DonKarnage
Lurker
I'm actually going to draw a line here.
Furry art (and avatars) fall into three broad groups:
1. Basically humans with animal heads.
This goes back to the original furry erotic comics like Omaha the Cat Dancer. The anthro elements are basically a way to distract from the underlying commentary about people. A really good example of this is Blacksad, John Blacksad is a detective who's a black cat with a white chin. A LOT of the stories are about racisim and bigotry ("Arctic Nation" for example) and the writer and artist uses animals to show behaviour in a way that the normal stereotypes would get in the way.
I Don't think much of this is zoophilic.
2. Basically animals that can walk upright.
This is a wide range that overlaps a bit with (1), but can be separated by intent. It's more about the duality of humans being "human" and "animal" and often asks where's the line? or is there even a line at all. This is where most werewolf literature falls. And absolutely it has zoophilic elements because they're asking "how would our human side deal with animal sexuality (as in how animals relate to sex, as well as how they have it)?"
When a fur dressed up in an anatomically correct fursuit and has a dog penis hanging out of a sheath - I mean, come on. And if an artist goes to extra effort to draw a fur and get it all right... well, it has to be pleasing to someone or why put in that extra effort or risk alienating an audience?
3a. Ferals.- with other ferals
This one is kind of a dodge, in my opinion, because it can essentially be the inverse of (1) and the author is trying to make a statement about humanity by distancing the stereotypes even farther. Think Orwell's "Animal Farm." Just like (1), that wouldn't really be zoo.
But if the primary purpose of the work is erotic, then the audience is expected to either be aroused and stimulated by animals having sex while having human traits projected onto them. That has zooerotic elements and so the audience has to find zooeroticism either interesting or arousing. Ergo, at least partially zoophilic.
3b. Ferals - with anthros or humans.
See (1) and (2). Look, deny it all you want, but "anthro" means "human" (it actually does - it's a term that got slanged: anthro (human) morphic (shaped)) and if an anthro is having sex with a feral, it's basically zoophilia, especially when anatomically, the anthro is basically human. Human genitals. Human breasts. It's a human with an animal head (see 1).
But even (2) still counts because (2)s are people who want to be animals AND still be humans and as the Vatican decreed in 1500s - a werewolf in wolf form who has sex with a human is still committing an act of "bestiality" because his "soul" was human. (Seriously, apparently werewolves were a major problem in the 1500s
)
Unfortunately, people who have feelings they don't like often resort to expressing the exact opposite stand in order to deny their feelings as loudly as they can. We see over and over politicians mainly on the right fight to oppress and destroy gays and other sexualities only to be outed AS gay. It gets truly bizarre when the person is an artist and draws tons of zoo art while denying their own sexuality and condemning others of that same group.
Humans.
The more I meet of them, the more I love my dog.
Furry art (and avatars) fall into three broad groups:
1. Basically humans with animal heads.
This goes back to the original furry erotic comics like Omaha the Cat Dancer. The anthro elements are basically a way to distract from the underlying commentary about people. A really good example of this is Blacksad, John Blacksad is a detective who's a black cat with a white chin. A LOT of the stories are about racisim and bigotry ("Arctic Nation" for example) and the writer and artist uses animals to show behaviour in a way that the normal stereotypes would get in the way.
I Don't think much of this is zoophilic.
2. Basically animals that can walk upright.
This is a wide range that overlaps a bit with (1), but can be separated by intent. It's more about the duality of humans being "human" and "animal" and often asks where's the line? or is there even a line at all. This is where most werewolf literature falls. And absolutely it has zoophilic elements because they're asking "how would our human side deal with animal sexuality (as in how animals relate to sex, as well as how they have it)?"
When a fur dressed up in an anatomically correct fursuit and has a dog penis hanging out of a sheath - I mean, come on. And if an artist goes to extra effort to draw a fur and get it all right... well, it has to be pleasing to someone or why put in that extra effort or risk alienating an audience?
3a. Ferals.- with other ferals
This one is kind of a dodge, in my opinion, because it can essentially be the inverse of (1) and the author is trying to make a statement about humanity by distancing the stereotypes even farther. Think Orwell's "Animal Farm." Just like (1), that wouldn't really be zoo.
But if the primary purpose of the work is erotic, then the audience is expected to either be aroused and stimulated by animals having sex while having human traits projected onto them. That has zooerotic elements and so the audience has to find zooeroticism either interesting or arousing. Ergo, at least partially zoophilic.
3b. Ferals - with anthros or humans.
See (1) and (2). Look, deny it all you want, but "anthro" means "human" (it actually does - it's a term that got slanged: anthro (human) morphic (shaped)) and if an anthro is having sex with a feral, it's basically zoophilia, especially when anatomically, the anthro is basically human. Human genitals. Human breasts. It's a human with an animal head (see 1).
But even (2) still counts because (2)s are people who want to be animals AND still be humans and as the Vatican decreed in 1500s - a werewolf in wolf form who has sex with a human is still committing an act of "bestiality" because his "soul" was human. (Seriously, apparently werewolves were a major problem in the 1500s
)Unfortunately, people who have feelings they don't like often resort to expressing the exact opposite stand in order to deny their feelings as loudly as they can. We see over and over politicians mainly on the right fight to oppress and destroy gays and other sexualities only to be outed AS gay. It gets truly bizarre when the person is an artist and draws tons of zoo art while denying their own sexuality and condemning others of that same group.
Humans.
The more I meet of them, the more I love my dog.
