I'm happy to open our second weekly discussion topic:
This week we're going to cover a phenomenon that's been around in the fandom forever but which has resurfaced these last few years in the form of typically younger furs (13-21), often called "puriteens".
This new manifestation of reformists tend to be very vocal in their opposition of certain NSFW traits in furry characters such as anatomically correct genitalia (knots, sheaths, etc) as well as feral yiff / feral NSFW artwork.
Typically active on twitter, but progressively also on other platforms, people holding these beliefs are controversial due to their tendency of conflating and accusing people who enjoy this type of NSFW depicts of animal molestation.
I'm trying to be mostly neutral in this description, so please accept my apologies if the vocabulary is a bit too formal. Anyways, here's a few key questions:
-
How should the furry fandom react? Embrace it? Reject it? And if so, how to deal with the risk of being "called out"?
-
Is their point valid but are they simply to loud and aggressive?
-
Or are their methods correct and it's time that the fandom received a wake-up call?
Please feel free to share any opinions that you have.
As always this thread will stay up for at least a week and will then be locked. So make sure to voice your opinion in time!
Also, by leaving a comment you can, if you want, in the same comment propose a new topic for next week's discussion!
Note: this topic is not marked as NSFW as it is educational, thus please don't be too explicit in your wording or use spoilers to hide any potential explicit text or images that you might want to use.
Edit: This went a bit out of hand, but it's very very late here and I might not be around until later tomorrow so I'm locking this thread and have removed any comments that went down a tangent while I figure things out. Tomorrow (technically today) I'll try to reply to any DMs that you have sent and will try to see if we can reopen the topic and how.
I disagree. It's a useless tool for accomplishing a useless goal - to give a moral green light to fictional depictions of hypothetical sex acts with fictional characters.
That's fine as long as you don't push others to an unreasonable degree.
I didn't ask about consent, I asked if you think human/anthro approaches bestiality as human/feral does. Leave the topic of consent out of it.
I'd define bestiality as "having sex with a living creature which does cannot consent to sexual acts in the same way that humans can".
Human/anthro and human/feral don't fit those criteria, because anthros and ferals can understand and consent to human norms (Well, I assume ferals can. Don't really know much about them). What I'm concerned about is what the difference between "man having sex with an animal dog" and "man having sex with a furry feral dog" is.
More generally, if I drew a picture of an animal dog, what separates it from a picture of a realistic feral?
That's not what that word actually means, though.
That would be up to you as the artist. You could decide to include a description that details the degree of anthropomorphization, or lack thereof. You could include some speech bubbles. Or you could leave it completely unspecified, in which case the difference would appear to be absolutely nothing - and that's okay, it's a drawing.