The image is there because that article references the Harkness Test, which initiated with:
Fans of furry pornography commonly distinguish it from zoophilia or bestiality, emphasizing that their interest is toward fictional characters depicted as sapient beings with human-like traits rather than real animals.
It’s more about “could give consent”.
Fictional creatures can never give consent for real (because they’re fictional) and we cannot know if they would if they were real.
Yes, but that’s not how sexual fantasies work. There are probably few people who only masturbate to real people, who gave them permission to masturbate to them.
You’re not wrong but that’s still the part I’m not a huge fan of. I think the moment we start arguing whether something is okay based on if a fictional creature would be sapient enough to give consent or not, we’re in a bit dangerous waters because that same train of thought is used by real life animal abusers: “My dog is so intelligent, I can communicate with it and it’s sexually mature. Obviously it would give consent if it could speak.”
That’s why I personally think the better way to look at it is to draw a clear line between reality and fiction and just treat fiction as fiction where none of this matters.
Also, wanna make it clear I’m not trying to invalidate how anyone personally looks at this matter. Just pointing out the flaw in the logic if trying to “justify” furry porn with “tests” like this.
we’re in a bit dangerous waters because that same train of thought is used by real life animal abusers: “My dog is so intelligent, I can communicate with it and it’s sexually mature. Obviously it would give consent if it could speak.”
No. It would still need to give explicit consent if it were real.
But yes, I think everything should be allowed in fiction.
.png){kind=link}
The image is there because that article references the Harkness Test, which initiated with:
It’s more about “could give consent”.
Yes, but that’s not how sexual fantasies work. There are probably few people who only masturbate to real people, who gave them permission to masturbate to them.
You’re not wrong but that’s still the part I’m not a huge fan of. I think the moment we start arguing whether something is okay based on if a fictional creature would be sapient enough to give consent or not, we’re in a bit dangerous waters because that same train of thought is used by real life animal abusers: “My dog is so intelligent, I can communicate with it and it’s sexually mature. Obviously it would give consent if it could speak.”
That’s why I personally think the better way to look at it is to draw a clear line between reality and fiction and just treat fiction as fiction where none of this matters.
Also, wanna make it clear I’m not trying to invalidate how anyone personally looks at this matter. Just pointing out the flaw in the logic if trying to “justify” furry porn with “tests” like this.
No. It would still need to give explicit consent if it were real.
But yes, I think everything should be allowed in fiction.