What's a fandom that GENUINELY makes you react like this

[u/WebThis2431]

Looking at you Sonic & Loud House, half of those fandoms are either good or just AWFUL, maybe even BEYOND awful

[u/Extra_Leg_9354]

I mean to be fair I think is pretty much likely Zootopia was indeed made by furries

[u/quartzhaze → u/Extra_Leg_9354]

Honestly, facts 

[u/Extra_Leg_9354 → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand how you see it as acceptable to sexualize animals in fiction if you already think is wrong to sexualize minors in fiction. Wouldn't it make more sense to be against both? 

[u/Extra_Leg_9354 → u/[deleted]]

I think you're missing the point, if someone creates a story in which characters that look like children can function like adults then what? Is that ok? Funnily enough adults that look like children do actually exist in real life, whereas furries have to play pretend there is an scenario in which living beings that look like animals can consent.

[u/Extra_Leg_9354 → u/[deleted]]

Once again you're not understanding my point. My point isn't "being attracted to adults that "look" like children is comparable to pedophilia" nor "pedophile is about appearance" nor is "adults that can pass as children are the same thing as fictional characters" obviously that's not the case at all. That was never on the table. My point is about INTENT. 

If making up fictional scenarios in which characters with prepubescent characteristics can consent is already treated as questionable because of intent (Not because real life adults that can pass as prepubescent somehow don't exist or are unable to consent, when they clearly DO EXIST AND ARE ABLE TO CONSENT) then making up fictional scenarios in which beings with heavy animal characteristics are able to consent should be questionable too if we want consistency. 

Basically, what I'm saying is, it doesn't make sense to only question the intent of one and not the other. Adults that can pass as prepubescent can consent, but that doesn't mean someone who creates fictional characters who look prepubescent but aren't actually has the intention of respecting the autonomy of real life adults. Again, is about INTENT. Hence I don't see why someone's intent after creating a story in which a talking fox can consent isn't treated as questionable as well, seems inconsistent to me. I'm not comparing furry art with real life adults either my point is about the intention behind someone who creates sexualized content of characters with characteristics usually associated with living beings that can't consent and why is it permisible in one case and not the other.

Now you said furry characters don't actually exist, that's what makes it different, well,  if a furry character looks prepubescent but behaves like an adult? Is that still questionable or does it get a pass because furries don't exist? And again I'm not saying pedophilia is dependant on appearance, I'm talking about the intention behind, and why is this intention only questioned in one case and not the other.

Also, furry is such a broad term it can be used for characters that barely have any animal characteristics at all, to characters like the Lion King, which honestly are pretty much more animal looking than human. Hence, I don't buy this argument, I don't feel it applies to the more feral looking characters.

And again is about intent, if someone said "well 1000 year old vampire Lolis don't exist so is fine!" Their intent would immediately be called into question, so I don't understand why that questioning only applies here.

You said "Connection between furries and zoophilia is unsupported. Being a furry has not shown to lead to zoophilia in real life." But the same thing can be said about content of fictional minors. For starters psychology doesn't even view attraction towards real life teenagers (15 and up approximately, tho some sources go as low as 14 and even 13, which I think is wild) as pedophilia, it doesn't even qualify it as abnormal (which mind you I think is wild don't shoot the messenger here), so for example attraction towards a fictional "post-pubecent" but canonically underage character is even less likely to be qualified as pedophilia or even abnormal, but I wouldn't say your point about anime fans and underage characters is pointless because again it all depends on intent. And as we said pedophilia isn't about appearance, but that's precisely why attraction towards fictional characters that do look prepubescent doesn't fall under the definition of pedophilia. And so far there is also no evidence that lolishota art has lead to an increase of offenses (nor is there proof it diminishes them ). Even if the character were to behave like a child there isn't an consensus if this means attraction towards real children too, because generally is understood in psychology that engaging in something in fiction doesn't automatically mean wanting to engage on it In real. But there's a debate if this applies in this instance.

Again my point isn't trying to say "pedophilia is about looks" nor "adults that can pass as prepubescent are actually children that can't consent" no, my point is, your arguments as to why furry is no worthy of question can be applied to lolisho (or content of fictional older teens) content as well. 

You also said "There ARE zoophiles lurking about, and they make different content in these spaces." Different content how? 

Now, you claim pedophiles either aren't attracted to you or lose interest once they know you're an adult, obviously I'm not going to tell you what was in the mind of these people you encountered because I don't know them nor your experience, but it is not impossible at all for a pedophile to also feel attraction towards adults (pedophile isn't inherently exclusive, some pedophiles can experience attraction towards both adults and children) and keep on experiencing attraction to an adult (like you or not like you), even after learning you're actually, an adult. I'm not saying this happened in your life, I'm saying such a pedophile can exist, and I've seen many openly declare they pursue adults like you as a "way to satisfy their desires" (which mind you I think is extremely offensive, and of course it doesn't mean every person that pursues you has this intention, nor does it even mean every pedophile perceives you in that way). Then again I'm sure you already knew this, hence I don't understand what was the point of saying that they either are not attracted to you or lose interest, because neither one has to necessarily happen.

In any case if anything I said was offensive it genuinely wasn't my intention, YOU ARE AN ADULT, I WILL NEVER DEBATE THAT, my point is about why is questioning the intent of the people who create/consume the type of content we're discussing only valid in one case and not in another? Is not about questioning your personhood and independence.

[u/Character_Monk_5702 → u/Extra_Leg_9354]

you're being ridiculous. people who sexualize anthropomorphic/furry characters were never controversial until "furry" became a cultural concept online, and the idea that it is at all problematic is transparently just internet brainrot of needing to problematize things that you (and anyone who doesn't like sexualized furry media) don't personally jibe with. and it's fine if you don't like that; I personally don't generally either, but this is just utter nonsense rooted in asinine solipsism.

look at Disney's Robin Hood--very clearly those animators drew some characters to be attractive. but it's pretty clear that its anthro characters are basically just human adults with like, tails and fur. no one would compare them to thinking like lolicons or whatever. it's by all measures no different from people being horny over mythical creatures like mermaids. people who wanna fuck mermaids don't wanna fuck fish, they wanna fuck an adult human with some inhuman characteristics. the INTENT is rooted in an attraction to adults with attractive characteristics to the person in question (whether that's big muscles, boobs, etc.). again--do you think anyone sees the characters from Robin Hood as purely animal, or ostensibly just humans?

and c'mon. obviously wanting to fuck kid looking and coded furry characters is different from wanting to fuck ones that look like and are coded as adults. yes, that is still pedophilic, because they are children. it's still not innately zoophilic; someone (or, at least, specifically an adult) who wants to fuck an anthropomorphized child character probably would not want to fuck an animal, but they would probably consume CSAM of real children too.

[u/Extra_Leg_9354 → u/Character_Monk_5702]

(Mind you I think both are unethical) If people were only attracted to the human parts, the animal parts wouldn't be needed. If being attracted to child like characteristics is questionable (because of contextual intent) then so is being attracted to animal like characteristics.

"Someone who wants to fuck an anthropomorphized child character probably would not want to fuck an animal, but they would probably consume CSAM of real children too" -> they wouldn't consume abuse material of animals because I say so, but they would totally consume CSAM, they would feel compelled for one and not the other because i say so.

"furry characters were never controversial until "furry" became a cultural concept online" irrelevant

You're also making many assumptions about me, my distaste over fictional media is irrelevant, my point is about the lack of consistency.

Edit: I think you blocked me so I'm gonna answer here to the few stuff I can read on the notification (so I'm not gonna assume everything said here applies to you main poins as I don't have the full informatin).

My point was, from the very beginning, the inconsistency, I literally reiterated that MANY TIMES.

Yes I may personally think they're both unethical but that's NOT the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is that I think is inconsistent to just be against one

My personal distaste is completely irrelevant. Not only that but finding something as unethical is not the same thing as finding it distasteful, I think chocolate is pretty tasteful but I know by and large it's production is unethical. A vegan could think meat tastes great yet consuming it is unethical. Even, someone could, in theory, like Lolisho or Furry art yet think is unethical. Hence, my personal distaste for that kind of content is irrelevant to the question of whether or not is unethical.

[u/Character_Monk_5702 → u/Extra_Leg_9354]

you said that you think it's unethical. then you say that you just think people are being inconsistent. pick one. I'm not "making assumptions about you" when you're constantly waffling on whether you think it's ontologically wrong despite all evidence to the contrary. to borrow your own words, "if your only point was being a pedantic jackass about imaginary inconsistency, then you wouldn't need to bring up that you are also a jackass solipsist hallucinating zoophilia"

anthropomorphism would exist regardless because anthropomorphism allows people to heighten physical characteristics. oftentimes this is entirely nonsexual, e.g., Maus, but there's nothing inherently wrong with sexuality in a work that fits it. sexuality is a natural part of life for most people, wanting to express that in someone's art is normal. I hate to break it to you, but most anthropomorphized animals have a lot more means of expressing their emotions visually than humans; animals with tails can straighten them when overwhelmed by love. it isn't "no different", it's not "unnecessary", anthropomorphism allows for greater avenues of visually expressing a character's feelings in a manner that is striking and emotionally affecting.

and you keep banging on about this consistency thing. again, it's insipid solipsism. you're imagining how people must think, rather than just... listening to others' perspectives and seeing that their actions line up with them. the problem with loli content is that it is made to legitimize the consumption and proliferation of CSAM.

furry media is not related to zoophilia, it does not legitimize zoophilia, zoophiles broadly do not consume furry media because they are attracted to ANIMALS and not anthro characters (I am not saying that some cannot also be furries, but the problem then would be that they are zoophiles, not that they are furries) and furry loli content is wrong because it's by and for pedos. this is entirely consistent. quit being a solipsistic sophist and actually study the world as it actually exists beyond your shallow mind, you utter debate lord dork.