4183
4184
4185
4186
ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
4187 there are a lot of artists, especially people who do 3d animation involving feral on human, that feel the need to go on about how they are against real life sex
rookieanimator210, for example
then you have some people who probably really are antizoos (and are such with gusto), like LDDraws
rookieanimator210, for example
then you have some people who probably really are antizoos (and are such with gusto), like LDDraws
4188
Used to like a few, but most of them were complete assholes
Used to like a few, but most of them were complete assholes
4190
4191 To me it seems like those that create realistic and atomically correct feral art are either in denial of their suppressed sexual urges towards nonhuman animals, or are putting up a façade to hide the fact that they are attracted to IRL nonhuman animals, or hiding the fact that they're either currently, or in the past, done sexual things with nonhuman animals.
4193
Makes me happy that I never got interested in furry art enough to give a fuck
Makes me happy that I never got interested in furry art enough to give a fuck
4194 Many of the newfangled furries fear the fact that practicing zoophiles largely created their base community in the 90's. They want to distance themselves from zoophiles because it's not a very good "look" for them. So instead they take the "we are not them" approach, while at the same time being in denial of at least some zoophilic attraction.
ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
4195 there are some furry sites that totally ban all feral bodied creatures from being drawn in sexual situations. imagine how many great artists you would have to shut down. youd basically have to censor about 95% of the artists i follow
and of course, theyll put an exemption for prehistoric animals like dinosaurs for the sorry excuse of "they were around so long ago that human could have screwed one". lets just see what they might do if i put up art of a prehistoric ancestor to the wolf or lion and see if that holds up, eh? bet you it wont
and of course, theyll put an exemption for prehistoric animals like dinosaurs for the sorry excuse of "they were around so long ago that human could have screwed one". lets just see what they might do if i put up art of a prehistoric ancestor to the wolf or lion and see if that holds up, eh? bet you it wont
4196
4197
4198
ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
i can understand how nonzoo furries must feel to be lumped in with zoophiles. it kind of annoys me when zoos get called furries. not that i have anything against furries, i would have considered myself one at one time, but i dont like people getting false impressions of zoos what with the negative light the public views furries in. 4199
4200
I'm definitely not a furry, just someone who likes art
I'm definitely not a furry, just someone who likes art
4202
4204
I still believe that a lot of furries, even modern ones, are in denial of their fetishization of nonhuman animals. Even an anthro furry character is basically a human with animalistic traits (such as paws, fur, ears, etc.) Now, there definitely are some that like furry art for nothing more than the art and community itself. But what's telling is that the number of "yiff" seekers outnumber those that like "clean" art by 12/1 IIRC. That's the majority of the fandom sexualizing at least partially animalistic related art.
4206
4206
4207
Goes without saying that I only like feral art, and for the love of Epona keep it realistic
Goes without saying that I only like feral art, and for the love of Epona keep it realistic
4208
ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
I believe that there was also a study done on Reddit where around ~35% of furry participants admitted to being sexually attracted to IRL animals. That just those that admitted the fact. But it's been awhile since I looked into that.
4210
4210
ShanoirII
Zooville Settler
that many? dang. was this done anonymously?