translates into real life. It doesn't challenge people to think deeper on what it means to be a human if curation is the solution. Given recent and decades old news, what is humanity really does need to be a higher topic of discussion in and outside the fandom. Ultimately this topics range of too fear of an anthro snoot to literal humans being perishable because they're seen as feral animals, imo, does mean we need to bit by bit discuss this so people are on the same page for some basics. What is humanity and what is autonomy. If people can have a deeper understanding of those then this part of the drama wheel would be better or cease to be. (also again it'd help irl given all the dehumanizing of humans news) Edit: Also I'm surprised you didn't bring up the TF community as a prominent point given you like werewolves. A lot of internal discussions around feral are actually pretty defined because when someone wants to change forms and said form is a dog, that discussion comes up really quickly. That discussion in it of itself can be a lot deeper than the harkness test and many in the TF community tend to have a pretty good grasp on what it means to be human. That tends to be leagues ahead of more normal furry discourse
In usually stories it takes a big amount of effort to convey humanity through a new body or to get rid of it. From a personal standpoint, having written tf stories here and there, its a thing I have to actively consider daily- if a new body has the same mind, does that actually change humanity? What about vice versa? (I dont do feral/quadroped tho, take with a grain of salt) Legally, all you need is a harkness test and then respective proof. At the end of the day its up to you what the line is and how deep you want to go down the rabbit hole as long as you /seriously/ consider all ends of the stick. Is it moral? Is it right? Why would it be wrong and how? Where? Then go find someone who isnt a kid with 10 alts and discuss- not argue or debate- discuss the points you have. Christ I should apply to be a civics teacher
I have two categories for judging feral. Real animals, be them semi-anthro (intelligent, etc) or otherwise: Strong, immediate no. Dragons/pokemon/etc: Big grey area, Harkness test that bitch. Because whenever you see someone saying, "It's just a drawing," ask yourself the question, "Of what?"
Feral is both a corn tag and a furry tag. The corn tag can refer to way way more things than just what is considered freely in any other context. Like fir instance, feylines from monster hunter like tsukino are considered feral despite the fact that they are sapaint humiods. Its because the corn tag looks at body shape being "feral", while the fandom version consideres how close they are to a specific real analogue.
@@buttondowndingo well the pokémon one confuses me because a loy of furries think that any pokemon that is feral by the furry fandom definition is a absolute no no already. That already is too close to an actual animal, far more so than "semi feral"
@@buttondowndingo there is a inconsistency in saying the feral pokemon one is fine because its fictional, but the "semi feral" (whatever that means) is somehow not even though a cartoon isn't a real species regardless of what it's analogue is. It should be how close it comes to that analogue, which many pokemon do despite not being real species. You describe point of view more like the corn one, in that its just their body type, not there analogue deritive.
Ultimately, I draw the line wherever a real person or thing is being harmed or abused. That's what's kept my sanity with all this drama. Otherwise, it's none of my damn business whether someone is secretly a pedo or a zoo. I'd rather not know, unless it's someone i'm directly interacting with. I completely am all for justice of getting abusive people jailed, but at the same time I have to realize for my own mental health that I can't act as an investigator for someone I barely know. People often forget that even just being a furry is considered a heavy kink for many, even anthro furries. The average person who isn't a furry could easily consider anyone who is a furry to be a zoophile, even though that isn't the case. IMO, this side of twitter has just erupted into fear-mongering and it's partially why I deleted my twitter account.
As long as a character is able to speak, and show human facial expressions in intelligence to give consent, then I don’t really see the issue. Because at the end of the day, it’s pretty much just an anthro character on all fours.
I think it's more "underage people equal unwise." Which is generally a true statement. With wisdom you recognize that not everything you like is going to be liked by everyone, and not everything you dislike is going to be disliked by everyone. I dislike religion, but I recognize that a large swath of people like religion. Suggesting we ban all religion because I don't like it is a problem - but I can go out of my way to avoid religion and religious people so the issue becomes a non-issue for me, most of the time.
19 or 20 aren't even underaged either. Their brains may not be fully developed from a scientific standpoint or whatever idfk but it's still only a short time away. It just sounds pretty ageist.
Alright, I finally got around to watching this, and I'll add my 2 cents. I've actually put a fair bit of thought into this. Like a lot of other niche intimate interests, the key question (to my mind at least) is whether or not it represents an inappropriate power dynamic. To take the adjacent example of pet-play: I would say that if someone's interest in it is purely aesthetic (leashes and collars, pet language, etc.), that's fine. At that point, it's just an attraction to a non-standard intimate relationship, which can be expressed in a number of healthy ways. It becomes a problem when the aspect you're attracted to is specifically the perceived lack of humanity and the implied power dynamic thereof. It's a similar thing with feral role-play. It's only really problematic in my opinion when the attraction comes from the fact that it's analogous to a real animal.
when thinking about this type of thing, I always remember how Mufasa from the animated Lion King was my entrance to the furry fandom and, admittedly, did something for me, but I wouldn't be caught dead making eyes at the live action Mufasa, despite being the same character. i think what it comes down to it isn't the fact that he is an animal, that is attractive to me, but rather the way he's drawn and the body language. i don't know, it's hard to explain and a lot of this stuff is just a spectrum of so many shades of grey, it should be considered a primary color. my general reaction to seeing something i don't like, but also isn't inherently harmful to anyone (and/or illegal) is to not interact with it beyond blocking that tag/person. if you interact with it, it's for sure gonna show up on your fyu or timeline and then your just self-sabotaging..
Would to Warwick too, he was a human mutated by Singed and is more like Werewolf, than wolf wolf. Also i feel A Sol is more like a god, calling him a feral in front of him would likely result in temper infused death.
Seeing the "Fuck Fandom Cops" piece reminds me of the time I voiced my concerns on seeing an artist I talked to in the past making an art piece that involved zoophilia and getting sent that as a response. I ended up blocking the dude and mentioning him to a moderator for a different group we were both in and knew they were friendly
About the "fandom cops" thing, why do people always act like trauma is some kind of badge to be worn? My past has been less than ideal too but that but I'm not acting all royalty and that I should be coddled by everyone. If you have any actual illness then maybe you should probably get professional help and not whatever unhealthy coping mechanism in the furry fandom where it'll probably just fester and become a part of you. God help you whenever you need to step outside and face reality again.
Part of the reason why its open season on smearing furries and trans people. Victimized this, victimized that, I had a bad parent oooooo pity meeeee I lost both my biological father and mt stepdad because narcs dont like being called out. Making that trauma a whole lifestyle is no worse than having a "kick me" sign on your back and then complaining when you do. You survive that shit and move on. Aughh, it's irritating but thats the life we live in now. Let the shoddy people be shoddy ig
The Zoo has a clear definition. It is a paraphilia in which an animal is abused as a sexual object. This is due to the difference in intelligence and the inability to communicate/give consent Always putting the human in a position of abuser in front of the non-human animal That's the point. The abuse and consent, not about whether he is biped or quadruped, or what his genitals are like, or anything like that.
I dont think enought people talk about how a lot of argumento pro-feral nsfw also apply to loly/shota nsfw Like, the argument it is fictional, the "we arent hurting anyone" argument, or saying it destigmatize the thing, and while it should tell lots, it just doesnt feel like the same thing? Idk
I feel like the aspect of being able to "humanize" ferals kinda sets this and Loli apart. You can't really anthropomorphize kids because they are already human, they are just underage. I also think the fictional = ok stance is really dumb
I personally think it is situational. I don't think there's anything wrong on crushing on fictional animals from kids cartoons. But I do think it is bordering zoophilia or at least displaying zoophilic tendancies to both enjoy animalistic genitalia AND feral animals in art, that are displayed as real species that exist. It's just odd to enjoy both of those. I feel the same way about lolicon. I just think; why does this appeal to you? Etc. I don't have as much of a problem with it when it's dragons or fictional alienistic species that are on four legs or have no legs at all. I also personally don't like animalistic genitalia on anthros either. I don't think its zoophilic, but I don't personally find it appealing either. Again, If its something alien or edited to not be an exact representation of an animals parts, I don't see a problem with it. Again, situational. When I see furry art or opinions on this that I don't like-- I just block them. Because I don;t have the energy to explain my viewpoint and be misinterpreted as a "puritan" for my opinions on nsfw content
If the character lack an indication of being able to pass the Harkness test or there's not an indication the artist is working with a sentient character with the particular biology on display (such as a peice where the feral is someone's sona) then I tend to pull away. Although I must admit I have a habit of giving pieces that are somewhat unclear the benefit of the doubt (such as in situations were the lead up to the scene or periods outside of the intensity of the roleplay on display were the character's intelligence could be properly assessed) aren't present. The brain is more than capable of telling the difference between fiction and reality, one must just exercise caution when they see fit.
A character of demonstrably equivalent sapience and communicative potential to an adult human of able mind is OK. A small illustration, by no means representative of all possible scenarios: A sapient dragon fully capable of communicating unambiguous consent? Proceed to pursue consensual relations. A character from the Lion King? Questionable. I wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who wants this, but it is admittedly a grey area. A direct representation of a dog? Just a regular dog? Maybe put this guy on a watchlist. The term “feral” gets used a lot but it often isn’t strictly applicable to many of the fictional characters people get riled up over, because many of these characters express the same level of intelligence as an able minded human would, because the stories still need to capture a human’s interest and that is the easiest way to do so. It’s clear these characters aren’t intended to be a direct representation of a wild animal. Now, a program like David Attenborough would narrate often has one hell of a narrative to it, but I can’t think of anyone retiring to bed at a suspiciously early hour just to watch animal planet under the covers.
the problem is most of this conversation is its extremely subjective but instead of seeing this a different opinions it´s seen as a form of moral telling :/ I've seen people define feral NSFW art as having snouts in furry smut while others defind it as realistic depiction of animals you said it yourself if a teenager was in love with Kovu from the lion king does that mean they are a zoophile? if yes so many people both furries and non furries would fall under that label or are we as a species able to differentiate between these cartoon characters and real life some can and others sadly not (just look at Chris chan) and because we can never tell who is the later then it´s not ok? honestly don´t even have an opinion on it myself
I think an important thing that needs to be done is categorize what types of feral there are and what would cause a character to be considered a certain type of feral. Three types of feral I see a character being is either if their semi-feral, anthro-feral, or full feral. Full-feral is the simplest category as it includes all non sapient/sentient characters, being a big no when it comes to consent. Semi/anthro-feral consist of characters that are sapient/sentient, but are in some way feral with semi-feral being characters that would only physically be considered feral while anthro-feral would be characters that have some off of instinct that effects them. (A character could be both semi-feral and anthro-feral but would be considered anthro-feral due to having instincts.) From there, you would have at least three simple yes or no questions to ask a semi-feral and or anthro-feral character if you wanted to know if they were one that could consent. 1) Would the character in some way be able to at least hold an actual conversation with you. (This can be a bit tricky to answer if the character uses a different language) 2) Are they an adult of their species.(a no brainer question) 3) Would the character actually consent. (Not being under the influence of any instincts and or other things) It’s not a perfect system, but then again mother ever is. (Plus, it’ll be interesting to see people’s reaction to this little system, should they ever see it.)
Yeah that’s flat out abuse. The way they describe the process as “we don’t continue if they don’t want it”- like dude? Animals can’t consent PERIOD.. so don’t?? Oh my g o d
@@Techyena Breeders really aren't any different, they may even be worse depending on the situation. Live casting only takes one time, then you have a mold that can be replicated. Plus the company that did the live casting specified that they did not force the dog, and made sure they were comfortable. The dog wasn't harmed in anyway. For actual animal abuse, this is barely a concern imo.
@@MewMowMayJust because the animal “”wasn’t harmed”” in order to make a dí/d0 is STILL NOT OK and STILL @bù/$e. Who in their right minds would EVER use a REAL ANIMAL to make a $//êX toy?? It’s absolutely disgusting. But, you are a zoo so it makes sense that you would defend the zoo company.
Y'know the funniest thing about the Harkness Test? There has yet to be a non-human creature we've encountered in real life that could pass the test, so it's impossible to actually put its morality to the test because we lack the perspective and feedback from non-human creatures on whether or not they think it's wack. Arguments about whether or not the Harkness Test is moral are inherently useless as a result. Also why the fuck do people keep censoring themselves in the comment section, even on the most innocuous shit? Do ya'll think we can't cuss on TH-cam or something?
I mean pretty sure great apes and dolphins could both pass this test in theory we already know of one dolphin who basically did. and great apes can be taught sign language
I would also like to add the problem with 'feral' animals being able to talk meaning they can consent thing, a lot of these animals such as simba, the goose, and whatever; how do we know they can actually speak and not just being able to talk for the sake of yk, the movie or show/media? it could always just be an aristocats or courage the cowardly dog situation, they can talk to each other but not US or anyone who's not also a feral animal (excluding mythological beings such as dragons and werewolves). Which kinda takes the whole "can it consent" thing out of the question by that standard. /lh However, this is just my personal observation :p.
yep, the lion king was about a lions pride but since real lions can't show emotion or speak regularly disney came up with the idea of making them able to talk. A better difference example is puss in boots CAN actually talk part of his lore, as for the lion king the lions don't socialize with humans and based on the them you can specificially see that it is for the movie for US to better understand. ANOTHER example is warrior cats, they are based on actual cats JUST like the lion king and when actually facing humans the humans cant understand them.
All Dogs Go To Heaven is an interesting case. Charlie and Itchy can clearly interact with human characters like Anne Marie and David but is there an age limit when it comes to speaking to humans like only angel dogs can communicate with kids or can they converse with human adults as well in universe? Cause if so, popular furbait characters like Charlie Barkin and Sasha Le Fleur absolutely pass Harkness Test despite being quad in nature.
@@termitesc.aardwolf3644 I agree! And this is exactly my point, there's always a bit of nuance to situations like this because it's one thing for an animal to be able to actually talk and interact/consent in a movie (though there's still the controversy of them being feral animals), and another thing for them to talk for the sake of progressing a movie or like you said, moreso giving a child-like wonder/imagination to it e.g. talking to only children/young teens, yet adults only hear barks/can only use body language.
@@hu7380 Also in the case of Lion King, keep in mind that Timon and Pumbaa can speak to that human Quint guy in their animated series but its unclear if humans can talk with animals in other Lion King adaptations or spinoffs. Jungle Book is also an interesting case where Mowgli, a human can speak with the jungle animals. While Baloo and Shere Khan absolutely pass Harkness Test in TaleSpin, the Jungle Book adaptations are left up in the air.
So, as an aroace furry, I've kinda viewed the uh... junk to be measured case by case. As I stated, I'm ace as fuck so I dunno what's fascinating about that stuff. My understanding of things like Bad Dragon and the different kinds of stuff you can get is, imo, no different than anal beads, whips, cuffs, or whatever. It's maybe cuz of the shape, the size, texture, idk. I'm viewing this as someone who refuses to imagine (let alone draw) anything beyond an X for the butthole, if any kinda of feature is present. But that's just me, and I may be entirely wrong.
Bro when people call me a zoo for liking feral DRAGONS I get actually dumbfounded. Like you realize its a mythical and magical being right? And if you do want to look way too deep into it dragons are literally known for being wise and usually more intelligent then your average human. So I dont really get why they would come after me they ain’t even real man haha
After seeing some opinions on both sides of the spectrum.. I can safely say that the Feral Sus discourse is just the textbook definition of Politics. I can understand why some people would find this stuff "problematic" because of it's labeled themes. But at the same time, they are fictionalized enough that they feel human and have the intelligence for it. (Harkness Test) BUT AT THE SAME TIME- You know what, f this political Nonsense. Im just gonna read sus Pokémon comics while setting my cr#tch on fire out of spite since i just wasted my time trying to please both sides. (sarcasm but true) but if you want to know what is my true take on all of this; I honestly don't care if you make Feral sus art (Because me simp sylveon). But if you make it realistic to the point it looks real. I'm gonna see you as a red flag in my eyes.
People don't know what constitutes an animal. People are more than fine with dragon boiking despite them being quadrpedal animals. When does a sapaint description cross the line as a cartoon?
As long as they're anthropomorphic, have human sexual organs (they already have human arms, legs, and torsos anyway), and ofc that consent thing, then it's good enough for me. Anything below that then it's probably not the human aspects you're attracted to. Edit: I didn't mean that these are the things you find attractive in a human being, but... I barely even know what I'm talking about anymore. An anthro in most cases is usually just a human with an animal head screwed on with a few other characteristics with fur and tails and stuff, so it's not too far different from being attracted to another human.
@@MisterJohnDoe no you are about wrong about the genitalia part. That doesn't make it z00philc if the subject is sapient. Thats an incorrect assessment and our biology backs it up.
I posted this is reply to someone's comment about the Harkness Test, but I'll post it as as standalone comment to for clarity: The Harkness Test also includes the intelligence of the non-human in question, not just it's ability to communicate and it's maturity. Intelligence is a super important part of the morality debate, but soo often people forget this part because they focus solely on the visualisation of the Harkness Test and not the accompanying text/explanation, and end up laser-focusing on less important factors, such as the visual appearance. Harkness test defines those three rules because 1. ability to communicate consent is necessary to remove uncertainty. 2. Physical maturity is necessary to ensure no physical, mental, or developmental harm, and 3. Human-like levels of intelligence is necessary, morally, to ensure that consent is given with the understanding that it comes from a place of conscious, responsible thought and decision making, and not instinct. Using real-world animals as examples; their instincts can drive them to do things that are harmful, such as a dog's instinctual desire to eat chocolate even though it is poisonous to them, most animals' instinctual reaction to lash out at humans who are attempting to save them when they are trapped or injured, and any pet animal's instinctual desire to reproduce even if the pet owner does not have the resources to support looking after more animals. Point is: most animals make decisions based on instinctual desire/reaction, rather than any, or certainly not a high level of, conscious, responsible decision making and thought being put into those decisions.
The only reason I believe feral art is bad is because your sexualizing animal bodies and genitalia- and even if the artist intentions was different it has a tendency to attract creeps…..the argument with drawing underage looking characters is treated like pedo attraction (as it should because it attracts pedos) and I think feral art should be treated the same or at least be aware it will in fact attract creeps
I absolutely do not like furry NSFW that uses "anatomically correct" schollongs from animals, it make me feel very uncomfortable and look I like a lot when someone draws something different from the real thing, I know the difference of feral and basically a animal that supposedly talks. I like dragons, something that not even exists as a animal, but I not have anything against any fursona, BUT I go nuts when someone says that I like zoophilia because I'm a furry, bc people that actually like it all others receive a tag of "zoo-like". I just blacklist "animal schoolong" for everything that I consume... I just want to be that silly fluffy dragon, that use a belt, Katana and a scarf, sure I'm a adult and consume nsfw content like almost all adults and in the past I already draw my fursona nsfw but with the type of thing that I concern, but I close my future as a artist bc this was destroying my mind and being autistic make everything even more difficult to understand.
that person wasn't just antizoo they were basically anti even having realistic dicks on furs which is such a cringe take human dicks look so out of place on most furs
I'm not a furry so my opinion probably doesn't matter, but I think there's a factor that everyone is just ignoring and that is what specifically about the character you find attractive. If they're a character who is pretty much just a wild fox with a human mind for example, being interested in their personality or something like that I think is fine since that's entirely human. If you're into the same character for their body though, that's where I think it gets to be zoophilia regardless of weather or not it would theoretically be moral to do if it were real.
I dont think thats possible. The only way to demonstrate in your art that the character is human beneath all the anthropomorphia is to make them sapaint. So even if they were still quadraped, they would no longer look like what you describe. Yes still very animalistic, but you can see its a human convolution.
For feral stuff, I think this is a pretty good video, I know some people who are super into horse shongs, flares, the size, all sorts of things. But would never actually do anything with horses for real, but in fantasy, they get all worked up for it and want to see bellies bulge from the girth. I know people into canine dicks too, people actually so deep with animal parts, that seeing human parts on an animal either disappoints them to down right pisses them off. But aren't the kind of people that would ever diddle a dog, or become the next Mr. Hands. There isn't a thin line, it's a very thick, well defined line as I have seen with people into it. And I think the stuff with the fox puppet person, was really funny because of how over the top and over sensitive they got, while saying life isn't always going to be nice. It was a joke you made, and yes you got too defensive and over reacted, you do have a bit of an issue with things at times where sometimes when criticized you double and triple down it seems, or have some bad takes in the moment, but we are all human. Plus there was a lot of talk about how that puppet fox person was actually not as wholesome or good I saw going around, they were the real attention grubbing pest, most of those videos of them doing it, happened by them shoving themselves into the spotlight, or demanding people to film and take pictures, pushing people out of the way to be the ones at the center of the spotlight. Which under that light, would explain their sort of "do as I say, not as I do" sort of attitude that made them out to be a victim of what was intended as a joke.
My view on it is that if it looks like an animal, with almost no human characteristics other than intelligence, I'm not comfortable with that. The argument could be made that if a intelligent animal could consent, it'd ve fine, but I still draw my moral boundaries there.
Buddy, i feel by the point people are discussing if cartoon animals can consent or not... You should be asking yourself, why do they want to have sex with a Lion, Bear or a Bird to begin with.
5:26 "What about bipedal characters that are anatomically correct below the belt?" That's called "based as fuck", especially when there're especially unique traits.
The Harkness test is a very valuable concept, I think. Feral stuff of real-world species that looks particularly realistic is pushing the boundaries for me personally, just because /yeah/ I get the "could be a gateway to zoo stuff", but... if all the depicted parties are adults and consenting, then it's just another weird thing on the internet. My sona is quadruped and that's gotten some people weird about drawing art of it (it's a magical monster, not even a real animal), but... that's when I go to artists who aren't weird about it! People love werewolves and dragons, and that'll never really change. If the werewolves and dragons are consenting adults, then that's awesome.
I dont know, if it looks like a normal animal and acts like a normal animal I think its wrong. If it's like a sparkle dog that is in college for a medical degree and is an adult... it's fine??? Idk so long as there is a separation from reality and and it's a consenting adult thing it's fine?
I'm not a furry, and I don't pretend to understand most of the stuff you talk about, I'm just here to listen to your God-tier voice because it never fails to calm my nerves, it's just so soothing. I could listen to you all day errday and weirdly enough I wish I could just pull you out of my pocket when I face a stressful situation for instant relief. Oh, and thanks for tuning down the BG music, in your older videos it was a little too loud and distracting.
I’m going to put out my two Cents. Having an OC that is mostly an animal and stands on all fours it’s OK [Looking at the warrior cats fandom it’s entirely normal] but when you make them like that Put it NSFW so people can whack off to it. and that’s where I have a problem with it.
Really my whole entire thing is if it’s animal we can through our day to day lives and if it’s in feral NSFW than thats an no But I saw someone mention about dragons and mythical animals in my opinion is if you make it so it can communicate with human language then it’s OK; but if you make it act like an animal on purpose and you’re just sticking your thing in there then obviously it’s not
reading through the comments, gotta say, some of y'all concern me.
anyways, stan Aurelion Sol.
In which direction?
@@thomasvullings97yes
8:20 Mr. House would like to have a talk with him.
Non-furries really have no idea of how divisive drawn animal porn is inside the fandom
I dont think most non furries know what feral art is.
@@maxcardif9879bless their souls. They know not what they avoid.
The thing is, it actually blew up the whole Burned Furs thing back in the day, and a LOT of the stuff is coming from former puriteens (former as in no longer teens), anti-any kind of porn crusaders, people trying to start drama, and, frankly, a very loud but small subsect of of Sex Averse Aces who tend to be the Ace equivalent of an early 00's gay man calling ANY heterosexual (or bisexual who's not currently in a homosexual relationship) breeder (yes those existed, and yes they were an annoyingly loud part for a bit).
And it just gets into people confused about things that were in the original burned furs manifesto, like the whole plushiphile thing, or lifestylers, or spiritual furries, especially those outside the fandom because these things are either yet another, man we really fucked up on raising Gen-Z in being able to differentiate fiction and reality and critical literacy, or such a non-issue that the only people that actually care are involved in the fandom somehow, either through being in it or (as per the meme) likely to be in it in 5 years after their edge gets sanded off.
@@camiblack1 if i met anyone calling children and teens "purity teens" id call the police the fuck are you saying weirdo
someone really has to make a proper accurate furry-human chart lmao
I'm thinking about that one Warrior Cats artist who was accused of being a zoophile for *very briefly* including cat balls in a Multi-Animator Project part. Mind you, there are *children's toys* of male animals that depict them with balls, and it was such a fast-paced, high-action fight scene animation that you would literally have to pause it and be looking for cat balls in order to see said cat balls.
Oh my gosh. I remember that drama.
shh, nobody tell twitter that wild cats... have balls
At one point I was in possession of a very anatomically-correct lion figure - It’s a bit dumb to get so worked up over a slight flash of nuts, on a, y’know, literal naked animal.
which map/artist
@@iccigato9921 Might be Alex Harrier ? I know that in their 'Do or die' part we can see Longtail's balls for a sec. But I'm not sure if there was drama around this animation or if it was another one.
When in strange universes just remember the 3 rules of sex and you'll be alright.
1: Can it even give consent
2: Can it currently give consent
3: Can it make you breakfast in the morning. (Must be intelligent enough)
noted
cup a tea
Add “Is of age” as well lol
@@zedtricoo4998
Covered under can give consent. Legally they can't. That's why it's #1.
@@glenyssmith261Thank you for that clarification, the thing is... the "consent" of a child is like the "consent" of someone on drugs, technically they can SAY they consent, but it's about their state of mind. They can't consent because there's no awareness of context or consequence.
With the whole "feral" discourse aside, I do completely agree on one thing Lago mentioned here. People should indeed focus more on curating their own microcosm of the fandom. To simply block and avoid the things they don't subjectively like or disagree with instead of pushing their own subjectivity onto others like they're the voice of the fandom at large. Agree to disagree and move on, unless actual people or animals are being literally harmed.
That's one reason why I walked away from Twitter a while ago, because the site is literally designed to incite arguments and drama over stuff like this. Voice an unpopular opinion? Dozens of people with an opposing viewpoint come out of the woodwork to shame and shun you, then make callout posts to get even more people involved in the discourse. There's no room for civil discussion, understanding or nuance in an environment like that. To me, it's not worth the stress and toll on my mental health to look down every rabbit hole and learn of every so-called bad apple in the fandom. I just want to do my thing, take away what I enjoy from the fandom and find like-minded people who share similar interests. If nobody is getting hurt, is that too much to ask?
You've summarized my thoughts perfectly
It also applies to the perception of the fandom. Many anti-furs and furries look at the fandom as a whole and judge everyone accordingly, when in reality big sects of furries are just "here are some cute drawings I made :D." and nothing else. I'm thinking r/furry type content.
i personally dont fuck with feral pron but as long as it doesnt have cub or true animals in it i will turn a blind eye
While I agree with most of what you said - this thought process of "if nobody is getting hurt" is what's been harmful to having an honest conversation on the lines of where feral sits and what's considered, for lack of better words, morally acceptable. You can say the same thing about actual loli/cub porn, pure bestiality porn (only drawn or animated). There are artists who actively use real life animals for reference when drawing genitalia, the founder of Bad Dragon and now owner of e621 (the most popular adult furry sites) has expressed the following,
"“Let’s face it, for a lot of us this is the closest we’re (legally) going to get to the real thing-I’m in it for the experience and the love-and I’m planning to do live casts (ie, a gator cock cast from a live gator) too,” Varka wrote. Potential live-casts included vaginas and penises from horses, ponies, cows, sheep, dogs, and “most anything else human usable that people might be interested in.” - Ana Valens, "Bad Dragon’s kingdom of fantasy sex toys is caged by ‘queer’ capitalism"
Not to be taken out of context, they never went through with this but it's the actual consideration that's enough for me.
All of these forms of art are openly welcomed on almost every furry adult website, even in this video Lago presented other toy businesses that actually use live-casting. There's a glaring issue and conversation to be had yet there's no room for civil discussion because people use scapegoat phrases like this or absolutes to get out of it. There's too much black and white thinking in this community, but this exists in all communities to some extent.
@@Buuuuhhhhhhh When I stop to consider your point, I can acknowledge you make a good case here.
I truly wish there was a more civil means of discussing the nuances of this topic without people jumping to extremes. That's why places like Twitter are horrible for such discussions, because the site literally encourages that kind of behavior. When I stop to reflect, I start to realize that's exactly why I had that kind of take on the matter to begin with. I was too afraid of the backlash for asking nuanced questions on the matter, so took the "if nobody is getting hurt" approach instead.
My stance remains:
Tag your stuff, if I don't like it, I don't open it and instead just put a tag in my mutes.
See this is the proper response.
I don't like M/M NSFW art, so I just mute the tag and move on with my life instead of getting into a row over two guys banging. Yet some people just have to go on and on about how 'the gays' are, I dunno existing? Like I dunno, some people man.
facts
My fursona is completely feral, save for the occasional talking moments. I've been accused of being a zoophile just for that multiple times. It's honestly ridiculous. My fursona is a feral cat because of the FFUCKING. ARISTOCATS. The Disney movie!! And my sona is also aroace. Just like me. It's really fucking creepy and weird when someone's first reaction upon seeing a feral fursona is instantly thinking that the creator is a zoo. I don't, have never, and will never like any sort of nsfw in the furry fandom. I'm here because of Disney, Looney Tunes, Pokémon, and Felix the Cat. That's it. I just like art of silly animals doing silly things. Think Louis Wain :)
Louis Wain's cats began resembling bad acid trips as he aged. I've read that his brain was disintegrating, which may not be true.
@@TheTrumpReaper Correct. I absolutely love his works. Whilst some say he was going crazy due to an illness, I attribute that to him losing his wife and his kitten Peter being the only comfort he had.
thats wild that ppl just jump to that. sonas of all kinds are fun and accepted, so why would ferals be suddenly criticized lmao
As a non-furry I have to say loony toons is good
On the topic of "different shapes", it's generally seen as just different and new shapes and not something that is equated to the real animal counterpart. It can definitely be a way for those interested in harming real animals to have that outlet and that can cause problems of its own (usually more normalization of the idea), but I rarely see that personally. More often than not, it's just wanting to get more creative with designs and not wanting to settle with the "basic shape". A lot of monster artists give the characters involved exotic shapes, but have no interest in actual animals. Variety is the spice of life in a way (as someone who draws different kinds of bits)
tl;dr realistic bits aren't a direct sign for someone being a zoof, and can just be for the sake of variety in shapes
As far as the whole “animal genitalia in anthro art” argument is concerned, my thoughts pretty much line up with Vagovirt’s. I think it’s the same as trying to write it off as zoophilic cause your anthro character retains the animalistic paw design of said species instead of a human one.
I’ve seen plenty of artists draw the anatomically correct genitalia on a canine anthro (regardless of gender) cause it just makes sense. Everything else that was drawn from the furry ears, fangs and muzzle, to the Digigrade legs, tail and paw shapes are animalistic and resembles the canine look, why stop doing that suddenly at the end by slapping a generic human dong on it and calling it a day? (Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the use of human genitalia in anthro art makes for bad or lazy style direction, this is just to make a point.)
I can’t say the reason is the same for everyone who does it, but I agree with your points. It’s different. It’s like seeing an exotic alien dong. There are different kinds that varies in shape, size and color and is not just the same human variant. Some even mix n match them on their anthro characters. Me personally, I don’t mind them in NSFW art. Wether they decide to draw them on or not. The way I see it, so as long as both parties are consenting 18+ adults, it doesn’t matter to me if they have the anatomically correct genitalia or not. Depending on the artist, It can just be personal preference as well for the sake of maintaining a style in their more spicy characters.
It shouldn't be called feral then. Feral implies a state of mind that is animalistic in nature, as is ordained by society. Making furry characters nearly anatomically correct to their IRL or mythological counter parts while having the minds of humans is already treading a razor thin line if said characters have the bodies of animals.
@@the_furry_inside_your_walls639this isn’t about feral characters though, they were talking about animal genitals on anthropomorphic characters, not feral characters….
I completely agree with you on the topic of a purely creative difference. Then again I am ace so I dont nessecarily see this kind of thing in the same way others would, but wouldn't it get boring drawing the same thing over and over again?
"Zooph" would sould better tbh, "zoof" sound dorky X3
This comments section is a mess but nowhere near as vitriolic as twitter and I give y’all credit for that.
As dog shit as TH-cam comment sections are I don't think it's possible for any other platform to be as vitriolholic as Twitter.
@@starmantheta2028you havent seen community post comments yet
@@jyjori Seen plenty of blatant racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and ableism in comment sections on this site, along with confederate flag apologia, anti-Ukranian and Palestinian takes including and up to calling for their total extermination, and other not-so-subtle white nationalist dog whistles... Well, bullhorns more like.
This is a subject that I continue to be incredibly torn about. On one hand, the Harkness test sounds pretty solid to me, if an adult creature can communicate in the same way a human can and thus give clear consent, should there be a problem just because it isn't actually a human? But also, if the only thing differentiating an animal from one you could find in real life is its ability to communicate in a human language, one has to wonder what it is that makes the character attractive to you in the first place.
I will say, though, that suggesting that sticking a rocket (for example) (so to speak) on an otherwise human-shaped character automatically makes the piece zoophillic in nature is ridiculous to me. Like, okay, how about werewolves for a specific example? The kind that are like Worgen; wherein, this person is a wolf-person. They're practically human in every way but with a wolf "skin" (as in what that word is in games like Overwatch). Should I be accused of being attracted to animals if I find something like that enticing? Because that's just a bare-bones definition of what a furry character is.
Or what about a character that *is* a human but is depicted as having animal, ahem, anatomical features? Is that now suspicious? I really don't think so. Because it's about whether or not a character could be considered equal to a human person. I would consider most fursonas to be a person, because they function identically to a human being. Therefore it should stand to reason that attraction to them is not an indicator of attraction to an animal.
Stars I hope that made sense.
This is the same thing as my belief that the age of consent should not apply in certain situations, like when a person sneaks into a bar or night club and goes home with someone, or lies about their age well enough.
I make that statement, and I look at the people who are agreeing with me, and I think, "Wow, I'm on the wrong side here"
@@Novice_Maker I'm pretty sure that's already a thing in some countries
I mean lolicon is explanatory while yiff is a slippery slope
@@Novice_Maker …Okay, but why are you bringing this up?
@@-Vob how are they equivalent? Humans are naturally attracted to anthropomorphia. From a biological perspective, the only thing we are attracted by is sapient expressions (mostly in faces). We are not attracted to eachother because we look like humans. We really are just significantly intelligent, sapient primates. How is it any different if another creature went through a identical transformation but with a different animal derivative. They are both animals, and yet its us that looks closer in apperance and features to our primates than a cartoon anthro does to any animal in the real world. *If we went by your logic, cartoon humans look like actual humans* . What you are saying here is a objectively provable fallacy, brought by the specific evolution of our limbic system to participate sapaint communication.
I think the word for it is “Semi-anthro”(or semi-feral) I’m pretty sure the term is. In which such characters display sapient behavior on a human level of thinking, expressing, talking verbally and pretty much having the very BASIC principles of an anthro character, but all while retaining their four legged “feral” stance. (Like Steele or Georgette) Some even with the ability to move their front digits individually.
There are furs who got into the fandom cause they took a special liking to characters like Nala or RedXIII.
"Cartoon Animal" is good enough.
@@-Vob this guy is using alt like account. He went from 0 to 8 likes in the space of a minute. Look at low antifurs have to dredge. 🤣
I thought they were just called "sentient".
and I think this type of thing is where a lot of the discourse comes from imo, bc I know people who would view that as literally just "Feral." It's really strange and interesting to see the ways various terms are used, and I think being careful about the way we definite things is helpful (✿^‿^)
Idk, the most popular smut sites have stuff like disneys robin hood and zootopia characters as "semi-anthro".
Feral there usually means all limb proportions alike to the original animal.
Zoophile there is another category and usually does not include feral. It's stuff that generally looks like not passing the harkness test basically.
All people I know use the definitions from the popular site. Your circle might be different. But you are talking about changing definitions here. Which might not be a bad idea tho...
I saw the word “Feral” in the title and I visually cringed at it 😭😭I hope this videos comments will be civil… I sure hope
They wont be.
Also btw my view on the whole feral thing is that most furry quadrupedal animals (like, animals that actually exist irl) or artwork that has furry characters with “correct” anatomical proportions (a talking dog that could consent that is just plain up a dog physically, like Brian from family guy) are off the table as just feral. Dragons however are entirely fictional, and are big enough to *generally* be ok (atleast in my eyes) Wolf characters like the one from league that DO stand on four legs however are exempt since generally they are basically human just in a wolfs body (IN MY OPINION!!)
TLDR: most feral animals/sea life in furry artwork that have mostly accurate features/sizes/and or stand on four legs are feral, but feral dragons are okay since they are entirely fictional. If you get what I mean
@@anifsky1065 I'm not a furry but I say I'm going feral to show the increase from insanity to something worse
The second I heard the sentence “Can they consent?” in reference to ferals, I immediately knew it wouldn’t be civil 💀 Even as a feral artist (most of my ocs are feral characters), I stay FAR away from even touching that topic.
*Grabs Oversused Eeveelutions Comic and Popcorn*
I remember the last time I witnessed this discourse happened it coincided with the BG3 trailer dropping wherein the player character is about to have s3x with a druid in his feral bear form. It was met with universal praise, and strangely, no one was accusing the devs of spreading "z00phile ideology" or whatever. No one took it all that seriously, there was no moral back and forth about whether it was okay to include it; everyone just went with it and said "lmao awesome".
My point here is that almost everyone who takes the 'feral debate' seriously should... not. Furry twitter and discourse warriors in general take themselves far too seriously concerning silly topics no one irl would ever understand or care about. Just curate your personal online space and chill out, tbh.
Well my character is a "Feral" because it is an 4 legged Dragon. But I have never seen anyone getting mad of Dragon feral artwork. And you know there is a lot of it in the Fandom.
it’s because dragons aren’t real
@@NillaVilleneither is a cartoon dog. The line should be if they posses a sapaint expression. Trying to gate keep based on a what look too much isn't going to work, dragons are a case in point.
@@maxcardif9879 I think they mean that Dragons are fantasy creatures while dogs, even if cartoony in a depiction, are based on real-life animals. Plus Dragons are often shown as sapient, which is what makes them more "acceptable" than other feral art
@@ItsChevnotJeffyou can have a sapaint cartoon feral animal. All lion King characters are sapaint but also feral. In the remake they DONT have sapaint expressions but are still feral. You can have both just like the dragon.
Who are you to say dragons are not real? They are mostly hybrids of various real life creatures some of which no longer walk the Earth.
For me it depends on how cartoony the feral is drawn, whether they're given animal genitalia or not, the intelligence level, and if their species is real or how closely it resembles irl animals. Dragons are ok to me since they're not real and are usually pretty far removed from real life reptiles design-wise. Aurelion Sol also leans more humanoid imo, he has human-like mannerisms and even hands with opposable thumbs. Also tbh his voice and personality is hot and I'd let him raw me. I don't care if I'm a degen for saying that.
Personally, I would be nervous letting someone who jacks off to drawings of anatomically correct dogs near irl dogs. The Lion King characters are a gray area for me. I can see someone being attracted to the characters because of their personalities, voices, etc. I had a crush on Scar when I was a kid because his voice was hot to me. However, seeing non-anthro Scar with anatomically correct genitals just feels icky.
It's also less likely someone would harm a lion. Unlike dogs, you can't just buy or adopt one and they're way more likely to kill you.
Humanoid furry characters with animal genitalia don't gross me out. When the animal junk is attached to an attractive human physique it's hot and idk why lol.
As someone who has a "feral" sona I hate it when people call him feral. I call him quadruped.
Four legger
I don't have any characters like that but I hate it too. Isn't "feral" supposed to refer to something that's like savage or something? Whenever I hear it I just think of those running and screaming infected human zombies from Dead Island or something.
@@oriontheraptor8119watch that hard r
@@MisterJohnDoeFeral in the context of furries usually means non-bipedal. It can also mean closer to animal than human. Take Simba for example, he's feral by furries standards.
@@hahahaidk7807 It's such a bad way to go about describing quadrupedal characters that think, talk, and act like humans with the bodies of animals. I don't think the people supporting "feral" understand just how tone-deaf and freaky it is to classify something that they think is okay because it involves consent "feral". Some definitions cannot, and will not be changed by society's standards, no matter how much a fringe group tries to do so. The kinds of people who have an unga-bunga attraction to that sorta stuff alone are walking a REALLY thin line.
I can't believe that furries and whovians agreed that Jack Jarkness is the perfect test to see if an alien or animal is fuckable or not lol
When it comes to pokemon, I tend to go with the Harkness test and I remember that pokemon x human relashinships are canon in both the show and games.
Yea but not with a vaporeon. Lmao
@@maxcardif9879Please leave my personal life out of this X3
I'm sorry pokemon x human relationships are canon _what._
@@Venjaminit is said that human Pokémon marriage does happen
@@maxcardif9879Actually, speaking as a marine biologist… /S
I swear when I see LagoVirt Post I watch the video on sight no matter where I am and what Im doing
If you’re debating which cartoon animals can or cannot consent, I think you need to reassess your life priorities
Often on top of displaying intelligence and the ability to consent I judge things morally based on its realism. I have a strong negative reaction to when people draw a really realistic dog and say that since it could consent its all okay, I feel that to some extent the ability to detach something from reality enough ties in strongly to it.
Its like, if you liked NSFW of something unrealistic, cartoony to the point its pretty damn detached from reality while also displaying consent and intelligence, that I feel would be a lot more fine. If you liked NSFW of something the same but it looks just like a dog, rather than a cartoon that you can displace from reality somewhat, it'd be more weird to me and I tend to stay away from that a lot. The realism of it is important to know I feel, screwing cartoons and screwing real looking dogs can be pretty damn different.
Edit: Also gonna note, I saw another opinion on this just a bit ago that I feel is very accurate too on this. People who make feral art don't make it to associate it with "the real thing", its actually the opposite. They usually are drawing feral works because they have no interest in real life animals and so the fictional world is different completely to them. Its a form of xenofiction, separated from reality to a point that the creator's sexual attraction in the real world isn't even a factor in it. It being tied to fiction can be a big means of not being interested in real life similarities due to the fact that fiction and fantasy is applied, and in my opinion its better when its majorly applied to separate it even more from real life.
To me, characters like the lion king are semi fearl, semi anthro. While yes, their anatomy, correct and walk on all fours or two, If they can talk, have emotions, an adult, act human, and are aware of their actions, I say their fair game. Same applies to completely anthro characters with correct schlong attaomy. As long you wouldn't bonk an actual animal in real life, who cares?
Now, if it's something like completely fearl as in they can't talk, have emotions, or doesn't act human in the slightest, then you absolutely can not. That would 100% be zoophilia and you need to be investigated.
That's my take, so take it as you will.
Also, saying going fearl sounds like the furry version of im going insane or going postal
The problem is that we know that a lot of "zetas" and "map's" have an interest in feral/loli porn, since people USUALLY draw NSFW content of the things they are attracted to.
Knowing that, it's kinda hard for me to feel comfortable interacting with someone who is into this stuff, even if they claim they only like it because it's fictional, and don't openly support zoophilia/pedophilia.
I don't think all feral NSFW artists are evil zoophiles, but at the same time I don't really want to be associated or interact with them... I hope it makes sense.
@@noirenard_you could make the same argument that alot of people who partake in furry media are zoophiles, groomers and pedophiles or are more inclined to be because of the parameters discussed in the video
@@noirenard_ That seems entirely fair to me. I know being in the anime fandom, as well, means I have to deal with a lot of loli/shota-cons and I just have to put on my hazmat suit and go: "I can't stop you from making this art, and I don't even think the law should be able to stop you (necessarily, there are obvious caveats). But I don't have to overtly support you either."
Benji did nothing wrong during that hearthfox mess. He got used as a scapegoat
yeah i agree let's be honest Hearthfox knew exactly what E were doing.
Hearth shouldve lost their credibility they moment they starting misrepresenting themselves having DID because they’re polytherian. But yeah they totally wanted to pin the turn in attention on Benji
Hearthfox knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They were willing to throw others under the bus just to worm their way out of the controversy.
heartfox mess? is there some video one the matter? i tried to search but i couldnt realy connect any dots.
@@Irobert1115HDyeah I'd like to know too, I heard Ben was part of some drama but I never heard what it was
its one of them things i'm not into, but dont care much about :p
unless its realistic by my own standards.
i don't make a fuss about it even then, but i actively dislike and avoid "cookies" and actual real animal shapes.
the line is so all over the place though, so i get why people are constantly fighting. i just wish people wouldn't assume the WORST of someone who draws the line somewhere they don't - but even then i get THAT because of people in the fandom who messed it up for everyone else.
u know who.
What is a cookie?
@@chip4039don't bother
@@chip4039This -> 🍪
@@malikharrell2488 not that cookie
@@enjoshi-godrez8775 I will
the most disgusting part of this video is playing league.
If a feral animal was as intelligent as me why not.but if they were as dumb as my dog thats disgusting
Exactly, I usually see furries drawing adult art of stuff like Balto and Simba as opposed to actual dumb cartoon characters like the Sheep dog in The Little Mermaid, the ShihTzu from Shrek 2 or Den the dog from Full Metal Alchemist.
It's obviously because Simba and Balto have human personalities which allows for attraction vs just acting like a literal animal.
I think the one unnerving part of this discussion I found (at least on Twitter) is when I see someone that is pro feral, the people in their engagements will sometimes end up with that good old "zeta" symbol
Maybe they just like math
zeta males lmao
The punchline escapes me. Are zeta symbols used to identify unsavoury types who lionise the idea of autocracy or something like that?
@@odinlindeberg4624 The zeta symbol is used by zoophiles
What does the ztea mean to furries??? Im scared….
I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective, because author. This is something that does pop up occasionally in the realm of omegaverse or "A/B/O" content, and a big feature of A/B/O is features of (male) canine anatomy. A lot of what attracts people to the concept of canine anatomy is the whole, hormone-driven adult-fun-times, and the eventual unwilling closeness and aftermath (tying) that inevitably comes with it. So Alphas/Omegas experience overwhelming animalistic hormones because of their anatomical characteristics, which makes consent a muddy thing in the first place, and the aftermath generally appeals to an eventual tenderness (usually - depends on the tastes of the author in question.)
So to draw the obvious comparison: These tend to be humans with alternate physical characteristics, or werewolves. No one has (in my experience, at least) compared any of these characters to feral/zoo-ish characters, despite the straight up near-guaranteed dubious consent of the relationship, or the physical anatomical differences.
So would a furry / anthro character with those same anatomical differences be considered feral/zooish? IMO, no. If they're sapient enough to give consent, I kind of draw the parallel to omegaverse content.
I feel like the question has to be further sublimated to _'what about the feral character attracts you?'_ Is it the aesthetic of an animal shape or the conceptual ideas around it? Is it straight up seeing an animal-shaped character going at it with another character (whatever the shape?).
I also wonder the reverse. Does a human-shaped dong on an otherwise furry character somehow make that less feral/zooish? I mean the rest of the character is similarly animal-shaped, right?
Yes, there are lots of people that feel putting humanoid genitals on a furry character makes it less zoo-ish, and more acceptable. I have seen so many comments saying as such on posts both where it's done, and not done being upset. I also think people tend to be much more forgiving to written media, than illustrative on this/these topic BC of the reaction to seeing it flashed in front of your eyes. But that's just what I've experienced or seen lurking in both communities, esp furry one.
I would feel there would be others that would see adding a dog's genital on a human as being zoo-ish as well. But it would be pretty reaching, as they are primarily humans with just an alternate biology. I feel people even in the furry fandom, would be more twisted on the dubious content that tends to be more popular.
Personally I don't care as long as people's intent on making the content are not creepy/predatory, and they ain't hurting people lol.
Oh and I'll let people who are into feral reply to what they find attractive. The couple of people whom I talked to, some were very into the concept of animal genitals, due to the differing anatomy. And some because they grew up watching media with animals so it's easier to project onto those characters than human ones. I would imagine there are several alternate reasons though. An interesting discussion topic for sure.
i personally dislike omegaverse for a whole lotta reasons, but the whole canine anatomy thing never even crossed my mind as a problem
My feelings on it is pretty much that I understand the distinction and the whole harkness test thing. But I feel about Feral NSFW the same as I do with Child NSFW Art. Sure it's all fictional, but child nsfw art is used to groom children by normalizing it through the relations depicted and gets the viewer, artist, and potential victims to lower their guard and normalize it in their head. Making it harder for them to blur the lines between "It's just fiction" and reality and making it less likely for victims to report crimes against themselves as it's seen as normal by them now. Obviously it's not the same since showing your dog NSFW won't normalize it in their head, but I do believe that the art might desensitize people to the actions depicted. Because without talk bubbles there isn't much of a difference between a pic of two dogs doing it and a drawing of two feral characters doing it. It also provides a convenient cover for actual zoos, and helps them apply features to real animals that don't exist like believing animals can consent and defense of "non verbal consent".
This is probably the most sensible take. We should be investigating exactly the type of art is being used in these criminal acts, not bundling everything in that makes us uncomfortable. I think so long as if you were to take off the creatures anthropomorphia, if it becomes identical to a human, then it doesnt matter how extreme the anthropomorphia is, because there will always be a hard cap on how animalistic you can make them. There is only so far you can go in showing anthropomorphic derivatives, while being still a unambiguously human in connotation. That ambiguity is were gr00ming is supplemented
Its Sera ♈️
By that logic, why make any taboo art? Why draw gore, violence etc etc?
I understand where your coming from, but I feel when it comes to media the normalization argument isn't the best. It's a line of logic that I feel can apply to too many aspects of media that when pushed further can start to border on media puritanism. Its the same line of logic that made people think video games make people killers.
the fun part is that if you log off, no one actually cares or would be offended if you think simba is hot
People really put unhealthy amount of thought into whether or not something offends a fictitious thing
I dunno, sometimes I think about Nala's eyes when I'm on the bus. Then I just kinda shrug and realize how I'm in this deep after 20+ years anyway, those kinda thoughts just come with the territory.
@@andrejg4136those eyes...disney knew what they were doing!
You could say I've been a furry since 2005, though I was completely unaware of the fandom itself until around 2010. I've been involved in it since then, and consuming all types of furry media for nearly two decades now. This includes feral porn. I've seen people posting and liking feral porn going as far back as I can remember. But people only recently started having a problem with it, like 4 or 5 years ago. Back then, the people who drew and viewed it were no more likely to be zoophiles than those who drew and viewed anthro porn. This still seems to be true today. I don't recall seeing anything back then to suggest that zoophiles preferred ferals over anthros. I don't even know if this recent discourse about feral porn has driven an uptick in interest from zoophiles and become a self-fullfilling sort of thing. So where did this discourse even come from? How did it get so big?
Some people I've posed this question to have mentioned the possibility of the whole entire "feral porn is zoophilia" thing being a psyop from that nazi fruitbird site. I heard someone say that those trolls infiltrated Amino back in like 2018 and spread it around to the kids on there. I'd like to see some proof of that, though, because it would be nice to know for sure, and to have something concrete to share about it.
Recently, there's been people decrying furries using ACAB when talking about fandom cops, as it trivializes police brutality. I can agree with that, as it seems more politically active people are letting their fetishes bleed into their politics (or maybe its vice versa?) It's not even relegated to furry, as proship vs antiship discourse has become more vocal in internet communities . I think people need to think with their brain instead of their libido.
I can confirm.
Hornbuckle, a Transgender Male TF fetish artist who had success before in the TF community with no one caring about his politics or that he transitioned yet was still welcomed by the TF community, decided alienated his audience by posting his politics in a featured post saying that anyone that voted for Trump is a terrorist.
He broke the one rule about fetishes. You don't bring politics into fetishes.
I agree but people have to realize there is an active targeting for the furry fandom outside of antifur and leftwing/rightwing politics.
Pron is less than half of the community and most of that is behind closed doors, yes there are some distasteful people that swing open the flood gates and unfortunately that's what we are being represented by.
Politically its just a bashing because people crave power and who knew a band of autistic traumatized and 'cringe' people are easy pickings?
call me old fashioned but i really don't think fetishes should be political
That honestly enrages me. You can tell the people who make that sort of thing have never faced actual oppression in their lives besides Twitter teenager calling them weird.
you can see people in these comments calling TEENAGERS AND KIDS puriteens and denoting them using political anti-sex movements and its horrifically creepy, even after ive stopped really caring to an extent about these type of drama, i cant in good conscience ever support the side that wants to villify children. they also love to try to justify themselves by using real world brutality like as you said thats beyond fucked up, ive seen people unironically say anti-whatevers are the same people who want to ban pride events/burn books. genuinely unhinged.
This whole argument is goofy, and I really do think the "fiction does not necessarily result in people acting on said fiction" argument is by far the most well fitting and oldest. It's existed for decades at this point, and I think there's enough data out there to show that it's probably able to be applied here, as well.
Violent movies don't turn people into murderers, violent games don't turn people into mass murderers, watching porn does not turn people into rapists.
At the end of the day, I feel like zoophiles *existing* is not really a good excuse to call for the banning or justifies harassment of people who enjoy feral artwork. Even if I do think there may need to be limits on accuracy, and aren't a fan of it myself.
My thoughts exactly
Imo I think it's fair to criticize and or call someone weird for liking feral but nothing more than that
@@bobtheball5384 honestly that's fair. I think that falls within the realm of just having an opinion.
people in the comments keep bringing up "what about the character attracts you?" "what parts?" "I'm more concerned about the body shapes" etc etc
I think you all are barking up the wrong tree, you're taking all of this too literally if you ask me.
the fact of the matter is, people VERY OFTEN find the raw, "animal" nature of intimacy appealing. these things are often expressed in fiction via anything from metaphors, to ABO, to straight up using animal characters. it's called "doggy style" for a reason: dogs do the deed a lot like we do, and we see ourselves in them. People often like varying "parts" for similar reasons- the situational utility of the knot, the fantasy of a new or different sensation, etc. Obviously some people are just like "I just thing this thing is sexy" but I really think the biggest piece of the puzzle a lot of people are missing, is simply that sex is one of the most instinctual things we do as humans, and playing that up that aspect appeals to people.
(i'm not even that much of a furry i just find the whole feral thing pretty easy to wrap my head around tbh)
Your celestial dragon is wearing Kamina glasses. Clearly not a feral.
I feel like we're asking all the wrong questions when it comes to feral, because, let's face it, "they could hypothetically consent tho" just isn't a compelling argument to someone who's against it. Because it'd be just as easy to invent a fictional child who has an adult's mind for the sake of r34, but that's a pretty widely unaccepted excuse (ie, "she's actually a 5000000000 year old dragon so it's okay").
I think the more important question is: is this feeding demand for irl animal abuse material? I'm of the opinion that it's not (in general, though there's nothing stopping zoos from being into it too). Completely fictional animals are totally out of the count, in my opinion. Is anyone in danger of abusing a dragon, or a werewolf, or whatever? Obviously not. Realistic animals probably fall into a spectrum, based on context, on a case-by-case basis. I'm not terribly worried for the lionesses of the world. If someone writes smut about their fantasy of banging the family dog? I'd consider that a red flag. What about the pieces that fall in between, though? In short, it's complicated.
but also, the argument that it acts as cover for zoophiles to look at animalistic bits just... doesn't hold water for me, logistically. To the best of my knowledge, it's not a crime to go to the surface web, google dot com, and type "horse penis". Zoophiles don't _need_ drawn feral nsfw the way a lolicon needs drawn cp, at least when it comes to animal parts and animals mating with each other. It's also, as far as I'm aware, not illegal to own or look at animal abuse material, just illegal to have directly harmed the animal yourself (and maybe to create the nsfw? I don't know, I haven't exactly felt the need to know). A zoo is just gonna look up like, pictures of dogs yawning to get their maw kicks. Do zoos consume and make fictional feral content? Sure, I have no doubts plenty do. But they don't _need_ to go to those lengths the way a pedo might.
Would the same standards apply to stuff like Centaurs and Satyrs? Humans with animal aspects? Can you consider art of a centaur “feral”? Because Yknow, their bottom half is a whole horse? Not technically furry, but I think it falls into a similar category.
On the Greek side of things, what about a god like Zeus shape shifting into a goose and doing the deed with a human woman? These ideas are not even remotely new to the furry community.
This also monsters in general
@@HowlWindclawOr Norse mythos where Loki turns himself into a horse to be impregnated by another horse
@@bobtheball5384 *He did **_what_*
Satyrs are usually just drawn as guys with goat legs and horns and in the original mythology they're just dudes with horse tails and massive junk. I don't think they should be considered feral or even furry at all since they're mostly human-like. They'd fall into the same territory as cat girls/boys. I would consider centaurs to be in a grey area since they have the completely human upper half. Also as someone who's into centaurs it's the human half that makes them attractive to me.
As long as no person or animal is hurt or used/treated in a bad and negative way for the art's process, I don't have an issue with it. As soon as one of those lines is broken, then I'll take complaint. As long as people know what "restraining" means and keeps fantasy separate from reality, I feel it's fine. The issue is, however, most people that get notoriety for this stuff turn out to have broken one of those lines.
Another question I have is that majority, if not all, complaints revolve are visual art material, not written. I bet there are more than a handful of books that go into detail with beings that teeter on this scale in which not many bring up. Of course, I know its due to publicity and effort. Writing a book or story can be harder in some ways than drawing art.
That aside, my only two exceptions are through pokemon: Cinderace is one I feel at home with personality and thematics, so it helps me picture things better. The other are flareons but not mainly sexual. About 80-90% of the time, I just look for fluffy flareons that are comfy and being hugged, so little interest sexually in that regard. And that's all. I have very, very picky tastes, so mainly Cinderace is my one big exception.
I know many will dislike this whole comment, but I do agree with Benji here; Its heavily suggestive due to how fine of a line we humans draw with nearly everything out there. Nearly everything is in a grey. There are many things I wont stand by, such as underage and loli stuff since its morally wrong to do such deeds with them for more than just consent. They barely lived long enough to truly understand a whole lot, which I believe should be developed much more before giving consent.
More or less, I agree with about every statement Benji gave here. I hope you're doing well by the way, Benji. Stay strong, bunny
Maturity is realizing arguing about fictional characters online is pointless, regardless of your opinions
As a non furry I've never looked at Simba and thought about if he could consent to um that until the first minute of this video.... I tell ya, conversations only furries would have or take seriously. Time to sit back and watch the circus show!
Let me tell you lads, this is some RIGHT tomfoolery right here.
Its pretty bad but there are questions that do need to be asked here. Everything gray being taboo isnt going to sustain itself but nor is abusing that line that is faded into oblivion.
Fucking stupid but in the internet we have to explain why and how we are breathing and someone would still shoot you down as an assaulter
You say that but what about Nala..
Even cartoon animals that can talk but walk on four legs I still call "anthro", because they're still being anthropomorphised by being able to speak and have intelligence. The term "feral" makes me think of real animals and I don't like that.
Yeah like I think we have to start adding modifiers to "anthro(pomorph)" because there is visual anthropomorphization (aka visual furry art, not-human thing resembles a human enough to invoke the same impulsive feeling we'd have for another human) and literary anthropomorphization (the not-human thing can think/talk/communicate/etc just as a human can).
I like feral but I only like cartoony adult animals and really stylized ones like you see in furry art that don't have realistic proportions. Meanwhile feral makes it seem like they would look and behave like an actual animal, it's an annoying word for the fandom to use.
I'm fine with feral NSFW. As long as the character is an adult, is sapient and can make its own decisions and give consent, then i dont really care what people do.
Based AF.
This honestly
And as we will know about this information, the majority are stationary images and not speaking or written animations
I think it's pretty reasonable to say "even though I'm not a fan of something, if the characters are obviously able to consent I don't see a big issue." a lot of people on the internet seem to have trouble distinguishing between "this makes me feel gross and weird" and "this is morally reprehensible." plus, if you're even remotely aware of the kink community, you know there's a big gap between what someone might look at art of and what they would ever remotely want to do irl. all in all, it's been a valuable lesson for me to just not get on someone's case morally about something just because I don't personally like it.
and yes, stan Aurelion Sol.
The way I see the "below the belt" region in terms of humanoid vs. animalistic is in terms of further differentiating characters from each other in a way that is relevant to the content being portrayed as the central focus.
Size difference is one method (An elephant will naturally have a more significant presence than a field mouse, for an exaggerated example), but there's also differentiating characters and how they interact with each other within the situations being portrayed, which can be emphasized with animalistic anatomy down south. How canine or equine parts work are wildly different from each other, and the receptive partner has different ways of engaging with such anatomy in both cases, for a popular example. Some artists like to play around with the anatomy as part of the way characters engage before, during, and after the conclusion of the engagement, and part of that anatomical difference can be in the amount of "product" and how such "product" is dispensed.
There's also how these anatomical differences may play into other fetishistic desires and portrayals, such as BDSM or body worship type situations. It can even be played for comedic effect (Most commonly with how canine anatomy functions to lock both partners together).
Having to properly account for species' _anatomical difference_ just makes the art better!
Defining what sexuality is and is not ok based on aesthetics is the basis of the entire Homophobic viewpoint. It is the definition of anti-LGBT to derive the basis of the morality of a sexual act based on the look of the individuals involved as opposed to their ability to consent to that act. Feral is simply so far down the chain of "Looks" that most people don't really give it a second thought, because there aren't feral creatures in the real world capable of consent, so it's an easy line in the sand to draw because we have no real life cases where the counterpoint could be argued. What is ok sexualy is not a matter of aesthetics, it is a matter of consent, and the quicker the kids realize this the better.
This is why we fight so hard about the concept of kink at pride, because celebration of queerness is more then the simple bounds of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender. It is a celebration of that which society considers odd but is still a matter of consent between adults, a celebration of being able to make your own independent choices that don't hurt others. The concept of Family friendly will always be a wrapper for anti LGBT+ bigotry framing the concept of the nuclear family as the most correct option.
Be weird, be queer, practice consent.
Eventually the furry fandom will have to answer the feral question.
can't wait to see the response from all the pro-feral stuff in the comments.
No, no it won't.
I guess after we have a democratic election on who is the president of furries right?
We never agree on anything
LOL, that question will never be completely answered to anyone’s satisfaction.
If a creature is 'Self-Aware' and possesses intelligence, I've never had a problem with them being 'Adult' or engaging in whatever 'Adult behavior' they wish. (Provided they're engaging in said behavior with willing partners!)
It annoys the Hell out of me how so many warp/malign/slander such things as being rapists/animal-rapists.
ffs...
It's IMAGINARY, for Pete's sake!!!
That still counts as bestiality and it still sick af.
I would argue that the 3000 year old loli doesn't pass the Harkness test. Hear me out.
The Harkness test specifically asks whether a being is an adult *for its species*. As in, is this being at the level of development and maturity that would be considered an adult? A character may be canonically hundreds or thousands of years old, but still a child developmentally due to a much slower aging process. The same could be said for the reverse, being a character that is technically younger, but developmentally more advanced.
For an example of a character who does pass imo despite the age difference, Inuyasha. Canonically, he is over 100 years old, and Kagome is 15. But due to Inuyasha's much slower aging process, he's still developmentally 15.
Loli defenders use the 3000 years old loophole because they only want you to pay attention to the number itself, not why the number is important.
Edit: You are correct in your assessment of people who like "exotic" shapes below the belt. For me, the very idea of doing anything with a real animal is nauseating. But a fantasy being with a different shape for a different sexual experience? That shit's fun. And I've been honestly surprised at the growing discourse surrounding it. Exotic dongs have been part of the furry fandom from the very beginning and nobody ever took it as the desire for actual animals.
Heres a good one for you to think about. In Mass Effect, Salarians have an average age span of 40 human years, they mature stupendously fast. What folks don't realize that in the event IF there was another equally intelligent, equally self aware and sapient race that we happened to bump into one way or another, theres such a low chance of them being "anthropomorphic" in the truest definition of the word that we could be talking to space beetles with 20 legs. Astrobiology kinda dips into this doesn't it? Our social norms are entirely based around US as a species, and since we have no real world experience of this matter, who are we to plant flags and judge how a quadrupedal or non bipedal humanoid should be depicted in erotica of any kind? Sapience and having a functioning society has always been a number one factor on this entire matter purely on a logical and scientific standpoint. At the very least feudal society at best.
Just some geeky food for thought adding to the OP's post here.
I would say perhaps we need to add "biological age" due to the prevalence of time travel and such in fantasy and sci-fi stories.
Like, technically Aang would pass the harkness test becaus he is 110 or so years old. But biologically, he's just a kid.
my problem lies in that "for its species" can be completely meaningless when we make up a species that looks like a baby its entire life. Take most first-evolution pokemon. It's entirely possible for, say, a snivy to reproduce with another pokemon, and have its snivy offspring evolve into serperior, but it is still the older one. There are very specific pokemon _defined_ as baby pokemon who biologically cannot reproduce until they evolve (mime jr, cleffa, etc) who I think we could probably unequivocally argue aren't an adult for its species. But the many first evos who are designed to look like baby forms of their evolved counterparts, what then? You could create a loli species that, for all intents and purposes, looks like a human child when it reaches maturity. I don't know that "for its species" passes that sniff test, necessarily.
no hate to my pokefuckers out there btw, I find pokemon designs so divorced from actual real animals that I don't consider it in zoo territory, but it's kind of the obvious example
@Romanticoutlaw I see what you're saying here and would like to offer a rebuttal. The entire reason child/adult and animal/human like intelligence pairings are immoral is due to the power imbalance and lack of ability to consent. Which is why loli is creepy in most cases, since the being doesn't just look like a child, they are developmentally and functionally also children.
You could argue that wanting to be with a fully mature, developed being that still looks like a child is weird. However, there are real, living people with disorders that affect their bodily aging without affecting their mental development. Would you say that those people shouldn't date because of their physical appearance alone? Look up Shauna Rae for an example of what I mean.
@NexLegacyAccount a solid rebuttal. I don't think a person with such a condition is unable to consent. But I also think it'd be a HUGE red flag if someone fetishized that condition, or went out of their way to seek people with that condition to sleep with. By creating a fictional person in that situation with the explicit point to sexualize them, imo, that person would just be finding a loophole for their pedo interests. If a character who looked like that was a fully developed character who also happened to have normal, non-fetishistic sex, I wouldn't mind. But I can't say I've ever seen that kind of content from the "she's actually a 1000000 year old dragon" crowd.
the way i see it, if youre the kind of person who thinks "id fuck a dog if it wasnt illegal" then thats bad. people who think red xiii from final fantasy is hot arent the problem
my opinions on this are simple:
I do not like it, and thus I do not interact with it. if I see it, I block it (and/or the user who shared it).
I have enough going on in my life to sit down and argue morality with dweebs on the internet.
each side can argue their point on what is what and how they feel about it, all I care about is how I feel; and I don't care for it.
that being said! fav asol skin? (default is pretty rad but I love his mecha skin while using the obsidian chroma). fav warwick skin? fav...uhhh Drake? LOL
My view has always been this when it comes to 'feral' content, when it comes to the furry fandom, going into my own definition. Which yes, does admittedly relate to the Harkness Test. This being, can they talk or otherwise communicate what they want, whether verbally or even telepathically and magically? Are they of human or comparable intelligence? Are they adults? With this, that feral does NOT equal zoo. That there is a difference. Whether they be a humanoid or quadrupedal.
Characters like Nala from Lion King? I don't see an issue with such. Even certain Pokémon comics or creative works, mattering how Pokémon are being shown and that they aren't being presented as 'animals' but actually having human comparable intelligent (Especially since they can even be more intelligent then humans and trainers). With this, having the means of communicating their own wants and desires.
Admittedly, this would need to include a Pokémon being able to say no... Since consent can be muddled mattering how you view the relationship between a trainer and Pokémon. Considering the power dynamic.
You have a fair conclusion. For me, I do think splitting the conversation into quadro (quadruped anthro) vs feral would help the back and forth discussions a lot. The discussion here is on that line of humanity which translates into real life. It doesn't challenge people to think deeper on what it means to be a human if curation is the solution. Given recent and decades old news, what is humanity really does need to be a higher topic of discussion in and outside the fandom. Ultimately this topics range of too fear of an anthro snoot to literal humans being perishable because they're seen as feral animals, imo, does mean we need to bit by bit discuss this so people are on the same page for some basics. What is humanity and what is autonomy. If people can have a deeper understanding of those then this part of the drama wheel would be better or cease to be. (also again it'd help irl given all the dehumanizing of humans news)
Edit: Also I'm surprised you didn't bring up the TF community as a prominent point given you like werewolves. A lot of internal discussions around feral are actually pretty defined because when someone wants to change forms and said form is a dog, that discussion comes up really quickly. That discussion in it of itself can be a lot deeper than the harkness test and many in the TF community tend to have a pretty good grasp on what it means to be human. That tends to be leagues ahead of more normal furry discourse
In usually stories it takes a big amount of effort to convey humanity through a new body or to get rid of it.
From a personal standpoint, having written tf stories here and there, its a thing I have to actively consider daily- if a new body has the same mind, does that actually change humanity? What about vice versa?
(I dont do feral/quadroped tho, take with a grain of salt)
Legally, all you need is a harkness test and then respective proof.
At the end of the day its up to you what the line is and how deep you want to go down the rabbit hole as long as you /seriously/ consider all ends of the stick. Is it moral? Is it right? Why would it be wrong and how? Where?
Then go find someone who isnt a kid with 10 alts and discuss- not argue or debate- discuss the points you have.
Christ I should apply to be a civics teacher
@@SpoopySkelemans Ya, one day I'll go over the topic in a video(s). There's a lot to discuss!
the Werewolf desire leaking out in this video I see
Valid
Honestly I can't blame him for that.
I have two categories for judging feral.
Real animals, be them semi-anthro (intelligent, etc) or otherwise: Strong, immediate no.
Dragons/pokemon/etc: Big grey area, Harkness test that bitch.
Because whenever you see someone saying, "It's just a drawing," ask yourself the question, "Of what?"
Feral is both a corn tag and a furry tag. The corn tag can refer to way way more things than just what is considered freely in any other context. Like fir instance, feylines from monster hunter like tsukino are considered feral despite the fact that they are sapaint humiods. Its because the corn tag looks at body shape being "feral", while the fandom version consideres how close they are to a specific real analogue.
@danaillaysen7632 ... Given the context of the video, which one of the two tags do you think I was referring to?
@@buttondowndingo well the pokémon one confuses me because a loy of furries think that any pokemon that is feral by the furry fandom definition is a absolute no no already. That already is too close to an actual animal, far more so than "semi feral"
@@buttondowndingo there is a inconsistency in saying the feral pokemon one is fine because its fictional, but the "semi feral" (whatever that means) is somehow not even though a cartoon isn't a real species regardless of what it's analogue is. It should be how close it comes to that analogue, which many pokemon do despite not being real species. You describe point of view more like the corn one, in that its just their body type, not there analogue deritive.
There's nothing wrong with dragons whatsoever. It's not a gray area.
Ultimately, I draw the line wherever a real person or thing is being harmed or abused. That's what's kept my sanity with all this drama. Otherwise, it's none of my damn business whether someone is secretly a pedo or a zoo. I'd rather not know, unless it's someone i'm directly interacting with. I completely am all for justice of getting abusive people jailed, but at the same time I have to realize for my own mental health that I can't act as an investigator for someone I barely know. People often forget that even just being a furry is considered a heavy kink for many, even anthro furries. The average person who isn't a furry could easily consider anyone who is a furry to be a zoophile, even though that isn't the case. IMO, this side of twitter has just erupted into fear-mongering and it's partially why I deleted my twitter account.
As long as a character is able to speak, and show human facial expressions in intelligence to give consent, then I don’t really see the issue. Because at the end of the day, it’s pretty much just an anthro character on all fours.
Bro is a zoo 💀💀💀
How cant you not see the issue. Its an animal, thats disgusting.
@@Thunderblock7889there's a thing called "opinion" idiot. You're criticizing someone's opinion because you have a different opinion then his.
"underage people equal stupid"
I think it's more "underage people equal unwise." Which is generally a true statement. With wisdom you recognize that not everything you like is going to be liked by everyone, and not everything you dislike is going to be disliked by everyone. I dislike religion, but I recognize that a large swath of people like religion. Suggesting we ban all religion because I don't like it is a problem - but I can go out of my way to avoid religion and religious people so the issue becomes a non-issue for me, most of the time.
You don't have to be underage to realize that jerking it to dogs is the definition of zoophilia bro
19 or 20 aren't even underaged either. Their brains may not be fully developed from a scientific standpoint or whatever idfk but it's still only a short time away. It just sounds pretty ageist.
Must……Cancel……Funky Rabbit Dude
Alright, I finally got around to watching this, and I'll add my 2 cents. I've actually put a fair bit of thought into this.
Like a lot of other niche intimate interests, the key question (to my mind at least) is whether or not it represents an inappropriate power dynamic.
To take the adjacent example of pet-play: I would say that if someone's interest in it is purely aesthetic (leashes and collars, pet language, etc.), that's fine. At that point, it's just an attraction to a non-standard intimate relationship, which can be expressed in a number of healthy ways. It becomes a problem when the aspect you're attracted to is specifically the perceived lack of humanity and the implied power dynamic thereof.
It's a similar thing with feral role-play. It's only really problematic in my opinion when the attraction comes from the fact that it's analogous to a real animal.
when thinking about this type of thing, I always remember how Mufasa from the animated Lion King was my entrance to the furry fandom and, admittedly, did something for me, but I wouldn't be caught dead making eyes at the live action Mufasa, despite being the same character.
i think what it comes down to it isn't the fact that he is an animal, that is attractive to me, but rather the way he's drawn and the body language. i don't know, it's hard to explain and a lot of this stuff is just a spectrum of so many shades of grey, it should be considered a primary color.
my general reaction to seeing something i don't like, but also isn't inherently harmful to anyone (and/or illegal) is to not interact with it beyond blocking that tag/person. if you interact with it, it's for sure gonna show up on your fyu or timeline and then your just self-sabotaging..
Would to Warwick too, he was a human mutated by Singed and is more like Werewolf, than wolf wolf. Also i feel A Sol is more like a god, calling him a feral in front of him would likely result in temper infused death.
Seeing the "Fuck Fandom Cops" piece reminds me of the time I voiced my concerns on seeing an artist I talked to in the past making an art piece that involved zoophilia and getting sent that as a response. I ended up blocking the dude and mentioning him to a moderator for a different group we were both in and knew they were friendly
About the "fandom cops" thing, why do people always act like trauma is some kind of badge to be worn? My past has been less than ideal too but that but I'm not acting all royalty and that I should be coddled by everyone. If you have any actual illness then maybe you should probably get professional help and not whatever unhealthy coping mechanism in the furry fandom where it'll probably just fester and become a part of you. God help you whenever you need to step outside and face reality again.
Part of the reason why its open season on smearing furries and trans people. Victimized this, victimized that, I had a bad parent oooooo pity meeeee
I lost both my biological father and mt stepdad because narcs dont like being called out.
Making that trauma a whole lifestyle is no worse than having a "kick me" sign on your back and then complaining when you do. You survive that shit and move on.
Aughh, it's irritating but thats the life we live in now. Let the shoddy people be shoddy ig
The Zoo has a clear definition. It is a paraphilia in which an animal is abused as a sexual object. This is due to the difference in intelligence and the inability to communicate/give consent
Always putting the human in a position of abuser in front of the non-human animal
That's the point. The abuse and consent, not about whether he is biped or quadruped, or what his genitals are like, or anything like that.
False. Its not abuse,its attractioon. It means being atttacted to animals and non humanoids. Stop lying.
Lies. Consensual bestiality is still a sin.
I dont think enought people talk about how a lot of argumento pro-feral nsfw also apply to loly/shota nsfw
Like, the argument it is fictional, the "we arent hurting anyone" argument, or saying it destigmatize the thing, and while it should tell lots, it just doesnt feel like the same thing? Idk
I feel like the aspect of being able to "humanize" ferals kinda sets this and Loli apart. You can't really anthropomorphize kids because they are already human, they are just underage. I also think the fictional = ok stance is really dumb
I personally think it is situational. I don't think there's anything wrong on crushing on fictional animals from kids cartoons. But I do think it is bordering zoophilia or at least displaying zoophilic tendancies to both enjoy animalistic genitalia AND feral animals in art, that are displayed as real species that exist. It's just odd to enjoy both of those. I feel the same way about lolicon. I just think; why does this appeal to you? Etc. I don't have as much of a problem with it when it's dragons or fictional alienistic species that are on four legs or have no legs at all.
I also personally don't like animalistic genitalia on anthros either. I don't think its zoophilic, but I don't personally find it appealing either. Again, If its something alien or edited to not be an exact representation of an animals parts, I don't see a problem with it.
Again, situational. When I see furry art or opinions on this that I don't like-- I just block them. Because I don;t have the energy to explain my viewpoint and be misinterpreted as a "puritan" for my opinions on nsfw content
Non humanoid=z00philia
@@Thunderblock7889how f-cking old are you
If the character lack an indication of being able to pass the Harkness test or there's not an indication the artist is working with a sentient character with the particular biology on display (such as a peice where the feral is someone's sona) then I tend to pull away. Although I must admit I have a habit of giving pieces that are somewhat unclear the benefit of the doubt (such as in situations were the lead up to the scene or periods outside of the intensity of the roleplay on display were the character's intelligence could be properly assessed) aren't present.
The brain is more than capable of telling the difference between fiction and reality, one must just exercise caution when they see fit.
A character of demonstrably equivalent sapience and communicative potential to an adult human of able mind is OK.
A small illustration, by no means representative of all possible scenarios:
A sapient dragon fully capable of communicating unambiguous consent? Proceed to pursue consensual relations.
A character from the Lion King? Questionable. I wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who wants this, but it is admittedly a grey area.
A direct representation of a dog? Just a regular dog? Maybe put this guy on a watchlist.
The term “feral” gets used a lot but it often isn’t strictly applicable to many of the fictional characters people get riled up over, because many of these characters express the same level of intelligence as an able minded human would, because the stories still need to capture a human’s interest and that is the easiest way to do so. It’s clear these characters aren’t intended to be a direct representation of a wild animal. Now, a program like David Attenborough would narrate often has one hell of a narrative to it, but I can’t think of anyone retiring to bed at a suspiciously early hour just to watch animal planet under the covers.
the problem is most of this conversation is its extremely subjective but instead of seeing this a different opinions it´s seen as a form of moral telling :/
I've seen people define feral NSFW art as having snouts in furry smut while others defind it as realistic depiction of animals
you said it yourself if a teenager was in love with Kovu from the lion king does that mean they are a zoophile? if yes so many people both furries and non furries would fall under that label or are we as a species able to differentiate between these cartoon characters and real life
some can and others sadly not (just look at Chris chan) and because we can never tell who is the later then it´s not ok? honestly don´t even have an opinion on it myself
I think an important thing that needs to be done is categorize what types of feral there are and what would cause a character to be considered a certain type of feral. Three types of feral I see a character being is either if their semi-feral, anthro-feral, or full feral. Full-feral is the simplest category as it includes all non sapient/sentient characters, being a big no when it comes to consent. Semi/anthro-feral consist of characters that are sapient/sentient, but are in some way feral with semi-feral being characters that would only physically be considered feral while anthro-feral would be characters that have some off of instinct that effects them. (A character could be both semi-feral and anthro-feral but would be considered anthro-feral due to having instincts.)
From there, you would have at least three simple yes or no questions to ask a semi-feral and or anthro-feral character if you wanted to know if they were one that could consent.
1) Would the character in some way be able to at least hold an actual conversation with you. (This can be a bit tricky to answer if the character uses a different language)
2) Are they an adult of their species.(a no brainer question)
3) Would the character actually consent. (Not being under the influence of any instincts and or other things)
It’s not a perfect system, but then again mother ever is. (Plus, it’ll be interesting to see people’s reaction to this little system, should they ever see it.)
gosh the idea, and application of the idea, or livecasting animals is disgusting.
Yeah that’s flat out abuse. The way they describe the process as “we don’t continue if they don’t want it”- like dude? Animals can’t consent PERIOD.. so don’t?? Oh my g o d
@@Techyena and the justification "but but breeders do the same so it's okay, right?"
@@dhalav breeders are a bit different, so their point is still garbage, it’s annoying haha
@@Techyena
Breeders really aren't any different, they may even be worse depending on the situation.
Live casting only takes one time, then you have a mold that can be replicated.
Plus the company that did the live casting specified that they did not force the dog, and made sure they were comfortable. The dog wasn't harmed in anyway.
For actual animal abuse, this is barely a concern imo.
@@MewMowMayJust because the animal “”wasn’t harmed”” in order to make a dí/d0 is STILL NOT OK and STILL @bù/$e. Who in their right minds would EVER use a REAL ANIMAL to make a $//êX toy?? It’s absolutely disgusting. But, you are a zoo so it makes sense that you would defend the zoo company.
i think it depends if said character can talk/communicate, like yeah simba walks on all fours but he can talk fluent english and can therefore consent
Y'know the funniest thing about the Harkness Test? There has yet to be a non-human creature we've encountered in real life that could pass the test, so it's impossible to actually put its morality to the test because we lack the perspective and feedback from non-human creatures on whether or not they think it's wack. Arguments about whether or not the Harkness Test is moral are inherently useless as a result.
Also why the fuck do people keep censoring themselves in the comment section, even on the most innocuous shit? Do ya'll think we can't cuss on TH-cam or something?
I mean pretty sure great apes and dolphins could both pass this test in theory we already know of one dolphin who basically did. and great apes can be taught sign language
Gotta appreciate Lago's neutrality at the very least.
I think feral characters are ok. As long as the characters are shown to have human emotions and feelings, (IE Lion King, MLP:FiM)
Bro is a zoo 💀💀💀
@@Thunderblock7889 nah! Zoos are more like! “Oh boy! I wanna fuck Mickey’s dog Pluto!”
I would also like to add the problem with 'feral' animals being able to talk meaning they can consent thing,
a lot of these animals such as simba, the goose, and whatever; how do we know they can actually speak and not just being able to talk for the sake of yk, the movie or show/media?
it could always just be an aristocats or courage the cowardly dog situation, they can talk to each other but not US or anyone who's not also a feral animal (excluding mythological beings such as dragons and werewolves).
Which kinda takes the whole "can it consent" thing out of the question by that standard. /lh
However, this is just my personal observation :p.
yep, the lion king was about a lions pride but since real lions can't show emotion or speak regularly disney came up with the idea of making them able to talk.
A better difference example is puss in boots CAN actually talk part of his lore, as for the lion king the lions don't socialize with humans and based on the them you can specificially see that it is for the movie for US to better understand.
ANOTHER example is warrior cats, they are based on actual cats JUST like the lion king and when actually facing humans the humans cant understand them.
HOUSE OF MOUSE BOOM GET OWNED! (jk, but yeah they have spoken in other disney properties and have been understood)
All Dogs Go To Heaven is an interesting case. Charlie and Itchy can clearly interact with human characters like Anne Marie and David but is there an age limit when it comes to speaking to humans like only angel dogs can communicate with kids or can they converse with human adults as well in universe? Cause if so, popular furbait characters like Charlie Barkin and Sasha Le Fleur absolutely pass Harkness Test despite being quad in nature.
@@termitesc.aardwolf3644 I agree! And this is exactly my point, there's always a bit of nuance to situations like this because it's one thing for an animal to be able to actually talk and interact/consent in a movie (though there's still the controversy of them being feral animals), and another thing for them to talk for the sake of progressing a movie or like you said, moreso giving a child-like wonder/imagination to it e.g. talking to only children/young teens, yet adults only hear barks/can only use body language.
@@hu7380 Also in the case of Lion King, keep in mind that Timon and Pumbaa can speak to that human Quint guy in their animated series but its unclear if humans can talk with animals in other Lion King adaptations or spinoffs. Jungle Book is also an interesting case where Mowgli, a human can speak with the jungle animals. While Baloo and Shere Khan absolutely pass Harkness Test in TaleSpin, the Jungle Book adaptations are left up in the air.
So, as an aroace furry, I've kinda viewed the uh... junk to be measured case by case. As I stated, I'm ace as fuck so I dunno what's fascinating about that stuff. My understanding of things like Bad Dragon and the different kinds of stuff you can get is, imo, no different than anal beads, whips, cuffs, or whatever. It's maybe cuz of the shape, the size, texture, idk. I'm viewing this as someone who refuses to imagine (let alone draw) anything beyond an X for the butthole, if any kinda of feature is present. But that's just me, and I may be entirely wrong.
Bro when people call me a zoo for liking feral DRAGONS I get actually dumbfounded. Like you realize its a mythical and magical being right?
And if you do want to look way too deep into it dragons are literally known for being wise and usually more intelligent then your average human. So I dont really get why they would come after me they ain’t even real man haha
Consensual bestiality is still a sin.
Nah man. Consensual bestiality is still a sin like incest.
After seeing some opinions on both sides of the spectrum.. I can safely say that the Feral Sus discourse is just the textbook definition of Politics.
I can understand why some people would find this stuff "problematic" because of it's labeled themes.
But at the same time, they are fictionalized enough that they feel human and have the intelligence for it. (Harkness Test)
BUT AT THE SAME TIME-
You know what, f this political Nonsense. Im just gonna read sus Pokémon comics while setting my cr#tch on fire out of spite since i just wasted my time trying to please both sides. (sarcasm but true)
but if you want to know what is my true take on all of this;
I honestly don't care if you make Feral sus art (Because me simp sylveon). But if you make it realistic to the point it looks real. I'm gonna see you as a red flag in my eyes.
Furry is counterculture and an art movement. Down with fandom police down with prudes.
It's all furries. ITS ALL FURRIES IN THIS COMMENT SECTION, MY BRAIN CAN NOT COMPREHEND THIS.
a "knot" toy is just buttplug deluxe to me
It's NOT OK to be attracted to animals, artwork or not, why is this even a debate!!???
People don't know what constitutes an animal. People are more than fine with dragon boiking despite them being quadrpedal animals. When does a sapaint description cross the line as a cartoon?
@@enjoshi-godrez8775People seem to constantly forget they /are/ animals...
As long as they're anthropomorphic, have human sexual organs (they already have human arms, legs, and torsos anyway), and ofc that consent thing, then it's good enough for me. Anything below that then it's probably not the human aspects you're attracted to.
Edit: I didn't mean that these are the things you find attractive in a human being, but... I barely even know what I'm talking about anymore. An anthro in most cases is usually just a human with an animal head screwed on with a few other characteristics with fur and tails and stuff, so it's not too far different from being attracted to another human.
@@MisterJohnDoe no that not at all how human attraction works. Thats patently false.
@@MisterJohnDoe no you are about wrong about the genitalia part. That doesn't make it z00philc if the subject is sapient. Thats an incorrect assessment and our biology backs it up.
I posted this is reply to someone's comment about the Harkness Test, but I'll post it as as standalone comment to for clarity:
The Harkness Test also includes the intelligence of the non-human in question, not just it's ability to communicate and it's maturity. Intelligence is a super important part of the morality debate, but soo often people forget this part because they focus solely on the visualisation of the Harkness Test and not the accompanying text/explanation, and end up laser-focusing on less important factors, such as the visual appearance.
Harkness test defines those three rules because 1. ability to communicate consent is necessary to remove uncertainty. 2. Physical maturity is necessary to ensure no physical, mental, or developmental harm, and 3. Human-like levels of intelligence is necessary, morally, to ensure that consent is given with the understanding that it comes from a place of conscious, responsible thought and decision making, and not instinct.
Using real-world animals as examples; their instincts can drive them to do things that are harmful, such as a dog's instinctual desire to eat chocolate even though it is poisonous to them, most animals' instinctual reaction to lash out at humans who are attempting to save them when they are trapped or injured, and any pet animal's instinctual desire to reproduce even if the pet owner does not have the resources to support looking after more animals. Point is: most animals make decisions based on instinctual desire/reaction, rather than any, or certainly not a high level of, conscious, responsible decision making and thought being put into those decisions.
The only reason I believe feral art is bad is because your sexualizing animal bodies and genitalia- and even if the artist intentions was different it has a tendency to attract creeps…..the argument with drawing underage looking characters is treated like pedo attraction (as it should because it attracts pedos) and I think feral art should be treated the same or at least be aware it will in fact attract creeps
I absolutely do not like furry NSFW that uses "anatomically correct" schollongs from animals, it make me feel very uncomfortable and look I like a lot when someone draws something different from the real thing, I know the difference of feral and basically a animal that supposedly talks. I like dragons, something that not even exists as a animal, but I not have anything against any fursona, BUT I go nuts when someone says that I like zoophilia because I'm a furry, bc people that actually like it all others receive a tag of "zoo-like". I just blacklist "animal schoolong" for everything that I consume... I just want to be that silly fluffy dragon, that use a belt, Katana and a scarf, sure I'm a adult and consume nsfw content like almost all adults and in the past I already draw my fursona nsfw but with the type of thing that I concern, but I close my future as a artist bc this was destroying my mind and being autistic make everything even more difficult to understand.
Degenerate is Nazi language to be fair and we shouldn't use it but yeah I don't think the anti-zoo artist is actually a fascist lmao
that person wasn't just antizoo they were basically anti even having realistic dicks on furs which is such a cringe take human dicks look so out of place on most furs
I'm not a furry so my opinion probably doesn't matter, but I think there's a factor that everyone is just ignoring and that is what specifically about the character you find attractive. If they're a character who is pretty much just a wild fox with a human mind for example, being interested in their personality or something like that I think is fine since that's entirely human. If you're into the same character for their body though, that's where I think it gets to be zoophilia regardless of weather or not it would theoretically be moral to do if it were real.
I dont think thats possible. The only way to demonstrate in your art that the character is human beneath all the anthropomorphia is to make them sapaint. So even if they were still quadraped, they would no longer look like what you describe. Yes still very animalistic, but you can see its a human convolution.
This behaviour needs to be called out.
For feral stuff, I think this is a pretty good video, I know some people who are super into horse shongs, flares, the size, all sorts of things. But would never actually do anything with horses for real, but in fantasy, they get all worked up for it and want to see bellies bulge from the girth. I know people into canine dicks too, people actually so deep with animal parts, that seeing human parts on an animal either disappoints them to down right pisses them off. But aren't the kind of people that would ever diddle a dog, or become the next Mr. Hands. There isn't a thin line, it's a very thick, well defined line as I have seen with people into it.
And I think the stuff with the fox puppet person, was really funny because of how over the top and over sensitive they got, while saying life isn't always going to be nice. It was a joke you made, and yes you got too defensive and over reacted, you do have a bit of an issue with things at times where sometimes when criticized you double and triple down it seems, or have some bad takes in the moment, but we are all human.
Plus there was a lot of talk about how that puppet fox person was actually not as wholesome or good I saw going around, they were the real attention grubbing pest, most of those videos of them doing it, happened by them shoving themselves into the spotlight, or demanding people to film and take pictures, pushing people out of the way to be the ones at the center of the spotlight. Which under that light, would explain their sort of "do as I say, not as I do" sort of attitude that made them out to be a victim of what was intended as a joke.
My view on it is that if it looks like an animal, with almost no human characteristics other than intelligence, I'm not comfortable with that. The argument could be made that if a intelligent animal could consent, it'd ve fine, but I still draw my moral boundaries there.
Buddy, i feel by the point people are discussing if cartoon animals can consent or not... You should be asking yourself, why do they want to have sex with a Lion, Bear or a Bird to begin with.
5:26
"What about bipedal characters that are anatomically correct below the belt?"
That's called "based as fuck", especially when there're especially unique traits.
The thing is so debated at this point that it's probably better to go on a case-by-case analisys, much easier to deal with issues on this topic
waiter! there's anthro in my feral soup!
The Harkness test is a very valuable concept, I think. Feral stuff of real-world species that looks particularly realistic is pushing the boundaries for me personally, just because /yeah/ I get the "could be a gateway to zoo stuff", but... if all the depicted parties are adults and consenting, then it's just another weird thing on the internet. My sona is quadruped and that's gotten some people weird about drawing art of it (it's a magical monster, not even a real animal), but... that's when I go to artists who aren't weird about it!
People love werewolves and dragons, and that'll never really change. If the werewolves and dragons are consenting adults, then that's awesome.
Bingo 👏
I dont know, if it looks like a normal animal and acts like a normal animal I think its wrong. If it's like a sparkle dog that is in college for a medical degree and is an adult... it's fine??? Idk so long as there is a separation from reality and and it's a consenting adult thing it's fine?
you need to fix your microphone sometime
nah, imma do my own thing
It really is very muffled.
@@LagoVirt understandable have a great day
@scholardeville you as well (i'll handle it when i can lmao)
I'm not a furry, and I don't pretend to understand most of the stuff you talk about, I'm just here to listen to your God-tier voice because it never fails to calm my nerves, it's just so soothing. I could listen to you all day errday and weirdly enough I wish I could just pull you out of my pocket when I face a stressful situation for instant relief.
Oh, and thanks for tuning down the BG music, in your older videos it was a little too loud and distracting.
I’m going to put out my two Cents.
Having an OC that is mostly an animal and stands on all fours it’s OK [Looking at the warrior cats fandom it’s entirely normal] but when you make them like that Put it NSFW so people can whack off to it. and that’s where I have a problem with it.
Really my whole entire thing is if it’s animal we can through our day to day lives and if it’s in feral NSFW than thats an no
But I saw someone mention about dragons and mythical animals in my opinion is if you make it so it can communicate with human language then it’s OK; but if you make it act like an animal on purpose and you’re just sticking your thing in there then obviously it’s not