Of those that remain, those who disapprove of erotic furry content that features species-accurate genitals, which is the threshold VISA was in, and is too spicy for some lemmings. I don’t fully understand why this is a subcategory.
This one actually makes the second most sense to me out of the ones listed (first being explicit sex of course). To a lot of people who aren’t furries, at least in the horny sense, the emphasis put on making the genitals resemble those of real animals is a clear connection to bestiality. In order to care, you have to know, and to know you have to spend a lot of time looking at animal dicks (or spend time with people who do).
To make my point, ask yourself how you feel about other fetishes / kinks with similar properties. For example, consider ABDL. It’s a fetish that uses fairly direct references to being way too young for sex despite being adults, much like the animal dicks directly invoking, well, sucking animal dick despite not being an animals. There are tons of people who see that and immediately think it’s for pedos. Though, weirdly enough, many those same people don’t have nearly that much of an issue with various more mild but more realized forms of neoteny in porn (the industry’s obssession with 18-19yo girls springs to mind).
For what it’s worth I’m not really in that group (consentual adults yada yada), but I did have that gut reaction when I first encountered it.
Firstly, I became sexually active in a sex-positive, kink-centric community, and so have been raised with the philosophy that so long as all participants are adults (and buts safety constraints on harm caused so no-one regularly has to go to the ER).
But I am unusually tolerant of unusual kinks and have jealousy issues of inclusion, rather than limiting access. My psychologist a decade ago would attribute it to being neuralspicy. Also during the Iraq war and the CIA extrajudicial detention and torture program, I freaked out and started a (personal) dive into moral philosophy, which explores the intersectionality (or rather the separation) between what we _reason _out is moral or proper (e.g. equality, liberty) and what we feel is moral or proper (e.g. purity, obedience)
One of the notable studies regards the story of Julie and Mark (in short, they’re blood siblings, go on a camping trip, have sex and decide it was a good experience but not worth repeating) and subjects told this story would go to great lengths to rationalize their disapproval of the siblings’ behavior in the story. This divergence between reasoned ethics and intuitive ethics runs thick through human culture, informing business practices like RTO mandates, bullshit jobs and crunching development teams (overworking them to meet deadlines, which kills their productivity to well below non-crunch levels)
So yes. People freak out about age play and lolicon, about Rule 34 featuring the Simpsons kids, about fictional bestiality, …and about anthros with species-correct genitals, even if the characters are otherwise clearly consenting adults. Reasonably, these should all be protected by free speech, and efforts to limit speech always extend into non-sexual matters such as trans issues and queer culture, so that talking about UHaul Lesbians could soon become restricted or even criminal in the US.
I think species-correct genitalia and lolicon material should be legal and accepted as unrestricted content, but I also understand as a species, we will have to further develop our society so that it is less reactive to moral panics (also to political power consolidation) before marginalized content can be freely distributed, or, for that matter, all pervs and queers can come fully out of the closet.
And as a footnote, just as the autocratic purges come for the marginalized, the politically far-left and political enemies before cutting into larger demographics, autocratic censorship efforts come first for kink and queer content then general porn, then history and philosophy, and then language and grammar. Knitting Cult Lady, in her discussions of cult systems of control, discusses use of language to control the flock among her many topics.
This one actually makes the second most sense to me out of the ones listed (first being explicit sex of course). To a lot of people who aren’t furries, at least in the horny sense, the emphasis put on making the genitals resemble those of real animals is a clear connection to bestiality. In order to care, you have to know, and to know you have to spend a lot of time looking at animal dicks (or spend time with people who do).
To make my point, ask yourself how you feel about other fetishes / kinks with similar properties. For example, consider ABDL. It’s a fetish that uses fairly direct references to being way too young for sex despite being adults, much like the animal dicks directly invoking, well, sucking animal dick despite not being an animals. There are tons of people who see that and immediately think it’s for pedos. Though, weirdly enough, many those same people don’t have nearly that much of an issue with various more mild but more realized forms of neoteny in porn (the industry’s obssession with 18-19yo girls springs to mind).
For what it’s worth I’m not really in that group (consentual adults yada yada), but I did have that gut reaction when I first encountered it.
Firstly, I became sexually active in a sex-positive, kink-centric community, and so have been raised with the philosophy that so long as all participants are adults (and buts safety constraints on harm caused so no-one regularly has to go to the ER).
But I am unusually tolerant of unusual kinks and have jealousy issues of inclusion, rather than limiting access. My psychologist a decade ago would attribute it to being neuralspicy. Also during the Iraq war and the CIA extrajudicial detention and torture program, I freaked out and started a (personal) dive into moral philosophy, which explores the intersectionality (or rather the separation) between what we _reason _out is moral or proper (e.g. equality, liberty) and what we feel is moral or proper (e.g. purity, obedience)
One of the notable studies regards the story of Julie and Mark (in short, they’re blood siblings, go on a camping trip, have sex and decide it was a good experience but not worth repeating) and subjects told this story would go to great lengths to rationalize their disapproval of the siblings’ behavior in the story. This divergence between reasoned ethics and intuitive ethics runs thick through human culture, informing business practices like RTO mandates, bullshit jobs and crunching development teams (overworking them to meet deadlines, which kills their productivity to well below non-crunch levels)
So yes. People freak out about age play and lolicon, about Rule 34 featuring the Simpsons kids, about fictional bestiality, …and about anthros with species-correct genitals, even if the characters are otherwise clearly consenting adults. Reasonably, these should all be protected by free speech, and efforts to limit speech always extend into non-sexual matters such as trans issues and queer culture, so that talking about UHaul Lesbians could soon become restricted or even criminal in the US.
I think species-correct genitalia and lolicon material should be legal and accepted as unrestricted content, but I also understand as a species, we will have to further develop our society so that it is less reactive to moral panics (also to political power consolidation) before marginalized content can be freely distributed, or, for that matter, all pervs and queers can come fully out of the closet.
And as a footnote, just as the autocratic purges come for the marginalized, the politically far-left and political enemies before cutting into larger demographics, autocratic censorship efforts come first for kink and queer content then general porn, then history and philosophy, and then language and grammar. Knitting Cult Lady, in her discussions of cult systems of control, discusses use of language to control the flock among her many topics.