I'll remind everyone here that it is against the rules to advocate for zoophilia. You will be permanently banned with no warning.

Addendum: using this post to attack others in the comments on other posts is still not okay, and will land you in trouble.

Meraviglioso! Bravo, thats Based

unfathomably based

Based, only give your cat your unconditional BUT platonic love.
Nothing else.

upvoted, easily

nikolai_38 said:
Meraviglioso! Bravo, thats Based

amazinky said:
Based, only give your cat your unconditional BUT platonic love.
Nothing else.

malkers said:
unfathomably based

I thought based was like a bad term, but I looked it up. This post is very based. Also, new pfp

I recognised the flag on the right, but not the one on the left. Should I even ask what that one means?

Inb4 someone tries defending zoophilia and gets banned

thatoneguyoverthere said:
Inb4 someone tries defending zoophilia and gets banned

"guyths animalth can conthent guyths"

Ay, I'll drink to that

U should do one with the same zoo pride in the right hand, but the left one should be the MAP flag, cus fuck chomos

Preach

Fuckin oath!

super based

Big based

finally something i can agree with. i mean everyone has a right to there own shit and all but dont think your shitty taboo can be apart of another community because it has to do with animals.. im sorry. i walk on two legs and can say no in your langueage. that four leggged animal has no way to understand what you say or do... sorry sorry. justt grrrr. every furry at some point has seen feral art me included but there is a gaint red line from art and zoo... either way. keep your shit to yourself and stop tryingh to pull other people to your shitty level to feel good about the shitty things you do to get off.

idkwhattocallme said:
U should do one with the same zoo pride in the right hand, but the left one should be the MAP flag, cus fuck chomos

does make me wonder. does the fandom in general have its own flag ???? its all the rage and i dont think ive seen one.

very based

NeonSerpent said:
brave claim...
But... One of the main principles of serial maniacs is to publicly show themselves as their opposite.
And how do I know that real evil is not hiding behind the “good mask”?

The fuck you mean "brave claim"? It's common sense and normal mindset in our world. Forcefully delete the zoos and pedophiles alike

Well that's rude. I need SOMEWHERE to store these files and the Zoo just happens to be a block away :/

I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

cntstk said:
I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

cntstk said:
I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

Not really. Feral porn isn't real. Same with cub porn. At worst it's a safe way for zoos and pedos (respectively) to vent their sexual disorder, at best it's just a thing to jack off to.

Idk why sometimes things post twice on this platform lol

BASED.

hope this doesnt get flagged/deleted

furries having standards and not being attracted to anything that walks on all 4s? thats something new

We all love dogs but not enough to fucking rape em

ferretafan420 said:
Not really. Feral porn isn't real. Same with cub porn. At worst it's a safe way for zoos and pedos (respectively) to vent their sexual disorder, at best it's just a thing to jack off to.

Ok, then if we're going on the basis of 'it's not real', then why all the hullabub for Loli porn? That isn't 'real' too yet people consistently try to draw a parallel to pedophilia.

Wouldn't cub porn by that same logic also strike that same parallel?

cntstk said:
Ok, then if we're going on the basis of 'it's not real', then why all the hullabub for Loli porn? That isn't 'real' too yet people consistently try to draw a parallel to pedophilia.

Wouldn't cub porn by that same logic also strike that same parallel?

It does, doesn't it?

cntstk said:
Ok, then if we're going on the basis of 'it's not real', then why all the hullabub for Loli porn? That isn't 'real' too yet people consistently try to draw a parallel to pedophilia.

Wouldn't cub porn by that same logic also strike that same parallel?

I think the same people defending cub are also defending loli, so there is consistency

ferretafan420 said:
Not really. Feral porn isn't real. Same with cub porn. At worst it's a safe way for zoos and pedos (respectively) to vent their sexual disorder, at best it's just a thing to jack off to.

EXACTLY! I always say, if it isn't hurting any real living being, then I don't care.

People saying that this is hollow virtue signaling that doesn't address the problems with the furry community... what do you expect the artist to do about it? drive all the zoophiles from the furry fandom themselves? at the very least, making art like this causes those people to realize that they aren't welcome. using the small platform they have as an artist to spread a message is the most they can realistically do.

neonserpent said:
brave claim...
But... One of the main principles of serial maniacs is to publicly show themselves as their opposite.
And how do I know that real evil is not hiding behind the “good mask”?

this mf figured out how to type with a reddit mod accent. Pair that with how they try to make some kind of "intellectual post"? Yeah, we've got a user who wants to feel special because they can't handle the truth that they're a moron.

(I can, i'm fucking stupid.) :D

zastdiedforoursins said:
Well now I think the poster or artist is a zoophile. Its almost always that way. The guys crying about some degeneracy publicly are almost always the ones into or doing that stuff just aswell. I won't go into theorizing why it is just what happens.

The same psychological reason a kid who accidentally walks out with a stick of gum without paying and then hyperfixates on the possibility the cops will break the door down over it any day. When you're truly invested in something taboo and want to throw people off your trail, you voice your opposition more fervently out of paranoia.

Furry community be like
FUCK ZOOPHILES
Also furry community:
CUB IS NOT CHILD PORN, ITS JUST DRAWING DUDE!

I hate the fact there are people here actively defending zoophilia and making excuses why they should masturbate to art of animals and children. Based post though

cntstk said:
I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

Zoophilia is disgusting and fucked up specifically because an animal is a living being and is completely incapable of being a consenting party. On the other hand, the feral stuff you can find here is completely bound in fantasy. Fictional feral porn and actual zoophilia are not comparable things, as not only would it be a really bad idea to give fictional characters legal rights as if they were real beings, but it's also assuming that people who like feral porn are okay with committing heinous acts to helpless beings in real life, and that just isn't true.

All I'm saying is that most people know where to draw the line between fantasy and reality, and if they can't they should seek help before they hurt something/someone.

kthorn said:
Zoophilia is disgusting and fucked up specifically because an animal is a living being and is completely incapable of being a consenting party. On the other hand, the feral stuff you can find here is completely bound in fantasy. Fictional feral porn and actual zoophilia are not comparable things, as not only would it be a really bad idea to give fictional characters legal rights as if they were real beings, but it's also assuming that people who like feral porn are okay with committing heinous acts to helpless beings in real life, and that just isn't true.

All I'm saying is that most people know where to draw the line between fantasy and reality, and if they can't they should seek help before they hurt something/someone.

Agreed. There's a massive difference between "zoophilia" and "bestiality". One is a sexual proclivity that is inborn and unchangeable. The other is acting on it, and physically harming an innocent creature. But there absolutely needs to be a distinction between the two. Otherwise, those suffering from those proclivities(that they didn't choose) lose the only incentive to better themselves.

floofsnoots said:
Agreed. There's a massive difference between "zoophilia" and "bestiality". One is a sexual proclivity that is inborn and unchangeable. The other is acting on it, and physically harming an innocent creature. But there absolutely needs to be a distinction between the two. Otherwise, those suffering from those proclivities(that they didn't choose) lose the only incentive to better themselves.

Well said!

oNg7AFdQ64FT said:

cntstk said:
I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

Don't really see what's wrong with feral if it's like a fictional species (ie Dragons). They're usually portrayed as having strong intelligence in their respective medias anyways.

NeonSerpent said:
brave claim...
But... One of the main principles of serial maniacs is to publicly show themselves as their opposite.
And how do I know that real evil is not hiding behind the “good mask”?

bro what

NeonSerpent said:
Dude, if I hurt your feelings, then I’m sorry, but can you logically explain why I’m wrong and what the truth of your position is?

Speaking about pedophilia, I will tell you one very unpleasant thing - now pedophilia is used as a tool of manipulation... And it is very similar to how “witchcraft” and “devil worship” were used in the Middle Ages

ok Ben Shapiro lmfao wtf??

Based!

It's always a good sign when there's 50+ comments and "Show All Comments" appears on the post.

This post has become a bad user trap.

Based!

cantslamthemall said:
You're move admins and mods, will you be retarded and remove this? or be based and keep it?

Ehm, if you’d bothered to check, you’d see that this has already been approved. lol

I want to point out that the image is vertically symmetrical, other than the flag pictures being misaligned. I guess it would be too much effort to actually draw burning flags, fire effects that aren't just a brush, or do anything more than paste an overwhelmingly popular political message over your 10-minute puppy.

Text aside, this drawing is really unimpressive. It probably wouldn't have broken 20 upvotes if it wasn't for Dogwin's Law.

tacticusanguis said:
Yet the community regularly enables it and does nothing about the rampant degeneracy that plagues this community?

barring the use of the word degeneracy, acting like expressing attraction towards animals who cannot consent outside of human fantasy is unhealthy and hurts animals
stop downvoting rightful criticism folks fucking dogs isn't okay

cntstk said:
Ok, then if we're going on the basis of 'it's not real', then why all the hullabub for Loli porn? That isn't 'real' too yet people consistently try to draw a parallel to pedophilia.

Wouldn't cub porn by that same logic also strike that same parallel?

People draw a parallel to bugs bunny porn and zoophilia. Your argument is unsubstantiated.

remember to show all comments if you want the juicy discussions

cantslamthemall said:
You're move admins and mods, will you be retarded and remove this? or be based and keep it?

It's already been approved. Rightfully, may I add.

ong7afdq64ft said:
Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

the fact that this got a successful report just shows how twisted this community really is
the fact that it exists says they are welcome here you can't not be you

They're not welcome here?? I'll believe it when I see it

ong7afdq64ft said:
Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

dragons are hot ok

little_pup_silver said:
the fact that this got a successful report just shows how twisted this community really is
the fact that it exists says they are welcome here you can't not be you

People who fuck real animals are not welcome here. If you're here for fictional porn, then fucking whatever man. You do you. There's folks in every fandom into every conceivable thing, including some really fucked up stuff, or just straight up gross. But if they aren't hurting a living creature or whatever real example of their choice in porn, then why should anyone care? I've seen snuff art on this site, there's people who fap to that religiously. Considering they keep making it and fapping to it, I'm going to assume they aren't serial killers in real life or we'd probably see them start dropping off the site as they get caught.

Do you what you want, ignore anyone who thinks their personal opinion should matter in your life, just as long as you're not hurting anyone, animal or human.

If anything, people trying endlessly to conflate real life counterparts to fake fantasy drawings are the toxic ones in these debates. It's like they NEED to be right about this.

Mods are going to have a field day with this comment section.

psilosage said:
They're not welcome here?? I'll believe it when I see it

They aren't tho? Maybe you dont believe it because you dont enforce it.

...yeah it's one thing to get off to artwork, games and whatnot, and another to do animals dirty.

cntstk said:
Ok, then if we're going on the basis of 'it's not real', then why all the hullabub for Loli porn? That isn't 'real' too yet people consistently try to draw a parallel to pedophilia.

Wouldn't cub porn by that same logic also strike that same parallel?

Feral, cub and loli/shota (and everything else) in drawn/rendered material is all hypothetical, as is everything that happens to them. Maybe this is controversial, but I think people should be able to love, like, dislike and hate whatever they want in fiction, but also shouldn't get too bend out of shape over hypotheticals.

I already feel bad for the mods that are going to have to moderate this comment section.

Varka, the owner of this site is literally a zoophile.

based

Probably a needed post and one with a pleasantly refreshing welcome, based on votes at least.
Buuuut for the handful of folks commenting how the post is 'ironic' or something given the prominence of the bestiality tag on the site, lets do a thought experiment....

Lets consider the 76524 posts tagged with bestiality and start cutting away at the list.
-Anything where 'bestiality' is a dragon with something non feral. There are rare cases where a dragon is depicted with animal intelligence but such cases are few and far between
-Anything with an mlp character and a non feral tagged character.
-Anything with a straight up talking/sentient feral and a non feral character
-Anything involving say, the druid wildshape from wow or similar cases.

-We also have a lot of gray area that may or not not be worth including. The biggest culprit being pokemon which the show itself tends to go back and fourth on whether they are animals, or fully sentient. So we'll leave this in the maybe/case by case area.
-The other grey are feral characters with clearly more human expressions. Some of these could be more artistic, some could be an attempt to convey intelligence indirectly. It would be hard to judge without consulting the artist or OC owner for each.

Now that still perhaps leaves a chunk of art with animals depicted as just...well animals in hokey pokey with a non feral. In which case, given the vast majority of what's left is easily disguisable as not real at a glance...what harm is it doing? There will be fringe cases of folks taking a fantasy like to the real world, but isn't it a bit of a slippery slope to assume that everybody is incapable of separating the two? Is it not only a short step away from the folks who once tried to claim that kids playing shooting games would turn into mas shooters? Ponting out the rare cases where a perpetrator did actually cite a game as a reason for violence, and ignoring the hundreds of thousands of cases where people play violent games without becoming violent in real life?

psilosage said:
They're not welcome here?? I'll believe it when I see it

https://e621.net/user_feedbacks?search[body_matches]=*zoo*
Dunno what else to tell you.

The Cover Up

Why can't I up vote Rainbow Dash's comment? Let alone up vote it thrice?

stinkystranger said:
dragons are hot ok

That pfp is appropriate

Unfathomably based

Hella based

This is only a bold statement. And even though 90% of people from here might strongly agree with it, it's ultimately pointless, cause it's just causing a ton of shitstorm already and it's not helping anyone.

Edit: just noticed hate_art tag. Fair enough then. Didn't know that this is a thing here. I learn something here every week. In that case, understandable, have a nice day. You're justified, dear art.

Drawings aren't real abuse, should you ever decide to take shit too far then you can rot in hell. A man can play GTA and not become a genuine psychopath. If drawn fetish content fuels your desire for irl abuse, you need to leave.

Yeah! Zoophiles aren't welcome here! Just don't sort by order:rank. Or new. Or score. In fact just don't look up anything.

polishonion said:
This is only a bold statement. And even though 90% of people from here might agree with it, it's ultimately pointless, cause it's just causing a ton of shitstorm already and it's not helping anyone.

It's against the rules to post or talk about zoophilia on this site. It's an instant ban. This post is just a circlejerk.

salty145 said:
It's against the rules to post or talk about zoophilia on this site. It's an instant ban. This post is just a circlejerk.

Because there's no defense for it and we don't need anyone trying to defend it here. If you don't like that, leave anytime.

purelyforablacklist said:
Because there's no defense for it and we don't need anyone trying to defend it here. If you don't like that, leave anytime.

I don't know why you read that as a criticism of the rules but you completely missed my point.

manyfishhugs said:
you're willingly ignoring the connection between feral animals and zoophiles

You have young content in your favorites, that means that you are a pedophile.
You have rape content in you favorites, that means that you are a rapist.

treat degeneracy, dont facilitate it

this comment section is a warzone.

Hello, just a friendly reminder that the world outside is, in fact, still going on around us outside the digital ether. No matter who you are or what walk of life you're in, someone loves you and wishes you were spending time with them instead of the computer right about now. :)

Anatomically correct dog genitals on 2 leg anthros is all well and good, but draw them on a four leg anthro and everybody loses their minds!

What a fantastic comments section.
I bet the replies on Xitter are even better.

post #4158731

post #1953542

Controversial topics aside, this oc looks really cute. That's it, that's all I have to say, take care guys.

Whole lotta down votes on this post

>Be me
>Be goldcanines
>Make a single post on e621
>Post is about hating zoophiles
>Gets super popular
>Mods and admins start getting involved
>Watch world burn

Guys I've never used 4chan, I only like watching greentext videos.
Edit: I didn't even pick a side and yet I'm still being dislike bombed :/

cx_10908 said:
that just makes the addiction worse. the best thing is to just stop, not to make fictional shit out of it. hearing "its a safe way for zoos/pedos to vent theyre sexual disorder" is like hearing the phrase "its just a vape, i can quit whenever i want" coming from a vape addicted 40 year old

"Just stop being sad". It doesn't work that way.

Whenever I see people say that feral enjoyers and zoophiles are one and the same I get really curious how they're able to rationalize bdsm doms getting off to choking and hitting their partners yet not being a danger to other people.

It's been a hot minute since I've seen a comment section this spicy. I'm going back to my smut.

neonserpent said:
brave claim...
But... One of the main principles of serial maniacs is to publicly show themselves as their opposite.
And how do I know that real evil is not hiding behind the “good mask”?

Man, I don't care if by some strange coincidence, the artist who made this picture is evil. If the most evil person on the planet said exercising regularly is healthy, their being evil doesn't invalidate their claim.

Won't change the fact the feral tag has 532,000 posts

gelasius said:
ok Ben Shapiro lmfao wtf??

Let's just say that I, hypothetically, go on e621.net and search for "ralsei girly -female", and that I, in theory, found it hot, for the sake of argument. Would that make me, necessarily, gay?

only lesser human trash succumbs -let alone accepts- such a sexually compulsive CURSE!

jayhammerton said:
But it does.

It does? Ok, I'll rephrase it. If the most evil person in the world said "the sky is often considered blue during the day, and when the sun is highest in the sky, that's called noon", would they be lying?

Always amusing to see mods play whack-a-mole in these comment sections cause people are way too comfortable sharing their fetishes online

ironic

Not really sure what to think here. People shouldn't be trying to fuck their pets or non-human animals in real life. Seems pretty cut and dry.
Yet some people are bringing up loli and pedo content. Personally could do without either, yet has nothing to do with zoophilia.

Others are pointing to feral art, saying its the same thing. The only difference to me is that furry art type ferals are usually portrayed as being sentient and aware of what they're doing, and able to say no if they want (not that you'd see that in furry porn; I mean, it's porn :P).

The fact of the matter is, there are a TON of really sick fetishes out there (and on here) that most of the viewers here aren't into, but they tend to accept what they accept here, because some people are, and they want to be inclusive. One hopes that at least *some* topics are considered too much, but the choice is that of the mods, admins and those who review what gets submitted. This post, with all these comments, isn't gonna change a thing: not what gets posted, not what gets allowed to remain, not what people find to be interesting or erotic.

It all makes me think of that whole 'Paradox of Tolerance' concept.

Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

Drawings aren't real.

Perfection

Boutta see everyone on order:comment_count

https://media.tenor.com/HJTXKCtOYwgAAAAM/perfect-popcorn.gif

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

Y’all are literally engaging with children. All these puritan “porn is evil” furries are Zoomers under the age of 18. Such a fucking weird and toxic subculture of the furry fandom. Every time I see one of them post on Twitter, I immediately block them to keep my Twitter feed from becoming cringe high school drama.

people sure love getting mad over lines on (digital) paper

• Correlation =/= Causation
• Fiction =/= Reality
• Feral =/= Zoophilia
• Cub =/= Pedophilia
• Incest (fiction) =/= Incest (reality)
• Gore =/= Murder
• Videogames =/= Violence
• Porn =/= Sex
• Romance =/= Love

If you condemn one, condemn them all. You can't claim one fiction to be valid to explore, while claiming that another is inherently tied to reality.
Art as we know it would not exist, was it for those who want to prevent thought and fantasy to flourish.

anonthrowawaylurker said:

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

Y’all are literally engaging with children. All these puritan “porn is evil” furries are Zoomers under the age of 18. Such a fucking weird and toxic subculture of the furry fandom. Every time I see one of them post on Twitter, I immediately block them to keep my Twitter feed from becoming cringe high school drama.

She's in her 20s but I completely agree. The Twitter "Hot Takes" with little room for nuance has seeped into the subculture, though not exclusively with gen Z and not every gen Z.

luceox30 said:
It's always a good sign when there's 50+ comments and "Show All Comments" appears on the post.

This post has become a bad user trap.

Ive set my threshold for how low a score can be to like, 500 or something crazy lol. JUST for moments like this, where whatever extreme downvoted comments are always in view.

ong7afdq64ft said:
Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

Bro got warned for speaking the straight truth

Anti-feral artist conflates it with zoo? Rep farm success I guess

cinder said:
You have young content in your favorites, that means that you are a pedophile.
You have rape content in you favorites, that means that you are a rapist.

What's funny is that he hid his favorites afterwards xD
I have no room to speak, but I'm working on staying the hell away from that stuff with blacklists

Jesuschrist I saw this at the morning with only three comments and now this has turned into a twitter discussion line

Reading these comments is making me consider alcoholism

Just use the Harkness test and stop fighting. Simple as that :3
https://external-preview.redd.it/MzxbVAwRu1kYCjzdmsPz5N207zUta5kmLH4oKvc3TC8.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=206841b7d37ff498499a2085ad5823e2a0adfeca

This kind of post should not be controversial enough to have 200 downvotes. It is a simply true statement.

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

posh_rat said:
this mf figured out how to type with a reddit mod accent. Pair that with how they try to make some kind of "intellectual post"? Yeah, we've got a user who wants to feel special because they can't handle the truth that they're a moron.

(I can, i'm fucking stupid.) :D

Fr. I'm an idiot! :D

Well, this comment section is definitely a trip.

wannacri said:
Reading these comments is making me consider alcoholism

I'll drink to that

tanooki42 said:
Varka, the owner of this site is literally a zoophile.

You know mods giving that guy a warning does nothing but prove his point or make people believe him right? Cmon guys read the room

advarious said:
Well, this comment section is definitely a trip.

I suppose against my better judgement, I'll chime in.

I just recently converted my former roommate, who grew up under the biased internet pretense that all furries are zoophiles, to the Fandom. I am most certainly not the only one that absolutely HATES that stigma. It is normal as stupid, bored, horny humans to fantasize about these scenarios, whether by literature, art, or adult paraphernalia (Hello? Bad Dragon, anyone?). It is not normal, nor should it ever be remotely even considered to be, for a human to have legitimate sexual attraction towards real animals.

Does that mean they're inherently evil? No. People like that need the opportunity to seek support and treatment to avoid furthering the stigma that we have fought and continue to fight. It's only when they openly embrace it and the consequences that they're a problem that needs to be expunged.

My name is Advarious, and thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

wannacri said:
Reading these comments is making me consider alcoholism

I'm already drunk. But I could always drink some more! where did my dam bottle of vodka go? Somewhere here there's a bottle of vodka I must drink right now. There's it is... time for fun...

@Rainbow_Dash How did post a comment which can't reply or upvote? what is the purpose of that?

idkwhattocallme said:
I thought based was like a bad term, but I looked it up. This post is very based. Also, new pfp

Ohmygod, so real, I used to call things i didn't like "based" for a solid like half a year until I realized it was in agreement of something TwT.

advarious said:
Well, this comment section is definitely a trip.

I'm trippin' over (redacted) comments already. How many got banned here already? It's not just worth it to get banned over a comment. If you really wants to get banned, go out with a bang dammit! Do something really egregious. I mean really fuck up! Don't get banned by an insignificant comment. That's a lame way to get banned man. Its really a sucky way to get banned for. What a bummer man really.

Society should accept me while I hate others. Real high-level take.

carvao said:
☝️🤓

says the mf literally logged into e6 wtf 😭😭

This is so based, FUCK ZOO’S!

Listen, we are splitting way too many hairs here. I'll make this easy.

If you are currently logged into this website, you already are not hitting any high bars in terms of anyone ever seeing what we jack it to. Even if it's just normal furry smut, they will conflate.

So the answer is easy; just jack off, leave nice comments, and mind our own furry business.

Everything else is superfluous, including the effort I took to make this comment.

aomikan said:
Drawings aren't real.

Of course. But I'm 100% sure they don't mean drawings

moon_moon said:
post #4158731

Lol hand me some popcorn

I concur.

floofsnoots said:
Agreed. There's a massive difference between "zoophilia" and "bestiality". One is a sexual proclivity that is inborn and unchangeable. The other is acting on it, and physically harming an innocent creature. But there absolutely needs to be a distinction between the two. Otherwise, those suffering from those proclivities(that they didn't choose) lose the only incentive to better themselves.

I'm going to throw fuel into the fire here but i think someone ought to say it: that's never been proven. No one's actually gone and made a scientific experiment that confirms or denies that sexuality can or cannot be changed from what you have written in your DNA. Now of course that would be insanely unethical and have even worse ethical implications were it to fall on a certain side, namely normalizing conversion therapy, but we have cases of both people getting into kinks or straight up changing their whole orientations as they mature and experience life changes, and also people just "knowing" they're a something-sexual before the onset of puberty all the way to the grave. I think it does people a disservice to just say they're stuck being into something cripplingly weird, that is a huge part of a persons' character and that affects their ability to lead happy lives but that it's morally reprehensible in all forms.

At the very least, it should be common practice to tell people to get off the internet and leave their dicks alone for a while when they start getting bad ideas. A lot of the dumbest, most confusing fetishes out there come from people peeling themselves raw for the 50th time in a day because they don't have a real hobby besides psyching themselves up about sex, i don't doubt feeling up the family pet comes from a similar place.

neonserpent said:
brave claim...

Ah yes, a perfect comment

neonserpent said:
brave claim...
But...

Oh, here we fucking go again.

This whole comment section kept me entertained for a good 20 minutes. Now excuse me while i go beat off to fictional feral wolf pussy.

sanestvaporeonfan said:
People saying that this is hollow virtue signaling that doesn't address the problems with the furry community... what do you expect the artist to do about it? drive all the zoophiles from the furry fandom themselves? at the very least, making art like this causes those people to realize that they aren't welcome. using the small platform they have as an artist to spread a message is the most they can realistically do.

I think people are pointing out its hollow because "too little, too late" and the other examples of how it's enabled regardless how much decry it.

This comment section is a warzone, but point remains zoophiles suck ass

floofsnoots said:
Agreed. There's a massive difference between "zoophilia" and "bestiality". One is a sexual proclivity that is inborn and unchangeable. The other is acting on it, and physically harming an innocent creature. But there absolutely needs to be a distinction between the two. Otherwise, those suffering from those proclivities(that they didn't choose) lose the only incentive to better themselves.

With a definition like that, the difference between someone wanting to fuck a duck in the wild and someone ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH with fucking a duck is razor thin.

Which ultimately makes it a distinction with no meaningful difference.

linosmelendi said:
Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

Don't really see what's wrong with feral if it's like a fictional species (ie Dragons). They're usually portrayed as having strong intelligence in their respective medias anyways.
[/quote]

Emphasis on 'broaching' as opposed to 'literally the same as'.

ferretafan420 said:
People draw a parallel to bugs bunny porn and zoophilia. Your argument is unsubstantiated.

Well good thing that's not MY comparison, now is it?

veepeen said:
Feral, cub and loli/shota (and everything else) in drawn/rendered material is all hypothetical, as is everything that happens to them. Maybe this is controversial, but I think people should be able to love, like, dislike and hate whatever they want in fiction, but also shouldn't get too bend out of shape over hypotheticals.

Ok that doesn't really address what I was getting across. Furries have a double standard towards what they discern as gross as well as giving benefit of the doubt to artwork.

drigis said:
Probably a needed post and one with a pleasantly refreshing welcome, based on votes at least.
Buuuut for the handful of folks commenting how the post is 'ironic' or something given the prominence of the bestiality tag on the site, lets do a thought experiment....

Lets consider the 76524 posts tagged with bestiality and start cutting away at the list.
-Anything where 'bestiality' is a dragon with something non feral. There are rare cases where a dragon is depicted with animal intelligence but such cases are few and far between
-Anything with an mlp character and a non feral tagged character.
-Anything with a straight up talking/sentient feral and a non feral character
-Anything involving say, the druid wildshape from wow or similar cases.

-We also have a lot of gray area that may or not not be worth including. The biggest culprit being pokemon which the show itself tends to go back and fourth on whether they are animals, or fully sentient. So we'll leave this in the maybe/case by case area.
-The other grey are feral characters with clearly more human expressions. Some of these could be more artistic, some could be an attempt to convey intelligence indirectly. It would be hard to judge without consulting the artist or OC owner for each.

Now that still perhaps leaves a chunk of art with animals depicted as just...well animals in hokey pokey with a non feral. In which case, given the vast majority of what's left is easily disguisable as not real at a glance...what harm is it doing? There will be fringe cases of folks taking a fantasy like to the real world, but isn't it a bit of a slippery slope to assume that everybody is incapable of separating the two? Is it not only a short step away from the folks who once tried to claim that kids playing shooting games would turn into mas shooters? Ponting out the rare cases where a perpetrator did actually cite a game as a reason for violence, and ignoring the hundreds of thousands of cases where people play violent games without becoming violent in real life?

I feel this post only proves that in spite of people's obstinance towards beastiality and the like, when put into a corner, will make a thousand excuses as to why what they like isn't 'actually' that.

This is on par with saying 'no, the loli dragon is 500 years so it's ok!'. Just admit you're into wierd shit.

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

I mean, at least they're consistent.

Although, that does put a damper on those who were claiming on here that 'feral' porn shouldn't be equated with beastiality.

If the person who made this art can notice a correlation, then just saying there isn't such thing as one while AGREEING with the overall sentiment feels as though people are just agreeing with the post to save face. Like a mass murderer opining constantly how much against murder they are; the ladies doth protest too much.

glitchbun said:
Let's just say that I, hypothetically, go on e621.net and search for "ralsei girly -female", and that I, in theory, found it hot, for the sake of argument. Would that make me, necessarily, gay?

"But let's also go into the fact that, while I was bottoming out this femboy goat in my mind, that our testicles never touched. Therefore, I can say with 100% certainty that our sexual act was not, in fact, gay."

Geez that comment section ._.

Can one enjoy fictional porn of these subjects, yet not be considered a zoophile if they have no intention of doing so in reality? It is the same debate about violence in video games encouraging violence in real life.

Just so you know, I'm on the position that fiction is fine, as no one is getting hurt in reality, and for narrative purposes can include consent between characters. For the more intense, niche stuff, I have the blacklist.

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

Exactly why I called this hollow. "Zoophilia bad" is such a basic "good things good, bad things bad" statement.

Everybody just claps along with no questions asked. Post climbs to thousands of updoots. People gather into the comments to proclaim how they also support the popular thing and to circlejerk each other raw. Nothing new is said, nothing changes. Moderator gets pissy and starts hanging out warnings for "trolling"

No way the post would have gone anywhere if it said "zoophiles bad, and that includes your animal dicks"

Now that would have been at least a statement based on some sort of thought.

cinder said:
https://e621.net/user_feedbacks?search[body_matches]=*zoo*
Dunno what else to tell you.

https://e621.net/posts/4036972

snoopdigglet said:
https://e621.net/posts/4036972

META TAG:ANIMATED

themrmaverickmann said:
I recognised the flag on the right, but not the one on the left. Should I even ask what that one means?

The colors are those of the heterosexual pride flag (yeah, apparently that's a thing) with a lowercase zeta (a symbol commonly used among zoophiles). If I were to guess it's a less-common flag used by zoophiles.

Aye, I'll drink a few to that.

stinkystranger said:
dragons are hot ok

real

Oh hey are we doing animal rights? Moral/ethical philoso-fur checking in with a classic: "the greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"

Now here's your daily reminder that "human-animal role-players" is one the classifications of zoophilia that the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine considers :

Human-animal role-players
Romantic zoophiles
Zoophilic fantasizers
Tactile zoophiles
Fetishistic zoophiles
Sadistic bestials
Opportunistic zoophiles
Regular zoophiles
Exclusive zoophiles

There are large segments of many societies that would see anyone who logged into this website, including you, reading this right meow, as a zoophile and there's nothing that you can do about that.

I think it's important that the fandom has these conversations, "yikes"-inducing as it may be - there's *real abuse* in this world that *needs* confrontation. I hope/believe there's -literally no one arguing- that we should tolerate "Sadistic bestials" in the fandom.

But I would personally love if we could start by acknowledging that the term "zoo" is overloaded and recognize nuance and stop being cowards banning conversation about important-but-too-spicy topics.

I think even if someone has jerked off over a picture of knot once they're still capable of being a better human being than someone who's cis-het-normal but beats their dog on the regular

That shouldn't be a spicy take

cntstk said:
With a definition like that, the difference between someone wanting to fuck a duck in the wild and someone ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH with fucking a duck is razor thin.

Which ultimately makes it a distinction with no meaningful difference.

Have you ever wanted to stab a bully in school? Maybe even entertained the thought, and considered how you dispose of and etc? Why didn't you go through with it? What stopped you? Because the difference between that fantasizing/planning step and murder is razor thin. We can't pretend to know guilt before a crime is committed and people who are in therapy for something they didn't choose should be treated with a reasonable degree of compassion. Lest we start punishing innocents who **might** do heinous things.

sanestvaporeonfan said:
People saying that this is hollow virtue signaling that doesn't address the problems with the furry community... what do you expect the artist to do about it? drive all the zoophiles from the furry fandom themselves? at the very least, making art like this causes those people to realize that they aren't welcome. using the small platform they have as an artist to spread a message is the most they can realistically do.

The fact that it's from an unknown artist and their first artwork though seems like a grab for clout

YOU POSTED THIS ON THIS WEBSITE? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.Man, I can live with the terrible things I've jerked off to. Life is too short to care.

This needs significantly more upvotes

floofsnoots said:
Because the difference between that fantasizing/planning step and murder is razor thin.

This is the same kind of logic that is used by boomers to claim that violent videogames turn people into murderers

just sayin

eltorofuerte said:
The fact that it's from an unknown artist and their first artwork though seems like a grab for clout

This is an archive that anyone can upload to. I don't imagine the original creator of the image posted it here given they're (I think?) a SFW artist.

cntstk said:
The problem with the Harkness Test is that it presupposes that you 'can', not whether you 'should'.

Because otherwise, that 'test' can be used to justify, oh, middle aged, female teachers raping underage students by saying 'oh they wanted it', or the inverse, for that matter.

The three main components of the Harkness test is to prove Sentience, Intelligence, and Adulthood.
Quite literally three questions: Does it have at minimum human intelligence, is it able to communicate with language, and is it old enough?

The third negates whatever the fuck you were thinking the test would be used for.

ctrl-atl-replace7888 said:
Why can't I up vote Rainbow Dash's comment? Let alone up vote it thrice?

hjfduitloxtrds said:
@Rainbow_Dash How did post a comment which can't reply or upvote? what is the purpose of that?

Some comments posted as announcements can't be hidden or voted on, and remain at the top.

rainbow_dash said:
Some comments posted as announcements can't be hidden or voted on, and remain at the top.

but how did you do this? I'm not understanding.

This is a porn site, not Twitter, not the place for agendas and opinions lmao. I agree with the post but this comment section is a riot

hjfduitloxtrds said:
but how did you do this? I'm not understanding.

Worry not, us mortals will never understand the strange and unnatural powers site admins such as them wield.

On topic: I don't care what non-real imagery is posted on this site or who's jerking it to Nala (understandable, I mean look at those eyes) or some CG dog/human porn. I do care when people openly flaunt their IRL dog fucking, Zeta bumper sticker and all. I've seen it, but that was before there was significant push-back. I'm glad we've become less tolerant of this shit. We don't have to be welcoming to self-confessed animal abusers/rapists, that's not what furry is about.

Very interesting to see how people will argue themselves into a hole over something illegal and inhumane.
Animals cannot consent, simple and easy to understand why it’s wrong.

I had a former friend who accused anyone of not having human genitalia and human shape a zoophile, so…
Just be aware of this before you jump on someone’s particular bandwagon, they might throw you under it (or worse, dox you because you didn’t fanatically follow their specific field of hatred; yes that has happened.) Some goes as far as to put even kemonomimi as “animal rapists”, after I saw a furry agree with another before being attacked themself.
I don’t know who the artist is, but if they feel the need to advertise such like that, they likely may in addition hate some kinks and ferals and teratophilia (those into nonanthro forms like monster Hunter, or xenomorphs even for example) for being too odd a furry, and then ascribe those fantasies to reality.

Edit: No surprise really, the artist does indeed revile people who have non-human genitalia. That probably marks off half of you all here.

deathstroke_walrus said:
Very interesting to see how people will argue themselves into a hole over something illegal and inhumane.
Animals cannot consent, simple and easy to understand why it’s wrong.

Well, to throw a stick in the fire, no one’s asked an animal for their consent to be put down, forced to breed, eaten, tiny living quarters, run over (look up predator derbies) etc.
(And you should seek consent to even hug a dog, not all dogs like being touched, somehow this goes over most heads)
That is also wrong and vile.
But it’s hand waved a lot, either it’s not “abusive” or “it’s necessary” or even “they’re just animals” while also being “animal lovers”.

That partly contributes to high emotional distress and suicide in vets. The animal is healthy, but the owner demands it, and it’s legally property. Or owner just doesn’t want to pay the bills.
I don’t really know why people stop halfway to argue for animal welfare. They argue for the most obvious and pat themselves on the back. This is why I don’t trust most of these virtue signallers. (Granted, it is a problem still, but it’s like saying “stealing is bad”)

At this time there are over 200 comments on this post with several arguments going on.

I think that says a lot about the community on its own.

What are the flags?

This makes me wonder, is there any post that says "fuck the foot fetish, you are not welcome here" or something similar?

This is great and all but what about the REAL horrible shit you can find like actual child porn? Why is that allowed here? Or am I crazy

dubfub said:
This is great and all but what about the REAL horrible shit you can find like actual child porn? Why is that allowed here? Or am I crazy

There is no child porn on this site.
If you are unable to distinguish drawings from photographs, that sounds like a you problem.

Plus, there's young content in your favorites: fav:Dubfub young.

I normally don't comment, but...

You would think that being sexually attracted to furries and being a widely shunned minority would make people more understanding that nobody chooses what they "like" or can do anything about it. 60 years ago and even today, in many parts of the world, you were persecuted just for being homosexual. I am not in any way saying it's okay to abuse real children, animals etc (or anyone really...). I'm only against dictating what people can draw and share. Did you ever consider yourselves lucky not being cursed with those kinds of "preferences"? Can you even begin to imagine how hard it must be? Do you understand that it could have been you or someone close to you?

And now that you with your kinks are finally able to live in relative acceptance, you want to belong to the "normal", fascist majority and join the hunt for the last minorities that are still on the kill-list? Shows you have learned nothing and aren't any better than the people hating on you yourselves for what you are and can't change.

There is room here for people jacking off to adults in shitty diapers, furries eating each other and all kinds of stuff I find hard to take. There should be room for the rest as well. It's all within the law, it's all fictional and the only victims here are the ones you are trying to make.

edit: in case that's not clear, I'm not defending zoophilia, but making a general statement against the frequent hate-posts on this site. Have to be extra careful here, it seems.

MyAltAccount said:
I didn't choose to be a zoophile. Some individuals did. Nevertheless, I shouldn't be made to feel disgusted in myself for being who I am.

I do not envy you (or pedos), it must really suck ass to be one. But having a certain degree of compassion, at least for those who aren't acting on their urges, doesn't mean I have to support zoophiles openly networking, coming up with pride flags, trying to normalize it, acting like they are in the same space as gay guys were decades ago. It is not the same (you know why, even if you might disagree) and the vast majority rejects their cause.

That doesn't mean you have to leave, just like you don't have to leave any other group that doesn't support zoophilia. Just stop trying to co-opt furries (you know, fans of anthropomorphic animals - and yes, that includes ferals with human-like intellect) into a safe space for zoophiles. It isn't.

Intresing thing... if i create somting like this...

You guys maybe hate zoos, but can you answer on "what if"?
What if someone call you a Zoophile? Just for fun, prank, or removal as "unwanted person". You are on fury/yiff site - you cannot to prove to angry crowd that you are not a zoo. Your arguments will be deflected by hints of the Pygmalion effect or "latent self-defense" (which is what anti-furies use).
Your friends, with whom you sitting in cafe yesterday, today will spit in your face, and various idiots will begin to humiliate you, because their sense of “morality” requires it. Having knowledge of psychoanalysis, I can guess what options you will have (Maybe "The Hunt" made an impression on me).
OR
What if your frend or your loved one will turn out to be a zoos? what will you do?

In my opinion (possibly quite psychopathic). Need to weigh the pros and cons. If someone sleeps peacefully with his dog, crocodile or someone else, but at the same time he is good person in himself and can help me, then should I hate him?

(if something is written crookedly, don’t be surprised - I used Google translator)

As I see it, zoophilia is a mental illness, just like pedophilia. Let's say some random Joe Schmoe ends up being a zoophile. If Joe ends up acting on his urges and hurts another animal or urges others to do the same, then that is completely unforgivable and repulsive. However, if Joe takes steps to stay away from animals, and he doesn't hang out in those echo chambers, then I don't see much of an issue. I don't want to blame or wish violence on people for being dealt a bad hand in life, but if they act on those urges in a way that hurts real animals, then I have no sympathy for them in any way.

tinger1 said:
This makes me wonder, is there any post that says "fuck the foot fetish, you are not welcome here" or something similar?

post #2994253

Blacklist tag "foot_fetish"

Sieer2 said:
What if someone call you a Zoophile? Just for fun, prank, or removal as "unwanted person". You are on fury/yiff site - you cannot to prove to angry crowd that you are not a zoo.

All I'm seeing is another reason not to tolerate zoophilia. I don't want people to make the association, especially not with any reason to back it up.

And no, some hypothetical dilemma doesn't mean that it's better to tolerate animal abuse.

I believe you meant to say "fuck animal abusers".

An animal abuser is an asshole and needs to be stopped. A zoophile is a person who got fucked by life pretty hard and should receive understanding and support, so they don't become abusers and don't feel like the monsters you want to make out of them.
(Notice carefully, how I'm not defending zoophilia, but people suffering from it.)
Fun fact: the vast majority of animal abusers are not zoophiles.
The same is true for pedophiles.

But that small difference probably doesn't mean much to a mindless fascist. Hey, as long you are not affected, who fucking cares?!

On the real though, how many cases of zoophilic interest are borne of nurture vs nature? And how has 30,000 years of domestication and symbiotic coexistence affected human sexuality, sociology, etc? We see how dogs have evolved from wolves alongside humans, but I earnestly wonder how these 30,000+ years have affected homo sapiens. It's interesting from sexology and anthropology standpoint. Personally, I wish the subject were less taboo to discuss and research so it can be studied, because it's unlikely that they haven't influenced our evolution in some way.

IE: Did you know dogs have evolved to trigger the same part of your brain that stimulates when you hold your own child? And likewise, the pleasure center of the brain lights up for them too, according to research.

Nazi: "You there, degenerate gay person! You are under arrest and are going to camp!"

Bad answer: "But we are all human beings and nobody chooses what they like. We should all try to have understanding for the perspectives and misfortunes of others."

Good answer: "But I hate the disabled people as much as you do! They are the real enemy! Fuck the disabled!"

Seen a lot of good answers here on e621. Never realized how much thoughtless trash there is here until now. I guess most users have about as much between their ears as their favorite species.
Seriously, are hate posts okay on this platform? Can I make a post "fuck the hispanic!", "fuck women!", "fuck the handicapped!"?
I mean, there must be some guideline for when people are no longer people and it's okay to express your hate for them here, no?

... oh noes, downvoted by braindead fascists, the shame lol
It's good to be the majority for once and bash on people who are even more shunned than yourself together, isn't it? Hmmm, yes. That connects. We feel so much more normal now, don't we?

xipeho said:
All I'm seeing is another reason not to tolerate zoophilia. I don't want people to make the association, especially not with any reason to back it up.

And no, some hypothetical dilemma doesn't mean that it's better to tolerate animal abuse.

the_rhythm_dragon said:
As I see it, zoophilia is a mental illness, just like pedophilia.

well i think in one answer i open small secret for you two.
Pedophilia, gebephilia, and zoophilia is a very rare inborn disorers. But as an artificial disease - by SOMEONEs will, turning a once normal person into evil - not uncommon.
Learn about Narcissistic perverts. These mental sadists take great pleasure from turning life into so fucking hell, after passing it - impossible to be mentally healthy... and sometimes alive.

(this drama is stupid)

post #1730117

What a daft post.

Very little artistic merit, very little to identify this as furry art at all, and it's solely an engagement trap for the kinds of people who want to express how strongly they align themselves with an entirely popular opinion.

This isn't art, it's political messaging at most.

Mods working overtime on this one

ryke said:

This isn't art, it's political messaging at most.

Just some kids learning about the effects of social media, by force.

And nobody cares that the unprovoked hatred is targeted at zoophiles in general, not animal abusers, but people who have never harmed any creature just as much and are suffering from their "deviation".

And when you get angry at this disgusting, bigotted mindset, you get warned that "this is a friendly community".

I couldn't vomit enough in 100 years. Hope people get what's coming to them.

Today you're going after one marginalized minority. Tomorrow they will come after you, declare your kink an outlawed perversion, fiction or not, shun and demean you, and you will deserve every bit of it.
No amount of downvoting is gonna save you then, lol. And you will have to continue your circle jerk in some dark basement.

kovinafterdark said:
Listen, we are splitting way too many hairs here. I'll make this easy.

If you are currently logged into this website, you already are not hitting any high bars in terms of anyone ever seeing what we jack it to. Even if it's just normal furry smut, they will conflate.

So the answer is easy; just jack off, leave nice comments, and mind our own furry business.

Everything else is superfluous, including the effort I took to make this comment.

Words to live by.

al'yelia said:
This whole comment section kept me entertained for a good 20 minutes. Now excuse me while i go beat off to fictional feral wolf pussy.

🗿

ong7afdq64ft said:
Exactly why I called this hollow. "Zoophilia bad" is such a basic "good things good, bad things bad" statement.

Everybody just claps along with no questions asked. Post climbs to thousands of updoots. People gather into the comments to proclaim how they also support the popular thing and to circlejerk each other raw. Nothing new is said, nothing changes. Moderator gets pissy and starts hanging out warnings for "trolling"

No way the post would have gone anywhere if it said "zoophiles bad, and that includes your animal dicks"

Now that would have been at least a statement based on some sort of thought.

I think if the post had been "zoophiles bad, and that includes your animal dicks", it would have actually been controversial, which might have sparked even more engagement than this below-freezing take.

bambibooza said:
This is a porn site, not Twitter, not the place for agendas and opinions lmao. I agree with the post but this comment section is a riot

Still not a porn site and I'm pretty sure the comment section is exactly the right place for people's opinions. But yeah, this comment section is a mess.

deathstroke_walrus said:
Very interesting to see how people will argue themselves into a hole over something illegal and inhumane.
Animals cannot consent, simple and easy to understand why it’s wrong.

It may seem simple, if you refuse to think about it any further than that. If you did, though, you would realize that consent as a concept is something completely inapplicable to animals. An animal cannot consent to being adopted, fed, picked up, etc. I'm not going to go into deep moral philosophy in an e6 comment section, but suffice it to say that lack of consent cannot be the reason why fucking animals is wrong. You need to look further than that.

In fact, even when dealing with humans, consent is neither required, nor sufficient for something to be considered (un)ethical. Taking you kid to the dentist against their will is the ethical thing to do, whereas murdering somebody with their consent, when there is nothing wrong with them, is not. In both of these cases, the deciding factor is not the consent, but the fact that we knew better what is good for these hypothetical individuals than they did. In such cases, their consent does not matter. In real life, however, we are rarely in a situation where we can truly say that we know better than another, unless they are a child, mentally impaired, or we are talking about a non-human animal.

Simply put, saying "animals can't consent, end of story" just doesn't cut it. It is philosophically lazy and by encouraging people to not explore these ethical topics and instead be satisfied with surface level sophistry is depriving them of attaining the understanding that they need to properly navigate more complex moral landscapes than this.

God dammit, I did it again. My autistic ass just can't stop writing once I get started

bluemoonstruckwolf said:
Well, to throw a stick in the fire, no one’s asked an animal for their consent to be put down, forced to breed, eaten, tiny living quarters, run over (look up predator derbies) etc.
(And you should seek consent to even hug a dog, not all dogs like being touched, somehow this goes over most heads)
That is also wrong and vile.
But it’s hand waved a lot, either it’s not “abusive” or “it’s necessary” or even “they’re just animals” while also being “animal lovers”.

That partly contributes to high emotional distress and suicide in vets. The animal is healthy, but the owner demands it, and it’s legally property. Or owner just doesn’t want to pay the bills.
I don’t really know why people stop halfway to argue for animal welfare. They argue for the most obvious and pat themselves on the back. This is why I don’t trust most of these virtue signallers. (Granted, it is a problem still, but it’s like saying “stealing is bad”)

Indeed, animal mistreatment is a serious problem, and I think that we can morally condemn its perpetrators, but again the concept of consent is not applicable here. One might even argue that harm isn't either, lest they surrender themselves to the vegan position, as many have, which I can respect. I simply do not share their premises.

myaltaccount said:
I've read the Admin comment here, and it's healthy to have certain levels of discussion within a community, so I'll keep it short.
I thought I'd feel safe and supported in the Furry community. This proves the opposite, tho.
This was supposed to be a community founded on understanding and respect. I've always admired these values ever since I was first introduced to furries, how, no matter your gender, or sexuality, or skin colour, or socioeconomic background, or opinions, you are welcome here.
I didn't choose to be a zoophile. Some individuals did. Nevertheless, I shouldn't be made to feel disgusted in myself for being who I am.
In our barest, most essential form, furries exist as a haven and a conduit for self expression and discovery -- that is our purpose as a community. And the moment we begin shunning away individuals based on their personality, or lifestyle choices, or socioeconomic backgrounds, or political opinions, or whatever else, is the moment we lose all reason to exist at all.

These are exactly the kind of people we need to take a firm stand against. The Furry fandom is not a save "haven and a conduit for self expression" of zoophilic interests, or at least it shouldn't be, and since the Furry fandom is sort of unique in the fact that it is not based on any official core (such as MLP, Sonic, Supernatural, etc.), but is instead a loose collection of people who happen to like a certain aesthetic, we need to police our communities ourselves by calling these people out and making it clear that we do not want them to seek us out and use our spaces as an outlet for these proclivities.

tinger1 said:
This makes me wonder, is there any post that says "fuck the foot fetish, you are not welcome here" or something similar?

I don't know if this was the intention of the comment, but you make it sound like you are trying to make the argument that zoophilia is just another fetish, as innocuous as a foot fetish, and that people who are condemn zoophiles would be hypocritical if they do not also condemn foot fetishists. I hope that your comment was just unfortunate wording, because otherwise that would be such a bad argument, that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

asdw69 said:

Nazi: "You there, degenerate gay person! You are under arrest and are going to camp!"

Bad answer: "But we are all human beings and nobody chooses what they like. We should all try to have understanding for the perspectives and misfortunes of others."

Good answer: "But I hate the disabled people as much as you do! They are the real enemy! Fuck the disabled!"

Seen a lot of good answers here on e621. Never realized how much thoughtless trash there is here until now. I guess most users have about as much between their ears as their favorite species.
Seriously, are hate posts okay on this platform? Can I make a post "fuck the hispanic!", "fuck women!", "fuck the handicapped!"?
I mean, there must be some guideline for when people are no longer people and it's okay to express your hate for them here, no?

... oh noes, downvoted by braindead fascists, the shame lol
It's good to be the majority for once and bash on people who are even more shunned than yourself together, isn't it? Hmmm, yes. That connects. We feel so much more normal now, don't we?

Before this comment I wasn't sure whether you are genuinely pushing this nonsense. You know how people sometimes claim that there's this slippery slope of accepting one thing, then something more, then something even more, until we have accepted something completely egregious? Usually this is just fallacious fear mongering, but here you are actually *advocating* we slide down a slippery slope. You are literally arguing that, since we have accepted gay people (and disabled people?), we must now accept zoophiles as well. Either you are just fed posting, or you need to seriously realign your moral compass. Gay people acting on their feelings is not immoral, whereas zoophiles (and pedophiles) doing so is. Let's not conflate these concepts by reducing them down to all just being "sexual orientations" with no ethically meaningful distinctions to be made, as that would be pure sophistry.

dubfub said:
This is great and all but what about the REAL horrible shit you can find like actual child porn? Why is that allowed here? Or am I crazy

☐ e621.net hosting actual child porn
☑ you're crazy

derpydeer said:
Before this comment I wasn't sure whether you are genuinely pushing this nonsense. You know how people sometimes claim that there's this slippery slope of accepting one thing, then something more, then something even more, until we have accepted something completely egregious? Usually this is just fallacious fear mongering, but here you are actually *advocating* we slide down a slippery slope. You are literally arguing that, since we have accepted gay people (and disabled people?), we must now accept zoophiles as well. Either you are just fed posting, or you need to seriously realign your moral compass. Gay people acting on their feelings is not immoral, whereas zoophiles (and pedophiles) doing so is. Let's not conflate these concepts by reducing them down to all just being "sexual orientations" with no ethically meaningful distinctions to be made, as that would be pure sophistry.

It's un-fucking-believable how people here are completely incapable of seeing the difference between a person suffering from zoophilia and an animal abuser. The difference is the same as that between a heterosexual and a rapist of women.

Yes, I am absolutely against inciting hatred and persecution against ANYONE who is different in a way they didn't choose and can't do anything about, be it color, disability, sexual orientation of whatever kind or anything else, because that's bloody fascism.

It's not a "slippery slope" accepting people with deviances for what they are and trying to find ways to deal with them that don't involve indiscriminate hate and shunning. It's a slippery slope propagating hatred against minorities. It leads to rightist autocracies and persecution like we are seeing with gays in russia these days, for example. And it doesn't have to stop there.

A zoophile is not per se an animal abuser, but a human being who's had really bad luck when sexual orientations were dished out. People who never harmed an animal in their life don't deserve to be treated like that by this or any "community" of bigots.

Your arrogance is misplaced, by the way, calling my posts nonsense. My moral compass is obviously more evolved than yours.

Oh and the point I was making in that nazi post, I thought it was obvious, was that it's always easier to give in to accepting the views and ideas (of whom we have to hate) of a superior majority that has control over us and unite against another common enemy, than to do the moral thing and advocate for tolerance and understanding - not for abuse, but for what people are. Sorry, if that went over your head.
It's like when you're new at a workplace and all your colleagues talk bad about a certain co-worker. Most people will just go along with it, because that's the easy thing that will get you ahead in life and win you acceptance. If you don't conform, you are probably next. That's 90% of apes in a nutshell.

This comment section is wild holy fuck
Also amen

derpydeer said:
I think if the post had been "zoophiles bad, and that includes your animal dicks", it would have actually been controversial, which might have sparked even more engagement than this below-freezing take.

Still not a porn site and I'm pretty sure the comment section is exactly the right place for people's opinions. But yeah, this comment section is a mess.

"zoophiles bad, and that includes your animal dicks"
What everyone here neglects to see is the artist who made this DOES say this.
Animal dicks bad, you nasty
They had to clarify it Apparently.

non nsfw artist appears here with single and only picture literally just to make drama and work for mods
obvious

cinder said:
There is no child porn on this site.
If you are unable to distinguish drawings from photographs, that sounds like a you problem.

Plus, there's young content in your favorites: fav:Dubfub young.

Okay but like you can literally just look up child and get child porn. and Yes I do have young tags in my favorite but that's not the same as child tags. Also I wasn't saying that there's photo of children on here I was just saying that there's drawings of children on here. I completely understand that I could just Blacklist it but that still doesn't change the fact that it's allowed on here. Drawn or not it's still just child porn. And I just think it shouldn't be available on here. That's literally the only thing that should be removed on here. And again this is just my opinion. It's just a opinion, didn't mean to piss anyone off or anything. Sorry if you took it that away. I was just concerned that child tags/drawlings are allowed on here and don't support child pornography WHAT'S SO EVER. Its something that shouldn't be on any website.

I do have to say, its funny how this post and the commentary has devolved and derailed whatever the poster intended. Assuming that they didn't do this as a grift, this was by far the easiest way to warrant clout by;

Getting people to say 'based' regardless if the artist would just as easily classify them as zoophiles given their sexual proclivities,

Have mods be in full damage control mode towards any evidence to the contrary that furries have truly kicked the stigma of zoophilia to the curbside,

Have the actual zoophiles on this post decry being ostracized as a result, both defeating whatever claims people made prior that their 'kind' is called out,

And people on here drawing semantical lines in the sand on what wierd shit they're into isn't 'actually' that,

All the while the poster reaps all the benefit of engagement without needing the effort to do so themselves. It's brilliant if not tragic that like moths to the flame, anyone needs any reason to justify their point of view, to get the last word.

idk what to say, but considering the comment section-
The last time I spoke out against pdo cub stuff i received so many warnings o.o
Warnings about my other comments aswell "No RPing with the drawings in the comments" when my comment was just "Yes, Daddy~~" which is not something you see rarely.
Idk it's weird but im glad im not in the minority here

Awesome but this site has the majority of them here mainly because of certain content that is kept up here which attracts them and influences their behaviour sadly

dubfub said:
Okay but like you can literally just look up child and get child porn. and Yes I do have young tags in my favorite but that's not the same as child tags. Also I wasn't saying that there's photo of children on here I was just saying that there's drawings of children on here. I completely understand that I could just Blacklist it but that still doesn't change the fact that it's allowed on here. Drawn or not it's still just child porn. And I just think it shouldn't be available on here. That's literally the only thing that should be removed on here. And again this is just my opinion. It's just a opinion, didn't mean to piss anyone off or anything. Sorry if you took it that away. I was just concerned that child tags/drawlings are allowed on here and don't support child pornography WHAT'S SO EVER. Its something that shouldn't be on any website.

If you want to talk yourself into a ban, please, keep going.
I don't care about the mental gymnastics you are doing to justify equating drawings to harm being done against real children.

goldcanines uploaded a banger, also cute style!

cinder said:
If you want to talk yourself into a ban, please, keep going.
I don't care about the mental gymnastics you are doing to justify equating drawings to harm being done against real children.

why did you call me a rapist in the neutral report? like did you respond to the wrong guy?

also you're the one doing the mental gymnastics lol, I also don't want to hear YOUR mental gymnastics on why cub and drawn child porn is ok. you know EXACTLY what it is. at least admit it and stop acting like you somehow have the moral high ground?

now I expect my account to get a negative mark or ban for "trolling" despite me not trolling, but whatever you disagree with me so i'm gonna get banned and get a ban message that is probably gonna be a snarky reddit tier one liner with plenty of self-righteousness to boot

its fine, not hard to make an alt. only made an account for blacklist anyways

Linosmelendi said:

oNg7AFdQ64FT said:

cntstk said:
I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

Don't really see what's wrong with feral if it's like a fictional species (ie Dragons). They're usually portrayed as having strong intelligence in their respective medias anyways.

poggers strawman. defend feral cat and dog feral its alot harder to not sound like a loli defender

booneman said:
why did you call me a rapist in the neutral report? like did you respond to the wrong guy?

also you're the one doing the mental gymnastics lol, I also don't want to hear YOUR mental gymnastics on why cub and drawn child porn is ok. you know EXACTLY what it is. at least admit it and stop acting like you somehow have the moral high ground?

now I expect my account to get a negative mark or ban for "trolling" despite me not trolling, but whatever you disagree with me so i'm gonna get banned and get a ban message that is probably gonna be a snarky reddit tier one liner with plenty of self-righteousness to boot

its fine, not hard to make an alt. only made an account for blacklist anyways

Assuming whats on Cinders bio is true you were arguing with a literal chat bot......and lost. I can only look on and laugh.

karn said:

• Correlation =/= Causation
• Fiction =/= Reality
• Feral =/= Zoophilia
• Cub =/= Pedophilia
• Incest (fiction) =/= Incest (reality)
• Gore =/= Murder
• Videogames =/= Violence
• Porn =/= Sex
• Romance =/= Love

If you condemn one, condemn them all. You can't claim one fiction to be valid to explore, while claiming that another is inherently tied to reality.
Art as we know it would not exist, was it for those who want to prevent thought and fantasy to flourish.

I'm very upset if my porn does not include sex and my videogame does not include violence, gonna play solitaire and jerk off watching wood working videos.. heh, woodworking.

user_238638 said:
non nsfw artist appears here with single and only picture literally just to make drama and work for mods
obvious

I noticed but this was still quite fun, spot on, we must prevent the wicked people fucking porcupines doggystyle.

Just gone put this out hear cuz all the rage i had a dog named big head he was...uhh a bully pit red nose...he would uhh get mad when i move my leg and tell him...NO!!!

It's all so tiresome.

karn said:

• Correlation =/= Causation
• Fiction =/= Reality
• Feral =/= Zoophilia
• Cub =/= Pedophilia
• Incest (fiction) =/= Incest (reality)
• Gore =/= Murder
• Videogames =/= Violence
• Porn =/= Sex
• Romance =/= Love

If you condemn one, condemn them all. You can't claim one fiction to be valid to explore, while claiming that another is inherently tied to reality.
Art as we know it would not exist, was it for those who want to prevent thought and fantasy to flourish.

...? Did you just imply that Romance isn't real?

xD

tacticusanguis said:
Yet the community regularly enables it and does nothing about the rampant degeneracy that plagues this community?

Except that's not true at all. Just because a lot of furries like to dress up in fursuits and do lewd things together doesn't mean they are on board with doing inappropriate things with animals. While I won't deny the fact there are some in the community who would do horrible things to animals, they would only be a small minority. The vast majority of the community isn't like that at all and are rather vocal about not wanting to be associated to those that would do such things.

deadcookie said:
furries having standards and not being attracted to anything that walks on all 4s? thats something new

Except the vast majority of furries aren't like that at all. We all have fantasies and desires and the majority of us know how to separate fantasy from reality. Making fictional art or having a romp in a fursuit is far different than committing actual inappropriate acts on real animals...and the majority of the furry community understands that. And most in the community are quick to express that they are strongly opposed to such things in a real physical nature.

lunarwabbit said:
Furry community be like
FUCK ZOOPHILES
Also furry community:
CUB IS NOT CHILD PORN, ITS JUST DRAWING DUDE!

Because there IS a big difference between fictional art and the real thing. The furry community is generally fine with having fun in fursuits and fictional art, even involving ferals. But they are rather opposed to those who actually commit such acts on real animals. Same with cub art. Cub art is vastly different from CP because one is of fictional characters that do not exist and the other is real.

I'm less concerned about people being unable to distinguish fiction and fantasy from reality than i am from people thinking that going through life completely incapable of controlling their urges, impulses and deviant inclinations is not only normal but an inevitable part of the human experience, to the point they think they're oppressed if it's not treated like everyone elses' problem that they violate social mores in the pursuit of fulfilling sexual fantasies.

Nobody whose' sexual expression involves doing something harmful to someone or something else is a legitimate interest group. Being fulfilled, accepted and validated isn't a right. Being free to express yourself about not liking such things is, and choosing as a society to declare things wrong and immoral is, like doing a lot of things depicted in porn in real life. Fetish art, be it furry or loli or noncon or what have you is not the same thing as real material depicting heinous acts, neither is it advocacy. People who feel like they need to go to bat for their a dysfunction need to get that they're in the same boat as people who want to ban drawings because they see no distinction.

blodhgarm92 said:
Except the vast majority of furries aren't like that at all. We all have fantasies and desires and the majority of us know how to separate fantasy from reality. Making fictional art or having a romp in a fursuit is far different than committing actual inappropriate acts on real animals...and the majority of the furry community understands that. And most in the community are quick to express that they are strongly opposed to such things in a real physical nature.

The majority of furries does not even suit, or have sonas, or even truly participate in community related anything, the majority are passive consumers that have interests that interject with anthros. The label in many cases serves less as a unifier and more as a forced consensus on what's acceptable which truly never really was agreed upon, a big reason why Furry drama has just been a fixture of this hobby's history.

Bro fuck politics
Fuck celebrity drama
Fuck youtube/streamer drama

E621 comments warzone is where it's at

i'm surprise it's even a warzone you'd think we'd all universally agree not to fuck animals

post #783982

For an admin to comment on a publication, the situation has to be really screwed up.

I didn't realize there were so many psychology experts on this animal porn website.

last said:
I didn't realize there were so many psychology experts on this animal porn website.

A lot of the furry community have astonishingly high profile occupations. Then there are the basement dwellers.

based

advarious said:
A lot of the furry community have astonishingly high profile occupations. Then there are the basement dwellers.

I remember reading somewhere that so many furries are employed in valuable tech jobs that if they disappeared overnight their would be chaos in pretty much every industry including world militaries.

I have read every comment In this post. Learned a few things. Still can't agree with the picture. It feels like one of those things that's only done to incite a flame war.

The only thing I came here for was to look at pfp's :3c. I don't care for internal furry drama, your politics bore me *sits on my throne of bepsi cans*

I've never done so much reading on a single comment section here in my entire life.

sty said:
Mods working overtime on this one

I call it community clean-up duty. This comment section is basically baiting out the whackos, so mods can pick them off.

teeny1050 said:
Bro fuck politics
Fuck celebrity drama
Fuck youtube/streamer drama

E621 comments warzone is where it's at

i'm surprise it's even a warzone you'd think we'd all universally agree not to fuck animals

post #783982

It's like a trainwreck, you just can't look away. I don't know why reading peoples' unhinged takes is so entertaining, but I guess it has a similar appeal as old-school reality-TV shows/freak-shows did.

last said:
I didn't realize there were so many psychology experts on this animal porn website.

I don't know if this was you intended implication, but please do not call furry porn "animal porn", as that already refers to something... abhorrent, and is certainly not the stuff furries enjoy (except for the fringe few that this very post is addressing).

zefora said:
The only thing I came here for was to look at pfp's :3c. I don't care for internal furry drama, your politics bore me *sits on my throne of bepsi cans*

Hope you found what you were looking for :3

pimpm4ster said:
I've never done so much reading on a single comment section here in my entire life.

They should start writing entire graduate-level text books in "e621 comments warzone" style, then we would all become scholars in no time

tanooki42 said:
Varka, the owner of this site is literally a zoophile.

I don't know why this got so many upvotes, I've looked into this claim a few months ago and I can fairly comfortably say that it's bullshit. this is just a thing people say to try to justify their dislike of BadDragon or e6 or other DragonFruit ventures and their staff, and people just hear this repeated on Twitter so often they assume it's true.

the closest I've been able to find linking Varka to anything close to these claims is that the person who bought out Varka's VPN start up way back went on to be arrested/charged for zoophilia-related crimes, and that a forum that Varka eventually became the webmaster of contained photos of reptiles having sex that were later purged, as far as I can tell Varka was never involved in this and might not have even been a member of the site when the photos were still up,

Isn’t that so wholesome keanu chungus?

On a serious note, it’s ridiculous that furries feel the need to go on and on about bestiality just to prove to others that they don’t fuck dogs. It’s incredible overcompensation, especially banning defending zoophiles because “what if someone sees? Then they’d judge our community.” It’s just spineless.

To go one step further, you know what else is spineless? Posting your opinions in a space where no one is allowed to disagree with you.

Help a newb out, what does 'zoophilia' mean in this context? From the comments, it seems like it means "has sex with, or advocates having sex with, actual living animals". Is that correct?

I ask because off hand I would have said that feral art and bestiality art were 'zoophilia', but that doesn't seem to be the case. Which is fine, I just want to make sure I understand the terminology.

aethelred said:
Help a newb out, what does 'zoophilia' mean in this context? From the comments, it seems like it means "has sex with, or advocates having sex with, actual living animals". Is that correct?

I ask because off hand I would have said that feral art and bestiality art were 'zoophilia', but that doesn't seem to be the case. Which is fine, I just want to make sure I understand the terminology.

Actual sex or referring to actual sexual contact or fantasies about animals or attractions toward actual animals is against the rules and is strictly enforced. Fictional art depicting human/ animal contact is not. Just don't comment what you'd do to/ with an animal or basically no creepy comments.

opinur said:
I'm very upset if my porn does not include sex and my videogame does not include violence, gonna play solitaire and jerk off watching wood working videos.. heh, woodworking.

dargrin~krei said:
...? Did you just imply that Romance isn't real?

Both of you didn't understand the first point of my message. Fiction IS NOT (that's what "=/=" signifies) reality.

• Porn IS NOT sex. Does it feature sex? Yes. Is porn a realistic representation of what sex is? Sometimes. Is the person watching porn having sex? No.
• Videogames ARE NOT violence. Do they feature violence? Yes. Is someone who plays videogames a violent person? Sometimes. Is anyone getting hurt in reality by you playing videogames? No.
• Romance IS NOT love. Does romance feature love? Yes. Is romance a realistic representation of what love is? Sometimes. Are you in a romantic relationship with the fiction? No.

A is not B. A can include B. B is not always A.

karn said:
Both of you didn't understand the first point of my message. Fiction IS NOT (that's what "=/=" signifies) reality.

• Porn IS NOT sex. Does it feature sex? Yes. Is porn a realistic representation of what sex is? Sometimes. Is the person watching porn having sex? No.
• Videogames ARE NOT violence. Do they feature violence? Yes. Is someone who plays videogames a violent person? Sometimes. Is anyone getting hurt in reality by you playing videogames? No.
• Romance IS NOT love. Does romance feature love? Yes. Is romance a realistic representation of what love is? Sometimes. Are you in a romantic relationship with the fiction? No.

A is not B. A can include B. B is not always A.

That was a joke... thought the xD made that clear... I wasn't disagreeing with the point or whatever of your comment. Just thought it was silly to add that to the list you was making... Stop taking things so serious mate.

Preach it brother(or sister).

youfinnadiebaby said:
On a serious note, it’s ridiculous that furries feel the need to go on and on about bestiality just to prove to others that they don’t fuck dogs. It’s incredible overcompensation, especially banning defending zoophiles because “what if someone sees? Then they’d judge our community.” It’s just spineless.

Not the point, there are actual people who aren't just defending it from a philosophical/hypothetical angle but from one where they want approval and support for actually doing it. They want to be open, practicing zoophiles and find other open, practicing zoophiles. That's not just some online disagreement, that's actual harm being done. No-platforming that shit isn't spineless, it's necessary.

xipeho said:
Not the point, there are actual people who aren't just defending it from a philosophical/hypothetical angle but from one where they want approval and support for actually doing it. They want to be open, practicing zoophiles and find other open, practicing zoophiles. That's not just some online disagreement, that's actual harm being done. No-platforming that shit isn't spineless, it's necessary.

This argument would be much more interesting if I could disagree, but my point was about furries complaining about zoophiles. The arguments always end with “and it makes us look bad.” They don’t think about morals or rights. They’re just stuck in the mindset that furries need wider acceptance.

Agreed and based

Youfinnadiebaby said:
This argument would be much more interesting if I could disagree, but my point was about furries complaining about zoophiles. The arguments always end with “and it makes us look bad.” They don’t think about morals or rights. They’re just stuck in the mindset that furries need wider acceptance.

It's both, isn't it? Either way, being vocal is important because how else are they gonna see that their behavior isn't wanted? You can call that "virtue-signaling" or whatever but that's hardly an empty gesture when there genuinely are zoophiles around that want to openly advertise themselves as such and normalize raping animals.

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

Darn.

I mean it's valid to tell that it's bad to harm animals in any way but I feel like they also use that fight to shame normal artists and people that enjoy non-humanoid art.

You can appreciate something entirely fictional while also condemning them when it's irl (although I can't recall that dragons actually exist).

Someone needs to make a video reading this comment section to classical music

ong7afdq64ft said:
Yep. Feral 530k posts, beastiality 70k

Just more hollow virtue signaling

lol if this is what passes for "trolling" nowadays, I must be getting old.

This comment section is crazy LMAO

The humor tag, lol...
_{I don't get it. Removing tag.}

youfinnadiebaby said:
On a serious note, it’s ridiculous that furries feel the need to go on and on about bestiality just to prove to others that they don’t fuck dogs. It’s incredible overcompensation, especially banning defending zoophiles because “what if someone sees? Then they’d judge our community.” It’s just spineless.

To go one step further, you know what else is spineless? Posting your opinions in a space where no one is allowed to disagree with you.

What a wacky take. Every single sentence is factually incorrect.
I don't think that you are understand what "virtue signaling" is, actually.

You appear to believe that "doing something because it's the right thing to do" is always disingenuous and is the result of caving in to public pressure. The idea that not having people debate the morality of being attracted to the family dog makes for a more relaxed and welcoming community does not even cross your mind. It's not terribly different from other extreme topics, really.

Actually, are you a zoophile yourself?
I promise that I won't ban you for answering honestly.

This fight has been going for 7 DAYS. How hard is it for people to realize ZOO’s are bad and Feral NSFW does NOT equal real life beastiality.

The only good kind of zoo are the ones that are a location where you can see many kinds of animals,
any other type of zoo can go to hell

FUCK ZOOPHILES and FUCK ZOOSADISTS

Edit: to clarify, this is just a joke statement, since the shorthand for Zoophillia is Zoo and a Zoo is a place were people go to see animals as a form of entertainment. I dont support Zoophilla nor Zoosadism for that matter; all of em can burn (metaphorically speaking; I don't condone harming others, regardless if it's warranted in some people's eyes)

randomdoggo said:
The only good kind of zoo are the ones that are a location where you can see many kinds of animals,
any other type of zoo can [Get your free ticket to Hell today]

FUCK ZOOPHILES and FUCK ZOOSADISTS

Don't send all the zoos to Hell. I don't feel like dealing with them when I get there... unless there's a different Hell specifically for them. Don't send them to regular Hell though I don't want to meet them when I get down there

burneraccount9382 said:
This fight has been going for 7 DAYS. How hard is it for people to realize ZOO’s are bad and Feral NSFW does NOT equal real life beastiality.

There's posts on here with arguments spanning several YEARS. They'll never stop. Yes Feral=/=Zoo same as Cub=/=pedo but people will continue arguing until the age of man expires.
They'll use all kinds of crazy jargon and circular logic during these incoherent rants, too. It's crazy, man.

animal cartoons are sexy but not real ones beside the rape factor they stink and carry many diseases
post #4010438

why is inflammatory content like this approved by the site?
"Fuck ____ YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE" is not a nice phrase.
Even if you're going to be biased, could you at least be courteous?

asexualanaconda said:
Well that's rude. I need SOMEWHERE to store these files and the Zoo just happens to be a block away :/

that's a good one lol

I wonder ehat it is about new age political correctiveness that makes people not agree with slmething just because it isnt treating a group as delicate as glass. Like there are people here that disagree and think this post is horrible just because it uses harsh language and shows burning flags. In their minds, they dont agree with the message because people who fuck and rape live animals aren't being treated nicely. Blows my mind how we have to treat people with so much kindness, even when its not deserved.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
Don't send all the zoos to Hell. I don't feel like dealing with them when I get there... unless there's a different Hell specifically for them. Don't send them to regular Hell though I don't want to meet them when I get down there

there's probably a special place in hell for em. if your are familiar with Dante's Inferno and the 9 circles of hell

cinder said:
What a wacky take. Every single sentence is factually incorrect.
I don't think that you are understand what "virtue signaling" is, actually.

You appear to believe that "doing something because it's the right thing to do" is always disingenuous and is the result of caving in to public pressure. The idea that not having people debate the morality of being attracted to the family dog makes for a more relaxed and welcoming community does not even cross your mind. It's not terribly different from other extreme topics, really.

Actually, are you a zoophile yourself?
I promise that I won't ban you for answering honestly.

Now hang on a minute: Just because one sniper isn't aiming down sights doesn't mean the whole nest isn't watching for the flag to fly. You may not ban him, but there's more than your hammer that's ready to swing!

Earth-shatteringly Based.

A-are you saying a cat isn't fine too? 😟

post #4158731

cntstk said:
I can find a post like this sort of a weak gesture when the majority of people on this site love feral porn or animals who can only speak their name, which is broaching on zoophilia in general.

There's a difference between wanting to fuck an animal made entirely of pixels on the internet that someone DREW, versus a *real life animal*

thatoneguyoverthere said:
Inb4 someone tries defending zoophilia and gets banned

Only thing I'll defend about them is that we should be treating them for mental health issues just like any other mental illness, rather than just fucking kill them like some people say, alot of people just want to feel superior to others and dont care if someone can be rehabilitated or not, there's a reason prisons are *supposed* to be fixing peoples issues so they can actually contribute to society, though they dont tend to

ferretafan420 said:
Not really. Feral porn isn't real. Same with cub porn. At worst it's a safe way for zoos and pedos (respectively) to vent their sexual disorder, at best it's just a thing to jack off to.

I know several people who used it as a coping mechanism before getting real help from actual psychological professionals, it's a much MUCH healthier way to vent this stuff

cx_10908 said:
that just makes the addiction worse. the best thing is to just stop, not to make fictional shit out of it. hearing "its a safe way for zoos/pedos to vent theyre sexual disorder" is like hearing the phrase "its just a vape, i can quit whenever i want" coming from a vape addicted 40 year old

I mean, not really. When I was 8 I was exposed to sex in a very unfortunate way. My brain decided that the way to cope with that was to imagine everything fucked everything else. Obviously that is not the case, and I'm now a happily married person who doesn't see REAL existing things in any sort of a sexual manner, but fantasy is another thing entirely. At no point would I do anything with anyone but my wife, but again images and videos of fake creatures fucking, snuffing, or getting into a happy marriage is just a fabrication of someone's mind that doesn't hurt anyone.

It's really a simple concept, if it breathes and has its own thoughts and feelings, if it is someone you have any amount of power over, or just simply can't give repeated consent from a fully developed human brain, you keep your hands to your self and think whatever you want. But don't you dare touch them.

cinder said:
What a wacky take. Every single sentence is factually incorrect.
I don't think that you are understand what "virtue signaling" is, actually.

You appear to believe that "doing something because it's the right thing to do" is always disingenuous and is the result of caving in to public pressure. The idea that not having people debate the morality of being attracted to the family dog makes for a more relaxed and welcoming community does not even cross your mind. It's not terribly different from other extreme topics, really.

Actually, are you a zoophile yourself?
I promise that I won't ban you for answering honestly.

I am not a zoophile. I am often called one in arguments.

I didn’t call it virtue signaling. If I were to connect an internet buzzword to it, I’d say “pickme furry.”

Allowing content like this is allowing people to debate. It’s just allowing one side to do so. I mean, look how toxic this discussion has become.

Saying “zoophilia isn’t wrong” is nothing like other extreme beliefs. Racism is fundamentally against most people’s* moral principles, but most people are into the concept of rights, so zoophilia can’t just be wrong devoid of whether or not it causes harm. That means it’s something to be debated rather than pure evil. It’s kinda similar to how certain mod teams ban any case of people defending cops or ban anyone who doesn’t believe in the greatness of free market capitalism. Essentially, zoophilia is more like communism than fascism, and there’s a reason the latter is more hated.

*here I’m assuming the admin team holds a secular worldview. It’s technically possible that they are fundamentalist christians, but for some reason I doubt that. At the very least it’s the worldview I hold.

xipeho said:
It's both, isn't it? Either way, being vocal is important because how else are they gonna see that their behavior isn't wanted? You can call that "virtue-signaling" or whatever but that's hardly an empty gesture when there genuinely are zoophiles around that want to openly advertise themselves as such and normalize raping animals.

Zoosadism is much rarer than zoophilia, and I guarantee zoophiles already know their behavior isn’t wanted.

youfinnadiebaby said:
I am not a zoophile. I am often called one in arguments.

I didn’t call it virtue signaling. If I were to connect an internet buzzword to it, I’d say “pickme furry.”

Allowing content like this is allowing people to debate. It’s just allowing one side to do so. I mean, look how toxic this discussion has become.

Saying “zoophilia isn’t wrong” is nothing like other extreme beliefs. Racism is fundamentally against most people’s* moral principles, but most people are into the concept of rights, so zoophilia can’t just be wrong devoid of whether or not it causes harm. That means it’s something to be debated rather than pure evil. It’s kinda similar to how certain mod teams ban any case of people defending cops or ban anyone who doesn’t believe in the greatness of free market capitalism. Essentially, zoophilia is more like communism than fascism, and there’s a reason the latter is more hated.

*here I’m assuming the admin team holds a secular worldview. It’s technically possible that they are fundamentalist christians, but for some reason I doubt that. At the very least it’s the worldview I hold.

-and it gotcha, Dood.

The effects of a Pitcher Plant first hand.
Pretty brutal, Dood.

The post is the nectar luring in users,
In a way taunting them into engaging
until they slip into the pool of-

It's great for the ecosystem, Filtering users that are more
likely to start stuff down the line by letting them all flock
to one post and handling 'em there but it's still pretty brutal
to see firsthand, Dood.

'Finna,
The best way to deal is not to engage in the first place.
It's not a battle to be won but, a trap to be felled for, Dood.
=P

Having the urges is OK but the only time you should be accepted in this community if you have them is if you keep your pants on and get therapy specifically to keep it that way. Offenders WILL be removed like the tumors they are to the community

notkastar said:
(Snipping all this, "Dood")

Unless you will LITERALLY explode if someone assists in your movement with a parabolic trajectory, there's minimal need to talk like a combustible penguin demon.

n0m-n0m-n0m said:
Having the urges is OK but the only time you should be accepted in this community if you have them is if you keep your pants on and get therapy specifically to keep it that way. Offenders WILL be removed like the tumors they are to the community

Honestly, even just having the urges is grounds for being ostracized. It's this simple;

Don't say it. Don't support it. Don't do it.

notkastar said:
-and it gotcha, Dood.

The effects of a Pitcher Plant first hand.
Pretty brutal, Dood.

The post is the nectar luring in users,
In a way taunting them into engaging
until they slip into the pool of-

Disruptive Behaviors™️

e621 is an open and friendly community that people visit to share and enjoy furry artwork.
People can have different opinions, but that does not give them permission to make someone else feel uncomfortable or unwanted.

Do not make messages with the apparent purpose of upsetting someone. That includes picking fights, baiting arguments, calling names, or making remarks regarding personal grievances, quarrels, or malicious rumors.

• Do not purposefully or repeatedly spread false or defamatory information.
• Do not mention any actions of suicide, self harm / mutilation, depression-induced pain, or other malicious acts directed towards the self.
• Do not encourage others to engage in harmful behaviors, including suicide, eating disorders, or other forms of self harm.
• Do not give others medical or legal advice that could result in harm coming to themselves or others.
• Do not promote ideologies that are harmful to public safety.
• Do not brag about saving DNP or pirated material, and do not encourage others to do so.
• Do not maliciously impersonate any individuals or organizations.
• Do not demand that certain administrative actions be taken against another user. Do not claim personal influence over staff decisions.
• Do not disobey any direct instructions made by staff members.

Extreme Activities or Contents™️

• Do not upload or link to real-life material featuring animal genitalia or animals in sexual situations.
• Do not express or indicate any degree of attraction to real-life minors or animals.
• Do not link to any content featuring or referring to extreme real-life violence or violent sexual activities.
• Do not discuss the details, morality, or attraction towards any of the aforementioned subjects.

It's great for the ecosystem, Filtering users that are more
likely to start stuff down the line by letting them all flock
to one post and handling 'em there but it's still pretty brutal
to see firsthand, Dood.

'Finna,
The best way to deal is not to engage in the first place.
It's not a battle to be won but, a trap to be felled for, Dood.
=P

This post is, in fact, “discussing the details, morality, or attraction towards any of the aforementioned subjects.” And the mods so far haven’t done anything but tell people to please stop talking about it. I don’t think they will.

I am being extremely careful not to offend anyone, so I’m not falling for a “trap.” The creator of this image doesn’t appear to be intelligent enough to set traps. She’s like 15. Finally, I wasn’t going to talk about it until I saw this post, which is another reason not to post this kinda stuff. It only invites arguments people are not ready for.

zastdiedforoursins said:
Well now I think the poster or artist is a zoophile. Its almost always that way. The guys crying about some degeneracy publicly are almost always the ones into or doing that stuff just aswell. I won't go into theorizing why it is just what happens.

No just no you are very wrong Mr/Ms/Mrs Zastdiedforoursins

advarious said:
"Unless you will LITERALLY explode if someone assists in your movement with a parabolic trajectory"

'No clue what you mean, Me?
An Explosive? Hahaha!
◠‿◠)~★

Haha. ha. ah...

-I'll get going now, Sorry to bug you fine peeps, Dood
╹‿╹;)

neonserpent said:
Speaking about pedophilia, I will tell you one very unpleasant thing - now pedophilia is used as a tool of manipulation... And it is very similar to how “witchcraft” and “devil worship” were used in the Middle Ages

C’mon my guy. This is not an excuse.
« You are a Nazi » is also commonly used, and I’d say it isn’t often pertinent, but that doesn’t make Nazis good, like what is that backwards logic seriously ?
Yeah alright, people get called pedophiles when they aren’t, and that’s not good at all, but it’s not going to make me empathize with the actual pedophiles.

This argument doesn’t have anything to do here.
Keep it for discussion where people are untruthfully accused of being pedophiles, you’ll give yourself a service.

amazinky said:

I sometimes wonder what bait tastes like. And then I remember the rest of this entire comment thread and go "Oh, right, it tastes like a headache."

advarious said:
Honestly, even just having the urges is grounds for being ostracized. It's this simple;

Don't say it. Don't support it. Don't do it.

Pedophila and zoophila are mental disorders and the best way to deal with them is therapy, people won't go to therapy to deal with them if we blanket ostracize them without putting in resources to minimise harm so we don't have to put more in to fix the damage caused if offences happen. There should be safe spaces for them in our community, that being therapists offices and groups that encourage people to go to them and not offend if they have the urges, if it encourages offending or discourages getting help it shouldn't be accepted and removed as cleanly as possible with all due haste. That way the monsters who offend can be caught quicker and more effectively

n0m-n0m-n0m said:
Pedophila and zoophila are mental disorders and the best way to deal with them is therapy, people won't go to therapy to deal with them if we blanket ostracize them without putting in resources to minimise harm so we don't have to put more in to fix the damage caused if offences happen. There should be safe spaces for them in our community, that being therapists offices and groups that encourage people to go to them and not offend if they have the urges, if it encourages offending or discourages getting help it shouldn't be accepted and removed as cleanly as possible with all due haste. That way the monsters who offend can be caught quicker and more effectively

That's not what I'm saying. You can seek therapy privately. Nobody needs to know your personal problems.

Consider this scenario; What does someone get from saying "I'M HAVING URGES TO FUCK MY DOG", instead of simply just...Seeking help? Attention. And if that's what it's going to take to consider taking care of your psychological issues, then clearly you don't care enough on your own to sort them out without having to let the entire fucking world know.

Comment

Whew, this comment section is a goldmine. Reading chaotic war-torn e621 comments is a guilty pleasure of mine and never fails to make me grin like an idiot

i cant speak for all laws and countries, but anyone here from the US would be a hypocrite. if our beloved fursonas were real, we would ALL be categorized as beastliest. as part of the description is sex with a non-human vertebrate. so even if aliens showed up, obviously more advanced then us, and someone went full kirk, boom, bestiality. not saying that zoo should be part of the furry fandom, same as human trans art (no way to say this without sounding bad), its not furry, we have trans who are furries, just like there will be zoo who are furry. not exclusive, but there sure is overlap.

Scrolling through this comment section is like jumping down some random hole in the middle of the woods with flashlights strapped to your feet. You're never gonna know what you'll find, or where it ends. Anyways, based.

wragon said:
i cant speak for all laws and countries, but anyone here from the US would be a hypocrite. if our beloved fursonas were real, we would ALL be categorized as beastliest. as part of the description is sex with a non-human vertebrate. so even if aliens showed up, obviously more advanced then us, and someone went full kirk, boom, bestiality. not saying that zoo should be part of the furry fandom, same as human trans art (no way to say this without sounding bad), its not furry, we have trans who are furries, just like there will be zoo who are furry. not exclusive, but there sure is overlap.

The difference between the art and IRL is that if out OC's exited they could consent but pets are unable to consent in the legal/moral way as they don't have the intelligence where it needs to be for it to happen between us and animals

advarious said:

If we ensure that people who get those urges and intrusive thoughts that they can't control if they have get the tools to beat them back into the void, monsters who have given into them can't manipulate them with a community that initially seems like help but instead profits off animal abuse. I hope I didn't have to say this but we should reduce animal abuse in a way that works and defanging talking points that are used against us by conservatives to hurt the queer community as a whole via stochastic terrorism helps too. If people think that if they bring up an issue that they will be harmed even though they make it clear they're looking for help then they won't have the confidence to speak out and be vulnerable in private let alone in public. That makes them easy to manipulate as there's no support network to ensure they keep on the strait and narrow while keeping accountable for their actions they can control

n0m-n0m-n0m said:
If we ensure that people who get those urges and intrusive thoughts that they can't control if they have get the tools to beat them back into the void, monsters who have given into them can't manipulate them with a community that initially seems like help but instead profits off animal abuse. I hope I didn't have to say this but we should reduce animal abuse in a way that works and defanging talking points that are used against us by conservatives to hurt the queer community as a whole via stochastic terrorism helps too. If people think that if they bring up an issue that they will be harmed even though they make it clear they're looking for help then they won't have the confidence to speak out and be vulnerable in private let alone in public. That makes them easy to manipulate as there's no support network to ensure they keep on the strait and narrow while keeping accountable for their actions they can control

yes, and allowing imagery that is hostile kind of defeats the purpose. (looking back i noticed the rest i put was a week argument so i will leave it to this.)

widecangang said:
post #1953542

raiinbow_dash said:
post #4158731

I am just going to get me some popcorn and maybe a fancy dinner you can get from one of those luxury movie theaters. You know, the ones that serves a cheeseburger with flame melted Cheddar and Bree on top of a fancy bun? This will be entertaining.

idkwhattocallme said:
I thought based was like a bad term, but I looked it up. This post is very based. Also, new pfp

very true.

22 days! Give it up for 22 days! People have been arguing for 22 days straight!

Does someone know how many comments are on this post?

miceteaenjoyer said:
Does someone know how many comments are on this post?

338

neoxthegamer said:
Someone needs to make a video reading this comment section to classical music

Bet. The trick is finding a piece long enough to read all the comments and subdued enough it doesn't distract from the narration. But I'm in for teh lulz. It will give me an opportunity to practice my audiobook narrator voice XD

This comment section is a fever dream.

miceteaenjoyer said:
Does someone know how many comments are on this post?

Three hundred and forty-two.

cinder said:
Three hundred and forty-two.

Lemme just interject with an somewhat obscure videogame reference by being guilty of taking comment slot 343. Feel free to have that spark another moment of hatred in an already seething cesspool.
It's a Halo reference, people. Come on.

you know, always found it funny that zoophilia and beastiality are 2 separate things split between a very thin line that boils down to if the anima is real or fake and i gotta say as a member of the LGBTQ community zoophiles will never be LGBTQ and they certainly dont deserve a pride flag as they shouldnt take pride in what they do

Friendly fire will not be tolerated

This is the most active and subject focused comment section I've seen in ages. Quick, somebody go into way too much detail about something creepy they want to do to the character or type out a cringe role play... it feels strange in here

disco_dog said:
This is the most active and subject focused comment section I've seen in ages. Quick, somebody go into way too much detail about something creepy they want to do to the character or type out a cringe role play... it feels strange in here

Nice try, but I'm trying not to get another record smh

I wonder how many people have had warns, records or bans.

On a site where pictures elevate interspecific relations better than any words, an admin appears and threatens to ban those who dare to defend the position of zoophiles. What is the level of post-irony?

Huzzah! Finally!

salty145 said:
She's in her 20s but I completely agree. The Twitter "Hot Takes" with little room for nuance has seeped into the subculture, though not exclusively with gen Z and not every gen Z.

I've seen my own generation go out into the world with best of intentions and rigid ideals that don't align with reality, then have hard learning experiences that gave (most of) us a sense of how complicated the world is and better ability to handle it. I've also talked with people of my parent's and grandparent's generations, and they've described the same pattern. Broadly speaking, people grow out of it.

This post on a site with 10s of thousands of "bestiality" tag posts
💀💀💀💀

tanooki42 said:
Varka, the owner of this site is literally a zoophile.

Real shit? Damn Varka, what the hell man?

mytrycy said:
you're wasting your time making this

I hope you get a splinter under your fingernail that breaks up into little pieces when you try to pull it out

"That may be so but do you condemn Hamas?"

I'm impressed this discussion is still alive...

youfinnadiebaby said:
Zoosadism is much rarer than zoophilia, and I guarantee zoophiles already know their behavior isn’t wanted.

well, on logically... what they must do if they not wanted be spotted?
spoiler: in psychiatry this called a “socially approved position/behavior”
(textbook: Radaginsky A.E. "psychology of crimes" 1987. Chapter 9: "Types of offenders Social Interaction")

n0m-n0m-n0m said:
Pedophila and zoophila are mental disorders and the best way to deal with them is therapy, people won't go to therapy to deal with them if we blanket ostracize them without putting in resources to minimise harm so we don't have to put more in to fix the damage caused if offences happen. There should be safe spaces for them in our community, that being therapists offices and groups that encourage people to go to them and not offend if they have the urges, if it encourages offending or discourages getting help it shouldn't be accepted and removed as cleanly as possible with all due haste. That way the monsters who offend can be caught quicker and more effectively

You are right, but not so simple.

amazinky said:
C’mon my guy. This is not an excuse.
« You are a Nazi » is also commonly used, and I’d say it isn’t often pertinent, but that doesn’t make Nazis good, like what is that backwards logic seriously ?
Yeah alright, people get called pedophiles when they aren’t, and that’s not good at all, but it’s not going to make me empathize with the actual pedophiles.

This argument doesn’t have anything to do here.
Keep it for discussion where people are untruthfully accused of being pedophiles, you’ll give yourself a service.

How quickly u understand called pedophile is real criminal, but not are framed and falsely accused?
im sure youll be blinded by emotions and will not look in small details. And more, you will want to kill a called pedophile for “moral justice”.
For example, let's take the situation with the inquisitor3 Ghost. He was driven to suicide for a fame (like Alice Sebold do) and let's change some details. let's we replace "fame" with "personal enmity", revenge, material/property values, competition, or possession of private information about "dirty deeds". And replace suicide with murder, contract killing, extortion, and so on. There are many options and motives, but their success is based on the stupidity of society. (maybe this is too harsh name, but it is most appropriate)
Please answer, how many people must be destroyed to understand the situation and essence of this problem?

About real pedophiles and gebephiles (attracted to age 13-16 years) there need to look on his motives, what they do, how they do, and what they doing after crime. If they didn't commit hard rape, bloodbath, or something else violence and his motives based on mental problems, then, at my opinion, they must be sent for compulsory treatment and work in order to compensate for the damage caused. But if the someone who use his power or crazy rapist, who doing it because he /she can and just like this then it would be more rational to disassemble them into organs.

Maybe someone will think that I'm some crazy or something like that, and you can downvote or delete my comment. However, no need to be a russian lawyer like me, to understand two things - justice cant resurrect the dead, and the truth does not appear immediately

I'm back to report on my failure at trying to find a piece of classical music to read this thread to. Literally, I have tried reading this to the entirety of a number of different operas, symphonies, etc. including Dvorak's New World Symphony, Orff's Carmina Burana, Wagner's Ring saga, and it always ends before I finish reading. Damn. And I really wanted to work my audiobook narrator voice.

I have literally devoted hours of my life to attempting something someone suggested AS A JOKE.

I haven't got a lot going on. At least I got to listen to some good music XD

abathtubfullofotters said:
I'm back to report on my failure at trying to find a piece of classical music to read this thread to. Literally, I have tried reading this to the entirety of a number of different operas, symphonies, etc. including Dvorak's New World Symphony, Orff's Carmina Burana, Wagner's Ring saga, and it always ends before I finish reading. Damn. And I really wanted to work my audiobook narrator voice.

I gotchu fam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYxOjLCCoM

xipeho said:
I gotchu fam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYxOjLCCoM

I was going for more of a solemn vibe, but I see how wacky music would complement a lot of this thread X3

Based.

You guys literally jerk off to animal porn all day, how are you going to be "against zoophiles"? What's based is promoting fictional outlets and art for all tastes, in order to avoid causing further harm to victims of abuse and to paraphiles themselves, as they are still human too.

"hate speech bad, but only if its against me" - everyone on social media

everythings taken too seriusly, keep seeing people banned for saying the funniest shit, and funny comedy people are becoming more "safe"
wish things were like ye olden times, where you could say literly anything and noone gave a shit. now everythings personal :<. no funnies anymore

You know what, I just realized something. If I arrange it right and assuming I can find the audio files, I can chain together a compelling concerto of the Merrie Melodies pieces that were used on old Looney Tunes episodes. It'd be a mix of wacky music for the more ridiculous arguments, somber tones for the more thought provoking ones, triumphant crescendos where they meet and strategic womp-womp-womp-woooomp! trombone for every time I read 'User was banned for the contents of this message." Play it at about 30-40% volume while I narrate...shit, I know this project was suggested as a joke but the more I think of it the more hilarious it seems XD

Holy shit what a ride the comment section is. Marvelous stuff, internet.

abathtubfullofotters said:
You know what, I just realized something. If I arrange it right and assuming I can find the audio files, I can chain together a compelling concerto of the Merrie Melodies pieces that were used on old Looney Tunes episodes. It'd be a mix of wacky music for the more ridiculous arguments, somber tones for the more thought provoking ones, triumphant crescendos where they meet and strategic womp-womp-womp-woooomp! trombone for every time I read 'User was banned for the contents of this message." Play it at about 30-40% volume while I narrate...shit, I know this project was suggested as a joke but the more I think of it the more hilarious it seems XD

I believe in you.

zanazoth said:
I believe in you.

Ooh, that's a very bad idea, I can't recommend it XD

Also I just heard for the first time what my voice sounds like when I record it with my phone. Yikes. I sound like Chumlee from Pawn Stars with a deeper baritone on this mic and it's all I have to record with.

lunarwabbit said:
Furry community be like
FUCK ZOOPHILES
Also furry community:
CUB IS NOT CHILD PORN, ITS JUST DRAWING DUDE!

Lol

teeny1050 said:
Bro fuck politics
Fuck celebrity drama
Fuck youtube/streamer drama

E621 comments warzone is where it's at

i'm surprise it's even a warzone you'd think we'd all universally agree not to fuck animals

post #783982

To quote senator Armstrong fuck this 24/7 spew of celebrity and internet bulkshit

oi. you. you scrolled this far. good job. here, have a digital cookie
🍪

Zoophiles along with pedos should be shot dead.

Reading these comments is like watching a montage of car crashes set to circus music. Stay golden, E621.

There is literally a shitstorm raging under this post.

Well I'll be damned. Guess I underestimated this website. I'm kinda proud of this community.

This is still going?

Wtf e621 member not being a degenerate?

vin-vin said:
Well I'll be damned. Guess I underestimated this website. I'm kinda proud of this community.

You have 4 pages of favourites this artist actively calls you a zoophile for. (feral nsfw or any kind of animal genitalia)
I wish people would notice when the message they're boosting hates them.

I do apologize if this is not agreed upon but I find all these comments comedic

kadachi-kun said:
Oh hey, fun fact!
The artist hates feral NSFW art, everyone who makes it, and anyone who doesn't explicitly condemn it.
So if you like lewd ferals, calling this "based" doesn't change the fact that they despise you and want nothing to do with you.

Yeesh .. I get that about loli or cub or whatever (not saying those are bad, just mentioning a common opinion), but they are .. Way too aggressive about that. Yeah zoophiles suck but the disconnect between that and feral art is immense.

idkwhattocallme said:
U should do one with the same zoo pride in the right hand, but the left one should be the MAP flag, cus fuck chomos

neonserpent said:
brave claim...
But... One of the main principles of serial maniacs is to publicly show themselves as their opposite.
And how do I know that real evil is not hiding behind the “good mask”?

Bro okay Sherlock 💀

magnuseffect said:
You have 4 pages of favourites this artist actively calls you a zoophile for. (feral nsfw or any kind of animal genitalia)
I wish people would notice when the message they're boosting hates them.

Ok? I'm still not gonna fuck an animal.

I use to think drawing porn was selling out. now i see, political cold takes are the way to go.
all you actually want is to make some generically agreeable statement, jacking yourself off over how "brave" you are well ppl flock in the thousands to join you. its vapid and fake.

ya fuck zoophiles. any other gems for us? what next you will tell me killing ppl is bad? gunna, take a hard line stance against rape?
If anything you will make sure anyone who is afflicted by these thoughts will now know: no one will help you, there is a witch hunt on and you will be burned at the stake.

you dont care about zoophiles, its just a name for your witch hunt. and tomorrow, it can turn on you. hell it likely will.

sanestvaporeonfan said:
People saying that this is hollow virtue signaling that doesn't address the problems with the furry community... what do you expect the artist to do about it? drive all the zoophiles from the furry fandom themselves? at the very least, making art like this causes those people to realize that they aren't welcome. using the small platform they have as an artist to spread a message is the most they can realistically do.

hear your the first person i saw address this.

so it reminded me of in-sels, lets take this fucked up group, push them out of every social platform, hide them, and... ya problem solved. we dont have to see it!
if you're message to someone with a problem, is that everyone is baying for there blood, what dose that solve. no one is getting helped, ever.

based

Holy crap. Important post! What I say here could impact the community!(It won't.)

balls.

I remember making a point that discussing politics in comments is against site rules.
Yet political art isn't.

"Some person" said:
I thought it says „no posting political stuff“ in the code of conduct? 🤔

Maybe that should change...

spensor_spensor said:
how dare you?! literally 1984.

See that remark? That's straight-up illegal. You're saying is that telling people to not fuck animals—a completely normal thing to tell people—is oppression? That's beyond the point fucked up. I'm not political or religious, but most religious texts go against zoophilia. One Bible quote against it goes like this:

"If a man has sexual relations with an animal, the man shall be put to death, and you shall kill the animal."
–Leviticus 20:15

eightynine said:
based

i was searching for the most downvoted post and saw your comment, ten years ago, you are so loyal to this site

thatonerandomdog said:
I hate the fact there are people here actively defending zoophilia and making excuses why they should masturbate to art of animals and children. Based post though

I love the fact there are people here actively attacking zoo art while not understanding that people can view their favorites list.

50+% of the people here saying "based" to this post have pages of feral and/or cub art on their favorites list.

I don't really care what people view online, just don't do it IRL, that's F***ed up. Hypocrisy though is rather funny ^_^.

Good god, now this is a comment section

Well, those condeming feral art CLEARLY must hate the forced tag, right? Otherwise, that'd make them rapists, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said, but fiction =/= reality.

derpydeer said:
They should start writing entire graduate-level text books in "e621 comments warzone" style, then we would all become scholars in no time

Unironically the next billion dollar youtube idea: Reformat massive historical conflicts as forum drama. Historical literacy skyrockets.

Hell, Centurii is doing her part by waifuing historical cultures.

ferretafan420 said:
Not really. Feral porn isn't real. Same with cub porn. At worst it's a safe way for zoos and pedos (respectively) to vent their sexual disorder, at best it's just a thing to jack off to.

at worse it's a great way to slowly create pedophiles, actually.
Blah blah blah science schmience. At least it's automatically blacklisted.

Finally, some basic decency!

magnuseffect said:
You have 4 pages of favourites this artist actively calls you a zoophile for. (feral nsfw or any kind of animal genitalia)
I wish people would notice when the message they're boosting hates them.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions... They think they are actually fighting irl bestiality by wanting to ban drawn genitalia...

And I'm the kind of guy who isn't even that much of a fan of equine and knotted dicks in general .

Reading through all this and seeing this warzone of hatred, grief, bans and warning just made me smile lol. Probably the best comment section I have seen in the whole website

Look at that, all three parts of "Welcome To The Internet" are in this comment section! Happy, Horny, and Bursting With Rage! You'd think there's a million different ways to engage.

Anyway, back to the original post.. now where did I leave that PNG of Tohru Adachi saying "True"?

holy shit, I actually made it to the end of the comments. Cross my fingers my employer isn't mad about all the time I wasted doing so.

Nothing else to see here, carry on.

Why is there such thing as hate_art tag? Shouldn't such content be bannable?

noted, don't ever read these comments again

They..they have their own flag? Oh HELL NAW, get these mfs outta here.

This is factual

cinder said:
https://e621.net/user_feedbacks?search[body_matches]=*zoo*
Dunno what else to tell you.