I’m not taking about flat out porn, just the sexualized images. Panty shots of characters clearly drawn to look like children, anthropomorphized animals with huge human breasts, etc.
Would you subscribe to the idea that playing violent video games, listening to heavy metal or watching violent movies makes people engage in violence?
No reasonable person does. However sexual attraction is a thing that very definitely can be influenced and change over time. If you go through your teen years where your biochemistry is pushing you towards sex and you see lots of sexualized animation or furry art then you’re going to end up much more likely drawn to that than if it’s something you never see until you’re in your 30s.
If you spend 10 years only able to access one specific niche of porn that you don’t like and you ‘make do’ with it, by the end of that time it might be the thing you’re most drawn to.
That article doesn’t really support anything you’re saying or explain what mental illnesses you’d associate with furries. Therianthropy isn’t even a recognized mental disorder. You’re drawing the same link to if someone consumes X media they will likely engage in Y action. You provided a study that talked about historical cases of therianthropy. You didn’t provide anything that showed there is a link or higher likelihood a furry will engage in pedophilia/zoophilia. Aside from the vibe you get. I think engaging with any porn/heavily sexualized material in your early teen years isn’t going to be good for your brain or your expectations of healthy sex as an adult. You’re describing something it seems like you would have to seek out. It’s a caregivers responsibility to make sure a child doesn’t have the ability to view something like that at such a young age.
Associated conditions included psychotic disorders (41 %), psychotic depression (24 %), bipolar disorder (18 %), and Cotard’s syndrome (12 %).
You’re hung up on wanting one specific mental disorder. Mental health is a complex topic. People with many disorders can be drawn to the ‘furry’ group for varying reasons.
You’re drawing the same link to if someone consumes X media they will likely engage in X action.
Neuroplasticity most strongly effects sexual attraction during puberty, however the things we spend time experiencing continue to have effects on that for at least the bulk of our lives. It has nothing to do with claiming video games or rock music make children worship the devil. You’re conflating actual neuroscience with scare tactics you see on TV.
You seem defensive, and while I don’t mind discussion I have no interest in taking the time to write a dissertation for a social media response. You don’t understand my dislike. That’s alright. You don’t have to. Everyone in the world has their own point of view on all sorts of things. Being honest about that is just being honest about a basic fact of the human condition. It doesn’t mean someone’s calling for others who do a thing they dislike to be burned alive.
So you’re just saying furries are drawn to being a furry because they are mentally ill? Or that many furries are mentally ill on top of being a furry. And the evidence for that is soley based on a single very small study. I’m just not sure the relevance. If you wanna make the argument children shouldn’t be exposed to porn/highly sexualized content, including furry, I think that’s completely reasonable. I don’t know anyone who would argue against that. The only thing making me defensive is the connection you’re making between furries (consenting adults) with pedophiles. The latter absolutely should be burned alive and the former are just kinda weird people.
So you’re just saying furries are drawn to being a furry because they are mentally ill? And the evidence for that is soley based on a single very small study.
No. I’m trying to provide basic answers to complex questions. You’re more than welcome to study the neuroscience and psychology of human sexuality.
The only thing making me defensive is the connection you’re making between furries (consenting adults) with pedophiles. The latter absolutely should be burned alive and the former are just kinda weird people.
Both have a sexual attraction to things considered immoral. Creating fictional anthropomorphized animals who can speak and consent and drawing characters clearly intended to look and act like children but then claiming they’re really very, very old are both methods of trying to create a fictional scenario where playing out an immoral attraction could be argued to be moral.
Sexual attraction isn’t a thing people really have control of, though it can be influenced by the things we surround ourselves with. While you’re not likely going to “fix” someone who’s sexually attracted to children or animals by not plastering the internet with porn to fit their desires, having that can increase the attraction.
It’s an ongoing debate on whether the attempts to ban all such porn is more beneficial or more harmful, because while having easy access to immoral fetish porn does tend to increase that attraction not having that access as a psychosexual pressure vent could potentially cause someone to go look for a real child or animal instead.
Here’s a good starter article.
I’m not taking about flat out porn, just the sexualized images. Panty shots of characters clearly drawn to look like children, anthropomorphized animals with huge human breasts, etc.
No reasonable person does. However sexual attraction is a thing that very definitely can be influenced and change over time. If you go through your teen years where your biochemistry is pushing you towards sex and you see lots of sexualized animation or furry art then you’re going to end up much more likely drawn to that than if it’s something you never see until you’re in your 30s.
If you spend 10 years only able to access one specific niche of porn that you don’t like and you ‘make do’ with it, by the end of that time it might be the thing you’re most drawn to.
That article doesn’t really support anything you’re saying or explain what mental illnesses you’d associate with furries. Therianthropy isn’t even a recognized mental disorder. You’re drawing the same link to if someone consumes X media they will likely engage in Y action. You provided a study that talked about historical cases of therianthropy. You didn’t provide anything that showed there is a link or higher likelihood a furry will engage in pedophilia/zoophilia. Aside from the vibe you get. I think engaging with any porn/heavily sexualized material in your early teen years isn’t going to be good for your brain or your expectations of healthy sex as an adult. You’re describing something it seems like you would have to seek out. It’s a caregivers responsibility to make sure a child doesn’t have the ability to view something like that at such a young age.
You’re hung up on wanting one specific mental disorder. Mental health is a complex topic. People with many disorders can be drawn to the ‘furry’ group for varying reasons.
Neuroplasticity most strongly effects sexual attraction during puberty, however the things we spend time experiencing continue to have effects on that for at least the bulk of our lives. It has nothing to do with claiming video games or rock music make children worship the devil. You’re conflating actual neuroscience with scare tactics you see on TV.
You seem defensive, and while I don’t mind discussion I have no interest in taking the time to write a dissertation for a social media response. You don’t understand my dislike. That’s alright. You don’t have to. Everyone in the world has their own point of view on all sorts of things. Being honest about that is just being honest about a basic fact of the human condition. It doesn’t mean someone’s calling for others who do a thing they dislike to be burned alive.
So you’re just saying furries are drawn to being a furry because they are mentally ill? Or that many furries are mentally ill on top of being a furry. And the evidence for that is soley based on a single very small study. I’m just not sure the relevance. If you wanna make the argument children shouldn’t be exposed to porn/highly sexualized content, including furry, I think that’s completely reasonable. I don’t know anyone who would argue against that. The only thing making me defensive is the connection you’re making between furries (consenting adults) with pedophiles. The latter absolutely should be burned alive and the former are just kinda weird people.
No. I’m trying to provide basic answers to complex questions. You’re more than welcome to study the neuroscience and psychology of human sexuality.
Both have a sexual attraction to things considered immoral. Creating fictional anthropomorphized animals who can speak and consent and drawing characters clearly intended to look and act like children but then claiming they’re really very, very old are both methods of trying to create a fictional scenario where playing out an immoral attraction could be argued to be moral.
Sexual attraction isn’t a thing people really have control of, though it can be influenced by the things we surround ourselves with. While you’re not likely going to “fix” someone who’s sexually attracted to children or animals by not plastering the internet with porn to fit their desires, having that can increase the attraction.
It’s an ongoing debate on whether the attempts to ban all such porn is more beneficial or more harmful, because while having easy access to immoral fetish porn does tend to increase that attraction not having that access as a psychosexual pressure vent could potentially cause someone to go look for a real child or animal instead.