When it comes to "furry" art, broadly speaking, the characters involved can be divided up into a few main categories (though there are some that lie outside of these categories).
1 - "Animal humanoids" - Characters that are mostly human, but with several animal-like traits, such as animal ears or a tail.
2 - "Anthros" - Animals altered to look more human. Usually bipedal, with hands, but covered in fur and often with an at least somewhat animal-like face.
3 - "Ferals" - basically, regular animals. Sometimes with colorful fur patterns, the ability to talk, or some other odd characteristics (including mythological animals like dragons and griffins).
Do you think that someone drawing characters of any of these descriptions might reasonably be considered to have hidden zoophilic interests? Many of the people doing so would contest that point, and would argue "no, it's just fantasy, and in no way related to interest in real animals". However, I think it's pretty apparent that most zoophiles will also deny interest in real animals, in certain circumstances, so their words can't really be taken as gospel here.
Personally, I don't consider animal humanoids to be evidence of anything at all. I consider furries to be mild evidence, where someone very well might have some interest in animals, and in a different culture with different social taboos, might find themselves considering some behaviors... And as people who draw ferals in sexual situations... In most cases I figure they're zoophiles whether they want to admit it to themselves and others or not.
As always, not necessarily, but often maybe.
If you watch /r/furry_irl it's not so rare that there are posts that are suggestive... even though the rules say not to post this.
I know that I'm going to be called names for saying that, but I kinda feel like most furries are zoosexuals who just can't accept themselves.
The worst are those who "hunt" zoos cause they think we're monsters, when they basically like the same things as we do. I crossed the path of some on Twitter, it is quite a sad thing to see...
I've been in the furry community for a while and I have some Opinions on this. I'll address your categories one at a time.
Animal humanoids- No, these aren't related to zoophilia at all. The characters are entirely human. The animal parts aren't what's attractive about them. They're more related to anime, moe, and loli.
Anthros- This area varies widely and it depends on how they're drawn and what they're used for. I'll say though when you get to sites and groups who care less about maintaining their/the fandom's reputation and/or are more anonymous... there are a lot of furries who admit to zoo feelings and tendencies. It's also a poorly-kept secret how many big-name furries have been involved in zoophile and bestiality related groups and activities. I'd still say don't make assumptions, but with that disclaimer, it shouldn't be a huge shock when another furry is outed as a zoophile.
Ferals- The feral community can be split into two- the wolf/warrior cats roleplay community and... everything else. The wolf/warrior cat groups skew younger (lots of 13-16 year olds) and while there may be sexual content, largely you can attribute this to teenagers being teenagers rather than zoophilia. Outside of that specific group... Yeah, there are a LOT of zoophiles. Probably more who are than who aren't.
ive starting to think thats the only feral community. They not furries as much as they are just roleplayers, and the levels of drama they generate is fucking insane.
for the wolf thing, i knew someone who (possibly) killed herself due to an argument started by one of her (keep in mind this is completely imaginary roleplay) pups falling of a cliff or something.
The rest of the feral community is very sizable, just more quiet, which I attribute to not being mostly 13-16 year olds. If you're a half-decent artist you can summon the grown-up feral furries by drawing actual animal genitals. The ones I've talked to are all pretty chill.
This only really applies to female genitalia. Most people draw male ferals with species appropriate (though not necessarily accurate) genitals, but species appropriate female genitalia is actually rare.
Yeah, it's rarer that people draw more-or-less appropriate vaginas, but it does still apply to people who draw mostly male ferals. There's of course still artists/fans who are into big dicks and degradation and there's not really an equivalent to female animals, but finding those who don't cater to that is really, really easy.
Every artist I've seen so far (I'm involved in the feral community myself) who actually draws accurate vaginas has turned out to be a zoo lol
I know of one who consistently denies that they're a zoo, but I don't believe them in the slightest. Most others I know will admit it pretty easily.
I'm was quite surprised to find out there are quite a number of feral that aren't kids. As of admittance, there are more people who would admit than deny.
does failing to draw stick figures count?
and i dont think ive ever meant any "grown up" ferals before. in fact, ive met maybe 5-6 ferals in total if i ignore all the wolf/warrior cat stuff
Isn´t it funny how you can separate the different "furry types" according to their preferred character types, but are unable to separate between an animal fetish, interests in bestial acts (fictional or real) and real zoophilia...
It's almost like this is a topic about furries and furry sub-genres were specifically mentioned in the original post while "let's talk about 30-30's opinions about semantics" wasn't.
As a member of the furry community all I can say is your absolutely correct.
Not necessarily. Most of them don't actually.
The ones that would have zoophilic tendencies maybe are those that draw human male on female feral, but that's the rarest kind of furry porn you will ever find.
Hah, I'm one of those people who draws ferals in sexual situations. Took me a long time to realize my obsession with dragons has roots in zoophilia. Participating in the feral community is certainly an indicator of some level of zoophilic tendencies, though I do think there is a difference between attraction to an actual animal and attraction to animal shaped characters. While a lot of furries may show sexual attraction towards animals, they aren't likely to pursue a relationship with a real animal since they can't talk back.
Hi, glad to finally see some herpy here! You guys helped me a lot in realizing who I am. Thank you.
Hi, herpy really helped me as well. I remember being very surprised how many other people were experiencing the same feelings towards dragons that I was.
I agree with this, generally, but especially when it comes to specific characters. A lot of mainstream 'feral' characters are intentionally drawn to look attractive to humans using human-specific cues, visual-shorthand, and body language. People are trained to recognize and read these cues as 'sexy', so it's not necessarily an indicator of zoophilia.
Well let the statistics talk 18.4% of people in the general furry community self identify as zoophiles, not including the ones who do not, and 4 years ago zoophilia channels were the largest on fur net.
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_Survey
Ive always been very involved in the furry community and there are a shiton of zoos.
Worth mentioning that that's only those who voluntarily self-identified as zoophiles. So this excludes anyone who might have animal interests but has not admitted it to themselves or is not comfortable identifying as a zoophile. Which is probably a sizeable chunk. I'd really only take that number as a minimum bound, rather than an accurate approximation.
Still, very relevant to the topic at hand, so I appreciate you bringing it up.
That percentage is extremely high compared to the general population, but lets admit it, you have to have some of zoophile when you find a chick with animal muzzle ears, covered by fur, tail and with an animal pussy sexually attractive. Where the only difference is 4 legs and there are ferals anyway.
Hell i take part in a very conservative furry network, and when they had to pick a best comic, mans best friend with benefits won, which is about a dog anthro that has sex with his dog.
Youd be surprised how much bestiality there is. Even when most of these people wont ever be practicant, and they better are not, because some of them stand only for sex. Its simply mind boggling.
I'm absolutely disgusted: that comic was trash. Though admittedly better than the next comic that duo did.
I never read it... LOL... I just know what it was about; haha let me bet, pure bestiality without love.
It's about a heterosexual couple improving their relationship through the power of dogfucking. It's not very good.
Oh lol.... really hahaha... geez...
I've always wondered about this so much.
I was actually... extremely suspicious of other furries because of this.
I think that animal humanoids are in no way related to zoophilia in any way.
They're way too human and mostly it's just a tail and ears.
As for anthros... this is what always caught my attention.
If you are attracted to anthros so much, shouldn't you be attracted to animals a little at least? Because from what I know, most furries are just attracted to humans.
This always confused me, especially because anthros are more animal-like than human, mostly. Well, that depends on the anthro really.
But most anthros have more animal-like traits: Their whole head, tails, feet are turned into hooves or paws, they have fur.
The only human thing in anthros is their body shape, mind, genitals and hands most of the time.
As for ferals, this confuses me the most. They must be zoophiles.
But this makes me think, maybe the fact that animals aren't capable of romance turns them off? I know it's a small turn-off for me as a zoophile, even. This is why ferals and anthros have more human-like minds.
Maybe it's just a fetish or kink? It makes sense, because the furry community is fucking full of these things.
There's almost a fetish and kink for everything right there. I've seen porn with plants, aliens, anthro bycicles, nipple fucking, etc. The furry community has no limits.
What also confuses me is that not all furries love animals. I've seen some hate them or have no interest in them at all, even if they have a ''fursona.''
Maybe we can compare their porn to our attractions.
I'm not sure what's mostly common in the furry community because I blacklist most of it myself, but I definitely rarely saw any equids. Most zoophiles are usually attracted to dogs or horses, and if they lack horses in their porn it makes me doubt they're actually zoophiles.
They could also just be fictiophiles. I'm one myself but maybe they just like the fantasy thing of it and don't want it to be real at all.
I don't know about the answer at all because of how confusing it is.
...And it's not like I can read their minds. It's up to them, really...
EDIT:
I forgot, I once asked a furry and they seemed to like the more human parts of anthros. Still confuses me, though.
Many furries also seem to support bestiality. You still have your every day anti-zoo retards in the furry community, but like a chunk of them seems to support it.
On Steam I've met some furries, but also some non-furries who hang out with furries themselves. None of them seems to mind my zoophilia.
I've told them stories that would horrify the common human, but it's almost like they're immune to it.
Makes me think, they've either seen too much shit or they're secretly really zoophiles.
I do know one furry that masturbates to almost anything, as long as genitals are shown.
Furries are quite some strange individuals...
As long as they're not otherkin, I'm actually fine with them.
Depends on what you expect of romance, for me mutual grooming is what it is.
Also check my answer, I've been very active on the furry community, I am a furry myself (which is the only reason I don't call myself exclusive, even when this came later as a teen) and there are a shiton of zoos.
I mean human romance.
They clearly don't have that. Animals will never truly love us as if we were their lovers.
A good bond is all we can get, sadly.
Well more complexity has its pros, but at the same time, I don't remember the last time I was backstabbed or betrayed by an animal.
That's not what I mean, because I actually like animal behavior.
It's just that I wish they were capable of the romance we have, not really human behavior.
Unless you mean that human romance is like that...
I'm a very big misanthrope and I don't even believe it's like that.
What is that "romance" you mean?
Love.
It's not just love, because there's different kind of love.
You don't feel the same love towards your mother (If you don't like your mother, let's just pretend.) and towards your partner.
Romance is something more serious and passionate, a way closer bond. Animals will love anyone the same way and have no such thing as romance.
Not to mention romance is related to your attraction, and to me animals don't have attractions.
I kind of feel a little lonely because she does not understand our relationship and how I feel about her.
Honestly as long as I can cuddle in bed with him and do mutual grooming, I'm fine, and go around together; well again, depends on what you expect on romance.
Wow, you are really opening up and exposing some of my own feelings of internal conflicts about being zoo. Thank you for your comments. Feel free to message me any time. Fascinating.
You pretty much identified the nature of "furrydom"; the term "fictiophile" may be accurate for this whole "fandom". I on my behalf think that "furries" are related to zoophilia (not animal fetishes , kinks and sex focused bestiality!) in the same amount as the once quite common "blackface" tradition in theatre is related to the center of African American studies and actual AfAM culture... precisely, not at all. For me, furrydom looks like pure escapism into a complete fantasy world not at all connected to the real world or actual animals.
Furthermore it is undeniable that "furries" are a rather "modern" , new phenomenon and I am absolutely convinced it´s firmly connected to cartoons with anthropomorph animals; without Disney and all the other cartoon stuff like anime, there would be no furries.
I also believe the permissiveness you perceived in the "furry" community isn´t real tolerance towards zoophilia, but complete indifference. When you´ve gone scubadiving in "fantasy ocean", it´s quite hard to push your head back above the surface...
And regarding the whole "-kin" crap, this is just a proof of mankind´s limitless idiocy... "Yeah, I´m REALLY an animal that never ever walked the face of the earth...." totally legit, Mr "Dragonkin"...;)
I´m also very sceptical of the figures Onzaz gave us, 18,5 % of furries self identify as zoophiles seems to me just some random figure and it´s equally safe to assume that 18,5 % of "furries" are zoophiles as it is to assume that 99,99% of Beastforum users are zoophiles...know what I mean? ;)
Just another example of the common misconception that two things that might look connected to each other are actually the farthest away from each other; as a zoophile, you abhor ANY tendency to "humanify" your animal partner, you don´t attribute animals with human "qualities" and character traits. You don´t "pull the animals over into the human world", as the vast majority of "furries" are constantly consciously and subconsciously is doing. As a genuine zoo, you´re going the opposite way instead... That´s why you´ll never hear me say that this or that mare is a "slut" or something like that. A horse is a horse (of course, of course...sorry, couldn´t spare this one...), not a human...
And before you bring up my alias that is from a cartoon with anthropomorpised animals from the 80s, 30-30 is nothing but a symbol for me. I´m not claiming I´m a half robotic horse with a bad temper that can transform from biped to quadruped and vice versa..."he" is NOT my "fursona" or any other crap like, that, just a symbol. ;)
99% of ''zoo supporters'' I've ''met'' were exactly like that, so it's not just furries.
It's just that furries seem to support bestiality more than other groups.
Humans believing in bullshit their own species made up at some point... Oh that isn't new.
But it's at the tip of my tongue, where have I heard and seen that before? Oh, right.
I also find it very hard to believe, even though we both know that some of these are straight up lying or thinking they're zoophiles, we can't prove them wrong.
Oh look, one of the many reasons we are so disliked.
I've actually seen a very obvious fake zoophile on a furry porn site once.
Came in claiming on how bestiality was all unethical like usual. Suddenly this comes out of nowhere: ''I'm a zoophile myself.''
Guess what they mentioned before? ''Bestiality is bad because it's done to hurt animals on purpose.'' or something along the lines of that.
So that makes me think, that human claims they're a zoophile, so they have an ''urge for bestiality.'' But they said it's done to hurt animals on purpose.
Yeah I don't think I have to explain further... But that wasn't even the only reason. More foolish dumbassery and typical human behavior.
Would fit in with the other zooclowns.
Depends on what you mean by that (anthropomorphising?), because I wish animals actually could be a little more like humans, intelligence wise.
I may be a zoophile, but I'm still a human. It's not weird that I still seek for something at least a little human in animals. Because when I want to be in a relationship, I want the other to understand me in a way. And I wish they also were capable of loving us in a romantic way.
I mean, it sounds reasonable that I wish they were a little more like that, even if I like the animals the way they are.
I wouldn't even know what that is anyways, so okay.
It's not like my current username I'm using represents me either, unless that would be ''WarCanine.''
The way you seem to be so obsessed with talking about your sexual experiences in the past with horses and had his first moment so extremely young in his life and even fencehopped for it, ''whorse(s)'' would seem a WAY better name for them, don't you think? Well, okay then.
Wasn't '';)'' a sign of sarcasm? And judging by how much you deny it, you're hiding something.
You've got something to admit to the whole class?
"Zoophilia" (yeah, AB, counting time again....) as a taboo topic is exciting for many who never ever would do that...same as with the "gangstas" popping up everywhere when HipHop was the thing...fantasy and thrills from transgressing red lines. Alternate personas that are made up to distract from boring lives.Such stuff...you know.
Regarding this romaticism and intelligence issue, Just read what you wrote..." I want them, I wish, I,I,I..." You practically sound like one of those men who want their wife to undergo plastic surgery ("I sooo wish she had bigger tits!"). I´m absolutely content with how my mare is, I was content with how my first mare was. And have you ever thought that animals also have the capability of "romaticism" (human concept, btw) and do have intelligence, but you´re simply too narrowvisioned to recognise both in them? If you expect human romaticism and intelligence, animals will fail you for sure...where you see a lack of romaticism and human intelligence, I see another form of romaticism and another form of intelligence, equal in worth , but different in the way it shows. My mare hiding behind me when the two stallions on the pasture we were walking by went nuts, the fact that she awaited me every morning and started whinnying as soon as she heard the engine of my car going off (or it could have been my screeching brakes, too), the kisses, her absolute willingness to master difficult dressage lessons for me, her nuzzling me when I was lying on her pasture , enjoying the sun with her (she always came closer and closer while munching the grass until she literally was standing above me)...for me , all of that absolutely qualifies as "equine romaticism" as the usual equine "partnerships" are not exactly as gentle as that. Even my new mare more and more shows behaviour that could be understood as "equine romanticism" (still counting, AB? Nearly done, hang on...;) )...it´s there, WarCanine, you just need to open your eyes.
"Obsessed" with talking about my sexual experiences? I beg your pardon, but what do you think these forums are created for? Hug boxes for fantasising virgins? And btw, "I tell them about fingering my dog"....remember? ;)
Hiding something? Only a few sentences before that, you literally accuse me of being too open...you should already know how I click, don´t you think that I would tell it like it is if I were somehow attracted/related/whatever to this whole furry stuff? Or do I come across as someone who gives a shit about anyone´s opinion, huh?
PS: Just read you don´t know about 30-30...this is his original design from the Bravestarr cartoon:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/78/63/cd/7863cd34dea926495aeee799a4be1b25.gif
And here´s the design I prefer and wear as a tattoo on my ribs:
http://orig07.deviantart.net/ca3d/f/2009/255/9/d/30_30_from_bravestarr_redesign_by_zano.jpg
Look up the 80´s cartoon "Bravestarr" to see him in action, but don´t expect too much, this was a kiddie show with the 80´s trademark "final morale" at the end of each episode, just like in the He-Man cartoons ...actually, the same animation studio that produced He-Man did Bravestarr too...
It's not like that, I wish for all animals to be that way.
Would make them more attractive that way.
I already told you why, no reason to talk about it like that. No problem with certain wishes.
Or maybe it's something you want to believe and that's why you believe it?
That wouldn't be new.
The things you just told? Same thing here.
To me this is not romance, this is just loving and not romance. Romance is supposed to be special.
So, more animals act like this towards their non-zoo owners. In that case, all animals have romantic feelings for their owners.
That... defeats the purpose of romance, and that's not how romance works. Animals have no attractions, so they cannot be romantically attracted. They don't seek for romance, unlike sex.
It's still the truth.
You seem to be obsessed with your sexual experiences more than the other zoophile here. Like, a lot.
Always makes me think back: ''Sex isn't important.'' Sure dude, that's why you fuck every day and are obsessed with your experiences and basically fucked at 17.
And it's funny, that's not like you at all. (Except for the hypocrisy I just mentioned, but I always thought that you'd rather discuss more seriously and about more important things. I guess not.)
Yes, used as a taunt to my enemies. What's the problem in that?
And hey, I'm not that obsessed with it because I don't gain anything from it.
Oh no no no, I don't expect humans to ''click'' in a certain way. Every human I've known always left me with surprises, you included.
Not going to assume too much about others, because I suffer from that big time myself.
Although, I do admit that I expected you to take that joke as a joke, and not take it seriously.
Hell, I didn't even think you were going to respond. One in a hundred chance I guess.
Not only did you offer me drugs, but now you want me to gamble and take chances?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'
Oh shit, I forgot!
##/S
11 pairs of quotation marks.
Nineteen pairs of quotation marks.
I think we have a Sherlock here...;)
If you count the quotation marks in every post I made, change the order of the numbers in a very specific way and then feed it to your pineal gland, you might uncover that I hid the lyrics of "tip toe through the window..." in my posts. Congrats, you´re the first one to take up the scent...;)
Quotations lose their meaning when they're overused, that's the point.
Hey, well you know they take the term zoophiles to include the entire board of bestialists and real animal lovers. I don't know, it's just slapping a question there, people answered what they did, basically you can rephrase that question as would fuck a dog/horse.
Hmmmm.... Now that I think about it, maybe you are... :o that would explain a couple of things.
Nah. I think the attraction to furries is about bringing elements of animals into a being that's essentially human... Even down to ferals. The key difference is the mental aspect. Animal's brains, thought processes, etc. are completely foreign to ours. A furry character is essentially a human 'soul' poured into a fluffy animal body.
Just wanted to add this- it seems like no one talking about this topic ever brings up the idea that perhaps it is a little odd for people to sexualize humanistic characters that look like recognizable animals such as bears, cats, goats, pigs etc. With the animal features and whatnot. That is what I find so interesting about 'furry.' I find it surprising to think that many people are just like, "it's okay as long as the characters are human-like." Really?! But isn't it still strange that these "sexy people" have the physical structures of non-human animals? Regardless of how cartoony/ cartoon stylized the character(s) are. Aren't we still admiring the general physical attractiveness of non-human animals and wouldn't this in and of itself be considered strange or shocking?
To some extend, yes. To some extend NO. Obviously many Pepople like furry art because they like animals in that way, while other like furry art for the human side off furries.
According to surveys, 20% of furries are into sex with animals. And that is only the number of furries that admit to it. Who knows how many more don't even admit it.
20% is abnormally high, if you grab a random population of humans you don't get such numbers, furries attracts zoos a lot. Just like lolicon/shotacon attracts pedos a lot.