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.
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.