Comment on Uh-Oh
Abyssian@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoFurries don’t engage in non consensual acts by and large.
You asked “in your estimation, what’s okay/Kink and whats not?” right up there. I was answering that question. I never connected furries to it at all.
I’m not railing against it. It doesn’t make me uncomfortable. It’s at odds with my values and morals. It seems sort of like seeing people eat dog meat or something. A sexual desire for imaginary beings based on animals is weird as all hell to me. I’m not the one who chose to use animals. They did. When someone is a fan of sexualized images of vaguely human shaped animals that connects itself to zoophilia, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to do that.
There’s a big difference between giving your honest opinion on a thing and actively hating a thing. And a difference again between that and being intolerant and falling to violence against those who don’t see the world and the things in it in the same light that you do.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The only thing you were able to list not being okay with was non consensual acts. I specifically asked the question to understand what about furries is against your moral compass. From what you’re saying its just that you think its weird. Which is fine, but a different animal from pedophilia/zoophilia completely. It being weird/not your thing makes sense, it being against your morals/values doesn’t. Based on what you’ve said. Again I really want to understand how you’re connecting it to pedophilia/lolicon. Also, I don’t understand what you’re trying to explain in that last paragraph at all.
Abyssian@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Even without actual animals I still see it as likely a group that people with certain mental illnesses are attracted to that encourages them to sexualize imaginary animals. It doesn’t seem like there is any healthy outcome from that. At best it’s encouraging sexual attraction to something that doesn’t exist, and at worst those things that don’t exist look like a cross between humans who do exist and animals who do exist and that could cause people to fall on the wrong size of that actual animals part.
The pedophile and animal art are two big things people are often going to encounter on the internet. Sexualized animated images of children and animals, and children-animals are far from uncommon. Neither of them seem like things that could be healthy. The sort of thing that should be discouraged and not encouraged.
I met a 20 something year old in prison who had molested one of his relatives. When he was out after that sentence his parole officer checked his phone and found videos of him fucking the family dog. He went back to prison for that. It would be much more surprising to find out he’d never seen any of that ‘art’ than to find out he had a big stash of it.
Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Which mental illnesses? I haven’t used reddit in a long time but I thought lolicon was expressly forbidden there. I’ve also never seen either outside of looking for porn to watch. So I wouldn’t say its an internet thing as much as a porn thing. Would you subscribe to the idea that playing violent video games, listening to heavy metal or watching violent makes people engage in violence?
Abyssian@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Here’s a good starter article.
I’m not taking about flat out porn, just the sexualized images. Panty shots of characters clearly drawn to look like children, anthropomorphized animals with huge human breasts, etc.
No reasonable person does. However sexual attraction is a thing that very definitely can be influenced and change over time. If you go through your teen years where your biochemistry is pushing you towards sex and you see lots of sexualized animation or furry art then you’re going to end up much more likely drawn to that than if it’s something you never see until you’re in your 30s.
If you spend 10 years only able to access one specific niche of porn that you don’t like and you ‘make do’ with it, by the end of that time it might be the thing you’re most drawn to.