babayagafudge
Lurker
Does it?
Does being a furry and liking anthro on feral instantly make you a zoo?
- Thread starter babayagafudge
- Start date
MashaSobaka
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Do you want to have sex with real animals? That's the answer.
Justanotheranon
Tourist
Yes, no, maybe?
Depends on the fantasy being portrayed and your own ideas of what constitutes a zoophile.
Is the feral sentient? Even if it isn't does it matter if they are the same, "species" as the anthro?
Depends on the fantasy being portrayed and your own ideas of what constitutes a zoophile.
Is the feral sentient? Even if it isn't does it matter if they are the same, "species" as the anthro?
amphetamine_deluxe
Tourist
nah. you can be into feral and not be a zoo at all. you can also be a zoo and not be into feral art at all. i happen to like both.
justaguy88
Tourist
I've had people argue with me that it does, but imo no way in hell. Being into art and being into animals is a very different thing
CritterFunatic
Esteemed Citizen of ZV
Only if we apply the same logic to all forms of porn. Does cub-porn make people liking it pedos? Does snuff-porn turn people liking it into serial killers? Do fantasies (especially of the darker kind) inform the behavior of a person in real life? Does liking the depiction of something specific in fiction prove a certain underlying desire? If the answer to all those questions is "yes", then yes, of course any form or feral-porn would make you a zoo. If the answer to all those questions would be a "no" (as it should be), then no, of course any form of feral-porn wouldn't automatically make someone enjoying it a zoophile.
It all depends on the true desire and orientation of a person in real life. People may enjoy stuff in fiction that they would never be into in real life. So considering enjoyment of feral-porn as proof of zoophile desires (as many outsiders of the furry fandom would love to correlate) is plain stupid. Because if that was proof of zoophile desires, how about people getting aroused by seeing mating scenes in nature documentaries? That happens as well. The Bloodhound Gang even once referenced this in "Bad Touch": "You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals, So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel" So, is this about zoophile desires? Certainly not. And nature documentaries involve real animals at least, as opposed to furry feral-porn which is further removed from reality.
I always found the mindset of this slippery slope fallacy especially problematic and harmful, because it causes people to lable other people as something that they obviously are not. The feral-art lovers in the Furry Fandom have to fight of accusations like that quite often, which not only come from outsiders, but also from zoophiles who are desperate to either find allies in other groups or at least want to drag others "down" with them.
Of course, there's an overlap of people who both are zoophiles, as well as people who love feral-artwork. But not every zoophile loves drawn porn and not every feral-porn enthusiast is a zoophile. The likelyhood of someone being both may be higher than someone being just one of the both, but that doesn't make it definite.
So, ultimately, I'd also argue for "No, liking anthro-on-feral porn doesn't automatically make someone a zoophile. Only a sexual attraction to real life animals does this, not the enjoyment of artwork depicting something similar."
It's not really that unusual. Since both things are just marginally correlated, but they are different things entirely. There are people into feral-porn, who aren't zoophiles, as they don't feel any attraction of the sexual kind when it comes to real life animals. Then there are people who are like you, who are zoophiles, but don't get anything out of feral artwork. It may be more common to be into both things at once, but that doesn't mean that any exception is any less valid. I at least know a couple of exceptions on both sides of this very isle.
It all depends on the true desire and orientation of a person in real life. People may enjoy stuff in fiction that they would never be into in real life. So considering enjoyment of feral-porn as proof of zoophile desires (as many outsiders of the furry fandom would love to correlate) is plain stupid. Because if that was proof of zoophile desires, how about people getting aroused by seeing mating scenes in nature documentaries? That happens as well. The Bloodhound Gang even once referenced this in "Bad Touch": "You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals, So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel" So, is this about zoophile desires? Certainly not. And nature documentaries involve real animals at least, as opposed to furry feral-porn which is further removed from reality.
I always found the mindset of this slippery slope fallacy especially problematic and harmful, because it causes people to lable other people as something that they obviously are not. The feral-art lovers in the Furry Fandom have to fight of accusations like that quite often, which not only come from outsiders, but also from zoophiles who are desperate to either find allies in other groups or at least want to drag others "down" with them.
Of course, there's an overlap of people who both are zoophiles, as well as people who love feral-artwork. But not every zoophile loves drawn porn and not every feral-porn enthusiast is a zoophile. The likelyhood of someone being both may be higher than someone being just one of the both, but that doesn't make it definite.
So, ultimately, I'd also argue for "No, liking anthro-on-feral porn doesn't automatically make someone a zoophile. Only a sexual attraction to real life animals does this, not the enjoyment of artwork depicting something similar."
It's not really that unusual. Since both things are just marginally correlated, but they are different things entirely. There are people into feral-porn, who aren't zoophiles, as they don't feel any attraction of the sexual kind when it comes to real life animals. Then there are people who are like you, who are zoophiles, but don't get anything out of feral artwork. It may be more common to be into both things at once, but that doesn't mean that any exception is any less valid. I at least know a couple of exceptions on both sides of this very isle.
Last edited:
OttoFritz44
Zooville Settler
Kinda? It's a bit of a slippery slope
B U T
Correlation doesn't equal causation
B U T
Correlation doesn't equal causation